If you are in need of a solid, basic web site for your business, church, or organization, check out my web design services at 
Subscribe
Paedo vs. Credo in a Nutshell
Posted by Brian Thornton on May 22, 2008
I think the major distinction between our positions is that Paedos equate those in the new covenant with the visible church, and Credos equate those in the new covenant with the body of Christ.
I am sure that someone else has probably characterized the difference this way before, but this is something I thought of during the recent discussions we had on infant baptism. I think this may be the simplest way to draw a distinction between the two positions.
What is interesting is that I can find no reference in the Bible to the new covenant relating to both wheat and tares. The only references I find are those which indicate the new covenant consists of those who have been born again…those who are already a part of the body…the Bride of Christ.
Therefore, while I certainly understand the Paedo’s sentimental reasoning with respect to assuming their children are in the covenant of regenerated sinners, there is no scriptural support that they are. I must conclude, based upon the explicit descriptions within the Bible, that the new covenant is indeed referring to those within the Bride of Christ, and not merely those persons who may be found within the visible church.
Les Prouty said
Brian,
Ok, let’s just say for the sake of discussion you’re right. I am really curious how you would interpret several passages:
Heb. 10 “19 Therefore, brothers, [3] since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?”
Acts 2 “39 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.”
1 Cor. 7 “14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”
1. In the Hebrews passage, as he is addressing “brothers” what does he mean in v. 29?
2. In the Acts 2 passage, what does it mean for my Baptist brothers that the promise is for me and my children?
3. In th 1 Cor passage, what does it mean that our children are holy?
I have been out of the Baptist church since 1992 and frankly don’t ever remember dealing with any of these passages. So, I genuinely wonder how my brethren of the Baptist pursuasion look at these verses.
Thanks brother.
danny said
Hey brother, I haven’t been able to read your previous posts and its comments, so I hope I am not saying something that has already been said or beating an already dead horse. Just a couple of questions:
“I can find no reference in the Bible to the new covenant relating to both wheat and tares.” Maybe you have already answered this question elsewhere, but what are your thoughts about the kingdom parables in Matthew 13? To what kingdom was Jesus referring to? Paedos would say the kingdom is the paradoxical already/not yet.
“The only references I find are those which indicate the new covenant consists of those who have been born again.” My assumption is this statement is based on your interpretation of Jeremiah 31? If so, is it still necessary to teach one another to “know the Lord?” If the New Covenant promise in Jeremiah 31 has been fully realized, would it be wrong to evangelize to a stranger who turned out to be a Christian after talking for a while?
I don’t want to waste your time, so if you have already answered these questions elsewhere, please feel free to point me there.
However, my main question is, how do you deal with the warning passages in Romans 11, John 15, Hebrews 6 & 10? For example, take Hebrews 10:26-30:
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,
27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him who said, “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”and again, “The Lord will judge his people.”
I don’t believe this passage is talking about a believer hypothetically, but an unregenerate member of the new covenant (the visible church).
1) The person was sanctified by the blood of Christ. Now, by sanctified I don’t mean the implication that he was justified but that he was “set apart” or “marked out” as belonging to the church. This same idea is used in 1 Cor. 7:14 with the word “holy.”
2) v.30 says God will judge His people. I think it would require quite a backbend to interpret this any other way than it’s simple and literal meaning. That is to say, I think it would be hard to say that this is merely hypothetical when the writer asserts “God will judge His people.” John Piper (a Baptist) has written an excellent article on this passage and came to the conclusion that the visible church is referred to as God’s “people.” (http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/1997/993_Woe_to_Those_Who_Trample_the_Son_of_God/)
3) This apostate is under God’s judgment and is considered to be one of His people not by means of regeneration but by means of new covenant membership in the visible church (through the rite of baptism).
Lastly, if the New Covenant is only invisible and spiritual, why are there physical signs and seals tied to the New Covenant (baptism and Lord’s supper)?
Blessings,
Danny
By the way, here is a tract put out by the OPC concerning Infant Baptism that I have found helpful.
http://opc.org/cce/tracts/WhyInfantBaptism.html
danny said
I think the link got cut off:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/1997/993_Woe_to_Those_Who_Trample_the_Son_of_God/
Brian Thornton said
Hey guys!
I want you to know that I am not ignoring your questions…they are good ones. We are quite busy with our moonwalk business right now, and it gets busier as we move closer to the weekend.
I will address each one of them as soon as I can.
In the meantime, I would like to go ahead and answer Les’ question concerning the Acts passage in which he said, “In the Acts 2 passage, what does it mean for my Baptist brothers that the promise is for me and my children?”
I think this one is perhaps the easiest to exegete for the Credo position, yet it is one of the most cited by my Paedo brothers in favor of their position. Let’s look at the WHOLE verse along with one or two more to get the context.
“Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, Brothers, what shall we do? And Peter said to them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 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.”
Yes, the promise is “for you and your children”, but it is also for “all who are far off”. So, to be consistent, the Paedo should be teaching and practicing, not only the baptizing of their children, but also the baptizing of ALL WHO ARE FAR OFF. This is one of those times when I am a little bit amused at my Paedo brothers’ seemingly intentional omission of the portion of the verse that expands the scope of the promise beyond their children!
Secondly, not only is the promise “for your children” as well as for “all who are far off”, but if my Paedo brothers would read just a little bit beyond where they so consistently stop, they would see what the condition is for those who receive the promise…EVERYONE WHOM THE LORD OUR GOD CALLS TO HIMSELF. That’s the qualifier…the person who receives the promise is the person whom the Lord calls to Himself.
Finally, there is another indicator of something else prior to v.39, and that is Peter’s instruction to “repent” and then “be baptized” in v.38, which seems pretty closely connected to the qualifier of the promise being for those whom the Lord calls to Himself. So, it would also appear that everyone who receives the promise not only are called by God to Himself, but they also first repent.
If the end of v.39 (The Lord calling people to Himself) is NOT connected to who receive the promise, then what is it doing there in the verse, and what does it have to do with if not the first part of v.39?
More to follow on the other questions as soon as I get enough time to address them.
Thanks.
Arthur Sido said
Les, not sure what the Hebrews passage has to do with infant baptism.
The Acts 2:39 passage is dealt with quite well on Pulpit’s blog here: http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/03/28/infant-baptism-and-acts-239/
I think the main crux is the verse that follows, as it applies to the issue of the proper recipients of baptism: Acts 2:41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. Who was baptized? Those who received his words. No mention of infants as far as I can see. It is odd to use Acts 2:39 to defend infant baptism when in two verses the Scripture says just the opposite!
1 Cor. 7 “14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”
Is it your contention that the unbelieving spouse of a believer is made holy, not by their own personal faith but by the faith of their spouse? It seems that is your argument about infants, so wouldn’t that apply equally to the spouse? In that case, we ought to encourage believers to marry unbelievers! What about 17 year old children of believers? Are they saved by their parentage?
Brian Thornton said
Arthur is right in that, according to v.41, only those who received Peter’s word were baptized that day. That is explicit. And I think an argument from silence could also be made here, because this would have been a perfect place to note the infants and children of those who received Peter’s word were also baptized that day; which is, I guess, what Paedo’s believe happened that day even though there is no evidence that anything of the sort took place.
danny said
“Les, not sure what the Hebrews passage has to do with infant baptism.” It has to do with the nature of the New Covenant and whether it can be broken or not.
I’m sure we would all agree that the baptism issue can’t be solved ad-hoc by looking at a couple of passages. We need to understand where the signs came from, why they were given, the nature of the covenant, etc. to answer this question. The big question at the end of the day is this: does your or my position to justice to the whole Bible?
As far as your comments about the Acts 2 passage, I don’t think we are getting at an argument from silence that infants were present. That’s not the point.
1) The passage said that Jewish men were present. So when Peter says, “REPENT!”, we need to keep in mind that he’s talking to adult men, just so we don’t make the conclusion, “Infants can’t repent, therefore, infants can’t be baptized (which creates a greater problem because the ultimate conclusion would be that all infants are lost if they die if we follow out that conclusion logically).
2) Given the context of Jewish men, the word “promise” would immediately take them back to the covenant that God made with Abraham and the promise that God made: “I will be a God to you and your descendents…I will make you a father of all nations.” Therefore, to you and your children, all who are far off follows the exact promises given to Abraham 2100 years earlier.
3) The passage in 1 Cor. 7 talks about them being set apart/consecrated, not that they are actually saved.
More can be said on all of this, but I’ll stop for now.
Les Prouty said
Brothers,
Please go back to my questions in light of the post. The post said,
I did not bring up baptism. I was trying to get your take on the verses as they relate to those in the new covenant. The point of my question is how you interpret these verses as they relate to that question. Arthur, the v. 29 question still stands. How do you understand that these “brothers” in Hebrews are being addressed especially as it relates to v. 29 and “profaning the blood of the covenant?”
