Give me one positive command to baptize infants please

[Iconoclast]

Why did Peter add, "and to your children" in Acts 2:39?


"Repent, and be baptized everyone of you, for the promise is to you and to your children."

The Baptist assumes the children must repent.


If someone said,
"Work hard, and enjoy the fruit of your labor, everyone of you, for the abundance is to you and to your children."

Does the Baptist also assume the children must work hard?

But you left a very important part of the verse out: as many as the Lord our God will call.

"Repent, and be baptized everyone of you, for the promise is to you and to your children, as many as the Lord our God will call."

The equivalent in your example would be:

"Work hard, and enjoy the fruit of your labor, everyone of you, for the abundance is to you and to your children, as many as the boss selects."

By this, the Baptist would assume that only those whom are chosen by the boss get the abundance. But you would have everyone getting abundance whether they have been actually selected or not.

Hello again, Pastor.
Thanks for the challenge.
Those who work show they have been selected. But children are not in the pool of potential selectees because they are not yet able to work. When they are able to work (profess belief) it will be manifest if the boss has selected them. In the meanwhile they benefit from a representative (patriarch of household) in enjoying the abundance (outward Baptism)

And another thing! The "promise" was the Holy Spirit, as promised in the New Covenant. Are you suggesting by using this verse that all children of believers automatically receive the Holy Spirit?

Since Peter is quoting Genesis, the promise is all the benefits of Christ promised to Abraham. No, I'm not saying all who are baptized are elect, I'm saying the promise is to individuals in households who do not grow up to despise their baptism. In other words, "you are now saved if you persevere in faith. If you do not persevere in faith, you are not now saved." This is the promise to holy infants.

These last two paragraphs are very troubling. It almost sounds like something I heard from the auburn avenue conference, confusing santification, with justification.
Using this logic[ I'm saying the promise is to individuals in households who do not grow up to despise their baptism.] Let us just baptize all babies born everywhere,and if they do not grow up to despise their baptism they also will be saved?
The question asked about the promise of the Holy Spirit once again re-surfaces.
Any child or adult who does not have the Holy Spirit is not Christ's Rom8:9. Rom.9:8

 

[Iconoclast]

Why would it require us to deny that any infant can be saved? I don't deny that God may count the child who dies in infancy as one of His elect; I merely hold that we are not privy to that knowledge. Rather, what we do know is that the child was born in sin, and that without God's saving grace, he or she is condemned. Therefore, I would withhold baptism until understanding of sin, repentence, and faith has been demonstrated.

If you believe that an infant can be saved, then I must ask, by what? By the covenant of works or by the covenant of grace? Not by the covenant of works, because he stands condemned by it. Then it must be by the covenant of grace and redemption in Jesus Christ. What is baptism, but a sign of the covenant of grace and a seal of redemption by Jesus Christ. Well then, if God has His elect amongst infants, and purposes to save them by the covenant of grace and redemption in Christ, surely He would require the sign and seal of these things to be given to them in order to serve as a means of strengthening their faith and preparing them for glory.

Matthew, The only clear sign and seal in the Nt. is Spirit baptism. Eph 1:13 1cor12:13
It is clear and sure because it is only said to be true of God's elect.
Water baptism, is no seal of redemption. Water baptism is an outward sign of Identification with Christ. In Acts this is how water baptism was used. Those who outwardly professed that they believed, by an inward work of the Spirit used water baptism as an outward sign.
The outward sign was only given to those who professed this[ male or female]. This is different from the OT.sign of circumcision to the male infant only,which was only outward and physical to those of the physical nation who were non elect,

 

[Semper Fidelis]

These last two paragraphs are very troubling. It almost sounds like something I heard from the auburn avenue conference, confusing santification, with justification.
Using this logic[ I'm saying the promise is to individuals in households who do not grow up to despise their baptism.] Let us just baptize all babies born everywhere,and if they do not grow up to despise their baptism they also will be saved?
The question asked about the promise of the Holy Spirit once again re-surfaces.
Any child or adult who does not have the Holy Spirit is not Christ's Rom8:9. Rom.9:8

MOD ON

Please read the new Baptism guidelines Anthony. Before you begin accusing men of the Federal Vision error I expect due diligence on your part. If you want to ask questions to clarify then do so but do not accuse men of conflating the sign with the thing signified unless you understand the difference.

If you do not then either study the Paedo confession further or ask for clarification.

But do not accuse of an un-Confessional error unless it is grounded.

 

[44jason]

Rich asked:

What do you attribute to the fact that you guys regularly call them unregenerate until they profess then? Do you know this? I usually hear that, because you do not know, you must assume them all reprobate. If so, is this not, in a sense, punishing the elect that might be among your children? Instead, what about the hope you could have for them if you weren't so concerned that every child was a wolf among the sheep?

Rich, there is a great difference between being unregenerate and reprobate.
There is a great difference between being unelect and unconverted.
Your assertions are just based on false theological presuppositions that makes a response impossible beyond saying, maybe you don't understand the differences between these realities. BUT I do believe you know the difference. So why are you acting like you don't?

Anyway, you said,

What do you attribute to the fact that you guys regularly call them unregenerate until they profess then?

Do you call all the infants you baptize regenerate? Of course not. So your comparison has no basis.

Then you said

so concerned that every child was a wolf among the sheep

Another false accusation. Are you claiming that I assume my youngest son and daughter are wolves? Are you calling my children wolves because I didn't baptize them as infants? No of course you aren't. But are you saying that me and my wife think this of our kids just because we didn't baptize them as infants???

You continue by saying about my family:

I simply believe you are impoverishing the elect among you for the fear of them being reprobate.

My wife and I are impoverishing our children by not baptizing them before their conversion but after?? You really believe that?

Is paedobaptism now a crapshoot: Baptize them all so I don't accidentally miss any elect?

Rich, I think I actually would like to go back to arguing with Paul M. At least his statements were aimed at me rather than my entire family.

Not only that, you charge my church: saying of our children's ministry

I know they are welcome to attend but you still say of them: unregenerate! That they are welcome does not change what you're saying to them to their face.

I wrote all of the above in a reply but did not post it.I had already been in enough hot water with Paul M. today. So I decided to wait and see if any moderator would call Rich on this (whom I notice is an administrator.) I thank Joe Johnson for calling Rich on these types of statements. And I appreciate Rich thinking about it. (With Fall coming soon, I wish I could actually keep all of Rich's strawmen

So, since I don't need to respond to Rich's false presuppositions and more, let me just say to Mark Geoffriau -- THANK YOU! Finally I don't feel alone when disagreeing with this "consider infants regenerate until they prove otherwise" or "infants haven't sinned yet" theology.

 

[Iconoclast]

David,
Acts 2:39 refers to the promise of the New Covenant being fulfilled in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus the reference to the OT wording of the New Covenant promise. The children reference is not a promise that all the children of believers are in the New Covenant, either internally or externally, but it is a promise that the Holy Spirit will be given to all who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

For you to use this verse as a proof-text for paedo-baptism not only requires an improper exegesis but ultimately makes God a liar since not all children of believers actually receive the Holy Spirit as your exegesis would promise.

Good post, I do not think the padeo's when discussing baptism see the promise as much of the Holy Spirit, as what they say the Holy Spirit might be doing secretly.
When you ask the Padeo to discuss the 5-pts. they will hit the nail on the head everytime in regards to soteriology that a person must be born of the Spirit. They will very plain agree that without the Spirit a person is not Christ's.
Yet in discussing baptism somehow there is this very very gray area, about the condition of the covenant child. He might be in the Covenant of grace, but we are not sure.
He might be in saving union with Christ from conception, but maybe not, or maybe later on, or never.
We who believe are instructed to instruct our children. We also know that without a person being indwelt by the Spirit, they cannot receive the things of the Spirit.
However if you read many of these posts,somehow the covenant child seems to be able to
have an "ability" to welcome these things,before conversion, or partially.

