Split From "Why I am now a paedo!" Thread.

[JonathanHunt]

Originally Posted by Martin Marsh

It is simply the most safe feeling when everybody in your family are resting on the covenant promise.
By this I mean no offense to those of my brothers who feel different in this subject.

No offense taken, but you must realise that we who do not baptise our children rest no less on the promises of God nor feel any less 'safe' than you do!

[Herald]

Jonathan, I know that, and you know that. Any Baptist who can walk and chew gum at the same time knows that.

[JonathanHunt]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh sorry I spoke in the paedo only section. Naughty me! Still, the response stands and is neccessary. Thanks for doing the spade work, Bill!

[Herald]

Jonathan, I think Josh split your comment into a new thread.

[JonathanHunt]

Hicks? I should have known. Never misses an opportunity to gun me down.

[Ronnie]

Originally Posted by JonathanHunt

No offense taken, but you must realise that we who do not baptise our children rest no less on the promises of God nor feel any less 'safe' than you do!

I hope you don't mind me asking, but what promises are you resting on that are not based on you and your children being in covenant with God?

Ronnie

[lynnie]

God said that the firstborn of every womb belonged to him. The firstborn had to be redeemed.

Joseph and Mary took Jesus to the Temple and dedicated him according to the law, it was the redemption ceremony of the firstborn. Anna and Simeon prophesied.

We are the church of the first born- we are the redeemed set apart to God.

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven

When a Baptist dedicates their baby to the Lord, they are doing exactly what Joseph and Mary did. They are testifying before God and man that their child is set apart by the faith of the parents as part of the church of the firstborn. The child is part of the Covenant community. To dedicate the child is every single bit a declaration of their inclusion in the church of the firstborn as baptism is. Both declare the child to be part of the Covenant people of God.

I am in a paedo church with strong paedo leanings myself. But it makes me sick sick sick to hear paedos say that Baptists do not have any place for their children under the Covenant. It is just plain stupid and unbiblical. Baptists grasp just as well as any paedo that the child is set apart. They just happen to read Romans 6 and see death and resurrection symbolism and prefer to wait until evidence of regeneration has taken place. In the meantime they dedicate the baby in the ceremony of the redemption of the first born.

99% of the problem is that paedos cut Romans 6 out of the bible and credos cut Colossians 2 out of the bible. I can promise you that you'll almost never see a Baptist read from Col 2, or a paedos read from Romans 6. It sure would be nice to see both sides admit that the other side has a solid biblical exegesis.

[Chaplainintraining]

I have no problem admitting that both sides have some good arguments. If I am reading something on paedo, I lean paedo. If I am reading credo, then I think credo is right. It is confusing and needs more studying on my part.

[Davidius]

Originally Posted by lynnie

God said that the firstborn of every womb belonged to him. The firstborn had to be redeemed.

Joseph and Mary took Jesus to the Temple and dedicated him according to the law, it was the redemption ceremony of the firstborn. Anna and Simeon prophesied.

We are the church of the first born- we are the redeemed set apart to God.

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven

When a Baptist dedicates their baby to the Lord, they are doing exactly what Joseph and Mary did. They are testifying before God and man that their child is set apart by the faith of the parents as part of the church of the firstborn. The child is part of the Covenant community. To dedicate the child is every single bit a declaration of their inclusion in the church of the firstborn as baptism is. Both declare the child to be part of the Covenant people of God.

I am in a paedo church with strong paedo leanings myself. But it makes me sick sick sick to hear paedos say that Baptists do not have any place for their children under the Covenant. It is just plain stupid and unbiblical. Baptists grasp just as well as any paedo that the child is set apart. They just happen to read Romans 6 and see death and resurrection symbolism and prefer to wait until evidence of regeneration has taken place. In the meantime they dedicate the baby in the ceremony of the redemption of the first born.

99% of the problem is that paedos cut Romans 6 out of the bible and credos cut Colossians 2 out of the bible. I can promise you that you'll almost never see a Baptist read from Col 2, or a paedos read from Romans 6. It sure would be nice to see both sides admit that the other side has a solid biblical exegesis.

