Baptism & New Covenant

[Scott Bushey]

What amount of discipleship though did the Thief on the Cross receive?

Since these crucifixions were being meted out by Rome on the Jews part, there is much to say that this thief was a jew, circumcised on the 8th day and tutored in the things of God by his family. He knew well of Messiah:

"40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Lk 23:40–43.

There is a lot said in these statements, by this thief....

I think that the main difference here still seems to revolve around what does the water baptism signify?

Nope. U evade and create a rabbit trail. Stick to the conversation! Discipleship is not equated with regeneration & conversion, but a student. An infant, since he can be elect and saved, dying in the womb, has the capacity to receive, accept, acknowledge Christ's kingship, hence they all have to have the ability for discipleship (see my previous post) or else all infants perish. Which one is it?

The great commission tells us to:

17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Mt 28:17–20.


Please show me here where Christ commands to wait to place the sign on infants?

 

[Gforce9]

I agree with you that the local church would be where the Lord has given the ordinances to His people to partake of, and also to gather to worship, praise, and to be instructed by the preaching of the scriptures. The true one church though that Jesus died for, and he established, would be the Universal church itself. God does not see us as being Baptist, Reformed, Methodist, Lutheran et all, but as members of the one true Church of Christ.

A distinction between the visible and invisible church is required. A divorce (the Evangelical and as some of your posts seem to espouse) or a conflation (Roman Catholic view) are equal perversions. The visible church is not chopped liver.....

 

[Pilgrim]

I think one of the reasons might not be able to see just how large a difference there appears to be between Baptists and Presbyterians on some of this issues would be that I came in as a Pentecostal, to a free will Baptist, to Dispensational, to now into the Calvinistic/reformed understanding of theology. This broad exposure has allowed me to see the Church as beijg broader then what sometimes it seems that we want it to be,and to appreciate the differing nuances of doctrine understanding among various Christian churches and groups.
I know many Baptists who would deny the legitimacy of the reformed infant baptism, or the Reformed view on Sacraments, or use on Confessions, but I do not see that being inferior, but merely a different way to see and view what the scriptures teach to us.

As is sometimes the case, your wording here is not clear to me. But if you see infant baptism or sprinkling as being legitimate baptism (although perhaps irregular) then you ain't a "real Baptist" according to a lot of people's thinking.

Either immersion is the only legitimate mode or all modes are legitimate. It's one or the other. Either infant baptism is a biblical practice or it is not. To say that it really doesn't matter is to embrace indifferentism. And many who have drifted into indifferentism on the sacraments or ordinances have done so on others issues as well.

 

[Dachaser]

Since these crucifixions were being meted out by Rome on the Jews part, there is much to say that this thief was a jew, circumcised on the 8th day and tutored in the things of God by his family. He knew well of Messiah:

"40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Lk 23:40–43.

There is a lot said in these statements, by this thief....



Nope. U evade and create a rabbit trail. Stick to the conversation! Discipleship is not equated with regeneration & conversion, but a student. An infant, since he can be elect and saved, dying in the womb, has the capacity to receive, accept, acknowledge Christ's kingship, hence they all have to have the ability for discipleship (see my previous post) or else all infants perish. Which one is it?

The great commission tells us to:

17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Mt 28:17–20.


Please show me here where Christ commands to wait to place the sign on infants?

God saving infants who die in their infacy would be due to God choosing to redeem them by applying the death of Christ as payment for their sin debt, and not due to them being disciplined, in the sense of receiving doctrines and full understanding of who Jesus was and did for them. My definition of one being a disciple of Jesus involves the person able to grasp and understand doctrines, something infants cannot do.

 

[Dachaser]

A distinction between the visible and invisible church is required. A divorce (the Evangelical and as some of your posts seem to espouse) or a conflation (Roman Catholic view) are equal perversions. The visible church is not chopped liver.....

The one true Church of Christ have in it only the redeemed, as they are under the NC. Within each local body though would be wheat and tares.

 

[Dachaser]

As is sometimes the case, your wording here is not clear to me. But if you see infant baptism or sprinkling as being legitimate baptism (although perhaps irregular) then you ain't a "real Baptist" according to a lot of people's thinking.

