I agree Lon. And I also believe that because someone wins a debate doesn't mean that the winner is necessarily the holder of truth. It only means he presented his argument better.
James White / Dr. Gregg Strawbridge Tonight
- Thread starter PuritanCovenanter
- Start date
- Status
I agree Lon. And I also believe that because someone wins a debate doesn't mean that the winner is necessarily the holder of truth. It only means he presented his argument better.
I think we have discussed this before but I am not sure where. The Particular Baptist heritage is Puritan and Continental. It didn't have its foundation in the Mennonite nor anabaptist movement. They find themselves starting to form around 1641 and responding to the charges of anabaptist heresies in 1644. They were Covenantal, Calvinistic, and Congregational. And they were not of the Radical Reformation which advocated all kinds of anarchy, debauchery, or pacifism. They also were not separatist and considered the Church of England to still be a Church of Christ unlike the Radical Reformation.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hey:
Quite frankly what you said above does not appear to me to make much sense. Sometimes when I am writing I "know" what I am saying, but I forget that another may not have the same thoughts, and my words become confusing to them.
Pardon me if I have missed your point. The context of the above statements by me were concerning Acts 2:36ff, and Matthew 10:35,36. Since you seem to agree that Covenant Theology presupposes representative (Federa) headship, then how would you apply such in the passages above?
I am sure you are familiar with Baptists and the Bible a history of the Baptist movement by Southern Baptists L. Russ Bush and Tom J. Nettles:
These are your own historians speaking. They argue that "Modern Day" Baptists grew out of the Anabaptist movement as well as English Separatists. The question as to what distinguishes "Modern Day" Baptists from Reformed Congregationalists or Presbyterians can only be found in the Anabaptist movement - Specifically, Baptism and Church Government.
I understand why "Modern Day" Baptists would like to steer clear of their roots in the Radical Reformation, but it is because of the Radical Reformation that their distinctives are derived from in their denomination.
I have to go to class now - will pick it up later Lord willing,
-CH
Last edited by a moderator:
Iconoclast
Puritan Board Junior
The promise/what do you think?
Iconoclast:
Rob thanks for reading and responding to my post. I would like to offer a response to some of your concerns:
you said:
Rob, I would like to approach it this way. Although there are many great and precious promises in the word of God even as you noted correctly starting in Gen.3:15, I would like to focus on two sections of scripture that I believe address our Acts 2:39 passage.
1] The promise of the Spirit given before the cross in the gospel of John 14:16-21, 15:26,27 16:7-13,25-28
2] Acts 2:17-39, Acts3:13-26, Acts13:32-41,45-48
In the Gospel of John the promise of the Comforter is given,and said to be sent by the Father.Jn14:16,26 15:26
[I actually like to read Jn 14-17 as one unit and meditate on the promise of the Spirit, promise of the life and union He gives to the elect, ]
Okay.In Acts 1:4 They are told to "wait for the promise of The Father" which you have heard of me.
When we move into Acts 2:21-39 we are given an expanded explanation of The promise of the Father.
Obviously the cross is central as God's determinate counsel, but in verse 24 the sermon moves to the resurrection of The Lord Jesus Christ, as psalm 16 is quoted
22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
25For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
28Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance
In verse 29-33 It is said that Jesus received of The Father the promise of the Holy Ghost: as from psalm 16
quoted again in vs.31-33.
29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
The promise of the Father here was identified with the promise of psalm 16 of the body of Jesus.
The events of pentecost are described in 33b "he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Are you with me at this point? Remember in Jn. 14:17-21 when Jesus said I will not leave you orphans[comfortless].He then described the saving union with Christ that actually will take place in that day.
as follows; 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. NKJ;18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
19Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
20At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
There is no greater promise! Saving union with The Lord Jesus Christ, because he lives as our Great High Priest, Interceding or all that the Father has given to Him. Jn 6;37-44 Hebrews 2:9-17
Christ, the firstfruits , and us In Him.
So back to Acts 2:36-38 "what shall we do"?
38Then 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.
39For 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.
The promise all along here was made by the Father , to the Son, and to all who believe;
1] YOU- IF YOU ALSO BELIEVE
2]YOUR CHILDREN- IF THEY ALSO BELIEVE
3]AND TO ALL THAT ARE AFAR OFF- IF THEY BELIEVE
4]AS MANY AS THE LORD SHALL CALL-IF THEY BELIEVE
The promise is of Resurrection because of actual Saving Union with Christ.[20At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.]
It is only Spirit Baptism that does this, not water baptism. it is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing. Calvin speaks of romans 6:3 as water baptism,as a sign rather than Spirit baptism providing the reality of real actual life from the dead.
3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him,that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
In my understanding Romans 6 is actual ,in time . not something we grow into. It is actual and accomplished. Where as the padeo position sees it this way following the circumcision teaching from the Ot. which looked forward .Romans 6 looks back on an actual work of the Spirit in regeneration.
