Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Martin,
To begin with, welcome!
Consider those of the past who hold to covenant theology and their level of intellect. If it is as simple as you imply, how do you reconcile thier deduction? Obviously they did not just have a bad theological day.
Hermeneutics! Question: Would the Jewish hearers think that their children were excluded?
Is the tithe in the NT excluded, since following your premise, there is no mention of the tithe either; or woman taking the supper for that matter.
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
The question of the Jewish believers prior to AD 70 is a very interesting one. Acts 2:41. 'Then those who gladly received his word were baptized.' There is no mention of infant children here or in verse 47; indeed they appear to be specifically excluded unless one supposes that such children can understand and believe. There is not the slightest suggestion anywhere in Acts that infants were baptized.
This statement is logically indefensible. Infant baptism is not "specifically excluded" here. The only way it would be excluded would be if the text said that "only those who gladly received his word were baptized." (And even then, we would have to discuss the question of infant faith.)
But the text does not say that "only" the glad receivers were baptized. Were some glad receivers baptized? Of course! We would hope so! But the text doesn't say whether others were or were not baptized. You would have to read that into the silence of the text.
However, it IS clear that children were included in the covenant promises in this text. In Acts 2, Peter relies heavily on prophecy in Joel 2, which has a covenantal focus. And Peter *explicitly* tells his listeners that the promises are not only for them, but for their children too.
We need to pay attention to what IS specifically said in this text, rather than trying to import pet theologies in places where the text is silent.
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
First of all, thanks for your welcome, everybody
Gosh! I seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest here! Perhaps it would have been better to have started with something less controversial, but I've been looking at Acts just recently and am eager to share my understanding. I have now donned my theological flak-jacket and my tin hat, and am ready to reply. It will take me some time, however, to answer everybody's comments.
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Martin,
To begin with, welcome!
Consider those of the past who hold to covenant theology and their level of intellect. If it is as simple as you imply, how do you reconcile thier deduction? Obviously they did not just have a bad theological day.
I don't think I said it was simple! However, the Bible was written for the common man, not for theologians. Obviously, I don't know any of you, but, Scott, your avatar shows a baby, so I'm guessing that you're saying that you're a babe in Christ at present (forgive me if I'm wrong!). Be encouraged! You're clearly in a good place to learn here. Is that your daughter in the picture? What a lovely child!
Paul, in 1Cor 1:12ff, warns us against hero-worship, even of such a one as himself. The argument you are presenting is a favourite of the Church of Rome, who are always going on about the church fathers. As Protestants, we must take our stand on Sola Scriptura. 'To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them ' (Isaiah 8:20 ).
Hermeneutics! Question: Would the Jewish hearers think that their children were excluded?
I presume that you think that they would immediately have thought, 'Ah! The replacement for circumcision!' With respect, this is very bad interpretation. You are bringing your pre-suppositions to the text to make it say what you want it to say. What did Peter's hearers know of baptism on the day of Pentecost? Only what they knew of John's and our Lord's baptisms. Both of these were based upon repentance (Luke 3:7-8 ) and faith (John 4:1 ). What Peter is saying in Acts 2 is in complete accord with that. Why would they be equating baptism with circumcision? Peter said, 'Repent and be baptized!' They repented and were baptized.
Is the tithe in the NT excluded, since following your premise, there is no mention of the tithe either; or woman taking the supper for that matter.
I'm happy to discuss either of these subjects with you, but perhaps it is better not to divert this most interesting thread. Perhaps we should open some more!
Please don't be discouraged, dear brother! Get into the word
Grace & Peace,
Martin
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Michael,
Are women allowed to take the Lord's Supper?
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
The question of the Jewish believers prior to AD 70 is a very interesting one. Acts 2:41. 'Then those who gladly received his word were baptized.' There is no mention of infant children here or in verse 47; indeed they appear to be specifically excluded unless one supposes that such children can understand and believe. There is not the slightest suggestion anywhere in Acts that infants were baptized.
This statement is logically indefensible. Infant baptism is not "specifically excluded" here. The only way it would be excluded would be if the text said that "only those who gladly received his word were baptized." (And even then, we would have to discuss the question of infant faith.)
But the text does not say that "only" the glad receivers were baptized. Were some glad receivers baptized? Of course! We would hope so! But the text doesn't say whether others were or were not baptized. You would have to read that into the silence of the text.
With much respect, this is altogether back-to-front. Consider:-
1. Those who gladly received his word were baptized. Therefore, if words have any meaning,
2. Those who did not receive his word gladly were not baptized.
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
3. Infant children are not able to understand such things (cf. Ezra 8:2 ), let alone receive them, therefore
4. Infant children were not baptized.
Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Did you mean to cite a different passage? If not, how does Ezra 8:2 show that in any way?
