The Earnest Contender

Monday, October 09, 2006

Children of the Covenant Family

In this post these abbreviations are used:
RT = Reformed Theologian or Theology
CT = Covenant Theologian or Theology

The Unchanging Community
Covenant Theology (CT) maintains that the community of God is unchanging from age to age. The church of the New Testament (NT) is the continued community of Israel of the Old Testament (OT). The word “church” is used instead of or in place of the word “Israel”. Therefore, they reason, since infants were under the blessings of the covenant in the old dispensation they have the same position and are granted similar advantages in the new dispensation. Accordingly in CT children of believers are under the covenant of grace.

This, they say, is a legal relationship from the time of birth, but children are not automatically part of the covenant as a communion of life. There remains the administration of the covenant by the faithful parents. The result will be the infant’s regeneration by the Holy Spirit and (including, but not limited to saving faith) being given at that time. The assumption is that such children are possessors of spiritual life as long as they do not reveal to the contrary. Strong emphasis is placed on the parent/s and the local church together instructing children, which is commendable in many ways, it comes from the idea, however, that the Christian life, already within the child, may be nurtured into full bloom.

Infant Baptism
Most CT and RT are pedobaptists. That is they baptize infants. This is consistent with their entire system of theology. This seems to be a logical deduction from the premises we have already covered. The basis of infant baptism from CT perspective is:

1. God’s covenant with Abraham was primarily a spiritual covenant.

2. Circumcision was the outward sign and visible seal of this covenant.

3. The Abrahamic covenant is still in force and is essentially identical with the present “new covenant” of this gospel age.

4. Infants shared in the covenant under the old dispensation and received circumcision as the visible sign and seal that they were indeed participants in it.

5. Infants, therefore, should share in the New Covenant, the salvation of Christ, receiving baptism as the sign and seal of their participation in it. Baptism becomes to the CT the NT equivalence of the OT circumcision.

A Sign and a Seal
Covenant adherents view baptism as a sign and a seal. It signifies the washing away of sins and the removal of the pollution of sin in sanctification, which is why it is called a sign. A. A. Hodge, the son of Charles Hodge, wrote, “That besides being a sign, baptism is also the seal of grace, and therefore a present and sensible conveyance and confirmation of grace to the believer who has the witness in himself, and to all the elect a seal of the benefits of the covenant of grace, to be sooner or later conveyed in God’s good time." (Hodge, Outlines of Theology, p 501 or click here (then scroll down to line 38, 2nd line). A. A. Hodge here actually supports the sacramental concept of baptism, which means that it “conveys” and /or “confers” grace to the recipient (i.e. the infant). I personally have a certificate that pronounces dogmatically, yet with no Scriptural support, that I was regenerated into the body of Christ the day a minister sprinkled my head with a little water. Neither water nor a certificate can save anyone dear reader (compare with this and this to see some diferences in approach). One must be born again!

Yes, a few Reformed scholars have held to and do hold to some form of baptismal regeneration. Yet, most of them rely on one or more of the following arguments in favor of infant baptism:

Children that are offered for baptism are already regenerated and have the seed of faith; hence baptism strengthens that which they already possess.

Baptism may not be limited to the time of its administration. It may augment faith at a latter time when the significance of the sacrament can be more clearly understood.

Infant baptism is a means of grace to the parents of the child and/or to the child also.

Notice that these reasons are all without any biblical backing whatsoever! Many of CT doctrines are truly reformed; nonetheless CT still struggles to shed the teaching of Roman Catholic influence. Baptists, historically, have rejected the crotchets of CT for the more solid foundation of the Word of God. However, in more recent times, perhaps put off by what is perceived as shoddy lifestyles of some, and shallow theology of others or perhaps attracted to popular and eloquent speakers, there has been a rise of a movement called Reformed Baptist. Quite frankly, friends, I do not see any justification for a Reformed Baptist church. If one is reformed in theology it seems logical that they would be reformed in practice including being consistent in adherence to infant baptism.

Next post: An Assessment of Covenant Theology

105 Comments:

Are you sure that all Covenant theologians would see th community of God as unchanging?

Also, do you think that it is accurate to treat Reformed Baptists as a new movement given that there have been Calvinistic Baptists since the Puritans?

By Matthew Celestine, at 9/10/06 9:13 AM
John,
Great post. You and I have talked about this before, so it was pretty easy for me to "get" because of that. I hope Earl will critique your post and tell us, if as a Bible-believing Presbyterian, he sees it the way you have described.

By Rose~, at 9/10/06 10:42 AM
Hi Matthew~

Thanks for those good questions. To answer your first question,

Are you sure that all Covenant theologians would see the community of God as unchanging?

Let me say yes and no. Since I am painting with a wide brush here, I suppose I should say, "by and large" a time or two, but from the scant reading I have done and my life experience (which is not a good source to rely on) I would say, "Yes, by and large I am, certain that CTs do hold to an unchanging covenant. But no, I am not positive that all CTs are consistent with their own ideas."

Those I have mentioned in earlier posts (esp. here are consistent with that idea.

As to your second excellent question, which you also make a good point,

...do you think that it is accurate to treat Reformed Baptists as a new movement given that there have been Calvinistic Baptists since the Puritans?

I do not think that would be accurate at all! It is not a new movement. I don't think I said or implied that it is, I meant to convey that, "... in more recent times... there has been a rise [to the] movement called Reformed Baptist." IOW it is growing through the infiltration of churches such as the SBC etc.

Welcome back DF!

Thanks for your comment Rose~
I hope brother Earl can do the same.

Have a good day!

By J. Wendell, at 9/10/06 11:17 AM
I think the CT people would see the Covenant of Grace being regulated in specific ways through God's temporal dealings with His people.

The CT people may not use the word 'dispensation' as much as us, but they have their equivalent divisions.

As for Reformed Baptists, their history is interesting.

I believe most of the main Baptist denominations orginate from the Calvinistic Baptist tradition, such as the SBC.

Since the 19th C and the rise of Dispensationalism, they have become a lot less like Calvinistic, but they are undergoing a revival.

I think Reformed Baptists in the UK and the USA are very different, though they enjoy some of the same writers.

In the UK, Reformed Baptists are closer to the Puritan tradition. While many are Premill, most are Amill and some are Postmill. Many are very negative toward Dispensationalism, which they identify with the Plymouth Brethren.

British Reformed Baptists are more likely to be genuine Hyper-Calvinists.

In contrast, in the USA, Reformed Baptists are more connected to the Dispensational Fundametalist tradition and are mostly Premill. But then you probably know those 'dudes' better than I do.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at 9/10/06 2:05 PM
Hi Matthew~

Have you read Hiscox?

The reformed that I am familiar with tend to be either Amill or Historic Premil as contrast to Futuristic Premill.

'dudes'!?!

By J. Wendell, at 9/10/06 9:51 PM
Hi John,

I come from a Reformed and Covenant theology tradition. If I were to teach:

There remains the administration of the covenant by the faithful parents. The result will be the infant’s regeneration by the Holy Spirit and (including, but not limited to saving faith) being given at that time. The assumption is that such children are possessors of spiritual life as long as they do not reveal to the contrary.

I would be hauled before the Session at my church and be reprimanded for teaching that. I'm sure that are some Reformed people that would teach that, but not in the PCA, OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church), EPC (Evangelical Presbyterian Church), nor others that I am aware of.

Conservative Presbyterians believe that regeneration happens in the usual way through the preaching and teaching of the Word, where the Holy Spirit opens the eyes of the elect to see their condition before a Holy God, repent, and come to God in faith through Christ. Presbyterians also believe that this can happen at an early age, but there is no presumptive view that "Covenant Children" are truely justified. Rather, they view that Covenant children are in some sense set apart, but not necessarily saved, just as Israelite children were in some sense set apart but not necessarily saved through faith. Covenant children enjoy the benifits and blessings of being a part of the visbile church of Christ -- which includes having the means of grace of baptism applied to them, being raised in a Christian home, being raised in achurch community of Christians. All of this is evidence of special blessings of God to those children which God is not giving to children being raised outside of the church.

