Household salvation -- Split from Credobaptism and Raising Families

[discipulo]

I would not use the particular phase “in the covenant”, I would agree that there is continuity between OT and NT, and that continuity extends to blessings and favor and God shows upon the children of believers.

However, that does not automatically, or logically mean that children ought to be baptized.
(...)

Baptism is found and introduced in the NT so we go to the NT to determine the rules for baptism. Child training and raising up children in the fear of the Lord are found in both testaments so we do look at the OT for rules and guidance on that matter.

Thank you too. Well the way I see it is

In the Jewish context where all the household was in the Covenant, with all the bonds of love and confidence that it brought, such a radical change would have to be thoroughly addressed by the Apostles.

But in fact Peter addressing the men of Judea confirms and reassures them that the promise is for you and your children Acts 2:39

So he is exactly stating that the Promise for the Household remains unchanged.

Like Joel Beeke writes

How could a converted Jew regard the New Covenant as better Covenant, if now his children were to be excluded from God’ dealings with his people no longer receiving a sign of God’s covenant promise? (Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism page 58)

So if believing parents were not supposed to have their children baptized, like they would immediately and naturally understand, how there is not a single Apostolic Admonition or Commandment preventing infant baptism?

Because the Covenant of Grace, as being inclusive of the Household, is so central and continuous
throughout Redemptive History and in all Covenant Dispensations,

By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence
prepared an ark for the salvation of his household (Hebrews 11:7).

the Apostles mention and even emphasize the Sacrament of Baptism for the Household.

The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.
And after she was baptized, and her household as well (Acts 16:14-15).

And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately
he was baptized, he and all his household. (Acts 16:33)

In the same passage, a Household baptism is even clearly differentiated

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

from individual Baptisms, that surely also occurred in certain cases, like the Ethiopian in Acts 8

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius 1 Corinthians 1:14
(considering Gaius, since Crispus Household is mentioned in Acts 18:8)

So In my humble opinion the implications in favour of the Baptism administration to the Children of Believers are very clear.

.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Respectfully, I do not see that the verses you have quoted show any connection between baptism and circumcision. 1 Corinthians 10 does not address the issue of water baptism at all. The circumcision in Col 2 is made without hands, so I would understand it to be a metaphor for a spiritual operation of God on the believer. There is no indication the actual physical act of circumcising a child is being considered.

The fact that it speaks of spiritual realities does not divorce the fact that a physical act is performed in connection with it. Throughout the OT, spiritual circumcision is spoken of to charge the Israelites with mere externalism. It would be extremely problematic to apply the kind of hermeneutic you apply above woodenly across the Scriptures. Where would types and shadows be if they had no connection to the substance of what they pointed to in the OT? I find it ironic that the one place where Baptists inconsistently apply this hermeneutic is when they utilize Romans 6:4 to denote that "buried" implies mode.

Obviously, the Baptistic insistence that the symbol is divorced from spiritual reality is in keeping with their historic insistence that ordinances are bare signs (see http://www.puritanboard.com/520110-post5.html). Both in baptism and the Lord's Supper, no activity of the Holy Spirit is thought to occur as the Church administers the rites. It serves only to imitate previous activity and call information to mind but no spiritual benefit is given the recipient in the act.

 

[Herald]

Acts 2:38-39 8 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

I often encounter this passage used by my paedo brethren as a proof-text for infant baptism and household regeneration. As a proof-text this passage fails on two counts:

1. The actual promise is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus request" results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."

2. The promise (see above) is continued as a perpetual thing until the Lord returns (verse 39). It has absolutely nothing to do with applying the sign of baptism to infants in the absence of faith. The sign is applied after repentance and faith (faith implied) (v. 38).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

1. The actual promise is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus request" results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."

Is it possible to state this in a way that doesn't sound Arminian?

 

[discipulo]

Acts 2:38-39 8 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

I often encounter this passage used by my paedo brethren as a proof-text for infant baptism and household regeneration. As a proof-text this passage fails on two counts:

1. The actual promise is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus request" results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."

2. The promise (see above) is continued as a perpetual thing until the Lord returns (verse 39). It has absolutely nothing to do with applying the sign of baptism to infants in the absence of faith. The sign is applied after repentance and faith (faith implied) (v. 38).

in my opinion I see Acts 2:39 as a condensed Covenant proclamation – certainly the Men of Judea would recognize it - please see the parallel with Genesis 17:7

For the promise is for you and your children Acts 2:39

I will establish My Covenant between Me and you and your descendants Genesis 17:7

A Covenant Proclamation Peter reinforces in Acts 3:25

Ye are the sons of the prophets, and of the Covenant which God made with your fathers,
saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. Acts 3:25

The word for families comes from patria and pater also fathers, meaning paternal descendants, the fathers and the children

I have made a Covenant with My chosen; I have sworn to David My servant, I will establish
your seed forever and build up your throne to all generations. Psalm 89:3-4

in my opinion the context of the Kerygma in Acts 2 is actually the Covenant of Grace in the Historia Salutis
where the Household is never absent, like Peter would later recall

he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household. Acts 11:14

As B. B. Warfield bluntly stated in the Polemics of Infant Baptism – link below to the complete article

The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children.

The Polemics of Infant Baptism by Benjamin B. Warfield

 

[Herald]

1. The actual promise is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus request" results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."

Is it possible to state this in a way that doesn't sound Arminian?

Umm...how about this: "The actual promise given to God's elect is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus " results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."" That's the order in which is laid out in the passage.

 

[KMK]

1. The actual promise is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus request" results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."

Is it possible to state this in a way that doesn't sound Arminian?

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

If it sounds Arminian, there is not much you can do about it. What exactly in Bill's statement do you disagree with? Is it his choice of the word 'results'?

Edit: Sorry, I cross-posted with Bill.

 

[Hilasmos]

It is possible that the word "for" doesn't imply "results" but glosses as "on account of."

 

[discipulo]

Umm...how about this: "The actual promise given to God's elect is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus " results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."" That's the order in which is laid out in the passage.

It is possible that the word "for" doesn't imply "results" but glosses as "on account of."

Actually Joel Beeke states that those dismissing the covenantal argument
ibid page 60 emphasis mine

by harking back to verse 38, arguing that since Peter says, "Repent, and be baptized," baptism may only follow repentance. Since infants are not yet able to repent, they ought not to be baptized. To such reasoning we would posit three responses.

First, the word "and" between "repent" and "be baptized" is a coordinate and not a causal conjunction. That is to say, although both things are true, there is not necessarily a causal connection between them. "Repent" and "be baptized" are two coordinate commands. Acts 2:38 does not say that we are to be baptized because we have repented, nor does it imply that it is wrong to baptize someone who has not repented.

Second, the causal conjunction "for" at the beginning of verse 39 indicates that verse 38 is part of a larger thought that is concluded in verse 39. Attempting to understand repentance and baptism in verse 38 without examining verse 39, therefore, is refusing to listen to the whole text. The word. "for" in verse 39 indicates that that verse is giving the reason why we are to repent and be baptized, namely, "for the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off." In other words, those who have received God's promise of the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit are qualified to be baptized, and, Peter clearly says, that includes them and their children.

Third, an argument against infant baptism from Acts 2:38 is also an argument against infant salvation. If infants cannot be baptized because they are incapable of repentance and faith, then they cannot be saved for the same reason. The use of such verses as Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 to argue that repentance and faith are required for baptism also argues that repentance and faith are required for salvation, thereby consigning all infants incapable of repentance and faith to perdition.

Herman Bavinck on Reformed Dogmatics vol. 4 page 510 (chapter the Reformation and Baptism)
also related chapters Infant Baptism and the Validity of Infant Baptism pages 521-532

states very clearly that the Reformers, in times of great debate and pursue for doctrinal clarity away from Romanism,

for the validity of Infant Baptism they (the Reformers n.a.)
unanimously appealed to Scripture, specifically to its teaching concerning the Covenant of Grace.

 

[timmopussycat]

I hear Baptists repeat the regular refrain that there is no such blessing for a household and that God's election is now independent of households...I guess I'd just like a consistent Baptist position that "works" for all situations and not just when they're trying to criticize paedobaptists in their insistence that the elective purposes of God and, consequently, His means flow along family lines much more closely than Baptists want to admit.

I don't know whether you have been mishearing or whether my confreres have been overstating the case but what we should be saying is that while God's election in the NT is not automatically tied to households, He is not specifically against household evangelism either.