As to baptism, which was not was I was asking and might be yet another post, let me just say two things:
1. If children were considered part of the “church” in the OT and thus received the sign of the covenant then, it seems to me that the onus is on our non-paedo brothers to show where the NT ever explicitly repeals that command.
2. Of course at the end of the day, we are approaching our exegesis and hermenutics in vastly different ways. Paedos attempt (imperfectly of course) to look at the verses in their imediate, near and overall context of the teaching of the bible.
Time is short right now, so I ask again, how do these verses relate to the original post?
And Brian, in your response you still need to deal with what the promise means to children, whatever it may mean to those others “far off.”
Les Prouty said
Since he is probably not looking in on this discussion, I will look in for him. Matthew McMahon, a long-time credo now turned paedo, wrote in part about his becoming a paedo:
You can see all his comments here. http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/MyRetraction.htm
danny said
“What is interesting is that I can find no reference in the Bible to the new covenant relating to both wheat and tares.”
Hebrews 10:30 – God will judge HIS people.
Brian Thornton said
Hi Les,
You replied to my examination of Acts 2:39 by saying, “in your response you still need to deal with what the promise means to children, whatever it may mean to those others “far off.””
Well, whatever it means to children, it means the same thing to them as what it means to ‘you’, and the same thing to them as what it means to those who are ‘far off’. What you have failed to do thus far is to address the unambiguous qualifier at the end of the verse of, “all those whom the Lord our God will call to Himself.”
God’s calling of those included in the ‘you’, the ‘your children’, and the ‘all those who are far off’ is what is required to receive the promise. God’s calling is the necessary prerequisite for receiving the promise.
Do you disagree that Peter frames the recipients of the promise by describing them as having to be called by God? If not, then what does Peter mean by, “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself”?
I have NEVER heard a Peado explain what Peter means by the end of verse 39. Can you give it a shot?
Thanks.
Brian Thornton said
Hebrews 10:30 – God will judge HIS people.
Danny, you need to keep reading on down to the end of the chapter…
BUT MY RIGHTEOUS ONE SHALL LIVE BY FAITH; AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM. But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.
Whatever/whomever the previous verses are describing, they are NOT describing anyone who was or ever will actually be part of the Bride of Christ. Unless, of course, the perseverance of the saints is untrue.
I am also thinking of Paul’s words in Romans…“There is therefore now NO CONDEMNATION for those who are in Christ Jesus”. Are you saying there will be condemnation for some who are in Christ?
I am also thinking of Christ’s words in John…“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will NEVER PERISH, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me,is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” Are you suggesting by quoting the Heb. 10 verse that there are those to whom eternal life has been given but who perish in the end?
Thanks.
Arthur Sido said
Les, I am leery of trying to interact with you based on someone else’s arguments. But here goes anyway:
Point 1: So I am a baptist because I am dispensational, despite my declarations to the contrary? Dispensationalism is inherent to the Baptistic position? No more so than Romanism is inherent to the paedobaptist position. There are plenty of excellent Baptist scholars who hold to Covenant Theology. There are plenty of outright heretics and heretical denomination who subscribe to infant baptism.
Point 2: You and he are certainly right on this point, if you try to understand the Bible looking at the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament, you certainly will be a Baptist every time! Which is really a solid and well spoken defense of the Baptist position. It is not doing theology backwards to look backwards in the text. When Christ speaks of tearing down this temple and rebuilding it in three days, it doesn’t make much sense unless viewed in light of the resurrection. Is that doing theology backwards?
I think it is irrational to assume that the Old Testament stands over the New Testament. Hebrews 1 tells us that in former times God spoke to us through prophets but He has spoken to us now through His Son. Recognizing differences in the way God interacted and communicated with His people is intuitive and obvious in the text, and does not mean that every Baptist is tainted with dispensationalist theology. Talk about painting with an overly broad brush.
Point 3: That is just a rehash of the old “Ignert Babdis jus don’t get kuvenent theleology” insult.
Point4:
“Every covenant in the Bible, from Adam forward, included unbelievers” That is patently false, as the New Covenant explicitly includes only believers. I know we have been over that ground before, but it still remains the case as Brian has argued that the New Covenant in His blood includes only believers. I don’t get why this is so difficult to grasp, it is a NEW covenant NOT LIKE the old covenant. It is a covenant that is inextricably linked to salvation: “For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” I will remember their sin no more. Who does that apply to, what does that signify? Does God forget the sins of those who aren’t saved? That sets the whole of justification on it’s ear. I will be their God and they will be My people. Are unbelievers the people of God? Are there people who are people of God and then are not?
I love how Matt throws out the “Our position is older” and then tries to link the “heretical Anabaptists” with modern Baptists. Infant baptism is an old error true but while it may have been around a long time, it doesn’t appear in the Bible and since we (I assume) place Scripture over tradition then our source of authority if the Word of God, not what Rome has been doing for 1700 years. I had this same argument over on the Heidleblog and the gents over there who assume that if it is one of the Reformed confessions, it is unquestioned as dogma even if the Bible doesn’t support it.
Matt spills a lot of virtual ink here to no avail.
Brian Thornton said
My reply to Les’ posting of Matthew’s reasons for his apostasy from Credo Baptism –
1. The dispensational charge – I actually believe it is the Paedo Baptist who is being dispensational in his position when he states that the New Covenant has been initiated, but will not really be in full effect until after Christ returns. Paedo’s don’t have the New Covenant really meaning anything until the next age, or dispensation.
2. Using the OT to interpret the NT – This is perhaps the most baffling inconsistency I see on the part of my Paedo brothers. They view the OT through the NT in every area that I can think of…EXCEPT when that interpretive practice conflicts with their position on baptism…then they switch their process around and read the NT through the OT. My Paedo brothers see the absurdy of doing this with things like, “You are a chosen nation, a royal preisthood…” (the NT citation of which would completely lose its meaning if interpreted through the OT), but they have no problem doing it when it comes to protecting a tradition not grounded in the NT practice of repenting and then being baptized.
3. Regarding Matt’s apparent misunderstanding of covenant theology – Perhaps the problem is that one might need to try to understand NEW covenant theology, rather than covenant theology. New AND better…NOT LIKE the one made before. My Paedo brothers have made the new covenant EXACTLY LIKE the previous one, just a little broader in scope (though not really broader, seeing as the previous covenant would be applied to anyone outside of Israel who wanted to be included, along with their family…the alien and sojourner)…but exactly the same in its application, when Scripture goes out of its way to show the new covenant to be NOT LIKE the previous covenant. Scripture is just so unambiguous on the total UNIQUENESS of the new covenant from anything that had come before it.
4. The New Covenant including unbelievers – If the new covenant was intended to include the unregenerate, like previous covenants, the why in the world are those who are to be in it described with terms that can only describe the regenerated, those born from above? This is where my nutshell description of this post is so important. Paedos equate the new covenant with the visible church, while Credos equate the new covenant with the Bride of Christ. Please show me from Scripture how NEW covenant benefactors are to include the unregenerate. Please show me from Scripture any reference of the NEW covenant being tied to anyone other than those who have been born again.
Why is it that guys like Matt can’t just directly address baptism from Scripture, and instead must start with all kinds of other points and explanations in order to support their position? In an attempt to defend his position for Paedo Baptism, Matt says to forget about baptism, and focus on covenant theology!
THAT, my friends, is what I believe to be the problem. My Paedo brothers have forgotten about the issue of baptism (as Matt has suggested) and what Scripture shows concerning its practice, and they have instead focused on covenant theology. I have confidence that, if they would focus on NEW covenant theology, Paedos would have to focus on baptism, and would have to address some serious inconsistencies between their practice of baptism and what Scripture teaches about baptism. If my Paedo brothers would just read the baptism passages for what they contain without bringing their preconceived OT notions to the texts (in other words, if they would rightly allow the NT to be the interpretive grid for the OT), then they too would reach the Credo conclusion, as Matt has even said they would!
Can any of my Paedo brothers explain why they do not consistently use the same interpretive principle when dealing with any biblical issue? Surely you would have to agree that at least Credos are consistent in their practice of reading the OT through the eyes of the NT…regardless of the biblical issue. Is it not true that Credos can ALWAYS state that the NT is in the OT concealed and the OT is in the NT revealed? Can a Paedo always say that? If not…why the two ways of interpreting Scripture?
Thanks.
danny said
“Whatever/whomever the previous verses are describing, they are NOT describing anyone who was or ever will actually be part of the Bride of Christ. Unless, of course, the perseverance of the saints is untrue.”