 

[44jason]

Just to be clear, and fair, I am sure my statements:

"consider infants regenerate until they prove otherwise" or "infants haven't sinned yet" theology

will be denied by my infant-sprinkling brothers. But I can't help the fact that this is what your theology sounds like.

Anthony,

Good post, I do not think the padeo's when discussing baptism see the promise as much of the Holy Spirit, as what they say the Holy Spirit might be doing secretly.
When you ask the Padeo to discuss the 5-pts. they will hit the nail on the head everytime in regards to soteriology that a person must be born of the Spirit. They will very plain agree that without the Spirit a person is not Christ's. Yet in discussing baptism somehow there is this very very gray area, about the condition of the covenant child. He might be in the Covenant of grace, but we are not sure. He might be in saving union with Christ from conception, but maybe not, or maybe later on, or never.
We who believe are instructed to instruct our children. We also know that without a person being indwelt by the Spirit, they cannot receive the things of the Spirit.
However if you read many of these posts,somehow the covenant child seems to be able to have an "ability" to welcome these things,before conversion, or partially.

Thank you for the kind words. And also thank you for the concise summary of your thoughts that I share and affirm. God bless you.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich asked:

What do you attribute to the fact that you guys regularly call them unregenerate until they profess then? Do you know this? I usually hear that, because you do not know, you must assume them all reprobate. If so, is this not, in a sense, punishing the elect that might be among your children? Instead, what about the hope you could have for them if you weren't so concerned that every child was a wolf among the sheep?

Rich, there is a great difference between being unregenerate and reprobate.
There is a great difference between being unelect and unconverted.
Your assertions are just based on false theological presuppositions that makes a response impossible beyond saying, maybe you don't understand the differences between these realities. BUT I do believe you know the difference. So why are you acting like you don't?

You are right, I used the word reprobate sloppily. I tried to catch the places where I did. Whether reprobate or unregenerate, you certainly did spend an awful lot of time trying to convince me there was nothing special about our children until your children came into view. You see, the difference between us, I suppose, is that I cannot argue in my head about baptism without thinking about my own children when I'm doing it.

Anyway, you said,

What do you attribute to the fact that you guys regularly call them unregenerate until they profess then?

Do you call all the infants you baptize regenerate? Of course not. So your comparison has no basis.

No, but surely you understand the asymmetry here. Do you not see a difference between you saying: "These are surely unregenerate before they profess."

and me saying: "I do not have sufficient information about the regenerate status for any in the visible Church."

Then you said
Another false accusation. Are you claiming that I assume my youngest son and daughter are wolves? Are you calling my children wolves because I didn't baptize them as infants? No of course you aren't. But are you saying that me and my wife think this of our kids just because we didn't baptize them as infants???

I don't know what you think of them brother. I'm trying to work from your premises. If they are unregenerate then what is the functional difference between them and any other God hater? If you are offended by the conclusion of your premises why do you keep arguing it to me? I'm not saying your wife and you think this of your children at all. I assumed you were arguing with your head for a theology and then when your kids came up you didn't like what you were hearing yourself say about them - namely that they are unregenerate. I assume you love your children dearly and treat them very well. I'm trying to determine what the necessary conclusion of your view that all children in the Church that are not professors are in the flesh means for you.

You continue by saying about my family:

I simply believe you are impoverishing the elect among you for the fear of them being reprobate.

My wife and I are impoverishing our children by not baptizing them before their conversion but after?? You really believe that?

I should have said unregenerate again. I apologize for my carelessness. I don't believe you are purposefully impoverishing them. I believe you are doing what you think God requires of you. From my standpoint, however, if they are elect then you repeatedly saying of them that they are unregenerate is an impoverishment of the manner in which you might otherwise nurture them. I'm thinking like a man who believe in Covenant nurture. You are thinking like a Baptist. That's fine. I don't know why you have to assume this is a personal attack. I know we're talking about your kids but why wasn't I warranted to be indignant when you were talking about my young'uns and calling them children of the flesh? See how smiley they are above (and Sophia too in my profile). Do they deserve to be called children of the flesh until they've proven otherwise and Scripture calls them holy?

Is paedobaptism now a crapshoot: Baptize them all so I don't accidentally miss any elect?

Again, I would urge you to read the Confessions. I assume you are a man of integrity and must not understand our view of baptism to be making this facile statement.

Rich, I think I actually would like to go back to arguing with Paul M. At least his statements were aimed at me rather than my entire family.

Well, again Brother, when we're talking about Covenant theology, every time you denigrate Baptism and you say of my Covenant children that they are children of the flesh when they have not rebelled against God in any way to make that pronouncement, you are always talking about my entire family. I don't understand, personally, how Baptists can work so hard to say of their kids that they are just like any other heathen under the wrath of God and then get bent out of shape when I say the same thing to you.

Seriously, this is not meant to insult or attack you as a father. If you felt like I was being specifically mean to you and yours then I apologize. I do think you need to be more existential in your criticisms, however, and remember that you are talking about your own children when you argue that all non-Confessing children are just like the world.

Not only that, you charge my church: saying of our children's ministry

I know they are welcome to attend but you still say of them: unregenerate! That they are welcome does not change what you're saying to them to their face.

Is this a lie? I have heard Gene say it. I have heard you say that non-Confessing children are unregenerate. Do you only say it on the Narrow Mind or do you say it at Church too. If you only say it behind their backs then I apologize for stating that you say it to their face. Again, this is not about you being purposefully mean but do you deny that you have repeatedly argued that non-Confessing children are unregenerate?

I wrote all of the above in a reply but did not post it.I had already been in enough hot water with Paul M. today. So I decided to wait and see if any moderator would call Rich on this (whom I notice is an administrator.) I thank Joe Johnson for calling Rich on these types of statements. And I appreciate Rich thinking about it. (With Fall coming soon, I wish I could actually keep all of Rich's strawmen

As I have stated, if I have presented a strawman based on the Baptist premise that all non-confessing children are unregenerate then I will retract. If the premise is incorrect that all non-confessing children are unregenerate then the conclusions do not follow.

Incidentally, I believe that you are doing your best toward your children and are loving them and treating them like Covenant children. I have noted this before. I believe this is inconsistent with your premises and this is why it is so frustrating for you when we get out of the ideal world of the New Covenant and down on the ground where Saints are being converted by the ministry of Word and Sacrament.

So, since I don't need to respond to Rich's false presuppositions and more

Which false presupposition would that be?

 

[Iconoclast]

These last two paragraphs are very troubling. It almost sounds like something I heard from the auburn avenue conference, confusing santification, with justification.
Using this logic[ I'm saying the promise is to individuals in households who do not grow up to despise their baptism.] Let us just baptize all babies born everywhere,and if they do not grow up to despise their baptism they also will be saved?
The question asked about the promise of the Holy Spirit once again re-surfaces.
Any child or adult who does not have the Holy Spirit is not Christ's Rom8:9. Rom.9:8

MOD ON

Please read the new Baptism guidelines Anthony. Before you begin accusing men of the Federal Vision error I expect due diligence on your part. If you want to ask questions to clarify then do so but do not accuse men of conflating the sign with the thing signified unless you understand the difference.

If you do not then either study the Paedo confession further or ask for clarification.

But do not accuse of an un-Confessional error unless it is grounded.