I've done an informal poll on this board and discovered that upwards of 80% or more of children raised in Baptists homes are baptized by the time they reach 18 within Baptist Churches. By extension, the Baptists believe that 80%-100% of Baptist children are elect. Given their regular refrain that our children are in Adam, I've often noted that it seems like Baptist children are all elect and Presbyterian children are somehow not.

I haven't seen any confrere put forward the premise in your last sentence, but somebody may have so implied. But that is clearly not a biblical position and I for one disavow it.
And unless a Baptist had done your research either on the PB or in the wider Baptist community, it would not be posible to come to a belief of the relative rate of election in Baptist homes. Since you are the first I have found quantifying the matter in 15 years within a Baptist community, I don't think that many Baptists would even have the data to arrive at your conclusion.

 

[Herald]

Fred Malone writes:

Again, who is offered the promise of the Spirit through repentance and faith in Christ in Acts 2:38? All those mentioned in v. 39, "you and to your children and to all those who are afar off." But is this an indiscriminate assurance that each of those mentioned will definitely receive the promise? No. Only "as many as the Lord our God will call." Here is the condition for receiving the promise: the effectual calling of God.
The real question is, to whom does hosous an (as many as) refer? Does hosous an (as many as) refer only to "those afar off" (usually understood to be a reference to the Gentiles), or does it refer to the whole phrase, including "you and your children?" According to the Greek lexicon by Arndt and Gingrich, hosous an introduces a conditional relative clause which denotes the action of the verb as dependent upon some circumstance or condition. This is, namely, the sovereign will of God in effectual calling expressed in the subjunctive of proskaleo (may call). Hosous is the masculine accusative plural for the verb proskaleo. And since teknois, humin, and pasin (children, you and all) are collectively offered the promise by use of the conjunction kai (and), we may refer to these three dative plurals as the compound indirect object. Also, since teknois and pasin are masculine, hosous an (as many as) may legitimately modify both of them. Therefore, all three classes are offered the promise of the Spirit through repentance and faith. Yet, in hosous an, the condition of reception by all three must depend on the sovereign effectual calling of God. There is no greater promise to the children of those addressed than to the Jew and Gentile parents present. Not all those addressed received the promise and were baptized, but only those who "received" Peter's word of repentance and faith by God's effectual calling, including the children (2:41).
One objection to my line of reasoning is that there would be no need to mention "and your children" if they were given the same promise as their parents–they would have been included in the "you" which addresses the multitude. Therefore, the argument goes, the mention of "and your children" is evidence of the continuation of the covenant family concept and the application of the covenant sign upon one's children. However, the very mention of children as a separate category indicates that the apostle wanted to emphasize that there was no misunderstanding that they were not to receive baptism unless they repented and believed as verse 38 clearly requires. A second answer to this objection is that all those who were baptized partook of the Lord's Supper immediately afterward (v. 42). If infants were baptized with their parents, did they also partake of the breaking of bread? The objection does not stand.
Another common objection states that Acts 2:39 must first be read through the eyes of the Abrahamic Covenant. However, it is my belief that the fuller revelation of the New Covenant must define how the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled in it, rather than letting the Abrahamic Covenant interpret the New Covenant revelation of its fulfillment. It is a principle of interpretation that is in question here. We teach our children this principle by describing the relationship between the testaments with a little rhyme:

The New is in the Old concealed
The Old is in the New revealed.​

Acts 2:38,39, and 41 support the principle that New Covenant revelation should define the participants of the New Covenant fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant rather than vice versa. Only those children in the crowd who received Peter's word were baptized. There is no other exegetical possibility in the text and context.
Regardless of their age, only those who received Peter's word and claimed God's promise were baptized. There is no mention in this passage of infants being baptized along with their parents. In fact, this passage explicitly hinges the reception of the promise of the Spirit upon God's sovereign effectual calling which is evidenced by repentance and faith. These and these only were baptized into the fellowship of the church.
Acts 2:39 defines the fulfillment of the "promise" only in those who are effectually called by God–those who receive the Word in repentance and faith. These only should be baptized.

disciplo wrote:

an argument against infant baptism from Acts 2:38 is also an argument against infant salvation.

The point made in this statement aside, it's problem is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the text. Peter was not speaking about infant salvation, and the fact that the promise is made to those who repent does not contradict either the WCF or 1689 LBC on elect infants. Peter was addressing adult Jews, and his emphasis was clearly on believing the message being delivered.

 

[discipulo]

It seems my oikonomia of the oikos is different

Well, let’s see, a lot to digest now...

 

[timmopussycat]

Nobody has ever argued that "grace works through blood" (except perhaps Judaizers and dispensationalists) but God does bless the man when he blesses him. The promise to bless Abraham's posterity is the fullest sense of blessing that Abraham could receive. It is a lavish kind of grace. Calvin actually even says that, in our flesh, we're descendants of Adam but our supernatural descent is of Christ.

I simply wish that some Baptists would not be so energetic in their denial that God desires to bless their posterity except when they stop to reflect about this idea of what it means that it's a "blessing" that a child is in a believing home.

What I was trying to draw out in our interaction with my questions was to get a sense of what a Baptist believes it is for a child to be "blessed" to be in a believing home. It's sort of a reflex answer for Baptists to say: "Yeah we know there's something there but we're more interested in making sure you understand we're saying they're not blessed the way you say they are."

As I suffer increased exposure to baptism threads here on the PB, I am increasingly reminded of CS Lewis' point about the man in the dark toolshed who can see light through a crack in the wall in one of two ways. He can stand where he is, looking at the beam of light from the outside or he can look out the crack and looking along the beam from the inside, he can see the sun itself. The experience of looking side on at a light beam shining across a dark room is something different from looking out through the crack and seeing the sun. In the same way looking at something from inside is often different than looking at it from outside. I have been involved in both paedo and credo churches along my way and I have a fair idea how the position often appears to people of both views.

From the inside of the Baptist positon, I can tell you at least part of the blessing that a child in a believing home receives. He or she grows up seeing Christianity not only taught but also in some measure, applied. Seeing the gospel applied in home life is a tremendous blessing that not all of us have or had. If the child is converted young, his or her first steps in application are in the home environoment too. And I would be both surprised and disappointed if these points have not been made to you in discussions before my confreres make the necessary comment that this is not the same thing as presuming a child regenerate by virtue of being born into a believing family.

As I noted, means don't control election but means are used of God because He decreed on the basis of nothing foreseen. It doesn't do for a Baptist to simply say that a child is blessed to be around the preaching of the Word because the reprobate are actually increasingly cursed on this basis. At best the Baptists could say my child is either very blessed or very cursed to have been around the preaching of the Word if election is so indeterminate.

The experience of growing up in a believing and practicing Christian home is not an increased curse (in all senses of the word) for the reprobate child. He experiences a kinder, more disciplined way of life than the generality around him and if he practices some of the disciplines and habits thereof, he may find his time in the world to be more enjoyable and less stressful and bitter than it may have otherwise been.

Also as you yourself point out in a previous post, Baptists could well point out that we do not deny that God the Holy Spirit does a good deal of his evangelistic work in households.

Anyhow, I appreciate the irenic interchange. I just want to give folks some cud to chew on and to take note of these discussions before they pull them out of their toolbox the next time a heated baptism debate fires up and they start throwing all their children under the bus as if they have no special status before God.

Ultimately the question is not do our children have special status before God, but rather how and why can Christians biblically recognize whether our children do or do not have that status?

-----Added 1/4/2009 at 07:47:33 EST-----

Obviously, the Baptistic insistence that the symbol is divorced from spiritual reality is in keeping with their historic insistence that ordinances are bare signs (see http://www.puritanboard.com/520110-post5.html). Both in baptism and the Lord's Supper, no activity of the Holy Spirit is thought to occur as the Church administers the rites. It serves only to imitate previous activity and call information to mind but no spiritual benefit is given the recipient in the act.

