Is the New Covenant "unbreakable"

[Calvibaptist]

" Behold then the goodness and severity of God:
toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee,
God's goodness, if thou continue in his goodness:
otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." Ro 11:22​

What is one cut off from?
Salvation? or COVENANT?

So, we are going to ignore the real question of who the covenant is made with according to all the passages that specifically and clearly talk about the covenant and we are going to make an assumption from a passage that a lot of people have trouble interpreting to prove our point????

 

[non dignus]

So, we are going to ignore the real question of who the covenant is made with.....

The covenant is made 'to you and to your children' based upon the condition of faith. We do not have the faculty to discern between true faith and false faith. Those secret things belong to God. The revealed things belong to us and to our children.

.....according to all the passages that specifically and clearly talk about the covenant and we are going to make an assumption from a passage that a lot of people have trouble interpreting to prove our point????

Paul is talking exactly about the covenant and whether God is faithful to it when the covenant people are not. 'Cut-off' is covenant language and is used by no accident. It is covenant cursing. Christ says in Revelation to the churches, "unless you repent I will remove your candlestick". It is covenant cursing.

One is warned that it is better to have never known the truth, than to have known it and fallen away.

I think you are clinging to certain passages without a systematic approach to covenantalism.

 

[Calvibaptist]

The covenant is made 'to you and to your children' based upon the condition of faith. We do not have the faculty to discern between true faith and false faith. Those secret things belong to God. The revealed things belong to us and to our children.

"...As many as the Lord our God shall call unto Him." You guys always like to stop before that phrase. The promise is to you (as God calls you to Him), to your children (as God calls them to Him), and to all that are afar off (as God calls them to Him). You are surely not suggesting that Peter was saying that this covenant promise was to every single person alive who was afar off, regardless of whether God called them or not, do you?

The passage in Acts further describes "you and your children and those who are afar off" as "as many as the Lord our God shall call unto Him." It is not just a blanket "everyone," it is "everyone, as many as the Lord our God calls." You are making the same mistake Arminians make with "God so loved the world."

 

[Calvibaptist]

Paul is talking exactly about the covenant and whether God is faithful to it when the covenant people are not.

But the covenant people are described in Romans 9 not as physical descendants of anyone, but those who are of the promise, who have been already described in Romans 4 as those who are of the faith of Abraham.

 

[non dignus]

"...As many as the Lord our God shall call unto Him." You guys always like to stop before that phrase. The promise is to you (as God calls you to Him), to your children (as God calls them to Him), and to all that are afar off (as God calls them to Him). You are surely not suggesting that Peter was saying that this covenant promise was to every single person alive who was afar off, regardless of whether God called them or not, do you?

The passage in Acts further describes "you and your children and those who are afar off" as "as many as the Lord our God shall call unto Him." It is not just a blanket "everyone," it is "everyone, as many as the Lord our God calls." You are making the same mistake Arminians make with "God so loved the world."

Thanks for a good discussion!

But notice the verb tenses. "The promise IS to you and your children...and as many as the Lord SHALL call." Israel is called. Gentiles shall be called. I see two groupings here of outward calling. The same formula is found in Gen 12, 15, and 17.

The context, I believe, is this:
We know that Israel HAS BEEN called because the promise cannot be annulled. But the 'blessing to all the families of the earth' is JUST NOW kicking in. It is additive, not subtractive. Where does it imply that Jewish babies are excluded? or that exclusion applies to the babies of 'all whom the Lord shall call'?

"...for the promise is to you and your children and to those who are far off with wives and children' hence the word 'all' who are far off. This is a promise of descendants for Abraham afterall.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

So, some pagan who never steps foot in a church, but hears a street preacher one day as he's on his way to work is in the New Covenant because he heard the Gospel call found in the preaching of the Word? CH, I'm just wondering where you find Scriptural support for this claim?