We even have examples in Scripture of infants being saved in the womb, Jeremiah:
And, John the Baptist:
I would that all our children were saved from the womb. But when all the Ot texts are used speaking of a promise to our descendants, or your childrens children etc, are used it seems to me that the way the padeo side uses it all the children would have to be saved. If you understand it as all your descendants are promised salvation God could not brake His promise. This usually leads to alot of double speak ,like an arminian trying to say world means every person without exception. { I know you are not arminian,lol]
Acts 3 and Acts 13 The promise of Resurrection is again central.;
29And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.
30But God raised him from the dead:
31And he was seen many days of them which came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are his witnesses unto the people.
32And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
33God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
34And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
35Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
36For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:
37But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.
38Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
39And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
This is what I see at this point in my life. The idea of promise "laying dormant" as Calvin put it, does not seem to be what I am reading in Acts. I am sure there is much here that we can agree on
To say that the NC. is breakable is not correct.That is where Dr.White went into Hebrews 10.
You can see by what I have written that I do not see water baptism as an exact match to Ot circumcision
Rob, I do not think you are guilty of this. It is just sometimes I get somewhat nervous that we all have trusted guides in books or sermons. I treat my books like friends. I agree when I can, but do not always just follow all their suggestions. If you have time ,let me know what you think on this idea of the "promise".
Do you agree in part? Do you reject it totally? Have you had a chance to consider these verses this way?
Can you or anyone else help me improve my understanding here? hope I did not ramble on too long,
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hi Iconoclast:
I thank you for that very useful reply - even though I do not agree with most of it.
Vital Union with Jesus Christ is the essential nature of all Christians
to you to have expounded upon this. I wish more Christians would refer to their union with Christ as they post - including myself.
Dr. White claims that he is not "reading into" the passages concerning baptism. However, I beg to differ. The Credo-Baptist has to read into the text in order to come up with their interpretation. Specifically,
We have the Promises found in Baptism being offered to the whole world: "You" and "Your children" and "Those who are afar off..." and, "as many as the Lord God shall call." As I mentioned before this is the Free Offer of the Gospel. The Promises are given to both the Elect and the Non-Elect in the Call to repentance.
If Peter had something other than this in his mind, then his language would have been different. I would submit that the Credo-Baptist interpretation here does damage to Scripture and sound doctrine. According to the Credo-Baptist interpretation Peter should have said:
"The Promises are to all who will Believe on the name of Jesus Christ."
Such a statement would include "Believers, their Believing children, and all those who will Believe as well."
This is why I say this is where Paedo's and Credo's are talking past each other, because whenever you mention Covenant Theology you are talking about the Theology of representation. That Peter mentions the children of believers here is good Covenant Theology. There is no other reason for him to do so. Peter was a Jew, and he was talking to a Jewish crowd. The mentioning of "your children" here would instantly have them thinking of the promises to Abraham and the circumcision of their children - which Baptism has now replaced.
The more closely one looks at the text the more firmly one is persuaded of Infant Baptism.
You also wrote:
Lord keep me from such.
I think that the Promises in the Bible gives us hope to expect our children to become believers. That the norm in the New Covenant is that when you bring a child up in the way he/she should go - that they will not depart from it. We are commanded by Jesus to make disciples (learners) of all nations, and to baptize them. Are we not to disciple our children? We can with all confidence apply the Promises of Baptism to our infant children because we covenant to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
This is sooooo much different than the Ana/Credo-Baptist position, as Rich so eloquently put it:
I think that Calvin's statement is beautiful:
-Rob
I thank you for that very useful reply - even though I do not agree with most of it.
Vital Union with Jesus Christ is the essential nature of all Christians
to you to have expounded upon this. I wish more Christians would refer to their union with Christ as they post - including myself.Dr. White claims that he is not "reading into" the passages concerning baptism. However, I beg to differ. The Credo-Baptist has to read into the text in order to come up with their interpretation. Specifically,
You are reading, "If you believe" into the text where such a statement is nowhere found. We are told later that it was only those who received the Word who were baptized, vs. 41. So, what do we have?
We have the Promises found in Baptism being offered to the whole world: "You" and "Your children" and "Those who are afar off..." and, "as many as the Lord God shall call." As I mentioned before this is the Free Offer of the Gospel. The Promises are given to both the Elect and the Non-Elect in the Call to repentance.
If Peter had something other than this in his mind, then his language would have been different. I would submit that the Credo-Baptist interpretation here does damage to Scripture and sound doctrine. According to the Credo-Baptist interpretation Peter should have said:
"The Promises are to all who will Believe on the name of Jesus Christ."
Such a statement would include "Believers, their Believing children, and all those who will Believe as well."
This is why I say this is where Paedo's and Credo's are talking past each other, because whenever you mention Covenant Theology you are talking about the Theology of representation. That Peter mentions the children of believers here is good Covenant Theology. There is no other reason for him to do so. Peter was a Jew, and he was talking to a Jewish crowd. The mentioning of "your children" here would instantly have them thinking of the promises to Abraham and the circumcision of their children - which Baptism has now replaced.
The more closely one looks at the text the more firmly one is persuaded of Infant Baptism.
You also wrote:
Thank you for the vote of confidence that I am not an arminian!
