Paedobaptism view of Credobaptist Children

[Ivan]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
It has nothing to do with credo baptism. It has to do with the credo baptist who rejects the command to place the covenant sign on their child. The credo who has no children would not be in error; unless of course he came from a lineage of credo baptists. Then the curse of Gen 17 might follow.

This is an incredible statement.

So if a credo-baptist has his babies baptized than all is well. Of course, they are no longer credo....

 

[Dave L]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Dave L

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
It has nothing to do with credo baptism. It has to do with the credo baptist who rejects the command to place the covenant sign on their child. The credo who has no children would not be in error; unless of course he came from a lineage of credo baptists. Then the curse of Gen 17 might follow.

I am a credo-baptist. I have 3 children, none of whom are yet baptised. Therefore in your eyes I am apostate verging on reprobate.

Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Everyone wants to take me to the proverbial carpet when my position is crystal clear in light of Gen 17; which everyone has read.

I do not claim to know Gods elect. I do not believe baptism /the sign regenerates. I do not believe the efficacy is tied to the moment of administration. This 'great sin' can be repented of. The elect will repent of it. According to Gen 17 Dave, the children are cut off and you are showing a sign of apostasy.

As I previously said, in humility, If I am wrong, I will surely, in sack cloth and ashes repent of the error and seek your forgiveness.

Scott, I haven't made my position clear - for that I apolgise.

I do not want to take you to the proverbial carpet - this is your board, and I'm just a guest here, but I did want to make sure I understood exactly what you were saying.

I now do understand what you are saying. Whether I agree with it or not is a different matter, but at least I understand your position.

Thank you.

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk

Originally posted by non dignus

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk

If baptism is a sign/seal/whatever you want to call it, of the covenant just as circumcision used to be; then how did little girls enter into the covenant back in the days of the OLD covenant?

Baby boys and girls are born into the covenant.
Therefore the sign is given to them as directed.

So little girls were circumcised?

All of this begs the question? Has the Church replaced Israel? Remember, this was a covenant with Jewish people. If the Church has replaced Israel, then we are in for tough times during the Great Tribulation, no?

Hi Brian,

(I forgot to salute in previous post)

I don't want to divert the thread. In answer, we are all children of Abraham. That promise hasn't changed. The category here is Abrahamic, not Mosaic.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Hi David. Don't worry, it's cool.

I don't think you would be diverting the thread. I don't want to go off on a Great Tribulation tangent, I was just trying to make a point. We are children of Abraham, I agree. But I believe the new covenant has wiped out the old. Whereas back then, physical things were done as a type or sign; today everything is spiritual. Physical families back then were a type of the spiritual family (the church) today. Back then a father's faith was enough; today faith needs to be personal. I am open to being shown if I'm wrong; right now I just don't believe I am.

 

[non dignus]

Brian,

I think Scott is doing us a great service in bringing our attention to a hard saying on an important subject. I have to admit I ain't hearin' much scriptural support from the baptist side to counter his argument from Gen 17.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

I don't know if he's doing a great service though David. Even other paedo-baptists don't completely agree with him.

Well, I've used a confession of faith in support of my position (as others do). I've used my knowledge gained from the Bible (that being that we are under a new covenant now, a better one than the old one). I can post Scripture too. But what would it matter? We don't agree on the Scripture. The Scriptures Scott has given are surprisingly, all Old Testament, written to and for Jewish people, and applying to the old covenant. I can post as much Scripture as I can and it won't matter. We disagree on what is applicable today and what is not.

 

[Ivan]

Well, we Baptists are trying to understand what Scott is saying. Obviously there are a good number of Presbyterians that don't agree with them.

Tell you what, get this straighten out among the Presbyterians and those similar and then we can talk about what Baptists believe.

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by Ivan
Well, we Baptists are trying to understand what Scott is saying. Obviously there are a good number of Presbyterians that don't agree with them.

Tell you what, get this straighten out among the Presbyterians and those similar and then we can talk about what Baptists believe.

Let's straighten this out together. We will all profit as we dig deeper into God's word. This is the beauty of PB, when different communions are able to learn from one another. (Oops, I hope I didn't just blow it.)