Rich, 1] what new guidelines?where are they?
2] I did not accuse anyone of the federal vision error. I know the men on the board all repudiate that heretical teaching. I spent an hour reading through this thread,and several of the arguments based on logic or that sound somewhat conditional do not sound any different to me than what i heard by Doug Wilson, or Steve Schlissel.That is my opinion.
I have not accused anyone here of that error , And if anyone got that impression that was not my intent.
3] you keep saying this idea about "conflating" things when you respond to my posts.
This is why we often do not come to agreement.
I do not agree with your understanding of it. I think you often try to keep seperate, what the scripture does blend together. Others have the same concerns as I read their posts.
Look in this thread alone. many of the credo's see the inconsistencies and raise questions. To your credit you do offer a response as do some of the other men.
But if we were all agreed at this point,we would not be going back and forth as we do.
These discussions help frame out the issues, but only the Lord can allow someone to see and hold what they understand.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

These last two paragraphs are very troubling. It almost sounds like something I heard from the auburn avenue conference, confusing santification, with justification.
Using this logic[ I'm saying the promise is to individuals in households who do not grow up to despise their baptism.] Let us just baptize all babies born everywhere,and if they do not grow up to despise their baptism they also will be saved?
The question asked about the promise of the Holy Spirit once again re-surfaces.
Any child or adult who does not have the Holy Spirit is not Christ's Rom8:9. Rom.9:8

MOD ON

Please read the new Baptism guidelines Anthony. Before you begin accusing men of the Federal Vision error I expect due diligence on your part. If you want to ask questions to clarify then do so but do not accuse men of conflating the sign with the thing signified unless you understand the difference.

If you do not then either study the Paedo confession further or ask for clarification.

But do not accuse of an un-Confessional error unless it is grounded.

Rich, 1] what new guidelines?where are they?
2] I did not accuse anyone of the federal vision error. I know the men on the board all repudiate that heretical teaching. I spent an hour reading through this thread,and several of the arguments based on logic or that sound somewhat conditional do not sound any different to me than what i heard by Doug Wilson, or Steve Schlissel.That is my opinion.
I have not accused anyone here of that error , And if anyone got that impression that was not my intent.
3] you keep saying this idea about "conflating" things when you respond to my posts.
This is why we often do not come to agreement.
I do not agree with your understanding of it. I think you often try to keep seperate, what the scripture does blend together. Others have the same concerns as I read their posts.
Look in this thread alone. many of the credo's see the inconsistencies and raise questions. To your credit you do offer a response as do some of the other men.
But if we were all agreed at this point,we would not be going back and forth as we do.
These discussions help frame out the issues, but only the Lord can allow someone to see and hold what they understand.

They are here Brother: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=24468

When you say of a man that it sounds like Auburn Avenue then you are not asking questions at that point.

I know this is frustrating. The reason inconsistencies are seen is because of basic presuppositional differences. There are very few paedos on this board that understand credo- presups clearly and very few credos that understand paedo presups.

One of the reasons that Baptists often say that the Federal Vision theology is the logical conclusion to a Confessional reformed view on Baptism is that the Federal vision is actually a mash-up of a Baptist view of the sign of Baptism with a Paedo view.

When a credo-baptist baptizes a man you want to wait until you can administer it to a man who you can say: "Surely this signifies of you what is being given you." That is the sign is conflated with the thing signified.

In like manner, the Federal Vision theology retains the idea of baptizing children but they believe, like Baptists, that when a person is baptized it is because: "Surely this signifies of you what is being given you." The sign is again conflated with the thing signified.

Baptists retain the notion that a person must be united to Christ by faith in order to be saved. The FV believes that a person must be united to Christ by Covenant and stay in Covenant in order to be saved.

I don't want to draw this out but I'm just saying that you need to be careful in ascribing a theological error to all Confessing paedobaptists here.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

David,
Acts 2:39 refers to the promise of the New Covenant being fulfilled in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus the reference to the OT wording of the New Covenant promise. The children reference is not a promise that all the children of believers are in the New Covenant, either internally or externally, but it is a promise that the Holy Spirit will be given to all who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

For you to use this verse as a proof-text for paedo-baptism not only requires an improper exegesis but ultimately makes God a liar since not all children of believers actually receive the Holy Spirit as your exegesis would promise.

Good post, I do not think the padeo's when discussing baptism see the promise as much of the Holy Spirit, as what they say the Holy Spirit might be doing secretly.

Are you saying that it is visible contra John 3 in terms of us knowing who is truly regnerate?

When you ask the Padeo to discuss the 5-pts. they will hit the nail on the head everytime in regards to soteriology that a person must be born of the Spirit. They will very plain agree that without the Spirit a person is not Christ's.

Well, yes, because you guys got the 5 points from us.

Yet in discussing baptism somehow there is this very very gray area, about the condition of the covenant child. He might be in the Covenant of grace, but we are not sure.
He might be in saving union with Christ from conception, but maybe not, or maybe later on, or never.

I'm not sure why you call this a very very gray area. Let me just say that the confusion exists because, again, you seem to think that a professor is the only type of elect Saint that exists. Yet, assuming that is true, at best we can say of the entire visible Church that each saint might be in saving union with Christ on the one hand but preach to them all with confidence as Paul does in Romans 4-8 as if all are in union with Christ. We simply assume the best of everyone in the visible Church until they rebel.

This issue of rebellion is an interesting point. Consider this for a second Anthony. Notice how certain you are that a non-professing person in your Church is unregenerate until they confess. Now, they profess and you treat them (rightly) as if they are regenerate but you also seem to want to state with dogmatic confidence that they must be regenerate if they are confessing.

Now, if the brother is brought under Church discipline and he is excommunicated as the man in 1 Corinthians for being unrepentant and denying his faith, do you have the same confidence of him now that he is unregenerate? Think carefully about this for a moment. If profession and non-profession is truly the arbiter for our knowledge of regeneration then ought we not assume that a man visibly is regenerate when profession is made and then unregnerate whe profession is denied and then regenerate again when restored to fellowship?

We who believe are instructed to instruct our children. We also know that without a person being indwelt by the Spirit, they cannot receive the things of the Spirit.
However if you read many of these posts,somehow the covenant child seems to be able to
have an "ability" to welcome these things,before conversion, or partially.

Conversion follows regeneration. This is the way it works and I know it's not satisfactory to your way of thinking but here it is:

1. God commands us to raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord.
2. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
3. Fools despise wisdom.
4. Fools are unbelievers.

Hence, if non-Confessing children must be presumed unregenerate then we are commanded by God to train fools in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

The very command of God has to give us some hope then when we're instructing our children that the work is not completely futile and that God is not sending us on a fool's errand.

 

[Iconoclast]

guidelines

Rich,
I like the guidelines and if I had read them first I would have worded my concern more in athe form of a question . Again I did not intend it to sound like an attack to anyone ,just a concern.
I agree that it is useful to have these discussions as I have learned much from them and agree with your accessment that it is healthy to be open in these things.

When I try to use the quote feature,how do you get more than One white box?
I always wind up with the whole post copied, rather than one idea at a time?
so I will just cut and paste till i figure it out[ carolina calvinist tried to tell me how, but I kept messing it up!

Quote:
When you ask the Padeo to discuss the 5-pts. they will hit the nail on the head everytime in regards to soteriology that a person must be born of the Spirit. They will very plain agree that without the Spirit a person is not Christ's.

Well, yes, because you guys got the 5 points from us.

Actually, I see the apostles as the first reformed baptists,covered up by the errors of the Roman Church, partly uncovered by the reformers

This issue of rebellion is an interesting point. Consider this for a second Anthony. Notice how certain you are that a non-professing person in your Church is unregenerate until they confess. Now, they profess and you treat them (rightly) as if they are regenerate but you also seem to want to state with dogmatic confidence that they must be regenerate if they are confessing.

Let me try to clarify here this part; [but you also seem to want to state with dogmatic confidence that they must be regenerate if they are confessing.]
The way you believe God works through the family drawing out His elect. I believe God works through the professing Church.
In this biblical example from 2tim2. let me know if you agree here.