Lord keep me from such.I think that the Promises in the Bible gives us hope to expect our children to become believers. That the norm in the New Covenant is that when you bring a child up in the way he/she should go - that they will not depart from it. We are commanded by Jesus to make disciples (learners) of all nations, and to baptize them. Are we not to disciple our children? We can with all confidence apply the Promises of Baptism to our infant children because we covenant to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
This is sooooo much different than the Ana/Credo-Baptist position, as Rich so eloquently put it:
Why is it so repugnant to Baptists to apply the Promises found in Baptism to the children of Believers when Peter himself applies these Promises to perfect strangers, "those who are afar off"? Even applying these Promises to the Jews who murdered and crucified Jesus Himself? Acts 2:23.
I think that Calvin's statement is beautiful:
Grace and Peace,
-Rob
I'm sorry but it was so gracious and to the point at the same time.Exactly! This is the interesting thing as I was reading Anthony's post.Vital Union with Jesus Christ is the essential nature of all Christians
It's almost as if they never have read what we're trying to say and I can understand a bit of confusion here because the Reformed Baptist will naturally assume that when we baptize a person we are claiming that we believe a person has vital union with Christ. This, of course, is a mistake.
It's also a mistake to say that this is what Peter was promising if they were baptized that day. The promise is on the condition of faith and not baptism. I know that sound simplistic but it is oft missed by Baptists who seem to think that the reason the Baptism is applied is because the person has saving faith. Again, we've got an issue here because nobody, except God, knows this.
Thus, all the passages about the benefits of Christ's union with His elect can be quoted and quoted and re-quoted and then re-quoted and I'll yell: "Amen Brother!"
But I won't then assume that every time the sign of that union that promises the benefits of union with Christ is applied that the reality of that promise is conferred necessarily. I also won't make the mistake of assuming that the reason we are applying the sign is that we know that the recipient is united to Christ by faith.
Iconoclast
Puritan Board Junior
Exactly! This is the interesting thing as I was reading Anthony's post.Vital Union with Jesus Christ is the essential nature of all Christians
It's almost as if they never have read what we're trying to say and I can understand a bit of confusion here because the Reformed Baptist will naturally assume that when we baptize a person we are claiming that we believe a person has vital union with Christ. This, of course, is a mistake.
It's also a mistake to say that this is what Peter was promising if they were baptized that day. The promise is on the condition of faith and not baptism. I know that sound simplistic but it is oft missed by Baptists who seem to think that the reason the Baptism is applied is because the person has saving faith. Again, we've got an issue here because nobody, except God, knows this.
Thus, all the passages about the benefits of Christ's union with His elect can be quoted and quoted and re-quoted and then re-quoted and I'll yell: "Amen Brother!"
But I won't then assume that every time the sign of that union that promises the benefits of union with Christ is applied that the reality of that promise is conferred necessarily. I also won't make the mistake of assuming that the reason we are applying the sign is that we know that the recipient is united to Christ by faith.
Rich, This is getting to the heart of the matter here,both where we can find agreement,and where we do not agree In your post you say this:
I maintain that Romans 6 is speaking about actual salvation,that a person has. Not a sign of what he might have.
You might look at it as conferring a sign of the salvation,that might happen in the future,[ because you believe you are obeying God in the baptism of the infant] However, considering the context of Romans , I do not understand how you could say Romans 6 does not apply to believrs only.
I mean to say, I know you believe the believing parent being in covenant with God sort of covers the child. I believe the reformed baptist parent is also glad for all the verses that speak of God being the God of our descendants also. That is our hearts prayer also and the end of what we instruct them.
You cannot accurately say that all of the descriptive elements in this chapter are in anyway speaking of a promise. They are indeed a reality. Must get ready for work,will respond later on to some more of your last posts.
Romans 6 1,2
1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
We baptize someone who. tells us openly confessing that this is true of him,or her that Christ has by THe Spirit done a work of salvation in there life,and they are no longer under the power of sin. This is not an assumption as the person tells us that once the were willing bondslaves to sin,but now have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine delivered unto them.
16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness
This is actual and true of them. He does not at all refer to a sign. He is calling them to understand there actual condition.
Rob, and Rich [ and any other lurking reader
] What do you think about my explanation of the promise?Is this a place where we are in agreement? Do you see the promise initally fulfilled in Jesus, and Us in Union with Him?
later on brethren.
SemperFideles said:
This just proved my very point Anthony. Romans 5, Romans 6, Romans 7, and Romans 8 are *all* speaking about the benefits the flow from union with Christ. Full stop. Only the elect receive those benefits. It's almost as if you read what I wrote that you were missing the point of the Reformed Confessions and then you missed the point as plain as day.
You have trouble seeing how you cannot immediately turn from a passage where Paul is talking about the elect in Christ and then realize that this is not true of each and every person that you dunk into a baptistry. This is why the Scriptures can talk about our baptism or burial with Christ and be speaking of union with Christ and yet even the Baptist *must* admit that this reality is not conferred on each and every person baptized.