In some ways Covenant children are treated as being part of the true Covenant, so they can taste and see the blessings, but the children are taught of the need to personally repent of their sins and have faith in Christ. As children mature, they are encouraged to receive instruction on communion and other aspects of the faith, and then they are examined by the elders for a credible profession of faith. That is one of the most delightful jobs I have as an elder in my Presbyterian church, to interview these children and look at their lives.

By Earl Flask, at 9/10/06 10:25 PM
Hi Earl~
I too came from a long line of Presbyterians (Scotch Reform).

Thanks for stating your personal beliefs regarding this issue. I think however if you were to quote what many others in the Reformed tradition have said on the mater your Session would be hard press to make that reprimand stick if you were to appeal to the Synod.

You would be able to quote:

The Second Helvetic Confession, “We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that newborn infants of the faithful are to be baptized. For according to evangelical teaching, of such is the Kingdom of God, and they are in the covenant of God. Why, then, should the sign of God's covenant not be given to them? Why should those who belong to God and are in his Church not be initiated by holy baptism?” (Chapter 20, Of Holy Baptism.)

The Heidelberg Catechism, “Q74: Are infants also to be baptized? A74: Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God, and through the blood of Christ both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed.

The Westminster Assembly, The Directory of Public Worship (To lengthy to quote here). But, it has been noted that there is no distinction between adults and children, or infants, in the Westminster Confession at all on this issue, except by age, and the Directory of Public Worship makes it abundantly clear what they mean by the institution and how it should be administered.

You would not be left alone to interpret these to the Synod because others have said,

“First, all that belong to the covenant and church of God are to be baptized. But the children of Christians, as well as adults, belong to the covenant and church of God. Therefore, they are to be baptized, as well as adults. Secondly, those are not to be excluded from baptism to whom the benefit of remission of sins, and of regeneration, belongs. But this benefit belongs to the infants of the church; for redemption from sin, by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult. Therefore, they ought to be baptized.” (Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, 1st American Edition, 1851, Pages 366-367.)

“It is clear that infants have their share of salvation, and by covenant it must be...And this promise made to Abraham belongs to them all…” (Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, 1642(?), Pages 83, 104-105)

“None but regenerated persons have a right to baptism before God…None but such as appear truly regenerated have a right to baptism before men… The infants of parents, one or both visible saints, have a right to baptism before the church… The children of believers are in covenant with God…Infants, such as Christ could carry in his arms, are members of the Kingdom of God. And if members, why deny them the primary seal of membership?” (John Brown of Haddington, Systematic Theology, Page 538.)

“Baptism does not effect our engrafting into Christ, it only signifies and seals it.” (Alexander Whyte, Commentary on the Shorter Catechism, Page 181.)

Finally,
“The historic Reformed Doctrine which may be identified with that of John Calvin was as follows: Membership in the invisible church meant vital union with Christ, or regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Since the word presume meant to admit a thing to be, or to receive a thing as true, before it could be known as such from its phenomena or manifestations, the presumption that an infant was a member of the invisible church meant that it was believed to be engrafted into Christ and regenerated before it gave any ordinary evidences of the fact.” (Charles Hodge, The Church Membership of Infants, Page 375.) Compare this with Lewis Berkhof's Systematic Theology, Page 640.

These of course are the words of men and not the Word of God, very little Scripture is considered in its own context which IMO dose not do justice to the Word of God or to the spiritual health of men.

One humble CT/RT brother has admitted here, “With respect to the issue of infant versus believer’s baptism, it should be noted there is a lot of silence with this issue in the New Testament. There is no direct call to baptize infants, although many people infer that when households were baptized, this in all probability included infants.”

By J. Wendell, at 11/10/06 6:58 AM
Earl,
BTW, I am really glad that YOU don't hold to the views in my post. If there were more men like you in the Presbyterian church where I grew up, I might have stayed there after conversion.

By J. Wendell, at 11/10/06 7:19 AM
John, it pains my heart that there are people who call themselves Presbyterians who hold those views you mention. In fact, we have to be on our guard when a family from a Reformed or Presbyterian tradition outside of the ones we have a kindered understanding has a pastor friend or relative baptize their infant in our church. We will not allow it unless we know the pastor does not subscribe to baptismal regeneration or the other abuses. Often this comes from the "mainline Reformed" demoninations. It's ironic, since many people in the mainline denominations have abandoned so much of biblical, orthodox theology, and add or keep perversions that have been associated with some Reformed groups.

With respect to the Heidelberg Catechism, being "included in the covenant and church of God" means that those who are in the visible church are part of God's covenant community. There is a distinction made between the visible covenant community which has the wheat and the tares growing side by side, and those who have the true circumcision of the heart, who have genuine saving faith and are justified before God. There is a certain kind of setting aside, or a type of sanctification, of children of believing parents. You can see Paul speaking of this in 1 Corinthians, a being made holy, but not in the sense of necessarily being justified or saved.

To be sure, there are Reformed people who do take that Heidelberg Catechism question differently. I strongly disagree with them.

With respect to the WCF, if you read the WCF, along with the Larger and Shorter Catechism, on what is the basis of salvation, it clearly teaches faith and repentence. It can therefore be inferred those documents that a baptized child of a covenant family that walks away from the faith, that child never was a believer in the first place.

With respect to that "humble CT/RT brother" in his MetaTheology blog entry, what can I say? He's right. :o)

By Earl Flask, at 11/10/06 1:46 PM
John Nelson Darby of Brethren Dispensationalism advocated supported baptism.

He distinguished between the body of Christ, the church and the House (2 Tim 2:20-21), the sphere of professing Christianity.

Baptism brought a child into the house, conferring both some privileges, but also responsbility.

Darby argued that passages like the parable of the talents and Hebrews 6:4-8 proved that there was a class of Christian professors who were responsible to behave as Christians and who would be judged on the basis of their profession. He believed that this position was seriously weakened by the Baptist view.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at 11/10/06 5:23 PM
I wish I could toss Infant Baptism out entirely from everything. It is an unhealthy umbilical cord that ties so many back to Rome. Dear brother Earl...I respect you, but it is hard to make Roman origins work for the cause of Christ. They are alien elements and spots in our love feasts.

I risk offending you but I am convicted and like minded with John on this.

By Bhedr, at 11/10/06 9:20 PM
Brian, no offense taken. I thought much the same thing, before I saw the light and became a paedobaptist. :o)

But, I do understand. I don't ask people to go where their reading of scripture and their conscience will not allow them to go.

By Earl Flask, at 12/10/06 12:01 AM
Earl,
Thanks for clarifying that distinction between Mainliners and Orthodox Presbyterians.

Still if Scripture is "silent", and infant baptism is "inferred" not explicit, why not go with what is the plain and normal sense of Scriptures on this?

Did God forget that the Greek word rhantizo could have been employed?

Could not our Lord have given more specific instructions (and I believe He has) given the etymology of the word baptizo as against the Greek word for sprinkling which is rhantizo?

If I wanted to make infant baptism a hill to die on, I could site a mountain of CT and RT, including Louis Berkhof, Charles Hodge, Loraine Boettner, John Calvin, John Knox (another of my favorites), Peter Martyr Vermigli, Alasco, Ursinus, Datheen, Alting, Voetius, Witsius, Mastricht, J.M. Boice (another favorite), R.C. Sproul, many of whom I respect... but none of them, however, teach the plain meaning within the context of any given Bible passage on this issue. Even though there are many fine men of God in this stack up, would I not then be guilty of negating the Word of God on the basis of the words of men?

I will leave this issue now, and commit it to your conscience brother Earl and give you the last word if you wish.

With your love of our God,
Brother John

By J. Wendell, at 12/10/06 7:34 AM
Matthew~
That is interesting.

May I ask you another question? When you say, "John Nelson Darby of Brethren Dispensationalism advocated supported baptism." was that of infants?

BTW are you familiar with Hiscox?

By J. Wendell, at 12/10/06 7:37 AM
Hi Brian,
Thanks for reading and commenting here. I am glad we are eye to eye on this.