15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

17And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

18Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

19Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

20But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

21If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

These two vessels of dishonor although among the church , were not really part of the church, or those spoken of in verse 19 [ the Lord knoweth those that are His,ie the church, the sheep, or perhaps to use the term I do not like and resist at all cost, the "invisible church"]

When we see those among us that give no evidence of the fruit of the new birth, or their teaching is a clear denial of the faith once delievered, we are called to address them.
this is what you asked next :
You said: Now, if the brother is brought under Church discipline and he is excommunicated as the man in 1 Corinthians for being unrepentant and denying his faith, do you have the same confidence of him now that he is unregenerate? Think carefully about this for a moment. If profession and non-profession is truly the arbiter for our knowledge of regeneration then ought we not assume that a man visibly is regenerate when profession is made and then unregnerate whe profession is denied and then regenerate again when restored to fellowship?

This is where almost all reformed baptists I know would look to 1 jn 2:19
We are our brothers keeper, but as even Paul says if any man that is "called a brother"
commit sin we are to react accordingly.
I believe you would do something similar with anyone who is said to be a brother but looks and sounds more like a goat than a sheep.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich,
I like the guidelines and if I had read them first I would have worded my concern more in athe form of a question . Again I did not intend it to sound like an attack to anyone ,just a concern.

Understood. It was a friendly reminder and not a harsh rebuke.

When I try to use the quote feature,how do you get more than One white box?
I always wind up with the whole post copied, rather than one idea at a time?
so I will just cut and paste till i figure it out[ carolina calvinist tried to tell me how, but I kept messing it up!

Whenever you want to quote something you need to start the quoted portion with a quote tag and close it by one. I know these get really confusing because there is alot of text and several quote tags but a simple quote lookes like this:

[quote]Insert text here[/quote]

But what happens is that sometimes you only want to quote part of it and there are nested quotes. Just make sure that you count the number of open "quote" tags equals the number of close "/quote" tags to ensure that your quoted text looks right. For instance here is what a nested quote looks like:

[quote][quote]Hey you said this...[/quote]No I didn't say this[/quote]

Which will look like this:

Hey you said this...

No I didn't say this

See how the number of quote equals the number of /quote that close it?

Quote:
When you ask the Padeo to discuss the 5-pts. they will hit the nail on the head everytime in regards to soteriology that a person must be born of the Spirit. They will very plain agree that without the Spirit a person is not Christ's.

Well, yes, because you guys got the 5 points from us.

Actually, I see the apostles as the first reformed baptists,covered up by the errors of the Roman Church, partly uncovered by the reformers

Well, yes, the Reformed recovered the catholic faith but, the point is that the 5 points originated from the Council of Dort which was a reaction to the Remonstrants.

This issue of rebellion is an interesting point. Consider this for a second Anthony. Notice how certain you are that a non-professing person in your Church is unregenerate until they confess. Now, they profess and you treat them (rightly) as if they are regenerate but you also seem to want to state with dogmatic confidence that they must be regenerate if they are confessing.

Let me try to clarify here this part; [but you also seem to want to state with dogmatic confidence that they must be regenerate if they are confessing.]
The way you believe God works through the family drawing out His elect. I believe God works through the professing Church.
In this biblical example from 2tim2. let me know if you agree here.

15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

17And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

18Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

19Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

20But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

21If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.

These two vessels of dishonor although among the church , were not really part of the church, or those spoken of in verse 19 [ the Lord knoweth those that are His,ie the church, the sheep, or perhaps to use the term I do not like and resist at all cost, the "invisible church"]

When we see those among us that give no evidence of the fruit of the new birth, or their teaching is a clear denial of the faith once delievered, we are called to address them.

Are you saying then that every act of Church discipline, in your estimation is saying that a man is reprobate? The Lord certainly knows who are His elect but you do not.

this is what you asked next :
You said: Now, if the brother is brought under Church discipline and he is excommunicated as the man in 1 Corinthians for being unrepentant and denying his faith, do you have the same confidence of him now that he is unregenerate? Think carefully about this for a moment. If profession and non-profession is truly the arbiter for our knowledge of regeneration then ought we not assume that a man visibly is regenerate when profession is made and then unregnerate whe profession is denied and then regenerate again when restored to fellowship?

This is where almost all reformed baptists I know would look to 1 jn 2:19
We are our brothers keeper, but as even Paul says if any man that is "called a brother"
commit sin we are to react accordingly.
I believe you would do something similar with anyone who is said to be a brother but looks and sounds more like a goat than a sheep.

I think you are missing my point Anthony. Paul commanded that the man under Church discipline needed to be put out in one passage (treated like a tax collector) but for the purpose of causing him to repent. Most Baptists will acknowledge that Church discipline is intended to be restorative and they pray that a man will return from his apostate condition as they do not know whether he is elect or not. They do not presume he is unregerate but hope he is regenerate and that conviction will fall upon him.

Thus, I find a strange contrast in presumption at this point on the part of Reformed Baptists. On the one hand, a child is presumed unregenerate who has not yet rebelled but simply has not professed. On the other hand, a man who has both rebelled and denied the faith receives the judgment of charity from the Church and the Church hopes for his repentance.

How do you account for this assymetry?

 

[Calvibaptist]

I don't know what you think of them brother. I'm trying to work from your premises. If they are unregenerate then what is the functional difference between them and any other God hater?

Are you talking about children when they are born, or after they have been instructed for a few years. Honestly, Rich, sometimes it sounds (to us Baptists at least) as if you believe your children pop out regenerate. But the teaching of Scripture is that in Adam, all sinned. That is the teaching of your confession as well. So everyone is born in sin and unregenerate.

From my standpoint, however, if they are elect then you repeatedly saying of them that they are unregenerate is an impoverishment of the manner in which you might otherwise nurture them.

Elect does not equal regenerate. If it did, there would be no need for the cross of Christ.

See how smiley they are above (and Sophia too in my profile). Do they deserve to be called children of the flesh until they've proven otherwise and Scripture calls them holy?

I will admit, it is hard to look at a picture of your kids (who are too cute) and consider them children of the flesh. But Ephesians 2 says that we are all born, by nature, children of wrath and under the judgment of almighty God. Romans 3 says that all have sinned. No matter how cute kids look, they are born in the flesh, without the Spirit of God. There are some adorable kids in my sons first grade class that have never been to church a day in their lives. They don't look any less cute than your kids do, but you would consider them unregenerate simply because they aren't children of believers.

As I have stated, if I have presented a strawman based on the Baptist premise that all non-confessing children are unregenerate then I will retract. If the premise is incorrect that all non-confessing children are unregenerate then the conclusions do not follow.

I am going to admit something here as a Baptist. We don't really know when our kids "get regenerated." If we are doing our job as parents, we are teaching them from the day they come home about the gospel. We are not only telling them to repent and believe in the gospel, but we are showing them how the gospel touches every facet of our lives. When daddy gets a pay cut, we are teaching our kids by our word and our actions how the gospel affects our trust in God. When tragedy strikes our family, our reliance on God is a function of the gospel and is taught to our kids. When we sin and repent, we are teaching our kids the gospel. When God blesses our family with another child, we see it as a result of the cross and teach our kids that all of God's blessings flow to His people through the cross of Christ. We teach the catechism, we have Sunday School, we worship together as a church, we worship together as a family. All of this is loaded with the gospel.

Now, here is my point. When, exactly, does the gospel produce the desired effect (regeneration). At age 2? Age 6? Age 15? No one knows. That is our problem as Baptists. When do we baptize. Is a child regenerate a long time before they confess? We don't really know. There was another thread about this already. But the problem still exists.

