Children that have the sign of the covenant

[Mocha]

Hello everyone!

This is my first step in trying to seriously understand the baptism issue. I was surprised and delighted to see that there is a discussion place where baptism can be discussed among those in the Reformed faith (from people on both sides of the fence). I'm looking forward to having some good discusions with all of you.

I became a Christian in '77, became Reformed in my theology in '90 (from a baptistic perspective), and have now attended a paedobaptist church for the past two months.

My family and I were driving 50 minutes to a Reformed Baptist church several times a week for various church and ministry activities, but we found the driving time, fuel costs, and the long distance to our church family as being too much. So we dicided to look for a local church.

Well, we found a really good church. The preaching and fellowship were fantastic. It holds to all the same doctrines of grace that I was use to, but...it's a paeobaptist church. Since there are no Reformed Baptist churches around, we decided to ask for membership. On Tuesday night, three elders came over and we had a really good talk, but the baptism question was a concern. So, over the next few months, I'm going to try and challenge myself, being as objective and biblical as possible, and try and come to a conclusion one way or the other.

When the elders were here, one thing I said was that I believed that all 'children are children of wrath' until they are justified. The pastor disagreed. He didn't see a child that was in the covenant as a child of wrath. I was wondering, what do you guys thaink? Can a child that is not justified not be a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3)?

 

[Scott Bushey]

1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

 

[Steve Owen]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Hmm. So the unbelieving husband/wife is to be baptized also?

Hello Mocha,
you wrote:-

When the elders were here, one thing I said was that I believed that all 'children are children of wrath' until they are justified. The pastor disagreed. He didn't see a child that was in the covenant as a child of wrath. I was wondering, what do you guys think? Can a child that is not justified not be a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3)?

What strange third realm does the pastor think these children are in?
David wrote: 'Behold I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me' (Psalm 51:5 ), and the Lord Jesus said, 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh.' Our children are a constant reminder of that. We have to teach them everything- except how to be naughty and disobedient. Those things they learn all by themselves!

You will do your children a grave disservice if you allow them to think that they are in some sort of covenant with God if in fact they are dead in trespasses and sin.

Every blessing,

Martin

 

[DTK]

I think Calvin understood it correctly, that even children of the covenant are by nature children of wrath.

Calvin:And were by nature children of wrath. All men without exception, whether Jews or Gentiles, (Galatians 2:15,16,) are here pronounced to be guilty, until they are redeemed by Christ; so that out of Christ there is no righteousness, no salvation, and, in short, no excellence. Children of wrath are those who are lost, and who deserve eternal death. Wrath means the judgment of God; so that the children of wrath are those who are condemned before God. Such, the apostle tells us, had been the Jews, "” such had been all the excellent men that were now in the Church; and they were so by nature, that is, from their very commencement, and from their mother´s womb.

DTK

 

[Mocha]

1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Scott,

In this context, would a child of believing parents, that is not baptized be considered "holy"?

Mocha

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by Mocha]

 

[Mocha]

I would be interested in your responses (especially from paedobaptists) on the following excerpt.

"The paedobaptist use of the apostasy passages is caught on the horns of a dilemma. If they admit that the apostates are described in these passages as "sanctified" and "in Christ" because of what they professed and claimed, then it must take the position that infants may be admitted to the New Covenant only on the supposition that they are regenerate...

But on the other horn of the dilemma for paedobaptists is to argue that the language of "sanctified" and "in Christ" as used in the apostasy passages has nothing to do with the profession of regeneration. These paedobaptists argue that it merely speaks of some "covenantal" blessing really possessed by the apostates, but makes no reference to regeneration. The problem with this approach are manifold. In the first place, it must attribute two completely different meanings to the same words used in the same chapters. For instance, in Heb. 10 "sanctified" must mean something completely different in vv. 10 and 14 than it does in v. 29. It must also invent a merely covenantal and non-saving meaning for "in Christ" in Jn. 15 and "by faith" in Rom. 11.

But in the second place, since paedobaptists argue that this merely covenantal (but non-saving) connection to Christ is given to people through their participation in the ordinances of the New Covenant (through baptism and the Lord's Supper), they must change the meaning of baptism and the Lord's Supper. Now baptism and the Lord's Supper do not claim or profess or signify repentance and the forgiveness of sin, but only some non-saving covenantal connection to Christ. The problem, of course, with this position is that it defies the plain teaching of the entire NT about the meaning of the ordinances."
(Samuel Waldron, A Brief Response To Richard L. Pratt's "Infant Baptism in the New Covenant", Reformed Baptist Theological Review (Vol. 2 No. 1), pgs. 107-108)

I have a question (especially for the paedobaptists):

Can anyone have a non-saving connection to Christ?

or

Can "in Christ" have a non-saving meaning?

Mocha

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Mocha

1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Scott,

In this context, would a child of believing parents, that is not baptized be considered "holy"?

Mocha

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by Mocha]

No.

Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Mocha
I would be interested in your responses (especially from paedobaptists) on the following excerpt.

"The paedobaptist use of the apostasy passages is caught on the horns of a dilemma. If they admit that the apostates are described in these passages as "sanctified" and "in Christ" because of what they professed and claimed, then it must take the position that infants may be admitted to the New Covenant only on the supposition that they are regenerate...

The key is 'presumption'. The paedo presumes that those whom outwardly confess Christ are "sanctified" and "in Christ". As far as our infants go, yes we presume that they are regnerate.

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=7300#pid108503

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=7269#pid107023

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=6566#pid76041

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=6173#pid73216

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5831#pid69971

In lines with the WCF and the historic reformed, here is a clearer view of what the WCF actually states on infant baptism:



A Catechism on Infant Inclusion in the Covenant
by C. Matthew McMahon, et. al.


Question 1. Are Infants of believers included in the Covenant of Grace?

Answer: Yes, children are included in the Covenant of Grace, and the visible church.[1]



1. Genesis 17:1-14; Matthew 19:14; 1 Corinthians 7:14



Question 2. Upon what Grounds are children part of the Covenant of Grace?

Answer: By two reasons: the promises of God [2] and the command of God.[3]



2. Genesis 15:1; 17:7; Acts 2:39; Galatians 3:18; 2 Peter 1:4

3. Gen. 17:10-12; Acts 21:21; Matthew 28:19



Question 3: What is the promise of God?

Answer: That God would be a God to Abraham and his descendants after him for an everlasting covenant,[4] and that the children of believers are entitled to such a promise since it was made with Abraham and his children.[5]



4. Genesis 17:7; 17:13; 17:19; Psalm 105:9-10; Hebrews 13:20.

5. Genesis 17:7; 26:24; Isaiah 55:3; Jeremiah 32:40; Joel 2:28; Matthew 22:32; Acts 3:25; Romans 4:13



Question 4: What is the command of God?

Answer: The command of God compels all believing parents to have the sign of the covenant of God placed on their children.[6]



6. Gen. 17:23; Joshua 5:3; Luke 2:21; Acts 21:20; Matthew 3:6; Acts 16:15; 16:33; 1 Corinthians 10:2



Question 5: How are the promises of God applicable to children since they are born sinful and depraved?

Answer: The promises of God are applicable to the children of believers since Christian parents presumptively believe their children are regenerate based on the Word of God and the command of God.[7]



7. Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39; Ezekiel 36:24



Question 6: Does this presumption (that the children of believers are regenerate) negate the reality that these children are conceived in sin, or demonstrate an inconsistency with Total Depravity?

Answer: No. Children of believing parents are conceived in sin, corrupt, depraved and in need of salvation, [8] but their parents presume them to be regenerate, yet are actually regenerate by sovereign election at a time only God knows, if at all; [9] they are to be considered Christians by their parents based on the promise God has made to them, that God will in fact save them and be a God to them; [10] and this view is not inconsistent with Total Depravity since sovereign grace is the means by which God will regenerate and save a child. [11]



8. Genesis 6:5; Psalm 51:5; Romans 3:10-18

9. Luke 1:15; Ephesians 1:9

10. Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39; 16:33.

11. Romans 4:16; Ephesians 1:3-10; 2:8-10.



Question 7: Are infants of believing parents to be considered Christians?