Lynnie,

If Baptists believe that children are "infused into the church of the firstborn" (which, according to your quote, is enrolled in heaven) and are part of God's covenant people, why don't they baptize them and put them on their membership rolls?

[Herald]

Originally Posted by Ronnie

I hope you don't mind me asking, but what promises are you resting on that are not based on you and your children being in covenant with God?

Ronnie

I'll tell you exactly what promises we rest on. We rest on the promise that those who place their faith in Christ and Christ alone are forgiven of their sins and given right standing with God through the imputed righteousness of Christ. Water baptism does not impute righteousness. Once right standing with God is conveyed, so too are the precious promises God makes to His saints.

-----Added 12/23/2008 at 09:20:43 EST-----

Originally Posted by lynnie

God said that the firstborn of every womb belonged to him. The firstborn had to be redeemed.

Joseph and Mary took Jesus to the Temple and dedicated him according to the law, it was the redemption ceremony of the firstborn. Anna and Simeon prophesied.

We are the church of the first born- we are the redeemed set apart to God.

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven

When a Baptist dedicates their baby to the Lord, they are doing exactly what Joseph and Mary did. They are testifying before God and man that their child is set apart by the faith of the parents as part of the church of the firstborn. The child is part of the Covenant community. To dedicate the child is every single bit a declaration of their inclusion in the church of the firstborn as baptism is. Both declare the child to be part of the Covenant people of God.

I am in a paedo church with strong paedo leanings myself. But it makes me sick sick sick to hear paedos say that Baptists do not have any place for their children under the Covenant. It is just plain stupid and unbiblical. Baptists grasp just as well as any paedo that the child is set apart. They just happen to read Romans 6 and see death and resurrection symbolism and prefer to wait until evidence of regeneration has taken place. In the meantime they dedicate the baby in the ceremony of the redemption of the first born.

99% of the problem is that paedos cut Romans 6 out of the bible and credos cut Colossians 2 out of the bible. I can promise you that you'll almost never see a Baptist read from Col 2, or a paedos read from Romans 6. It sure would be nice to see both sides admit that the other side has a solid biblical exegesis.

Lynnie, I'm a Baptist and I don't understand what covenant you're referring to. Baby dedication is really parent dedication. Parent's are covenanting before God and the church to raise their children under the authority of the Word of God. We are looking forward to the day when the obvious fruit of faith becomes clear. We do not believe that anyone is part of the invisible New Covenant community apart from faith, even though they interact within the visible church. It's more than "just happen to read Romans 6 and see death and resurrection symbolism and prefer to wait until evidence of regeneration has taken place." There's no preference about it. It's a material difference on how we interpret the New Covenant and it's members.

-----Added 12/23/2008 at 09:21:19 EST-----

Originally Posted by Davidius

Lynnie,

If Baptists believe that children are "infused into the church of the firstborn" (which, according to your quote, is enrolled in heaven) and are part of God's covenant people, why don't they baptize them and put them on their membership rolls?

David, because we don't believe this.

[Thomas2007]

Originally Posted by lynnie

God said that the firstborn of every womb belonged to him. The firstborn had to be redeemed.

Joseph and Mary took Jesus to the Temple and dedicated him according to the law, it was the redemption ceremony of the firstborn. Anna and Simeon prophesied.

We are the church of the first born- we are the redeemed set apart to God.

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven

When a Baptist dedicates their baby to the Lord, they are doing exactly what Joseph and Mary did. They are testifying before God and man that their child is set apart by the faith of the parents as part of the church of the firstborn. The child is part of the Covenant community. To dedicate the child is every single bit a declaration of their inclusion in the church of the firstborn as baptism is. Both declare the child to be part of the Covenant people of God.

I am in a paedo church with strong paedo leanings myself. But it makes me sick sick sick to hear paedos say that Baptists do not have any place for their children under the Covenant. It is just plain stupid and unbiblical. Baptists grasp just as well as any paedo that the child is set apart. They just happen to read Romans 6 and see death and resurrection symbolism and prefer to wait until evidence of regeneration has taken place. In the meantime they dedicate the baby in the ceremony of the redemption of the first born.