Hey brother, I am not saying that the elect don’t persevere. What I’m getting at as this: the writer argues from the lesser to the greater. “Setting aside the law of Moses” is obviously referring to the Mosaic covenant. He then says what the consequences are of breaking it. He then argues from the lesser (the Mosaic) to the greater (the New Covenant) and how much more severer it is to trample the blood of Christ than to transgress the Mosaic covenant. He then goes on to show that these people that were a part of the New Covenant (remember, I equate New Covenant with the visible church, not just the invisible) by showing that they were sanctified (marked out/set apart) as God’s people. Just as OT Israel was called God’s people, though it was a mixed bag of believers/unbelievers, so the writer is showing that the New Covenant is a mixed bag of believers/unbelievers. All of the verses you cited are ones that I whole heartedly agree with because they are talking about the spiritual bride (the invisible church) of Christ. I agree that the writer of Hebrews goes on to show that those that are elect won’t be judged, but there are still people in the church who will be for profaning the blood of Christ.
If the New Covenant cannot be broken, then the writer to Hebrews’ point by arguing from the lesser to the greater (Mosaic to the New) makes no sense at all.
Maybe you have already answered this question elsewhere, but what are your thoughts about the kingdom parables in Matthew 13?
danny said
Hey brother, one quick thought:
“THAT, my friends, is what I believe to be the problem. My Paedo brothers have forgotten about the issue of baptism (as Matt has suggested) and what Scripture shows concerning its practice, and they have instead focused on covenant theology”
We are arguing that to fully understand the meaning of baptism, we need to understand the covenants first. We can’t just focus on a couple of isolated text without doing justice to all of Scripture.
A lot of times when we are trying to first focus on the covenant in order to properly approach the subject of baptism, we are accused by our baptist brothers of using meaningless texts that don’t mention baptism in them. If we are going to be fair, then please stop trying to prove your point using Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31 because neither of them talk about baptism.
Do you at least see what I’m getting at? We are accused of using non-baptism specific texts but you are using non-baptism specific texts as well. And that’s what we should be doing, and I admire and appreciate that we are taking a step back to see the whole picture. We are both covenantal in our approach to Scripture which at least gives us a greater framework and starting point to approach this issue together with like minds. Anyways, just thought I’d point that out.
Blessings,
Danny
Brian Thornton said
Okay, Danny.
Let’s use your suggestion. Let’s only address texts that specifically reference baptism (you won’t go to Hebrews 10 and I won’t go to Jeremiah 31). I think that is actually probably the one method that would be the most fair and balanced with respect to seeing how it (baptism) was administered in Scripture.
What do you think? Will you join me in this examination of texts that only reference baptism?
danny said
Hey, Brian, my point was not trying to say let’s ignore everything and just deal with the texts. I think that’s where we get into trouble unless we have a good understanding of the background. My point was just to show that we are charged with using useless texts with no reference to baptism while covenantal baptists use Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8.
Also, I think we have gotten off topic a bit. Originally, this post was dealing with the new covenant and whether it can be broken and who does the new covenant work with. I think we should focus on that. If you would like to do a case-by-case examination of each baptism instance, we can definitely do that on another post. May the Lord continue to use us to sharpen one another, brother.
Les Prouty said
FYI, I haved been preparing for a garage sale this afternoon/evening and will be at again very early. So it may be a while into the weekend before I get back. But, quickly…
Arthur, settle down. You need not feel it necessary to interact with ME re Matthew’s “apostasy” from credobaptism. BTW, your point # 4 where you say that the new covenant includes believers only… Arthur, bad way to argue your point. You SAYING that it is so doesn’t MAKE it so brother. Obviously this is something that is not so explicit as you claim else fairly bright men like Calvin and hundreds, yea even thousands, of other godly men thru the centuries would not have believed as I do.
Brian, when I have time this weekend, I will surely take a shot at the Acts passage.
Les
Les Prouty said
By the way, Danny is correct…these latest comments may have gotten off topic from the post and then my first questions…which are broader than baptism.
Brian Thornton said
Les,
To get back on topic with your questions…here is one you posed:
Here is verse 29: How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?
The answer seems quite simple to me. The person being described here, first of all, is a hypothetical person and, second of all, is clearly an apostate, or one who denies the faith they once professed (that eliminates people who were baptized as babies, by the way, since they never professed).
Being an apostate, this person never possessed any of the qualities which the Bible attributes to those in the new covenant – God’s law written on their hearts, them knowing God, their iniquity being forgiven and sin remembered no more – so, quite simply, they are not and never were part of the new covenant, otherwise they would not have apostasized.
These people are clearly in a lot of trouble, though, seeing as they made a false profession and appeared to be part of the church, though they never were.
Les Prouty said
Brian, a bit of a lull here at the sale.
So can you provide exegetical support for those views?
Thanks.
Brian Thornton said
Hi Les,
I am out and about today…so I need to make it short. So I will just give this:
1 John 2:19—Read chapter for context
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us.
I will be back later this afternoon.
Thanks.
Les Prouty said
Sounds like we are both busy today. But I meant exegetical support FROM THIS passage. I’m well aware of the idea of apostasy, but am looking for exegesis from this passage.
Les
danny said
Brian, off the topic of the New Covenant…I’ve responded to your first post with a few comments. I’d love to interact on some of my points if you have some time (I know we are both busy). http://voiceofthesheep.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/my-problem-with-infant-baptism/
Have a good weekend!
Danny
Les said
Brian,
Not so clear to me that these folks are hypothetical. The references throughout the context use brothers, we, us…
Surely these folks have professed and then walked away. I know several people personally who were baptized by immersion when I was (at 12 years old after profession of faith) who later apostasized. I also know several people who were baptized as infants, later professed their faith in Christ to the elders (as all are required to do in the PCA for full communicant membership) and later left the faith. i.e. if you insist on eliminating paedos here you must also eliminate credos as well and then there is no one left. You are apparently presuming that infants who receive the sacrament of baptism don’t later prefess the faith. No true.
Your comments about the new covenant are consistent if anything, but IMHO are wrong. Again, you are assuming the NC requires completeness and allows for no one counted as part of the “God’s people.” Is that right?
More later…
Les said
By the way, is it jus me? I can’t seem to copy comments so that I can interact with them. Makes it hard for an old, technlogically challenged guy like me. Sure would make it easier…
Les said
Comment 26:
I mis-typed. Should read:
Again, you are assuming the NC requires completeness now (as opposed in the consummation) and allows for no one being counted as part of “God’s people” now. Is that correct?
Brian Thornton said
Les,
Without going into extensive detail, I see two groups of people referenced in the Hebrews 10 passage, and in the entire letter to the Hebrews, for that matter.
Group One – Those who have faith
Group Two – Those who do NOT have faith
Those in Group One draw near (to God) with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having their hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and their bodies washed with pure water.
Those in Group Two go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, and there no longer remains a sacrifice for their sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment, and they are counted as adversaries.
Group One consists of those who do NOT shrink back to destruction, but are instead of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul. They are counted righteous because they live by faith.
Group Two is the opposite of what was just described concerning Group One.
Brian Thornton said
The only way the New Covenant is not yet complete is with regards to who all will be in it…not with regards to whether or not it is in full effect yet.
The only reason I am assuming the New Covenant is complete is because Scripture gives no room for it not being complete. The New Covenant is in Christ’s blood…not in His return. Where does the Bible EVER talk about the new covenant not being consummated until Christ’s return?
Christ IS (not will be) the mediator of a better covenant, which HAS BEEN enacted (not will be) on better promises. – Heb 8:6
Here is another problem I think you run into…
You come to a passage like Jer. 31 or Hebrews 10 and you read how all those in the new covenant will have God’s law written on their hearts, and how all those in the new covenant will know God, and how all those in the new covenant will have their sin forgiven, and because of your practice of bringing unregenerate people into the church based upon their physical heritage, you MUST conclude that what is being described in these passages has yet to take place.
That is a classic example of bringing something to a text that is not there, especially when Scripture has the covenant already being enacted and mediated, with no talk at all about it somehow being not yet in full force until Christ’s return. ALL of that has to be brought to the Scriptures in question, because no where is there any talk about the new covenant not really being in full effect. In fact, quite the opposite is true.
Les Prouty said
Brian, I can where based on your assumptions about the NC being in total effect rather than inaugurated you come to your conclusions. However, you ingnore the totality of scripture and end up leaving no room for the “professors” being part of “God’s people” (like Judas).
Credo Baptist John Piper gets all over it:
from a sermon on the passage. Gotta run out to dinner.
Cheers!
Les Prouty said
Sorry, in my haste I pasted too much. Here is the relevant portion:
What They Once Were
Finally, the writer describes these casualties of God’s wrath not just in terms of what they had become, but in terms of what they once were – which makes their condition so much more guilty.
I’ll mention just three brief characteristics of such people.
They had received a knowledge of the truth. Verse 26: “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.” These casualties of wrath who trample the Son of God know the truth. We will all be judged in proportion to the amount of light and truth available to us. These people had received the gospel. They were walking away from Christ in the broad daylight of truth.