My reason for asking is that I have Scripture that says that the New Covenant is made "with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." (Jeremiah 31:31) Paul, in Galatians 3 says that this refers to those who are of faith and then very clearly links the promise of the Spirit (also a New Covenant promise) with this group (and this group alone).

Galatians 3:7-14 - Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith." 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them." 13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

If the blessing of Abraham (which is extended through the New Covenant) comes upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus and the purpose of the blessing according to Galatians 3:14 is "that we might receive the promise of the Spirit" and the receiving happens "through faith" and these are all promised blessings of the New Covenant found in Isaiah 59:21 and Ezekiel 36:27 and Jeremiah 31, then only those who have faith are in the New Covenant.

Greetings:

Calvibaptist wrote:

So, some pagan who never steps foot in a church, but hears a street preacher one day as he's on his way to work is in the New Covenant because he heard the Gospel call found in the preaching of the Word? CH, I'm just wondering where you find Scriptural support for this claim?

I think there are two answers to this, and it is a matter of degree. When the Gospel is preached to such a pagan he is required to turn from his ways and submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Assuming that he does not do so it would follow that his refusal of the Gospel-call would bring upon him a greater damnation than if he had never heard the call at all. Certainly a person who has knowledge will be judged according to that knowledge however great or small of it he possesses:

For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law, Rom. 2:12.

So, I would answer "yes - to a degree" the pagan heard the Gospel (if it was rightly preached) and the Free Offer was applied to him as he stood and listened. To refuse the Gospel-offer is to refuse Christ Himself. Now, he may think about it, and, eventually be converted. But that is not the type of person we are considering. We are deliberating over the inveterate, non-Elect, sinner who steadfastly refuses the Gospel up to, and including, his dying day. Whatever knowledge he has of the Gospel will turn on him in the end, and he will receive a greater damnation in Hell because of it. Westminster Larger Catechism question 150:

Q. 150. Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?
A. All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.

Second, this discussion is not generally considering the "pagan on the street," but non-Elect members of the New Covenant who have shown gifts and graces consistent with the promises given in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8. Such people are in a different position than the "pagan on the street."

Next, he wrote:

Galatians 3:7-14 - Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith." 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them." 13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

I believe the answer to this point is found in Hebrews 11. Since the Fall of Man faith has always been the requirement concerning the Covenants between God and man. This faith resting in the Promises of God given at each of the Covenants is the hallmark of the true Christian believer:

These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth, Heb. 11:13.

None of the Elect have ever broken the Covenant of Redemption. What the Elect have broken is the Covenant of Works. It is the Covenant of Works that Jeremiah is referring to in 31:31ff (see Gal. 4:22-26).

Nowhere does the Bible tell us that the New Covenant is "unbreakable." The credo-baptist interpretation does not take into view the whole of what the Scriptures teach concerning the New Covenant. Paedobaptists do not deny that the Promises given in the New Covenant are effective to the Elect, and that is what Paul is saying in Galatians 3:

Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham, vs. 6-9.

(I will only briefly mention that Paul here seems to be "Christianizing the Old Testament," as he does in other places as well.)

Paul is responding to the Judiazers who came to Galatia to argue that Christians should keep the law in order to be saved. I do not believe that this is a right use of the Word of God in our discussion. The credo-baptist keeps repeating things that Paedobaptists agree with them on.

What the credo-baptist has to prove, and not simply assert, is that there are no non-Elect members of the New Covenant. We have many passages in the Scriptures that deny their assertions:

Matthew 7:21-23.

Romans 11:21,22 - thanks non dignus for pointing it out!

Hebrews 6:4-6.

Hebrews 10:26-31.

The credo-baptist is only looking at half the picture. They take their dispensational hermeneutic of extreme differences between the Mosaic and New Covenants and apply it without discrimination.

The Paedobaptist position takes the whole of the Scriptures, and comes to a true and full sense of the New Covenant that is lacking in the credo-baptist interpretation.