If your definition of "bare sign" is where no activity of the Holy Spirit is thought to occur as the church administers the rites, then I must disagree in both cases. Nothing in the Baptist viewpoint prohibits the Spirit being active in Communion: indeed 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 makes it utterly certain that a work of the Holy Spirit is going on in the sacrament. And as for baptism, it is a plea to God for a good conscience (1 Peter 3:12), and like any genuine prayer, it must offered be by the strength or assistance of the Spririt, as Bunyan notes in his Discourse concerning prayer "that which is not petitioned through the teaching and assistance of the Spirit, it is not possible that it should be "according to the will of God (Rom. 8:26,27) ... There is no man nor church in the world that can come to God in prayer, but by the assistance of the Holy Spirit. "For through Christ we all have access by one Spirit unto the Father" (Eph 2:18)."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I hear Baptists repeat the regular refrain that there is no such blessing for a household and that God's election is now independent of households...I guess I'd just like a consistent Baptist position that "works" for all situations and not just when they're trying to criticize paedobaptists in their insistence that the elective purposes of God and, consequently, His means flow along family lines much more closely than Baptists want to admit.

I don't know whether you have been mishearing or whether my confreres have been overstating the case but what we should be saying is that while God's election in the NT is not automatically tied to households, He is not specifically against household evangelism either.

I didn't say evangelism Tim. I said election. Perhaps the person not reading properly is not I.

I've done an informal poll on this board and discovered that upwards of 80% or more of children raised in Baptists homes are baptized by the time they reach 18 within Baptist Churches. By extension, the Baptists believe that 80%-100% of Baptist children are elect. Given their regular refrain that our children are in Adam, I've often noted that it seems like Baptist children are all elect and Presbyterian children are somehow not.

I haven't seen any confrere put forward the premise in your last sentence, but somebody may have so implied. But that is clearly not a biblical position and I for one disavow it.
And unless a Baptist had done your research either on the PB or in the wider Baptist community, it would not be posible to come to a belief of the relative rate of election in Baptist homes. Since you are the first I have found quantifying the matter in 15 years within a Baptist community, I don't think that many Baptists would even have the data to arrive at your conclusion.

OK Tim. It's not scientific. Let me ask you a question: How many children in your congregation remain un-Baptized by the time they are 18 years old?

That is to say, I would like to know, of children that have grown up in the Baptist Church that you attend (which I presume is Reformed Baptist), how many of the children that are at least 18 are not yet baptized? A simple number will do.

-----Added 1/4/2009 at 08:44:32 EST-----

1. The actual promise is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus request" results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."

Is it possible to state this in a way that doesn't sound Arminian?

Umm...how about this: "The actual promise given to God's elect is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus " results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."" That's the order in which is laid out in the passage.

So, the elect repent and are baptized prior to regeneration?

Is Acts 2 the place where Systematic theology is developed?

-----Added 1/4/2009 at 08:58:59 EST-----

Nobody has ever argued that "grace works through blood" (except perhaps Judaizers and dispensationalists) but God does bless the man when he blesses him. The promise to bless Abraham's posterity is the fullest sense of blessing that Abraham could receive. It is a lavish kind of grace. Calvin actually even says that, in our flesh, we're descendants of Adam but our supernatural descent is of Christ.

I simply wish that some Baptists would not be so energetic in their denial that God desires to bless their posterity except when they stop to reflect about this idea of what it means that it's a "blessing" that a child is in a believing home.

What I was trying to draw out in our interaction with my questions was to get a sense of what a Baptist believes it is for a child to be "blessed" to be in a believing home. It's sort of a reflex answer for Baptists to say: "Yeah we know there's something there but we're more interested in making sure you understand we're saying they're not blessed the way you say they are."

As I suffer increased exposure to baptism threads here on the PB, I am increasingly reminded of CS Lewis' point about the man in the dark toolshed who can see light through a crack in the wall in one of two ways. He can stand where he is, looking at the beam of light from the outside or he can look out the crack and looking along the beam from the inside, he can see the sun itself. The experience of looking side on at a light beam shining across a dark room is something different from looking out through the crack and seeing the sun. In the same way looking at something from inside is often different than looking at it from outside. I have been involved in both paedo and credo churches along my way and I have a fair idea how the position often appears to people of both views.

From the inside of the Baptist positon, I can tell you at least part of the blessing that a child in a believing home receives. He or she grows up seeing Christianity not only taught but also in some measure, applied. Seeing the gospel applied in home life is a tremendous blessing that not all of us have or had. If the child is converted young, his or her first steps in application are in the home environoment too. And I would be both surprised and disappointed if these points have not been made to you in discussions before my confreres make the necessary comment that this is not the same thing as presuming a child regenerate by virtue of being born into a believing family.

The "lights on a wall" is Plato's analogy even if Lewis borrowed it and children are spiritually blind and do not see any dancing shadows if they are reprobate. There is no "blessing" whatsoever in a generic sense if election is as indeterminate as some Baptists insist. Now some have been honest enough to note that God has somehow foreordained that election occurs at a higher rate in believing homes but that is not a consistent Baptist position. It is simply nonsense, above, so speak of generic blessing if one insists a child is not elect. Oliver Twist might warm the heart but, eventually, even Oliver died.

As I noted, means don't control election but means are used of God because He decreed on the basis of nothing foreseen. It doesn't do for a Baptist to simply say that a child is blessed to be around the preaching of the Word because the reprobate are actually increasingly cursed on this basis. At best the Baptists could say my child is either very blessed or very cursed to have been around the preaching of the Word if election is so indeterminate.

The experience of growing up in a believing and practicing Christian home is not an increased curse (in all senses of the word) for the reprobate child. He experiences a kinder, more disciplined way of life than the generality around him and if he practices some of the disciplines and habits thereof, he may find his time in the world to be more enjoyable and less stressful and bitter than it may have otherwise been.

Also as you yourself point out in a previous post, Baptists could well point out that we do not deny that God the Holy Spirit does a good deal of his evangelistic work in households.

A canard. I'm sure the reprobate child will look back with fondness on his Christian years while he's in Hell, especially judged for repudiating the Son of God who was held forth every week. We're not talking about your best life now.

Anyhow, I appreciate the irenic interchange. I just want to give folks some cud to chew on and to take note of these discussions before they pull them out of their toolbox the next time a heated baptism debate fires up and they start throwing all their children under the bus as if they have no special status before God.

Ultimately the question is not do our children have special status before God, but rather how and why can Christians biblically recognize whether our children do or do not have that status?

You're right and the Scriptures recognize that their status is that they are holy.

Obviously, the Baptistic insistence that the symbol is divorced from spiritual reality is in keeping with their historic insistence that ordinances are bare signs (see http://www.puritanboard.com/520110-post5.html). Both in baptism and the Lord's Supper, no activity of the Holy Spirit is thought to occur as the Church administers the rites. It serves only to imitate previous activity and call information to mind but no spiritual benefit is given the recipient in the act.

If your definition of "bare sign" is where no activity of the Holy Spirit is thought to occur as the church administers the rites, then I must disagree in both cases. Nothing in the Baptist viewpoint prohibits the Spirit being active in Communion: indeed 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 makes it utterly certain that a work of the Holy Spirit is going on in the sacrament. And as for baptism, it is a plea to God for a good conscience (1 Peter 3:12), and like any genuine prayer, it must offered be by the strength or assistance of the Spririt, as Bunyan notes in his Discourse concerning prayer "that which is not petitioned through the teaching and assistance of the Spirit, it is not possible that it should be "according to the will of God (Rom. 8:26,27) ... There is no man nor church in the world that can come to God in prayer, but by the assistance of the Holy Spirit. "For through Christ we all have access by one Spirit unto the Father" (Eph 2:18)."

The Baptistic view of the Sacraments is well known historically. They deny Sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified. I just got done with Satz in this very thread pointing that out. You only highlight the error above in your retrospective look at what you believe the Holy Spirit did but not what Christ through the Holy Spirit is doing and will do through the Sacraments. You can't even admit that Baptism confers membership in the New Covenant.

 

[Iconoclast]

Could it be that God's promise to families is general in nature? Generally speaking, believing parents have believing children; not because grace runs in the blood, but because the family reflects God's relationship with His children?

Nobody has ever argued that "grace works through blood" (except perhaps Judaizers and dispensationalists) but God does bless the man when he blesses him. The promise to bless Abraham's posterity is the fullest sense of blessing that Abraham could receive. It is a lavish kind of grace. Calvin actually even says that, in our flesh, we're descendants of Adam but our supernatural descent is of Christ.

I simply wish that some Baptists would not be so energetic in their denial that God desires to bless their posterity except when they stop to reflect about this idea of what it means that it's a "blessing" that a child is in a believing home.