Either immersion is the only legitimate mode or all modes are legitimate. It's one or the other. Either infant baptism is a biblical practice or it is not. To say that it really doesn't matter is to embrace indifferentism. And many who have drifted into indifferentism on the sacraments or ordinances have done so on others issues as well.

Immersion in water baptism is the most biblical mode to be administered, but would also allow for other modes such as sprinkling/dipping, as long as what was meant by that would line up with the scriptures. I am not saying the is no difference between the modes, but that I would not go so far as to invalidate say a Reformed baptism, as long as the person had make a profession in receiving Jesus Christ.I also would hold to open communion of the ordinance, as my requirement are saved and not involved in willful sinning, without confession/repentance.
And yes, those beliefs would take me out of some Baptist views.

 

[Scott Bushey]

God saving infants who die in their infacy would be due to God choosing to redeem them by applying the death of Christ as payment for their sin debt, and not due to them being disciplined, in the sense of receiving doctrines and full understanding of who Jesus was and did for them. My definition of one being a disciple of Jesus involves the person able to grasp and understand doctrines, something infants cannot do.

David,
if is a bit frustrating trying to extrapolate biblical facts to you, especially using your previous comments. This will be my last attempt at doing so:

As I have said previously, 1) u have already agreed that some, if not all infants are received into glory. This is akin to them being a disciple of Christ. 2) No one goes to glory unless they are a disciple. 3) Discipleship is not necessarily equated with conversion and regeneration. 4) The commission of Christ tells us disciple and baptize individuals-nowhere does it tell us to wait until they confess. 5) not all disciples, since they can be disciples apart from regeneration and conversion, i.e. Judas, Demas, Ananias and his wife, Simon Magus, do not understand anything as only the spiritual can understand spiritual.

My definition of one being a disciple of Jesus involves the person able to grasp and understand doctrines, something infants cannot do.

If an infant cannot understand 'doctrines', then all infants perish....

 

[Dachaser]

David,
if is a bit frustrating trying to extrapolate biblical facts to you, especially using your previous comments. This will be my last attempt at doing so:

As I have said previously, 1) u have already agreed that some, if not all infants are received into glory. This is akin to them being a disciple of Christ. 2) No one goes to glory unless they are a disciple. 3) Discipleship is not necessarily equated with conversion and regeneration. 4) The commission of Christ tells us disciple and baptize individuals-nowhere does it tell us to wait until they confess. 5) not all disciples, since they can be disciples apart from regeneration and conversion, i.e. Judas, Demas, Ananias and his wife, Simon Magus, do not understand anything as only the spiritual can understand spiritual.



If an infant cannot understand 'doctrines', then all infants perish....

No, as it would be that God does a supernatural work to apply the effectual Grace of Jesus death towards them, as He does for them what they cannot do for themselves.

 

[Scott Bushey]

No, as it would be that God does a supernatural work to apply the effectual Grace of Jesus death towards them, as He does for them what they cannot do for themselves.

So, there are two ways of salvation then? Thats what u posit! God saves in two different fashions. Adults and the cognizant one way and the infant and imbecile, another.

Rom 10:


8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ro 10:8–14.



The above shows that 1) all men, of whatever age, must confess with their mouths; in this confession is assented facts of God's truth and word. 2) all men, if they receive these truths, 'will be saved'. 3) all men must believe in their hearts 'that God hath raised him from the dead' to be saved. 4) 'For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.'

To say an infant cannot do this is to advocate for two types of salvation. Is that what u are doing?

 

[Dachaser]

So, there are two ways of salvation then? Thats what u posit! God saves in two different fashions. Adults and the cognizant one way and the infant and imbecile, another.

Rom 10:


8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ro 10:8–14.



The above shows that 1) all men, of whatever age, must confess with their mouths; in this confession is assented facts of God's truth and word. 2) all men, if they receive these truths, 'will be saved'. 3) all men must believe in their hearts 'that God hath raised him from the dead' to be saved. 4) 'For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.'

To say an infant cannot do this is to advocate for two types of salvation. Is that what u are doing?

I am saying that God can freely choose to do a supernatural work in them to allow them to come to faith in Jesus, as God Himself has chosen them to receive eternal life in Christ.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I am saying that God can freely choose to do a supernatural work in them to allow them to come to faith in Jesus, as God Himself has chosen them to receive eternal life in Christ.