Blessings,

-CH

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Greetings:

So what then is the conclusion? That the Baptist position is not Reformed to say the least. That it derives its strength from the false views of Dispensationalsim. That there are no Scriptures, either New Testament or Old, that uphold the credo-baptist view that children of believers have been excluded from the New Covenant. That it is the only "theology" that has no shadow or echo in the Old Testament. It is the only "theology" that is derived from an argument from silence: "That no infant was ever baptized in the New Testament." Well, no woman in the New Testament ever took the Lord's Supper either.

Considering all of this I lovingly call my baptist brothers to repentance on this matter.

Grace and Peace,

-Rob Wieland

 

[Herald]

Greetings:

So what then is the conclusion? That the Baptist position is not Reformed to say the least. That it derives its strength from the false views of Dispensationalsim. That there are no Scriptures, either New Testament or Old, that uphold the credo-baptist view that children of believers have been excluded from the New Covenant. That it is the only "theology" that has no shadow or echo in the Old Testament. It is the only "theology" that is derived from an argument from silence: "That no infant was ever baptized in the New Testament." Well, no woman in the New Testament ever took the Lord's Supper either.

Considering all of this I lovingly call my baptist brothers to repentance on this matter.

Grace and Peace,

-Rob Wieland

Rob - I honestly don't wish to appear disrespectful but you've arrived at a conclusion that is the end of the discussion? You're the final word on the matter?

I'm not going to engage in a tit-for-tat with you on repenting on this subject. I find it to be a ridiculous demand. Considering the recent thread over this very issue (calling on others to repent over a doctrinal disagreement) I actually find it amusing. I can't take it seriously. I wonder if we can ask Rich to put the following statement at the end of every credo-paedo discussion: "and I call on my Presbyterian/Baptist (please circle one) brethren to repent."

 

[Augusta]

Aren't we required by the scriptures to call men to repent when they are in error?

I am just sayin'.

 

[satz]

Greetings:

So what then is the conclusion? That the Baptist position is not Reformed to say the least. That it derives its strength from the false views of Dispensationalsim. That there are no Scriptures, either New Testament or Old, that uphold the credo-baptist view that children of believers have been excluded from the New Covenant. That it is the only "theology" that has no shadow or echo in the Old Testament. It is the only "theology" that is derived from an argument from silence: "That no infant was ever baptized in the New Testament." Well, no woman in the New Testament ever took the Lord's Supper either.

Considering all of this I lovingly call my baptist brothers to repentance on this matter.

Grace and Peace,

-Rob Wieland

Even if what you say is true, that there are unregenerate people in the New Covenant, and that the children of believers are in the New Covenant, does it follow that they are to be baptized?

Is not your assuming that the New Covenant sign of baptism operates in the exact same way as the Old Covenant sign of circumcision (assuming the two are even related) just as much an argument from silence?

Even if we assume our children are in the New Covenant, and we assume that baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of the Covenant, it is obvious that the sign has changed. Its form has changed from surgery to something done with water. It is now applied to women as well as men. Even if children are in the Covenant why is it not possible God changed the timing of application of the sign as well?

 

[Herald]

Aren't we required by the scriptures to call men to repent when they are in error?

I am just sayin'.

Traci - technically, maybe. But when it comes to points of doctrine that are within the sphere of orthodoxy it starts to take on the tone of arrogance. It's also downright silly. Think about it another way. If we are to call our brother to repentance over sin, and if we consider their doctrinal view contrary to scripture, then it would be sin...right? Well then, let's call on each other to repent at the end of every post when we disagree on a point of doctrine! Is it technically right to do so? Maybe. Is it wise? I don't think so. I do believe there is a difference between a sinful act and a belief that is within the sphere of orthodoxy.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Rob - I honestly don't wish to appear disrespectful but you've arrived at a conclusion that is the end of the discussion? You're the final word on the matter?

I'm not going to engage in a tit-for-tat with you on repenting on this subject. I find it to be a ridiculous demand. Considering the recent thread over this very issue (calling on others to repent over a doctrinal disagreement) I actually find it amusing. I can't take it seriously. I wonder if we can ask Rich to put the following statement at the end of every credo-paedo discussion: "and I call on my Presbyterian/Baptist (please circle one) brethren to repent."