What I was trying to draw out in our interaction with my questions was to get a sense of what a Baptist believes it is for a child to be "blessed" to be in a believing home. It's sort of a reflex answer for Baptists to say: "Yeah we know there's something there but we're more interested in making sure you understand we're saying they're not blessed the way you say they are."

I thought Douglas Kelly made a great point in Systematic Theology II on the RTS iTunes. He noted that he often goes to some Churches and hears all about what the ordinances are not (thinking of the Lord's Supper) but then the minister stops and never explains what it is. It seems that Baptists are really good at saying what their children are not and not very good at fleshing out what that "blessing" consists of when it comes time to give account for it.

As I noted, means don't control election but means are used of God because He decreed on the basis of nothing foreseen. It doesn't do for a Baptist to simply say that a child is blessed to be around the preaching of the Word because the reprobate are actually increasingly cursed on this basis. At best the Baptists could say my child is either very blessed or very cursed to have been around the preaching of the Word if election is so indeterminate.

Anyhow, I appreciate the irenic interchange. I just want to give folks some cud to chew on and to take note of these discussions before they pull them out of their toolbox the next time a heated baptism debate fires up and they start throwing all their children under the bus as if they have no special status before God.

QUOTE=Semper Fidelis;520659]

Could it be that God's promise to families is general in nature? Generally speaking, believing parents have believing children; not because grace runs in the blood, but because the family reflects God's relationship with His children?

Nobody has ever argued that "grace works through blood" (except perhaps Judaizers and dispensationalists) but God does bless the man when he blesses him. The promise to bless Abraham's posterity is the fullest sense of blessing that Abraham could receive. It is a lavish kind of grace. Calvin actually even says that, in our flesh, we're descendants of Adam but our supernatural descent is of Christ.

I simply wish that some Baptists would not be so energetic in their denial that God desires to bless their posterity except when they stop to reflect about this idea of what it means that it's a "blessing" that a child is in a believing home.

What I was trying to draw out in our interaction with my questions was to get a sense of what a Baptist believes it is for a child to be "blessed" to be in a believing home. It's sort of a reflex answer for Baptists to say: "Yeah we know there's something there but we're more interested in making sure you understand we're saying they're not blessed the way you say they are."

I thought Douglas Kelly made a great point in Systematic Theology II on the RTS iTunes. He noted that he often goes to some Churches and hears all about what the ordinances are not (thinking of the Lord's Supper) but then the minister stops and never explains what it is. It seems that Baptists are really good at saying what their children are not and not very good at fleshing out what that "blessing" consists of when it comes time to give account for it.

As I noted, means don't control election but means are used of God because He decreed on the basis of nothing foreseen. It doesn't do for a Baptist to simply say that a child is blessed to be around the preaching of the Word because the reprobate are actually increasingly cursed on this basis. At best the Baptists could say my child is either very blessed or very cursed to have been around the preaching of the Word if election is so indeterminate.

Anyhow, I appreciate the irenic interchange. I just want to give folks some cud to chew on and to take note of these discussions before they pull them out of their toolbox the next time a heated baptism debate fires up and they start throwing all their children under the bus as if they have no special status before God.[/QUOTE]

Rich, Hello. Have not interacted with you for awhile,so let me jump in here
you said ;

I simply wish that some Baptists would not be so energetic in their denial that God desires to bless their posterity except when they stop to reflect about this idea of what it means that it's a "blessing" that a child is in a believing home.

This is a valid observation. It is an error to assume either position, yet it seems to me that many parents react emotionally rather than scripturally.
Children are meant to be a blessing in the home. A believing parent instructs his children as the scripture requires.God does work in households and clearly inter-marraige with unbelievers does not further this work.
A baptist parent does not have to assume, or presume his child is in or out of God's covenant as salvation is of the Lord in any case.
All are born in Adam, and in need of new birth. We are to instruct our children That we are all sinners, and that Jesus came to save sinners.
At a point in time the Holy Spirit enables a person to repent and believe
Furthermore we are to instruct them that

12So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

you also comment;

What I was trying to draw out in our interaction with my questions was to get a sense of what a Baptist believes it is for a child to be "blessed" to be in a believing home.

To be blessed to be in a believing home is to have all the same blessings for the most part as most padeos would say their children have,as you have pointed out in your obsevation among baptist churches.

you said this;

It doesn't do for a Baptist to simply say that a child is blessed to be around the preaching of the Word because the reprobate are actually increasingly cursed on this basis. At best the Baptists could say my child is either very blessed or very cursed to have been around the preaching of the Word if election is so indeterminate.

Rich, I would agree with you on this because it is a true statement. Being around the word preached is a blessing or a curse.

14Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

15For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:

16To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

17For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

This same sentiment however is preached in faithful padeo pulpits as well. On sermonaudio I have heard David Silverisdes and others preach that children of padeos who despise the gospel will not escape the judgment of God. Failing to "improve on their baptism" will be a curse,and no blessing. The principle spoken of false prophets and false teachers will also apply to apostates.

21For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

22But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

I never considered any of my children as heathen's , or the infamous vipers in diapers. But as we are all conceived in sin, and born in Adam, in need of the new birth. We have over time sought to be open an honest with them.
When my children sin I know why they sin. My wife and I explained to them why this happens,and that only In Christ can sin be dealt with savingly.
We know that God saves who he will in His time.We are confident that God works through means so we seek to be faithful in our presentation to our children.
Every parent who believes wants all of their children in heaven,mentally , emotionally, spiritually, in every way a believing parent wants their children to be saved.
The gospel promise is to all that believe, as many as the Lord shall call,effectually. We know and believe that promise as it is found fully in Christ, not apart from him.
I am confident that half of my children are "safely folded" resting In Christ. I am still concerned for the other half that while not outwardly denying Christ verbally, seem to give no indication of having laid hold of the things that accompany salvation.

9But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.

You mentioned something about 80% of baptists having their children baptized by 18yrs old. I would not dispute this, and sometimes I lament what i see take place,ie, the parents wanting to "emotionally feel better" about the condition of their children before God. So the first time the child repeats the name Jesus they are whisked off to a baptismal tank for immersion I have more respect for the padeo position believing in a covenant continuity circ/bap then for the parent wanting to push for baptism as if it saved rather than Christ.
I have not taken a poll but i have spoken with many young people who said that they were baptized at the urging of family members or friends to do something- profess, confess, raise the hand, walk the aisle , then get baptized. I would not defend any of these physical and carnal, emotional plea's.
Some of these individuals later on will explain that they really did not grasp what was at issue.
Praise the Lord that he is sovereign and He opens the heart when he wills to.
All that being said, I do believe that a Spirit wrought profession and confession of faith, followed by baptism is proper. Both types of profession exist. [carnal and false] [ spiritual and true]

As most padeos wait until their children give similar evidence to allow them to the Lord's table, I do not think we are as far apart practically, as we might be in our doctrinal stances.

 

[satz]

Now some have been honest enough to note that God has somehow foreordained that election occurs at a higher rate in believing homes but that is not a consistent Baptist position.

Rich,

Given that baptists hold to, as you have said, that baptism is not sacremental but rather an ordiance of obedience, why is this an inconsistent position?

-----Added 1/5/2009 at 12:36:47 EST-----

The fact that it speaks of spiritual realities does not divorce the fact that a physical act is performed in connection with it. Throughout the OT, spiritual circumcision is spoken of to charge the Israelites with mere externalism. It would be extremely problematic to apply the kind of hermeneutic you apply above woodenly across the Scriptures. Where would types and shadows be if they had no connection to the substance of what they pointed to in the OT? I find it ironic that the one place where Baptists inconsistently apply this hermeneutic is when they utilize Romans 6:4 to denote that "buried" implies mode.

Obviously, the Baptistic insistence that the symbol is divorced from spiritual reality is in keeping with their historic insistence that ordinances are bare signs (see http://www.puritanboard.com/520110-post5.html). Both in baptism and the Lord's Supper, no activity of the Holy Spirit is thought to occur as the Church administers the rites. It serves only to imitate previous activity and call information to mind but no spiritual benefit is given the recipient in the act.

I was responding to Cesar's point that those verses thought that baptism and circumcision were interrelated. I do not see that in those verses. In fact, I don't see that either verse is dealing with the actual acts of circumcision / baptism. Paul is, it seems to me, using the imagery of immersion / cutting off that baptism or circumcision would produce in his readers to make a point.

I was not attempting to suggest any blanket method for interpreting scripture about baptism / circumcision.