Brother John

By J. Wendell, at 12/10/06 7:39 AM
John, thanks for being a gentleman in the discussion. Thanks for understanding that many of us don't stand with others that hold some bizarre and unorthodox accretions to Covenant and Reformed Theology. With respect to baptizo, I make a comment on it in the comments section in this entry. This is not a hill I wish to die for, there are more important issues. I’m not out to make elder candidates for PCA/OPC churches. :o)

By Earl Flask, at 12/10/06 1:45 PM
No Earl...
You Are The Ggentleman!

We agree then, there are more important issues.

That was a very well written post, thanks for linking that.

In His hands,
brother John

By J. Wendell, at 12/10/06 2:59 PM
Yes, that was a type error. I meant to say 'baptism of infants'.

Darby was very unhappy with the Baptist position. However, he also believed very strongly in liberty of conscience on the issue. It would have destroyed his principle of unity if he had insisted on one mandatory position on the age and mode of baptism.

His only insistence was that persons who had never been baptized as infants or as believers must get baptized or else he could have no fellowship with them.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at 12/10/06 4:17 PM
Thanks Matthew~
That clears it up a bit.

May I ask one further question? What is your view? Not that it will hinder fellowship compared to, say... the ocean! :~)

Then of course there is that pesky "Hiscox" question.

Every blessing in Christ to you to,
brother John

By J. Wendell, at 12/10/06 4:28 PM
I think the Baptism of believers has far more support, but I think the case for Believers Baptism is not as overwhelming as Baptists often assume.

I think Darby's argument for infant baptism on the basis of the existence of the House as a sphere of Christian profession is quite wrong.

I do believe it should be an area of Christian liberty, which is where I have a big problem with Baptist denominations.

To forbid a man from being a minister or a preacher, and even worse to exclude somebody from fellowship because they believe that their baptism as a child is valid, is sectarian and a denial of the unity of the body of Christ.

God Bless

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at 12/10/06 6:02 PM
Who is Hiscox? Should I have heard of this person?

By Matthew Celestine, at 12/10/06 6:05 PM
If a person believes that his Baptism as an Infant was valid then I must seperate. Baptism cannot be valid as an infant.

If the person believes his salvation is valid as he came to understand the sacrifice of Christ and confesses trust alone in Christ then I will consider him to be my brother...but if he is trusting in some form of infant baptism or some other external ritual then he is lost and needs to get saved.

By Bhedr, at 12/10/06 7:07 PM
Brian, if a person believes that she is saved because of her baptism, she is either lost or in apostasy.

But if a saved person believes that her baptism as a baby was a sign of her membership of the covenent community and that she does not need to be re-baptized, will you treat her as an heathen or a publican?

Will you deny one who belongs to Christ because they have a different opinion over a non-essential? Both of you maintain salvation by faith and the necessity of baptism, you simply disagree over the performance of it.

To separate from a paedobaptist Christian is to deny one who Christ has saved and to deny Christ Himself.

God Bless

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at 13/10/06 4:37 AM
Brian, please forgive me for not understanding your concern. You said,

"if he is trusting in some form of infant baptism or some other external ritual then he is lost and needs to get saved."

That is very true. But we don't trust in baptism to save anyone, infants, adults, anyone. Matthew frames the issue much better than me.

By Earl Flask, at 13/10/06 9:16 AM
Will you deny one who belongs to Christ because they have a different opinion over a non-essential?

I might see it a bit differently than some baptists. I think that I would prefer for someone to desire to be baptized by immersion as an adult because I do think that is what Scripture teaches. I don't ever read of people sprinkling water on the forehead of an infant in the NT. However, even in our church, we don't "not fellowship" with someone who is in this place. They don't join our church, but they fellowship plenty. There are several that I am thinking of right now.

Either way, it would have to be a conclusion that the person would come to in his own conscience (baptism is an answer of a good conscience toward God) and not something that he would be peer-pressured into.

I do think it is somewhat non-essential. I agree with Brian, if someone were trusting in it, that would, of course, be deadly. I don't think that was what Earl was setting up for.

Can I still be a Baptist? ;~)

FYI - John wanted to comment this morning before work, but I wasn't up yet and our internet filter (which I have the password for) was blocking access to Blogger. Just so ya know.

By Rose~, at 13/10/06 9:28 AM
"But if a saved person believes that her baptism as a baby was a sign of her membership of the covenent community and that she does not need to be re-baptized."

Baptism is a sign of our consciences answer to the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus was baptised as an adult himself in the river Jordan. We identify with the gift of his salvation to us...not by some right of covanental community. That is blatant Romanism and is a germ of idolatry in the Church today. I want no part of this neither to I wish to mislead others by accepting any form of it.

"will you treat her as an heathen or a publican"

No, I will treat her as a sister and as I treat my brother Earl...but I will strongly admonish her to come out of this false thinking and encourage her to outwardly identify herself with what she has inwardly accepting in her new life in Christ...not some covanental presumptous imagination from Rome that has tempted so many in false anxieties to add to the finished work of Christ.

However I will not force her to be re-baptised. I have other brethren and sisters that I do not force to think like I do...but when asked I will give them my counsel.

This is what Dr AT Peirson did after being counseled by the Spurgeon brethren.

By Bhedr, at 13/10/06 12:49 PM
Spurgeon did not expect Peirson to take his place after his death as he was strongly Baptist and rightly adamantly opposed to Infant Baptism...I will post a quote of his soon.

Peirson was afraid to get re-baptised for all the talk that would occur...but he took courage and did what was right desiring to be obedient and identify in Christs fulfillment of all righteousness as a servant is not greater than his master.

The Spurgeon brethren accepted Peirson as a brother and encouraged him in this obedience. Peirson would soon learn to yeild to Christs Lordship in this area and obey.

Salvation is a gift of grace...but we must choose to be obedient to Christs Lordship and this is one of the first most basic areas that Christ wishes for us to submit to his Lordship. A very simple command. It is not legalistic to expect us to fulfill and obey Christs command here.

By Bhedr, at 13/10/06 1:02 PM
Rose~, the problem is that yout concept of fellowship is limited by your principle of church membership; somebody can come and attend your services, but they cannot be part of your church because they differ on baptism or some other doctrinal difference. You have a two-tier concept of fellowship.

And you would also forbid such a person to minister in your congregation, even if they had the gift of a pastor, thus denying the authority of the Holy Spirit over the life of the church.

But then my congregation would probably do the same.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at 13/10/06 2:33 PM
"In 1961 {Billy}Graham offered his opinion on the subject of infant baptism. In a Lutheran publication the following comments from Graham appeared: "I still have some personal problems in this matter of infant baptism, but, all of my children, with the exception of the youngest, were baptized as infants . . . I do believe that something happens at the baptism of an infant. We cannot fully understand the mysteries of God, but I believe a miracle can happen in these children so that they are regenerated, that is, made Christian, through infant baptism."
-The Tragedy Of Compromise, Dr Earnest Pickering

Pickering is a champion of the faith and was a blow torch for God. A blow torch with refining heat.

By Bhedr, at 13/10/06 10:22 PM
Hi Rose~
You said, “However, even in our church, we don't "not fellowship" with someone who is in this place. They don't join our church, but they fellowship plenty.” You are right. In fact at one time we had a row or two full of Bible believing Presbyterians, because at that time, there was not a Presbyterian church that held to the fundamentals. They have since begun a Bible based Presbyterian Church. No one infringed there liberty not to be immersed, and no one prevented them from fellowship including speaking in our open meetings.

Hi Matthew~

Who is Hiscox? I’m glad you asked. He wrote a book, Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches, which has apparently been edited and republished as The New Directory for Baptist Churches. This book is quoted from often, you may wish to read it and ponder the Baptist view from a Baptist perspective.

The real problem is the imposition of the perceived concept of fellowship that that is presumed to be held by Baptists. True, there are Landmark Baptists and Baptist Bride which seem to be rather restrictive. Yet, the general attitude of most Baptists, over all, is that the ecclesia of God is NOT limited to only the visible church as some suppose, this perceived paradigm is in ones own imagination. Baptists have a broader view of fellowship that includes the universal (invisible) church. IOW all those who are in Christ are united in His family by the Holy Spirit who indwells each believer. This is fellowship; it is not and cannot be broken. Then, yes, each independent and local church may have their “requirements” for membership into that local body for the sake and maintenance of unity within that body. This is NOT a Baptist position exclusively, many churches require, a profession of faith, a covenant agreement, an initiation rite, “laying on of hands”, or some such “test of fellowship”. This is within the biblical teaching of autonomy of the local church and individual soul liberty. That’s why we could have a brother like Earl, come and preach from our pulpit if we so chose and if he so consented. We would expect an appropriate polemic decorum.