Greetings:

I do not find your post disrespectful at all. If you notice the time difference between my last two posts, then you will find that I gave the Baptists plenty of time to respond. Apparently, they were unable to do so. Hence, the conclusion.

Baptists may hold to some Orthodox doctrines, but so does Roman Catholicism. Just because Baptists hold to some Orthodox doctrines does not mean they are Orthodox in their religion. Nor does this mean that their views on Baptism "Falls within the sphere of Orthodoxy." Why an argument like that would place within the realm of Orthodoxy the papal doctrine of Transubstantiation!

Bill: Your credo-baptist "theology" has no grounds in the Scripture. It has no grounds in Orthodoxy. It is founded upon a Dispensationalist view of the New Covenant. In short your theology is bankrupt and devoid of Biblical warrant. You stand on the sand of mere human opinion and conjecture. Yet, you laugh when someone calls you to repentance on this matter? Your laughter is from ignorance and not knowledge. I doubt that Our Lord is pleased with such a disposition.

Satz:

You are basing your views of credo-baptism on pure suppositions. The above posts have pointed out many times the Biblical warrant to Baptize the children of believers. See, for example, Acts 2:38-41 and 1 Cor. 7:14 mentioned in the previous posts.

"Changed the timing of the application of baptism as well?" Do you have any Scriptural warrant that says we should baptise people at the age of 14, or 16, or however the artificial understanding of the "age of accountablity" is determined?

If you step back from your Baptist presuppositions for a moment, and you actually examine what you are saying in the light of Scripture and the Spirit of God, then it will become clear to you that 1) Your credo-baptist position is based on human reasoning rather than the Word of God, 1nd, 2) Consequently, it is a "theology" that needs to be repented of and renounced.

As it is a human construction without Biblical warrant credo-baptism is as odious as Transubstantiation. This does not impinge upon one's salvation, but it does interfere with their union with Christ and their sanctification.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

 

[satz]

Greetings:
Satz:

You are basing your views of credo-baptism on pure suppositions. The above posts have pointed out many times the Biblical warrant to Baptize the children of believers. See, for example, Acts 2:38-41 and 1 Cor. 7:14 mentioned in the previous posts.

"Changed the timing of the application of baptism as well?" Do you have any Scriptural warrant that says we should baptise people at the age of 14, or 16, or however the artificial understanding of the "age of accountablity" is determined?

If you step back from your Baptist presuppositions for a moment, and you actually examine what you are saying in the light of Scripture and the Spirit of God, then it will become clear to you that 1) Your credo-baptist position is based on human reasoning rather than the Word of God, 1nd, 2) Consequently, it is a "theology" that needs to be repented of and renounced.

As it is a human construction without Biblical warrant credo-baptism is as odious as Transubstantiation. This does not impinge upon one's salvation, but it does interfere with their union with Christ and their sanctification.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

Hi,

You did not quite interact with my point…

Acts 2:38-41 Then Peter said unto them, 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. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

All because the promise is to our children or our children are considered holy does not imply they are to be baptized. That is as much an assumption as you are saying the Baptists are making.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi,

You did not quite interact with my point…

Acts 2:38-41 Then Peter said unto them, 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. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

All because the promise is to our children or our children are considered holy does not imply they are to be baptized. That is as much an assumption as you are saying the Baptists are making.

Greetings:

Yes, I understand the Baptist view of Acts. However, Baptism is in view in Acts 2:38ff. Also, how can you refuse Baptism to a person of whom the Scriptures tell us that they are holy?

Holy people don't get baptized?

This has all been gone over in the posts above.

Grace,

-CH

 

[satz]

Greetings:

Yes, I understand the Baptist view of Acts. However, Baptism is in view in Acts 2:38ff. Also, how can you refuse Baptism to a person of whom the Scriptures tell us that they are holy?

