One interesting part of the Christian life is working out how we feel about the ordinances of the church, namely communion and baptism. How this relates to church membership also adds another angle to the mix. This post got me thinking. The issue at hand is baptism. We know the modes of baptism are different. We also know that the reasons for baptism are different for some. The question I have is ...
Can someone join your church (or should they be able to) if they have not been baptized in the mode that your church recognizes and for the same reasons your church recognizes?
Should that person be allowed to join AND participate in communion?
I welcome your comments as this discussion is normally a good one.
315 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 315 of 315DT,
I am in for the long haul on this one. Make no mistake about the fact that this is not a "denominational" debate. It is an approach to Scripture. Both the London Baptist and the Westminster Confession boast in their openning Chapter that the only infallible rule for interpreting Scripture is Scripture itself. They both assert that all things necessary for salvation, faith, and life is either expressly set down or is necessarily contained therin.
Again the problem is a Dispensational approach to Scripture VS. a Covenantal one -This transcends denominations.
DT are you a professed dispensationalist?
I would love to examine every text of Scripture that you can muster, please don't think it an impossible task - I was once a baptist but now I'm not - If you think that Matt. 28 is your foundational proof then lets get cracking. I'd rather discuss Scripture than eat!!!
DT,
Absolutely I believe it is a sacrament. Even the Westminster Confession clearly teaches that it is one of only two and any good Presbyterian would confess it to be so as well.
Even the London Baptist confess such. I believe you referred to yourself as a "Reformed Baptist" correct?
Do you beleive it is a sacrament?
Glenn,
I am a dispy.
I do not believe it is a sacrament. We believe it is an ordinance just like communion. Both of which are for believers only.
DT
Okay, I've been following this exchange and I have a couple of questions. I may have missed something, so forgive me if I repeat...
Deborah:
How can you interpret Colossians 2:11-12 to mean that baptism was a sign of a covenant, when it states "you were BURIED with Him in baptism"?
This "circumcision" was made without hands, which is the cutting off of sin by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit (no hands, Ma) and the next part is about baptism, where you then die, and are raised again to new life in Christ as a new creation.
You mentioned Romans 6:4, but in context, Romans 6:1-4:
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
How can an infant be considered to have died to sin, been baptized unto Jesus' death - buried with Him and raised to new life and then expected to walk in this newness of life?
Also, you used Acts 2:39, but what about verse 38? How can an infant repent and be forgiven?
I really did not know that there were those who believed in infant baptism. This has been very interesting. I have been checking scriptures, thinking, listening to both sides, and I still cannot fathom baptizing an infant based on OT law. I have no loyalties to Baptists or any other denomination. I have been looking at this as objectively as possible and I do not think that infant baptism is scriptural...
Thanks for listening!
Melissa
Hey Melissa,
I am glad to see someone else joining in on the conversation.
Whether you know it or not, you have been influenced by Baptistic thinking concerning baptism. The reason I know this is that you stated you did not know anyone even practiced infant baptism, therefore, I can logically deduce that you have never had anyone explain it.
Just as in the OT circumcision was identified with the work of the Spirit, so in the NT baptism is identified with the work of the Spirit i.e. The Holy Spirit circumcises the heart and cleanses the heart.
As to the Romans passage, look at the context. This passage is not even dealing with water baptism. It is dealing with dying to sin and our sanctification.
In Acts, Peter's listeners were comprised of mostly (if not all) adult men. We don't deny that adults, who have never been baptized, need to be baptized after conversion. Read on down through Acts 2:39...the promise was for the men AND their children.
Infant children can no more save themselves than adult men and women. It is all a work of the Holy Spirit.
I am enjoying the conversation. I look forward to reading more later.
Deborah
I would like to address the "burial theory."
This theory is based upon a misinterpretation of Romans 6:3-4 and Col. 2:12. It was never even heard of until after the Council of Nice in A. D. 325 when it was adopted by the church of Rome as a prop for the immersion theory. The first mention we find of it is in those popish documents called "Apostolic Constitutions," Bk.3, sec.2. Here are the words employed:
"The water is used instead of the sepulcher, the oil instead of the Holy Ghost, the seal instead of the Cross, the anointment is instead of the Confirmation, the dipping into water (katadusis, not baptizo) is the dying with Christ, and the rising out of the water (anadusis) is the rising again with Him." So says Rome.
The idea that baptism is a burial, is founded on an entire misconception of the mode of burial practice in the East. We bury our dead under the earth, and this, may be conceived as something like putting a person under water. However, NO SUCH custom was known to the Apostles or to those to whom they preached or wrote. The Greeks and Romans who were numerous in Judea always burned their dead bodies, then collected the ashes and bones into an urn. Such a burial had surely no resemblance to dipping. So also with the mode of burial practiced by the Jews.
How was Christ buried? Not in our manner, by being put into a coffin, and covered up with earth, but by being carried into a cave cut out of the face of a rock, and laid on a niche in the wall. Many such tombs are still to be seen around Jerusalem. If four men took up a dead body, carried it into a room, and laid it on a table, would there be any likeness between that and immersion? Yet, this was the burial of our Lord. Neither Paul, nor any Jew or Gentile of his time could perceive any resemblance between the dipping of a person in water and a burial.
DT,
I not sure what a dispy is but I do know that a sacrament is an ordinance.
If you have a hang up about the word sacrament as I mean it which is that it is an ordinance instituted by Christ and thus refers to the sacredness of it; I have no problem using your terminology as long as you believe there are only two "ordinances" that of Baptism and the Lord's Supper - Is this where you stand theologically?
do you as a "Reformed Baptist" hold to the London Baptist confession of faith?
DT,
It hit me after I responded - you are a dispensationalist - gotcha.
and yes, I see that you do believe that there are only two ordinances? - sorry it is late!
I think that the key to our discussion is going to be on the unity of the church in both the Old and New Testaments - That is the greatest difference between the two systems and is also the greatest hindrance I had with understanding covenant baptism.
Please lay out your understanding of the difference between Israel and the church.
Glenn,
I will respond tomorrow afternoon late. I need to be able to think clear and late hours can become mindless for me.
DT
Good Morning all,
I hope everyone had a blessed Lord's Day as I did.
DT,
on the subject of the unity of the Church in the Old and New Testaments, if you believe that there is a difference between them and that the Church began at Pentecost, How would you defend your view biblically?
What happened to everyone?
Henry (rick), Steve, jsu, approvedworkman?
Each of you said that you don't see infant baptism in the Scriptures, yet you have not given a biblical defense of Credo baptism.
Henry (rick) and jsu alluded to infant baptism as heretical. Surely, you guys should be able to defend why credo baptism is Biblical Baptism. It isn't enough to say "I just don't see it."
Herein lies the rub. I cannot tell you how many times this has happened to my husband (and it sounds like you too, Glenn). Many Baptists when pressed concerning their views, eventually become silent on the issue. Why? They are always very quick to exclaim that Covenantal Baptism is not in the Bible, or that it is heretical, or papist-like. And yet, when pressed on their views, they are unable to defend them scripturally. (To be fair, the Jeremiah passage does usually come up along with the adult baptisms in the NT).
Both views can't be right. If I am wrong, I want to know. I want to make sure that before the Lord I have done everything possible to be obedient to His Word.
For many Baptists, the idea of Covenantal Baptism is unthinkable. The whole denomination is built around their understanding of one ordinance. Membership into a Baptist church is only considered if one has been "properly" immersed after a profession of faith is made. In some churches, THE LORD's table is closed to those who don't meet the qualifications of Baptists (dunked after profession). The denomination's name itself delineates what is extremely important to them.
This is why it is so hard for them to consider any thing other than Credo baptism.
------------------------------------------
DT,
I did not include your name in the list above. I read where you are going to defend your position.
I am interested in reading it. I do have a question for you. Have you ever wondered why so many of the church fathers were paedo baptists? Even on the list you give at the top of your homepage, one only was a credobaptist. I understand that this is not a "Biblical" argument, but there has to be something to the fact that some of the most brilliant minds the church has seen were all covenantal in their understanding of Theology. I also have to admit that I never thought you were Dispensational (even though I know all Baptists must be to some degree concerning the OT and the NT). My friends at the Reformed Baptist church in town shudder when you mention Dispensationalism. They don't want to be identified with it, and they want to be identified as "Covenantal" (even though we would disagree on what that term denotes). I assumed this was the position most Reformed Baptist churches took. I am pretty sure modern Dispensationalism is foreign to the London Baptist Confession of Faith.
Deborah
Deborah,
I have to say that I firmly disagree with your assessment of our position.
You may feel that us Baptists view this and support it just because we can, that is not the case.
I think the reason that we grow silent is:
1. the burden of proof lies in your court
2. you simply do not have history behind you unless you identify yourself with the RCC which I'm sure you don't
3. to debate/argue/discuss this issue (though I did bring it up) can go on forever and to no avail.
4. this will and does become a hermeneutical issue which will not allow us to find common ground.
The presuppositions that we all have will not allow most of us to move.
I have been extremely busy lately but I will go over this with Glenn. Do notice though that we will not be able to find any common ground at this point because neither camp will budge.