99% of the problem is that paedos cut Romans 6 out of the bible and credos cut Colossians 2 out of the bible. I can promise you that you'll almost never see a Baptist read from Col 2, or a paedos read from Romans 6. It sure would be nice to see both sides admit that the other side has a solid biblical exegesis.

I was raised a Baptist and remained one until maybe a decade ago - but still struggled with the doctrine baptism until a few years ago. But I was never taught what you are saying above. We never used the word "covenant" nor did we interpret Scripture the way the Reformed do, at all.

Maybe Reformed Baptists fit into your model, but the vast majority don't.

[Herald]

Maybe Reformed Baptists fit into your model, but the vast majority don't.

Hello? Anybody listening? We don't!

[ManleyBeasley]

There seems to be some confusion on what baptists believe here for sure. We do not believe that anyone enters into the new covenant except by regeneration. The NC being different than the OC (which had both regenerate and unregenerate) in this way is central to baptist belief. We baptize only those (even at a very young age) who make a profession of faith in Christ.

[lynnie]

Davidius-Herald-

I did not mean to imply any infusion of saving grace by dedication.

I maybe didn't articulate it well. No, dedicating a baby does not make the baby "in Christ" any more than water does not make the baby "in Christ".
I don't believe in dedicational regeneration or baptismal regeneration.

When every single Jew took their firstborn to the Temple and dedicated it, did it mean every single Jewish baby would end up in the church of the redeemed first born? No. But they obeyed. I am not talking about infusing regeneration, I am talking about the symbolism of paedo baptism and baby dedication and trying to draw a parallel. ( not too well obviously)

What I am trying to point out is that reformed people do not believe the child of believers is exactly the same as the children of the heathen. They believe there are special promises to that child and it is "set apart" by the faith of the parents in some way. Paedos see baptism like circumcision....the sign of being part of the covenant people in a certain way that OF COURSE still demands personal regeneration at some age. And I am saying that a baby dedication (rightly understood) fulfills the same exact purpose.

I heard a Horton audio a year or two ago where he said straight out essentially that Baptists have NO PLACE for their kids as part of the Covenant community because they reject the sign of the covenant in baptism. Well with all due respect for Horton that is rediculous. To understand baby dedication as what it is- that we are the church of the firstborn and the redeemed- and the child is in a provisional sort of covenant through that dedication- means that a Baptist can certainly have a place for their child as part of the Covenant people.

I was in a Reformed Baptist church and then a PCA in another state before we moved here to a Reformed Baptist that went bad and are now in a PCA. This is not our defining doctrine for where we choose to fellowship obviously. But I am stunned at the ignorance of PhD paedos who say Baptists have no special place for their kids as part of the church, they are THE SAME as heathen kids....and I am equally disgusted by Baptists who treat paedos like dopes who must have never read the bible or are emmeshed in papal bondage. I've seen it on both sides. I don't know how people can degrade the likes of Piper, Grudem, Spurgeon, etc...not how they can feel so superior to Sproul or Edwards and so forth.

[TsonMariytho]

To my view, it's backwards to claim that credo's exclude their children from the offer of the covenant promises, whereas paedo's claim the promises on behalf of their children.

The reality is that both credo's and paedo's offer the gospel freely to everyone who will hear it, to young and old, no matter who their parents are. The gospel contains great covenant promises to be received in faith, and fearful covenant curses upon those who reject God's command to believe in the name of his Son. These offered promises and threatened curses are equally extended to everyone who hears the gospel.

It so happens that not everyone who is offered the promises believes, and apprehends them by God's grace. The question is whether one's own children should be extended a presumption of belief.

[PuritanCovenanter]

A paedo-baptist believes covenant membership is entered into by birthright of being born to a Christian parent or baptized into a trinitarian formula of baptism.

A credo Baptist believes one is a covenant member because of his union with Christ based upon the person and work of Christ on behalf of the individuals life.

Of course one must define the many shades of paedo and credo baptists outside of the Covenant Theology camps also. On this board we are Covenant Theologians. We all base our understanding of who is a covenant member based upon our understanding of Covenant Theology unlike the evangelical world.