Answer: Yes.



Question 8: Why are infants of believing parents to be considered Christians?

Answer: Based on the command and promise of God, they are to be distinguished from the visible world,[12] and are united with believers inthechurch,[13] being federally holy before God [14] and marked by the covenant sign of circumcision [15] (as in the case of the patriarchs and Israelites) or of baptism [16] (as in the case of the covenant realized in Christ).



12. Genesis 3:15; Ezekiel 16:20-21; 1 Corinthians 2:12;

13. Ephesians 2:19; 3:15.

14. Malachi 2:15; 1 Corinthians 7:14

15. Genesis 17:10; Leviticus 12:3

16. Ezekiel 36:25; Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:39; 16:33



Question 9: Are infants of believing parents to be considered as members of the invisible church or the visible church or both?

Answer: Infants of believing parents are presumed to be in the invisible church [17] and are actually part of the visible church. [18]



17. Genesis 17:7; Acts 2:39

18. Rom. 15:8; Exod. 12:48; Gen. 34:14; Acts 21:21



Question 10: Are all children of believing parents infallibly saved?

Answer: No. They are presumed saved by the parents based on the promises, but may in fact demonstrate their apostasy after the age of discretion, [19]showing themselves in need of saving faith. [20]



19. Genesis 25:34; Hebrews 10:29

20. John 1:12; 5:47; 6:29; Romans 1:17



Question 11: Is this contradictory?

Answer: No. Christian parents presume the regeneration of their children based on the precepts of the Word of God and do not have prior information concerning the decreed eternal destiny of any fellow human being, much less their own children.



Question 12: Is the account of when Abraham circumcised Ishmael inconsistent with the view that infants of believing parents should be presumed regenerate (though he knew that God told him Ishmael would be cast out)?

Answer: No. The sign is administered by way of promise and command. Though the promise would be realized in Isaac, [21] the command still rendered Abraham duty-bound to administer the sign of the covenant on Ishmael, [22] sealing the curses of the covenant upon him as a reprobate. [23]



21. Genesis 21:12

22. Genesis 17:12

23. Deuteronomy 11:26-28



Question 13: In presuming that infants of believing parents are regenerate, does this mean they have an active and actual faith whereby they do good works, understand the Word of God, and meditate on it?

Answer: Infants do not have actual faith, but habitual faith, or faith of habit; for as an acorn possesses in it all the properties of a giant oak tree, so infants possess all the properties necessary for faith as "seed faith" (a faith implanted in them by God and dormant until they reach an age in which they are able to rationally think); infants are unable to discern between their left hand and right hand, [24] not capable of actsoffaith, [25] and not capable of hearing or meditating on the Word. [26]



24. Deuteronomy 1:39; Isaiah 7:16; Jonah 4:11

25. Romans 12:1-2

26. Romans 10:17; Hebrews 11:16



Question 14: Are infants of believing parents part of the Kingdom of God?

Answer: Yes. Christ says the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to them, [27] which demonstrates that a real "seed faith" is in them since no one is abletoenter the Kingdom of heaven without it [28].



27. Matthew 19:14

28. John 3:3, 5



Question 15: Why does God desire Christian parents to presume their infants are regenerate?

Answer: God desires that Christian parents rely on his revealed Word [29] which includes the children of believing parents in the Covenant of Grace



29. Psalm 119:105; John 17:17



Question 16: May a child of believing parents, after the age of discretion, ultimately be lost?

Answer: God may, by an eternal decree of reprobation, account them lost forever (which is different than His will of precept that Christians are to obey) such as in the case of Ishmael, Esau or others, who outwardly demonstrated their rebellion and reprobation. [30]



30. Exodus 19:5; Leviticus 26:14-16; Deuteronomy 11:13; Ezekiel 20:39; Zechariah 6:15; Romans 9:13; Hebrews 12:16; Galatians 4:24-25.



Question 17: Has God said that His will of precept concerning covenant children is equal to His will of decree concerning covenant children?

Answer: No. At no time has God said that His will of precept (the Word of God given to us in the Bible) is always the same or equal to His will of decree. [31]



31. Deuteronomy 29:29; Daniel 2:22



Question 18: If God's will of decree is different at times than His will of precept, which shall Christians follow?

Answer: Christians are to obey God at His Word, and by His promises, and continue diligently in a constant state of considering whether they truly believe the promises of God or not, [32] which prompts them to sanctifying holiness, [33] and to diligence in teaching their children the Word ofGodas faithful parents. [34]



32. 2 Corinthians 13:5; John 5:38; 6:29

33. 1 Thessalonians 4:3

34. Proverbs 22:6; Deuteronomy 4:10, 6:7; Ephesians 6:4.



Question 19: Is the doctrine of the inclusion of infants in the Covenant of Grace, and therefore presuming their regeneration, new or novel, unknown to history?

Answer: No. The Early Church, the Reformers, the Confessions, English Puritanism, and Protestant Presbyterianism teach this up and through our present day. [35]



35. The following are a few selected quotes from church history:



John Calvin, "We ought, therefore, to consider, that just as in the case of Abraham, the father of the faithful, the righteousness of faith preceded circumcision, so today in the children of the faithful, the gift of adoption is prior to baptism." (Opera Quae Supersunt Omina, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 35, Page 8.)



John Calvin, "It follows, that the children of believers are not baptized, that they may thereby then become the children of God, as if they had been before aliens to the church; but, on the contrary, they are received into the Church by this solemn sign, since they already belonged to the body of Christ by virtue of the promise." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4:15:22. cf. 4:16:24)



The French Confession, "We confess only two sacraments common to the whole Church, of which the first, baptism, is given as a pledge of our adoption; for by it we are grafted into the body of Christ, so as to be washed and cleansed by his blood, and then renewed in purity of life by his Holy Spirit.[1] We hold, also, that although we are baptized only once, yet the gain that it symbolizes to us reaches over our whole lives and to ourdeath,so that we have a lasting witness that Jesus Christ will always be our justification and sanctification.[2] Nevertheless, although it is a sacrament of faith and penitence, yet as God receives little children into the Church with their fathers, we say, upon the authority of Jesus Christ, that the children of believing parents should be baptized."



Ulrich Zwingli, "The children of Christians are not less the children of God than their parents are, or than the children of Old Testament times were: but if they belong to God, who will refuse them baptism?" (Huldreich Zwingli's Werke, Zweyten bandes erste Abtheilung (Zurich, 1830), Page 245.)



Martin Bucer and Wolfgang Capito, "...baptism signified regeneration; that the children of believers are baptized because it is wrong to keep them from the fellowship and company of God's people those who should be truly considered His people." (Lewis Schenck, The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant, Page 28)



Theodore Beza, "It cannot be the case that those who have been sanctified by birth and have been separated from the children of unbelievers, do not have the seed or germ of faith." (Confessio Chrsitanae Fidei, Book 4, Page 48)



Henrie Bullinger, "Since the young babes and infants of the faithful are in the number of reckoning of God's people, and partakers of the promise touching the purification through Christ; it followeth of necessity, that they are as well to be baptized, as they that be of perfect age which professes the Christian faith," (Fifty Godly and Learned Sermons (London, 1587) Page 382.



The Second Helvetic Confession, "We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that newborn infants of the faithful are to be baptized. For according to evangelical teaching, of such is the Kingdom of God, and they are in the covenant of God. Why, then, should the sign of God's covenant not be given to them? Why should those who belong to God and are in his Church not be initiated by holy baptism?" (Chapter 20, Of Holy Baptism.)



Francis Turretin, "The orthodox occupy the middle ground between Anabaptism and the Lutherans. They deny actual faith to infants against the Lutherans and maintain a seminal or radical and habitual faith is to be ascribed to them against the Anabaptists. Here it is to be remarked before all things: that we do not speak of the infants of any parents whomsoever (even of infidels and heathen), but only of believers, or Christians and the covenanted. (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume 2, Page 583.)