Lastly, just because you have engaged some Baptists who grew "silent" does not mean that your view is correct. You told me not to let a few incorrect Presbyterians lead me wrong in my views on this. Their lack of understanding did not validate my view either.
As passionate as y'all are about this subject I would say we are just as passionate to practice believers baptism.
DT
Glenn,
I identify with the 1689 confession.
(You had asked earlier)
DT
Deborah,
Let me clarify something.
I identify more with a old school dispensationalism. The modern version is a mess on some fronts.
That the Bible taught a unique place for Israel and that the Church could not fulfill God's promises to Israel, therefore, there is a still a future and a kingdom involving the salvation and the restoration and the reign of the nation Israel (historical Jews).
DT
Hey DT,
I would like to address your points:
1. the burden of proof lies in your court
I would say that the burden of proof lies in your court. God has always included children in the Covenant. You have to prove from Scripture that God abrogated this command.
2. you simply do not have history behind you unless you identify yourself with the RCC which I'm sure you don't
This is simply not the case. I have already listed McMahon's incomplete list of paedobaptists. If one were to look in the old Syriac version of the NT, dated to the first century of the Christian era, you would find the world children substituted for "oikos" or household in (Acts 16:15) and for "all his" in (Acts 16:33). The reading is, "Lydia and her children, the jailer "and his children." Irenaeus who was a pupil of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the Evangelist, shows in his writings that infant baptism was an ordinance of the Church in his day. Justin Martyr wrote about 40 years after the apostolic age. In his writings finds infant baptism practiced in the Church. Origen, who lived within a hundred years after the apostles wrote of infant baptism. There are others:
Augustine
Tertullian
The Waldenses
etc., etc.
For 1500 years after the command to baptize was given, no man, or set of men, can be found in the history of the Church, who rejected or opposed infant baptism on the grounds that the Baptists of this age oppose and reject it. The Anabaptists who arose in Germany were the first.
3. to debate/argue/discuss this issue (though I did bring it up) can go on forever and to no avail.
I will admit that I did giggle when you brought it up. Don't ever say it is "to no avail." Most of the members of our Presbyterian church were once Baptists... including my husband and myself. As a matter of fact, we have four families traveling over an hour to come to our church, who just left a Baptist church.
4. this will and does become a hermeneutical issue which will not allow us to find common ground.
The presuppositions that we all have will not allow most of us to move.
See # 3.
You also stated:
"You told me not to let a few incorrect Presbyterians lead me wrong in my views on this. Their lack of understanding did not validate my view either."
Touché. I want to allow you the same consideration that I asked you to allow me.
You didn't answer my question:
Have you ever wondered why so many of the church fathers were paedo baptists?
Deborah
Deborah,
Off the cuff I think the RCC had a made a HUGE impression on the early church fathers.
That is verifiable in church father literature.
DT
DT,
I must disagree with you on your history. either you ignore the fact or do not realize that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist during the first few centuries of Church History. Lets be honest about the fact that the RCC did not "influence" the early church fathers seeing that the Papacy did not even exist at that time!
If the truth be told, the RCC embraced what was then practiced and then perverted it as it has so many of the other cardinal doctrines of our faith -even the gospel.
DT,
DS is correct in that the burden of proof is on you not us. The command to put the sign on the children of believers has yet to be abbrogated by the One who gave it. If it has please show us where.
As to being an Old school dispy (I like your word), I would ask do you believe in the Postponement theory posposed by old schoolers such as Lewis Sperry Chafer, Scoffield, and others?
Deborah and Glenn,
Since both of you were Baptists have either of you ever read Boyce's "Abstract of Principles?"
He was a premillennial dispensationalist with Reformed soteriological views.
DT
Glenn,
If you mean do I believe in the "Great Parenthesis" theory the answer is no.
DT
Glenn,
Scoffield had his own problems with Gen. 1.1-2. His gap theory has mislead many including J. Vernon McGee.
DT
Deborah,
In reference to your comment about Tertullian...
Tertullian, treatise on BAPTISM 18,4 (c. AD 200-206)
"According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, indeed, is it necessary -- if it be not a case of necessity -- that the sponsors to be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition? Indeed the Lord says, 'Do not forbid them to come to me' [Matt 19:14; Luke 18:16].
"Let them come, then, while they grow up, while they learn, while they are taught to whom to come; let them become Christians when they will have been able to know Christ! Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? ...For no less cause should the unmarried also be deferred, in whom there is an aptness to temptation -- in virgins on account of their ripeness as also in the widowed on account of their freedom -- until they are married or are better strengthened for continence. Anyone who understands the seriousness of Baptism will fear its reception more than its deferral. Sound faith is secure of its salvation!"
DT
Hey DT,
I have not read the Boyce book you suggested. I will ask my husband if he has it in his library.
Tertullian was not a Baptist, but he imbibed the notion that in baptism all past sins were washed away, and that all sins after baptism were almost unpardonable. Hence, he advised the delay of baptism, not only in the case of infants (except when there was danger of death), but in the case also of widows, widowers and unmarried young men and women, until they were confirmed in continence and were thus beyond the reach of sin.
This is not Baptist doctrine. However, Tertullian is a witness against the practice of Baptists. His advice is a plain proof that infant baptism was then practiced, or else how could he have recommended its being postponed.
Good morning everyone!
I have been thinking about how I would defend that the Church was one and substantially identical under both dispensations. What Scriptural proofs are there? Here are some thoughts:
Acts 7:38: We have the CHURCH in the wilderness.
Romans 9:4,5 & Romans 3:1-3: Paul's language shows that the CHURCH (OT) possessed all the characteristics that the visible Church of Christ today possesses.
The Lord was with this CHURCH in the wilderness.
(Compare Exodus 3:14 to John 8:58, and I Cor. 10:4). This is evident from Scripture.
The CHURCH in the wilderness had the Holy Spirit.
(Acts 7:51, Num. 11:25-29, Neh. 9:20, Isa. 63:7-11, 2 Chron. 20:13-14).
God's people constitute the "Ecclesia" or Church today. But they were also called an "Ecclesia" (Church) in Psalm 22:22,25.
The CHURCH (OT) had a place of Divine appointment for the Divine worship. (Acts 7:44)
The CHURCH (OT) had laws direct from the mouth of the Lord Jesus. (Neh. 9:12-14)
The CHURCH (OT) had services, reading God's Word (Neh. 9:3); singing His praises (Ps. 22:22); prayer both public and private.
The CHURCH (OT) had faith (Exodus 4:31; 2 Chron. 20:20) and repentance taught and practiced. Compare the old with the new in this respect (Heb. 11; Ezek. 33:11).
The CHURCH (OT) had external, visible ordinances, with internal, spiritual meanings i.e. circumcision and the Passover (Rom. 2:28-29; Rom 4:11; Deut. 10:16f; Acts 7:51). No uncircumcised person was to eat the Passover (Exod. 12:48).
DT, you asked me about females and circumcision. I read more on it and found that the females in families where males were circumcised were NOT called uncircumcised, but were considered as circumcised in the males, the man being the head of the woman (I Cor. 11:3); but the females of heathen nations were called uncircumcised (Judges 14:3).
Here we have a Church of Christ under the former dispensation. The Lord Jesus loved that Church (Deut. 7:6-8). The Holy Spirit was present. Divinely appointed teachers and ministers were present. The Word, together with the worship were there. Faith, repentance, prayer and good works were there. It was a visible, true, spiritual Church of Christ.
INFANTS (sucking babes, Joel 2:16) were also present as part of the CHURCH. This was by God's express command. Their membership was recognized by a divinely appointed rite. Circumcision did not make the child a member of the Church, for the uncircumcised was to be cut off (Gen. 17:14). Circumcision recognized that the child was already a member.
The Lord put the children into His CHURCH (OT) by command. When did He put them out? When did He authorize anyone else to put them out?
This is why the ball is in the Baptist's court. Since the Church is substantially one under both dispensations, and since God has once recognized infant children of believing parents as part of that Church, they are in His Church still unless He Himself thrusts them out, or authorizes someone else to do so. Is there Chapter and Verse that does this? A law once passed is considered as in force until repealed. If God once conferred this privilege upon believing parents and their children, and has never withdrawn it, who or what is man that he should take from them a grant which their Maker has made for them???
DT,
I am glad to hear that you do not believe such a heretical doctrine.
I do however want to know if you believe that people were tested and saved by different means in different dispensations throughout time? This too is old school dispensationalism that has been discarded by progressive dispensationalists today such as MasArthur and the like.
Sorry that my post did not go up yesterday morning -don't know what happened
DS,
I am awarding you an honorary doctrate. If you don't have a seminary degree you deserve one.
I hope you all have a blessed day-
Glenn
Glenn,
Thanks, but no honorary doctorate necessary here. Maybe you should give it to my husband since he is the one that has been putting up with my endless theological questions for 17 years now.
dss
DT,
I asked my husband about the Boyce book. He said that he does have a copy of it, but will have to look for it.
Is there anything in particular that you would like for me to read in it?