I am amazed at the credo conversion to paedo decrying that they are having a born again like experience because they now understand Covenant Theology (Per Matt's books) when they have probably never even understood that the Reformed Baptist hold to Covenant Theology also. We just differ on who is a covenant member and who isn't as defined by the Covenants.

Ignorance comes shining through when knowledge is hid in the dark.

[discipulo]

First of all I must state that some of the Christians I most highly respect are Calvinist Baptists,

dear consecrated brothers whom I am not worthy to tie their shoes.

Yet I still find there is a dimension of God’s Sovereignty that is not considered in strict Credo Baptism.

We all accept that Justification and Regeneration God applies to individuals through

individual faith, that He grants to the elect, personally and individually.

But what do you make of household salvation? Salvation has the household as its unit.

For the sake of a very simplistic metaphor. You eat eggs one by one, but you don’t buy a single egg.

You buy a box of 6 or 12. That is the unit to buy them. So it’s sure you will eat them all, even if only one at once.

And a second later, all will be eaten in due time.

Here are some passages that imo teach household salvation.

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house (Hebrews 11:7).

The Passover has a lamb for each household.

Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house (Exodus 12:3).

And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved(Acts 11:13-14).

And when she was baptized, and her household(Acts 16:14-15).

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house (Acts 16:31-32)


Imho this also the way I see that the Covenant applies to the children of believers,

and baptism, as a sign and seal of the Covenant,

(Romans 4 Abraham and The Heidelberg Catechism Question 74)

should be applied also to the children of believers, since the entire household has the sure promise of salvation.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house


For the promise is unto you, and to your children Acts 2:39



.

[PuritanCovenanter]

Will respond to the household baptism teaching when I have more time. I am going to be busy the next few days. Just a note on the Acts 2 passage... I am amazed how many paedo's cut off the beginning and the last part of the passage.

(Act 2:38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

(Act 2:39) For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

-----Added 12/24/2008 at 01:02:33 EST-----

Originally Posted by discipulo

Imho this also the way I see that the Covenant applies to the children of believers,

to the entire household as a sure promise of salvation.

.

So everyone in a household is guaranteed a promise unto salvation?

You might wanna think about that.

Headed out for Christmas dinner at my Mom's.

Merry Christmas everyone.

[VictorBravo]

Originally Posted by lynnie

99% of the problem is that paedos cut Romans 6 out of the bible and credos cut Colossians 2 out of the bible. I can promise you that you'll almost never see a Baptist read from Col 2, or a paedos read from Romans 6. It sure would be nice to see both sides admit that the other side has a solid biblical exegesis.

I find this statement strange. I've heard numerous sermons in Baptist churches dealing with Col. 2 as well as Romans 6. I've never known a Reformed Baptist preacher to be afraid of any portion of scripture.

BTW, and FWIW, Romans 6:3-4 and Col. 2:12 have very similar statements about being dead in baptism and being raised with Christ.

[discipulo]

One strong argument is actually made by its negative side, so to speak.

In the Jewish Culture and Religion so used to Circumcision made to every born child in

the Jewish household, and Being Baptism the sign of the New Covenant, Jewish would naturally

and immediately understand Baptism to apply to all the household, children included, then.

So if they were not supposed to, how there is not a single Apostolic Admonition or

Commandment preventing infants to be baptized along with their believing parents ?


Actually the narratives of baptisms in Acts sustain a household - including paedo - baptism, as does the mention of Paul:

And I baptized also the household of Stephanas 1 Corinthians 1:16


A Household baptism clearly differentiated from individual baptisms,

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius 1 Corinthians 1:14



.

[Ronnie]

Originally Posted by Herald

I'll tell you exactly what promises we rest on. We rest on the promise that those who place their faith in Christ and Christ alone are forgiven of their sins and given right standing with God through the imputed righteousness of Christ. Water baptism does not impute righteousness. Once right standing with God is conveyed, so too are the precious promises God makes to His saints.

Thanks for responding. I'm not sure Herald meant the same thing, because he was basing his response on having the same confidence as those who believe their children are already in covenant with God. You are speaking of the promise that is giving to everyone, but that would not be what we are talking about, so how is this confidence the same as ours?