BTW here is a great article I wish every believer would read on this matter A Fundamentalism Worth Saving.

Hi Brian~
I agree with you that if one has trusted in their infant “baptism” as the bestowment of or conferring of saving grace apart from Sola Christos they are not saved. One is saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, apart from works. I dare say those trusting in any work they do to merit, gain, or maintain salvation are in serious trouble. BTW I don’t view faith as a work.

Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, and The Tragedy of Compromise, by Dr Earnest Pickering are well worn books in our house. I agree with your assessment that… “Pickering is a champion of the faith and was a blow torch for God. A blow torch with refining heat.” Well put, amen.

By J. Wendell, at 14/10/06 7:19 AM
Baptism is not a "Baptist" distinctive, but a NT imperative!

The chronology of Mark 16:16 is first, believe, and secondly, baptize.

Baptism represents death and that voluntary. What infant can voluntarily offer their life to Christ or even have the faintest notion of dying?

Rom. 6 tells us that we are buried with Christ through baptism into His death. This can only mean one thing, that of being completely immersed in the death waters.

To allow the compromise of infant baptism is to let the seed of romish apostasy infiltrate the precious meaning and symbolism of this step of obedience to Christ and His commands.

It is truly sad when godly men allow their convictions to be swayed by either fear of man, or eucumenical pressures to conform and "tolerate" different view points.

Saying all that, baptism should not be a point of contention for fellowship, as it is a personal step of obedience to Christ's commands. However, when one is given light to this matter, any refusal to obey and surrender will restrict their spiritual growth and cause severe frustrations such as intellectual confusion.

By Jim, at 16/10/06 11:53 PM
Hi Jim,
Thanks for visiting this blog.

I appreciate your strong convictions and agree with them fully. That is why I am a Baptist.

I do not view recognizing others as brothers in Christ who may not have the same convictions as I do as a compromise. However, you make a good case and a good point about ecclesiastical confusion. I may enjoy the fellowship with other believers, but to have a pedobaptists preach to a Baptist congregation could stir up unnecessary confusion. It would not be wise, even if there were a proper polemic decorum.

May God bless you,
brother John

By J. Wendell, at 17/10/06 7:19 AM
John, I guess this comes down to the fact that I do not believe in the autonomy of the local church.

The Church is Christ's body, no part of it can be autonomous.

We have no power or right to make up regulations or policies about what the church can and cannot allow.

No congregation has the right to forbid a person who is gifted with the Holy Spirit from preaching the Word of God if He is walking in holiness. And having a different opinion is not a lack of holiness.

If a man preaches heresy or a false gospel, he must be put away, but a different opinion on a non-essential is another matter.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at 17/10/06 11:31 AM
Hi Matthew,
You and I differ on ecclesiology, for the most part, that’s OK.
We are still brothers in Christ, I may have offended you, but my conscious is clear before God.

I have posted on The Autonomy of the Local Church.

The church has absolute authority to decide the direction God leads.

Any congregation has the right to forbid a person even those gifted with the Holy Spirit from preaching the Word of God in the assembly even if she is walking in holiness.

That does not prevent them from preaching the Word of God else where.

If a man preaches heresy or a false gospel, he must be put away from what?

His blessings also to you,
brother John

By J. Wendell, at 18/10/06 6:53 AM
He must be put away from those meeting in the unity of the Holy Spirit, that is those who are acting in God's provisions for the assembly of God on earth.

By Matthew Celestine, at 18/10/06 10:26 AM
If it is a 'she' they certainly have a right to forbid her from preaching!

Are you being ironic, or am I making to many comments on your blog?

By Matthew Celestine, at 18/10/06 10:29 AM
LOL, Matthew of all the cheek! NO!!! I am not that clever. I am only trying to reason with you to persuade you to become a Baptist. :~)

You said,
"He must be put away from those meeting in the unity of the Holy Spirit that is those who are acting in God's provisions for the Assembly of God on earth." I assume that those meeting are gathered together in a location and that one can see and identify individuals. Is this not an autonomous local church since they are exercising the right to put the erring brother or sister away?

Thanks for your comments Matthew. I appreciate the level of honesty, and courtesy you display here. I do respect your well thought out opinions and your personal convictions.

By J. Wendell, at 18/10/06 5:45 PM
Thanks, John.

"He must be put away from those meeting in the unity of the Holy Spirit that is those who are acting in God's provisions for the Assembly of God on earth." I assume that those meeting are gathered together in a location and that one can see and identify individuals. Is this not an autonomous local church since they are exercising the right to put the erring brother or sister away?"

No, they are not auntonomous. They would be in any given location, but a person from any other location would have the right to input into the decision. After, all they are all part of the one Church. Locality does not entail independence.

And if they are known to be a true assembly of Christians, meeting on correct principles, their decision cannot be ignored by other assemblies. To receive a person who had been put out by a true assembly would be to deny the presence and power of the Holy Ghost in the Church.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at 19/10/06 3:58 AM
Then what is your interpretation of coming out of her? Do you think that there is a false church that will always jockey to maintain control and authority over Gods people via the state or convetions? Those aren't churches...those are institutions.

Ekklesia means the called out ones. Come out of her my People! says the living Lord Jesus Christ. He says follow me...yet our institutions say...get in my boat God and reform me. Away with it. It is partial disobedience and partial disobedience is the brother to disobedience. But the money and retirement share with liberals is good...so we stay and rationalize that this is the church.

By Bhedr, at 19/10/06 5:44 PM
Brian, I totally agree with that.

By Matthew Celestine, at 20/10/06 8:45 AM
I see where your going Matthew and agree that Christs true church is universal but I also see that there were seven spirits for seven local churches.

By Bhedr, at 20/10/06 10:29 PM
The seven candlesticks were part of one lampstand.

Local churches (and there are no longer any true local churches today- only various contending parties of Christians) were only manifestations of the one body of Christ in a locality.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at 21/10/06 10:51 AM
Good observation,

"The seven candlesticks were part of one [lamp stand]."

This points up that local churches (and there still are true local churches today- not just various contending schools of thought of varying Christian ideas)were then and are today manifestations of the one body of Christ in a locality.

:~)

By J. Wendell, at 21/10/06 11:24 AM
Amen John.

Matthew. It also says seven Spirits brother. Be careful there. God is omniscient. Remember the Lamb at the throne had eyes around His head. Yes the lampstands represent the seven churches as one, but the seven spirits also represent that God's Holy Spirit divides up into this locality and represents individualy each church.

By Bhedr, at 21/10/06 11:41 AM
"And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a LAMB(not a lampstand) as though it had been slain, having seven horns, seven EYES, which are the seven SPIRITS of GOD sent out into all the earth." Revelation 5:6

By Bhedr, at 21/10/06 11:50 AM
And before you say the church has been raptured or something in the previous chapters then I have this verse. Yes those lampstands represend the churchs but what I am trying to get across is that they are both seperate and yet intertwined with Gods interaction as seperate but one. Look here as well:

"Seven lamps of fire were burning before the throne, which are the Seven Spirits of God" Revelation 4:5a

and this is after John is called up and the church is no longer mentioned.

By Bhedr, at 21/10/06 11:57 AM
John, are you going to the true church in Sylvania, Ohio?

Just as Christ has only one body, there can only be one true church in a locality. Christ is not divided.

You are forgetting that the message of the Seven Churches is for the most part a warning. In the case of Laodicea, the judgment was inevitable.

We have no indication that any of the churches repented of their faults, and the state of the church after the deaths of the apostles surely shows us the failure of the church on earth.

The warning to Ephesus:

5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

The possiblity of the disappearance of this church.

The warning to Pegamos:

16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Divine opposition.

Thyatira:

22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: · and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

If they did not repent they would be identified with the enemies of God.

Laodicea:

16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.

They were to be completely rejected.