Deborah
Deborah,
Not necessarily. That is what I would call my "creed" or confession. :)
DT
Glenn,
The "promise" in Joel that Peter quotes "whosoever shall call on the Lord shall be saved" can in no way be connected to infant baptism. (Rom. 10.13 where Paul also quotes Joel 2.32 and points out that "the promise spoken of in Joel, and quoted by Peter, is the promise of the gospel to all unbelievers whether they are Gentiles or Jews.)
Peter declaring the promise of the gospel of grace to unbelievers cannot be turned into "God making a covenant of grace with Christian parents."
-John Reisinger
Isn't this what covenant theologians are doing with this text?
DT
Hey DT,
My husband found his copy and pulled it off the shelf. I am going to thumb through it when time allows. Do you know off hand, how it differs from the London Baptist Confession of Faith?
Deborah
Deborah,
The Abstract of Principles is based upon the Second London Confession, which was itself a Baptist revision of the Westminster Confession.
You said "This is why the ball is in the Baptist's court. Since the Church is substantially one under both dispensations, and since God has once recognized infant children of believing parents as part of that Church, they are in His Church still unless He Himself thrusts them out, or authorizes someone else to do so. Is there Chapter and Verse that does this? A law once passed is considered as in force until repealed. If God once conferred this privilege upon believing parents and their children, and has never withdrawn it, who or what is man that he should take from them a grant which their Maker has made for them???"
So what happens if they grow up and are not born again. Do they lose it? How can you be part of the church, then not part of the church and it you are saved then become part of the church again?
DT
Deborah,
The London Confession was adapted in large degree from the Westminster Confession of Faith (except for those few articles dealing with Baptist distinctives), the Abstract of Principles is a compendium of what C.S. Lewis called “mere Christianity.”
DT
Deborah,
You said "For many Baptists, the idea of Covenantal Baptism is unthinkable. The whole denomination is built around their understanding of one ordinance.
That is not correct. We believe in two ordinances-Baptism and Communion. Both of which are to be partaken of by those who have professed faith in Christ.
You said "Membership into a Baptist church is only considered if one has been "properly" immersed after a profession of faith is made. In some churches, THE LORD's table is closed to those who don't meet the qualifications of Baptists (dunked after profession). The denomination's name itself delineates what is extremely important to them."
I am not sure what you meant by the last part.
The London Baptist Confession of 1689 highlights our view on baptism.
1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
2. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
3. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.
4. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.
Also, you have made several references to MacMahon having been a Baptist before he jumped ship. :)
Did you know that Fred Malone was Presbyterian before he jumped ship?
DT
Deborah or Glenn,
Please note what I capitalize and comment on it please.
From the WCF
The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinancy THE GRACE PROMISED IS NOT ONLY OFFERED, BUT REALLY EXHIBITED AND CONFERRED BY THE HOLY GHOST, TO SUCH (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
DT
Hey DT,
You said:
"So what happens if they grow up and are not born again. Do they lose it? How can you be part of the church, then not part of the church and it you are saved then become part of the church again?"
In the Old Covenant, you had both elect and non elect Israelites. Both were in the Covenant, both were circumcised, but only the elect were of the Covenant. This is really no different than today in church. You have the wheat and the tares, both may be members of the church. Both may be baptized (either as infants or as adults upon a profession of faith).
Again, you have no 100% guarantee that those you baptize upon a profession of faith are among the elect. More than likely you have baptized some who were not truly regenerate....
What is the difference between an infant who is baptized and does not become regenerate, and an adult who is baptized upon a false profession of faith? Both are baptized unbelievers. Both are members of the church.
Deborah
I'll answer your other questions later, I need to get dinner finished and put on the table.
Real quick, I failed to mention the visible and invisible church...
The invisible consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are or shall be gathered into one, under Christ.
The visible consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, and of their children.
Hey DT,
When I said:
"The denomination's name itself delineates what is extremely important to them."
I just meant that to a Baptist, the ordinance of Baptism is extremely important, to the point of excluding other Christians. Even the Godliest person would be excluded from membership in a Baptist church if they were not immersed after making a profession of faith. Many of the very men you enjoy reading, possibly even some of the authors of commentaries you own, would not be allowed membership in a Baptist church.
Luther, Calvin, Knox would all be excluded along with the Puritans.
I did know Malone was a former Presbyterian. However, if I had to choose who was more scholarly, Malone or McMahon, I would have to pick........
I'm not saying :) !
Deborah
Hey DT,
This is my last comment for the evening. I am beat.
You asked about:
"THE GRACE PROMISED IS NOT ONLY OFFERED, BUT REALLY EXHIBITED AND CONFERRED BY THE HOLY GHOST, TO SUCH (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time."
The grace is really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such as that grace belongeth unto..
This means the ELECT. It is according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
God will have mercy on whom He chooses, when He chooses.
Covenant Baptism is a blessing to the elect, but a cursing to those who are not elect. Once again, Baptism is not a sign that one has been regenerated, it is a sign of what has to happen (regeneration by the Holy Spirit) in order for that person to be pleasing to God.
Good night all. I'll check back in the morning!
Deborah
Although not completely comfortable with infant baptism, I can't say that I'm totally against it either. Truth is, as a student of the word, I hope to always remain teachable and open to what the Spirit, not theologians in either camp, might lead me to embrace based on my study of scripture.
I appreciate Doug Wilson when he says that "all baptisms are infant baptisms." Makes sense!
DT,
In "Reformed Is Not Enough," in the chapter titled 'Baptism Now Saves,' on the first page, he clearly states that baptism doesn't save or regenerate anyone.
Good Night Y'all!
So what is to be gained by baptizing children? Some sense of security in a religious ritual? Isn't that at its base level a work of our hands?
I do believe we are to first believe, then be baptized. Baptism (water, imersion, sprinkling, or whatever) adds nothing to my salvation, so what would posses me to be so dogmatic on one issue.
The jailer in Acts 16 was mentioned here in these posts, I see that he asked in verse 30, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household."
32 "Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immeadiately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having belived in God with all his household."
I think you fail to see that the Scripture states that they first all belived. They all had to be able to understand and comprehend the gospel, otherwise they couldn't have believed. It is then we are to be baptized. The baptism of the spirit which we all must be baptized into is a work of God the moment we believe. Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 speaks of the baptism of the Spirit. "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free-and all have been made to drink into one Spirit."
This is a divine work of God the very instant we believe, not of our doing. The baptizing we do is in obedience and identification.
The thought that circumcision in the OT is the same as baptism in the NT is really a poor comparison. There were circumcisions done in a lot of contries in OT times, what did it profit them if not mixed with faith?
Baptize your children if you think you must, but realize this: There will be many people in hell who were baptized, and there will also be people in heaven who weren't baptized.
There sure is a lot of us against them going on, if we would quit being obtuse on issues that are plain and simple, and stop making blockades instead of bridges, we would be much better off.
I see there was a certain disdain for Lewis Sperry Chafer and C. I. Scofield, they indeed were mere men, and of course prone to error. They certainly loved the Lord and will be greatly rewarded for their work because of their faith. I can see that all do not agree with their observations of the flow of God's program for man, aka dispensationalism. Believe as you may, God has not written His word in the hearts of man yet as His word says He will someday, but to be so arrogant to put them down as though they were stupid, in comparison to yourself, is the sin of pride.
We all have convictions, and hopefully strong and godly ones, but it is when we loose site of the great comission and beat the rest of the issues to death that we in fact are doing what our adversary would have us to do, being ineffective.
Mark,
Good post. I did wonder in the beginning if I should have started this post. I think the reason I elected to do so was baptism is such a passionate issue to all of us.
I also thought about how many of us in any theological mindset are unchangeable/unteachable? Are we really willing to be taught and possibly change our convictions if need be?
I don't know.
Thanks for posting,
DT
Good morning All,
Glad to see you back Steve. I found out about "The Eden String Quartet" movie on your wife's blog. Our copy just came in yesterday. Two of my children are classical violinists, and my seven year old plays the viola, so we had to have a copy of this movie. We can hardly wait for movie night, so that we can watch it!
I am glad that you are keeping an open mind about Covenant Baptism. When you start in the Old Testament and work through to the New Testament, it is there.
I know you enjoy Doug Wilson. We did too for a long time. My husband won't promote his books anymore after the whole Auburn Avenue incident. If you read his newer works, just be careful. There are times he "redefines" words and such. If you look for it, you will find him promoting baptismal regeneration.
Deborah
Hello Mark!
You stated:
"So what is to be gained by baptizing children? Some sense of security in a religious ritual? Isn't that at its base level a work of our hands?"
I would ask you, what good did circumcision do? Eight day old children could not understand the nature of it. There were some who asked that question. The apostle replied:
Rom. 3:1-2: "Then what value has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? MUCH IN EVERY WAY. To begin with the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God."
When Christ was on earth in the flesh, He blessed little children. These children were infants. They could understand no more than infants today understand, yet Christ blessed them. Was that blessing "no good?" If Christ could bestow a real spiritual blessing on an unconscious infant in the days of His flesh, He can still bestow a blessing, a real spiritual blessing, on infants today. Who will say that He will not do it if they are dedicated to Him in solemn ordinance by believing, praying parents?