Peter Martyr Vermigli, "We assume that the children of believers are holy, as long as in growing up they do not demonstrate themselves to be estranged from Christ. We do not exclude them from the church, but accept them as members, with the hope that they are partakers of the divine election and have the grace and Spirit of Christ, even as they are the seed of saints. On that basis we baptize them." (Loci Communes, 4:8:7, cf. Robert Reymond's, A New systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Page 946.)



The Belgic Confession, "Therefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, who we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made unto our children. And indeed Christ shed His blood no less for the washing of the children of believers than for adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ has done for them; as the Lord commanded in the law that they should be made partakers of the sacrament of Christ's suffering and death shortly after they were born, by offering for them a lamb, which was a sacrament of Jesus Christ. Moreover, what circumcision was to the Jews, baptism is to our children. And for this reason St. Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ." (Article 34)



The Heidelberg Catechism, "Q74: Are infants also to be baptized? A74: Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God, and through the blood of Christ both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed. (Lord's Day 27)



The Westminster Assembly, "That it [baptism] is instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ: That it is a seal of the covenant of grace, of our ingrafting into Christ, and of our union with him, of remission of sins, regeneration, adoption, and life eternal: That the water, in baptism, representeth and signifieth both the blood of Christ, which taketh away all guilt of sin, original and actual; and the sanctifying virtue of the Spirit of Christ against the dominion of sin, and the corruption of our sinful nature: That baptizing, or sprinkling and washing with water, signifieth the cleansing from sin by the blood and for the merit of Christ, together with the mortification of sin, and rising from sin to newness of life, by virtue of the death and resurrection of Christ: That the promise is made to believers and their seed; and that the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church, have, by their birth, interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church, under the gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament; the covenant of grace, for substance, being the same; and the grace of God, and the consolation of believers, more plentiful than before: That the Son of God admitted little children into his presence, embracing and blessing them, saying, For of such is the kingdom of God: That children, by baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh: That they are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized." (The Directory of Public Worship)



The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, "Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ." (Article XXVI, Of Baptism)



Zacharias Ursinus, "First, all that belong to the covenant and church of God are to be baptized. But the children of Christians, as well as adults, belong to the covenant and church of God. Therefore, they are to be bap­tized, as well as adults. Secondly, those are not to be excluded from baptism to whom the benefit of remission of sins, and of re­generation, belongs. But this benefit belongs to the infants of the church; for 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. Therefore, they ought to be baptized." (Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, (1st American Edition, 1851, Pages 366-367.)



William Ames, "The infants of believers are not to be forbidden this sacrament. First, because, if they are partakers of any grace, it is by virtue of the covenant of grace and so both the covenant and the first seal of the covenant belong to them. Second, the covenant in which the faithful are now included is clearly the same as the covenant made with Abra­ham, Rom. 4:11; Gal. 3:7-9-and this expressly applied to infants. Third, the covenant as now administered to believers brings greater and fuller consolation than it once could, before the coming of Christ. But if it pertained only to them and not to their infants, the grace of God and their consolation would be narrower and more con­tracted after Christ's appearing than before. Fourth, baptism sup­plants circumcision, Col. 2:11, 12; it belongs as much to the children of believers as circumcision once did. Fifth, in the very beginning of regeneration, whereof baptism is a seal, man is merely passive. There­fore, no outward action is required of a man when he is baptized or circumcised (unlike other sacraments); but only a passive receiving. Infants are, therefore, as capable of participation in this sacrament, so far as its chief benefit is concerned, as adults." (The Marrow of Theology, Page 211.)



John Bradford, "In baptism is required God's election, if the child be an infant, or faith, if he be of age." (The Writings of John Bradford, Banner of Truth Trust, Carlisle, 1979, Volume 2, Page 290)



Herman Witsius, "Here certainly appears the extraordinary love of our God, in that as soon as we are born, and just as we come from our mother, he hath commanded us to be solemnly brought from her bosom, as it were, into his own arms, that he should bestow upon us, in the very cradle, the tokens of our dignity and future kingdom;...that, in a word, he should join us to himself in the most solemn covenant from our most tender years: the remembrance of which, as it is glorious and full of consolation to us, so in like manner it tends to promote Christian virtues, and the strictest holiness, through the whole course of our lives." (The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, (London, 1868) Volume 3, Book 4, Chapter 18, Page 1219.)



John Owen, "The end of his message and of his coming was, that those to whom he was sent might be "blessed with faithful Abraham," or that "the blessing of Abraham," promised in the covenant, "might come upon them," Galatians 3:9, 14. To deny this, overthrows the whole relation between the old testament and the new, the veracity of God in his promises, and all the properties of the covenant of grace, mentioned 2 Samuel 23:5...Infants are made for and are capable of eternal glory or misery, and must fall, dying infants, into one of these estates for ever. All infants are born in a state of sin, wherein they are spiritually dead and under the curse. Unless they are regenerated or born again, they must all perish inevitably, John 3:3. Their regeneration is the grace where of baptism is a sign or token. Wherever this is, there baptism ought to be administered. It follows hence unavoidably that infants who die in their infancy have the grace of regeneration, and consequently as good a right unto baptism as believers themselves...In brief, a participation of the seal of the covenant is a spiritual blessing. This the seed of believers was once solemnly invested in by God himself This privilege he hath nowhere revoked, though he hath changed the outward sign; nor hath he granted unto our children any privilege or mercy in lieu of it now under the gospel, when all grace and privileges are enlarged to the utmost. His covenant promises concerning them, which are multiplied, were confirmed by Christ as a true messenger and minister; he gives the grace of baptism unto many of them, especially those that die in their infancy, owns children to belong unto his kingdom, esteems them disciples, appoints households to be baptized without exception. And who shall now rise up, and withhold water from them?" (Works, Volume 16, Banner of Truth Trust (Carlisle, 1988) Pages 335-337)



Samuel Rutherford, "It is clear that infants have their share of salvation, and by covenant it must be...And this promise made to Abraham belongs to them all..." (The Covenant of Life Opened, 1642(?), Pages 83, 104-105)



Richard Sibbes, "Therefore God, intending a comfortable enlargement of the covenant of grace to Abraham, extends it to his seed: "I will be the God of thy seed." It is a great blessing for God to he the God of our seed. It is alluded to by St Peter in the New Testament, "The promise is made to you and to your children," Acts ii. 39. But what if they have not baptism, the seal of the covenant? That doth not prejudice their salvation. God hath appointed the sacra­ments to be seals for us, not for himself. He himself keepeth his covenant, whether we have the seal or no, so long as we neglect it not. Therefore we must not think if a child die before the sacrament of baptism, that God will not keep his covenant. They have the sanctity, the holiness of the covenant. You know what David said of his child, "I shall go to it, but it shall not return to me;" and yet it died before it was circumcised. Yon know they were forty years in the wilderness, and were not circumcised. Therefore the sacrament is not of absolute necessity to salvation. So he is the God of our children from the conception and birth." (Works of Richard Sibbes, Volume 6, Banner of Truth Trust, (Carlisle 1983), Page 22)



Ezekiel Hopkins, "Certainly, since they [infants of believing parents] are in covenant with God; since they are the members of Christ, being members of His body, the Church; since they are sanctified and regenerated, so far forth as their natures are ordinarily capable of, without a miracle; we have all the reason in the world conformably to conclude, that all such die in the Lord, and are forever happy and blessed with Him." (Works, Volume 2 page 326.)



Thomas Goodwin, "The children of godly parents are called the inheritance of the Lord, because he is the owner of them as his elect and chosen, among whom his possession and his peculiar people lie...The children of believing parents, at least their next and immediate seed, even of us Gentiles now under the Gospel, are included by God within the covenant of Grace, as well as Abraham's or David's seed within that covenant of theirs." (Works, Volume 9, Page 426-427)



Thomas Manton, "If they die before they come to the use of reason, you have no cause to doubt of their salvation. God is their God. Gen. 17:7, "I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee;" compared with Gal. 3:14, "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." And they never lived to disinherit themselves. As we judge of the slip according to the stock, till it live to bring forth fruit of its own, so here. (Manton's Complete Works, Volume 18, Page 91)



John Brown of Haddington, "None but regenerated persons have a right to baptism before God...None but such as appear truly regenerated have a right to baptism before men...The infants of parents, one or both visible saints, have a right to baptism before the church...The children of believers are in covenant with God...Infants, such as Christ could carry in his arms, are members of the Kingdom of God. And if members, why deny them the primary seal of membership?" (Systematic Theology, Page 538.)