 

[timmopussycat]

I hear Baptists repeat the regular refrain that there is no such blessing for a household and that God's election is now independent of households...I guess I'd just like a consistent Baptist position that "works" for all situations and not just when they're trying to criticize paedobaptists in their insistence that the elective purposes of God and, consequently, His means flow along family lines much more closely than Baptists want to admit.

I don't know whether you have been mishearing or whether my confreres have been overstating the case but what we should be saying is that while God's election in the NT is not automatically tied to households, He is not specifically against household evangelism either.

I didn't say evangelism Tim. I said election. Perhaps the person not reading properly is not I.

No, that's not it. I failed to make what I thought was a self-evident point. Since God uses means and since both credo and paedo parents tell their children about Jesus it is not surprising that such household evangelism is the means by which God brings his elect children into professing discipleship. So it is not surprising that household evangelism is one of the means by which God reaches his elect.

[OK Tim. It's not scientific. Let me ask you a question: How many children in your congregation remain un-Baptized by the time they are 18 years old?

That is to say, I would like to know, of children that have grown up in the Baptist Church that you attend (which I presume is Reformed Baptist), how many of the children that are at least 18 are not yet baptized? A simple number will do.

I couldn't say offhand, not having done the research, but I don't have any grounds for thinking your informal poll may be atypical. As I just showed, it is quite likely God works in this way.

And I will let Herald answer your inquiry to him.

The "lights on a wall" is Plato's analogy even if Lewis borrowed it and children are spiritually blind and do not see any dancing shadows if they are reprobate.

Lewis' beam of light in the toolshed is not quite the same as Plato's light in the cave, and neither he nor I use it the idea in the same way as Plato, nor am I using it as Lewis did. I am just expressing my obseration that an intellectual position seen from within that position is often not the same thing as that position seen from without. I am not meaning to imply anything beyond this as far as the particular subject of our discussion is concerned. To try to make my sole point without reference to theology: you may have noticed that many of Lenin's "useful idiots" did not have much acquaintance with Communism while many of the fiercest denouncers of Communism have been those who experienced living under it. In the same way I often find paedo critics of credo positions often missing the point, because they are looking at the credo position from the outside, and it is only my decade-long experience of life within paedo churches that give me a degree of understanding that sometimes lets me avoid the same mistake in reverse by seeing the paedo position, in a measure from within it.

[There is no "blessing" whatsoever in a generic sense if election is as indeterminate as some Baptists insist. Now some have been honest enough to note that God has somehow foreordained that election occurs at a higher rate in believing homes but that is not a consistent Baptist position.

It may not be consistent Baptist but my assertion that the election rate may be expected to be higher in Christian homes is based however on two Scriptural premises that you yourself would affirm: (that God uses means to bring people to regeneration, and that when his word goes forth it will produce fruit) together with an observation you will not deny: that believing parent teach the faith to their children.

It is simply nonsense, above, so speak of generic blessing if one insists a child is not elect. Oliver Twist might warm the heart but, eventually, even Oliver died. ... A canard. I'm sure the reprobate child will look back with fondness on his Christian years while he's in Hell, especially judged for repudiating the Son of God who was held forth every week. We're not talking about your best life now.

Here we once again approach the "common grace" debate. I don't want to say much on this beyond the fact that there is indubitably a sense in which God is "kind to the ungrateful and the evil" (Luke 6:35,36). Since a reprobate deserves nothing more than instant death after first sin, any postponement of that judgment and any other benefit a reprobate receives before that judgemne is executed is objectively a momentary blessing, however it might be perceived in hindsight. And the momentary blessings of being raised around practiced Christianity are real if momentary for the reprobate.

Moreover, your "canard" won't fly. You asked the Baptists to explain what we meant by thinking a Christian upbringing can be a blessing and you did not specify whether the blessing was momentary or eternal. After I give you an explanation you cannot reject it by narrowing the originally stated terms of discussion. I agree with you that there is no eternal blessing and indeed an intensification of regret for the reprobate in blessings when viewed in hindsight from hell, but I cannot deny that there are real temporal blessings associated with Christian upbrinings that reprobates will experience.

You're right and the Scriptures recognize that their status is that they are holy.

Whether holy in that context means "regenerate" or something else is something that Paul does not tell us in the context. Since we don't believe that pagan husbands are made regenerate by marrying Christian wives, and since "made holy" is used of unbelieving husbands in the immediately preceding verse, I question whether the meaning regenerate can be supported as Paul's intended meaning of "made holy" when that word is used of the children. Since John tells us it is those who have faith who have the right to be called children of God and Paul tells us it is those who have faith who are the children of Abraham, we do not have the right to assume any is regenerate without a profession of faith.

Obviously, the Baptistic insistence that the symbol is divorced from spiritual reality is in keeping with their historic insistence that ordinances are bare signs (see http://www.puritanboard.com/520110-post5.html). Both in baptism and the Lord's Supper, no activity of the Holy Spirit is thought to occur as the Church administers the rites. It serves only to imitate previous activity and call information to mind but no spiritual benefit is given the recipient in the act.

If your definition of "bare sign" is where no activity of the Holy Spirit is thought to occur as the church administers the rites, then I must disagree in both cases. Nothing in the Baptist viewpoint prohibits the Spirit being active in Communion: indeed 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 makes it utterly certain that a work of the Holy Spirit is going on in the sacrament. And as for baptism, it is a plea to God for a good conscience (1 Peter 3:12), and like any genuine prayer, it must offered be by the strength or assistance of the Spririt, as Bunyan notes in his Discourse concerning prayer "that which is not petitioned through the teaching and assistance of the Spirit, it is not possible that it should be "according to the will of God (Rom. 8:26,27) ... There is no man nor church in the world that can come to God in prayer, but by the assistance of the Holy Spirit. "For through Christ we all have access by one Spirit unto the Father" (Eph 2:18)."

The Baptistic view of the Sacraments is well known historically. They deny Sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified. I just got done with Satz in this very thread pointing that out. You only highlight the error above in your retrospective look at what you believe the Holy Spirit did but not what Christ through the Holy Spirit is doing and will do through the Sacraments.

I was responding to your comment "no activity of the Holy Spirit present" not to the concept of "sacramental union" in church history. And I hold no brief for Baptist shibboleths that cannot be supported by Scripture or necessary consequence deductions derived therefrom.

You can't even admit that Baptism confers membership in the New Covenant.

I don't want to state that baptism confers membership in the New Covenant. It doesn't.
Since New Covenant members
have God's law written on their hearts
will be God's people and know him
and will have their sins forgiven
and their iniquities remembered no more,
Then, members of the new covenant must be the elect/regenerate and I am not about to assert that all who are baptized are elect.

Do you want to call every baptized individual elect and regenerate?
If you say that Baptism confirms membership in the New Covenant, you must do so. And the consequence is, for example, (unless you deny the validity of Roman Catholic baptism) that you must call regenerate both Adolf Hitler and Josef Goebbels who were baptized Roman Catholics, and apply the same label to "Protestant" Hermann Goering, all of whom opposed Christianity when alive and met their ends by suicide.

 

[Herald]

Acts 2:37-39 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

Peter's audience had just heard the gospel preached. I don't think any of us is going to deny that.

While pistis is not used in v. 38, metanoia does not exist without it. Peter could have easily said, "Have faith and be baptized" or "believe and be baptized." But considering the nature of his audience, he probably used metanoia to stress that they needed to turn from dead Judaism, because:

Acts 2:36 "...God has made Him both Lord and Christ-- this Jesus whom you crucified."

That Peter said, "for the forgiveness of your sins" reinforces the soteriological nature of this passage.

I see absolutely nothing in this passage that even hints at Arminianism, unless my construct is such that I consider all endued with a sort of prevenient grace, and all had equal opportunity to respond. But as human instruments who are proclaiming the gospel, the call is general in scope, even though the result will be specific to the elect.

 

[discipulo]

I think very honestly, that keeping the mutual respect and love we owe each other, there are a lot of loose ends already, that should be deepened for mutual benefit.

One objection to my line of reasoning is that there would be no need to mention "and your children" if they were given the same promise as their parents–they would have been included in the "you" which addresses the multitude. Therefore, the argument goes, the mention of "and your children" is evidence of the continuation of the covenant family concept and the application of the covenant sign upon one's children. However, the very mention of children as a separate category indicates that the apostle wanted to emphasize that there was no misunderstanding that they were not to receive baptism unless they repented and believed as verse 38 clearly requires.