Holy people don't get baptized?

This has all been gone over in the posts above.

Grace,

-CH

Greetings,

I don't believe it is obvious holy people should be baptized. The people who should be baptized are those God says should be. Could you point me to where exactly in the thread this was covered?

 

[Herald]

Robert - other credo participants in this thread made an excellent retort to the OP. You may disagree with them until you are blue in the face, but don't claim they didn't provide scriptural warrant.

You keep bringing up dispensationalism. Huh? Calvibaptist accurately stated that Baptists came on the scene in the early 17th century, a full 200+ years before dispensationalism was concocted by Darby. Since your facts are wrong and you have made inaccurate statements about Baptists, I call on you to repent.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Aren't we required by the scriptures to call men to repent when they are in error?

I am just sayin'.

YES!

But if this is our duty here on the PB, and both sides believe the other is in error then the ONLY thing anyone should say the moment a thread like this is started is "Please repent of your error". One both side have said this, the thread can be locked.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Robert - other credo participants in this thread made an excellent retort to the OP. You may disagree with them until you are blue in the face, but don't claim they didn't provide scriptural warrant.

You keep bringing up dispensationalism. Huh? Calvibaptist accurately stated that Baptists came on the scene in the early 17th century, a full 200+ years before dispensationalism was concocted by Darby. Since your facts are wrong and you have made inaccurate statements about Baptists, I call on you to repent.

I agree.

Tossing around the "dispensationalist" label is a way to try and smear the side you're debating with. This needs to stop. Debate the issue all you like, but lets stop associating it with the Dispensational theology. I don't see anyone calling your side Romanist.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

YES!

But if this is our duty here on the PB, and both sides believe the other is in error then the ONLY thing anyone should say the moment a thread like this is started is "Please repent of your error". One both side have said this, the thread can be locked.

Greetings:

That is all well and good, houseparent, but the credo-baptist has no Biblical warrant to call a person to repentance over their "theology." Calling credo-baptists to repentance on this matter is not a "duty" but a loving act from a believer in Christ.

Stripped of their facade of being "New Testament Biblical" (which strikes of Dispensationalism) they have wrongly interpreted the Bible on the matter of infant baptism. This has been proved in the above posts. You may not like it. You will probably get hysterical about it as you did before, but the truth of the matter is incontrovertible:

Credo-baptism is a false interpretation of the New Covenant. Consequently, it is a sin that needs to be repented of and renounced.

In the Love of Jesus Christ,

-Rob Wieland

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Robert - other credo participants in this thread made an excellent retort to the OP. You may disagree with them until you are blue in the face, but don't claim they didn't provide scriptural warrant.

You keep bringing up dispensationalism. Huh? Calvibaptist accurately stated that Baptists came on the scene in the early 17th century, a full 200+ years before dispensationalism was concocted by Darby. Since your facts are wrong and you have made inaccurate statements about Baptists, I call on you to repent.

Hi Bill:

A retort is not an answer. Also, just because one makes a "retort" does not mean he is correct in his hypothesis. None of the credo-baptists on this thread, or others, have engaged in the passages presented that show the New Covenant is breakable. So your points fall like the sand of human opinion among the rocks, and your call to repentance is without warrant.

Dispensationalism? You mean that this was a brand new heresy introduced in the mid-1800's? Wow. I guess the Jehovah Witnesses are new as well? In, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Paul Ennis points out three church fathers which held to a Dispensationalist type hermeneutic:

Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165)
Iranaeus (A.D. 130-200)
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-220)

He also points out several recent expositors of the views of Dispensationalism prior to the 1800's:

Pierre Poiret (1646-1719)
John Edwards (1637-1716) - not Jonathan Edwards.
Isaac Watts (1674-1748)

When you call someone to repentance you should know what you are talking about before you speak.

In Jesus,

-CH

 

[satz]

Greetings,

I don't believe it is obvious holy people should be baptized. The people who should be baptized are those God says should be. Could you point me to where exactly in the thread this was covered?