How is that practically accomplished, sir?

 

[Gforce9]

The one true Church of Christ have in it only the redeemed, as they are under the NC. Within each local body though would be wheat and tares.

You side-stepped entirely the assertion. Please see Scott's posts where he points out the same.

 

[Solparvus]

what saves us is being a member of the one true Universal Church of Christ, but we also should be engaged in being active members of a bible believing local assembly.

Brother, straight out, it is not the normal case of someone outside the church to be saved. There may be exceptions, but they are exceptions. This is why I believe that Christ places children in the visible membership—otherwise there’d be little reason to hope for those under 12 who cannot profess, articulate it well, or most visibly show evidences.

But if a person may be ordinarily saved who does not join with the visible church, then there is no point to church membership. Thus, it does no good for infants and children, but it does no good for anyone else either. The oversight of pastors, the mutual accountability, the public preaching, baptism and the Lord’s Table lose their benefit. So then, it doesn’t matter whether or not they are observed. Then, just like my Baptist brothers will say about infant membership, visible church membership is altogether an empty status, and speaks very meanly of Christ using the church and ordinances to rule His people.

Not a person here misconstrues the invisible with the visible. The difference is clear to all here. The question is, is the visible means by which Christ governs is necessary and indispensable as a means to save and cause us to persevere, or does it make no difference?

Biblically, you can’t escape these conclusions. I do encourage you brother, don’t side step the question or the ramifications of such a position. Wherever you ultimately land on baptism, this is vitally important to understand about the church.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I realized out of the blue,and almost with shock, one day that Paul spoke to the children of the church in Ephesus (every one of them; he didn't single out "those of you who have made professions of faith") as disciples. He told them to obey their parents in the Lord, for this was the first command with a promise. The letter was being read aloud and it was addressed to the church and the children were included. As I grasped this the light came flooding in and I finally understood there was this profound seamlessness of the covenant of grace.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

A question for @Dachaser (and any others): if 2 faithful parents in a church have a child who is profoundly disabled and is infantile in his/her mind- in your thinking, should baptism be withheld from that child (which would be due to a presumption of his being unregenerate) and the child allowed to die at, say, 20 or 30, unbaptized?

I’m reminded that many believe that all children dying in infancy are by God’s mercy elect, and the same for those who are profoundly mentally retarded.

So why would you withhold baptism from someone like that?

I haven’t followed out this line of thinking to its ultimate logical end but it seems of interest to explore.

 

[Dachaser]

How is that practically accomplished, sir?

By God doing a supernatural work inside of the infants, and somehow grant to them to means to receive and applying saving Grace/faith towards Jesus Christ. That would be a divine mystery to me.

 

[Dachaser]

You side-stepped entirely the assertion. Please see Scott's posts where he points out the same.

I do not equate the local churches though as being the real NT Church of Christ, as that would be the Universal Church, whose members are all included under the NC/COG.
There would of course also be the local churches, whose mandate would be to disciple, baptize, worship, pray, and do basically all of the God assigned/ordained functions.

 

[Dachaser]

Brother, straight out, it is not the normal case of someone outside the church to be saved. There may be exceptions, but they are exceptions. This is why I believe that Christ places children in the visible membership—otherwise there’d be little reason to hope for those under 12 who cannot profess, articulate it well, or most visibly show evidences.

But if a person may be ordinarily saved who does not join with the visible church, then there is no point to church membership. Thus, it does no good for infants and children, but it does no good for anyone else either. The oversight of pastors, the mutual accountability, the public preaching, baptism and the Lord’s Table lose their benefit. So then, it doesn’t matter whether or not they are observed. Then, just like my Baptist brothers will say about infant membership, visible church membership is altogether an empty status, and speaks very meanly of Christ using the church and ordinances to rule His people.

Not a person here misconstrues the invisible with the visible. The difference is clear to all here. The question is, is the visible means by which Christ governs is necessary and indispensable as a means to save and cause us to persevere, or does it make no difference?

Biblically, you can’t escape these conclusions. I do encourage you brother, don’t side step the question or the ramifications of such a position. Wherever you ultimately land on baptism, this is vitally important to understand about the church.