The benefits of infant baptism are many and great. It is a sign of important truths, and a seal of inestimable blessings. The ordinance of Baptism recognizes and ratifies children's right of membership in the visible Church. It introduces them to the special care and instruction of the Church. It speaks to the parents and bids them to be faithful. It speaks through the parents to the children as they grow up and reminds them of their early consecration.
You also said this:
"There sure is a lot of us against them going on, if we would quit being obtuse on issues that are plain and simple, and stop making blockades instead of bridges, we would be much better off."
I have never thought "us vs. them". I believe that both sides will be present in heaven. However, as demonstrated here, the ordinance of Baptism is not "plain and simple." This is about truth. Our hermeneutic will affect/effect (I never can get those right) our doctrine. Our doctrine will dictate how we live.
My goal in this life is to glorify the Lord. In order to do that, I need to know what He expects of me. I can only know this through careful study of His revealed Word.
Deborah
Mark,
I have to disagree with your assessment of Acts 16:32 - 33.
The jailer believed, he rejoiced, but he and all his were baptized. The record in the ORIGINAL says not a word about any one else either "believing" or "rejoicing." The verb for "rejoiced" is in the singular number, and agrees with the jailer and NO ONE ELSE. The participle for "believing" is in the masculine gender and singular number, and agrees with and depends on NO ONE BUT the JAILER. The word "with" is not in the original at all, the expression "with all his house" is one word (panoki). This is an adverb that is modifying the verb rejoice. He rejoiced "domestically" or over his family, just as any Christian parent would do on a similar occasion, seeing his children with himself within God's covenant and the Lord's mark put upon them!
The baptism of families is in accordance with the practice of Presbyterian churches. You will probably never see one of these in a Baptist Church, and yet 5 out of the 10 separate recordings of baptisms found in the NT were HOUSEHOLD baptisms. This is in perfect harmony with the whole of revelation, and a faithful carrying out of our Lord's parting commission.
"Go therefore and make disciples of ALL NATIONS (which includes children), baptizing them ...."
Deborah
Deborah
Well, well.
I suppose seeing I said something I should follow it up.
Number one, cicumcision was for an outward sign of an inward change. It is supposed to mean the removal of the useless flesh of the heart. And you can't carry that over from the law. The verses preceeding Romans 3:1 Paul says in 2:25; "For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law your circumcision has become uncircumcision."
So if you use baptism as in circumcision, if your children or you sin it becomes of no effect.
Rom 2:26-29: "Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whoose praise is not from men but from God."
These things all speak to those who can comprehend, can a baby that is circumcised understand these things? No. This circumcision was to identify them as Jew, the physical decendants of Abraham, true circumcision was an act of faith. The reference Paul makes in 3:1 is the circumcision of the heart. No circumcised Jew was ever saved by their parents actions, they were only saved by believing God.
I suppose one could use the similarities as with baptism, what does it profit if it does not represent an inward baptism? Thinking that our children receive blessing from God by baptism is surely adding to the words of Jesus in His blessing little children. If you are walking by faith and living obedient God fearing lives, is that not enough? Why depend on some act we do to receive the blessings of God? As Abraham said "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" And Habakkuk 2:4b "But the just shall live by his faith."
I was baptized and it only served to be a public proclomation of the baptism of the Spirit which I was baptized into the moment I believed, I receved everything i possibly could the moment I believed according to 2 Peter 1:3: "as His divine power HAS GIVEN to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, THROUGH THE KNOWLEDGE of Him who called us glory and virtue,"
How if these things come by knowledge, by faith, can it profit an infant.
Trusting in baptism for blessings for your children seems risky, trust in Christ for He will never leave us nor forsake us.
You said: "My goal in this life is to glorify the Lord. In order to do that, I need to know what He expects of me. I can only know this through careful study of His revealed Word."
Amen
Deborah,
To your second post:
Acts 16:32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to ALL that were in his house.
From verse 34;
panoiki panoiki pan-oy-kee'
adverb from 3956 and 3624; with the whole family:--with all his house.
paV pas pas (3956)
including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any,
every, the whole:--all (manner of, means), alway(-s), any (one), X daily, +
ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no(-thing), X thoroughly,
whatsoever, whole, whosoever.
autoV autos ow-tos'
from the particle au (perhaps akin to the base of 109 through the idea of
a baffling wind) (backward); the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in
the comparative 1438) of the third person , and (with the proper personal
pronoun) of the other persons:--her, it(-self), one, the other, (mine) own,
said, (self-), the) same, ((him-, my-, thy- )self, (your-)selves, she, that,
their(-s), them(-selves), there(-at, - by, -in, -into, -of, -on, -with), they,
(these) things, this (man), those, together, very, which. Compare 848.
I don't have the originals as you do, but I do have Spiros Zodhiates word study Bibles and dictionary and in verse 32 the word "all" is there, I can't seem to isolate him alone as hearing or beleiving. They all heard, they all believed, they all were baptized. It's the plain and simple literal interpretation.
As for a family baptism, what real harm would there be in it, but people have been known to say if asked if they are going to heaven and their response inludes, why yes I was baptized. It's not so much what we do, as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6:12: "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any."
But at any rate the heart of the matter is salvation, Mark 16:15-16 The Lord Jesus Christ said; "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
May you continue to study and grow in the grace and knowledge of Him.
Deborah,
"My husband won't promote his books anymore after the whole Auburn Avenue incident."
What incident are you talking about? I don't follow him that closely, but do sell some of his earlier works on the family.
Glad about the video. My family really enjoyed the refreshing vision for family life that is missing in so many of today's churches!
Good Morning Mark.
You said:
"So if you use baptism as in circumcision, if your children or you sin it becomes of no effect."
No. We all sin, even after salvation. Abraham sinned after circumcision, as did all after him. Baptism, like circumcision, is a sign only. It does not save. It is a picture of what must happen in that person's life in order for them to be saved.
You stated:
"This circumcision was to identify them as Jew, the physical decendants of Abraham,"
I agree. Just as the Israelites' children were circumcised, our children are baptized. They are members of the church. After all, God sovereignly gave us the children that He intended for us to have whether physically, or through adoption.(Church membership does not automatically mean salvation.)
I asked my 10 and 7 year old a couple of weeks ago if they were members of our church. Both answered with a resounding, "Yes!" I then asked, "Why?" My seven year old stated, that because they belonged to my husband and me, and we were members of the church, they too were included. I asked if that made them Christians. Both answered, "No." My ten year old said, "We could be a sheep or a goat. I think about which one I am. I ask Jesus every night to make me His sheep. I believe that is what you call examining your heart."
They get it.
I have asked this question before, but will ask it again. Is there any difference between believing parent's children and the Muslim children that live down the street?
Which belong to the church?
"Trusting in baptism for blessings for your children seems risky, trust in Christ for He will never leave us nor forsake us."
My children ultimately belong to the Lord. I am trusting in Him to do for them whatever He has decreed before the foundation of the earth. Because He has placed them in a Christian home where they are taught the things of Scripture, and prayed for and with, I have every reason to hope that they are among His elect.
Their baptism will never save them, and neither will their church membership. This, they know.
Deborah
Mark,
I am certainly no Greek scholar, just a housewife. I pulled my husband's Greek study Bible off his shelf.
In Acts 16:34
the word for he believed is "pepisteukos." It is listed as a singular verb in "The Complete Biblical Library." It means HE believed, not THEY believed. Is this word listed as singular or plural in yours?
Also, look to Lydia in Acts 16:15. The Lord opened HER heart, yet her household was baptized.
Have you read this thread from the beginning? We could argue household baptisms all day, but the true place to start is in the OT. You have to address this question:
Is the church substantially one under both dispensations?
Deborah
Hey Steve,
The Auburn Avenue conference happened 5 years ago. Here are some articles dealing with the controversy. You could also do a search on the "New Perspective on Paul" movement.
http://www.monergism.com/directory/search.php?action=search_links_simple&search_kind=and&phrase=auburn+avenue&B1=Go
http://www.rpcus.com/content/Controversial.pdf
Hope this helps.
Deborah
Deborah,
I don't know if you will return to read this but I wanted to comment on your last comment. You said your just a housewife, I don't think there is such a thing. You have placed your family before yourself and that is honorable.
I hope I did not come across in a negative way. I surely do not want to be offensive. We differ and that's ok, I have thought on these things alot lately and I see that as good. I also have read many of your posts, the best thing is we can see you are in the Word and that is always a good thing! In your reference to Lydia I see your point there, I can't on the jailer though. We can agree and rejoice in our common salvation.
In your close you asked: "Is the church substantially one under both dispensations?"
My conviction is no. The church is a new organism, so to speak. If I remember correctly there was talk of that earlier in this thread. How could it be? the Jews were never "in Christ" and were not baptized into the Spirit, and many other things in Christ. I see the Jew has been set aside (nationally not individually) and God will again turn to them. No more on that for me though, good day.
Good Morning Mark.
I have never taken offense at your posts. I enjoy the dialogue immensely. It is very good for me to have to discuss and defend my beliefs. It drives me to study God's Word.