One thing I am beginning to understand about paedos is that you don't look for a big "moment of conversion" from your children because you expect that the gospel will have its effect. Baptists, unfortunately I think, have come to look for that big moment. I think our reaction to the way you state things is that we hear you saying that your children are regenerate the second they are born. Now, I don't put anything past God, but the normal means of regeneration involves the Word of God. And that, I think, is the problem we see.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I don't know what you think of them brother. I'm trying to work from your premises. If they are unregenerate then what is the functional difference between them and any other God hater?

Are you talking about children when they are born, or after they have been instructed for a few years. Honestly, Rich, sometimes it sounds (to us Baptists at least) as if you believe your children pop out regenerate. But the teaching of Scripture is that in Adam, all sinned. That is the teaching of your confession as well. So everyone is born in sin and unregenerate.

I know it sometimes sounds like we are saying they are popping out regenerate but that's not precisely the case. I think it's fairer to say that they pop out members of the visible Church and their parents are commaned to train them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. As I noted before, were we to presume them incapable of learning all spiritual things (to presume them unregenerate) we would have to conclude the Lord is sending us on a futile errand commanding us to train fools in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

I would also say that we, conversely, see professors treated as if they "pop out" of profession as regenerate when we listen to some of you conflate the sign of baptism with what it signifies.

I believe the best we can work from is the commands of God and not worry about God's secret knowledge. We paedos know who the disciples are - professors and their children - and we disciple them in hope and faith to believe on Christ.

As I did nightly devotionals tonight with my kids with sang Psalm 1 together. James and Anna sing that Psalm to each other while riding in the car. Then we prayed together. James and Anna both ask for their devotional time. When I prayed tonight I asked God to cause us all to flee from sin and to believe on the Cross of Christ. You see, like James and Anna, my faith is pitiful. The assurance of salvation is not found in the strength of my trust but my very frail trust that God saves to the uttermost everyone who calls on the name of the Lord. I was struck by how my faith, though much more intellectually informed, was not some massive edifice that towered above what a child could muster. Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief!

From my standpoint, however, if they are elect then you repeatedly saying of them that they are unregenerate is an impoverishment of the manner in which you might otherwise nurture them.

Elect does not equal regenerate. If it did, there would be no need for the cross of Christ.

Regeneration is but a stage in the decree that was as sure to be accomplished as when God purposed it in Eternity. It cannot be shipwrecked. It is my hope to be said of God that I was a means to His eternal plan for the good of many - especially those who He providentially placed in my charge to train.

See how smiley they are above (and Sophia too in my profile). Do they deserve to be called children of the flesh until they've proven otherwise and Scripture calls them holy?

I will admit, it is hard to look at a picture of your kids (who are too cute) and consider them children of the flesh. But Ephesians 2 says that we are all born, by nature, children of wrath and under the judgment of almighty God. Romans 3 says that all have sinned. No matter how cute kids look, they are born in the flesh, without the Spirit of God. There are some adorable kids in my sons first grade class that have never been to church a day in their lives. They don't look any less cute than your kids do, but you would consider them unregenerate simply because they aren't children of believers.

I was being a bit silly but I think everyone now realizes the existential angst that paedobaptists experience when credo-baptists start throwing kids under the bus and talking about little ones as dispassionately as losing a spleen. It happens far too often in conversations about Covenant theology. It should never be an impersonal exercise.

What makes my kids special is not how cute and smiley they are but that they have been privileged to be in a believing household whose father has been commanded to raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Yes, my children, like I are destined for Hell, sprinting toward it, except for the Sovereign work of a God who elects unconditionally. And that unconditional election includes electing a great many to be raised in Covenant homes while, God be praised, saving some like me as wild shoots.

As I have stated, if I have presented a strawman based on the Baptist premise that all non-confessing children are unregenerate then I will retract. If the premise is incorrect that all non-confessing children are unregenerate then the conclusions do not follow.

I am going to admit something here as a Baptist. We don't really know when our kids "get regenerated." If we are doing our job as parents, we are teaching them from the day they come home about the gospel. We are not only telling them to repent and believe in the gospel, but we are showing them how the gospel touches every facet of our lives. When daddy gets a pay cut, we are teaching our kids by our word and our actions how the gospel affects our trust in God. When tragedy strikes our family, our reliance on God is a function of the gospel and is taught to our kids. When we sin and repent, we are teaching our kids the gospel. When God blesses our family with another child, we see it as a result of the cross and teach our kids that all of God's blessings flow to His people through the cross of Christ. We teach the catechism, we have Sunday School, we worship together as a church, we worship together as a family. All of this is loaded with the gospel.

Now, here is my point. When, exactly, does the gospel produce the desired effect (regeneration). At age 2? Age 6? Age 15? No one knows. That is our problem as Baptists. When do we baptize. Is a child regenerate a long time before they confess? We don't really know. There was another thread about this already. But the problem still exists.

One thing I am beginning to understand about paedos is that you don't look for a big "moment of conversion" from your children because you expect that the gospel will have its effect. Baptists, unfortunately I think, have come to look for that big moment. I think our reaction to the way you state things is that we hear you saying that your children are regenerate the second they are born. Now, I don't put anything past God, but the normal means of regeneration involves the Word of God. And that, I think, is the problem we see.

Exactly. Thank you for acknowledging this. I think this big moment theology creates problems of its own because it doesn't recognize the fact that all faith is feeble in this life and dependent, always, upon Christ's means. It all needs to be fed and sustained and encouraged regularly. It never stops growing or achieves a point at which it is too little or more than enough to be salvific. If it is Spirit born then it is fixed upon Christ. I believe the Baptist ordinance that points to the strength of your faith instead of the Promise to save creates a theology of gradation unintentionally.

Thanks for the interaction Brother. It has been a very long and somewhat discouraging day. I'm really trying hard here to not offend.

I told Jason and Joe in private message that I really do repent if I cause unnecesary offense. It is quite unintentional.

 

[non dignus]

But you left a very important part of the verse out: as many as the Lord our God will call.

"Repent, and be baptized everyone of you, for the promise is to you and to your children, as many as the Lord our God will call."

The equivalent in your example would be:

"Work hard, and enjoy the fruit of your labor, everyone of you, for the abundance is to you and to your children, as many as the boss selects."

By this, the Baptist would assume that only those whom are chosen by the boss get the abundance. But you would have everyone getting abundance whether they have been actually selected or not.

Hello again, Pastor.
Thanks for the challenge.
Those who work show they have been selected. But children are not in the pool of potential selectees because they are not yet able to work. When they are able to work (profess belief) it will be manifest if the boss has selected them. In the meanwhile they benefit from a representative (patriarch of household) in enjoying the abundance (outward Baptism)

And another thing! The "promise" was the Holy Spirit, as promised in the New Covenant. Are you suggesting by using this verse that all children of believers automatically receive the Holy Spirit?

Since Peter is quoting Genesis, the promise is all the benefits of Christ promised to Abraham. No, I'm not saying all who are baptized are elect, I'm saying the promise is to individuals in households who do not grow up to despise their baptism. In other words, "you are now saved if you persevere in faith. If you do not persevere in faith, you are not now saved." This is the promise to holy infants.

These last two paragraphs are very troubling. It almost sounds like something I heard from the auburn avenue conference, confusing santification, with justification.
Using this logic[ I'm saying the promise is to individuals in households who do not grow up to despise their baptism.] Let us just baptize all babies born everywhere,and if they do not grow up to despise their baptism they also will be saved?
The question asked about the promise of the Holy Spirit once again re-surfaces.
Any child or adult who does not have the Holy Spirit is not Christ's Rom8:9. Rom.9:8

Hello Anthony,

I said, " {at the least} outward baptism".
The FV would wrongly teach "inward baptism in all cases".

I said, "If you do not persevere in faith, you are not NOW saved.".
The FV would wrongly teach "if you do not persevere in faith, you still had union in Christ".

'hope that helps.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

ATTENTION TO ALL.

