JonathanHunt
Puritan Board Senior
No offense taken, but you must realise that we who do not baptise our children rest no less on the promises of God nor feel any less 'safe' than you do!
Split From "Why I am now a paedo!" Thread.
- Thread starter JonathanHunt
- Start date
- Status
No offense taken, but you must realise that we who do not baptise our children rest no less on the promises of God nor feel any less 'safe' than you do!
JonathanHunt
Puritan Board Senior
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh sorry I spoke in the paedo only section. Naughty me! Still, the response stands and is neccessary. Thanks for doing the spade work, Bill!
JonathanHunt
Puritan Board Senior
Hicks? I should have known. Never misses an opportunity to gun me down.
I hope you don't mind me asking, but what promises are you resting on that are not based on you and your children being in covenant with God?
Ronnie
God said that the firstborn of every womb belonged to him. The firstborn had to be redeemed.
Joseph and Mary took Jesus to the Temple and dedicated him according to the law, it was the redemption ceremony of the firstborn. Anna and Simeon prophesied.
We are the church of the first born- we are the redeemed set apart to God.
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven
When a Baptist dedicates their baby to the Lord, they are doing exactly what Joseph and Mary did. They are testifying before God and man that their child is set apart by the faith of the parents as part of the church of the firstborn. The child is part of the Covenant community. To dedicate the child is every single bit a declaration of their inclusion in the church of the firstborn as baptism is. Both declare the child to be part of the Covenant people of God.
I am in a paedo church with strong paedo leanings myself. But it makes me sick sick sick to hear paedos say that Baptists do not have any place for their children under the Covenant. It is just plain stupid and unbiblical. Baptists grasp just as well as any paedo that the child is set apart. They just happen to read Romans 6 and see death and resurrection symbolism and prefer to wait until evidence of regeneration has taken place. In the meantime they dedicate the baby in the ceremony of the redemption of the first born.
99% of the problem is that paedos cut Romans 6 out of the bible and credos cut Colossians 2 out of the bible. I can promise you that you'll almost never see a Baptist read from Col 2, or a paedos read from Romans 6. It sure would be nice to see both sides admit that the other side has a solid biblical exegesis.
Joseph and Mary took Jesus to the Temple and dedicated him according to the law, it was the redemption ceremony of the firstborn. Anna and Simeon prophesied.
We are the church of the first born- we are the redeemed set apart to God.
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven
When a Baptist dedicates their baby to the Lord, they are doing exactly what Joseph and Mary did. They are testifying before God and man that their child is set apart by the faith of the parents as part of the church of the firstborn. The child is part of the Covenant community. To dedicate the child is every single bit a declaration of their inclusion in the church of the firstborn as baptism is. Both declare the child to be part of the Covenant people of God.
I am in a paedo church with strong paedo leanings myself. But it makes me sick sick sick to hear paedos say that Baptists do not have any place for their children under the Covenant. It is just plain stupid and unbiblical. Baptists grasp just as well as any paedo that the child is set apart. They just happen to read Romans 6 and see death and resurrection symbolism and prefer to wait until evidence of regeneration has taken place. In the meantime they dedicate the baby in the ceremony of the redemption of the first born.
99% of the problem is that paedos cut Romans 6 out of the bible and credos cut Colossians 2 out of the bible. I can promise you that you'll almost never see a Baptist read from Col 2, or a paedos read from Romans 6. It sure would be nice to see both sides admit that the other side has a solid biblical exegesis.
Notthemama1984
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I have no problem admitting that both sides have some good arguments. If I am reading something on paedo, I lean paedo. If I am reading credo, then I think credo is right. It is confusing and needs more studying on my part.
Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Lynnie,
If Baptists believe that children are "infused into the church of the firstborn" (which, according to your quote, is enrolled in heaven) and are part of God's covenant people, why don't they baptize them and put them on their membership rolls?
I'll tell you exactly what promises we rest on. We rest on the promise that those who place their faith in Christ and Christ alone are forgiven of their sins and given right standing with God through the imputed righteousness of Christ. Water baptism does not impute righteousness. Once right standing with God is conveyed, so too are the precious promises God makes to His saints.