So, if we take matters separately, we may skip the purpose of comparing Scripture with Scripture, as the focusing on Acts 2 seems to draw very different conclusions from different authors, and from several of us.

We may well be focusing on the 2 opposite sides of the coin, so to speak, the repentance, belief, side and the covenant formula side, mentioning the children, when we should clarify both. Since both are not contradictory but rather have complementary aims.

So again I ask, how could for the Men of Judea, the mentioning of the unto your children in Acts 2 be exactly to state the opposite of what they would expect, that now in a Better Covenant, extending in scope, to the Gentiles, would contract in promise and blessing, since now they wouldn’t have covenant inclusion by birth?

How could they understand it that way only by the grammatical conjunction of the words, unto you and to your children, when in fact it brought such resemblance to the Covenant formulation of Genesis 17:7, that they so high esteemed?

If Peter really wanted to clearly draw a line there, to suddenly differentiate the entry in the NC in full contrast to all former Administrations, and in opposition to their prior understanding of Redemptive History, would that be enough?

How would that be consistent with the Kerygma of Acts 3:25, with its covenant proclamation including a generational promise?

Ye are the sons of the prophets, and of the Covenant which God made with your fathers,
saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. Acts 3:25

the word for families comes from patria and pater as fathers, meaning paternal descendants, the fathers and the children - and for all who are far off - the earth with its gentiles

And then the articulation of Oikos in the Kerygma of Acts 11:14

He will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household. Acts 11:14
with the emphasis kai and pas all

Then we must continue a correct exegesis of this, as I pointed before, the Oikos - Household is similar to both NT and the OT (But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD Joshua 24:15 as the Septuagint also makes crystal clear)

Again like with Peter mentioning the children, if Paul and Luke wanted to make clear that only individual believing adults should be baptized, how could they use repeatedly associated with Baptism, such an inclusive word Household?

Specially so, since their understanding of Oikos was an inclusive unit, both for Jewish and Mediterranean Gentiles, and with all its centrality in OT Redemptive History.

Being already Household - Oikos - an inclusive consistent unit, the family, the different mentions of Baptism in the Oikos context necessarily lead to a collective family understanding of the Sacrament (again as it was with Circumcision), notice that Luke even has the need to reinforce that scope of the administration of Baptism to the Household with the words kai and pas all.

and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. Acts 16:33 kai and pas all


What then? you will say, is there no difference between the Old and the New Testaments? What is to become of the passages of Scripture in which they are contrasted as things differing most widely from each other? I readily admit the differences which are pointed out in Scripture, but still hold that they derogate in no respect from their established Unity.

Calvin Institutes Book 2 Chapter 11 - 1

 

[Herald]

So again I ask, how could for the Men of Judea, the mentioning of the unto your children in Acts 2 be exactly to state the opposite of what they would expect, that now in a Better Covenant, extending in scope, to the Gentiles, would contract in promise and blessing, since now they wouldn’t have covenant inclusion by birth?

How could they understand it that way only by the grammatical conjunction of the words, unto you and to your children, when in fact it brought such resemblance to the Covenant formulation of Genesis 17:7, that they so high esteemed?

Cesar, I'm not so quick to leave the text in order to answer your question. Peter called on the these men of Judea to "repent and be baptized." Let's agree for the sake of argument that these men were acquainted with the baptism of John. If so, then baptism for repentance itself would not have been a totally foreign concept. The uniqueness of this baptism was in what it identified, "in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." We know that forgiveness of sins is both sola gratia and sola fide. Considering the soteriological nature of the text, I assume both are contained with the metanoia of Acts 2:38; but even if not the explicit intent of Peter, our greater understanding of soteriology forces it's way into "forgiveness of sins."

I reiterate what Malone wrote:

One objection to my line of reasoning is that there would be no need to mention "and your children" if they were given the same promise as their parents–they would have been included in the "you" which addresses the multitude. Therefore, the argument goes, the mention of "and your children" is evidence of the continuation of the covenant family concept and the application of the covenant sign upon one's children. However, the very mention of children as a separate category indicates that the apostle wanted to emphasize that there was no misunderstanding that they were not to receive baptism unless they repented and believed as verse 38 clearly requires. A second answer to this objection is that all those who were baptized partook of the Lord's Supper immediately afterward (v. 42). If infants were baptized with their parents, did they also partake of the breaking of bread? The objection does not stand.

We can't lift from this account just the part that supports our argument. In toto we see baptism administered after repentance and faith (regardless of when the former took place), the promise extended to the hearer (first generation and all proceeding generations) based on like faith in Christ, and those who had believed and were baptized partaking of the Lord's Supper (v. 42). In this passage are both ordinances (sacraments) of the church -- baptism and the Lord's Supper.

So, beyond the parsing of nouns and verbs spoke by Peter, the men of Judea also saw the ordinances applied and the continued preaching of the gospel after they came to faith:

Acts 2:40 40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!"

They were not left to convene a meeting to try and decipher what Peter meant. They saw it lived in the continued teaching of the Apostles and the close fellowship of the saints.

The remainder of your post dovetails with it's beginning, so it is answered above.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Acts 2:37-39 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

Peter's audience had just heard the gospel preached. I don't think any of us is going to deny that.

While pistis is not used in v. 38, metanoia does not exist without it. Peter could have easily said, "Have faith and be baptized" or "believe and be baptized." But considering the nature of his audience, he probably used metanoia to stress that they needed to turn from dead Judaism, because:

Acts 2:36 "...God has made Him both Lord and Christ-- this Jesus whom you crucified."

That Peter said, "for the forgiveness of your sins" reinforces the soteriological nature of this passage.

I see absolutely nothing in this passage that even hints at Arminianism, unless my construct is such that I consider all endued with a sort of prevenient grace, and all had equal opportunity to respond. But as human instruments who are proclaiming the gospel, the call is general in scope, even though the result will be specific to the elect.

I asked a simple question Bill. Does the passage teach, systematically, that a person receives the Holy Spirit after repentance and baptism? Secondly, I asked you if Acts 2 is where you go for your systematic understanding of the passage.

-----Added 1/5/2009 at 08:27:45 EST-----

Do you want to call every baptized individual elect and regenerate?
If you say that Baptism confirms membership in the New Covenant, you must do so. And the consequence is, for example, (unless you deny the validity of Roman Catholic baptism) that you must call regenerate both Adolf Hitler and Josef Goebbels who were baptized Roman Catholics, and apply the same label to "Protestant" Hermann Goering, all of whom opposed Christianity when alive and met their ends by suicide.

Yet another canard. Let's divert the issue by begging the question a bit, shall we?

I'll end my interaction with you on the subject by noting that the nature of your canards is to re-state the case and then complain: "But you didn't say what kind of blessing...." I'm interested in serious interaction. Since most Baptists who use the idea of "blessing" are thinking of much more than Johnny gets to be brought up in a Baptist instead of a Muslim town I'll leave it to the discerning reader to judge.

The people in Jeremiah's day heard plenty of the Word of God but it fell on the soil and compacted it as it were. There is simply no room for a Baptist understanding of "blessing" for a child in a home given the status that the child has in their theology.

Also, since you depart on so many points from historic theology, I really don't much care whether you believe my characterizations are "representative". I've had as much time as you claim to have around paedo Churches around run of the mill Baptists. Even your fellow Baptists are undermining your claims that I'm misrepresenting by putting forth ideas. Since none of you represents the Confessional position then one position is as good as another as well as several Baptist's experiences over the one.

It is a cop out to duck the question about youths baptized in your Church.

 

[Herald]

Rich,

The Holy Spirit is received at regeneration. I do not form systematic theology from Acts 2.

-----Added 1/5/2009 at 09:39:44 EST-----

Acts 2:38-39 8 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."

I often encounter this passage used by my paedo brethren as a proof-text for infant baptism and household regeneration. As a proof-text this passage fails on two counts:

1. The actual promise is that "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus request" results in "forgiveness of sin" and the gift of the "Holy Spirit."

2. The promise (see above) is continued as a perpetual thing until the Lord returns (verse 39). It has absolutely nothing to do with applying the sign of baptism to infants in the absence of faith. The sign is applied after repentance and faith (faith implied) (v. 38).

Rich, I didn't quite understand your earlier question about stating this in a way that doesn't seem too Arminian. I had to sit there are stare at it to finally see it for your perspective.