In fact, this is the irony of James White and the debate. Again, it was supposedly about who ought to be baptized but, instead, it was about the fact that he believed the nature of the New Covenant was with the Elect alone - those that actually possess union with Christ. At one point, he had to acknowledge, so as not to be guilty of an obvious fallacy, that his Church wasn't baptizing merely the elect. This was when he distinguished between the visible Church as possessing the visibly baptized but that they weren't necessarily in the New Covenant.
Did you get that? Baptists don't even believe a person is in the New Covenant if he has been baptized - simply a member of the visible Church. Hence, from an external standpoint, a Baptist minister has no way of knowing who among the baptized is or is not in the New Covenant. This is the irony of the debate in the very end since baptism itself does not confer membership to the New Covenant in the Reformed Baptist schema.
You both are talking around each other. And Rich the New Covenant Member is regenerate. We Baptist agree with you that the church has those in it who crawl over the wall and are not a part of the church. But we also know that confession leads to union with Christ. And it seems like the Church that is addressed in the New Testament has this union and forgiveness of Sin. If you are not indwelt by the spirit of Christ you are not one of his. And he is the husband of the Church. I don't see anywhere in the New Testament that addresses anyone who is unconverted as belonging to the Church or Christ. So to knowingly violate this would be wrong in our opinion.
Belief and confession are necessary. So we don't short cut this step as the Paedo does.
I will contribute more to the thread this weekend. But I admit I will be offline quite a bit because of all the things I have going on. Most likely I will be able to contribute more on Saturday. I have to respond CH still. We both agreed that we would post when we have more time.
I guess I need to consider who truly is a member of Christ's body.
Belief and confession are necessary. So we don't short cut this step as the Paedo does.
I will contribute more to the thread this weekend. But I admit I will be offline quite a bit because of all the things I have going on. Most likely I will be able to contribute more on Saturday. I have to respond CH still. We both agreed that we would post when we have more time.
I guess I need to consider who truly is a member of Christ's body.
I am not talking around this at all Randy. I'm agreeing that this is exactly what you say.
Well, call it what you want. They didn't just "crawl over the wall". *You* (the Church) baptized and admitted them into the Church on the basis of a credible profession. As long as they are in the Church (even some till they die) they may be indistinguishable from those that are truly united to Christ by faith.
I think I heard Calvin quoted recently who made a good observation that there are those that can seem to be pillars in the Church, with what seems to be the faith of a mountain, and then their faith proves to be false in the end. On the other hand, there are those that struggle mightily, seem to be smoldering wicks, but, in the end, the mettle of their faith proves genuine.
I'm not disagreeing with you that there are those that are "truly of Him" by being united to truly in faith but, in this life, the best you can make of that is that this surely is the case on the basis of His Word.
How you treat individual brothers, either seemingly weak or seemingly strong, is the same. You surely do not walk to someone weak in the faith and say to him: "I'll bet you are one that crawled over the wall. We administed the ordinance of baptism on you but I'll bet your faith wasn't true." Likewise, you don't walk to the strong and say: "Your faith is strong, surely when we baptized you it was of the nature of faith that had a vital union with Christ."
You might find that scenario strange but, listen to what you're saying, when you talk about "crawling over the wall" and tell me, existentially, who is it that you're talking about in your Church. Is it one of your sons? Did one of them crawl over the wall? I don't mean to wound you with that brother but think about what you're saying because it's most terrible to think about those in the visible Church in that way. If you would never say the above about one of your sons then why would you say that about anyone else in the visible Church? I don't immediately think of children when those kind of statements are made but the faces of dozens of struggling believers that I love in my Church flash across my mind that I love and I think: "How could I ever address one of them as one who 'crawled over the wall'?" That's just not the way we think of each other in the Church.
In fact, John seems to reserve that judgment for the very worst apostasy - perhaps a rank heretic. Most excommunications, however, are we not holding out hope and praying that they be restored? We hope for all that they are of us and leave the hidden counsel of God to Him.
You've got that backwards Randy. True confession is a fruit of union with Christ but it is not the only fruit.
It doesn't just seem that way to me. This is precisely what I've been saying is that the Church is addressed as if it has union with Christ and forgiveness of sins. It's one of the reasons I'm not in favor of the language you just used.
The apostles don't seem to be as careful with their modes of address as some would like them to be. They speak in positive terms. They always address what Christians have been called to and what Christ has done. It's understood by them that the unregenerate will not respond to this but they do it anyway. It's also understood, at least implicitly by them, that when they speak of the saving benefits that extend from union with Christ, that a reprobate heart is going to likely twist that truth like any other and be self-deceived by it. Try reading Romans 5-8 again. Paul doesn't even take a breath to stop and guard against how a reprobate mind might think he's talking about them.
In fact, isn't this precisely what the problem with the Federal Vision is? Don't they say exactly what you're saying by noting that the Church is addressed by Paul, without distinction, and that all of what is said must be true of them? Now, then they'll qualify and say that it's only "in some sense" for the reprobate.