-----Added 12/23/2008 at 09:20:43 EST-----
Lynnie, I'm a Baptist and I don't understand what covenant you're referring to. Baby dedication is really parent dedication. Parent's are covenanting before God and the church to raise their children under the authority of the Word of God. We are looking forward to the day when the obvious fruit of faith becomes clear. We do not believe that anyone is part of the invisible New Covenant community apart from faith, even though they interact within the visible church. It's more than "just happen to read Romans 6 and see death and resurrection symbolism and prefer to wait until evidence of regeneration has taken place." There's no preference about it. It's a material difference on how we interpret the New Covenant and it's members.
-----Added 12/23/2008 at 09:21:19 EST-----
Lynnie,
If Baptists believe that children are "infused into the church of the firstborn" (which, according to your quote, is enrolled in heaven) and are part of God's covenant people, why don't they baptize them and put them on their membership rolls?
David, because we don't believe this.
Thomas2007
Puritan Board Sophomore
I was raised a Baptist and remained one until maybe a decade ago - but still struggled with the doctrine baptism until a few years ago. But I was never taught what you are saying above. We never used the word "covenant" nor did we interpret Scripture the way the Reformed do, at all.
Maybe Reformed Baptists fit into your model, but the vast majority don't.
ManleyBeasley
Puritan Board Junior
There seems to be some confusion on what baptists believe here for sure. We do not believe that anyone enters into the new covenant except by regeneration. The NC being different than the OC (which had both regenerate and unregenerate) in this way is central to baptist belief. We baptize only those (even at a very young age) who make a profession of faith in Christ.
Davidius-Herald-
I did not mean to imply any infusion of saving grace by dedication.
I maybe didn't articulate it well. No, dedicating a baby does not make the baby "in Christ" any more than water does not make the baby "in Christ".
I don't believe in dedicational regeneration or baptismal regeneration.
When every single Jew took their firstborn to the Temple and dedicated it, did it mean every single Jewish baby would end up in the church of the redeemed first born? No. But they obeyed. I am not talking about infusing regeneration, I am talking about the symbolism of paedo baptism and baby dedication and trying to draw a parallel. ( not too well obviously
)
What I am trying to point out is that reformed people do not believe the child of believers is exactly the same as the children of the heathen. They believe there are special promises to that child and it is "set apart" by the faith of the parents in some way. Paedos see baptism like circumcision....the sign of being part of the covenant people in a certain way that OF COURSE still demands personal regeneration at some age. And I am saying that a baby dedication (rightly understood) fulfills the same exact purpose.
I heard a Horton audio a year or two ago where he said straight out essentially that Baptists have NO PLACE for their kids as part of the Covenant community because they reject the sign of the covenant in baptism. Well with all due respect for Horton that is rediculous. To understand baby dedication as what it is- that we are the church of the firstborn and the redeemed- and the child is in a provisional sort of covenant through that dedication- means that a Baptist can certainly have a place for their child as part of the Covenant people.
I was in a Reformed Baptist church and then a PCA in another state before we moved here to a Reformed Baptist that went bad and are now in a PCA. This is not our defining doctrine for where we choose to fellowship obviously. But I am stunned at the ignorance of PhD paedos who say Baptists have no special place for their kids as part of the church, they are THE SAME as heathen kids....and I am equally disgusted by Baptists who treat paedos like dopes who must have never read the bible or are emmeshed in papal bondage. I've seen it on both sides. I don't know how people can degrade the likes of Piper, Grudem, Spurgeon, etc...not how they can feel so superior to Sproul or Edwards and so forth.
I did not mean to imply any infusion of saving grace by dedication.
I maybe didn't articulate it well. No, dedicating a baby does not make the baby "in Christ" any more than water does not make the baby "in Christ".
I don't believe in dedicational regeneration or baptismal regeneration.
When every single Jew took their firstborn to the Temple and dedicated it, did it mean every single Jewish baby would end up in the church of the redeemed first born? No. But they obeyed. I am not talking about infusing regeneration, I am talking about the symbolism of paedo baptism and baby dedication and trying to draw a parallel. ( not too well obviously
)What I am trying to point out is that reformed people do not believe the child of believers is exactly the same as the children of the heathen. They believe there are special promises to that child and it is "set apart" by the faith of the parents in some way. Paedos see baptism like circumcision....the sign of being part of the covenant people in a certain way that OF COURSE still demands personal regeneration at some age. And I am saying that a baby dedication (rightly understood) fulfills the same exact purpose.