Of course, the Holy Spirit is given at regeneration. Forgiveness of sins takes place at the same time. Peter was explaining the benefits of repentance -- one of which is forgiveness of sins. I wrote my original post the way I did as a refutation against one of disciplo's posts, not as a treatise on soteriology.

 

[timmopussycat]

Do you want to call every baptized individual elect and regenerate?
If you say that Baptism confirms membership in the New Covenant, you must do so. And the consequence is, for example, (unless you deny the validity of Roman Catholic baptism) that you must call regenerate both Adolf Hitler and Josef Goebbels who were baptized Roman Catholics, and apply the same label to "Protestant" Hermann Goering, all of whom opposed Christianity when alive and met their ends by suicide.

Yet another canard.

Your remark is yet another canard that won't fly. Jeremiah's new covenant specifically promises regeneration to those with whom it is made. If baptism confirms membership in the NC the consequence I pointed out is good and necessary.

Let's divert the issue by begging the question a bit, shall we?

I'll end my interaction with you on the subject by noting that the nature of your canards is to re-state the case and then complain: "But you didn't say what kind of blessing...." I'm interested in serious interaction. Since most Baptists who use the idea of "blessing" are thinking of much more than Johnny gets to be brought up in a Baptist instead of a Muslim town I'll leave it to the discerning reader to judge.

Did you, in previous serious discussions, ever ask a Baptist to define the blessings they meant in eternal terms only, or did you not? If you did not do so in those discussions you may well have gotten an answer like mine. And if you did exclude the temporal in your earlier questioning, why did you not do so here? I am not a mind reader.

The people in Jeremiah's day heard plenty of the Word of God but it fell on the soil and compacted it as it were. There is simply no room for a Baptist understanding of "blessing" for a child in a home given the status that the child has in their theology.

The people in Jeremiah's day were not the prophecied members of the new covenenant. Peter's hearers were. Since you want a serious discussion, please try to avoid "straw man" exegetical errors which, like this one, argue that you either do not understand what the issue is or haven't fully comprehended the point to which you are replying. And to say that there is "no room for a Baptist understanding of "blessing" for a child in a home given the status that the child has in their theology" is simply a begging of the question. It is like saying that there is "no room for a Christian understanding of Baptism given the status that circumcison has in their theology." Unfortunately for such "theologians", Christ and the Apostles came along and made changes to the current theology which made room for Christian baptism. Our problem is that we must establish from Scripture the exact scope of those changes.

Also, since you depart on so many points from historic theology, I really don't much care whether you believe my characterizations are "representative".

Taking the WCF as representative of historical orthodoxy, I differ from it only on baptism and church government. (I am not sure one can say that the WCF articulates a full position on EP even though I know the latter was the default view of at least a majority of divines. Likewise I don't think the Westminster Standards formulate a full anti-"charismatic position – I still have an enquiry into the moderators requesting sources in the standards for such.)

I've had as much time as you claim to have around paedo Churches around run of the mill Baptists. Even your fellow Baptists are undermining your claims that I'm misrepresenting by putting forth ideas. Since none of you represents the Confessional position then one position is as good as another as well as several Baptist's experiences over the one.

Please watch your words, I don't "claim" to have spent almost a decade in paedo churches: I did spend that decade there. And did you spend your time among Reformed or run of the mill Baptists? As you may know, that often makes a difference in the Baptist faith you encounter. Second, nothing I have written on baptism is in tension with the OLBC which says nothing against activity of the Holy Spirit in the ordinance.

It is a cop out to duck the question about youths baptized in your Church.

I'm not ducking it. If you specifically want me to do the research in a community where I am not involved in children's ministry and this factoid is not kept track of, give me a little time before accusing me of ducking the question: it will take me a week or two to get the answer for you. I merely pointed out that there is no reason to believe your poll is incorrect when carried out more scientifically in the broader Baptist community and I gave you my reasons for thinking so.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It is like saying that there is "no room for a Christian understanding of Baptism given the status that circumcison has in their theology."

Well said. Calvin and I would agree on this point.

 

[timmopussycat]

Respectfully, I do not see that the verses you have quoted show any connection between baptism and circumcision. 1 Corinthians 10 does not address the issue of water baptism at all. The circumcision in Col 2 is made without hands, so I would understand it to be a metaphor for a spiritual operation of God on the believer. There is no indication the actual physical act of circumcising a child is being considered.

The fact that it speaks of spiritual realities does not divorce the fact that a physical act is performed in connection with it. Throughout the OT, spiritual circumcision is spoken of to charge the Israelites with mere externalism. It would be extremely problematic to apply the kind of hermeneutic you apply above woodenly across the Scriptures. Where would types and shadows be if they had no connection to the substance of what they pointed to in the OT? I find it ironic that the one place where Baptists inconsistently apply this hermeneutic is when they utilize Romans 6:4 to denote that "buried" implies mode.

While some Baptists use Rom 6:4 to draw an implication of the mode of Baptism, such usage of that Scripture was not incorporated into the LBC and hence is not a confessional premise.

-----Added 1/5/2009 at 12:00:05 EST-----

It is like saying that there is "no room for a Christian understanding of Baptism given the status that circumcison has in their theology."

Well said. Calvin and I would agree on this point.

I think you may have misunderstood me, but that's my fault. I should have written "It is like saying that there is "no room for a Christian understanding of Baptism given the status that circumcison has in their [the Jews'] theology."

 

[discipulo]

Cesar, I'm not so quick to leave the text in order to answer your question. Peter called on the these men of Judea to "repent and be baptized." Let's agree for the sake of argument that these men were acquainted with the baptism of John. If so, then baptism for repentance itself would not have been a totally foreign concept. The uniqueness of this baptism was in what it identified, "in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." We know that forgiveness of sins is both sola gratia and sola fide. Considering the soteriological nature of the text, I assume both are contained with the metanoia of Acts 2:38; but even if not the explicit intent of Peter, our greater understanding of soteriology forces it's way into "forgiveness of sins." .

Sure, we can agree grounded on Romans 2:4 that Sola Gratia causes that Metanoia.

I reiterate what Malone wrote:

One objection to my line of reasoning is that there would be no need to mention "and your children" if they were given the same promise as their parents–they would have been included in the "you" which addresses the multitude. Therefore, the argument goes, the mention of "and your children" is evidence of the continuation of the covenant family concept and the application of the covenant sign upon one's children. However, the very mention of children as a separate category indicates that the apostle wanted to emphasize that there was no misunderstanding that they were not to receive baptism unless they repented and believed as verse 38 clearly requires. A second answer to this objection is that all those who were baptized partook of the Lord's Supper immediately afterward (v. 42). If infants were baptized with their parents, did they also partake of the breaking of bread? The objection does not stand.

We can't lift from this account just the part that supports our argument. In toto we see baptism administered after repentance and faith (regardless of when the former took place), the promise extended to the hearer (first generation and all proceeding generations) based on like faith in Christ, and those who had believed and were baptized partaking of the Lord's Supper (v. 42). In this passage are both ordinances (sacraments) of the church -- baptism and the Lord's Supper.

In CREC there is Paedo-communion and also Reformed Baptists, could that be, in a Leibnitz sort of way, the best of all possible worlds?

I must say that I am not convinced that Acts 2 in light of Acts 3, and all the Oikos matter could derive on that However, however I don’t know enough to contest it.

But you will understand that for myself, I will rather rely on Joel Beeke’s 20 pages on Acts 2:30s I am aware we are connecting the dots in a different way here.

But there is another matter that I think it’s vital, and was already mentioned. It has to do with the 3rd response of Beeke, on infant salvation before the age of reason.

On this I will rely mostly on Prof David Engelsma – The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers.

Even more than his mentor Herman Hoeksema, Englesma in my opinion has the right balance between Abraham Kuyper presumptive regeneration and Klaas Schilder conditional covenant. Engelsma instead of both extremes formulates Promised Regeneration.

I must say that Klaas Schilder had a very dated theology to respond to very a specific Dutch Pastoral context, so has been very misunderstood and greatly misused, let alone been high jacked by FV.

To better understand Klaas Schilder I strongly recommend
Always Obedient – Essays on the Teachings of Klaas Schilder edited by J. Geertsema. parentheses sponsored by P&R

But I would like to understand something vital, since from a Baptist perspective, children before professing faith are not inside the NC, so are not meant to be baptized and are not members of the Visible Church, what is then the Biblical basis for stating both total depravity and the salvation of children of believers before the age of reason?