They are described, surprisingly to our ears, as part of “God’s people.” To explain what is happening in the divine vengeance the writer says in verse 30b, “The Lord will judge his people.” This seems to mean that the writer sees the visible church – the external church – the way he saw the Old Testament people of God – they are a mixed group. Some of “God’s people” will be saved, and some from “God’s people” will be lost. For example, in Ezekiel 34:17, God says, “As for you, My flock [= the people of God, the external church], thus says the Lord God, `Behold, I will judge between one sheep and another, between the rams and the male goats.”‘ As Paul says in Romans 9:6, “Not all those from Israel are Israel.”
That’s the way this writer seems to be thinking. This is very important for understanding the language he uses and the way he warns. Externally, he calls the church the “people of God.” He calls them brothers – even “holy brothers” – giving the benefit of the doubt to any who has professed faith in Christ. But he knows that the visible church and the true church of God’s elect are not the same. There are many hypocrites. And, as this text shows, many of these eventually become visible by “willfully sinning” and forsaking the gathered body (see verse 25).
Finally, in verse 29 he says that these casualties of God’s wrath were “sanctified.” “How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean (or common) the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified.”
Particularly: This seems to mean that the writer sees the visible church – the external church – the way he saw the Old Testament people of God – they are a mixed group. Some of “God’s people” will be saved, and some from “God’s people” will be lost. For example, in Ezekiel 34:17, God says, “As for you, My flock [= the people of God, the external church], thus says the Lord God, `Behold, I will judge between one sheep and another, between the rams and the male goats.”‘ As Paul says in Romans 9:6, “Not all those from Israel are Israel.”
Brian Thornton said
Les,
The very end of Piper’s sermon that you quote from, while incomplete because he doesn’t address verses 38-39 in this sermon, appears to agree with my position about there being NO truly sanctified and saved people committing apostasy, and therefore, no one truly within the new covenant being included in the group described as no longer having a sacrifice for their sins.
Piper says:
Verses 38-39 provide the true final conclusion concerning those who really are in the new covenant…those who possess faith…which is a distinction made throughout the letter to the Hebrews.
vv38-39…
BUT MY RIGHTEOUS ONE SHALL LIVE BY FAITH; AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM. But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.
Brian Thornton said
By the way, if Piper’s position is that there are truly some of ‘God’s people’ who in the end are judged resulting in destruction, then I wholeheartedly disagree with him on this issue.
Scripture is clear that it is those who are of faith who are regarded as descendants of Abraham, not those who are born to Christian parents. Faith is the distinction between those who are truly God’s people and those who are not. Whoever starts out having faith that justifies finishes the race having that faith. ALL of those who are part of that chosen race and royal priesthood will persevere to the end, as the end of Hebrews 10 makes clear. By that one simple truth it is easy to conclude that those who fall away from the faith were never within the group described in Jer. 31 or Heb 10 in the first place…back to 1 John – they were NEVER really of us…NEVER.
This is a good area to make sure we are interpreting the implicit and not so clear in light of what is clear and unambiguous.
Arthur Sido said
Les, I am not arguing that my saying so makes it so. The text says so. Lots of bright men believe stuff that is wrong all the time. I think John MacArthur is brilliant and a good Baptist to boot but I also think he is wrong on Dispensationalism. It is really irrelevant what Calvin believed or what MacArthur believes or what you, or I or Brian believe. What is relevant is what the text says. I would say that the reason we seem off topic is that the issue, at it’s core, is infant baptism. There are no explicit texts to support infant baptism, so the paedobaptist has to resort to reference to auxiliary texts which are ambiguous at best. I would argue that the burden of proof falls squarely on the paedo. The credo has explicit commandment and example to support the credo position, which the paedo does not. Again Brian is right to say that we need to make sure that we are interpreting the unclear with the clear, and the implicit with the explicit.
No need to urge me to settle down brother, I didn’t refer to Matt’s “apostasy” from the credo position, but thanks for the concern! I hope your garage sale went well.
danny said
Hey Arthur, you mentioned, “I would argue that the burden of proof falls squarely on the paedo.”
I have a couple of quick questions:
1) If Paul told the Bereans to search the Scriptures (the OT) to see if what he was saying was so, where in the OT would they have looked to find that the household principle has been abrogated?
2) If God had included children into the covenant for over 2100 years and on tuesday it was so and wednesday children were no longer considered in covenant, why is it that not one word was mentioned about it, even though things like dietary laws, etc. were hotly debated?
That’s it for now, thanks, brother!
-Danny
danny said
I would actually argue the opposite that the burden falls on the baptist side for proof that the household principle has been clearly abrogated, but then again, I guess we could point fingers back and forth all day saying, “Prove it!”
Also, if the NC in Jer. 31 has been completely fulfilled, can you please explain to me how you guys consistently do not teach your brother or neighbor to “know the Lord?”
Les Prouty said
Brian,
First, the story of Steven Curtis Chapman’s daughter helps put this discussion in such small context.
OK, your comment #33…I hope you have not concluded that I believe that a person who has been born again can leave the faith. I have never said that and do not believe that.
But I do believe Piper’s take on v. 29 is consistent with what I’m saying.i.e. these people were part of “God’s people” as in the OT. And, so can infants be as well.
Here’s the bottom line-and this is why we are even discussing this-
We paedos believe that the burden of proof lies with our credo brothers to overturn the OT practice of putting the sign of God’s promise on adults and children. Danny is correct. If they did it then, and there has been no command to stop doing it, then we should continue. Remember, receiving the sign of circumcism did not MAKE one righteous–and reciving the sign of baptism does not MAKE one righteous. God sovereignly does that.
But, just as in the OT, the young recipients of the sign (the little children Jesus referred to not hinder) are especially and uniquely recipients of covenant blessings and are priveleged in ways that children growing up outside Christ centered activity are not. But, for them to see the kingdom God must regenerate them, same as He has to do for you and me.
Arthur…you did it again. “The text says so.” Bro, there is often room for humility as we all approach the text where good and godly men have different conclusions.
Sure Calvin was wrong at places as Piper is and I am…and you are. It is not really an effective discussion device to say “The bible says so.”
The explicit command thing…see ny blog for a humorous post on this. In a nutshell, though, if you say we must have a text which is explicit in order for us to do or not do something in the Christian church, then O’m afraid you ask more than even you wish to have. See my post.
Last, and on a related angle, two questions:
1. Where is it in the bible where babys are dedicated (many credo churches do that)?
2. And here Arthur, I am going to ask a question which is valid, but after I make a statement like yours above.
The bible CLEARLY does not teach baptism by immersion as we NEVER have even one example of such in the NT.
So why do credos insist that immersion is ONLY valid?
Brian Thornton said
Les,
I’m still waiting on an explanation of Acts 2:39 –
Let me give you a head start in the direction you must take in order to address this verse honestly. The truth in this statement is as follows: THE PROMISE IS FOR AS MANY AS THE LORD OUR GOD WILL CALL TO HIMSELF
I look forward to your examination of this verse.
Thanks.
Brian Thornton said
Les,
A secondary question for you to address after explaining Acts 2:39 is to explain Acts 2:41 –
Question: Who was baptized that day?
But, don’t address this until you have explained Acts 2:39.
ps. Acts 2:39 mentions nothing of baptism, so it should be easily exegeted regardless of one’s position on baptism.
Les Prouty said
Glad to oblige on the Acts passage. THEN, I am looking forward to you answering # 22 and # 24, exegetical support from THAT passage.
Acts 2:38…
37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 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.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
It is obvious that the hearers are Jews. Note how they call Peter and the others “brothers, ” cf. v. 5. So these Jews would certainly have understood the meaning of “the promise” as referring to the Abrahamic promise. So Peter reminds them of the promise and that it is for them (these Jewish people) and their children …harken back to Abraham and his descendants…where God says such that He will be a God to Abraham and his children after him.
Makes perfect sense in the context. In fact, though, Peter also tells them that it is “for all who are far off.” See Eph 2:11-13.
“11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated 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 once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.”
Gentiles are included. Pretty simple and straightforward so far. The last part of the verse about whom God calls makes perfect sense as well. Salvation in each aqnd every case is based on God’s choice and His calling. That ending to the verse does nothing to overturn the promise. We paedos all believe in God’s sovereign election to salvation. But we DO NOT believe that every person whom the sign has been placed on is necessarily elect. We do not know! Just as you credos do not know that every person you immerse after profession is elect.
v. 41. Those who were listening to Peter’s preaching and who believed were baptized. Again, perfect sense.
If we at our church had a gathering of 500 men and preached to them and many of them were converted on the spot–and we did not use formal steps of membership like we do these days but were operating much more informally as they were in Acts–we would baptize these new converts and get them to go and get their families and do the same.
So in Acts, what happened with these Jewish men is exactly what we would expect to see happen. In this missionary context those hearing the preaching responded, were baptized and were added to the church.
Now, of course if you do not view the whole of scripture covenantally and do not see the continuity of God’s covenantal promise, then you will not agree with my brief analyasis of the passage. I do not accuse you of being dispensational. But that is why some might think you guys have dispensational tendencies–a discontinuity framework.