Just out of curiousity, if you see that Lydia believed, yet her family was baptized, would not that be enough for you to really step back and take a look at baptism? For me, Lydia's household baptism fits in perfectly with what I believe the Bible teaches about baptism. For a credobaptist, it might present a problem.
When the Lord saved me, I was attending a Dispensational Baptist church that taught election. We would have John MacArthur and his staff out for conferences and such. I had never heard that there was any other way of interpreting the Bible, and yet I knew there were some things that I could not reconcile i.e. "this generation shall not pass away," "household baptisms," "salvation in the OT," "the validity of the Law today," etc.
It was not until I was presented with Covenant Theology that the Bible really came together for me and made sense. The light came on, and things that I had been just glossing over because I could not get it, were understandable, especially eschatology.
(I posted this previously, but I think it is worth a look.) I think that we can deduce from Scripture that the OT church and the NT church are substantially one:
Acts 7:38: We have the CHURCH in the wilderness.
Romans 9:4,5 & Romans 3:1-3: Paul's language shows that the CHURCH (OT) possessed all the characteristics that the visible Church of Christ today possesses.
The Lord was with this CHURCH in the wilderness.
(Compare Exodus 3:14 to John 8:58, and I Cor. 10:4). This is evident from Scripture.
The CHURCH in the wilderness had the Holy Spirit.
(Acts 7:51, Num. 11:25-29, Neh. 9:20, Isa. 63:7-11, 2 Chron. 20:13-14).
God's people constitute the "Ecclesia" or Church today. But they were also called an "Ecclesia" (Church) in Psalm 22:22,25.
The CHURCH (OT) had a place of Divine appointment for the Divine worship. (Acts 7:44)
The CHURCH (OT) had laws direct from the mouth of the Lord Jesus. (Neh. 9:12-14)
The CHURCH (OT) had services, reading God's Word (Neh. 9:3); singing His praises (Ps. 22:22); prayer both public and private.
The CHURCH (OT) had faith (Exodus 4:31; 2 Chron. 20:20) and repentance taught and practiced. Compare the old with the new in this respect (Heb. 11; Ezek. 33:11).
The CHURCH (OT) had external, visible ordinances, with internal, spiritual meanings i.e. circumcision and the Passover (Rom. 2:28-29; Rom 4:11; Deut. 10:16f; Acts 7:51). No uncircumcised person was to eat the Passover (Exod. 12:48).
How could you, from Scripture, prove otherwise?
Deborah
DT,
sorry for being so late in responding. Work and ministry needs come before blogging (no offense).
As to Joel and Romans on the promise that is offered; let me say that no one in the Paedobaptist camp is "changing", or "altering the original covenant. As seen by Paul in Ephesians 2.12 there is only one "promise" which is contained in all of the "covenantS" (plural.)
See the quote:
Ephesians 2:11-19 11 Therefore remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one, and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17 And (a)He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; 18 for through Him we both have (a)our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household,
this text clearly shows that those in the New Covenant are ONE with those of the former covenants.
It proves nothing more than the fact that the New covenant not only is the realization or as some say "the fulfillment" of the others it also expanded it. On this basis it is definitely a better covenant but is still the same in ESSENCE.
The fact that it is still essentially the same covenant of grace with the same promise yet with more diverse participants (i.e. uncircumcised, foriegners, strangers, aliens, gentiles)DOES NOT change the command of the former Abrahamic covenant to put the sign of the covenant upon your children if you believe.
As we have stated earlier, I still have not seen anyone post a biblical proof showing where the command of those who believe are not to place the sign of the covenant upon their children as God commanded.
The verses you quoted only prove not disprove the case of the unity of the covenant not a dispensational change.
Hi Mark,
I hate to respond so late to you but first let me say a word about your statement:
"The thought that circumcision in the OT is the same as baptism in the NT is really a poor comparison. There were circumcisions done in a lot of contries in OT times, what did it profit them if not mixed with faith?"
I think if an inspired comparison of them is given in Scripture then it is not a "poor comparison" wouldn't you? Col 2.11.12.
As to the other "countries" in the OT that circumcised, let me say that others also ate lamb on the same night that the Israelites were celebrating the Passover but it had no meaning to them. These common activities were made sacred by the command of God TO HIS PEOPLE ONLY. In that sense alone do they have any significance and then only to those who belong to the visible church which in the OT was Israel.
As to Acts 16 and the jailer, the Greek is clear that only he believed - nowhere in the text does it say that the others in the house believed as you stated but it does state they all rejoiced and all were baptized. This is not even a debatable point form the original language.
You nest stated that the baptizing we do is in obedience - WE AGREE! but we do not agree on where the command originated and it source of origin. Baptism did not appear in a vacuum but has as does every doctrine its roots in the OT. I have a clear command to place the sign of the covenant upon my children in Gen. 17 - where is your command or example of a child growing up in a christian home and then later being baptized on profession?
As to your commment about Chaffer and Scofield, I never questioned their salvation or piety. I only question why they so poorly handled the Word of God. This is not sinfull or arrogant but simply being a Berean of those we read.
you said "God has not written His word in the hearts of man yet as His word says He will someday," If you are referring to the inauguration of the New Covenant as stated in Jer. 31 then you should not use future tenses but past and present tenses. The New Covenant is NOW not future. Jesus clearly stated on the night before he was crucified that "this IS my blood of the New covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt. 26.28). This verse is the NT counterpart of Isa. 42.6 that says "...I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the Gentiles, ...).
I can not be clearer that the New Covenant was ratified by the death of Christ and not some future event for the Israelites only during a future 1,000 year reign.
Mark,
I also want you to respond biblically on how you see the Church as a new organism. this topic has yet to be adequately handled by any of the other credobaptists or dispensationalists on this site. Please give a response that can be evaluated and let us reason together over it. I look forward to your response because as I have stated earlier this is the heart of the argument.
Yes a good morning it is! I look forward to Sat mornings to spend time in His word.
I too enjoy the challenge to learn more and these threads cause me to meditate on my faith.
I have not before entered the baptism debate, I have though, come to certain convictions about it and this has caused me to investigate, or put into words why I believe as I do.
I attend an independent Baptist Church, my choice was made because it is conservative, fundamental, and it elevates the Scriptures above the Church. I recently moved my family and we sought the Lord's direction for a solid church. I cannot see that there is any emphasis a certain bend to follow someone like MacArthur, or election. We elevate the Lord Jesus Christ, find Him central in all the Scriptures, and yes, when a person comes to believe on Him for salvation, baptism is highly encouraged. No "rebaptism" is taught. You would call this "credobaptism" if I am correct.
I am of the conviction that water-immersion baptism is for someone to publicly identify and profess the baptism into the Spirit that God performs for the believer the instant they are saved. The water baptism is of no saving effect, but done in obedience as the Scriptures say. Take the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, he asked Phillip what would hinder him from being baptized? Phillip said if you believe with all your heart the gospel he had preached to him he may.
I belive when we isolate texts, which we all do, we cause the whole to be distorted. We should look at Scripture thematically, systematically, and specifically. Fragmentation of Scripture brings confusion.
As you have pointed out the Holy Spirit was at work in the OT, but He did not indwell the OT believer. The baptism of John pointed to One greater (Mark 1:8). Jesus Himself said that the Holy Spirit will be "in" you (Acts 1:8). Jesus said in John 14:17: "Even 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." He goes on at length of a coming change that has a definite beginning, a vital union with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
Baptism points to something new, something unknown to the OT believer.
As far as the Church being vitally one, in heaven, yes. Didn't the saints before the finished work of Christ stay in the bosom of Abraham and Jesus freed them? Doesn't Paul in Ephesians 3 come right out and say the Church was a mystery? It was by the revelation of Jesus Christ that we were made aware of this vital change. In Eph 5:22-33 Paul uses marriage and the words of Adam to explain the mystery.
The OT saint was saved by faith as us, but they had not recieved the promises as we have (Eph 3;3, Heb 11:13). They had to wait for the fullness of time when God sent His Son to fulfill the promises they knew were yet to come. Heb 1:1-3 states clearly God spoke at various times in various ways. They walked by faith in things promised, we on the other hand have recieved the promises and have the Son of God intercessing on our behalf. We have to see a difference in how God deals with us in comparison to how He dealt with them.
Since Calvary the souls of the saints (all) are with the Lord 2 Corinthians 5:8; "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." And in 2 Corinthians 5:10; "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." Paul says we "all" will appear there. But the difference is our walk, we have the mind of Christ, we have been given the comeplete revelation. Jesus said in Luke 12:48; "But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Dosen't this tell us something of what will be required of us? The OT saint saw through a lens dimmly, we on the other hand have the Scriptures and the Son under a floodlight! I see a difference, more is required of us and we float along on grace and love and forget that God is still a consuming fire, yet by grace He allows men to set Christ aside, BUT the day is coming. Paul said men are without excuse, but he also said in Acts 17:30; "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:"
Glenn,
Seems you too have spent a lot of time in the Word Amen.
I find sometimes my thoughts don't always transfer to print with the ease in which I think them. With that I will always struggle, but I find this method (blogging) helps.
My refernce to the writing of God's word on the hearts of man is indeed the 1000 year reign of Christ, my point being that until we die, or that event happens man will not have a comeplete understanding of Scripture. Hopefully that clears that up.