What we say, though, is that you can still preserve the unique and saving benefits that flow from union with Christ and the manner of address in such passages since the apostles themselves note a visible component of the administration of the New Covenant that includes those that are not really *of Him*. Their solution for this is not to become so overly concerned, however, that the Church be purified if the self-deceived are not disruptive. The analogies abound regarding bruised reeds and the like where we don't seek to go on "house cleaning" missions in the Church to figure out who's really elect and who isn't. Only the visibly rebellious are put out. All the other "smoldering wicks" we are very clearly supposed to bear with and hope for. If we start snuffing out "smoldering wicks" then what we're really saying is that we know whose faith is genuine and whose isn't and we become overconfident about our own faith. We're always beggars Randy. Always.
Well, I agree with you about the fact that if you are not united to Christ then you will never have faith and you do not participate in any saving benefits but, as I've noted, that's different than saying they have no place in the Church or that they are never addressed as those in the Church. I'd like to challenge you on this point to let me know who, among your own family, I am warranted to address as truly converted and upon what basis would you have this infallible confidence. Rather, the Church is a place where we are to be gentle and hopeful for *all* who we find within it lest we destroy the Gospel itself by making it about the strength of the faith of those we find within it. That's the real danger in trying to move from what we know about saving union with Christ and then trying to divine who it is that really possesses it. We're not warranted in trying to do so for the very reason that it would actually undermine how we treat the Gospel as a promise. The promise is for the weak and the strong, for the bruised reed and the smoldering wick. We hold out Christ and Him crucified and fervently plead with all in our Church, treating them like brothers, and hopeful that they lay hold of that promise in even the most simple of ways.
Amen and amen.
Iconoclast
Puritan Board Junior
believe
Rob,you said this in your response:
Quote:
The promise all along here was made by the Father , to the Son, and to all who believe;
1] YOU- IF YOU ALSO BELIEVE
2]YOUR CHILDREN- IF THEY ALSO BELIEVE
3]AND TO ALL THAT ARE AFAR OFF- IF THEY BELIEVE
4]AS MANY AS THE LORD SHALL CALL-IF THEY BELIEVE
44And all that believed were together, and had all things common
I found it again here, Acts 4: 2 Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.
3And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide.
4Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.
Again linked to the promise of resurrection., and again later on in Acts 4;
32And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul:
I think you can see that this is the pattern of Apostolic preaching,and of faith coming by hearing. I am not reading into the passage-"if they also believe". It is clearly implied if you understand the context of the [promise of the Father] in my opinion.
Of course the promise would be to you and your children ,and all who are afar off.{as many as the Lord shall call]
What believing parent would not obey the commands to instruct the children in the way of life?
your next response was Quote:So, [/QUOTE]what do we have?
We have the Promises found in Baptism being offered to the whole world: "You" and "Your children" and "Those who are afar off..." and, "as many as the Lord God shall call." As I mentioned before this is the Free Offer of the Gospel. The Promises are given to both the Elect and the Non-Elect in the Call to repentance.
If Peter had something other than this in his mind, then his language would have been different. I would submit that the Credo-Baptist interpretation here does damage to Scripture and sound doctrine. According to the Credo-Baptist interpretation Peter should have said:
"The Promises are to all who will Believe on the name of Jesus Christ."[[QUOTE/]
You say as a padeo baptist-So, what do we have?
We have the Promises found in Baptism being offered to the whole world:
I do not believe the promises are found in water baptism[as a sign] I believe they are found in Christ alone being offered to the whole world in gospel preaching as you would when seeking an adult to convert.
If you as a padeo would not give the sign to a child in a household [ let us say for example a widow professes faith,and has an 8yr old, an 11 , and a 14 who openly say they do not believe,]
If baptism only represents a promise [ as Calvin said that might remain dormant for a long time] why not give it to the unbelieving child as well,if it is promised to the believing parent? 1 cor 7:14
If your view of the promise is not the same as mine what difference would it make if an infant receives water baptism, but the promise remains "dormant" until they are 23yrs.old/ or the unbelieving 11 yr .old gets baptism,and it remains dormant until he is 15.
I believe Pastor Shishko said the unbelieving child would not be baptized in the OPC. I raise this point although I am not looking to press it. I think the issue is better addressed scripturally and covenantally rather than me trying to think of extreme hypothetical situations to try to "win" a point.
If I do not have truth on this,in time I would believe God would not keep it from me
Or you either Rob/Rich, and any other brother in here. I am still confident that we are all still in a learning mode.
Your next contention was that If Peter were a Reformed Baptist he would say it this way:
If Peter had something other than this in his mind, then his language would have been different. I would submit that the Credo-Baptist interpretation here does damage to Scripture and sound doctrine. According to the Credo-Baptist interpretation Peter should have said:
"The Promises are to all who will Believe on the name of Jesus Christ."
Such a statement would include "Believers, their Believing children, and all those who will Believe as well
Rob,certainly it would not say to you who believe, and your unbelieving children,and all unbelieving reprobates as well? I gave a few examples from Acts about believing. It is not a bad word.In fact if is necessary.
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
None of us think that the promise is to unbeliever's do we?