 

[Ivan]

Originally posted by non dignus
(Oops, I hope I didn't just blow it.)

Excuse me?

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Dave L

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
It has nothing to do with credo baptism. It has to do with the credo baptist who rejects the command to place the covenant sign on their child. The credo who has no children would not be in error; unless of course he came from a lineage of credo baptists. Then the curse of Gen 17 might follow.

I am a credo-baptist. I have 3 children, none of whom are yet baptised. Therefore in your eyes I am apostate verging on reprobate.

Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Everyone wants to take me to the proverbial carpet when my position is crystal clear in light of Gen 17; which everyone has read.

I do not claim to know Gods elect. I do not believe baptism /the sign regenerates. I do not believe the efficacy is tied to the moment of administration. This 'great sin' can be repented of. The elect will repent of it. According to Gen 17 Dave, the children are cut off and you are showing a sign of apostasy.

As I previously said, in humility, If I am wrong, I will surely, in sack cloth and ashes repent of the error and seek your forgiveness.

Your position takes no account of Genesis 15! Abraham was in covenant with God before the sign was applied. The same for Isaac, the same for Ishmael. The sign gives an outward indication of he truth.

There is no avoiding the fact that if you say the unbaptized are cut off from the invisiblechurch and covenant, that they are unsaved and hell-bound. That means that baptism saves, period. This directly contradicts WCF 28.5, and frankly, is the positon of the most prominent FV adovocates.

That is why Rev. Winzer continues to try and get you to distinguish between outward and inward, covenant privileges and union with Christ.

For the record:

1. I am not saying that baptism is not important
2. I am not saying that there are no consequences to disobeying God's command
3. I am not saying that Scott is a heretic - he is not, I hold him as a brother in Christ
4. I am saying that this position is heresy, and he is holding it in confusing "consistency"
   [/list=1]

 

[Ivan]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
[*]I am not saying that Scott is a heretic - he is not, I hold him as a brother in Christ
[*]I am saying that this position is heresy, and he is holding it in confusing "consistency"
[/list=1]

Hmmm....

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by Ivan

Originally posted by non dignus
(Oops, I hope I didn't just blow it.)

Excuse me?

Are we in different communions?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Your position takes no account of Genesis 15! Abraham was in covenant with God before the sign was applied. The same for Isaac, the same for Ishmael. The sign gives an outward indication of he truth.

I agree. I have no problem with that; of course Moses knew this as well Fred when he penned the passage in Gen 17.

There is no avoiding the fact that if you say the unbaptized are cut off from the invisiblechurch and covenant, that they are unsaved and hell-bound.

I earlier provided passages that equate uncircumcision w/ uncleanliness. As well, the passover was to be held from the guilty offenders. What is your definition of excommunication?

Ch 30 of the WCF reads:

I. The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.[1]

1. Isa. 9:6-7; Col. 1:18; I Tim. 5:17; I Thess. 5:12; Acts 20:17, 28; Heb. 13:7, 17, 24; Eph. 4:11-12; I Cor. 12:28; Matt. 28:18-20; John 18:36

II. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.[2]

2. Matt. 16:19; 18:17-18; John 20:21-23; II Cor. 2:6-8

III. Church censures are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren, for deterring of others from the like offenses, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the church, if they should suffer his covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.[3]

3. I Cor. 5:1-13; 11:27-34; I Tim. 1:20; 5:20; Matt. 7:6; Jude 1:23

IV. For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the church are to proceed by admonition; suspension from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the church; according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person.[4]

4. I Thess. 5:12; II Thess. 3:6, 14-15; I Cor. 5:4-5, 13; Matt. 18:17; Titus 3:10

What exactly does the word 'demerit' indicate?

That means that baptism saves, period.

No. Baptism and adherence to Gods command is a reflection of what God has already accomplished or will accomplish in His covenantal people.

This directly contradicts WCF 28.5, and frankly, is the positon of the most prominent FV adovocates.

I did not know that; I studied this on my own w/ no help from any outside sources other than my pastor, N. Lee and Gods word.

That is why Rev. Winzer continues to try and get you to distinguish between outward and inward, covenant privileges and union with Christ.

Fred,
What was Moses thinking???