I heard a Horton audio a year or two ago where he said straight out essentially that Baptists have NO PLACE for their kids as part of the Covenant community because they reject the sign of the covenant in baptism. Well with all due respect for Horton that is rediculous. To understand baby dedication as what it is- that we are the church of the firstborn and the redeemed- and the child is in a provisional sort of covenant through that dedication- means that a Baptist can certainly have a place for their child as part of the Covenant people.
I was in a Reformed Baptist church and then a PCA in another state before we moved here to a Reformed Baptist that went bad and are now in a PCA. This is not our defining doctrine for where we choose to fellowship obviously. But I am stunned at the ignorance of PhD paedos who say Baptists have no special place for their kids as part of the church, they are THE SAME as heathen kids....and I am equally disgusted by Baptists who treat paedos like dopes who must have never read the bible or are emmeshed in papal bondage. I've seen it on both sides. I don't know how people can degrade the likes of Piper, Grudem, Spurgeon, etc...not how they can feel so superior to Sproul or Edwards and so forth.
TsonMariytho
Puritan Board Freshman
To my view, it's backwards to claim that credo's exclude their children from the offer of the covenant promises, whereas paedo's claim the promises on behalf of their children.
The reality is that both credo's and paedo's offer the gospel freely to everyone who will hear it, to young and old, no matter who their parents are. The gospel contains great covenant promises to be received in faith, and fearful covenant curses upon those who reject God's command to believe in the name of his Son. These offered promises and threatened curses are equally extended to everyone who hears the gospel.
It so happens that not everyone who is offered the promises believes, and apprehends them by God's grace. The question is whether one's own children should be extended a presumption of belief.
The reality is that both credo's and paedo's offer the gospel freely to everyone who will hear it, to young and old, no matter who their parents are. The gospel contains great covenant promises to be received in faith, and fearful covenant curses upon those who reject God's command to believe in the name of his Son. These offered promises and threatened curses are equally extended to everyone who hears the gospel.
It so happens that not everyone who is offered the promises believes, and apprehends them by God's grace. The question is whether one's own children should be extended a presumption of belief.
Last edited:
A paedo-baptist believes covenant membership is entered into by birthright of being born to a Christian parent or baptized into a trinitarian formula of baptism.
A credo Baptist believes one is a covenant member because of his union with Christ based upon the person and work of Christ on behalf of the individuals life.
Of course one must define the many shades of paedo and credo baptists outside of the Covenant Theology camps also. On this board we are Covenant Theologians. We all base our understanding of who is a covenant member based upon our understanding of Covenant Theology unlike the evangelical world.
I am amazed at the credo conversion to paedo decrying that they are having a born again like experience because they now understand Covenant Theology (Per Matt's books) when they have probably never even understood that the Reformed Baptist hold to Covenant Theology also. We just differ on who is a covenant member and who isn't as defined by the Covenants.
Ignorance comes shining through when knowledge is hid in the dark.
A credo Baptist believes one is a covenant member because of his union with Christ based upon the person and work of Christ on behalf of the individuals life.
Of course one must define the many shades of paedo and credo baptists outside of the Covenant Theology camps also. On this board we are Covenant Theologians. We all base our understanding of who is a covenant member based upon our understanding of Covenant Theology unlike the evangelical world.
I am amazed at the credo conversion to paedo decrying that they are having a born again like experience because they now understand Covenant Theology (Per Matt's books) when they have probably never even understood that the Reformed Baptist hold to Covenant Theology also. We just differ on who is a covenant member and who isn't as defined by the Covenants.
Ignorance comes shining through when knowledge is hid in the dark.
Last edited:
discipulo
Puritan Board Junior
First of all I must state that some of the Christians I most highly respect are Calvinist Baptists,
dear consecrated brothers whom I am not worthy to tie their shoes.
Yet I still find there is a dimension of God’s Sovereignty that is not considered in strict Credo Baptism.
We all accept that Justification and Regeneration God applies to individuals through
individual faith, that He grants to the elect, personally and individually.
But what do you make of household salvation? Salvation has the household as its unit.
For the sake of a very simplistic metaphor. You eat eggs one by one, but you don’t buy a single egg.
You buy a box of 6 or 12. That is the unit to buy them. So it’s sure you will eat them all, even if only one at once.
And a second later, all will be eaten in due time.
Here are some passages that in my opinion teach household salvation.
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house (Hebrews 11:7).
The Passover has a lamb for each household.
Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house (Exodus 12:3).