Under the Old Covenant, God had special promises for those who were in covenant with Him even though they were not all regenerated(cf. Romans 3:1-2; Romans 9:4-5). Paul himself was challenged with the question, "What advantage is there in being a Jew"(Roman 3:1 ) He answered, "Much in every way!"(Romans 3:2 ) and he started to list all the promises that were specifically given to those in covenant with God( Romans 3:1; Romans 9:4-5) even though they were not all regenerate. Likewise today those who are in covenant with God have promises that the general world does not have.

[Herald]

Originally Posted by Ronnie

Thanks for responding. I'm not sure Herald meant the same thing, because he was basing his response on having the same confidence as those who believe their children are already in covenant with God. You are speaking of the promise that is giving to everyone, but that would not be what we are talking about, so how is this confidence the same as ours?

Under the Old Covenant, God had special promises for those who were in covenant with Him even though they were not all regenerated(cf. Romans 3:1-2; Romans 9:4-5). Paul himself was challenged with the question, "What advantage is there in being a Jew"(Roman 3:1 ) He answered, "Much in every way!"(Romans 3:2 ) and he started to list all the promises that were specifically given to those in covenant with God( Romans 3:1; Romans 9:4-5) even though they were not all regenerate. Likewise today those who are in covenant with God have promises that the general world does not have.

Ronnie, Jonathan never said that the promises he is resting on are promises towards unbelieving children. Read exactly what he wrote.

The requirements of the Old Covenant (and its promises), were made null and void in Christ (Daniel 9:27). The spiritual promise of the seed of Abraham was made possible by Christ, and is manifested in the lives of all those who come to Christ by faith. I believe in a clear and definitive line of demarcation between the visible church and those who are under the New Covenant (invisible church). The only way to receive the blessings of this eternal covenant is by faith in Christ. You may believe your children are part of the visible church, and therefore part of the "covenant." I just can't figure out what covenant they're part of. It certainly isn't the New Covenant which is entered into by faith.

[discipulo]

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

So everyone in a household is guaranteed a promise unto salvation?

You might wanna think about that.

Dear Brother I will answer by someone else's words.


Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680) Puritan Pastor and a member of the Westminster Assembly

The Covenant Seed (the part on Luke xix ) - quote

When Zaccheus was thus converted, Christ enlargeth his covenant to Zaccheus family also, 'This day is salvation come to this house, inasmuch as he is also the son of Abraham' ver. 9. This was spoken of him as now believing in Christ. Now if Christ's intent had been in this his answer given, to shew that he was a Jew, and so though a great sinner, yet was converted as being a son of Abraham (as some expound it), he would have made it the reason but of this only, why Zaccheus was saved himself personally; but he makes it the reason why his house should be saved also, and so the covenant stuck with them of his family likewise, because he the father of the family was now a believer; whereas had his children and family, being Jews by birth, and himself likewise, then salvation had come unto him and them all, because they all were sons of Abraham by birth (if Jews) as well as he. So as it is evident, that as he was a Gentile by birth, so now being converted, is therefore called a ' son of Abraham ' and withal had this privilege of Abraham, as being his son (which is the point I allege this for), to have his house brought into the covenant, even of that of salvation, in conformity to his father Abraham, whose house at the first giving of that covenant, even children and all, were circumcised and saved upon that ground, Christ intending now he should go in to eat with him, to convert his household also.

emphasis mine




.

[Herald]

Originally Posted by discipulo

Dear Brother I will answer by someone else's words.


Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680) Puritan Pastor and a member of the Westminster Assembly

The Covenant Seed

quote

on Luke xix

When Zaccheus was thus converted, Christ enlargeth his covenant to Zaccheus family also, 'This day is salvation come to this house, inasmuch as he is also the son of Abraham' ver. 9. This was spoken of him as now believing in Christ. Now if Christ's intent had been in this his answer given, to shew that he was a Jew, and so though a great sinner, yet was converted as being a son of Abraham (as some expound it), he would have made it the reason but of this only, why Zaccheus was saved himself personally; but he makes it the reason why his house should be saved also, and so the covenant stuck with them of his family likewise, because he the father of the family was now a believer; whereas had his children and family, being Jews by birth, and himself likewise, then salvation had come unto him and them all.

emphasis mine




.