Paul, I apologize for all of my comments that were not in the spirit of brotherhood. I was hurt that you challenged my integrity by calling into question my honesty (see comment #'s 229 and 233 on the "Debate" thread). This is where everything began, only later did I summarize my conclusions to your argument with "Baptize them all and let God sort them out." This elevated the tension and was my fault. I apologize to Paul and all my brothers.

This issue is too serious in regards to theology for me to be guilty of letting personal offenses muddy the water.

I hope my apology is accepted by all, mostly Paul.
As I said to you the night of the debate, I look forward to us actually working together against those who are more wrong than either of us on issues that are life and death!

Greetings:

I like your post - it shows a kind and gentle spirit.

Now, you ask the question concerning a command to baptize infants in the New Testament?

In the same way that Jesus responds I will ask you:

"Where is there a command in the New Testament that women should be allowed the Lord's Supper?"

(In arguing like a credo) We have no specific command nor do we have any example in the New Testament of women being allowed the Lord's Supper. Thus, if you are going to be consistent with your hermeneutic, then you must forbid women the Lord's Supper on the same grounds that you forbid children baptism.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

 

[5solasmom]

I don't have much to add here, but I did want to say that this statement (bolding mine)...

I think this big moment theology creates problems of its own because it doesn't recognize the fact that all faith is feeble in this life and dependent, always, upon Christ's means. It all needs to be fed and sustained and encouraged regularly. It never stops growing or achieves a point at which it is too little or more than enough to be salvific. If it is Spirit born then it is fixed upon Christ. I believe the Baptist ordinance that points to the strength of your faith instead of the Promise to save creates a theology of gradation unintentionally.

...is a great encouragement.

Thank you.

 

[CDM]

Just to be clear, and fair, I am sure my statements:

"consider infants regenerate until they prove otherwise" or "infants haven't sinned yet" theology

will be denied by my infant-sprinkling brothers. But I can't help the fact that this is what your theology sounds like.

"Reformed" Baptist theology sounds like God has now cast off children from the covenant of Grace upon the arrival of Christ and this is to be considered a "new" and "better covenant". Children, who God once called "His" children, are now His enemies. They are to be considered cut off from Him - without hope until they do [or work] 1 very special thing: "profess belief". And the children's parents should rejoice at the "perfection" of this Covenant (even though it means their children are seperated from them and God). Gene Cook said something like the New Covenant was better because it has "better benefits".



Yeah, better, now your children are cursed and have no part with Jehovah. They are like the philistines, Muslims, and all other God haters the world over.

To be clear, and fair, I am sure my statements will be denied by my full-grown-dunking brothers. But I can't help the fact that this is what their theology sounds like.

 

[VictorBravo]

The disadvantage I have is that while you guys are working this subject over I'm sleeping and then commuting. Man, what a lot of stuff overnight!

Rich, I have to say I really struggle trying to grasp your argument about our different views of children. I once said stated to you that the reason Baptists train their children in the ways of the Lord could be justified simply by obedience to the Word of God and faith. Yet that reason was rejected as being inconsistent.

That I have trouble understanding.

In my case, at least, I can testify from personal experience. I personally recall a time when I was unregenerate. I vividly remember my world view and (in fact) I vividly remember an actual change in literal vision and ability to think. Nothing mystical or magical: simply the world became "God's World". It was more solid.

So, in light of that, I find this quote strange:

As I noted before, were we to presume them incapable of learning all spiritual things (to presume them unregenerate) we would have to conclude the Lord is sending us on a futile errand commanding us to train fools in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

I hope you can see why I find it strange. Why would anyone conclude that teaching in spiritual things is a futile errand commanding to train fools? I was a total fool, yet certain men came into my life at a rather late age and taught me spiritual things (through books and by hearing). I was first conscious of hearing the gospel in my teens. I did not repent and believe until my 40s.

I'm glad Jason made the distinction between reprobate (destined for damnation) and unregenerate (not yet believing), because it is exactly where your argument loses me. I personally don't presume regeneracy nor do I presume reprobation. I don't know any Christian who does. But I know many who have similar experiences to mine: they remember a time of unregenerate rebellion and they remember a conversion. Baptists train their children in the way of the Lord simply because they believe that it is their duty (a charge God has given to their care), because they love them, and because they pray God will bring a renewing change in their heart.

So, I can follow and respect many of the paedo arguments, but I just don't get this one at all. I don't see how the Baptist has an internal inconsistency regarding his children.

 

[Iconoclast]

good posts

I don't know what you think of them brother. I'm trying to work from your premises. If they are unregenerate then what is the functional difference between them and any other God hater?

Are you talking about children when they are born, or after they have been instructed for a few years. Honestly, Rich, sometimes it sounds (to us Baptists at least) as if you believe your children pop out regenerate. But the teaching of Scripture is that in Adam, all sinned. That is the teaching of your confession as well. So everyone is born in sin and unregenerate.

I know it sometimes sounds like we are saying they are popping out regenerate but that's not precisely the case. I think it's fairer to say that they pop out members of the visible Church and their parents are commaned to train them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. As I noted before, were we to presume them incapable of learning all spiritual things (to presume them unregenerate) we would have to conclude the Lord is sending us on a futile errand commanding us to train fools in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

I would also say that we, conversely, see professors treated as if they "pop out" of profession as regenerate when we listen to some of you conflate the sign of baptism with what it signifies.

I believe the best we can work from is the commands of God and not worry about God's secret knowledge. We paedos know who the disciples are - professors and their children - and we disciple them in hope and faith to believe on Christ.

As I did nightly devotionals tonight with my kids with sang Psalm 1 together. James and Anna sing that Psalm to each other while riding in the car. Then we prayed together. James and Anna both ask for their devotional time. When I prayed tonight I asked God to cause us all to flee from sin and to believe on the Cross of Christ. You see, like James and Anna, my faith is pitiful. The assurance of salvation is not found in the strength of my trust but my very frail trust that God saves to the uttermost everyone who calls on the name of the Lord. I was struck by how my faith, though much more intellectually informed, was not some massive edifice that towered above what a child could muster. Lord I believe, help thou mine unbelief!


Regeneration is but a stage in the decree that was as sure to be accomplished as when God purposed it in Eternity. It cannot be shipwrecked. It is my hope to be said of God that I was a means to His eternal plan for the good of many - especially those who He providentially placed in my charge to train.


I was being a bit silly but I think everyone now realizes the existential angst that paedobaptists experience when credo-baptists start throwing kids under the bus and talking about little ones as dispassionately as losing a spleen. It happens far too often in conversations about Covenant theology. It should never be an impersonal exercise.

What makes my kids special is not how cute and smiley they are but that they have been privileged to be in a believing household whose father has been commanded to raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Yes, my children, like I are destined for Hell, sprinting toward it, except for the Sovereign work of a God who elects unconditionally. And that unconditional election includes electing a great many to be raised in Covenant homes while, God be praised, saving some like me as wild shoots.

As I have stated, if I have presented a strawman based on the Baptist premise that all non-confessing children are unregenerate then I will retract. If the premise is incorrect that all non-confessing children are unregenerate then the conclusions do not follow.

I am going to admit something here as a Baptist. We don't really know when our kids "get regenerated." If we are doing our job as parents, we are teaching them from the day they come home about the gospel. We are not only telling them to repent and believe in the gospel, but we are showing them how the gospel touches every facet of our lives. When daddy gets a pay cut, we are teaching our kids by our word and our actions how the gospel affects our trust in God. When tragedy strikes our family, our reliance on God is a function of the gospel and is taught to our kids. When we sin and repent, we are teaching our kids the gospel. When God blesses our family with another child, we see it as a result of the cross and teach our kids that all of God's blessings flow to His people through the cross of Christ. We teach the catechism, we have Sunday School, we worship together as a church, we worship together as a family. All of this is loaded with the gospel.