We thus see the warning of judgment on the churches of God.

The church on earth has fallen into utter ruin. None of the denominations can claim to be acting or meeting in the light of God's purposes for the church.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at 21/10/06 12:12 PM
>None of the denominations can claim to be acting or meeting in the light of God's purposes for the church.<

Amen I wholeheartedly agree that non of these mainline denominations including the SBC can make this claim...but some local churches can:-)

By Bhedr, at 21/10/06 1:25 PM
Independent Bible believing local churches anyway.

To many are using this to rationalize their own compromise in these unfaithful denominations that belong to the Anti-Christ.

By Bhedr, at 21/10/06 1:27 PM
Matthew~
My brother, the one true church is alive and active on planet earth to day. Its beginning in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost is recorded in the book of Acts. Her culmination at the rapture is recorded in the epistles and chronologically followed up in the Revelation. The true church is made up of all who are born again by simple faith in the Lord Jesus Christ the Theanthropos, the One who shed His blood for our sins, died on the cross and rose again; it is this same Jesus who offers eternal life to all who believe in Him alone for forgiveness of sins and a right relationship with God. It is this same Jesus who will come in glory and receive all the church in the air, those living and those who sleep. He is not just an obscure Jesus who offers some sort of eternal life He offers eternal life at the moment of regeneration and a final abode with Him in the heavenly realms.

The local churches are all part of the one true church. When one reads the Bible (as I know you do) one will see that there are a plurality of churches even in one location, “…the churches of Galatia…” for example. here are a few other times (36) it is used in the plural. It has not ended. We are still the church and EBC with her many flaws is a true biblical and Baptist church.

Brother John

Brian, God bless you and your zeal brother. As much as I disagree with the support of liberals and the impact of the new evangelical infiltrators and the lack of knowledge or the abundance of apathy in the SBC I want to believe that there are still some local churches in the SBC that are faithful to the Word. Am I wrong?

In His fellowship with you,
brother John

By J. Wendell, at 21/10/06 2:40 PM
John
"My brother, the one true church is alive and active on planet earth to day. Its beginning in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost is recorded in the book of Acts. Her culmination at the rapture is recorded in the epistles and chronologically followed up in the Revelation. The true church is made up of all who are born again by simple faith in the Lord Jesus Christ the Theanthropos, the One who shed His blood for our sins, died on the cross and rose again; it is this same Jesus who offers eternal life to all who believe in Him alone for forgiveness of sins and a right relationship with God. It is this same Jesus who will come in glory and receive all the church in the air, those living and those who sleep. He is not just an obscure Jesus who offers some sort of eternal life He offers eternal life at the moment of regeneration and a final abode with Him in the heavenly realms."

I agree with this entire paragraph.

The Church is alive and active on earth. But it is not in the state it was meant to be in.

"The local churches are all part of the one true church. When one reads the Bible (as I know you do) one will see that there are a plurality of churches even in one location, “…the churches of Galatia…” for example. here are a few other times (36) it is used in the plural."

This is absolutely true. However, the fact that they were in separate meetings does not mean thet were not meeting in unity, recognising each other as part of one body of Christ.

The various 'churches' in Worcester are disqualified from being in such a state because:

1. Those who attend the majority of them are classed as members of their particular denomination. They are not therefore members of any 'Church in Worcester' but are members of some particular congregation or denomination.

2. Each of these congregations has its own elders or leaders who have no responsiblity outside their congregation. If the churches were meeting in unity, these elders (supposing they really were elders) would have responsibility for any Christians in Worcester.

3. None of these congregations consult each other at all over decisions they make. If the churches in Wocester were in unity, any known Christian would be able to have a say in decisions made. Instead all decision making is carried out by either the leaders or members of these congregations.

4. The character of these congregations is essentially sectarian; they define their identity according to demoniational traditions, such as Methodist, Baptist or Pentecostal. They do not meet simply as Christians.

5. Some of them would restrict membership of their congregations to those who sign up to a man-made creed or statement of belief. If they were tru churches, they would embrace all who are part of the body of Christ.

So essentially, there are no true churches in Worcester, just various meetings of Christians who meet according to their own principles, not according to the unity that is found in Christ. I am pretty sure that the situation is the same in Sylvania, Ohio.

God Bless

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at 21/10/06 3:48 PM
You are right John, but they like to call themselves independent and that is not true. Some of them are faithful yes, but I think a more close description is the church of Thyatira where they tolerate that woman Jezebeel. I encourage them to at least hold fast to what they have as Jesus commanded Thyatira. Nevertheless we do a diservice to exhonerate the home where Billy Graham sowed his political tactics and where Paige Patterson implimented them. God only honors his word and obedience to it. I cannot speak for God, but a Philedelphia they are not and they need to stop patting themselves on the back as though they are being obedient. What I grew tired of is their insulting the faithful Independent Bible Believing church and always calling them mavericks out there doing their own thing. This is simply not the case. They are trying to be obedient to the command on seperation. If they have bought into the reformation ideas of mans wisdom that does not make Christs command on seperation null and void. It only means they wish to ignore that command.

Matthew...(tap tap) there will be faithful churches brother. You will see one day as will all and many will be ashamed that they refused to listen:

""Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not but lie- indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and will know that I have loved you" Revelation 3:9

Let us all endeavor to come out that we receive not of the plagues of the lost. Yes we will be saved but the plagues could find their way into our children in whom we are teaching that the command on seperation should be ignored in light of the human rationale of reformation. Reform always leaves the house cleaned and swept, but its source of the strong man is not from God and if the true strong man is not their in these mainline denomintions then the last state will again ultimately be worse than the first.

In the SBC we now have a watered down conservatism based on Billy Grahams and Paige Pattersons politics. It is rampant with the Willow Creek mentality.

I tried to talk with my former pastor with the importance of the clarion call of seperation and in part he listened, but then one day a major Independent Baptist joined the SBC. His name was Dr David Jeremiah. He then felt exhonerated that I was wrong and all the other independents and that the SBC was right.

Right now the SBC may think they have obtained fair winds...but God will not be proved wrong in this. His call is always come out!!! Does he bless his word and save in spite of mans disobedience? Of course as Moses struck the rock, disobeyed God, yet folks still received water for their thirst.
God is not the tyrant here. We are the ones that always ignore, but we will one day see that God was true and man was a lie, always wishing to believe that what seems is expedient is not what God says.

You can't get good fruit out of a bad tree. This is a biblical principle and it will stand one day and everyone will weep that they ignored it as we may one day see our future generations led astray and cast into hell because of it. How dreadful the day must have been for Abraham to see Ishmael leave. That is a horrible thing to be plagued with. Now look at the weeds that he sowed when he listened to his wife and ignored Gods way.

There is a price beloved for disobedience. It may not be our eternal souls....it may be someone elses.

By Bhedr, at 21/10/06 3:59 PM
For so long my conscience has tried to rationalize around the truth of this book>S.B.C House On Sand But I cannot anymore. So many SBCrs will tell you that the book is outdated. While it is true some of it is...The Foundational truth is not. And in fact the book is more relevant today then it ever was. I wish the author who is a former SBCr would do a follow up. The trouble is we have men like Piper and MacArthur telling these men what they want to hear. Were Spurgeon alive today he would leave the SBC in the dust. Rather he would never have compromised like I did and even entertained joining it for one minute. He left his Baptist Union and seperated over seemingly smaller issues. This is what puzzles me. These men may make their boast in Spurgeon and like what Spurgeon did...but in truth they would not like what he did and they would be offended by him were he around today by what he did. God pays attention to what we do, not what we say we believe. That is where will bring everything into judgment at the Judgment seat of Christ...but the wonderful news is that in spite of all of this...we are saved by grace. Phew, but there is coming a day of reckoning.

By Bhedr, at 21/10/06 4:19 PM
Hi Matthew~
I guess we differ when it come to the ecclesia.

Brian~
I agree and am in support of your decision. BTW I hope you don’t mind, I shared your situation with a mutual friend I bumped into yesterday, Charlie Moon. He is also in complete agreement with your move and indicated that he too will be praying for all the adjustments to go smoother, we know separation is not an easy road.