Can a sinner become a Christian apart from the local church and its functions? yes, but if they are saved by the Lord, then the command to them would be to join the regular assembly of the local brethren, as that is the place God has given to us to receive the ordinances, to praise and worship, and to be taught up in the things of the Faith.
God actually seems to do most of the saving aspect outside of the church building, and to bring into the local church those now saved to benefit from all of the various functions he has placed to be observed within the local assembly of the saints.

 

[Dachaser]

A question for @Dachaser (and any others): if 2 faithful parents in a church have a child who is profoundly disabled and is infantile in his/her mind- in your thinking, should baptism be withheld from that child (which would be due to a presumption of his being unregenerate) and the child allowed to die at, say, 20 or 30, unbaptized?

I’m reminded that many believe that all children dying in infancy are by God’s mercy elect, and the same for those who are profoundly mentally retarded.

So why would you withhold baptism from someone like that?

I haven’t followed out this line of thinking to its ultimate logical end but it seems of interest to explore.

Excellant question, and to be consistent with how I view water baptism, would say that the person that you are describing here would indeed be inluded by God into the NC, and that would be due to God Himself supplying the application of the effectual grace of Calvary unto that person. There would be no water baptism at that time required, but if someone was troubled and persuaded that the person should be water baptized, i would allow for that to happen.

 

[Gforce9]

I do not equate the local churches though as being the real NT Church of Christ, as that would be the Universal Church, whose members are all included under the NC/COG.
There would of course also be the local churches, whose mandate would be to disciple, baptize, worship, pray, and do basically all of the God assigned/ordained functions.

I would contend then, and by your own admission, that your low view of the visible church puts you squarely in the Evangelical camp.

 

[Dachaser]

I would contend then, and by your own admission, that your low view of the visible church puts you squarely in the Evangelical camp.

My understanding of how the Universal, local church, and the New Covenant is seen in the scripture themselves. The indications seems to be all in the NC are part of the Universal true Church of Jesus, and that God also has given to us to be assembled together locally. When we gather together in the local assembly, is where we are to be taught/instructed of the Bible, to praise and worship Him, and to have the ordinances applied towards us now.

 

[Gforce9]

I do not know if that is where i would ebst be labled as being, but the scripture themselves so seem to support that all in the NC are part of the Universal true Church of Jesus, and that God also has given to us to be assembled together locally, as in that gathering together is where we are to be taught/instructed of the Bible, to praise and worship Him, and to have the ordinances applied towards us now.

David,
You continue to undermine the visible church all while ignoring the clear establishment of it in the Scripture you state you believe. As well, you continue to avoid the questions posed to you and, for whatever reason, answer your own questions. This isn't dialog, its monologue. If you were distinguishing between the two, I would have no qualms, bit you are treating the visible church as chopped liver and I urge you to cease and desist.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I do not equate the local churches though as being the real NT Church of Christ, as that would be the Universal Church, whose members are all included under the NC/COG.
There would of course also be the local churches, whose mandate would be to disciple, baptize, worship, pray, and do basically all of the God assigned/ordained functions.

I do not know if that is where I would best be labled as being, but the scripture themselves so seem to support that all in the NC are part of the Universal true Church of Jesus, and that God also has given to us to be assembled together locally, as in that gathering together is where we are to be taught/instructed of the Bible, to praise and worship Him, and to have the ordinances applied towards us now.

David,

So the local churches, visible vestiges of Our Lord's Bride, are not real New Testament churches? For that matter, were there any churches in the Old Testament?

Please take the time to carefully explain your naked assertions with some support from Scripture. Just saying "the scripture themselves" does not bolster your statements, nor does it edify anyone until you actually supply said Scripture in support of your views.

Most of your posts are along the same lines as above. If you want to edify when you often make doctrinal pronouncements, we would all appreciate your at least occasionally making an attempt to share with us your explanations of explicit Scripture passages in detail, versus just appealing to the noun, Scripture.

 

[Dachaser]

My understanding of how the Universal, local church, and the New Covenant is seen in the scripture themselves. The indications seems to be all in the NC are part of the Universal true Church of Jesus, and that God also has given to us to be assembled together locally. When we gather together in the local assembly, is where we are to be taught/instructed of the Bible, to praise and worship Him, and to have the ordinances applied towards us now.

Edited now in order to enable better understanding.