Then there was the part where you quoted Rich,like this
Quote:
So, now that they brought out this "bully" of a prooftext to show, conclusively to them, that we are to *expect* that families will be torn apart by the Gospel and that there's probably only going to be one in the whole family that's elect, do they militantly enforce that idea in their Churches? Do they then presume as follows:
1. I'm united to Christ by faith.
2. Christ came to split up families.
3. I just had a child.
4. He must be unsaved because that's the nature of the New Covenant.
Of course not:
a. It's absurd.
b. It's un-Scriptural.
c. It's gross.
Exactly!
Hence the way the verse is used by Reformed Baptists in these debates is *all of the above*.
I would say this to that-
1] I am united to Christ and the promises by Spirit Baptism applied to me when the Spirit quicked me. Through repentance and faith which is the gift of God, I am able to believe.
2] The truth of Christ and His cross can sometimes cause division in a household as natural men do not understand the things of God. Even 1 cor 7 adresses this issue,should I stay married to an unbeliever or not!
If God is merciful to a family and many or all come to faith,that is to the praise of His glory. If not, that is also to the praise of His glory.
3] We have just had a child/what is His condition? Was he concieved in sin,and dead in Adam?Does he or she have a sin nature? I see in both testaments that God does work in households,and clearly state that there are advantages to the child who is born into a Household containing saints. They will be prayed for and brought under the hearing of the word, instructed about the God who is in complete control who has said that he would save a multitude in His Son.
4] He must be born again to enter the kingdom. His dead spirit must be quickened by The Holy Spirit even as His parents were, as we each individually will give account of ourselves to God. His parents cannot save Him, neither the church, or baptism , or communion. The promise of the Father given to the Son,and all the covenant children who were given Him -Hebrews 2:13-16 13And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
This is not gross or absurd, but very scriptural. It is not that we hope or "expect" household strife, but when it happens we are not to count it a strange thing. As we gather for a thanksgiving meal with family and friends, I bet there are more than a few who have unsaved members of households carving up the turkey.
We might have caused strife with a brother because we no longer play softball on the Lord's day. Or with a sister who does not like you discussing the role of a wife in submission to here husband. Perhaps you have pointed out that unrepentant sodomites shall not enter heaven, even though a relative has "come out".
I do not know of many situations were God has saved whole households in a day, or in one sermon since apostolic times, or maybe, the great awakening.
In all this interaction I am glad we can rejoice in our Lord and Saviour and find hope in His word. Thank's to the Lord, we are not bowing before a statue,or lighting candles to a saint, or seeking to enter heaven by our own righteousness. Enjoy a thankful Thanksgiving.
PS. Rich, will get to your post in a day or 2, Glad we are in agreement on many things, and still learning on other's. I am thankful for you, Rob and other's who patiently,[and sometimes not so patiently] take the time to read through the posts and offer a heart felt response. On many of the other issues [ are there any other issues?]
we are often thinking identically, so let's remember to include each member of the board in prayer, even as we contend for truth.
Rob,you said this in your response:
Quote:
The promise all along here was made by the Father , to the Son, and to all who believe;
1] YOU- IF YOU ALSO BELIEVE
2]YOUR CHILDREN- IF THEY ALSO BELIEVE
3]AND TO ALL THAT ARE AFAR OFF- IF THEY BELIEVE
4]AS MANY AS THE LORD SHALL CALL-IF THEY BELIEVE
Rob, I found the if you believe. Look at verse 44,
44And all that believed were together, and had all things common
I found it again here, Acts 4: 2 Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.
3And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide.
4Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.
Again linked to the promise of resurrection., and again later on in Acts 4;
32And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul:
I think you can see that this is the pattern of Apostolic preaching,and of faith coming by hearing. I am not reading into the passage-"if they also believe". It is clearly implied if you understand the context of the [promise of the Father] in my opinion.
Of course the promise would be to you and your children ,and all who are afar off.{as many as the Lord shall call]
What believing parent would not obey the commands to instruct the children in the way of life?
your next response was Quote:So, [/QUOTE]what do we have?
We have the Promises found in Baptism being offered to the whole world: "You" and "Your children" and "Those who are afar off..." and, "as many as the Lord God shall call." As I mentioned before this is the Free Offer of the Gospel. The Promises are given to both the Elect and the Non-Elect in the Call to repentance.
If Peter had something other than this in his mind, then his language would have been different. I would submit that the Credo-Baptist interpretation here does damage to Scripture and sound doctrine. According to the Credo-Baptist interpretation Peter should have said:
"The Promises are to all who will Believe on the name of Jesus Christ."[[QUOTE/]
You say as a padeo baptist-So, what do we have?
We have the Promises found in Baptism being offered to the whole world:
I do not believe the promises are found in water baptism[as a sign] I believe they are found in Christ alone being offered to the whole world in gospel preaching as you would when seeking an adult to convert.