By J. Wendell, at 23/10/06 6:19 AM
Thank you brother. Tell good ol Charlie that Dad and I are waving a hand at him.

Thanks brother you have lifted my spirits. My oldest Son is the one taking it the hardest and my wife also misses the activity. My younger two? The middle son was happy actually and the youngest cried one night but he is now trusting Dads descision.

The good thing is my new Pastor is really directing this Church in the Antioch tradition. They really seem to enjoy sharing. Pastor Baptized a fella yesterday as well.It was a blessing.

He also wieghs in towards the Majority Text. He reads from the KJV but is not KJV only just prefers it along with the greek text and he shares some of my same views in other areas...but he told me he has yet to harp on translation issues and other things and he really seems to be sticking to the word in a great way. He is also a people person and full of charisma. I'm sure he has his foibles as we all do, but I was glad to find a place where there wasn't a brough beater on all those non essentials and instead sticking to the text.

I shoke his hand the other night and told him that I don't have to spend my nights wondering where you stand and that is about the biggest relief of all. I meant that concerning issues like the virgin birth, liberal church members who may be wishy washy on it but tolerate a conservative environment. Phew...truly a little leaven leavens the whole lump. You don't have to convince me of that truth anymore. I had to learn it the hard way.

By Bhedr, at 23/10/06 9:14 PM
What I mean't by liberals tolerating a conservative environment is that my former leadership holds the view that you allow them into the church and encourage them to get involved in things like AWANAs or Worldchangers and then maybe they will come around.

By Bhedr, at 23/10/06 9:18 PM
The Church has also turned into a crossroads. We have Catholics and other faiths coaching in the Basketball and soccer program and teaching the Bible to kids. I could go on, but I won't. I had so many missgivings and no one was really concerned with the exeption of a couple friends and they asked me to stay, but the bottom line is the call to seperation is true and I had to learn it the hard way.

By Bhedr, at 23/10/06 9:27 PM
Brother Brian,

It is I who am encouraged and strengthened by both your conviction and resolve.

I would welcome visitors to AWANA, our men’s basketball, MOPS, and other outreach programs of our church, but not to leadership positions! NOT teaching the Bible (unless of course they were saved Bible teachers who hold fast to solid doctrine).

Yet, when I think of evangelism... I wonder if many churches have bought into the Bill Hybels model of a seeker friendly environment and have forgotten that out reach means we (the redeemed) are to reach OUT---> to those who are lost. Our commission is that as we are going we are to teach… (etc.)

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations…. (Matthew 28:19)

Be encouraged brother this world is not our friend, but Jesus is a friend that sticks closer than a brother.

In His fellowship,
Brother John

By J. Wendell, at 24/10/06 6:53 AM
John, great point.

So many churches expect the lost to come to church.

Where does the Bible encourage us to get unbelievers into the assembly? Surely we are an assembly of the redeemed.

I think the fact that most churches have big expensive buildings creates a mentality that the church building should be the centre of all activity.

I wish you could come street preaching with me.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at 24/10/06 11:37 AM
>Be encouraged brother this world is not our friend, but Jesus is a friend that sticks closer than a brother.<

That is a tremendous encouragement. Thanks brother.

Yes the Bill Hybels Church that many are supporting including some of these Calvinists out here is what our former church basically is now and has a goal to be like. Get the fish to jump in the boat by tempting them with their lusts instead of going out and fishing.

The Willow Creek model is the standard for the SBC and is actually just an outgrowth of Paige Pattersons philosophies and Billy Graham's. I would say that the SBC is in reality the emergent churches dragons lair. It was hard to admit.

"Come out of her my people!"

By Bhedr, at 24/10/06 10:32 PM
BTW, Over the past ten years or so since AWANA opened its doors to the SBC it has brought in some of this leaven and is slowly becoming the Bill Hybels type itself. Not sure what direction they will end up but the founder was sound and solid and I don't think would be pleased with what is happening. These ecumenical denominations...once you let them in and give them an inch...they take mile.

By Bhedr, at 24/10/06 10:35 PM
I suppose I'm more ecumenical than I should be at times. I'm not at all familiar with the fundamentalist tradition and came to be saved through the preaching of the gospel hearing it in my room when I was 15 from a pentacostal preacher. I then was involved in the Hybels stuff, and then became baptist.

I personally don't believe in denying membership from a paedobaptist in my church. At my church, we aree evangelical free and we only practice believer's baptism, but we have some paedobaptist friends. I personally wouldn't believe how much learning conversations and fellowship I have with paedobaptist friends and people like Michael Horton are really good people at explaining CT and especially well grounded in sola fide.

My real question here is something I've been noticing alot of thought on. What biblical warrant do we have with not allowing membership based on paedo baptist or believers baptism. How exactly is membership to be understood except based on conversion and central tenants of the faith? Shall we truly turn out of the local body someone who is part of the body of Christ and how do we determine what are central tenants. It seems most evangelicals agree that disagreement about baptism is clearly a big issue, but people never quable over fellowship in the Lord, but membership sometimes in churches to me tend to not be based on biblical principles. Some memberships require being calvinistic and some others. I just don't see this in the new testament church requirements for membership

By Shawn, at 26/10/06 1:34 AM
Currently my church has members who are both believers baptism and paedobaptism.

By Shawn, at 26/10/06 1:36 AM
Brian,

I do believe in biblical seperation from the "seeker-driven" model of church as well and there are some believers in that denom. Good point about faithfulness. Still trying to understand biblical membership and being consistant with biblical commands for membership. An obedient paedobaptist in my church is a great brother to grow in christ with and he is part of the body fo Christ. I'm just realizing I'm not consistant in this matter and will need to pray and consider.

By Shawn, at 26/10/06 1:43 AM
Shawn, I totally agree with you about baptism, though I do not accept the idea of formal church membership.

God Bless

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at 26/10/06 7:51 AM
Hey Shawn. I will fellowship with him but not commune with him as a member as this is a crucial tie of concern for me that must be distinguished. Remember believers baptismr's :-) don't make a tie to circumscision or covanental rites. That is my area of great concern that most people say, "Oh whatever" about.

Some of them are my brothers but I must contend Earnestly:-) for the faith. Although at times I do need a little water to cool myself down in this area from time to time.

By Bhedr, at 26/10/06 11:02 PM
Matthew,
I would truly enjoy that! I think I will be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving I will let my request be made known unto God.

Brian,
I am not familiar with Paige Patterson; I will have to do a Google search unless you know someone who may post on him ;~).

Hi Shawn,
You have asked some very good questions; and Brian has made a good point in distinguishing fellowship and communion. I will also offer you an answer.

You asked, “What biblical warrant do we have with not allowing membership based on pedobaptists or believers baptism?”

"How exactly is membership to be understood except based on conversion and central tenants of the faith?"

"Shall we truly turn out of the local body someone who is part of the body of Christ and how do we determine what are central tenants."

That depends, Shawn, we both have and do not have any biblical warrant.

Some theologians distinguish between a visible (local body) and an invisible (universal body) church. When someone trusts Christ alone for eternal life that person becomes a member of His body, the church (the invisible, universal church). We are all members of one another, no matter how much we agree and/or disagree. We are united by the Holy Spirit, which is one reason I flat out reject man made, man centered ecumenism (esp. the WCCC and NCCC).

However continued fellowship (communion) depends on the new converts’ obedience to Christ in believers’ baptism and being added to a local, visible body of believers. As it has been pointed out in this thread, this is a New Testament imperative, not a suggestion (cf. Acts 2:41-42).

Sinners were saved, becoming members of the universal church, then baptized and added to local church, then continued in the Apostles doctrine, communion, etc.

The Apostles doctrine has been inscribed and laid down for us, the Word of God. This gives us the central tenants and is the Book by which all matters must be tested. In 1 Cor. 5 and 6 Paul explains some basic principles to follow in putting believers out of the assembly.

I hope this has been helpful,
Brother John

By J. Wendell, at 27/10/06 7:44 AM
Brian/John,

I still don't understand the idea biblically of membership that actually keeps believers who are obedient to the Lord from membership in a church who hold to and keep key and central truths about Christ. For example the question also comes up for those who require pre-mil belief for membership.