Now, here is my point. When, exactly, does the gospel produce the desired effect (regeneration). At age 2? Age 6? Age 15? No one knows. That is our problem as Baptists. When do we baptize. Is a child regenerate a long time before they confess? We don't really know. There was another thread about this already. But the problem still exists.

One thing I am beginning to understand about paedos is that you don't look for a big "moment of conversion" from your children because you expect that the gospel will have its effect. Baptists, unfortunately I think, have come to look for that big moment. I think our reaction to the way you state things is that we hear you saying that your children are regenerate the second they are born. Now, I don't put anything past God, but the normal means of regeneration involves the Word of God. And that, I think, is the problem we see.

Exactly. Thank you for acknowledging this. I think this big moment theology creates problems of its own because it doesn't recognize the fact that all faith is feeble in this life and dependent, always, upon Christ's means. It all needs to be fed and sustained and encouraged regularly. It never stops growing or achieves a point at which it is too little or more than enough to be salvific. If it is Spirit born then it is fixed upon Christ. I believe the Baptist ordinance that points to the strength of your faith instead of the Promise to save creates a theology of gradation unintentionally.

Thanks for the interaction Brother. It has been a very long and somewhat discouraging day. I'm really trying hard here to not offend.

I told Jason and Joe in private message that I really do repent if I cause unnecesary offense. It is quite unintentional.

The response by Pastor Mixer was what I was trying to get across,and your response indicates you see what the concern is. I will take more time to consider these things as I am off to work now, thank you for your instructive responses

 

[bnmhebda]

Baptize infants?

There is no specific command in the Bible to baptize infants. There is also no specific command or example in God's Word of allowing women to the Lord's Table.
-Bri

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The disadvantage I have is that while you guys are working this subject over I'm sleeping and then commuting. Man, what a lot of stuff overnight!

Rich, I have to say I really struggle trying to grasp your argument about our different views of children. I once said stated to you that the reason Baptists train their children in the ways of the Lord could be justified simply by obedience to the Word of God and faith. Yet that reason was rejected as being inconsistent.

That I have trouble understanding.

In my case, at least, I can testify from personal experience. I personally recall a time when I was unregenerate. I vividly remember my world view and (in fact) I vividly remember an actual change in literal vision and ability to think. Nothing mystical or magical: simply the world became "God's World". It was more solid.

This I don't deny happens. My experience isn't quite as similar but somewhat. I think the problem created these days (both Baptist and Presbyterian) is that there is an expectation that a dramatic turning occurs. Testimonies are measured by how great the turn is from the human standpoint - the drug dealing homosexual child molester is dramatically converted and we all sit back and are overawed that such a man could now be a Christian. We even note the conversion of celebrities here with somewhat greater interest. I think within us is a slight hanging on to the idea that some of us aren't so wicked and that God's sacrifice is more meaningful if you're a really "bad" person when you turn.

Many Churched children do not have such a dramatic experience. It's not to say that they were never unregenerate but I'm not certain that regeneration will always be felt dramatically. God has blessed some children (increasingly few these days) with parents who don't beat them, who don't ignore them, who don't divorce and share custody of them, and who discipline them in Christian love. Are they all, like we, born in Adam? Yes and need Christ's atonement. My point is that regeneration need not be dramatic.

So, in light of that, I find this quote strange:

As I noted before, were we to presume them incapable of learning all spiritual things (to presume them unregenerate) we would have to conclude the Lord is sending us on a futile errand commanding us to train fools in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

I hope you can see why I find it strange. Why would anyone conclude that teaching in spiritual things is a futile errand commanding to train fools? I was a total fool, yet certain men came into my life at a rather late age and taught me spiritual things (through books and by hearing). I was first conscious of hearing the gospel in my teens. I did not repent and believe until my 40s.

I'm glad Jason made the distinction between reprobate (destined for damnation) and unregenerate (not yet believing), because it is exactly where your argument loses me. I personally don't presume regeneracy nor do I presume reprobation. I don't know any Christian who does. But I know many who have similar experiences to mine: they remember a time of unregenerate rebellion and they remember a conversion. Baptists train their children in the way of the Lord simply because they believe that it is their duty (a charge God has given to their care), because they love them, and because they pray God will bring a renewing change in their heart.

So, I can follow and respect many of the paedo arguments, but I just don't get this one at all. I don't see how the Baptist has an internal inconsistency regarding his children.

I think you noted that I re-qualified because I kept mixing my terms unintentionally. On the scale of eternity there is a huge difference. On the scale of time, the unregenerate soul is indistinguishable from the reprobate soul. It is not completely unfair to say that a person is treated as if reprobate either because the fear of baptizing the reprobate seems to be an ever present argument for credo-Baptism.

In either event, there is a big difference in expectation with a regenerate versus an unregenerate soul. I suppose I assumed that such things are obvious but I need to draw them out a bit although I have little time right now.

As I noted previously, children are to be trained in the fear and admonition of the Lord. This is another way of saying that they are supposed to be raised pursuing God's wisdom. It is a restatement of the Deuteronomic passage and it requires a strange view of Scripture to miss the obvious fact that Proverbs would be included to give wisdom toward that end especially when it is introduced as being from a father to his son in how to pursue Godliness.

I wasn't joking when I was a bit surprised that Joe quoted that Deuteronomy passage because I'm never sure which parts of the OT are considered to be part of the "worse Covenant" that the OT saints had. I am also not being pejorative when I wonder out loud how you do not consider portions of the Proverbs to be part of the "worse Covenenant". On the one hand you state that God telling Abraham that I will be a God to you and your children can only be understood spiritually but then when actual children are supposed to be trained in the light of that Promise, you assume you're supposed to train your real children in those things. This is why I find it inconsistent. At best, I might understand you saying that the Proverbs and other passages apply to you professors (assuming you grant them NC status) because you are his spiritual children but not those you presume to still be in the flesh and who have no Covenant status in the Lord.

When Romans 8 states that the mind of the flesh has no apprehension of Spiritual things - things pertaining to the pursuit of righteousness (as Paul notes this pursuit consisting of the Cross) then I would wonder how you suppose a child could be trained and admonished in the pursuit of this goal. Training and admonishment indicate progression and not a static repitition of first principles.

Prior to your regeneration and conversion it was right and proper for you to have the Gospel proclaimed to you but you were not being trained in the fear and admonition of the Lord. The first is a herald to invite weary souls into a place where they might cast off their burdens and take up the pursuit of Christ. The latter is where one is instructed in the Way.

The idea of training carries with it the idea of the training audience, the curriculum, and the goal. The goal is the fear and admonition of the Lord. The curriculum is the Word. The training audience is our children within the specific family. To presume before the training begins that the training audience is incapable of achieving the end state in mind with the curriculum given is to throw the whole training program into futility. If, on the other hand, we neither insist upon our children being regenerate or unregenerate then we have some hope that the training is an instrument that God can use toward the goal He has in mind.

I hope that clears it up. If not, let's continue to pursue this because it is very helpful to understand where the breakdowns are in understanding each other.

 

[VictorBravo]

Rich, thanks for your reply, I also don't have a lot of time right now.

Prior to your regeneration and conversion it was right and proper for you to have the Gospel proclaimed to you but you were not being trained in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

I think the seed of our different understandings is right here. I agree that as an unregenerate heathen, I could not grasp the "fear and admonition of the Lord", but that doesn't mean that it didn't have an effect. Before I grasped the gospel, I grasped the idea that God must be feared. I even grew to fear a judgment and did all I could to reason my way out of such a thing.

I remember even daring God to come down and reason with me, I'd show him a thing or two! Praise him that he left me alone to my own foolishness.