And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved(Acts 11:13-14).
And when she was baptized, and her household(Acts 16:14-15).
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house (Acts 16:31-32)
In my humble opinion this also the way I see that the Covenant applies to the children of believers,
and baptism, as a sign and seal of the Covenant,
(Romans 4 Abraham and The Heidelberg Catechism Question 74)
should be applied also to the children of believers, since the entire household has the sure promise of salvation.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house
For the promise is unto you, and to your children Acts 2:39
.
dear consecrated brothers whom I am not worthy to tie their shoes.
Yet I still find there is a dimension of God’s Sovereignty that is not considered in strict Credo Baptism.
We all accept that Justification and Regeneration God applies to individuals through
individual faith, that He grants to the elect, personally and individually.
But what do you make of household salvation? Salvation has the household as its unit.
For the sake of a very simplistic metaphor. You eat eggs one by one, but you don’t buy a single egg.
You buy a box of 6 or 12. That is the unit to buy them. So it’s sure you will eat them all, even if only one at once.
And a second later, all will be eaten in due time.
Here are some passages that in my opinion teach household salvation.
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house (Hebrews 11:7).
The Passover has a lamb for each household.
Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house (Exodus 12:3).
And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved(Acts 11:13-14).
And when she was baptized, and her household(Acts 16:14-15).
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house (Acts 16:31-32)
In my humble opinion this also the way I see that the Covenant applies to the children of believers,
and baptism, as a sign and seal of the Covenant,
(Romans 4 Abraham and The Heidelberg Catechism Question 74)
should be applied also to the children of believers, since the entire household has the sure promise of salvation.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house
For the promise is unto you, and to your children Acts 2:39
.
Last edited:
Will respond to the household baptism teaching when I have more time. I am going to be busy the next few days. Just a note on the Acts 2 passage... I am amazed how many paedo's cut off the beginning and the last part of the passage.
-----Added 12/24/2008 at 01:02:33 EST-----
So everyone in a household is guaranteed a promise unto salvation?
You might wanna think about that.
Headed out for Christmas dinner at my Mom's.
Merry Christmas everyone.
-----Added 12/24/2008 at 01:02:33 EST-----
So everyone in a household is guaranteed a promise unto salvation?
You might wanna think about that.
Headed out for Christmas dinner at my Mom's.
Merry Christmas everyone.
I find this statement strange. I've heard numerous sermons in Baptist churches dealing with Col. 2 as well as Romans 6. I've never known a Reformed Baptist preacher to be afraid of any portion of scripture.
BTW, and For what it's worth, Romans 6:3-4 and Col. 2:12 have very similar statements about being dead in baptism and being raised with Christ.
discipulo
Puritan Board Junior
One strong argument is actually made by its negative side, so to speak.
In the Jewish Culture and Religion so used to Circumcision made to every born child in
the Jewish household, and Being Baptism the sign of the New Covenant, Jewish would naturally
and immediately understand Baptism to apply to all the household, children included, then.
So if they were not supposed to, how there is not a single Apostolic Admonition or
Commandment preventing infants to be baptized along with their believing parents ?
Actually the narratives of baptisms in Acts sustain a household - including paedo - baptism, as does the mention of Paul:
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas 1 Corinthians 1:16
A Household baptism clearly differentiated from individual baptisms,
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius 1 Corinthians 1:14
.
In the Jewish Culture and Religion so used to Circumcision made to every born child in
the Jewish household, and Being Baptism the sign of the New Covenant, Jewish would naturally
and immediately understand Baptism to apply to all the household, children included, then.
So if they were not supposed to, how there is not a single Apostolic Admonition or
Commandment preventing infants to be baptized along with their believing parents ?
Actually the narratives of baptisms in Acts sustain a household - including paedo - baptism, as does the mention of Paul:
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas 1 Corinthians 1:16
A Household baptism clearly differentiated from individual baptisms,
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius 1 Corinthians 1:14
.
Last edited:
Thanks for responding. I'm not sure Herald meant the same thing, because he was basing his response on having the same confidence as those who believe their children are already in covenant with God. You are speaking of the promise that is giving to everyone, but that would not be what we are talking about, so how is this confidence the same as ours?