Now, how about answering my questions on #22 and #24 and about where in the bible baby dedication is.
Thanks brother and have a great Lord’s Day!
danny said
Les mentioned, “Salvation in each aqnd every case is based on God’s choice and His calling. That ending to the verse does nothing to overturn the promise.”
Brian, I think it is important to not confuse promises with election. We live out God’s promises that He has given us and not His secret divine election that is mysterious to us.
danny said
If you credo brothers have some time, could you answer these questions?
1) If Paul told the Bereans to search the Scriptures (the OT) to see if what he was saying was so, where in the OT would they have looked to find that the household principle has been abrogated?
2) If God had included children into the covenant for over 2100 years and on tuesday it was so and wednesday children were no longer considered in covenant, why is it that not one word was mentioned about it, even though things like dietary laws, etc. were hotly debated?
danny said
One other thought-
Jer. 31 and Heb. 8 are contrasting the Mosaic vs. New with focus on the priesthood, not the Abrahamic vs. the NC. Circumcision was first given to Abraham in the everlasting covenant of grace and so I’m not sure how the Jer. 31 and Heb. 8 abrogates the household principle. Any thoughts?
Brian Thornton said
Les,
With much respect to you, brother, that is quite an inconsistent and biased examination of Acts 2:39 due to your view on baptism.
The way you break up the verse and continue time and again to stop once you get to the part where Peter says, “the promise is for you and your children”, without also including the statement “and for those who are far off”, really demonstrates how you are not allowing the complete statement by Peter to remain together in one thought.
To be consistent (and that is really all I want to see from you when approaching a passage such as this), however you apply the phrase “the promise is for you and your children”, it MUST be the exact same application you give to “those who are far off”. There is simply no way around this. But, once again you have demonstrated an inconsistency in how you apply this verse to your position of infant baptism.
You use this statement by Peter to support your practice of baptizing unregenerate babies born to Christian parents because you say that Peter says in Acts 2:39 that the promise is also for your children. My question to you is this: WHY DO YOU NOT ALSO PRACTICE THE BAPTIZING OF EVERYONE WHO IS FAR OFF?
You also say, “Salvation in each and every case is based on God’s choice and His calling. That ending to the verse does nothing to overturn the promise.”
What? That ending does nothing to overturn the promise? That ending to verse 39, my brother, is the qualifier for who receives the promise! It doesn’t overturn the promise…it IS the whole basis FOR the promise. That’s my whole point! You baptize babies and use this verse as support for that practice, yet this verse gives you no such directive.
I can’t express enough how disappointed I am to see such misapplication of a statement in Scripture to support a tradition as I see with the Acts 2:39 verse. You can splice it and dice it all you want, but the truth will remain that what Peter says there concerning who the promise is for applies EXACTLY the same to the “you”, the “your children”, and the “for all those who are far off”. And the qualifier is, “EVERYONE WHOM THE LORD OUR GOD SHALL CALL TO HIMSELF”. That is who the promise is for…not those born to Christian parents, but those whom the Lord calls to Himself.
Why, oh why can you not see the contradiction in how you are applying this verse to your children, but not applying it to all those who are far off? Consistency in biblical interpretation is all I ask, and it is plain to anyone who approaches this passage without any bias of how it should be read that you are not being consistent in how you apply this verse.
At least you could be consistent and say that, not only your children should be baptized, but also those who are far off (which would then require all gentiles everywhere to be baptized).
The right thing to do, though, would be to stop using Acts 2:39 as support for infant baptism, because it addresses no such thing and gives no such support for the practice. The only way you can get to infant baptism from what Peter says in Acts 2:39 is to bring your understanding of covenant theology to the text, because verse 39 does not say or teach what you want it to.
Sadly, of the one verse in this passage that DOES address who was baptized that day, verse 41, you say the following:
Your statement that you would baptize these new converts and then get them to go and get their families and do the same, based upon Acts 2:41, is nothing but pure conjecture, because there is not even the slightest hint or indication that that is what took place. You want direct verses saying the practice of putting the sign on children is abrogated, yet when you come across direct verses which clearly show who was baptized, you refuse to read them for what they actually say and you presume an action (them going to get their families so they could also be baptized) that is totally foreign and absent to the text in question.
Sorry, Les, but I am going to have to give you a sheep shearing for the way you have handled these verses.
Brian Thornton said
By the way, I think the immediate context of what the promise is that Peter mentions in verse 39 can be found in verse 38, which is that those who repented and were baptized would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
I don’t know, maybe my Bible is incomplete (I have the ESV Reformation Study Bible), but my verse 38 in Acts 2 doesn’t show Peter saying, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you heads of household, and go and get the rest of your families so that they can also be baptized”. Will you not at least admit that that is pure speculation based upon your position?
Les Prouty said
Well, I will try to write briefly, but since I have been sheared it might be difficult. really though, I will have a full reply later tonight. For now, I am going to scoop up my baptized, unregenerate babies and take them to worship.
Meanwhile, maybe you can answer what I have asked you. See comments #s 22 and 24. And, do you, or do any of your credo brothers practice baby dedication? I would like to see some scriptural support for that. If you did not have your babies dedicated, do you have an opinion of those credos who do practice such? Is it biblical?
Off with my little pagans to worship…
Brian Thornton said
My sheared friend Les,
Regarding #22 & #24, which views specifically are you talking about that you want me to exegete from Hebrews 10?
Thanks.
ps. I’m with you, brother! I took my little pagans to worship today as well!
Brian Thornton said
Regarding what you call “baby dedication”, I think we would call parent commitment. At the request and initiation of the parents, they will present themselves with their child to the elders and congregation and commit to raising their child in the fear and instruction of the Lord, asking the congregation to keep them accountable to that task.
In Scripture, we see parents bringing their children to Jesus so that He could lay His hands on them and pray. With Jesus now having ascended back to the right hand of the father, the parents (of our church, anyway), bring their children to Christ’s undershepherds (the elders) as a way of publicly committing to do their part in raising up their child in the way he should go, seeking prayer and accountability as they endeavor to be the means by which God saves their child, if He so chooses to save them.
This is completely biblical, in my opinion, and as I pointed out, even modeled when the parents publicly brought their children to Christ (Matt. 19:13), not to be baptized, but so that He could lay His hands on them and pray. As a side note, IF this was a model of the parents acting on some understanding they had of covenant theology, then why were the disciples trying to prevent them from bringing their children to Christ?
A QUESTION FOR YOU: Do you practice “confirmation”, and where is that found in Scripture?
Thanks.
danny said
I hate to interrupt (and I hope I’m not pestering), but I was curious if someone from the credo side would be willing to answer these few questions:
1) If Paul told the Bereans to search the Scriptures (the OT) to see if what he was saying was so, where in the OT would they have looked to find that the household principle has been abrogated?
2) If God had included children into the covenant for over 2100 years and on tuesday it was so and wednesday children were no longer considered in covenant, why is it that not one word was mentioned about it, even though things like dietary laws, etc. were hotly debated?
Also, Jer. 31 and Heb. 8 are contrasting the Mosaic vs. New with focus on the priesthood, not the Abrahamic vs. the NC. Circumcision was first given to Abraham in the everlasting covenant of grace and so I’m not sure how the Jer. 31 and Heb. 8 abrogates the household principle.
Les Prouty said
Brian, I want to address your post # 45, 46, 48 and 49 in a couple of ways.
#49. No we do not practice confirmation. Re your “parent dedication,” dear brother you are now guilty of exactly the thing you accuse me of; namely a practice in your worship service which is neither prescribed for the church nor practiced in the early church. Your reference to Matt. 19 will not qualify as a prescription for us to practice today.
There is no evidence in Matt 19 that it was the parents of the children who brought them to Jesus. In any case, Jesus did not go on to command us to do the same. Be careful though, lest you say that anything Jesus did we also should do. You will surely take us too far. Further, by referencing this passage for your unwarranted practice, you have to acknowledge that these children are ones to whom “belongs the kingdom of heaven.” Do you really mean that?
# 48. In comments #22 and 24, I asked you for exegetical support from the Hebrews passage it self (Heb. 10:29) where you are so emphatic that the “answer seems quite simple to” you (see comment #21). Just show your exegetical support from THAT passage, not 1 John you referenced in comment #23.
# 46. Do you really believe that the promise Peter is referencing is “repent and be baptized” would receive the HS? That is quite a new interpretation, at least new to me. Are there any credible scholars who would agree with you?
# 45. This is the most troubling of your responses. Your electronic tone seems arrogant and condescending. But that aside, if I am so far off from the scripture here, then I will gladly be thought of as such. I don’t mind being accused of being wrong (and I surely can be wrong) if I am also in such good company. Let me see who all is wrong with me: John Calvin, James Montgomery Boice, John Murray, Jay Adams, Francis Schaeffer, the Westminster Divines, D. James Kennedy, RC Sproul, Charles Hodge, Jonathan Edwards, et al. So be it. I will stake my claim on the continuity of the covenant promise and stand with these men of God.