I mean our gut might tell us this is true in our membership, but what true biblical warrant do we have in this.

I suppose you both believe that someone is in disobedience to the Word who denies believers baptism otherwise how else could we deny membership to a church biblically.

I guess that is what I mean. I think biblical membership must be thought through alot more in our churches

By Shawn, at 28/10/06 1:03 PM
Hey Shawn. This truth is so important that it is part of the great commision. Believe and be baptized. That Baptism is reckoning with a new life in the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord.

Be baptised and then believe is legal and reckons with a circumcisional teaching that is condemned by the Apostle Paul. It is most unfortunate that those of us that hold to believers baptism are now accused of being legal by others. I know you are thinking this through. I am just giving you another reason why this is of great importance to me. This is the first command of obediance and the ecumenical church will not obey or casts it to the side as no consequence. The commands of our Lord are to be obeyed as it is a symbol of new life and not a symbol of the old death that comes from the Law. the distinction must be made if our Lord is not to be insulted by the beggarly elements.

May the Lord go with you this day brother.

By Bhedr, at 28/10/06 4:20 PM
I am so awesomely with Shawn on this.

What is so bad abaout permitting each other to have different opinions on this?

We all agree that everyone needs to be baptised. We would all require the heathen to be baptized.

But why should we separate from our brothers and sisters in Christ because we disagree about those from Christian families?

It is just like drinking. The teetotalers can tell new convers that they should not drink and the non-teetotalers can tell them that they can drink, but should be careful about it.

Likewise, the Paedobaptists can tell parents they should baptize their children and Believer's Baptists can tell them they should not.

The parents can then listen to both sides of the argument and study what the Bible says.

There is no need to say "This is what the Bible says, do this or get out" on this one. The only problem would be with somebody who had never been baptized and did not think it was important.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at 28/10/06 5:12 PM
Matthew and Shawn,

>There is no need to say "This is what the Bible says, do this or get out" on this one. <

First of all this is not what John nor I am saying. We already said they are welcome to attend church and even give testimonies or a message, but they cannot be part of a BAPTIST church until they submit to the baptist doctrine that Christ Himself ordained in the great commission and be Baptized.

So many today mistake the Christ Church as being some kind of political entity and perhaps that stems from being in England and not being able to seperate the two and perhaps that has been engrafted into your mind, but that does not make it true. Likewise those in America have been involved in politics so long and voting for Democrats and Republicans that they view the Church the same way and that everybody should have a voice and lets work out compromises...but God's word does no such thing. In fact if you are not being governed by God's word than you can rest assure that the Holy Spirit has no involvement in it. The ecumenical institutional ideas that umbrella mainline denominations that accept your theory is not the church.

Christs church started with a small band of disciples that were in no part of any institutionalized organizations that were interested in letting people express themselves and their own opinions. In fact if we find that we cannot keep the first command after salvation in being Baptises and finding the simplicity there....then we are going to find that all manner of opinions about everything are going to enter into the fold. If we cannot answer the call to baptism here in what is little then how are we going to be found faithful in that which is much?

Remember Samuel told Saul that to obey is better than sacrifice and in order for the local church to maintain adherance to that truth we must enforce that truth and if there is no way of doing that and we are viewed as being legalistic and intolerant then how are we going to be faithful in anything else. And could it be that thinking like yours has lead a whole new understanding of Christianity of excusing disobedience in this ecumenical spirit and could it be that this is what actually lay at the heart of why many Christians do not take sin seriously...not the misunderstanding of the free gift of God...but the missunderstanding that Christ is not worthy to be obeyed after you receive this wonderful gift in Baptism that outwardly shows you reckon with his death, burial and resurrection.

It is like having a wife that sees no importance in wearing a wedding ring perhaps if I can draw an insufficient analogy. And if we can break that command and tell others that it is no big deal to God...then what other truths can be broken?

By Bhedr, at 29/10/06 8:54 AM
Brian, paedobaptists think that they are acting in obediance.

The Bible does not say clearly whether or not children shoyuld be baptized. It is a matter of inference.

And it does not affect any essential doctrines.

What is so bad about letting people read the Bible for themselves and deciding. There are plenty of other issues where I am sure you would let people follow their consciences, like hair length, women's headcovering, drinking, military service etc.

If we all agree that people should be baptized, why be dogmatic about the correct age?

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at 30/10/06 4:08 AM
Because the Bible clearly states Believe and be Baptised!

If a Baptist is to be a Baptist then he must be one in both truth and practice. You are the one calling us legal and demanding that we change our ways to fit yours.

By Bhedr, at 30/10/06 5:26 PM
1+1=2

If someone wants to have a littel meeting and decide that 1+1 now equals 0 then that is fine, but if one is resting on fact and believes Scripture literally then why are you trying to change his convictions and tell him to go ahead and be dishonest to your church memembers and tell them it is all right if you want to believe 1+1=0 you can join and we will be know for being tolerant.

Let a Baptist be a Baptist Matthew. If you wish to join a Paedo Church then fine, but don't force me to join one or force me to accept one for membership. I will love them as a brother but I must maintain the integrity of the Church by laws and constitutions as well as the Word Of God in my local assembly.

By Bhedr, at 30/10/06 5:30 PM
If your laws and consitutions are not from the Word of God, are they not he laws of men?

The Bible says 'believe and be baptized.'

It does not say whether or not children should be baptized, that is a complex matter of theological debate.

Which is more important, recognising that our Paedo brethren as part of the one body of Christ or making sure our interpretation of the Bible is domminant in the assembly?

By Matthew Celestine, at 31/10/06 3:47 AM
I think Shawn, Matthew, and Brian present compelling arguments. This paedobapist votes for all the approaches. I think we need to leave room for churches to act according to their conscience on their best read of Scripture. Shawn and Matthew take the view with those who have the "stonger conscience". Brian, John, and I take the view from the "weaker" conscience. We can't let our liberty cause the "weaker" brother to stumble, or the "weaker" church.

By Earl Flask, at 31/10/06 4:47 AM
Brian,

Good stuff you are getting me thinking well on this and I tend to think that way. In your opinion it is a key practice that would keep from membership. What other specific key doctrines do you believe to be seperation on as well. Personally I thinking key doctrines about the person of God, His Word and Salvation as being key membership purposes. I don't believe Believers Baptism and understanding of escatology as being a primary matter, but you make a very very good case that it is. I'll look at those verses on baptism to think about what you are saying.

I guess this is why I am now Evangelical Free. I was in a baptist church, but they were affected mostly by the latest seeker sensitive movement and didn't want my children to be raised in that, but wanted to be a church that put emphasis on family worship and verse by verse preaching and I am commited to believers baptism. Our church has only a few members who believe in paedo-baptism, but the assembly will only practice believers baptism in our church. I have attended Presbyterian churches, but decided not on attending. Matthew is right considering the verses on baptism and the household has many theological implications.

Shouldn't the assembly represent something of the fact that we all come from such diverse backgrounds and have been redeemed and snatched from this world! Now our doctrines shouldn't be diverse, but the our personal preferences should be considering that some want only to exercise everyday, but others don't exercise, they come together for one reason to glorify God and lift His name up. People of all different ages and ethnic origins, crying "Holy Holy Holy is the Lord God almighty" shows something greatness in the area of God's Glory and shows just a taste of the final day when we will all do this together without our sin.

Our love for one another in our difference, but our one affection for Christ and ability to grow and worship and love one another is representative of our need for each other as one body. In some ways I don't know what I would do without one of my paedobaptist members in my assembly as he truly is a part of the body and is very much what I would consider the thinking Christian that is very keen on doctrinal drifts in the assembly. He always brings us back to the bible on many different occasions and a stanch defender of justification by faith alone and other key doctrines in the church. He has assisted my pastor on many occasions and talked to him on many occasions about imputed righteousness and brought up some of the issues/probs with Piper and has told him things that have affected by pastor's sermons and there is a distinct focus on the fact that Christ is our righteousness when we see these verses and I think part of that is the assistance my friend has given my pastor.

By Shawn, at 31/10/06 8:40 AM
Earl,

How is your view the "weaker" conscience? Maybe mine is weaker as I might not have considered all of the scriptures.