For the record:

1. I am not saying that baptism is not important
2. I am not saying that there are no consequences to disobeying God's command
3. I am not saying that Scott is a heretic - he is not, I hold him as a brother in Christ
4. I am saying that this position is heresy, and he is holding it in confusing "consistency"
   [/list=1]

1. 
   
   Did you look at the quotes I provided above from Rutherford?
   
   
   
   
   [Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Ivan]

Originally posted by non dignus

Originally posted by Ivan

Originally posted by non dignus
(Oops, I hope I didn't just blow it.)

Excuse me?

Are we in different communions?

One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism

 

[Dan....]

Scott,

As you still seem to think that no one has dealt with Genesis 17, and since you have not responded to Pastor Winzer in the below quote (and I do understand, you do have a lot of people to respond to), I am bringing back this post from page 9 that you may or may not have missed, yet did not respond to.

Originally posted by armourbearer

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Matthew,
OK; Please tell me what God meant then when He told Moses to pen this?

Genesis 17:11-14 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

It requires that those who are not circumcised be cut off from the people of God as a visible church. Two points.

1. "My covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting covenant." Calvin says this perpetuity is fulfilled in Christ. Hence there was something typical in this, which applied only to Abraham's physical children. Otherwise we are bound to circumcision and baptism cannot come in its place.

2. Insofar as baptism has come in the place of circumcision, as a seal of the righteousness of faith, it is to be given to those who profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him, and to their children. Those who neglect it are sinning greatly, and should be warned of the great danger of neglecting the ordinances of God, lest their hearts be hardened and they receive (that is, by profession) the grace of God in vain. The church may withhold the Lord's supper from such as a means of discipline; but it is not a pronouncement that they are excluded from the kingdom of God. The Corinthians who were punished with death for abusing the Lord's supper were said to have been judged that they should not be condemned with the world.

Calvin's comment on Gen. 17:14 provides prudent advice in this matter:

"For what can be more absurd than that the symbol, which is added for the sake of confirming the promise, should really enervate its force? Wherefore, the common opinion, by which baptism is supposed to be necessary to salvation, ought to be so moderated, that it should not bind the grace of God, or the power of the Spirit, to external symbols, and bring against God a charge of falsehood.

Campbellism is the exact opposite of what Calvin advises, teaching that baptism is necessary to salvation.

 

[Dan....]

Also, I find it hard to believe that in Joshua 3, God dries up the bed of the river Jordan for a nation of heathens to cross into a land promised to their fathers, but no longer promised to them (per your view), because they were all either uncircumcised or were the parents of uncircumcised children, and hence all (per your view) cut off from the people of God. If this uncircumcised nation was (as per your view) cut off from being God's people in their unrepentance, then it sure seems odd to me that God would yield visible blessings to them as if they were His people the whole time. The only conclusion that I see is plausible is that they never ceased from being the covenant people of God even while uncircumcised.

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Dan....]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Dan....
Also, I find it hard to believe that in Joshua 3, God dries up the bed of the river Jordan for a nation of heathens to cross into a land promised to their fathers, but no longer promised to them (per your view), because they were all either uncircumcised or were the parents of uncircumcised children, and hence all (per your view) cut off from the people of God. If this uncircumcised nation was (as per your view) cut off from being God's people in their unrepentance, then it sure seems odd to me that God would yield visible blessings to them as if they were His people the whole time. The only conclusion that I see is plausible is that they never ceased from being the covenant people of God even while uncircumcised.

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Dan....]

Dan,
In those that crossed over was Gods remnant........as I previously said.

 

[Dan....]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Dan....
Also, I find it hard to believe that in Joshua 3, God dries up the bed of the river Jordan for a nation of heathens to cross into a land promised to their fathers, but no longer promised to them (per your view), because they were all either uncircumcised or were the parents of uncircumcised children, and hence all (per your view) cut off from the people of God. If this uncircumcised nation was (as per your view) cut off from being God's people in their unrepentance, then it sure seems odd to me that God would yield visible blessings to them as if they were His people the whole time. The only conclusion that I see is plausible is that they never ceased from being the covenant people of God even while uncircumcised.

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Dan....]