Alexander Whyte, "Baptism does not effect our engrafting into Christ, it only signifies and seals it." (Commentary on the Shorter Catechism, Page 181.) [Note, there is no distinction between adults and children, or infants, in the Westminster Confession at all on this issue, except by age,andthe Directory of Public Worship makes it abundantly clear what they mean by the institution and how it should be administered..]



Robert Shaw, "...for infants of believing parents are born within the covenant, and so are Christians and visible church members; and by baptism this right of theirs is acknowledged, and they are solemnly admitted to the privileges of church membership." (An Exposition of the Confession of Faith, 1845, Page 285.)



J. W. Alexander, "But O how we neglect that ordinance! Treating children in the Church, just as if they were out of it. Ought we not daily to say (in its spirit) to our children, "You are Christian children, you are Christ's, you ought to think and feel and act as such! And on this plan carried out, might we not expect more early fruit of the grace than by keeping them always looking forward to a point of time at which they shall have new hearts and join the church? I am distressed with long harbored misgivings on this point." (Forty Years' Familiar Letters, Volume 2, Page 25.)



Lyman Atwater, "If our children are in precisely the same position as others, why baptize them?" (Children of the covenant and their part in the Lord, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, Volume 35, No. 4 (October, 1863), Page 622)



Lewis Schenck, "The Reformed Church has always believed, on the basis of God's immutable promise, that all children of believers dying in infancy were saved...in other words, all admission to the visible church was on the basis, not of an infallible evidence of regeneration, since no one could read the heart, but on the basis of presumption that those admitted were the true children of God." (The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant, (Phillipsburg, 2003) Page 118.



Benjamin Warfield, "All baptism is inevitably administered on the basis not of knowledge but of presumption and if we must baptize on presumption the whole principle is yielded; and it would seem that we must baptize all whom we may fairly presume to be members of Christ's body." (The Polemics of Infant Baptism, The Presbyterian Quarterly (April, 1899), Page 313.



Henry Van Dyke, "If the baptism of infants does not signify and seal "regeneration and engrafting into Christ," in the same sense and to the same extent as in the case of adults, we have no right to administer it to infants." (The Church: Her Ministry and Sacraments, Page 74)



Abraham Kuyper, "That children of believers are to be considered as recipients of efficacious grace, in whom the work of efficacious grace has already begun. That when dying before having attained to years of dis­cretion, they can only be regarded as saved. Of course [he adds] Calvinists never declared that these things were necessarily so. As they never permitted themselves to pronounce official judgment on the inward state of an adult, but left the judgment to God, so they have never usurped the right to pronounce on the presence or ab­sence of spiritual life in infants. They only stated how God would have us consider such infants, and this consideration based on the divine word made it imperative to look upon their infant children as elect and saved, and to treat them accordingly." (Abraham Kuyper, "Calvinism and Confessional Review," The Presbyterian Quarterly, Vol. IV, No. 18 (October, 1891), Art. I, pp. 602-503; cf. 604.)



Charles Hodge, "The historic Reformed Doctrine which may be identified with that of John Calvin was as follows: Membership in the invisible church meant vital union with Christ, or regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Since the word presume meant to admit a thing to be, or to receive a thing as true, before it could be known as such from its phenomena or manifestations, the presumption that an infant was a member of the invisible church meant that it was believed to be engrafted into Christ and regenerated before it gave any ordinary evidences of the fact." (The Church Membership of Infants, Page 375.)



Lewis Berkhof and the Conclusions of Utrecht, "It may be well to quote in this connection the first half of the fourth point of the Conclusions of Utrecht, which were adopted by our Church in 1908. We translate this as follows: "And, finally, as far as the fourth point, that of presumptive regeneration, is concerned. Synod declares that, according to the confession of our Churches, the seed of the covenant must, in virtue of the promise of God, be presumed to be regenerated and sanctified in Christ, until, as they grow up, the contrary appears from their life or doctrine; that it is, however, less correct to say that baptism is administered to the children of believers on the ground of their presumptive regeneration, since the ground of baptism is the command and the promise of God; and that further the judgment of charity, with which the Church presumes the seed of the covenant to be regenerated, by no means intends to say that therefore each child is really regenerated, since the Word of God teaches that they are not all Israel that are of Israel, and it is said of Isaac: in him shall thy seed be called (Rom. 9:6,7), so that in preaching it is' always necessary to insist on serious self-examination, since only those who shall have believed and have been baptized will be saved." (Systematic Theology, Page 640)



A. A. Hodge, "But baptism does not ordinarily confer grace in the first instance, but presupposes it." (Outlines of Theology, Page 629.)



John Murray, "Baptized infants are to be received as the children of God and treated accordingly." (Christian Baptism, Page 59.)



Robert Booth, "If the children of believers are embraced by the promises of the covenant, as certainly they are, then they must also be entitled to receive the initial sign of the covenant, which is baptism." (Children of the Promise, P&R Publishing, Page 29)



Robert Reymond, "I think I have shown that infants of believing parents are to be viewed as members of and under the governance and protection of Christ's church and should be treated as such...Accordingly, all present at any and every infant baptism are admonished to "look back to their baptism," to repent of their sins against the covenant, and to "improve and make right use of their baptism...the Directory [of Public Worship] envisions, as Jones rightly states, "a dynamic, life-long relationship between the infants saving faith and Christian walk, on the one hand, and his baptism on the other." (A New systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Pages 948-49)



In the neglect of understanding the doctrine of "presumptive regeneration," Charles Hodge said, "we have long felt and often expressed the conviction that this is one of the most serious evils in the present state of our churches." (Bushnell's discourses on Christian Nurture, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (1847), 19, Pages 52-521.)

Can "in Christ" have a non-saving meaning?

Mocha

Joh 15:1 "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser.
Joh 15:2 Every branch of mine that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.
Joh 15:3 Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you.
Joh 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.
Joh 15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
Joh 15:6 If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.
Joh 15:7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

The Greek word used here:

G3306
μεÌνω
menō
men'-o
A primary verb; to stay (in a given place, state, relation or expectancy): - abide, continue, dwell, endure, be present, remain, stand, tarry (for), X thine own.

*Stay, abide, continue.............If someone does not stay, does not abide or continue, they prove themselves to be apostates.



[Edited on 11-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[refbaptdude]

Children of Wrath

Mike,

You are correct by using biblical language to describe the natural state of your children such as "œchildren of wrath."

We are to tell our children that they have great and awesome privileges by being raised in a Christian home and in the life of the church, but privileges do not mean possession. We should evangelize our children by teaching them God´s Word and the Gospel, use the Law of God to drive them to Christ and catechize them (Gal. 3:24).

But the Bible is clear that our children ARE born IN ADAM (Rom. 5:12). We should not tell our children that they are Christians or baptize them until they express faith/repentance toward Christ and give evidence that they are born again (John 1:12-13, 3:3-8; Matthew 7:20; 12:33; Acts 2:38-41).

Until they profess Christ and give evidence that they are the "œseed of Christ", are IN Christ, we should tell them that they are "œin Adam", "œchildren of the devil", "œdead in their sins", "œseparate from Christ, excluded from covenant people of God, have no hope and without God in the world" and "œon their way to hell" (Eph. 2:1-12).

See Jonathan Edwards Evangelist by John H. Gerstner chapter 4 "œPreaching to Young Vipers."

Grace and Peace,
Steve

Heb 2:13
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
(KJV)

Isa 53:10
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
(KJV)

John 1:12-13
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
(KJV)

Rom 9:8
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
(KJV)

Gal 4:28-29
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
(KJV)

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

My understanding about the covenant of circumcision is twofold. It was given in light of two kinds of promises and Abrahams belief that the LORD would perform what he said he would do. One was concerning the seed of Abraham (Jesus) and the other was concerning his descendents and their national posterity. They are two different kinds of promises and may or may not have anything to do with the other.