Can you answer plainly? Are you saying that a child is saved simply because he is born into a covenant family? I'm not interested in what Goodwin has to say, but in what you have to say about it.

[discipulo]

Originally Posted by Herald

Can you answer plainly? Are you saying that a child is saved simply because he is born into a covenant family? I'm not interested in what Goodwin has to say, but in what you have to say about it.

Actually I shouldn’t have to say this but

you should care much more for what Thomas Goodwin has to say

than about me.

And no one is saved except by God's Grace

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God Ephesians 2:8



.

[Herald]

I appreciate your appeL the grace of God and the scholarship of Goodwin, but can you answer my question? Do you believe a child is saved because they are born into a covenant family? A simples yes or no will suffice.

[discipulo]

Originally Posted by Herald

I appreciate your appeL the grace of God and the scholarship of Goodwin, but can you answer my question? Do you believe a child is saved because they are born into a covenant family? A simples yes or no will suffice.

Thank you for bearing with me on this argument brother,

more than my own opinion, I'm striving to present

Biblical and Confessional authority.

So with the passages from Scripture that I posted before

I must answer through

The Heidelberg Catechism

question 74 Are infants also to be baptized?

Answer. Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; and since redemption from sin by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, instead of which baptism is instituted in the new covenant.

emphasis mine


.

[Ronnie]

Originally Posted by Herald

Ronnie, Jonathan never said that the promises he is resting on are promises towards unbelieving children. Read exactly what he wrote.

OK. So how can he have the same confidence as padeobaptist that has confidence based on the covenant promises that even their unbelieving ( as far as we can tell ) children who have received the covenant sign will be brought to experience the reality?

Originally Posted by Herald

The requirements of the Old Covenant (and its promises), were made null and void in Christ (Daniel 9:27).

No, not all the promises of the Old Covenant were abrogated. Some of the same promises that were held out to them are still held out to us today, they are just under a different covenant administration. As the book of Hebrews teaches at the end of chapter 3 and the beginning of chapter 4, we all have the same promises of the Gospel.

Originally Posted by Herald

The spiritual promise of the seed of Abraham was made possible by Christ, and is manifested in the lives of all those who come to Christ by faith. I believe in a clear and definitive line of demarcation between the visible church and those who are under the New Covenant (invisible church). The only way to receive the blessings of this eternal covenant is by faith in Christ. You may believe your children are part of the visible church, and therefore part of the "covenant." I just can't figure out what covenant they're part of. It certainly isn't the New Covenant which is entered into by faith.

Of course it is the New Covenant in its external administration. As Paul said about that Old Covenant "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" we can likewise say of the New, "not all who are in the New Covenant are of the New Covenant".

[Herald]

Originally Posted by discipulo

Thank you for bearing with me on this argument brother,

more than my own opinion, I'm striving to present

Biblical and Confessional authority.

So with the passages from Scripture that I posted before

I must answer through

The Heidelberg Catechism

question 74 Are infants also to be baptized?

Answer. Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; and since redemption from sin by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, instead of which baptism is instituted in the new covenant.

emphasis mine


.

I give up. I have a confession and catechism too, but I have no problem answering plainly to a yes or no question.

[discipulo]

Originally Posted by Herald

I give up. I have a confession and catechism too, but I have no problem answering plainly to a yes or no question.

It is not a Yes or No answer, or question for that matter.


Because it is a already and not yet answer, also to your question.


That is the Gerhardus Vos exegesis we need in this debate.


Are the children of believers in the Covenant?


Already from their birth, even from their mother’s womb.


Are the children of believers Justified and Regenerated?


If they still have not reached the individual personal

God’s given saving faith in Christ, Not yet


Does God fail to honour and fulfil His promises?

Never

Our faith and assurance must remain in the Lord and in His Word !


So please never give up!



.

[ManleyBeasley]

Originally Posted by discipulo

It is not a Yes or No answer, or question for that matter.


Because it is a already and not yet answer, also to your question.


That is the Gerhardus Vos exegesis we need in this debate.