In Acts I should remain quiet because I cannot see by reading the Greek word definitions that the believing the word of God spoken to his family as singular. In verse 32 I see they spoke unto him (singular) and to all that were in his (singular) building (with implication to a family). In verse 34 he (singular) brought them into his (singular) building (house, family by implication) set meat before them and rejoiced believing in God with all his house. "With all" and "house" are the same word right? panoiki panoiki pan-oy-kee'
adverb from 3956 and 3624; with the whole family:--with all his house.
I can't see it.
After further thought, which I have had a couple days, that my poor comparison comment was without much of it (thought). And then you made my point exactly about other countries eating lanb, unless it was mixed with faith it was in vain. Did circumcision or eating lamb save anybody?
I do realize that the things of the OT faith were shadows of what was fulfilled in Christ.
Glenn,
I do look forward to this discussion, please be patient with me I take a while to struggle to explain my thoughts and study Scripture.
May God bless us in seeking truth.
Mark
Glenn,
Oh, also as you can see I think I addressed you question Glenn in my longer post to Deborah, I spent 5-6 hours at that and am needing a short break...look forward to reasoning together!
Mark
Also a quick word to maybe clarify where I am coming from, as we look back over redemptive history we see that Isreal had all that God had entrusted to them, the Temple, cicumcision, the Scripture, prophets, etc., but it became to them a stumbling stone. The rites and laws went to their heads so to speak, and they became self-righteous. With us as them, we need to stay focused and keep our eyes on Christ, He is central in all things, not rituals and ordanances. Yes they are of great great value, but its Christ we must wholly look to.
Just thought I'd add that.
Glenn,
What happened? I thought we were going to go over some things?
DT
Their loading their canons.
Yeah Mark, The "other side" is too quiet for comfort.
DT
Glenn,
I came across this...
"By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. . . . It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. . . . If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. . . . The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration" (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 [A.D. 412]).
What think ye?
DT
Glenn,
Another bit to consider...
Council of Carthage V
"Item: It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they [abandoned children] were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the sacraments. This was urged by the [North African] legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such [abandoned children] from the barbarians" (Canon 7 [A.D. 401]).
Council of Mileum II
"[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).
DT
Glenn,
One more time...
Gregory of Nazianz
"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).
"‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly [I respond], if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid., 40:28).
John Chrysostom
"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors [it bestows]! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members" (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21 [A.D. 388]).
John C.'S comments could be confused with denying original sin.
DT
Hello Fellows,
Wow! You all have certainly been busy today. I am still reading.....
Deborah
Mark,
I am glad to see that the Scriptures are your standard. As for the difference you claim of the OT believer not being indwelt by the Holy Spirit I would say that Scripture disagrees with you. Several times saints in the OT were said to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit - this is proven on several levels:
first - the saints of the OT were regenerated. We know this because not one single person can love God apart from a new heart which is what circumcision pictured see Deut. 30.6.
secondly - passages state clearly that saints were indwelt prior to the first advent of Christ and His exaltation to the Father's right hand. Ex. 31.3, Micah 3.8, Luke 1.15,41. Even David prayed that the Spirit not be taken from him Psa. 51.12.
It is one thing to say that the Spirit was poured out on the Church at Pentecost it is another to say that He began to indwell people for the first time at Pentecost. Just as the Son of God was operational and very much involved in the life of His Bride in the OT, so too was the Holy Spirit. Both of them were visibly manifested in a physical way at the time of Christ's first advent. The Son by the incarnation and all the signs and wonders that accompanied His birth and coming in the flesh; The Spirit at Pentecost manifested by the cloven tongues upon the disciples.
YET, neither of these events deny the limited work of these two persons of the Trinity in the OT. They do however signal the beginning of the expenasion of their work on a universal scale that up until that point was limited by God Himself for the most part to Israel.
Christ was manifested in the flesh to make atonement for His people of both Old and New Testament eras. It was and is the Spirit's work to apply such atonement. At Pentecost the great work of converting the Gentile world commenced. This was no new thing but the beginning of the fulfillment of all of those great OT prophecies of the same.
---Again I say, the church is one essentialy in Old and New Testaments. One of the differences lies in the mass make up of Gentile converts as opposed to Israelites; it is not in the first indwelling work of the Spirit.
DT,
let me say that the church fathers do not support your view in any way unless you take them out of context as was done with Terullian.
Secondly, I do not care what any of them said due to the fact that Scripture is the only rule for faith and practice.
I do however still desire to know how anyone can separate the church of the Old Testament from the church in the New when they both are saved by the same means of faith through the same mediator through the same operation and application of the same Spirit according to the same covenant of Grace?
Glenn,
You said "Secondly, I do not care what any of them said due to the fact that Scripture is the only rule for faith and practice."
No one said it wasn't Glenn.
The early church fathers were brought up earlier.
I think the tone of this discussion is not going in a progressive fashion.
To bring up scripture is not working for either side. As I said earlier your system of theology and your method of interpretation are going to affect how you feel about CT and Israel and the church.
You and I will never budge. Our minds are made up. I do appreciate your input.
DT
Hello All,
Here is where I have a problem:
"You and I will never budge. Our minds are made up. I do appreciate your input."
Both sides can not be right. Assuming you are both believers, and I do, then the Holy Spirit resides in you both. He testifies to His truths as written in the Bible. If a CredoBaptist could prove to me using Scripture their position, and disprove mine, I'm in. I want to be obedient to the Lord.
I was in the Credobaptist camp, however when presented with Paedobaptism, and after seriously studying it, I had no choice but to embrace it. I could not disprove it from the Scriptures.
Have any of you answered the questions at hand? How many covenant people does God have, one or two? Use Scripture to prove it. Is the church substantially the same or not under both dispensations? Can you use Scripture to prove it?
These are at the heart of the matter. If you have answered these questions using Scripture to validate your answer, I apologize because I have missed it (260 + responses are a lot to keep up with). Please direct me back to where it was answered.
Deborah
Deborah,
As I have stated earlier
"As I said earlier your system of theology and your method of interpretation are going to affect how you feel about CT and Israel and the church." Our presuppositions will stop us in our tracks the moment the scriptures come out as already has been displayed.
If you think we can work through this then why has the church had such a difficult time with this?
The "inferiority" of the creedos has been shared. Deborah, whether people want to admit it there is no budging here on this issue. I wish there was.
DT
Deborah,
You said "Have any of you answered the questions at hand? How many covenant people does God have, one or two? Use Scripture to prove it. Is the church substantially the same or not under both dispensations? Can you use Scripture to prove it?
If you have answered these questions using Scripture to validate your answer"
You assume (presuppose) that your position is the right one and the starting point.
DT
DT,
Where would you start to defend credo baptism? I am assuming the NT, but please tell me if that is a wrong assumption.
Do you not think the questions asked are fair or relevant?
Deborah
Deborah,
Yes, the NT is the place to start for infant baptism.
DT
Deborah,
You said "Do you not think the questions asked are fair or relevant?"
I think the questions already have pre-supposed answers based on ones hermeneutical slant:
1. Old time predispensationalist
2. Open Theist
3. Progressive predispensationalist-(which I am when it comes down to it)
4. Covenant Theology
There are others but those are the ones high on the shelf.
DT
Hey DT,
I have read this now for a couple of days and not responded... I wasn't sure how to respond.
"You assume (presuppose) that your position is the right one and the starting point."
Yes, of course I do presuppose that my position is correct, otherwise I would not hold to it.
However the question as to whether God has one or two covenant people seems to be at the heart of the issue for both of us.
I have already answered it, including Scripture references that I believe to be pertinent. I am curious as to why you are reluctant to answer it and provide Scripture references. You all have not provided any Scripture references (that I can remember, and I could certainly be wrong here, so please remind me if necessary) to prove that God has two separate groups of people, i.e. two churches.
I do want to say that I have been afforded the greatest respect on this blog and for this I am grateful. You all have been kind and honorable in all of our parleys. This is not always the case when these matters are discussed. Thank you for that!
Deborah
Deborah,
I too have had this subject on my mind for the better part of a week now, at first I didn't understand and now I think I do. I believe I can with scripture show that there is a difference between the Church (NT) and the saved from OT times. To start what can you learn from Revelation 19:7-9? We know the Bride isn't called to a wedding. Who's the called?
Who is the adulterous wife in Hosea 2?
Do you see a difference between the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of heaven?
Gotta go to work now, I really want to continue but must wait 'till later.
Have a good day!
Mark
Hey Mark,
Off the cuff:
As for the Revelation verse:
The bridegroom is calling His bride to the marriage supper. It is the Church. There can be only one Bride as God is certainly no polygamist.
Hosea 2: The adulterous wife was made up of unbelieving Jews. It could not have been all of Israel including true believers, as God would never “divorce” them.
The term Israel can either be referring to the entire nation of Israel (both elect and non elect) in the OT, or to spiritual Israel i.e. the elect.
The last question will take some time for me to investigate how they are used in the Scriptures. I have to run now, the natives are restless, and I have assignments to grade.
More later!
Deborah
When you have time, would you address Romans 11:11-24.