If you as a padeo would not give the sign to a child in a household [ let us say for example a widow professes faith,and has an 8yr old, an 11 , and a 14 who openly say they do not believe,]
If baptism only represents a promise [ as Calvin said that might remain dormant for a long time] why not give it to the unbelieving child as well,if it is promised to the believing parent? 1 cor 7:14
If your view of the promise is not the same as mine what difference would it make if an infant receives water baptism, but the promise remains "dormant" until they are 23yrs.old/ or the unbelieving 11 yr .old gets baptism,and it remains dormant until he is 15.
I believe Pastor Shishko said the unbelieving child would not be baptized in the OPC. I raise this point although I am not looking to press it. I think the issue is better addressed scripturally and covenantally rather than me trying to think of extreme hypothetical situations to try to "win" a point.
If I do not have truth on this,in time I would believe God would not keep it from me
Or you either Rob/Rich, and any other brother in here. I am still confident that we are all still in a learning mode.Your next contention was that If Peter were a Reformed Baptist he would say it this way:
If Peter had something other than this in his mind, then his language would have been different. I would submit that the Credo-Baptist interpretation here does damage to Scripture and sound doctrine. According to the Credo-Baptist interpretation Peter should have said:
"The Promises are to all who will Believe on the name of Jesus Christ."
Such a statement would include "Believers, their Believing children, and all those who will Believe as well
Rob,certainly it would not say to you who believe, and your unbelieving children,and all unbelieving reprobates as well? I gave a few examples from Acts about believing. It is not a bad word.In fact if is necessary.
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
None of us think that the promise is to unbeliever's do we?
Then there was the part where you quoted Rich,like this
Quote:
So, now that they brought out this "bully" of a prooftext to show, conclusively to them, that we are to *expect* that families will be torn apart by the Gospel and that there's probably only going to be one in the whole family that's elect, do they militantly enforce that idea in their Churches? Do they then presume as follows:
1. I'm united to Christ by faith.
2. Christ came to split up families.
3. I just had a child.
4. He must be unsaved because that's the nature of the New Covenant.
Of course not:
a. It's absurd.
b. It's un-Scriptural.
c. It's gross.
Exactly!
Hence the way the verse is used by Reformed Baptists in these debates is *all of the above*.
I would say this to that-
1] I am united to Christ and the promises by Spirit Baptism applied to me when the Spirit quicked me. Through repentance and faith which is the gift of God, I am able to believe.
2] The truth of Christ and His cross can sometimes cause division in a household as natural men do not understand the things of God. Even 1 cor 7 adresses this issue,should I stay married to an unbeliever or not!
If God is merciful to a family and many or all come to faith,that is to the praise of His glory. If not, that is also to the praise of His glory.
3] We have just had a child/what is His condition? Was he concieved in sin,and dead in Adam?Does he or she have a sin nature? I see in both testaments that God does work in households,and clearly state that there are advantages to the child who is born into a Household containing saints. They will be prayed for and brought under the hearing of the word, instructed about the God who is in complete control who has said that he would save a multitude in His Son.
4] He must be born again to enter the kingdom. His dead spirit must be quickened by The Holy Spirit even as His parents were, as we each individually will give account of ourselves to God. His parents cannot save Him, neither the church, or baptism , or communion. The promise of the Father given to the Son,and all the covenant children who were given Him -Hebrews 2:13-16 13And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
This is not gross or absurd, but very scriptural. It is not that we hope or "expect" household strife, but when it happens we are not to count it a strange thing. As we gather for a thanksgiving meal with family and friends, I bet there are more than a few who have unsaved members of households carving up the turkey.
We might have caused strife with a brother because we no longer play softball on the Lord's day. Or with a sister who does not like you discussing the role of a wife in submission to here husband. Perhaps you have pointed out that unrepentant sodomites shall not enter heaven, even though a relative has "come out".
I do not know of many situations were God has saved whole households in a day, or in one sermon since apostolic times, or maybe, the great awakening.
In all this interaction I am glad we can rejoice in our Lord and Saviour and find hope in His word. Thank's to the Lord, we are not bowing before a statue,or lighting candles to a saint, or seeking to enter heaven by our own righteousness. Enjoy a thankful Thanksgiving.
PS. Rich, will get to your post in a day or 2, Glad we are in agreement on many things, and still learning on other's. I am thankful for you, Rob and other's who patiently,[and sometimes not so patiently
] take the time to read through the posts and offer a heart felt response. On many of the other issues [ are there any other issues?]we are often thinking identically, so let's remember to include each member of the board in prayer, even as we contend for truth.
You realize, Anthony, that you just refuted the very point that Dr. White was trying to press into service. My reductio ad absurdum was designed to note the folly of the argument.
You did not reproduce it but "tempered" the point. My point was not to note that every child in a household is elect but to show that Dr. White cannot abuse a text by Christ to "promise" that the New Covenant will inexorably cause division within the household. In fact, whole households can be saved and, interestingly enough as Rob notes, Dr. White admits that the *examples* of the New Covenant texts include household salvation.
In fact, Dr. White's use of Matt 10:36 would directly refute that "....both testaments that God does work in households,and clearly state that there are advantages to the child who is born into a Household containing saints." Nay, says the use of Matt 10:36, Christ has *promised* that He will only *divide* households by the use of the text in the argument.