Further, Perhaps I am biased. Brother, is it at all possible that you may be biased as well? I think so.
Please do some more study on covenant theology. You apparently do not understand it well at all. Try Hodge.
Yes, the promise is also to those far off. I gladly apply it to them. Remember, Peter preaches to Jews who immediately understand what the promise meant. Peter, here at Pentecost is demonstrating that it is also for those “far off,” Gentiles too! Radical indeed. Expansion.
v. 39. The ending indeed does nothing to overturn the promise. The basis for the promise is the covenant keeping God and His grace.
“Why oh why…” I AM applying it to those far off (Gentiles) and we baptize them as well. “Plain” to see without bias? Do you have any bias against applying the covenant sign to children? Me thinks so.
Finally, back to your tone in discussion. Allow me to demonstrate back to you as an example the types of answers you give to my questions and views. True story. I had a seminary prof who had formerly been a Baptist. He was known to have a bit of dry wit about him. One day, a Baptist student at our Presbyterian seminary asked him, “So you were a Baptist. How did you come to believe in paedo baptism?” The prof looked at him (kidding a bit) and said, “I read my Bible!”
Brian, that is the kinds of responses you give. Brother you seem to think that your reading of the Bible is perfect on this issue. I can tell you this. I firmly believe my position on it. But I do not discount the validity of the credo view and never do I ridicule those holding the credo view. I don’t agree with it, but neither will I virtually mock your understanding of scripture. Because at the end of the day, this issue, while important, is not salvific. It is not the gospel. If it were so clear, then good and godly men would not have disagreed over it for so many centuries. Neither you nor I are half as gifted as some men like Spurgeon and Calvin who each saw this differently.
By the way, I was kidding about my little ones being pagans. They are covenant children and recipients of the promise.
Brian Thornton said
Les,
My tone is one of frustration in that I cannot seem to get you to engage the text directly without reading into it your understanding of covenant theology.
Your citation of myriads of other fallen men to support your position is another example of you not personally engaging the text yourself. Those are great men, to be sure…but they are not Scripture.
I knew you would try to call the kettle black when I brought up the Matthew 19 passage in support of Credo parents presenting their children before the Lord, but I never expected you to suggest that the adults in Matthew 19 who were bringing them were not their parents, but were rather just adults randomly grabbing children (not their own) and bringing them to Jesus.
I have never said any such thing that my view is perfect. All I am trying to get you to do is to engage the text without any outside bias or preconceived notions, which I am finding hard to do. In order to get to the practice you are doing, and in order to use the Acts 2 text to support that practice, you MUST bring to the text your Paedo practice and put that into the text, because it is not there on its own. That is all I am trying to get you to see.
Your accusation that I do not understand covenant theology is typical, and I have seen it many times before from Paedos. My return accusation is that perhaps you do not understand NEW covenant theology.
You say you apply v.39 to those who are far off, but you certainly don’t apply it the same way you do to your children, because you wait for those far off to profess faith before baptizing them.
My take that the immediate context of the promise Peter is talking about being the gift of the Holy Spirit is not new or strange or odd. Do you deny that those whom the Lord calls to Himself receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, also known as the Spirit of promise? Is Peter not talking about salvation here? I don’t understand why attaching the gift of the Spirit in verse 38 to the receiving of the promise in verse 39 is so foreign to you, except that it goes against the way you apply the ‘promise’ to infants, because you know they have not yet received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Simply put, this whole passage in Acts centers around repenting and THEN being baptized, and no amount of conjecture into Peter’s words will change that.
I have enjoyed our discussions immensely, and hope we can still converse in the future. I just hope in the future I can get you to examine the text alone without going to Sproul, Edwards, Boice, etc.
Finally, congrats on knowing for sure that your children are elect and recipients of the promise. If you do not know they are elect, then what in the world does it mean to say that they are recipients of the promise…the promise of what?
I will give you the last word, brother.
Les Prouty said
My dear brother I did engage the text, something you have yet to do as I have asked several times (Hebrews 10:29, exegetical support for your view from that text!)
No doubt my understanding of covenant theology influences how I read scripture. It amazes me that apparently you do not acknowledge that your credo predispositions do not have any effect on your reading of scripture.
Yes I cite fallen men—they are not scripture for sure. I never said they were. You seem to like to build a straw man and then enjoy knocking it down. As I have said, I did engage the text (which again, you have not), but I suppose if you keep saying I didn’t then maybe you will actually believe it.
Ah, the kettle. Here is another straw man. You say, “but I never expected you to suggest that the adults in Matt. 19…were not their parents…” Now here is EXACTLY what I said, “There is no evidence in Matt 19 that it was the parents of the children who brought them to Jesus.” Of course if you are not wanting to deal with the substance of what I said then you might need to bob and weave and make out like I said something I did not say. Here is where interpretive skills come in handy. My statement was intended to demonstrate that you are practicing something without biblical warrant and your appeal to Matt. 19 is very weak for that practice of “parent dedication” since you cannot fully prove from the text that that is what “parents” were doing. Thus, this exposes you to the same charge that you have accused me and other paedos of, namely doing a practice w/o biblical warrant and/or example.
Rather, even now, why don’t you admit that you are practicing something w/out explicit biblical warrant?
I am going by paragraph…so this is now for the one right after your smiley face. Again, I admit to viewing scripture through a covenant theology lens. You might call it bias…again, do you have any bias?
Oh I understand NEW covenant theology. Been there and have the t-shirt to prove it.
Of course we await for a Gentile (far off) to profess faith before we baptize, except that if the Gentile has children, we baptize them as young folks (infants, etc.). So I absolutely am applying it the same.
As for the promise, this is where you bias shows thru strongly. Most commentators rightly understand the promise to refer to God’s covenant promise. But you are surely entitled to your view. It certainly makes it easier to avoid the obvious implication and inclusion for our covenant children.
Again, I have examined the text. You just disagree with my analysis and dismiss it as “not examining the text” because I later cite Sproul, etc. as support. More straw guys.
Finally, I did not say that I know for sure that my children are elect, though I did say they are recipients of the promise. Here is exactly what I said,
“By the way, I was kidding about my little ones being pagans. They are covenant children and recipients of the promise.”
Far different than you saying I know that they are elect. Again, more straw. My children are not pagans. They are full communicant members of our church. All have professed faith in Christ. But I cannot look in their heart and see whether there is a big E on them for “elect.” But, I can believe that they are elect as much as I can believe you are.
The promise. Just biblical language (Genesis 17 and 18).
Les said
By the way, I have thrown up a challenge on my blog and I would dearly love for you and other credos come on over and give it a shot.
http://reformationfaithtoday.com/2008/05/24/sabbath-and-women/
Any credos up to the challenge?
Les said
Oh, and one last “final word.” For the record I do think it was probably the parents of the children who brought them to Jesus. That is surely consistent with our view that Jesus values little ones and such as these belongs the kingdom. But, it must be acknowledged that the text itself does not say it was the parents. Implicit, not explicit.
Ok, I think i’m done with my final word.
Arthur Sido said
Les, I answered question 2 of your challenge.
Les said
Arthur, I replied and regret to tell you that your comments have been ruled out of bounds as not conforming to the challenge rules.
Les said
Oh, and what question #1?
Arthur Sido said
Danny, we seem to be getting lost in the exchange, so let me address your two part question which you have patiently asked and are still waiting for a response on.
1. In searching the Scriptures, as believers who are not Jewish, we would see the command to proclaim the Gospel and baptize those who repent. The command to baptize is not given in a vacuum but is accompanied by very specific texts and examples of the proper recipients. We are not told merely to baptize people, but who to baptize, i.e.believers. The burden is not on the New Testament to refute the sign of an old covenant, but rather to show us the sign of the new covenant in the blood of Christ.
2. That is assuming that circumcision and baptism are just differing modes of administering the same covenant, but even Christ says that the covenant in His blood is a new covenant. There are tons of laws in the OT that are not specifically mentioned in the New testament, but we don’t observe them.
The overarching covenant of grace that runs throughout the Bible deals with justification of sinners. That we are agree on is accomplished by faith in Christ and reliance on His finished and perfect substitution atonement on the cross. Believers baptism is perfectly consistent with that covenant.
That is a very brief rejoinder to your questions, but if I don’t stop blogging and start helping my wife care for our eight little sinners I am going to be blogging from the hospital!
danny said
Arthur “Credo” Sido, I appreciate you taking time to respond. I was starting to feel like Ben Stein–”Bueller…Bueller..”. But I do have a few comments in response:
1) My first question that I asked was in reference to 1st century times, not today. You mentioned:
“In searching the Scriptures, as believers who are not Jewish, we would see the command to proclaim the Gospel and baptize those who repent.”