I am copying and pasting what I have already posted concerning it.
Romans 11:11-24 clearly teaches the unity of believers of all ages. The illustration of the olive tree in this passage is one of the better known sections of the book of Romans, but its meaning has not always been clear, especially to those who would separate Old and New Testament believers into distinct bodies. There are four main points in this text of Scripture that are relevant to our topic:
1. The cultivated olive tree is natural Israel.
2. The natural branches that are broken off are unbelieving Jews.
3. The good branches that remain are believing Jews.
4. The wild branches that are grafted into the good olive tree are believing Gentiles.
The most important thing to notice here is that there is only one good olive tree. In the Old Testament it had contained both unbelieving and believing Jews. But when Christ came, the unbelieving Jews were broken off leaving only the believing Jews. Believing Gentiles were then, and are now, grafted into this good olive tree - the believing remnant - the true Israel. Were dispensationalism true, the illustration would make no sense. Paul does not say that God plants a brand new olive tree into which He now grafts believing Jews and believing Gentiles. No, the believing Jews stayed right where they were in their covenant relationship with God. God brought Gentile believers into this already existing covenant relationship. The believing remnant of Israel, the true Israel, and the New Testament Church are one and the same body of believers. These believing Jews and Gentiles are the one good olive tree.
Deborah,
Here is my take on Romans 11
And where the natural branch once was, God grafted in unnatural ones (Gentiles).
To me this is clear. The teaching of God abandoning Israel the nation or replaced by the Church may appear to be right but then you are faced with that fact that He actually gave them back their land and started to regather them from all over the world just as He said He would. God said in Neh. 1.8 if you are unfaithful I will scatter you.
DT
Hey DT,
You said:
"He actually gave them back their land and started to regather them from all over the world just as He said He would. God said in Neh. 1.8 if you are unfaithful I will scatter you."
So, would you be willing to say that the nation of Israel today is now "faithful," therefore God is giving them back their land? Wouldn't that be the logical deduction one would make from Neh. 1:8?
I don't see the nation of Israel, repenting of their idolatry and wicked ways and bowing a knee to Christ. Wouldn't this constitute faithfulness?
Deborah
Deborah,
I see a remnant of Jews.
Can you say that Israel has not future?
DT
Deborah,
Obviously God had something in mind when He had Luke write
Acts 11:19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.
DT
Deborah,
Some within the Replacement camp like to use
Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.
But will ignore
Jer 3:12-14
12 Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.
13 Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD.
14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:
DT
Deborah,
What do you think about these verses?
Ps. 137.5-6
5 If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
6 If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.
DT
Hey DT,
Only the elect Jews have a future (grace not race as it always has been). National Israel was destroyed in 70 AD along with the Temple and the ceremonial law. What distinguished Israel as a nation and set her apart? The ceremonial laws.
I am sure that there is a remnant of elect Jews. However, they are no different than or more special than a remnant of Chinese, or Africans, or Americans.
Deborah
Hey DT,
I will try and comment between vacuuming and teaching... multi-tasking
I looked up the Acts verse in Matthew Henry's commentary. Here is how he explains it:
"They preached the word to none but to the Jews only who were dispersed in all those parts, and had synagogues of their own, in which they met with them by themselves, and preached to them. They did not yet understand that the Gentiles were to be fellow-heirs, and of the same body; but left the Gentiles either to turn Jews, and so come into the church, or else remain as they were."
What say ye?
d.
Jeremiah 3
backsliding Jews= God's elect Jews
God's distinguishing grace takes them out from among the rest that persist in their backslidings, if he had left them, they would have been undone.
God's chosen, scattered all over the world, shall be brought to the gospel church, Mount Zion, that HEAVENLY Jerusalem.
The Bride is not called to a wedding, the guests are called. The NT Church is CLEARLY distinguished as the Bride of Christ. God said of the nation Israel that He was a husband to them. But when you fail to recognize that the covenants with Abraham and his decendants and to David, that his kingdom would be an everlasting kingdom, were primarily eathly in their charachter, you will miss the point.
In Romans 11:26 in which you stopped short of, Paul said ALL Israel WILL be saved, yet future.
Dispensationalism is as you say a man made doctrine, but condensed down it is simply observing that God has dealt with man in different ways in time past and in every way man has failed misserably. Some believe the NT Church replaces Israel, so if they have been cast aside this verse has no truth.
As far as observation goes, isn't it strange that the Jew has been scattered (as Scriptures say) and have remained a distinct group of people? Only God could preserve them in such a manner. They are as Scripture says a pain to the nations, hated and despised? Now they are back in the land that God had promised them for ever? It seems to me God, as Scripture says will fulfill the promises literally.
This is bigger than this comment section allows, but I have surely been challenged.
Good Morning Mark,
I was just researching the Kingdom of God, and wow have I found extensive things written on it. I have tried to figure out how to give a concise definition to it, and I am not sure that I can. I will say this with a little help from my friends at www.americanvision.org.
"The kingdom is more than just a future reality. First, it is definitively established in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. Second, it increases and advances progressively from that time to the end of the world. Third, it is established fully at Christ’s second coming."
D,
I will comment later on Acts 11.19.
BTW, what is your view on Dominion Theology?
DT
Mark and DT,
There is not a single verse in the NT that supports the claim that there is prophetic significance in Israels restoration as a nation. Beyond 70 AD, Israel as a nation plays NO prophetic role. (Remember Israel as a nation was destroyed along with her ceremonial laws and temple. A mosque now sits on where the Temple once was.) The NT addresses Israel's near destruction, never its distant restoration. You will find no mention of a temple being rebuilt or Jews returning to their land as was predicted in the OT. Think about it, why would the Jews want to rebuild the Temple? For the same reason that the Temple was maintained prior to its destruction in 70 AD. The apostate Jews did NOT believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah. If the Jews again build the temple and begin to offer sacrifices, this will only CONFIRM their rejection of the atoning blood of our precious Savior. It was this very rejection that led to the destruction of the temple that was standing in Jesus' day. Does this sound like a people God would bless, those who reject His Son?
The Jews did return to their land as prophesied in Jer. 29:14 (when seventy years have been completed for Babylon Jer. 29:10, Dan.9:2).
The temple was rebuilt as predicted (Ezra 5:16, John 2:20).
In Isaiah 11:11, we see mentionof Israel returning to their land "the second time." A remnant of Israelites did return to their land after the Babylonian captivity. The first time would have been "the day that they came up out of the land of Egypt" (Is. 11:16). We never see mention of the Israelites returning a third time. If the OT is the pattern, then we should expect to see specific NT prophecies regarding the future reestablishment of Israel as a nation and the rebuilding of the temple.
Read the cursing of the fig tree in Matthew 21:19. It portrayed judgment upon the temple. Jesus makes it clear that Israel (fig tree) as a nation, will NEVER bear fruit.
"No longer shall there EVER be any fruit from you."
You said:
"Paul said ALL Israel WILL be saved, yet future."
Sometimes the word ISRAEL means the CHURCH, not national Israel.
Lev. 26:11-12: "I will put my dwelling place among you, and I will not abhor you. I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people."
2 Cor. 6:16: "What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: 'I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.'"
Paul is writing to Gentile Christians applying the prophecies to the Church of Christ. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Paul regards the Christians as the real Israel of God, now under a covenant which has no need for stone and wood temples, or for genealogical restrictions.
------------------------------------------
Psalm 130:8: "He himself will redeem Israel from all their sins."
Titus 2: 14: "who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness...."
------------------------------------------
Isaiah 52: 7: "How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news..."
Romans 10: 15: "And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, 'How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!'"
In Isaiah, the messengers go to desolate Jerusalem. In the NT, the messengers go into the world of sinners. This results in conversion. Paul strips the Isaiah passage of its race consciousness and geography. He refers it to the New Israel, the Christian Church.
-----------------------------------------
Joel 2:32: "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the Lord has said, among the survivors whom the Lord calls."
Romans 10: 13: "for, Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Here Joel gives the location of where people will call upon the Lord, Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, places quite remote from Rome, where the people Paul was writing to lived. How could Paul apply this passage to Christians? The only way is if this passage has been taken from "racial Israel" and now it belongs to the true Israel...the Church.
Look at the following comparisons:
OT: Israel is beloved of God.
NT: Christians are beloved of God
OT: Israelites are the children of God.
NT: Christians are the children of God.
OT: Israel is the Flock of God.
NT: The Christians are the Flock of God.
OT: Israel is the House of God.
NT: Christians are the House of God.
OT: Israelites are the children of Abraham.
NT: The Christians are the children of Abraham.
OT: Israelites are the chosen people.
NT: Christians are the chosen people.
OT: Israel is Israel.
NT: Christians are Israel.
OT: The New Covenant is with Israel.
NT: The New Covenant is with Christians.
OT: Israel is an olive tree.
NT: Christians are an olive tree.
OT: Israelites are the Priests of God
NT: Christians are the Priests of God
I am trying to use both Old and New Testaments to validate my points. This shows the continuity between the Scriptures.
What do y'all think?
Deborah
d,
Matt 19:28 “confirms the view that Jesus looked for the restoration of Israel.