This also has very important pastoral implications like former posts already shown. But please also share, everything you find related, concerning the proper state / condition of the children of believers.
I believe we also have to debate the implications of Infant Baptism, Sacramental Grace, Sign and the Thing Signified, the importance of a child being Sealed, its Efficacy, etc. Also mentioned earlier.

The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time WCF 28.VI

 

[Herald]

Cesar, I don't believe we are at odds over elect infants being saved. Those elect infants who die in infancy may ever have the opportunity to display the evidence of their faith. Indeed, my own confession states:

Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. (1689 LBC 10.3)

The point is that Acts 2 has nothing at all to do with infants being saved in infancy. The text clearly describes those who profess their faith (Acts 2:41).

 

[discipulo]

Fred Malone writes:

As I already wrote, some arguments of Malone are way above my league, so to speak. So concerning Fred Malone’s The Baptism of Disciples Alone, these critical analysis, in my opinion, answer properly the matter of Acts 2 and others, PDFs attached.

Joseph Richard Nally A Brief Critique of Fred Malone’s The Baptism of Disciples Alone

http://reformedperspectives.org/newfiles/jos_nally/th.jos_nally.baptism.disciples.pdf

Matthew McMahon The Rejection of Baptism of Disciples alone – an analysis of Fred Malone’s The Baptism of Disciples Alone

The Rejection of the* Baptism of Disciples Alone

Cesar, I don't believe we are at odds over elect infants being saved. Those elect infants who die in infancy may ever have the opportunity to display the evidence of their faith. Indeed, my own confession states:

Sure, probably that was not the right way to address it.

Election is in the Sovereign and Eternal Decree of God, so yes all elect children will be saved. But if that is the only thing we can derive from God’s Word, I would say we must conform to have the same hope and assurance concerning the children of believers as towards the children of non believers. Is that Biblical? Of course not!

But why then? On what basis? If the children of believers are not in the Covenant and not part of the Visible Church, what is then the basis to pray with our children? to present them to Church in their infancy? To have hope of their salvation?

See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven. Mathew 18:10

So if God in His Word makes specific promises and claims to the children of believers then we must understand that God is, in His Sovereignty, trusting His elect children to believing parents and christian households.

This is still affirming the Sovereignty of God in His Election, Free and Independent from any condition or prognosis.

Because one matter is subordinate to other, doesn’t make them contradictory, that was a Medievalistic concept. So Covenant Doctrine is in subordination to the Doctrine of Predestination, but that is not a contradiction.
As Karl Barth oddly tried to prove, putting Calvin against Calvinism.

see Lillback, The Binding of God, Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology.
Dr. Peter A.Lillback is a PCA Elder and President of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.

So we must take God at His Word since He cannot deny Himself 2 Timothy 2:13

We don’t presume regeneration, but we should presume election on the basis of promised regeneration.

Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household. Acts 16:31

And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. But Jesus called for them, saying, Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Luke 18:15-16

They are to be presumed to be the elect unless, at some point, they demonstrate otherwise.

Because God’s relation to men is Covenantal, and that is in the scope of God’s Condescension. So the relation of God to His people always has its origin on God’s willingness to condescend. In the beginning God, God's Grace is always first !

WCF VII 1 by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

We walk by faith not by sight, we must trust the promises of God and obey its implications.

To wait for professed faith in order to accept that those children of believers are finally in the New Covenant, when the NC is an administration of the Eternal Covenant of Grace, exhaustively stated in Scripture and compared in its unity to other administrations, is, In my humble opinion, a clear contradiction of Covenantal Truth.

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 1 Corinthians 7:14

emphasis mine

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I asked a simple question Bill. Does the passage teach, systematically, that a person receives the Holy Spirit after repentance and baptism? Secondly, I asked you if Acts 2 is where you go for your systematic understanding of the passage.

Just some commentary on this passage.

Calvin

Ye shall receive the gift of the Spirit. Because they were touched with wondering when they saw the apostles suddenly begin to speak with strange tongues, Peter saith that they shall be partakers of the same gift if they will pass over unto Christ. Remission of sins and newness of life were the principal things, and this was, as it were, an addition, that Christ should show forth unto them his power by some visible gift. Neither ought this place to be understood of the grace of sanctification, which is given generally to all the godly. Therefore he promiseth them the gift of the Spirit, whereof they saw a pattern in the diversity of tongues. Therefore this doth not properly appertain unto us. For because Christ meant to set forth the beginning of his kingdom with those miracles, they lasted but for a time; yet because the visible graces which the Lord did distribute to his did shoe, as it were in a glass, that Christ was the giver of the Spirit, therefore, that which Peter saith doth in some respect appertain unto all the whole Church: ye shall receive the gift of the Spirit. For although we do not receive it, that we may speak with tongues, that we may be prophets, that we may cure the sick, that we may work miracles; yet is it given us for a better use, that we may believe with the heart unto righteousness, that our tongues may be framed unto true confession, (Rom_10:10,) that we may pass from death to life, (Joh_5:24) that we, which are poor and empty, may be made rich, that we may withstand Satan and the world stoutly. Therefore, the grace of the Spirit shall always be annexed unto baptism, unless the let be in ourselves.

Gill

and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: not the grace of the Spirit, as a regenerator and sanctifier; for that they had already; and is necessary, as previous to baptism; unless it should mean confirmation of that grace, and stability in it, as it appears from Act_2:42 they afterwards had; but rather the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, particularly the gift of speaking with tongues, which Christ had received from the Father, and had now shed on his apostles; see Act_19:5.

I have always understood this part of the passage to indicate some gift the Spirit would give to the believer for his work in the body of Christ. We are all given gifts to operate as a body. I think I stand in good company in my understanding.

-----Added 1/6/2009 at 09:43:50 EST-----

One thing that I believe that is missing is how does the New Covenant define the children of promise. ie. covenant children.

Who is the seed or offspring Christ shall see?

(Isa 53:10) 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.

Christ defines what his Covenant Family is.

(Mat 12:47) Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

(Mat 12:48) But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

(Mat 12:49) And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

(Mat 12:50) For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.



(Luk 8:19) Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.

(Luk 8:20) And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.

(Luk 8:21) And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.

(Joh 1:12) 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:

(Joh 1:13) Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Paul then expounds on who the children of God are.

(Rom 9:6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

(Rom 9:7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

(Rom 9:8) 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.

(Rom 9:9) For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

The children of Promise are the brethren and family of God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New Covenant child is one who is born from above. Those who are in Christ. These are the brethren. If one has not the Spirit of Christ he is not one of his until such a time that he is born from above. Christ the second Adam is his head and Father.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

What this underlines, as usual, is the divorce in Baptistic theology between the people in the OT and the NT that the NT itself repudiates.

Every time I read a Baptist quote Galatians as above, I cringe. Abraham wouldn't have recognized himself in the characterization of what he thought his family was about.

What I find striking about this theology is how a Baptist can repeatedly speak about the New Covenant in the abstract, separate it from the visible Church, and then return to the discussion as if anything that was just noted has any bearing upon the ordinances of the Church. I suppose it's simply repeated so much that it is believed that the more you affirm that the New Covenant is with the Elect that the less it is that the hidden things belong to the Lord.

Even if one grants the repeated insistence that the New Covenant consists of the Elect, more work has to be done to prescribe how it is that a visible Church acts in human history with Church men who have to read the Word of God and not try to peer into the mind of God.

For instance, there has never been a time in human history when God did not save His people through union with Christ. It was His grace through and through and the Gospel has been delivered from faith to faith that the just shall live by faith. Yet, that being the case, God used visible sacraments (or ordinances if you insist) to direct the eyes and ears of His elect toward Him even as they did not know who was/wasn't elect among them.

The Baptist has to do more, then, than simply note that an elect exists and it's called the New Covenant. Since the Old Covenant that contained types and shadows was used of God to bring people to Christ, there is a problem that there is now no Covenant that actually intrudes into time and space. That is to say that the NC is completely ideal as far as man understands but none of the ordinances can actually be said to be administrations of the New Covenant because a mixed multitude exists even in Baptist Churches.

This is the irony of baptism debates: for all the insistence that the NC is with the elect, the Baptist doesn't even believe that baptism confers membership to the NC. Thus, the activity of the Church stands, as it were, outside of direct relationship with the NC and, in fact, this present "dispensation" is "Covenant-less" with respect to the administration of the ordinances.