Are the children of believers in the Covenant?


Already from their birth, even from their mother’s womb.


Are the children of believers Justified and Regenerated?


If they still have not reached the individual personal

God’s given saving faith in Christ, Not yet


Does God fail to honour and fulfil His promises?

Never

Our faith and assurance must remain in the Lord and in His Word !


So please never give up!



.

I have to disagree. It is absolutely a yes or no answer. The question is simple. I know it may not be your intention but it kinda sounds like you're dodging.Do you believe there are unelect children that are baptized into the covenant or does their being born into a covenant family make them elect? It seems like you are saying that people born into a covenant family will definitely be saved.

Believe it or not we Baptists are also covenantal (at least here on the PB) but hold to the position that it is not through the physical family that the covenant is passed but the spiritual (we are not in the 1st Adam but the last Adam). I believe Jeremiah 31 clearly states that the NC is different because it is made of exclusively elect people as opposed to the OC which had a mixture of elect and non-elect.

[discipulo]

Well, I do understand you question and I find very reasonable your critical approach to my answers

My great concern is that we remain comparing Scripture with Scripture

and we won't go astray from the greatest Truth, one we both believe that

Salvation is of the Lord Jonah 2:9

So I can’t state it in any other way than this.

And they said, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household. (Acts 16:31)

emphasis mine

All the other Scriptures and the Heildeberg Catechism are very relevant

and so imo is Thomas Goodwin excerpt too.

But now «I rest my case brother».

I just add an article by Dr. Scott Clark.

with a very clear interaction with other views on baptism and all the Covenant implications.

a must read!


A Contemporary Reformed Defense of Infant Baptism

Dr. Scott Clark link below

Westminster Seminary California clark



-----Added 12/25/2008 at 05:42:16 EST-----



For the sake of clarity I should add this quote:


Since the infant children of Christians are also included in the church, into which Christ will have all those who belong to him to be received and enrolled by baptism; and as baptism has been substituted in the place of circumcision, by which (as well to the infants as to the adults belonging to the seed of Abraham,) justification, regeneration and reception into the church were sealed by and for the sake of Christ; and as no one can forbid water that those should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit purifying their hearts, it follows that those infants should be baptized, who are either born in the church, or come into it from the world with their parents.

The condition of faith is joined to the promise; for those who are baptized do not receive what is promised and sealed by baptism unless they have faith, so that without faith the promise is not ratified, and baptism is of no profit. In these words we have expressed in a concise manner the proper use of baptism in which the sacraments are always ratified to those who receive them in faith; whilst the sacraments are no sacraments, and profit nothing in their improper use.


emphasis mine


Zacharias Ursinus . Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism


.

[Prufrock]

Originally Posted by Ronnie

OK. So how can he have the same confidence as padeobaptist that has confidence based on the covenant promises that even their unbelieving ( as far as we can tell ) children who have received the covenant sign will be brought to experience the reality?

Ronnie, one paedo to another, I think you're misreading Herald (Bill Brown); he's talking about a different confidence than you seem to be thinking: he's not confident his children are saved; rather, he's resting on the same promises we paedos are: all those believing shall be saved. Thus, he is confident, just as we paedos are that if his children believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, they will be saved. Baptismal views don't change the confidence.


With regard to the Goodwin quote:

When Zaccheus was thus converted, Christ enlargeth his covenant to Zaccheus family also, 'This day is salvation come to this house, inasmuch as he is also the son of Abraham' ver. 9. This was spoken of him as now believing in Christ. Now if Christ's intent had been in this his answer given, to shew that he was a Jew, and so though a great sinner, yet was converted as being a son of Abraham (as some expound it), he would have made it the reason but of this only, why Zaccheus was saved himself personally; but he makes it the reason why his house should be saved also, and so the covenant stuck with them of his family likewise, because he the father of the family was now a believer; whereas had his children and family, being Jews by birth, and himself likewise, then salvation had come unto him and them all, because they all were sons of Abraham by birth (if Jews) as well as he. So as it is evident, that as he was a Gentile by birth, so now being converted, is therefore called a ' son of Abraham ' and withal had this privilege of Abraham, as being his son (which is the point I allege this for), to have his house brought into the covenant, even of that of salvation, in conformity to his father Abraham, whose house at the first giving of that covenant, even children and all, were circumcised and saved upon that ground, Christ intending now he should go in to eat with him, to convert his household also.