The NT canon wasn’t around during the time of Acts. Paul appealed to the OT instead of his own apostolic authority or Jesus’ great commission. So where would he have appealed to in the OT to show that God’s covenant dealings now exclude believer’s children?
You also said, “we would see the command to proclaim the Gospel and baptize those who repent….The command to baptize is not given in a vacuum but is accompanied by very specific texts and examples of the proper recipients. We are not told merely to baptize people, but who to baptize, i.e.believers.”
Can you provide me with a text that says believers and believers only should be baptized? You implicitly mentioned the Great Commission (”we would see the command to proclaim the Gospel and baptize those who repent”), but are you aware that “make disciples” is a verb in the Greek? More literally in the Greek, “disciple the nations”?
2) You mentioned:
“That is assuming that circumcision and baptism are just differing modes of administering the same covenant, but even Christ says that the covenant in His blood is a new covenant.”
My main point doesn’t have to do with circumcision and baptism. My question is, why is there not a single peep about children being included on tuesday and excluded on wednesday? Obviously, God’s covenant relationship with his people is one of the main thrusts in scripture. God made it very clear that children of believers were included in the OT. If God is an everlasting covenant God, what causes His dealings to change in His covenant relationship with His people?
Just a reminder, Jer. 31/Heb. 8 contrasts the Mosaic and the New, not the Abrahamic and the New. The New is the re-affirmation of the Abrahamic (Gal. 3).
We agree that there runs an overaching covenant of grace that began in the garden after the fall and given a sign w/ Abraham. So, if there is this everlasting covenant of grace that runs through scripture, why are children included with Abraham but not in the New? Why was the sign given to Abraham’s offspring when the sign was specifically a sign and seal of God’s righteousness credited through faith, not merely a physical, ethnic land promise sign. Where is the discontinuity in Scripture between the Abrahamic and the New that you affirm? Every single covenant in the Bible starting with Adam included the believer and his household. Where is the household principle abrogated in Scripture in regards to the new?
Lastly, I would encourage you to read Hebrews 8 in the proper context of Hebrews 4:14-10:39, where the focus is on the priesthood of the mosaic vs. the priesthood of Christ and not on an external vs. internal because law written on the heart, forgiveness of sins happened in the OT just as it does in the NT.
Finally, (I know, I know, I said lastly before this), you mentioned,
“There are tons of laws in the OT that are not specifically mentioned in the New testament, but we don’t observe them.”
The NT makes it clear that the dietary laws are abrogated, the sacrificial and ceremonial aspect of the law are abrogated, the civil laws are abrogated, but I do not see the household principle being abrogated. Such a radical departure in God’s covenant love in His dealings would have caused a massive uproar (I’m not merely speculating. The covenant promise was so important to the Jew that they made the sign into something it wasn’t, namely, a salvific requirement).
I appreciate the dialog, brother.
Danny “Paedo”…eh..doesn’t rhyme as nice as “Credo Sido”
Brian Thornton said
Les,
When you said you had children who were recipients of the promise, I assumed you meant that they were children who had been baptized, but who had not yet professed repentance and faith. I am very pleased to hear they have confessed Christ as Lord, because, based upon Peter’s words in Acts 2, they have been called by God and received the gift of the Holy Spirit.
What I would like to do (and I will still give you the last word, I promise!) is to try and focus our discussion, because I think we are going in a bunch of different directions. Honestly, bringing up baby dedication was nothing but a smoke screen and a diversion and does nothing to further our discussion of infant baptism. If you want to discuss that topic, we can certainly do it, but let’s tackle that at a later time, shall we? And I will also get to Hebrews 10 as well.
What I would like to know is this: Are infants who have been baptized but who have not professed repentance and faith recipients of the promise, the same as your children are who have already professed repentance and faith?
That is why I asked the question above (assuming your children had not yet repented and believed), “what in the world does it mean to say that they are recipients of the promise…the promise of what?” So, the question is, what promise are unregenerate baptized infants the recipients of?
Brian Thornton said
Danny,
You seem to be saying that the new Christian Jews would have just instinctively known that once a head of household got saved, that he was to baptize his whole family as well, regardless of their beliefs. What would the gentiles have known to do? They were being told to repent and be baptized, were they not?
Case in point, the only ones in Cornelius’ household – according to Scripture – to be baptized by Peter’s (a Jew) instruction were the ones who had received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Why did Peter not tell them to also baptize the household members who had not yet believed and had not yet received the Holy Spirit?
Les Prouty said
Brian, the baby dedication is no diversion at all. I am sorry for credos who practice it and yet eschew paedobaptism, sorry for the exposure of your obvious inconsistency. You folks accuse us of an unbiblical/unwarranted practice for our babies and low and behold…you do an unbiblical/unwarranted practice with yours.
As to the promise, I really do not understand why this is so hard to understand, but yes my were recipients of the promise of God from the womb! This is what God promised in the OT.
In fact my 25 year old daughter is 21 weeks pregnant with our first grandchild and he is a child of the promise-praise unto God. For all I know he may already be regenerate! I pray that he is, just as Jeremiah.
What is the promise? That He will be their God. Very simple OT stuff.
I still look forward to your Hebrews 10.
Arthur Sido said
Les, I am not surprised that you ruled my example out of bounds! BTW, I have not and will not “dedicate” my children in a church service. I haven’t been in many Baptist churches that do. Try not to paint with such a broad brush, there are padeobaptist churches that marry men so let’s avoid the guilt by association if we can.
We bapized my 9 and 11 year olds yesterday, and what a wonderful blessing that was to baptize children who we have raised up and taught the fear and admonition of the Lord, who made a profession of faith when they were old enough to understand sin and the cross rather than sprinkling an infant who can’t even hold up their head much less know Christ.
Danny, excellent questions, I will try to respond tomorrow when I have more time. Just got the little sinners to bed and I am tuckered out.
Brian @ VoiceoftheSheep said
Les,
I still am not going to allow you to sidetrack our discussion of infant baptism with what you call ‘baby dedication’. We will discuss that later, if you want, but I want to focus on your very interesting comments here concerning what God has promised to you concerning your children and future grandchildren.
When you say the promise received by baptized infants of Christian parents is that God will be their God, can I assume by that you mean He will be their God in a saving sense, that you mean they will be born again? If that is not what you mean, then please explain.
You say your children are children of the promise, and by my understanding, that is because they were born to Christian parents (or at least, to a Christian head of household). That my friend, is making them an heir according to the flesh, and the children of the flesh are not the ones regarded as descendants (Rom. 9:8). Granted, Romans 9:8 is talking about physical lineage from Abraham, but really, what is the difference in that and what you are doing by considering your children automatically recipients of the promise based upon who they were born to?
You state unequivocally that your future grandchild is a child of promise (and I pray that he/she is!), but what I don’t understand is how you say that, for all you know he may already be regenerate. Are you now putting forth a position that people can be saved apart from the gospel? Are we not all saved by grace through faith, and does not faith come from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. How, pray tell, can your unborn grandchild possess faith without having yet heard and responded to the gospel? IF your unborn grandchild is already regenerate, as you hope is the case, then will there ever be a need for him/her to hear the gospel? If so, why?
Finally, IF God truly has promised to be a God to all baptized children everywhere because of their physical lineage from Christian parents, and even one of them, in the end, does not come to Christ in saving faith, then what does that say about God and His promises? How does that NOT make God out to be a liar? Does God keep His promises?
You seem to be stuck in the OT, my friend…perhaps it is time to get into the NEW covenant!
Les Prouty said
Fair enough on the baby dedication, or what you called “parent dedication.” It is your blog and I am a guest here. But I do understand why you don’t want to talk about it.
Yes, my children are children of the promise, that God would be a God to me and my children. He promises to be their God and forgive their sins–brother this is nothing different than what God said to Abraham, and the sign of that promise was placed on Abraham and his children. Salvation has always been the same–namely God saves sinners sola gratia. The true desecendants of Abraham are spiritual, not physical. So, no, I do not believe that children are saved because of who thay are born to. They, as always, are saved sole by God’s grace–no human contribution!
Re my grandchild and your question. People may be born again in the womb, at 13 months, 19 months, 2 yrs old, 3.5 years old, etc…Do you not believe that? That my friend, is “monergism.” To quote the London Baptist Confession,
“3. Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word. ”
The LBC apparently believes that infants in some situations may be regenerated. I don’t just make this stuff up. See John ch. 3.
If my unborn child is already regenerate then he will not need to hear the gospel salvifically so as to be saved. He, like us all, will need to very often need to hear the gospel, even every day preaching it to himself.
As to God’s promises, He surely keeps them all. The fact is that not all who receive the sign of God’s promise and live in the manifold benefits of it are elect. You credos well know this as you have seen men, women, boys and girls be baptized after they profess faith in Christ and then leave the faith and prove themselves to be non-elect.
No, I am not stuck in the OT. But you my friend, may be unwittingly influenced by dispensationalism.