What did Peter's hearers know of baptism on the day of Pentecost? Only what they knew of John's and our Lord's baptisms. Both of these were based upon repentance (Luke 3:7-8 ) and faith (John 4:1 ).
"œBut if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery that they committed against me, and also in walking contrary to me, so that I walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies"”if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. (Leviticus 20:40-42)
Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. (Deuteronomy 10:16)
And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. (Deuteronomy 30:6)
Circumcise yourselves to the Lord; remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of the evil of your deeds." (Jeremiah 4:4)
Egypt, Judah, Edom, the sons of Ammon, Moab, and all who dwell in the desert who cut the corners of their hair, for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart." (Jeremiah 9:26)
"œThus says the Lord God: No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, of all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, shall enter my sanctuary. (Ezekiel 44:9)
"œYou stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. (Acts 7:51)
But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (Romans 2:29)
I don't think I said it was simple! However, the Bible was written for the common man, not for theologians.
Originally posted by kceaster
Martin said:
I don't think I said it was simple! However, the Bible was written for the common man, not for theologians.
This is loaded with false assumption. Common man when enlightened by the Holy Spirit of God through the Word of God are automatically theologians.
My 11 year old son is a theologian.
If you're not a theologian, what are you doing here?
In Christ,
KC
Welcome to the board, Martin. Your conclusion in #2 based on #1 represents a logical fallacy called "the inverse error." In logic, the statement "if a, then b" has an inverse, which is "if not a, then not b." The truth of a statement, however, does not necessarily imply the truth of its inverse, and the assumption that it does in any particular case is what the "inverse error" is.
Originally posted by webmaster
When we stray from that line of thought at the outset (i.e. considering our overall hermeneutic) then we will walk down Darby Lane, take a right onto Schaffer blvd, to wind up at Walvoord Manor. Our shortcut, there, would bypass The Early Church Tavern (a very nice spot with some great brew) Reformation Street (lots of great stores there), and a world reknown social club that plays really cool music known as the Westminster Brass.
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Reading through this thread again, I finally twigged what you mean here- you are suggesting that I am a closet Dispensationalist Very droll! I'm afraid that old age has dulled my mind more than a little and rapier-sharp wit tends to go over my head.
So long as it remains true that Paul represents the Church of the Living God to be one, founded on one covenant (which the law could not set aside) from Abraham to to-day, so long it remains true that the promise is to us and our children........
Originally posted by Paul manata
Hi Martin:
I know I touched on a main difference. The principle of covenant theology vs. a dispensational approach (even if it is Dispensational on just this point). A perfect example is when you write:
Finally what about '....to us and our children'? Well, who are our children? 'Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham' (Gal 3:7. cf. also v 26, Rom 9:8 ).
But that's the way it's always been.
Originally posted by Paul manata
Hi Martin:
I know I touched on a main difference. The principle of covenant theology vs. a dispensational approach (even if it is Dispensational on just this point).
A perfect example is when you write:
Finally what about '....to us and our children'? Well, who are our children? 'Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham' (Gal 3:7. cf. also v 26, Rom 9:8 ).
But that's the way it's always been.
11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "œthe uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands"” 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
Only by imposing faulty presuppositions to the NT (such as the idea that we are saved by a different promise than Abraham, or that the Church is a different body than Israel, etc.) do we come to Baptistic conclusions.
Scripture makes it clear there is one salvation by one promise, one baptism, one faith, one body of Christ for all times.
Israel is Israel, but not all Israel is Israel, and this is true from Adam to the end of time. We are grafted into the tree of Israel, not a new tree (Rom 11).
Basically, the credocircumcisionist could have told Moses, "but your Children are those by faith." And this relates to giving our children the covenant sign how, exactly?
Obviously we are not saved by a different promise than Abraham (though we have received the promise to which Abraham only looked forward to- Heb 11:39-40 )
but the Church is not to be equated with Israel after the flesh, nor is circumcision to be equated with baptism (cf. pretty much the whole of Galatians).
Is that the same Israel, 'Who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men......but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost' (1Thes 2:15-16)? I don't think so!
We are grafted into the true Israel, and 'He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God' (Rom 2:28-29 ).
where exactly do you find paedobaptism in the NT?
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Obviously we are not saved by a different promise than Abraham (though we have received the promise to which Abraham only looked forward to- Heb 11:39-40 ), but the Church is not to be equated with Israel after the flesh, nor is circumcision to be equated with baptism (cf. pretty much the whole of Galatians).
Is that the same Israel, 'Who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men......but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost' (1Thes 2:15-16)? I don't think so! We are grafted into the true Israel, and 'He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God' (Rom 2:28-29 ).
Pretty much all through the Bible, Israel is pictured as the harlot or the unfaithful wife. The Church is the bride of Christ. Go figure!
So, I don't technically need any link between circumcision and baptism. I just need to show that children are in the NC