Robert,

I would appreciate your help on this.

 

[turmeric]

Dispensationalism? You mean that this was a brand new heresy introduced in the mid-1800's? Wow. I guess the Jehovah Witnesses are new as well?

The Irvingites, from which John Nelson Darby got his ideas, were extant in the 1820's, before the Millerites of the 1840's (where the SDA and the JW's got a lot of their end-times rhetoric). The Scofield Bible is what popularized Dispensationalism, but it was incipient at least as early as the 1820's. Credobaptism is even older than the 17th Century, if you count the anabaptists (which I know is another can of worms).

I think what you are noticing in the "return to the early church" comments is properly called restorationism, and Dispensationalists are not and were not the only folks who had such ideas.

In, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Paul Ennis points out three church fathers which held to a Dispensationalist type hermeneutic:

Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165)
Iranaeus (A.D. 130-200)
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-220)

He also points out several recent expositors of the views of Dispensationalism prior to the 1800's:

Pierre Poiret (1646-1719)
John Edwards (1637-1716) - not Jonathan Edwards.
Isaac Watts (1674-1748)

When you call someone to repentance you should know what you are talking about before you speak.

In Jesus,

-CH

These men have not been considered dispensational by everyone, it's a matter of dispute whether one can read dispensationalism into their teachings or not. Dispensationalists like to claim them, though, to give credibility to their teachings.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Greetings:

That is all well and good, houseparent, but the credo-baptist has no Biblical warrant to call a person to repentance over their "theology." Calling credo-baptists to repentance on this matter is not a "duty" but a loving act from a believer in Christ.

Stripped of their facade of being "New Testament Biblical" (which strikes of Dispensationalism) they have wrongly interpreted the Bible on the matter of infant baptism. This has been proved in the above posts. You may not like it. You will probably get hysterical about it as you did before, but the truth of the matter is incontrovertible:

Credo-baptism is a false interpretation of the New Covenant. Consequently, it is a sin that needs to be repented of and renounced.

In the Love of Jesus Christ,

-Rob Wieland

So how many times do we all have to put up with your "loving" calls to repentance? 100-200-300 maybe? I mean I can't wait to find out! Maybe you could just write up a simple tag line for your signature stating something like "All Credobaptists are in sin and need to repent and embrace the paedo position in order to be fully in submission to the true gospel." Don't feel the need to sign it "So I have spoken!" We all get that much.

 

[turmeric]

John Nelson Darby was a paedobaptist.

The question then is, are children entitled to be received? are believers? Believers, clearly, if they have not yet been; if they have, they cannot be again. But supposing they have not, they are clearly received by baptism; and, in an ordinary way, at the beginning, those in received the Holy Ghost, as said in Acts 2, and may be seen in Acts 8. Can children, or are they to be left out where Satan rules? Scripture, I believe, gives a Christian parent a title to bring them to Christ, but this can only be now scripturally by death as baptism figures it, for "that which is born of the flesh is flesh." If baptism be the reception of children where the Holy Ghost is, and where they can be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and taught to obey, which till they are Christians as to position they cannot be, the question is, Is a christian parent obliged to leave his child outside with the devil, or allowed to bring him in where the Holy Ghost and the care of God's house is? Scripture tells one that children of a christian parent are holy, have a right to be admitted, are not as children of a Jew who had married a Gentile unclean, that is, unfit to be admitted among God's people, but holy. I know it is said the husband was so too. It is not true where the sense is looked to, The Jewish husband was profaned not profane, could not be profaned if he had been: it is what is holy that is profaned, nothing else can be. Now it is grace, and the unbeliever is "sanctified," not holy; the child is "holy". The Lord Himself has said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." It is said, Why not give them the Lord's supper? Because that is the sign of the unity of the body, and it is the baptism of the Holy Ghost that forms that. Baptists always reason instead of going to scripture. I have no difficulty with Baptists who think they have never been baptised; of course they ought to be. They have never been regularly admitted among Christians on earth; they may be of the body (as Cornelius) by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, but they have never been formally admitted to the house on earth, the place where the Holy Ghost dwells.