Under the Old Covenant, God had special promises for those who were in covenant with Him even though they were not all regenerated(cf. Romans 3:1-2; Romans 9:4-5). Paul himself was challenged with the question, "What advantage is there in being a Jew"(Roman 3:1 ) He answered, "Much in every way!"(Romans 3:2 ) and he started to list all the promises that were specifically given to those in covenant with God( Romans 3:1; Romans 9:4-5) even though they were not all regenerate. Likewise today those who are in covenant with God have promises that the general world does not have.
Ronnie, Jonathan never said that the promises he is resting on are promises towards unbelieving children. Read exactly what he wrote.
The requirements of the Old Covenant (and its promises), were made null and void in Christ (Daniel 9:27). The spiritual promise of the seed of Abraham was made possible by Christ, and is manifested in the lives of all those who come to Christ by faith. I believe in a clear and definitive line of demarcation between the visible church and those who are under the New Covenant (invisible church). The only way to receive the blessings of this eternal covenant is by faith in Christ. You may believe your children are part of the visible church, and therefore part of the "covenant." I just can't figure out what covenant they're part of. It certainly isn't the New Covenant which is entered into by faith.
discipulo
Puritan Board Junior
Dear Brother I will answer by someone else's words.
Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680) Puritan Pastor and a member of the Westminster Assembly
The Covenant Seed (the part on Luke xix ) - quote
When Zaccheus was thus converted, Christ enlargeth his covenant to Zaccheus family also, 'This day is salvation come to this house, inasmuch as he is also the son of Abraham' ver. 9. This was spoken of him as now believing in Christ. Now if Christ's intent had been in this his answer given, to shew that he was a Jew, and so though a great sinner, yet was converted as being a son of Abraham (as some expound it), he would have made it the reason but of this only, why Zaccheus was saved himself personally; but he makes it the reason why his house should be saved also, and so the covenant stuck with them of his family likewise, because he the father of the family was now a believer; whereas had his children and family, being Jews by birth, and himself likewise, then salvation had come unto him and them all, because they all were sons of Abraham by birth (if Jews) as well as he. So as it is evident, that as he was a Gentile by birth, so now being converted, is therefore called a ' son of Abraham ' and withal had this privilege of Abraham, as being his son (which is the point I allege this for), to have his house brought into the covenant, even of that of salvation, in conformity to his father Abraham, whose house at the first giving of that covenant, even children and all, were circumcised and saved upon that ground, Christ intending now he should go in to eat with him, to convert his household also.
emphasis mine
.
Last edited:
Can you answer plainly? Are you saying that a child is saved simply because he is born into a covenant family? I'm not interested in what Goodwin has to say, but in what you have to say about it.
discipulo
Puritan Board Junior
Actually I shouldn’t have to say this but
you should care much more for what Thomas Goodwin has to say
than about me.
And no one is saved except by God's Grace
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God Ephesians 2:8
.
Last edited:
discipulo
Puritan Board Junior
Thank you for bearing with me on this argument brother,
more than my own opinion, I'm striving to present
Biblical and Confessional authority.
So with the passages from Scripture that I posted before
I must answer through
The Heidelberg Catechism
question 74 Are infants also to be baptized?
Answer. Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; and since redemption from sin by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, instead of which baptism is instituted in the new covenant.
emphasis mine
.
OK. So how can he have the same confidence as padeobaptist that has confidence based on the covenant promises that even their unbelieving ( as far as we can tell ) children who have received the covenant sign will be brought to experience the reality?
No, not all the promises of the Old Covenant were abrogated. Some of the same promises that were held out to them are still held out to us today, they are just under a different covenant administration. As the book of Hebrews teaches at the end of chapter 3 and the beginning of chapter 4, we all have the same promises of the Gospel.
Of course it is the New Covenant in its external administration. As Paul said about that Old Covenant "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" we can likewise say of the New, "not all who are in the New Covenant are of the New Covenant".
Last edited:
I give up. I have a confession and catechism too, but I have no problem answering plainly to a yes or no question.
Last edited:
discipulo
Puritan Board Junior
It is not a Yes or No answer, or question for that matter.
Because it is a already and not yet answer, also to your question.
That is the Gerhardus Vos exegesis we need in this debate.
Are the children of believers in the Covenant?
Already from their birth, even from their mother’s womb.
Are the children of believers Justified and Regenerated?
If they still have not reached the individual personal
God’s given saving faith in Christ, Not yet
Does God fail to honour and fulfil His promises?
Never
Our faith and assurance must remain in the Lord and in His Word !
So please never give up!
.
- Status