Les said
Arthur, come on back over and take another shot at the two questions. Try to stick with the question parameters this time. And Brian and anyone else up to the challenge.
danny said
I don’t want to get too side-tracked in my dialog w/ Arthur, but I will briefly respond to you, Brian.
You mentioned:
“You seem to be saying that the new Christian Jews would have just instinctively known that once a head of household got saved, that he was to baptize his whole family as well…”
Not merely instinctively. Every covenant in Scripture included the household. They would have continued the practice as a continuity unless an explicit command was given to STOP, and there isn’t. In fact, household baptism was the apostolic practice:
1 Cor. 1:14, 16 “Crispus (and his household), Stephanus and his household.” Then he concludes, “I do not know if I baptized any other.” In the Greek, the closest antecedent to “other” is oikon “household”.
“regardless of their beliefs. ”
1st century Judea is much different than 21st century america where in the former, the household followed the father’s beliefs and in the latter it’s all about “me.” For example, Josh. 24:15 – “But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”
“What would the gentiles have known to do?”
They were being evangelized by the Jews.
“They were being told to repent and be baptized, were they not?”
If you are referring to Acts 2, the crowd gathered there were Jewish men (”Men of Judea…”), not Gentiles.
“Case in point, the only ones in Cornelius’ household – according to Scripture – to be baptized by Peter’s (a Jew) instruction were the ones who had received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Why did Peter not tell them to also baptize the household members who had not yet believed and had not yet received the Holy Spirit?”
I don’t deny that the text says that the friends and relatives believed, but in all the other household examples, no mention is made of individual belief except the head of the household. In fact, in the household of the Jailer and Crispus, it specifically says in both instances in the Greek, “He believed”, 3rd person singular. If the Holy Spirit wanted to clear up the confusion about who should be baptized, He could have easily have inspired Luke to simply change the ending of the verb to a 3rd person plural, “they believed”, but the Holy Spirit didn’t, and I believe that this was intentional to show the household principle.
Also, consider Lydia from Acts 16:14-15:
“The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.”
No one is mentioned as having believed except Lydia, and yet, the whole household was baptized. Case in point, if the focus was one everyone believing, she should have said, “If you consider US believers in the Lord”, but she said, “If you consider ME a believer in the Lord.”
In conclusion, if baptism was only for those who personally repented and believed, can you please provide me a text in the NT where a child raised in a Christian home with a Christian father and/or mother wasn’t baptized until they made their own personal confession of faith?
Thanks for the questions and the engaging and sharpening dialog.
Danny
Brian Thornton said
Thanks for replying, Danny.
You and others talk time and again about wanting specific verses with explicit examples and instruction, and when I provide one to you (Cornelius), you fly right past what took place with him and Peter with a “yeah, but…” wave of the hand.
CORNELIUS…
What you say here is simply not true, Danny. First, let’s look at the account with Cornelius (Acts 10-11). This is the FIRST account we have of a gentile family being evangelized by a Jew, and it provides more detail and information than any of the others you referenced. While Peter was preaching to them, the Holy Spirit fell upon everyone there regardless of what they were doing or who they were? No, because the text says the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were LISTENING to the message.
Then Peter says, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized…”, for all who are in this household regardless of whether they responded or not to the message? No! He says this (about being baptized) for the ones who received the Holy Spirit. The text then says he ORDERED them (those who received the Holy Spirit) to be baptized.
Then, when Peter recounts what happened to those back in Jerusalem, he tells them in Acts 11:14 what the angel of God told Cornelius, which was, “he [Peter] will speak words to you by which you WILL BE SAVED, YOU AND ALL YOUR HOUSEHOLD.” The angel of God told Cornelius that his whole household would be SAVED, not that some would be saved and the rest would be baptized and brought into the new covenant, but that they all would be saved.
You also said, “in all the other household examples, no mention is made of individual belief except the head of the household.” This is just not true.
THE JAILER…
First of all, in Acts 16:32 Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord to the jailer TOGETHER with ALL who were in his house, and then Acts 34 says that the jailer rejoiced greatly, “having believed in God WITH HIS WHOLE HOUSEHOLD.”
So, the whole household BELIEVED according to the text.
CRISPUS…
The account with Crispus, Danny, supports my position that those who were baptized were only the ones who believed. Acts 18:8 says, “Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, BELIEVED in the Lord WITH ALL HIS HOUSEHOLD, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were BELIEVING AND BEING BAPTIZED.”
This account shows no one but those believing being baptized.
Granted, the account with Lydia contains no real detail as the other accounts do.
The details we DO have in Scripture when households were baptized overwhelmingly show belief, and THEN baptism. Cornelius, the jailer, Crispus. ALL of these accounts say the person believed, and that his household believed also.
Brian Thornton said
Les,
Let’s play fair now…I am happy to talk about what you call “baby dedication”, but not while we are engaged in this discussion.
You say God promises to forgive the sins of those who are born to you (and the sole basis of this is because they were born to YOU, a believer), then you say you do not believe children are saved because of who they are born to.
You mention monergism in the saving of infants in the womb and very young children. Monergism, my brother, does not happen in a vacuum. Yes, God most certainly does do ALL the work in the saving of His elect, but there is a means by which He has chosen to do that monergistic work of salvation…THROUGH THE GOSPEL.
You said…
If my unborn child is already regenerate then he will not need to hear the gospel salvifically so as to be saved.
All I can say to this is…WOW! Please excuse me for a moment while I pick myself up off the floor and get back in my chair here…
This is quite an amazing statement. So, basically, for someone regenerated while still in the womb, eternally speaking, there is no need for them to ever hear the gospel of Jesus Christ! Wow!
John 3, my brother, talks about the truth that the Holy Spirit is the One who regenerates, but no where in that chapter (or anywhere in Scripture, for that matter) does it say that He regenerates whomever He wishes BY WHATEVER MEANS HE WISHES. There is one means – according to Scripture – faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
Les, this truly is, to me, a disturbing statement from you about people being born again apart from the gospel, as it has absolutely no foundation in Scripture…none at all.
As to the dispensationalism charge, who is it who is being dispensational when they say the new covenant has been initiated in this age, but will not really be in effect until the next age? You call us dispensational because we see a difference (a MAJOR difference) in how God administrates the NEW and BETTER covenant from the way He administrated the previous one. It is a NEW and BETTER covenant…NOT LIKE the one made before.
If that is dispensationalism…then I guess that’s what I am.
I’ll give you the last word.
Les Prouty said
I’m running out the door to the office, but before I get “the last word,” could you interact with the London Confession I mentioned? Does the confession hold open the possibility that an infant can be born again apart from hearing and responding to the gospel? I’ll be back later in between work.
danny said
Brian, I will give a fuller response once I hear back from Arthur, so as not to be sidetracked, but one quick comment, in the case of the Jailer, your translation may say that “He believed in God with his whole household”, but the original Greek says, “He rejoiced with his household that he believed (singular).”
Brian Thornton said
Danny,
So, the rest of the Jailer’s UNBELIEVING household rejoiced with the jailer over his salvation? That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. What would the unbelievers be rejoicing about?
Brian Thornton said
Does the confession hold open the possibility that an infant can be born again apart from hearing and responding to the gospel?
Les,
The Confession holds that an infant DYING IN INFANCY can be regenerated, but it does not detail the means by which that infant is regenerated. If they believed it was apart from faith and the gospel, then I would have to disagree, as Scripture is clear that salvation is through faith, and faith is through the hearing of the gospel.
danny said
Brian,
It seems like you are you assuming that there are only two possible responses to the Gospel: 1) Genuinely repent and believe or 2) Genuinely reject the Gospel with disdain. If this were the case, then you have a good point. However, you fail to address another response: Those who receive the Gospel with joy and/or rejoice with others who received it but that joy is temporary and not genuine. Jesus’ parable in Matthew 13 concerning the various soils shows that the Word may fall upon rocky soil that receives the Gospel with joy but later proves that it was not genuine. Ultimately, there is no middle ground between receiving or rejecting Christ (Luke 11:23), but they could still rejoice and not be saved! Also, another example is that of Herod who loved listening to John the Baptist and yet remained unconverted.
Just a thought,
Danny
Les said
Brian, re the London Confession and infants: “it does not detail the means by which that infant is regenerated.” There is only one way regeneration is effected: the sovereign work of God (monergism). What you are failing to acknowledge is that there can be extraordinary cases where regeneration takes place apart from the ordinary means of grace (the preaching of the word. Again, the LBC,”so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.”
Notice the”incapable of being outwardly called…”
Now you may disagree with the LBC and that is surely your perrogative. But my view that an infant may be regenerated is certainly no cause for you to fall on the floor in disbelief and astonishment. My view is not only biblical but quite historic in Presbyterians and among Baptists
BTW, please come on back to my post on The Sabbath and Women and try again. You did not stay on topic and even attempt an answer.
http://reformationfaithtoday.com/2008/05/24/sabbath-and-women/