 

[Iconoclast]

re-read the thread?

Before calling everyone to repent,why not read the responses once again from post 20-36. It seems as if you are not understanding the reponses that were offered, and then mis-representing the baptist position.
No one here is dispensational that I can see. Do you think it is possible you are answering positions that no one is offering?
It looks as if you do not understand Spirit baptism,or union with Christ as you did not respond to those answers that were given.

 

[turmeric]

Anthony,
Which post are you referencing?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Greetings:

tumeric:

Darby, as well as Chafer, were both Presbyterians and ordained in the Presbyterian church. You must remember, however, that Presbyterianism was the mainline denomination back in the 1800's. Chafer was influenced by Scofield who was a Congregationalist and taught at D.L. Moody's church. They both founded Dallas Theological Seminary. Though the school was deeply influenced by Presbyterianism-Chafer and Scofield were both ordained in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) as were most of the early faculty-the distinctive ideas of the Bible conference movement were not accepted by many Presbyterian leaders or by other mainline denominations as useful preparation for the ministry. They increasingly viewed the emphases as antithetical to historic Presbyterianisim. In the 1930s and 40s, Presbyterians in the North and South became openly hostile to dispensationalism. As a result, graduates of the seminary found placement in the mainline churches difficult. This hostility was rooted in the 1800's when B.B. Warfield openly criticized Chafer's theology.

The question really is this:

Does infant baptism utilize a Dispensational-like argument in order to advance its views? If it can be so proven that such is the case, then I will be the first to admit that it carries a Dispensationalist-like hermeneutic.

Iconoclast:

Why is the credo-baptist argument similar to, and relies upon, the Dispensational hermeneutic?

Dispensationalism argues an extreme dichotomy between the Old and New Testaments. The credo-baptist relies upon this dichotomy in order to put forth his views on Baptism. For the credo-baptist the Old Testament has nothing to do with New Testament Baptism. This is the only doctrine in Scripture that they treat in such a fashion. Even concerning the other Sacrament - the Lord's Supper - they will admit similarities between it and the Passover. Yet, they stedfastly deny any relationship between the Old and New Testaments when it comes to Baptism - even when such a relationship is Biblically shown, 1 Cor. 10:1-5.

As far as credo-baptists rely on a radical dichotomy between the Old and New Covenants (see their comments above concerning Jer. 31) the Dispensationalist label sticks.

Houseparent:

You will hear a call to repentance from me concerning this until Reformation is achieved. I can do no otherwise, Matthew 4:17.

Satz:

Holy people are not to be baptized? If the Scriptures tell us that children of believers are considered holy we should not Baptize them? The idea of holiness is far deeper than a bare profession of faith. Therefore, to deny Baptism to a "holy" child is contrary to the Will of God. It is a sin. Therefore, repentance is necessary.

Grace and Peace,

-Rob Wieland

 

[satz]

Satz:

Holy people are not to be baptized? If the Scriptures tell us that children of believers are considered holy we should not Baptize them? The idea of holiness is far deeper than a bare profession of faith. Therefore, to deny Baptism to a "holy" child is contrary to the Will of God. It is a sin. Therefore, repentance is necessary.

Rob,

All you have done is repeat again the proposition that holy people are to be baptized. How do you know this? If it is God's will that a 'holy' child is to be baptized surely it is in his word. All I haved asked for is the verses you believe prove this.

 

[turmeric]

CalvinandHodges;
I was trying to prove that credobaptists are not Dispensational. If the guy that invented it isn't even credo, how can people keep assuming that credobaptism is dispensational. I agree with you that it isn't.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Houseparent:

You will hear a call to repentance from me concerning this until Reformation is achieved. I can do no otherwise, Matthew 4:17.

Then put it in your signature. The ad nauseam repetition gets old.