So, in a nutshell, I take the notion of raising children to fear the Lord as something akin to teaching them the truth of Romans 1. I don't think a child understands without instruction what sin is, what God's law is, etc. They can be raised to understand these things, but it takes preaching and the Spirit to regenerate their mind to the point of holding to them.

By the way, I agree with you completely about the overuse of dramatic conversion stories. In my case it was quite undramatic. I can say there was very little change in my personality or habits, except for this: everything I thought and observed I knew had to conform to what my God commanded. The attitude change was dramatic, but not really observable to anyone else. And I know dear believers, from both credo and paedo families, who cannot remember a time when they did not believe. I consider them truly blessed.

 

[44jason]

"Where is there a command in the New Testament that women should be allowed the Lord's Supper?"-CH

If I were to agree with your premise, then we would agree on two things.
There is no command to baptize infants and no command that specifies women partaking of the Lord's Supper.

Ok. Lets say we agree.

But we would also agree that there are commands to baptize those who repent. Right? I don't need to quote all of those passages -- there is no doubt we both baptize believers.

So here we have clear Biblical common ground -- Believers are to be baptized.

We would also agree that disciples are to partake of the Lord's Supper.
Women are disciples, spiritually equal according to the Apostle. So we can clearly deduce that women should partake of the Lord's Supper.

So lets update our common Biblical ground -- Baptize believers and all believers are welcome to the Lord's Table. So far we are all Credo-baptist.

Now, where can we clearly deduce that all infants are believers. Nowhere. We can agree that some may be and many children of believers may become believers themselves. But we do not have any clear Scripture that we can even use to imply that ALL infants of believers are also believers in their infancy.

So we can not add to our common Biblical ground.

So maybe we should ask, Does the Bible say that we can or should baptize more than just believers. Well you may say, "Yes there are clear Scriptures on that." I disagree.

So at the end of the day, almost all of the reformed community can agree that as far as baptizing believers and welcoming all believers to the Lord's Table, we are in agreement.
We agree on two very important truths: baptize all believers and welcome all believers to the Lord's Table.

So, why don' you paedo's just quit being so divisive and join us Baptist?

 

[Jim Johnston]

Notice that Jason continues to ignore my detailed discussions (3 posts in this thread now) of "commands." His entire questioning is based on ambiguity.

We would also agree that disciples are to partake of the Lord's Supper.
Women are disciples, spiritually equal according to the Apostle. So we can clearly deduce that women should partake of the Lord's Supper

That's an INFERENCE. You asked us for ONE command. Did you mean that we could make inferences? Okay, my syllogism I mused in the debate counts as just one of our many "commands" we have to baptize our covenant children.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

"Where is there a command in the New Testament that women should be allowed the Lord's Supper?"-CH

If I were to agree with your premise, then we would agree on two things.
There is no command to baptize infants and no command that specifies women partaking of the Lord's Supper.

Ok. Lets say we agree.

But we would also agree that there are commands to baptize those who repent. Right? I don't need to quote all of those passages -- there is no doubt we both baptize believers.

So here we have clear Biblical common ground -- Believers are to be baptized.

We would also agree that disciples are to partake of the Lord's Supper.
Women are disciples, spiritually equal according to the Apostle. So we can clearly deduce that women should partake of the Lord's Supper.

So lets update our common Biblical ground -- Baptize believers and all believers are welcome to the Lord's Table. So far we are all Credo-baptist.

Now, where can we clearly deduce that all infants are believers. Nowhere. We can agree that some may be and many children of believers may become believers themselves. But we do not have any clear Scripture that we can even use to imply that ALL infants of believers are also believers in their infancy.

So we can not add to our common Biblical ground.

So maybe we should ask, Does the Bible say that we can or should baptize more than just believers. Well you may say, "Yes there are clear Scriptures on that." I disagree.

So at the end of the day, almost all of the reformed community can agree that as far as baptizing believers and welcoming all believers to the Lord's Table, we are in agreement.
We agree on two very important truths: baptize all believers and welcome all believers to the Lord's Table.

So, why don' you paedo's just quit being so divisive and join us Baptist?

Hey:

That is very good! However, as a "credo" Lord's Supper Only person I would say that we should only allow male disciples into the Lord's Supper. You "paedo" Lord's Supper people have no New Covenant argument for the inclusion of women into the Lord's Supper.

Blessings,

-CH

 

[Davidius]

"Where is there a command in the New Testament that women should be allowed the Lord's Supper?"-CH

If I were to agree with your premise, then we would agree on two things.
There is no command to baptize infants and no command that specifies women partaking of the Lord's Supper.

Ok. Lets say we agree.

But we would also agree that there are commands to baptize those who repent. Right? I don't need to quote all of those passages -- there is no doubt we both baptize believers.

So here we have clear Biblical common ground -- Believers are to be baptized.

We would also agree that disciples are to partake of the Lord's Supper.
Women are disciples, spiritually equal according to the Apostle. So we can clearly deduce that women should partake of the Lord's Supper.

So lets update our common Biblical ground -- Baptize believers and all believers are welcome to the Lord's Table. So far we are all Credo-baptist.

Now, where can we clearly deduce that all infants are believers. Nowhere. We can agree that some may be and many children of believers may become believers themselves. But we do not have any clear Scripture that we can even use to imply that ALL infants of believers are also believers in their infancy.

So we can not add to our common Biblical ground.

So maybe we should ask, Does the Bible say that we can or should baptize more than just believers. Well you may say, "Yes there are clear Scriptures on that." I disagree.

So at the end of the day, almost all of the reformed community can agree that as far as baptizing believers and welcoming all believers to the Lord's Table, we are in agreement.
We agree on two very important truths: baptize all believers and welcome all believers to the Lord's Table.

So, why don' you paedo's just quit being so divisive and join us Baptist?

Why are you allowed to make inferences while requiring a "direct command" from the paedos?

 

[MW]

Matthew, The only clear sign and seal in the Nt. is Spirit baptism. Eph 1:13 1cor12:13
It is clear and sure because it is only said to be true of God's elect.
Water baptism, is no seal of redemption. Water baptism is an outward sign of Identification with Christ. In Acts this is how water baptism was used. Those who outwardly professed that they believed, by an inward work of the Spirit used water baptism as an outward sign.
The outward sign was only given to those who professed this[ male or female]. This is different from the OT.sign of circumcision to the male infant only,which was only outward and physical to those of the physical nation who were non elect,

Anthony, we could get off track here and delve into the nature of sacraments, but there's really no need. However you understand baptism to be related to salvation, even if its is a mere formal sign, if you hold that infants are saved then you have no basis for withholding baptism from them.

 

[Herald]

if you hold that infants are saved then you have no basis for withholding baptism from them.

Matthew - I've heard that before. Is that a textual argument, a dialectic argument or neither?

 

[44jason]

Why are you allowed to make inferences while requiring a "direct command" from the paedos?

I thought that we agreed on the inference that women are considered disciples in the New Testament church.

I am looking for common biblical ground. If paedo's do not agree with this inference then lets drop it from our definition of common ground.

But if both paedo's and credo's agree on this inference then lets keep it.

I am assuming we both agree on this one. So that is why I left it in the definition of our common ground.
And since we do not both agree on the other inference then I left it out.

That was the whole point. Namely, when it comes to what almost all of the Reformed have believed in common, we should be credo-baptist.

But if you are telling me that paedo's don't believe that women are inferred in the teachings of the Lord's Supper then our common ground would look like this:
Baptize all believers and welcome all male believers to the Lord's Table.

So which in your opinion is more historically correct as common ground for most all of the Reformed:

1. Baptize all believers and welcome all believers to the Lord's Table.
2. Baptize all believers and welcome all male believers to the Lord's Table.

Remember this is not a debate about commands vs inferences. This is an attempt to find what is the common ground inspite of the unending debates.