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
My understanding about the covenant of circumcision is twofold. It was given in light of two kinds of promises and Abrahams belief that the LORD would perform what he said he would do. One was concerning the seed of Abraham (Jesus) and the other was concerning his descendents and their national posterity. They are two different kinds of promises and may or may not have anything to do with the other.

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by puritancovenanter]

Randy,
Have you read into the promise? Is that what God said?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by refbaptdude
Mike,

You are correct by using biblical language to describe the natural state of your children such as "œchildren of wrath."

We are to tell our children that they have great and awesome privileges by being raised in a Christian home and in the life of the church, but privileges do not mean possession. We should evangelize our children by teaching them God´s Word and the Gospel, use the Law of God to drive them to Christ and catechize them (Gal. 3:24).

But the Bible is clear that our children ARE born IN ADAM (Rom. 5:12). We should not tell our children that they are Christians or baptize them until they express faith/repentance toward Christ and give evidence that they are born again (John 1:12-13, 3:3-8; Matthew 7:20; 12:33; Acts 2:38-41).

Until they profess Christ and give evidence that they are the "œseed of Christ", are IN Christ, we should tell them that they are "œin Adam", "œchildren of the devil", "œdead in their sins", "œseparate from Christ, excluded from covenant people of God, have no hope and without God in the world" and "œon their way to hell" (Eph. 2:1-12).

See Jonathan Edwards Evangelist by John H. Gerstner chapter 4 "œPreaching to Young Vipers."

Grace and Peace,
Steve

Heb 2:13
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
(KJV)

Isa 53:10
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
(KJV)

John 1:12-13
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
(KJV)

Rom 9:8
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
(KJV)

Gal 4:28-29
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
(KJV)

Steve,
Do you teach your children to pray? Do you direct them to call God, "Father" or do you to tell them, "DO NOT call God father; your father is the devil!!!"

 

[Joseph Ringling]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

So why isn't the unbelieving spouse baptised?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Joseph Ringling

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

So why isn't the unbelieving spouse baptised?

Because, the unbeliever is generally not willing to submit to the sacrament. If they were willing, and even confess, this does not guarantee conversion or faith, but if they were willing, they would be welcome. Many people submit to baptism and are only getting wet.

Placing the sacrament upon infant or adult is based upon obedience to Gods command to place the sign. It does not guarantee conversion and never did.

 

[gwine]

Originally posted by Mocha

I have a question (especially for the paedobaptists):

Can anyone have a non-saving connection to Christ?

or

Can "in Christ" have a non-saving meaning?

Mocha

Pro 16:4 The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.

 

[kceaster]

I keep going back to the fact that there will be a man at the wedding feast of the lamb who is not clothed in the righteousness of Christ. He is thrown out. But who let him in?

There will be those who will say, "Lord, Lord." There will be those who will say, "When did we see you...?"

As long as these people exist, will be as long as we ask the question, "Who is, and who ain't." This is an illegitimate question, since God has not given us the sight for this.

We must trust Christ not only for our salvation, but for the salvation of all those who are in the external (read earthly) body of Christ. The only way we may do this is to apply the sign of the covenant to all those who wish to be a part of it. We, as heads of households, desire that our children be in the covenant. Therefore, we apply the sign. But we don't need proof, BECAUSE IT IS CLEAR WE'LL NEVER GET IT. God doesn't have to prove He can save someone. We know He does, and that should be enough for us.

Trust in the Lord with your whole heart and do not lean on your own understanding, but in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will make straight your paths.

In Christ,

KC

 

[Mocha]

Scott,

I asked:

In this context, would a child of believing parents, that is not baptized be considered "holy"?

You responded with:

No.

Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

Me:

But, are not unjustified people cut off from God anyway? What's the difference between an unjustified infant that has been baptized and an unjustified infant that has not been baptized? Both are unjustified and separated from God.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just having a hard time understanding how anyone can have a favourable standing before God when all are considered 'children of wath' (Eph. 2:3) until they are justified. Having said that, I realize that God's people in the Old Testament were a mixture of regenerate and unregenerate, so I guess in some sense it's possible to be unregenerate and unjustified and yet be a part of God's people. That's the part that I find really confusing and that's the part I really need to work on.

BTW, is there any place on this forum that explains how to use the 'quotes', 'underlining', etc.

One more thing, do we sign off with our user name or with our real name?

Mocha (Mike)

 

[Mocha]

Scott,

Thank you for threads and info on presumption! I will start reading them later on tonight. But for now I will respond to the last part of your post.

I had asked:

Can "in Christ" have a non-saving meaning?

You responsed with John 15:1-7 and then added:

The Greek word used here:

G3306
μεÌνω
menō
men'-o
A primary verb; to stay (in a given place, state, relation or expectancy): - abide, continue, dwell, endure, be present, remain, stand, tarry (for), X thine own.

*Stay, abide, continue.............If someone does not stay, does not abide or continue, they prove themselves to be apostates.

Me:

Wayne Grudem says the following about John 15:

"The imagery of the vine used in this parable is limited in how much detail it can teach. In fact, if Jesus had wanted to teach that there were true and false believers associated with him, and if he wanted to use the analogy of a vine and brances, then the only way he could refer to people who do not have genuine life in themselves would be to speak of branches that bear no fruit (somewhat after the anology of the seeds that fell on rocky ground and had "no root in themselves" in Mark 4:17). Here in John 15 the branches that do not bear fruit, though they are in some way connected to Jesus and give an outward appearance of being genuine branches, nonetheless give indication of their true state by the fact that they bear no fruit. This is similarly indicated by the fact that the person "does not abide" in Christ (John 15:6) and is cast off as a branch and withers. If we try and press the analogy any further, by saying, for example, that all branches on a vine really are alive or they would not be there in the first place, then we are simply trying to press the imagery beyond what it is able to teach - and in that case there would be nothing in the analogy that could represent false believers in any case. The point of the imagery is simply that those who bear fruit thereby give evidence that they are abiding in Christ; those who do not, are not abiding in him."
(Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, pgs. 795-796)

I tend to agree with Wayne Grudem. However, I believe one's presuppositions have a major influence on interpreting this passage. It may be that when I challenge my presuppositions I may have a change of view. But for now, I see "in Christ" in terms of being justified and not in terms of possibly being unsaved in the covenant.

Mocha

 

[Mocha]

Scott,

You asked steve this question:

Steve,
Do you teach your children to pray? Do you direct them to call God, "Father" or do you to tell them, "DO NOT call God father; your father is the devil!!!"

Me: Doesn't someone have to be adopted into the family of God before they can legitimately call God "Father"?

As for praying with our children and saying "Our Father", I think it has more to do with modelling the faith and showing how one should live and relate to God.

Mocha

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Mocha
Scott,

You asked steve this question:

Steve,
Do you teach your children to pray? Do you direct them to call God, "Father" or do you to tell them, "DO NOT call God father; your father is the devil!!!"

Me: Doesn't someone have to be adopted into the family of God before they can legitimately call God "Father"?

As for praying with our children and saying "Our Father", I think it has more to do with modelling the faith and showing how one should live and relate to God.

Mocha

I am not refering to you praying with your children and you claiming God as your father. I am asking specifically if you give your children on the one hand that God is their father and then on another, He is not? Are you consistant?

Modeling is one thing, being accurate and consistant is another.

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Mocha
Scott,

I asked:

In this context, would a child of believing parents, that is not baptized be considered "holy"?

You responded with:

No.

Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

Me:

But, are not unjustified people cut off from God anyway? What's the difference between an unjustified infant that has been baptized and an unjustified infant that has not been baptized? Both are unjustified and separated from God.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just having a hard time understanding how anyone can have a favourable standing before God when all are considered 'children of wath' (Eph. 2:3) until they are justified. Having said that, I realize that God's people in the Old Testament were a mixture of regenerate and unregenerate, so I guess in some sense it's possible to be unregenerate and unjustified and yet be a part of God's people. That's the part that I find really confusing and that's the part I really need to work on.