 

[Dachaser]

David,
You continue to undermine the visible church all while ignoring the clear establishment of it in the Scripture you state you believe. As well, you continue to avoid the questions posed to you and, for whatever reason, answer your own questions. This isn't dialog, its monologue. If you were distinguishing between the two, I would have no qualms, bit you are treating the visible church as chopped liver and I urge you to cease and desist.

The local church is the very place that God has ordained that we are to meet together, and to partake of the ordinances of God, to be taught and instructed from the scriptures, and to praise and worship Him. How would that be a low view of the church? it is the very, and only place, where God has duly authorized for us to receive means of Grace, and to do all of those functions that He ascribed to be done by His corporate body.

 

[Dachaser]

David,

So the local churches, visible vestiges of Our Lord's Bride, are not real New Testament churches? For that matter, were there any churches in the Old Testament?

Please take the time to carefully explain your naked assertions with some support from Scripture. Just saying "the scripture themselves" does not bolster your statements, nor does it edify anyone until you actually supply said Scripture in support of your views.

Most of your posts are along the same lines as above. If you want to edify when you often make doctrinal pronouncements, we would all appreciate your at least occasionally making an attempt to share with us your explanations of explicit Scripture passages in detail, versus just appealing to the noun, Scripture.

1 Corinthians 12:13 tells us that we were all baptized by the same Holy Spirit into the one true Church of Christ, the Church Universal. We also have the passage of Romans 6 that describe to us how we are identified in/with Jesus when were were water Baptized. this is my understanding from the Bible of the one true Church, and how that functions also as local assemblies of the believers in Christ.
Not either/or, but we are placed into the Body of Christ by the Holy spirit, and then water baptized into the local church .

 

[Scott Bushey]

David,
I must tell you; I wonder why you are here @ PB? You do not seem to have a teachable spirit. Many people here, some faithful leaders in the church have attempted to correct you and guide you biblically, to which, you reject and never with any scriptural validation, just your opinion. It makes for a difficult and frustrating conversation; sadly, myself, I will not belabor the point again in an attempt to help as you are obviously, settled on all matters.

 

[Dachaser]

David,
I must tell u; I wonder why u are here @ PB? You do not seem to have a teachable spirit. Many people here, some faithful leaders in the church have attempted to correct you and guide u biblically, to which, you reject and never with any scriptural validation, just your opinion. It makes for a difficult and frustrating conversation; sadly, myself, I will not belabor the point in again attempting to help as u are obviously, settled on all matters.

I can see why you feel that way towards my positions, and would like to have a real dialog between the two of us here on this important topic. Please give me the single biggest point that was made that you see as being wrong in this OP that I have posted?
I do have a teachable spirit, but sometimes do have a hard time grasping what the objections seem to be on certain areas of doctrine that we are discussing.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I can see why you feel that way towards my positions, and would like to have a real dialog between the two of us here on this important topic. Please give me the single biggest point that was made that you see as being wrong in this OP that I have posted?
I do have a teachable spirit, but sometimes do have a hard time grasping what the objections seem to be on certain areas of doctrine that we are discussing.

I will not do that. There is nothing more to be said-it's been said-a number of times.

Pray over this thread, take some real time in reading over it and the arguments made, search the scriptures (not your presuppositions) and digest it. Get back to me in a week.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Please give me the single biggest point that was made that you see as being wrong in this OP that I have posted?

OP = opening post, the first post in a thread

You are referring to exactly which post of yours, not the OP, which is not yours. Please learn to use the link function to refer to your specific posts. Here is a simple and quick way to do this:

1. Go to any post you have made.
2. Look at the above right for the post number.
3. Right click that number
4. In the popup that appears, select "Copy link address"
5. Paste that into your new posts when referring to that previous post. That way we call be directed to exactly what post you are referring to in a new post.

If you want to be even more advanced in using the link function. You can follow steps 1-4 above, then

1. In a sentence in your post where you state something like "As I noted earlier", click on "earlier"
2. In the post editing window, select the link button (looks like a link in a chain)
3. In the popup now paste what you copied from step 4 above.
4. The result will be nicely formatted and not cluttered up with a long url. For example, "your previous post".
5. Note that the word "post" is now a hyperlink without actually showing the full link in a sentence.