Dan,
In those that crossed over was Gods remnant........as I previously said.

True, there is always an elect remnant among the visible saints, yet we do not know who the elect remnant are. However, the whole nation is treated as the visible people of God. Joshua does not say, "Only the circumcised (that do not have male children) may cross; the rest of you guys may not, because you are all outside the camp."

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Dan....

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Dan....
Also, I find it hard to believe that in Joshua 3, God dries up the bed of the river Jordan for a nation of heathens to cross into a land promised to their fathers, but no longer promised to them (per your view), because they were all either uncircumcised or were the parents of uncircumcised children, and hence all (per your view) cut off from the people of God. If this uncircumcised nation was (as per your view) cut off from being God's people in their unrepentance, then it sure seems odd to me that God would yield visible blessings to them as if they were His people the whole time. The only conclusion that I see is plausible is that they never ceased from being the covenant people of God even while uncircumcised.

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Dan....]

Dan,
In those that crossed over was Gods remnant........as I previously said.

True, there is always an elect remnant among the visible saints, yet we do not know who the elect remnant are. However, the whole nation is treated as the visible people of God. Joshua does not say, "Only the circumcised (that do not have male children) may cross; the rest of you guys may not, because you are all outside the camp."

I agree; However at the point of crossing over they were still in their rebellion........it was not until they crossed over was the recircumcision impelmented.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Dan....
Scott,

As you still seem to think that no one has dealt with Genesis 17, and since you have not responded to Pastor Winzer in the below quote (and I do understand, you do have a lot of people to respond to), I am bringing back this post from page 9 that you may or may not have missed, yet did not respond to.

Originally posted by armourbearer

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Matthew,
OK; Please tell me what God meant then when He told Moses to pen this?

Genesis 17:11-14 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

It requires that those who are not circumcised be cut off from the people of God as a visible church. Two points.

1. "My covenant shall be in your flesh as an everlasting covenant." Calvin says this perpetuity is fulfilled in Christ. Hence there was something typical in this, which applied only to Abraham's physical children. Otherwise we are bound to circumcision and baptism cannot come in its place.

2. Insofar as baptism has come in the place of circumcision, as a seal of the righteousness of faith, it is to be given to those who profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him, and to their children. Those who neglect it are sinning greatly, and should be warned of the great danger of neglecting the ordinances of God, lest their hearts be hardened and they receive (that is, by profession) the grace of God in vain. The church may withhold the Lord's supper from such as a means of discipline; but it is not a pronouncement that they are excluded from the kingdom of God. The Corinthians who were punished with death for abusing the Lord's supper were said to have been judged that they should not be condemned with the world.

Calvin's comment on Gen. 17:14 provides prudent advice in this matter:

"For what can be more absurd than that the symbol, which is added for the sake of confirming the promise, should really enervate its force? Wherefore, the common opinion, by which baptism is supposed to be necessary to salvation, ought to be so moderated, that it should not bind the grace of God, or the power of the Spirit, to external symbols, and bring against God a charge of falsehood.

Campbellism is the exact opposite of what Calvin advises, teaching that baptism is necessary to salvation.

Dan,
Here's the part Rev Winzer left out; it precedes the entry he provided and very relevant to my position:

Calvin writes:

14. And the uncircumcised man-child In order that circumcision might be the more attended to, God denounces a severe punishment on any one who should neglect it. And as this shows God´s great care for the salvation of men; so, on the other hand, it rebukes their negligence. For since God thus benignantly offers a pledge of his love, and of eternal life, for what purpose does he add threatening but to rouse the sluggishness of those whose duty it is to run with diligence? Therefore, this denunciation of punishment virtually charges men with foul ingratitude, because they either reject or despise the grace of God. The passage however teaches, that such contempt shall not pass unpunished. And since God threatens punishment only to despisers, we infer that the uncircumcision of children would do them no harm, if they died before the eighth day. For the bare promise of God was effectual to their salvation. He did not so attest this salvation by external signs, as to restrict his own effectual working to those signs. Moses, indeed, sets aside all controversy on this subject, by adducing as a reason, that they would make void the covenant of God: for we know, that the covenant was not violated, when the power of keeping it was taken away. Let us then consider, that the salvation of the race of Abraham was included in that expression, "˜I will be a God to thy seed.´ And although circumcision was added as a confirmation, it nevertheless did not deprive the word of its force and efficacy. But because it is not in the power of man to sever what God has joined together; no one could despise or neglect the sign, without both rejecting the word itself; and depriving himself of the benefit therein offered. And therefore the Lord punished bare neglect with such severity. But if any infants were deprived by death of the tokens of salvation, he spared them, because they had done nothing derogatory to the covenant of God. The same reasoning is at this day in force respecting baptism. Whoever, having neglected baptism, feigns himself to be contented with the bare promise, tramples, as much as in him lies, upon the blood of Christ, or at least does not suffer it to flow for the washing of his own children. Therefore, just punishment follows the contempt of the sign, in the privation of grace; because, by an impious severance of the sign and the word, or rather by a laceration of them, the covenant of God is violated. To consign to destruction those infants, whom a sudden death has not allowed to be presented for baptism, before any neglect of parents could intervene, is a cruelty originating in superstition. But that the promise belongs to such children, is not in the least doubtful.

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Matthew,
I never said that baptism was needed to be 'saved'; I did say that by being faithful to Gods command is a reflection of one's place in the covenant; whether that be visible or invisible. You seem to be confusing salvation concepts with covenant concepts; Or possibly I am not being clear enough.

Scott, at least as I think most of us understand the term, membership in the invisible covenant IS salvation. It is possible to confuse salvation with visible covenant concepts (i.e. confusing the invisible and visible covenant) - but not with invisible; for salvation is precisely that to which membership in the invisible covenant refers.

Do you agree that what the "invisible covenant" refers to is those who are saved? That is certainly the historic Reformed concept of what the invisible covenant is (as opposed to the visible), and I would be willing to bet that is how most people here are using it as well. At any rate, I trust that is at least not how you were using the term when you answered Matthew's question by saying, "Parents whom would reject placing the sign upon their child are in fact showing to be apostates. This would exclude them from visible and invisible benefits. This is not to say that repentance could not prove election." If the invisible covenant membership is understood to mean the collection of those people who are justified and saved, that statement would in fact be saying that Reformed Baptists who fail to baptize their children are all in fact unregenerate and unjustified until and unless they change their practice.

Chris,
I guess I am saying that about the parents who are unfaithful to Gods command; can it be both ways? This is not to say that ALL credo's would fall into this category.

I think I understand your last statement in light of this:

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
It has nothing to do with credo baptism. It has to do with the credo baptist who rejects the command to place the covenant sign on their child. The credo who has no children would not be in error; unless of course he came from a lineage of credo baptists. Then the curse of Gen 17 might follow.

Now, as you have agreed to, and as WCF 28.5 makes clear, having baptism oneself is not a requirement for salvation. Yet you seem to be saying that baptizing all of one's children IS such a requirement, or a litmus test of sorts based on who is regenerate and justified. Compare those two beliefs, and see if they make any sense in light of each other: Does it make any sense to say that 1) someone who, for some reason, completely neglects getting baptized themselves their entire life can still be elect and saved (as per WCF 28.5 and your agreement), but that on the other hand 2) someone who does not baptize his children, and dies still believing that was the right thing to do, is not saved and therefore was not elect?

Also, in light of your apparent affirmation of #2 above due to your interpretation of Genesis 17:14 applying to the invisible covenant as well as the visible, I'm curious to know - how would you go about refuting someone who disagreed with #1 above, and was trying to say that being baptized oneself is a requirement for salvation?

Also, as per your reply to Fred above, I understand you are not saying that baptism saves per se, but rather that "Baptism and adherence to Gods command is a reflection of what God has already accomplished or will accomplish in His covenantal people." It is good that you have at least distinguished between those two claims, and made it clear that you are not saying baptism saves; but in the practical outworking of the beliefs, they are essentially saying close to the same thing. If all those for whom God has accomplished redemption will either give the sign to their children or else later wish that they would have, then pracicing paedobaptism is nothing short of a litmus test for salvation with regard to credobaptists who have children. That has horrific implications.

 

[Dan....]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Dan....