Mike, essentially all of these issues are rooted in Covenant Theology, and our understanding of the nature and extent of God's various covenants, especially regarding the invisible and visible aspects of those covenants. I would recommend getting Dr. Matthew McMahon's (webmaster) short book, A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology. Also, the first three sections of Chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession of Faith give a helpful summary of that distinction:

CHAP. XXV. - Of the Church.

1. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.

2. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

3. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.

As that expresses, we see the Covenant of Grace through which God saves His Church throughout all of redemptive history as possessing an invisible and a visible aspect, both of which are very real in terms of God's dealings with His people, and both of which have real meaning for who those people are. And as you noted above with regard to God's people in the Covenant of Grace under the Old Testament, and as Genesis 17:14, the warning passages, the olive tree and the vine parable all illustrate, some true members of God's people are non-elect and hence get cut off. But because of Perseverance of the Saints, we know that such does not happen with the elect or the invisible Church - hence the biblical notion of the visible Church, or the visible aspect of the Covenant of Grace. (Sometimes you will hear people referring to the "Covenant of Redemption," which is simply another way of talking about the invisible aspect of the Covenant of Grace.)

Here is an excerpt from a post of mine in a thread awhile back that expresses much of my thought on this concept, as I can certainly relate to you in having found it confusing:

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Lon, neither the historic Reformed faith, its confessions, or contemporary paedobaptists teach that all believers' children are definitely elect. As you rightly said, we simply believe and acknowledge that they are in covenant with God. When we say they are "in covenant" with God, that is referring to the external covenant, or the visible church, which parellels national, ethnic Israel under the Old Covenant. The difference between the external covenant and the elect (which is the internal covenant, or the invisible church) is that the former is God's primary revealed means of making and growing people in the latter, but it does not ensure membership in the latter.

Similarly, an external profession of faith does not necessarily ensure that a person is elect (within the internal covenant), either. A seemingly credible profession of faith does not definitely mean that its professor is elect. Nonetheless, it does definitely mean that they are part of the external church, and is a biblical grounds on which to presume that they are also part of the internal church. In the same way, God's general, universal promises to the children of believers (see Gen. 17:7, Deut. 30:6, Ps. 22:9-10, Ps. 103:17-18, Prov. 3:33, Prov. 11:21, Isa. 54:13, Isa. 59:21, Isa. 65:23, Jer. 32:39, Luke 1:14-15, Acts 2:39, 1 Cor. 7:14) do not definitely mean that the children receiving the promises are elect. Nonetheless, they do definitely mean that they are part of the external church, and are a biblical grounds on which to presume that they are also part of the internal church.

I hope that may at least begin to help you see where we are coming from on this. Let me know if you'd ever like to discuss it further on AIM or something.

Originally posted by Mocha
BTW, is there any place on this forum that explains how to use the 'quotes', 'underlining', etc.

See this thread.

Originally posted by Mocha
One more thing, do we sign off with our user name or with our real name?

Mocha (Mike)

If by "signing off" you are referring to typing your name at the bottom of every post, it doesn't matter which one, if any. You have to have your real name in your signature anyway, so it doesn't really matter if you type anything at the bottom of your posts or not.

[Edited on 11-11-2005 by Me Died Blue]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Originally posted by Joseph Ringling

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

So why isn't the unbelieving spouse baptised?

This has been addressed in other threads, but to restate: paedobaptists (those who baptize infant children) do not (or should not) use the text of 1 Cor. 7:14 to establish whether children of believers or their spouses should be baptized. What this text tells us is not what to do with the individuals identified, but rather that they are "holy". They are sanctified--set apart in some way--and distinguished from the world at large. The question of what, if anything, should be done to persons GOD has declared "HOLY" is established from other texts, and upon other grounds.

An infant, coming into the world de novo, has only the "rights" granted to him by God, by virtue of his individual humanity--life, first of all. Otherwise, he has virtually no "rights" at all. He belongs to his parents. They will see to his rearing and education, preparing him for emancipation and majority. He is NOT their property in the sense that they may do with him as it suits them. They will answer to GOD for their conduct toward him. Generally this takes the form of new liberties and new responsibilities as time passes. But he will become his own man one day, barring some development or defect that makes him their life-long ward.

That this is a religious and not purely natural duty, is unmistakable from the Scriptures (e.g. Deut. 6:7; Mt. 7:9-11). A parent has one relationship to his child (and a mutable one at that), and a different sort of relationship to his wife (permanent), and still other relations to the rest of his household. The passing of the Old Covenant age has not changed this natural reality.

God instructed Abraham to circumcise every male of his household. Any that refused (and think about what accepting the rite meant!) were turned out, Gen 17:14. The rest obviously made a self-conscious chioce to follow the God of Abraham, at least externally. Remember the deception and murder of Jacob's sons who persuaded the Shechemites to submit to the external rite on non-religious grounds? Simeon and Levi profaned and perverted the ordinance.

The Passover was only for the circumcised. Note the saying in Ex. 12:44 "But every man's slave that is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then shall he eat therof." So, evidently it was possible to have male household members who had not yet submitted to the rite of circumcision. The situation remained an unresolved one until either the one submitted or the master sent him out.

Thus, I think it is obvious that no grown man was ever coerced under the knife (legitimately) under the Old Covenant scheme. Persons of an age and capable of making an adult, rational decision would have to submit willingly to the rite. The same holds true under the New Covenant. Wives (or husbands) of believers should be mature and capable of making a rational decision to follow the Lord.

Therefore, I would never baptize a wife (or husband) based upon their spouse's profession, and I do not think the Bible calls for it under any circumstances, and certainly not by an appeal to 1 Cor. 7:14. Likewise, I do believe the Bible commands the baptism of infants of believers, up through any age that parents and session recognize sufficient parental authority and responsibility adheres in the relationship, justifying such baptism. This may, in some cases, be a "wisdom" issue, but God calls us in our positions of responsibility to exercise wisdom. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him" (Jas. 1:5).

 

[Mocha]

Mike, essentially all of these issues are rooted in Covenant Theology, and our understanding of the nature and extent of God's various covenants, especially regarding the invisible and visible aspects of those covenants. I would recommend getting Dr. Matthew McMahon's (webmaster) short book, A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology.

Chris, I know I am weak on my understanding of the covenants. I know I'm going to have to do some study on this to work out some of the confusion. Do you happen to know anything that might be on the www that could help me out?

I hope that may at least begin to help you see where we are coming from on this. Let me know if you'd ever like to discuss it further on AIM or something.

Thanks Chris! I just may take you up on that offer some time.

Mike

 

[Mocha]

There is one thing the paedobaptists say that has me scratching my head. There doesn't seem to be an actual command in the NT to stop giving children the sign of the covenant. I know the NT has many examples of people first believing (and/or repenting) and then being baptized, but can we depend on this alone to convince us that the other is obsolete?

One reason I find myself beginning to be attracted to the idea that there might be a continuation of giving children the sign of the covenant in the NC is because of my experience with those in the New Covenant Theology camp. They say that the 'Decalogue' does not apply to the NC because there is no positive command to obey it in the NT. Since I believe that the 'Decalogue' does apply to the NC, even though there is not a positive command to obey it in the NT, I'm wondering if we have a similar situation with regard to giving children the sign of the covenant?

I'm not saying that this is what I believe right now, but I do find myself wondering if this might be a possibility.

Any thoughts on this?

Mike

[Edited on 11-12-2005 by Mocha]

 

[Larry Hughes]

Mike,

I've been in your shoes, even the driving part, 65 miles for us.

One of the first big changes is understanding what and whose sign baptism is and specifically what it communicates and what it is not. The sign is primarily a promise, a Gospel promise and not a duty or work performed. It is dutifully done but that is not its purpose. It's primary basis is rooted in the Gospel as a sign of salvation and this is what it "points too". That's what it means to be baptized into the death of Christ and risen with Him - Gospel! It is God's sign which finds its meaning in the Gospel which is promise. Otherwise, without the Word, it is just so much water.