Thus, the point is established that Dr. White's abuse of the text cannot stand either exegetically or by example in the New Testament.
And, as I noted, folks ought to be careful the way they press certain ideas into service so they aren't caught on the horns of a "consistency" dilemna when somebody starts calling them on it.
CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
Hi Iconoclast:
Forgive me I will need to take your post up a little at a time. You wrote:
[To argue that the Promises given in Baptism apply only to the Elect would be a presupposition that may cause a misstep in theology. The misstep would be something like this: If the Promises are only for the Elect, then we should Preach only to the Elect, and this second step is hyper-calvinism.]
What the Paedo-Baptist says is that the Gospel Promises are applied to all who hear the Word of God preached. These Promises are only effective to those who are given True Faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, according to a gracious condescension on the part of God, we apply water baptism to our children in the hope that they will grow in Grace and the Salvation of their souls.
Thus, in verse 39 we have Peter preaching to the whole crowd and applying the Promises of Baptism to all of them, and we have in verses 41-44 the response of the crowd. The children of all those who "with joy received the Word of God" would be Baptized as well seeing that their Covenantal Representatives - their parents - were so baptized.
Now, I may be accused of "reading into" the passages in 41-44, but I believe that it is consitent with the tenor of Peter's preaching, Covenant (Federal) Theology, and is agreeable with the Holy Spirit who speaks by and with the Word of God in our hearts.
Next, I numbered your points here so I can refer to them easier:
(2) I would give the sign to these children if the widow desired me to do so. However, I would talk with the widow first and ask her to consider the wishes of her children. There were laws in the OT for stubborn children. I don't think the death penalty applies any longer, but spanking and depriving the child of certain pleasures are certainly effective.
(3) First, it would be a fulfilling of the parent's covenantal responsibilities before the Lord. God pursued Moses to kill Moses because he had not circumcized his first-born son. Second, it acknowledges the representative authority that the parent has over the child. Finally, it places the child of a believer into a covenantal relationship with God that the child of an unbeliever does not possess. It sets them forth and makes them "holy."
(4) Pastor Shishko is more wise than me. I think, though, that one has to look on it in a case by case basis. I certainly agree with you here:
I think your next point was answered above. And I think Rich answered the rest.
Grace and Peace,
Rob
Forgive me I will need to take your post up a little at a time. You wrote:
The passages you are citing are after-the-fact. That is, the people are responding to the Preaching of the Word. In Acts 2:36ff Peter is not using the term "if you believe" because he is applying the Promises found in water Baptism to the whole crowd. He does not know who the Elect are and who are not. Thus he makes a generic call to everyone to repent and be baptized. To add the statement, "if you believe" here would be a denial of the Free Offer of the Gospel. It would be a step in the direction of hyper-calvinism. Mind you I did not say it was hyper-calvinism, but a step in that direction.
[To argue that the Promises given in Baptism apply only to the Elect would be a presupposition that may cause a misstep in theology. The misstep would be something like this: If the Promises are only for the Elect, then we should Preach only to the Elect, and this second step is hyper-calvinism.]
What the Paedo-Baptist says is that the Gospel Promises are applied to all who hear the Word of God preached. These Promises are only effective to those who are given True Faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, according to a gracious condescension on the part of God, we apply water baptism to our children in the hope that they will grow in Grace and the Salvation of their souls.
Thus, in verse 39 we have Peter preaching to the whole crowd and applying the Promises of Baptism to all of them, and we have in verses 41-44 the response of the crowd. The children of all those who "with joy received the Word of God" would be Baptized as well seeing that their Covenantal Representatives - their parents - were so baptized.
Now, I may be accused of "reading into" the passages in 41-44, but I believe that it is consitent with the tenor of Peter's preaching, Covenant (Federal) Theology, and is agreeable with the Holy Spirit who speaks by and with the Word of God in our hearts.
Next, I numbered your points here so I can refer to them easier:
(1) We are referring to Peter's preaching in Acts 2. He in this passage ties the Promises of Baptism to his call for repentance. I see nothing wrong with such a thing. And, further, it shows that he is preaching to a Jewish crowd. The ceremonial washing found in Baptism would be lost on a Gentile audience.
(2) I would give the sign to these children if the widow desired me to do so. However, I would talk with the widow first and ask her to consider the wishes of her children. There were laws in the OT for stubborn children. I don't think the death penalty applies any longer, but spanking and depriving the child of certain pleasures are certainly effective.
(3) First, it would be a fulfilling of the parent's covenantal responsibilities before the Lord. God pursued Moses to kill Moses because he had not circumcized his first-born son. Second, it acknowledges the representative authority that the parent has over the child. Finally, it places the child of a believer into a covenantal relationship with God that the child of an unbeliever does not possess. It sets them forth and makes them "holy."
(4) Pastor Shishko is more wise than me. I think, though, that one has to look on it in a case by case basis. I certainly agree with you here:
I think your next point was answered above. And I think Rich answered the rest.
Grace and Peace,
Rob
- Status