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Dan....
Also, I find it hard to believe that in Joshua 3, God dries up the bed of the river Jordan for a nation of heathens to cross into a land promised to their fathers, but no longer promised to them (per your view), because they were all either uncircumcised or were the parents of uncircumcised children, and hence all (per your view) cut off from the people of God. If this uncircumcised nation was (as per your view) cut off from being God's people in their unrepentance, then it sure seems odd to me that God would yield visible blessings to them as if they were His people the whole time. The only conclusion that I see is plausible is that they never ceased from being the covenant people of God even while uncircumcised.

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Dan....]

Dan,
In those that crossed over was Gods remnant........as I previously said.

True, there is always an elect remnant among the visible saints, yet we do not know who the elect remnant are. However, the whole nation is treated as the visible people of God. Joshua does not say, "Only the circumcised (that do not have male children) may cross; the rest of you guys may not, because you are all outside the camp."

I agree; However at the point of crossing over they were still in their rebellion........it was not until they crossed over was the recircumcision impelmented.

You agree??? So your whole argument about Genesis 17 just crumbled.

You said that baptists who do not baptize their children are cut off from the covenant community per Gen 17. Yet here you agree that this uncircumcised nation was not cut off from the covenant community for not being circumcised and for not circumcising their children. Doesn't that sound a bit inconsistant?

 

[crhoades]

Justification by faith alone or Justification by faith and covenantal faithfulness?

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by crhoades]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Dan,
I believe that the distinction needs to be made in this case as Israel the nation and Israel the congregation. Israel was so into their rebellion and ultimately the leadership was to blame. Gods people perish for lack of knowledge, and in this regard, Joshua was as well part of the problem. What I agree with, was that there was a remnant and there will always be a remnnant; and we don't know who the elect are, even in conditions as such.

Quit trying to pigeon hole me

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by crhoades
Justification by faith alone or Justification by faith and covenantal faithfulness?

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by crhoades]

Chris,
Justification is by faith alone; The justified will place the sign upon their chidren.

*Anyone reading my quote above (and below) by Calvin???

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Scott Bushey]

More from Calvin:

He hath broken my covenant For the covenant of God is ratified, when by faith we embrace what he promises. Should any one object, that infants were guiltless of this fault, because they hitherto were destitute of reason: I answer, we ought not to press this divine declaration too closely, as if God held the infants as chargeable with a fault of their own: but we must observe the antithesis, that as God adopts the infant son in the person of his father, so when the father repudiates such a benefit, the infant is said to cut himself off from the Church. For the meaning of the expression is this, "˜He shall be blotted out from the people whom God had chosen to himself´. The explanation of some, that they who remained in uncircumcision would not be Jews, and would have no place in the census of that people, is too frigid. We must go farther, and say, that God, indeed, will not acknowledge those as among his people, who will not bear the mark and token of adoption.

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by crhoades
Justification by faith alone or Justification by faith and covenantal faithfulness?

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by crhoades]

Chris,
Justification is by faith alone; The justified will place the sign upon their chidren.

*Anyone reading my quote above (and below) by Calvin???

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by Scott Bushey]

So for the sake of thoroughness...

Here comes not the reductio ad hitlerum but rather the reductio ad Spurgeonum.

If I follow what you're saying then Spurgeon was never truly justified. In fact he was twice the child of the devil because he spent a lifetime of teaching against God's covenant sign as Presbyterians would understand it.

Are you saying that baptists that die without ever converting to a paedo belief were never truly justified? [ ] yes [ ] no

[Edited on 9-2-2006 by crhoades]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Chris,
I hate to do this to you but please read through the thread.

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Chris,
I hate to do this to you but please read through the thread.

I have read every post. I'm trying to follow up on the thought of this view being tied to the FV. I'm interacting with the fact that you just said that the justified will place the sign on their children. I understand that you are trying to distinguish between soteriological and covenantal issues. Just trying to see if you collapse them back together at points.

I would rather you just dialog with the question with the simple yes or no and then qualify your answer as much as you like.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Chris,
I hate to do this to you but please read through the thread.

Reminds me of a dance not too long ago around the question, "Will God ever destroy the earth again with water?"