To argue that the sign is not given to infants because they have not the cognitive ability to express faith is to miss entirely the point of the sign and to make it something it is not, a sign of "my faith" and this applies to adults as well. Fundamentally, it is given to children of believers for the same reason the Gospel is declared to them, it points to the same thing. Conversely, just like in the hearing of the Gospel, to turn away from it, not believe unto final apostacy carries with it more wrath - because Good News came your way and you denied it.

To make it a sign of "my faith" distorts it and true saving faith from a declarative work of God, just like the Gospel, to a work of man. The believer's child is not baptized because of "their faith" (the child´s) but because of God's promise. If I as a parent do not believe in God's promise (the only way a promise can be received- trust/faith), then fundamentally we have to be honest and admit that I do not have the same faith in the same sense that the father of our faith Abraham had.

Some would say that the promise is only to those who have faith. But that too misses entirely what a promise is and puts the cart in front of the horse.

But you are purchased with the blood of Christ and thus the Father looks upon you for Christ´s sake and He sees your children as your children and he cares for them just as you must. You are a child of God for Christ´s sake and precious blood and because of this your children do indeed have a special position on this earth not afforded to others. This is not arrogance but rather true humility! Do not disdain the gift of God by pretend humility.
A demonstration of another type of earthly sign may clarify. It´s the best I a layman can do, so bear with me:

A compass is an instrument that by means of magnetism and the earth's poles points out from all locations on the earth magnetic north. As such it serves as a sign pointing to the reality of north (technically magnetic north). Where ever on the globe one finds one's self it will always point out north and orient its pointing to the north. Whoever holds it the compass signs north even if one turns around it still points north. Even if one travels accidentally or by design tangentially (degrees east and west of a north south line), orthogonally (directly 90 degree east or west) or in opposition of north (180 degrees south) - the compass will point to and signify for the pilgrim north. Hence, the compass depends not on location or the holder for its significance or what it functions as, but the objective reality of magnetic north (like baptism objectively pointing out the Father's election, the Son's redemption and the Holy Spirit's regeneration).

We may liken baptism to the compass, both signs pointing to a reality yet fully realized and not contained but pointed to by the sign itself. The holders of baptism and the compass are travelers or pilgrims in this life trusting in their final destiny but yet traveling to it unrealized (such is faith and trust). North may be likened to the Gospel, Christ and final eternal life. Along the way of travel or pilgrimage they will meet many trials and struggles within and without. In the dark of night (or dark night of the soul) they will struggle with knowing of north (Christ) but not sure if they themselves are on the correct path and this is where the compass (baptism) can come in to objectively re-ground and re-point and re-assure them back to true north (Gospel). These inward battles may come due to sin struggles, accusations and misdirection from the enemy or a general battle with some form or another of doubt and unbelief about their journey or pilgrimage, for they are traveling and pilgrimaging by faith and trust of a Word of truth but yet see the reality. To this their compass (or baptism) may reorient them to north (or the Gospel) afresh. Such help can this be that in these dark trials and though much around them looks like the wrong direction and the wrong path that by looking to their compass and trusting in what it is pointing to (yet realized), much like baptism, they can be encouraged to not give up but move on - that is refreshed by the Gospel in the sign (baptism).

It is crucial to understand that like a compass, baptism is a help to our faith and a condescension to our own inability and weakness, not a thing "œwe do"œ. This is the same fundamental purpose of a compass for we do not naturally detect north but rely on true signs to show us this north reality. It is a well known fact that left to ourselves, our own internal sense of direction and no objective signs pointing out directions, that over the length of a long journey and without reorientation by objective signs we will travel in circles. This is not unlike the Christian life in which without fresh Gospel, and the signs that point to the Gospel (holy Baptism and the Lord's Table), we begin to travel in circles over the length of time in the journey. For as in travel we become disoriented and lost, all things begin to either look the same or unrecognizable or even wrong and pretty soon if left in a woods or desert we panic and begin to wander aimlessly. This is truly walking by faith. Without a compass which points objectively for us this is how we wander. Likewise the Christian left to himself he will wander aimlessly wondering and panicking, "am I saved" and the devil and the world will be more than obliging in misguiding the Christian pilgrim as well. To this we have the wonderful gift of holy baptism (and the Lord's Supper). We have and His Word is primary without which baptism would be just water, just like a compass without markings of North, South, East and West would just be some needle floating in a fluid - none-the-less holy Baptism with the Word is a gracious condescension to our weakness of faith and need.

Since the compass sign rests not in the holder but the objective reality of magnetic north it may be given to one professing to be a traveler (adult convert) to the north (north may be analogous to the Christian pilgrim, Gospel and Christ here). However, if the professing traveler or pilgrim is really being deceptive and really never seeks north, only professing such and in reality seeks some other direction (his/her own salvation way/works), then when in the end (like to final judgment) he will not be able to claim ignorance. Why? For the maker of the compass can justly say, "My flawless compass pointed north for you, you took it and you openly chose to go south in spite of it. You have no excuse." Or conversely if the traveler or pilgrim be real, yet under disorienting duress, trial and battle by deceivers or his own weakness of determining direction looses his/her direction and way, he can quickly look at the sign (the compass) again and even though he may have erred greatly over a great distance off of the mark he can cease despairing and turn for the compass still points north and thus he may continue onward home to the north (salvation/Christ) in spite of his surroundings appearance and his life.

To the later case; it would make no sense to give "another" compass as if the first made by the Perfect compass Maker does not point north already. For it is a true and unbreakable compass, this compass, (God's baptism) cannot nor ever fails - even though the some false possessors of the compass may ignore it to his or her eternal detriment. Furthermore, it would make no sense to give a different kind of compass other than the perfect and true compass - one that functions like a watch that must first have its north hand held and calibrated to point to the carrier who in turn should be pointing north themselves. This type of "compass" (like baptism pointing primarily to one's "œown" faith) is only viewed as a valid compass and pointing "north" when it is pointing to a valid carrier and resting on the hope that the carrier is flawlessly correct and unshakeable under trials and temptations. Thus, when trials and tribulations come and the pilgrim struggles in the darkness as to where north is, this "compass" (the one pointing to self), is as useless as a stone in his pocket. This person would indeed be in danger of and ultimately left to seeking his/her own way and traveling in circles on their pilgrimage for his sign and aid depends on him and if it depends on him then it is no sign or aid at all to him but rather the other way around. In this case he will always seek another compass (rebaptism).

And is this not EXACTLY what we see with poor souls who become locked into "was I truly regenerate/saved" when I was baptized. For trial and darkness has come to them and they are struggling with whether or not they are or ever where true pilgrims going north (to Christ, the Gospel). Their poor eyes and erroneous sense of self direction roams and haunts the land seeking north (salvation/Christ) but with no true north pointing compass and only a compass they are told pointing to their own person who should be pointing north (to Christ), they endlessly struggle for they don't know if they themselves can detect the correct direction of north (their sin struggles or weak faith disorients their seeking of Christ). Some wander and wander, panicking in misery they cry out and roam the land aimlessly. Some throwing away each compass for a new one that they are told functions the same way as the previous self pointing compass, then another when another trial hits, then another when another trial hits, etc"¦ Never does their compass point north (to Christ) that they might have peace and faith for the arduous pilgrimage of the Christian faith. Thus, they know of the existence of north, that it is the true way but have lost it in the since that they are not certain of the very footsteps they themselves take. So, they circle and circle seeking either a new compass or some other sign. They hear the word of "north", they believe its reality and truth, but they subjectively wonder their own path staring at a compass that serves for nothing.

Finally, if my family and I are pilgrims and travelers together such as a family must be while we are one unit - it makes perfect sense that I would have the true treasure of the true compass bequeathed and given to my infant children to be theirs as an inheritance. This treasure and inheritance IS the Gospel and baptism IS its sign to in this life lead me and my family and their families to eternal life. I can leave no greater treasure to them and for them to give to their children well after I am gone. Why? For "me and my household shall server the Lord" (go north). And I would carefully teach them of the compasses pointing and north (salvation/home) and the danger of just sitting and not traveling north and only putting the compass in one's pocket traveling one's own way. Rather than pilgrimaging to the north (trusting Christ alone). And that this compass is for them so that if they ever despair or in dark hours of the night (of the soul) find themselves lost that this true compass, their inheritance, may reorient them. Or if the enemy should attack them confuse them that this treasure the true compass may point them afresh to north (Christ/Gospel). All of this so that they too when they reach adulthood continue on the pilgrimage that we began as a family and they too may have children pilgrims to the north (godly seed unto Christ) and pass this on to them and so on and so on as long as the Lord is pleased to have godly seed from this family.