The context of Matthew 21 makes it unlikely that the “nation” of whom Jesus is referring is the church.
In verse 46 it is clear that the religious leaders believed Jesus was talking about them, not Israel as a whole. Thus it is reading too much into this verse to view it as indicating the replacement of Israel by the Gentile church.
As one man said "those who interpret “nation” as the church “are reading in second-century Christian theology” into Matt 21:43."
DT
d,
I believe the OT teaches the restoration of Israel.
Deuteronomy 30:1-6: Israel would experience dispersion because of disobedience but would one day be saved as a nation and experience restoration to its land.
Jeremiah 30, 31, and 33: This prediction of the New Covenant promises a restoration of Israel that includes spiritual blessings and physical blessings.
Ezekiel 36–37 This passage promises the future salvation and restoration of the nation Israel to its land.
Amos 9:11-15
Zephaniah 3:14-20
Zechariah 12–14
Since the Abrahamic (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:18-21) and New Covenants (Jer. 31) are eternal and unconditional covenants we should expect God to fulfill these covenants with Israel, the people with whom the covenants were made.
Israel’s restoration is linked to the covenants of the Old Testament.
“Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day, And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The LORD of hosts is His name: "If this fixed order departs From before Me," declares the LORD, "Then the offspring of Israel also shall cease From being a nation before Me forever." Thus says the LORD, "If the heavens above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out below, Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel For all that they have done," declares the LORD” (Jer. 31:35-37).
The sun, moon and stars are still out.
DT
d,
Jonathan Edwards: “Nothing is more certainly foretold than this national conversion of the Jews in Romans 11
I bring this up because I have been reminded of the men on the description of my blog. :)
DT
d,
Rom. 9-11 firmly discourage us from speaking of the Church as having once and for all taken the place of the Jewish people.
Matthew 19.28 -- Apostles to rule over 12 tribes of Israel.
Matthew 23.37-39 / Luke 13.34-35 Israel one day will accept her Messiah.
Luke 21.24-- Times of the gentiles will come to an end.
Luke 22.30-- Apostles to rule over the 12 tribes of Israel.
Acts 1.3-7-- Apostles believed in a restoration of the nation Israel after 40 days of kingdom instruction from Jesus.
Acts 3.19-21 -- Restoration is preached to the leaders of Israel.
DT
Hey DT,
O.k., I am going to have to get to digging. I am taking the girls to the library this morning, so it will be later this afternoon before I can get everything addressed.
Question: Are Christians part of the twelve tribes of Israel?
What do you do with the following verses about Israel (nation) found in Matthew:
12:45: seven evil spirits enter and live there
21:41: the vineyard is leased to others
22:7: the city is burnt
23:38: the temple is abandoned
chapter 24: the Apocalyptic Discourse which moves away from Jerusalem to focus on the coming of the Son of Man
Got to run. More later!
d.
As a Postmillenialist, I believe the NATIONS, including the Jewish nation will eventually be converted (not necessarily every single person in that nation though).
Isaiah 2: 2 "Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and ALL NATIONS shall flow to it.
Israel is included in "all nations." However, God has always had ONE people, His elect. Israel will have to be converted as will all other nations...
Could Edwards have meant this?
It's lunch time one quick question: If the 70 weeks of Daniel were fulfilled in 70 AD, are the scholars wrong who date the book of Revelation at 95 AD? I have not studied this out, but isn't there paralell passages in the two books? Why would God write a prophetic book after the fact?
Howdy Mark,
There is much evidence for an earlier dating of Revelation. There is no way that I could provide every argument here, nor am I competent enough to do so. If you seriously want to consider it, or at least look at the other side, Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell" is a book that dates the book of Revelation.
In Rev. 11:1-2 it says "Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, 'Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.'"
At the end of the previous chapter, John's eating of the book repeats Ezekiel's action of centuries earlier. In chapter 11, John is told to measure the temple. In Ezekiel 40 - 47 a man measures the temple with a measuring rod. John is given a reed for the same purpose. The action depicts the defining of the true spiritual temple in view of the impending destruction of the physical structure in Jerusalem. This was done by the Babylonians in Ezekiel's day and was done by the Romans in John's day.
Another intersting thing is the correlation between Rev. 11:2 and Luke 21:24. The temple will be trodden down by the Gentiles. This is a direct reference to the destruction of Jerusalem as the wording is almost verbatim.
Deborah
DT,
Something else:
You said:
"Since the Abrahamic (Gen. 12:1-3; 15:18-21) and New Covenants (Jer. 31) are eternal and unconditional covenants we should expect God to fulfill these covenants with Israel, the people with whom the covenants were made."
The Covenant God made with Abraham was also made to many nations as :
He was the father of MANY nations....
DT,
I was discussing baptism with a friend of mine yesterday. He stated that he has a friend in a Baptist church who has a handicapped child. Most likely, the child will mentally, never be able to make a profession of faith. The father asked the elders if his child would ever be able to become a member of their church. I am not sure what the elders response was. What would yours be?
Deborah
Deborah,
When a family comes up to join we allow the little ones to be considered members until they make their own profession of faith.
I would treat it the same way.
DT
Hey DT!
Many Baptists consider their children as "pagans" (yes, that is the word I have recently heard a Baptist call his children) until a profession of faith is made. Based on your comment, I am assuming that you all do not believe this.
What if the child was never able (due to mental incapabilities) to make a profession of faith? Could that child (who later grows up into adulthood) ever be a member of a Baptist church?
Deborah
Deborah,
I think a better question is "Do you believe in this so-called age of accountability?"
How does this square with Romans 10.13 since all are born sinners separated from God.
DT
Hey DT,
No. I see no evidence of an "age of accountability" in the Scriptures. God can regenerate infants if he so chooses, in the womb or out of the womb, just as he regenerates children and adults.
In a Presbyterian church, a mentally handicapped child born to professing parents would be baptized and a member of the church. Now his/her regeneration is up to the Lord, but the child is included in the membership. Baptized children occupy a privileged position before God. They are set apart (i.e. “made holy”).
I Cor. 7:14: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.”
How is it that the children of believers are called “holy” i.e. set apart? It doesn’t mean that they are regenerate, because as we see in the above verse the unbelieving spouse is considered sanctified also. They are set apart from the world and consecrated to God by virtue of their membership in a covenant household. These “holy” children must receive the cleansing sign of baptism to mark them off from the “unholy” or defiled children of unbelievers. Circumcision performed this task in the OT. Even as the tabernacle and its utensils were sprinkled with blood for cleansing and consecration (Heb. 9:21-22), so too must the believer’s children receive the cleansing of baptism, which sets them apart for God.
Do I at least get a "star" for being tenacious? For the record, I have also been described as "mule-headed"(as we were from the Deep South), but that term was usually applied to me in my teen years by my daddy :)!
Deborah
Deborah,
As a lifelong Georgian I will say that you...get a star.
How do you handle Romans 10.13
If we could just get the heads of households saved then the whole house would be sanctified, huh?
DT
Good Morning DT.
Romans 10:13:
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
The promise is both to the Jew and the Gentile as was foretold in Joel 2:32. I believe this is talking about prayer i.e. calling on the name of the Lord. The Lord causes us to call on Him for salvation...
When did David call upon the Lord?
Psalm 22:9: "Yet you are He who took me from the womb; You MADE me trust You at my mother's breast."
I am not sure if David "called" upon the Lord as an infant (we know that he did as a young boy and an adult), but here we see that God regenerated him as one (John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit in his mother's womb).
If a head of household was saved, the house would be "set apart." They would have the benefits of living with a Christian. They would be taken to Church where the Gospel was preached. They would be prayed for and with. They would hear the Word read in their home. There are blessings associated with a Christian household that are absent from a pagan household.
Deborah
Deborah,
You said "If a head of household was saved, the house would be "set apart." They would have the benefits of living with a Christian. They would be taken to Church where the Gospel was preached. They would be prayed for and with. They would hear the Word read in their home. There are blessings associated with a Christian household that are absent from a pagan household."
I have no problem with this as long as we don't think that salvation has been imparted.
DT
Hey DT,
Not "instantaneous" salvation due to our parent's faith... But we do have hope that the Lord will be a God to our children.
"for the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself."
Deborah
Deborah,
I agree.
DT
Deborah,
Have you read this article and if so what did you think about it?
http://www.chaim.org/xpansion.htm
DT
Mike
every flalse religion says baptism is not required. Jesus told Nichodemus that he had to be born of the water if he was going to see heaven. Jesus had the Holy Spirit fall on Him as He came up out of the water. The ten virgins---five had oil (Holy Spirirt) five did not. Jesus said to the five that had not--"Iknow you not" Does this mean they had no names written in the book of life?Were they great Christians that had done a lot of good works, cast out devils in Jesus name, --But yet were not baptised? Greek word also is "baptismo" which means imersed. If the boss said to do it, and walked 70 miles to be baptised,---what in the world is there to argue about?
What if your parents lie to you and tell you you were baptized to avoid looking like bad paedobaptists, while in reality they never baptized you. What if you never find out? How do you "remember your baptism" since it never took place (and you wouldn't have even been conscious of it if it did)?
Post a Comment