,
That bolded part at the end is quite important. Just because Goodwin taught that Zaccheus' family was brought into the covenant did not think he meant they did not still need to be converted by Christ and brought to faith that they might be saved.

[PuritanCovenanter]

I think a good exegesis of Genesis 17 might help here. Was Ishmael included in the everlasting Covenant of Grace? The Answer is no. Even though Abraham petitioned God for this, the Lord told Abraham no. There are promises in Abraham's Covenant that pertain to the seed (which is Christ) and promises that are separate from this promise that pertain to his posterity as a nation. Some intermingle and others do not. If one is a New Covenant member he is a member of the Eternal Covenant of Grace by his or her union with Christ. If you are outside of this union you are not a New Covenant member.

[Herald]

Cesar, it's at this point that I believe further dialog on this topic is futile. While the matter is important, simply quoting authors doesn't achieve anything. I'm backing out of the discussion at this point.

[PuritanCovenanter]

Here were a couple of good threads concerning Ishmael and Abraham.

Was Esau in The Covenant?

Abrahamic covenant????

The Covenant of Grace and Children.

'And Abraham said to God, "Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!" Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. "'
Gen 17:18-19 (NKJV)

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

I think a good exegesis of Genesis 17 might help here. Was Ishmael included in the everlasting Covenant of Grace? The Answer is no. Even though Abraham petitioned God for this, the Lord told Abraham no. There are promises in Abraham's Covenant that pertain to the seed (which is Christ) and promises that are separate from this promise that pertain to his posterity as a nation. Some intermingle and others do not. If one is a New Covenant member he is a member of the Eternal Covenant of Grace by his or her union with Christ. If you are outside of this union you are not a New Covenant member.

This is faulty reasoning. That Abraham is told that the Promise will come through Sarah does not preclude Ishmael's further participation in the Covenant.

It is wrong that Gen 17 reveals that God told Abraham that Ishmael was not in the Covenant. You are required to insist that but the text does not say so. Were Ruben, Simeon, and Levi excluded from the Covenant because the birthright passed over the first three children of Israel? The assertion that Abraham is told that Ishmael is outside the Covenant is inserted for theological and not textual reasons.

[Ronnie]

Originally Posted by Prufrock

Ronnie, one paedo to another, I think you're misreading Herald (Bill Brown); he's talking about a different confidence than you seem to be thinking: he's not confident his children are saved; rather, he's resting on the same promises we paedos are: all those believing shall be saved. Thus, he is confident, just as we paedos are that if his children believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, they will be saved. Baptismal views don't change the confidence.

Prufrock,

And that was my point, he doesn't have the same confidence that paedos may have. We may have the same confidence in one sense but we have a confidence that is different from the credo and it is not that our children are currently saved at any point in time, but that they will be saved in the end. This confidence is based on the fact that they are members of the covenant and baptism signifies this.

[PuritanCovenanter]

I will just let the scripture speak here with little comment.

(Gal 4:21) Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

(Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

(Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

(Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

(Gal 4:25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

(Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

(Gal 4:27) For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

(Gal 4:28) Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

(Gal 4:29) But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

(Gal 4:30) Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

(Gal 4:31) So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

Your equating the Abrahamic as a solid Covenant of Grace only is based upon your presupposition for inclusion. Whereas mine isn't. As we have discussed before, anyone who is in the Covenant of Grace will not be cast out. It is only for the elect. That is also a Presbyterian interpretation concerning the Covenant of Grace. The non elect were never members in the Covenant of Grace.

And according to the following passage it looks like God refuses to establish his covenant with Ishmael. He only blesses him in posterity. Not covenantally.

(Gen 17:18) And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!

(Gen 17:19) And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

(Gen 17:20) And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

(Gen 17:21) But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

[Chaplainintraining]

But wasn't Ishmael still circumcised thus making him apart of the visible church, but not the invisible?