Yet, if a child rebels and falls away for a while going east, west or south seeking their own way (works or self salvation of another form), then later come to realize their folly - then they have their compass given them graciously by providentially being in the family of pilgrims/travelers and can then repent and turn north afresh from where they are. They may one day be traveling their own way in rebellion and trial hits them. Thus, there bones are broken and they cry out to the Lord, reaching in their pocket they pull forth their compass (their baptism as infants) and they remember as they ponder it and what they have been taught what it means. Then they have a compass and can repent and turn back unto Christ being reminded afresh and redirected north again where their family before them have gone. It matters not how far off of the north path they have gone for north remains north and the compass points north.

If they remain in rebellion and continue on their own way of false north, a north of their own invention (false/works/other salvation) that is in reality and truth west, east or south or some variation thereof, then at the end of the journey (life to death to eternal) they find themselves in their direction, they have no one to blame, not the true compass (baptism) not the compass maker (God) and not their family who gave them the true compass or their fellow pilgrims (the church) for all pointed out true north. The compass pointed out north and much to their accusing consciences they must realize too late that they ignored willfully the true compass and warnings and chose their own way and will now never arrive at north (Christ and heaven).

Thus, by this analogy we can see that baptism must never be repeated, even upon infants, for it rest in an objective reality of Christ alone. It depends not the least upon the holder of it and it should and must be given to family members children as a gift to their souls. Like the compass one would not willy nilly just give away the true compass to one in adulthood who manifestly despises its direction pointing and seeks his own ability and way. These are manifest strangers to us, we can and do and should say where true north is "would you like to go north and have a compass". But to a family member a child it is wrong, yes even sinful, to not leave unto them who are under your very own teaching this compass for they are your family as opposed to a complete stranger. To the stranger you offer the word of truth for him/her and their family. But to your own family you pass on the inheritance. How wrong it is to not teach one's children true north and how to rightly use their true compass (baptism), either way. How wrong it is to not give one's children the true compass even and especially before they may understand it!

For you do not know when you may be separated from your children in this life and then what will they have? If they have not baptism then they ultimately will realize within themselves, like I did, that they have no connection to the church. And they will go their own way even more rebelliously. If they have baptism it will at least be a gnawing reality they must have in the back of their mind. They may, dreadfully, never come to faith, but the sign is still on them and their in lies hope.

Larry

 

[Larry Hughes]

Mike,

New Covenant Theology = wrong on that issue. The Sermon on the Mound is the decalog to the 10th power. How about the Great Commandment?

 

[Steve Owen]

Originally posted by Mocha
There is one thing the paedobaptists say that has me scratching my head. There doesn't seem to be an actual command in the NT to stop giving children the sign of the covenant. I know the NT has many examples of people first believing (and/or repenting) and then being baptized, but can we depend on this alone to convince us that the other is obsolete?

Hi Mike,
First of all, yes, it is sufficient that there is no command to baptize infants in the Bible and no example of it. We should follow the Regulative Principle on this as on other things.

Secondly, Reformed Baptists note that according to Jer 31:31ff and Heb 8:8-11, the New Covenant is not like the Old. Specifically, in the New Covenant everyone knows the Lord. Therefore we cannot bring anyone into the New covenant by circumcising or baptizing them. People come into the NC by faith. Therefore only those who profess faith are suitable for the ordinance of baptism.

One reason I find myself beginning to be attracted to the idea that there might be a continuation of giving children the sign of the covenant in the NC is because of my experience with those in the New Covenant Theology camp. They say that the 'Decalogue' does not apply to the NC because there is no positive command to obey it in the NT. Since I believe that the 'Decalogue' does apply to the NC, even though there is not a positive command to obey it in the NT, I'm wondering if we have a similar situation with regard to giving children the sign of the covenant?

New Covenant theology is not the same as Reformed Baptist theology. God's moral law is eternal. Baptism is not; it is not mentioned until the NT (1Cor 10:2 notwithstanding).

Grace & Peace,

Martin

 

[Scott Bushey]

Hi Mike,
First of all, yes, it is sufficient that there is no command to baptize infants in the Bible and no example of it. We should follow the Regulative Principle on this as on other things.

Looks like a command to me:

Gen 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,
Gen 17:13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.
Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

Num 23:19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

Mal 3:6 "For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.

It is not circumcision that is important. It is that a sign is placed.

Secondly, Reformed Baptists note that according to Jer 31:31ff and Heb 8:8-11, the New Covenant is not like the Old. Specifically, in the New Covenant everyone knows the Lord. Therefore we cannot bring anyone into the New covenant by circumcising or baptizing them. People come into the NC by faith. Therefore only those who profess faith are suitable for the ordinance of baptism.

How is this any different today from the time of Jeremiah?

One reason I find myself beginning to be attracted to the idea that there might be a continuation of giving children the sign of the covenant in the NC is because of my experience with those in the New Covenant Theology camp. They say that the 'Decalogue' does not apply to the NC because there is no positive command to obey it in the NT. Since I believe that the 'Decalogue' does apply to the NC, even though there is not a positive command to obey it in the NT, I'm wondering if we have a similar situation with regard to giving children the sign of the covenant?

Exactly. That is what baptism is.

[Edited on 11-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Mocha
There is one thing the paedobaptists say that has me scratching my head. There doesn't seem to be an actual command in the NT to stop giving children the sign of the covenant. I know the NT has many examples of people first believing (and/or repenting) and then being baptized, but can we depend on this alone to convince us that the other is obsolete?

As people on both sides should acknowledge, treating those examples as positive evidence against the biblical validity of paedobaptism would not itself be sufficient, as it would be begging the question - for under both the credobaptist and paedobaptist views, people in that time would not have been baptized when they were infants simply because baptism had not even been instated yet; so of course there are going to be many adult baptisms at the time it is instated, in light of the paedobaptist view just as well as the credobaptist.

Originally posted by Mocha
One reason I find myself beginning to be attracted to the idea that there might be a continuation of giving children the sign of the covenant in the NC is because of my experience with those in the New Covenant Theology camp. They say that the 'Decalogue' does not apply to the NC because there is no positive command to obey it in the NT. Since I believe that the 'Decalogue' does apply to the NC, even though there is not a positive command to obey it in the NT, I'm wondering if we have a similar situation with regard to giving children the sign of the covenant?

While, as Martin pointed out, New Covenant Theology is drastically different from the view of Covenant Theology that Reformed, Particular Baptists believe, the principle you mention here is indeed at the heart of the paedobaptist understanding, in the continuation-unless-explicitly-declared-obsolete hermeneutic specifically applied to the issue of the sign, as Scott noted. A case most Particular Baptists seeem to make against that argument is that God's promises to believers' children (such as the Scriptures I included in my previous post) were never spiritual and covenantal in nature in the first place, but either purely civil in nature or else only applicable to believers themselves as children of the nation, which seems to me like a very stretched and forced interpretations of those texts that are most simply and directly interpreted as speaking of spiritual blessings to the children of believers.

 

[Steve Owen]

Larry,
I know from our private conversation that you profoundly believe what you wrote above, but I have to point out that you were not able to append a single verse of Scripture to such a long post. It sounds great but it simply isn't right.

Part of your problem is that you don't understand Reformed Baptist theology. I would recommend you and others to read the RBTR, if only on the basis of 'Know your enemy'. Then you wouldn't be bringing up all the straw men that you do.

Reformed Baptists do not make baptism a 'sign of "my faith". Read the 1689 Confession. According to that, it is, 'A sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection, of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.'

However, it remains the fact that 'without faith it is impossible to please God' (Heb 11:6 ), and it was those who 'gladly received' the Gospel who were baptized on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41 ). No one else.

Martin