By Shawn, at 31/10/06 8:42 AM
Shawn, you're right. I offered this as a provocative possibility. I hadn't thought of it this way before, and now the morning after, I don't know if I'd support it either. I essential give your argument in my blog with a slightly different twist -- instead of arguing that a particular church should support haveing members of both paedobaptists and non-paepdobaptists, have a diversity of churches where the whole body of Christ has those different views, some like the EFCA, others like the Baptists, others like the PCA, etc, each with their differing views on baptism, the exact nature of the Lord's Table, even eschatology, as their conscience with their read of Scripture dictates. This model would provide the best way for keeping the peace in the body of Christ and maintaining it's purity.

In this way, we can discuss our differences in place like this, earnestly, but also be able to worship in a congregation of kindred spirits, where we can go deeper in our walk with Christ as a body of Christ. That is because there is a agreement of the local body on these disputed matters and how to handle them. This frees the congregation to take those agreed upon issues of the table of debate, which would have taken time and resources to argue about, and concentrate on other things, including the clear proclaimation of the gospel.

I think God soveriegnly put together this diversity in his churches for those reasons. Thus I think of the larger church of God follows the EFCA model, made of denominations and individual churches that follow both inclusive and exclusive practices with respect to baptism and some other non-essential issues, and this is knitted together by God to accomodate our hardness of heart, but yet work together to extend God's kingdom.

But when we all meet in heaven, we'll all become paedobaptists and amillennialists. :o)

By Earl Flask, at 31/10/06 10:43 AM
Some questions for anyone:

1. What case has been made, in any of this discussion, that Baptism is not a covenantal sign (both articles will take some time to read but they are quite insightful)?

2. What does it mean to be "in the covenant" (Old and New)? In other words, who is to be labled a "member" or "participant" of/in the covenant (Old and New)?

3. Once you are in the covenant (Old and New), is it possible to "fall" out? In other words, once having obtained membership, is it possible to lose membership?

4. Is there any continuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant? If so, what?

Some questions for bhedr:

1. At what point (approximate century, perhaps) did the "Romish" church cease being the church?

2. What part of "household" excludes infants?

3. By "Baptist Church" do you refer to the body of Christ? If so, then how do you maintain a view that anyone outside of the Baptist Church can still be considered brother/sister?

4. If the call from Jesus is "believe and be baptized" and there is no continuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, then how were those before Christ able to obtain righteousness/salvation?

Earl,

I might add paedocommunionists to that last sentence.. ;-)

By jared, at 31/10/06 4:05 PM
Baptism is a sign and seal of all new covenant mwmbers.
The old cov was to be a physical member of the nation of Israel. A physical descendant of Abraham.
The New is to be a spiritual descendant of Christ.
Old yes and you were usu. executed.
New no.
There is some continuity.
But the New is not the old renewed.
I do not believe that the romish church was ever a true church.
What part of household excludes unbelieving adults?? The same part that excludes unbelieving infants.
All in the true church are saved, not all are Baptists.
People are saved the same way. Faith in Christ. I think that you know all of this Jared and are trying to make a point.

By DataLore, at 31/10/06 6:08 PM
There is strength in diversity and there is true union in Christ. All in Christ are members one of another. We love, respect, and sometimes disagree. Central to all of this discussion is the great commission. The great comision does not address cloathing or hair styles or other cultual conditioned aspects of moral living. The picture of water baptism (which is a transliterated word) is a picture of what actually happens after regeneration; we are dead to self, buried, and raised to new life in Christ.

What are the dangers of infant baptism? I list a few on my next post. What are the dangers of obeying the Bible on believers baptism?

I have thus far posted on this whole idea part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, and finally the last part.

Here I stand.

By J. Wendell, at 1/11/06 3:07 PM
BTW welcome to the "new guys" Jared and Data Lore.

Brother John

By J. Wendell, at 1/11/06 3:09 PM
John, the Great Commision does not address the question of whether children are to be baptized.

We all agree (I think) that a man who thinks that baptism is unnecessary must be rejected.

God Bless

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at 1/11/06 4:48 PM
For those who do not know I am one of those Reformed Baptists that seem so unpopular at times.I hold to so-called covenant theology and believer baptism among other things.please don't hate me.(j.k.)

By DataLore, at 1/11/06 5:01 PM
Hi Matthew~
You are right! The great commission does not mention children at all. That's why God has so graciously given us the whole Bible. Acts declares that those who received the Word with gladness were immersed. I fail to see how an infant can believe in Christ, but that opens up another can of "Worms".

Again welcome Data Lore,
I'm not sure who J.K. is but I happen to have a great love and appreciation for the Reformed Theologians, even those who practice believers baptism, yet in keeping with the Reformed tradition it does not seem consistent to me, but stick around, I am not the most consistent bloger, and I am not always going after my Covenant brethren.

In His fellowship,
Brother John

By J. Wendell, at 1/11/06 5:19 PM
I can think of nothing more beautiful than washing and immersing all that is condemned in the flood of Noah and righteousness rising amidst the flood. I can think of nothing more sweeter than the Baptismal services of watching others give testimony to faith in Christ and then watching them happily join in that picture of being Crucified and buried with Christ and rising again by the power of his resurrection. I can think of nothing more beautiful that the Lord could give us to understand and show the world what happens by a public declaration of what we believe inwardly.

I can think of nothing more tragic than to rob Children who were sprinkled by way of the OT with its blood of goats and bulls within the sphere of circumcision....to rob them of this beautiful opportunity of showing the world what they believe and experiencing the joy that comes from this fellowship and communion of saints.

How tragic to tell a Child that they were sprinkled into a covenental community and then to tell them that it is legal to get re-baptised the biblical way when they have come to faith receiving the free gift of God. Or perhaps to tell them that they must try to find out if God has regenerated them since that time.

Oh how that puts the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord on the backdoor and regeneration and Infant Baptism on the front door.

I have no doubt that some of these people are believers yet are indeed in the ecumenical church.

There are also indeed some that truly seperate the ritual from faith...I agree wholeheartedly...but....

There are Catholics who believe in Justification but still believe that Mary must be blessed yet they argue strongly that you are not to worship her and will challenge other Catholics that believe that. I have dialogued with them...they are going back into the Roman Church by the droves....the droves.How did we get to this skewed point?

There are other Catholics that do not believe in transubstantiation in the mass and will confess that they believe in Justification through faith alone...yet remain in the mother Church and argue that I must be more tolerate and submissive here as well as consider coming home to the Mother Church. This still does not make me desire to allow them to become members or to join there church of any biblical warrant. I must call them away from this form of thinking and set the gavel of biblical truth down seperating it from the lies.

My father teaches at the Nursing home. I have helped him a couple of times over where he lives. There is a sweet Catholic ladies that is one of the most attentive when he speaks and as her son sits there with his duay Bible.

Dad asked her once how she was going to heaven and she replied, "Oh No!" thinking that he was implying working to heaven and then saying, "We are saved by Grace alone through the blood of Christ alone!"

Amen! Billy Graham and the reformers have certainley reformed Rome and there has been some good done....but it is still not the biblical way of seperation. There has been some bad done as well and quite possibly millions...who knows?

I had a Catholic Chaplain argue with me in the military as to why I was not part of his group because he taught "Faith Alone!" and gave the gospel with clarity every night and the protestant Chaplain had no clue. He then argued with my asking why I couldn't accept the Appochrapha and then challenged me as to why I believed the Bible I was holding was the Word Of God.

This along with some of you fellas' statements only convinces me more that coming back home to the Independent Baptist Church was the only choice I could make and maintain my conscience before the Lord. Truly the reform has worked and now there is all manner of microorganisms out there everywhere and you can't pin down anything anymore. Only seperation will work. Yes Christs body is bigger than I can imagine but that does not mean that I am to imagine that I can do anything other than what his word commands on seperation.

You may find many good ecumenical churches that readily support Billy Graham ministries and ecumenical ministries that have quite a mingle and they are Willow Creek and others as well....but I must stand here. I must and if any of you turn over some of these rocks you will find some other worms as well. Worms of liberalism along with the Willow Creek movement. The line must be towed...true biblical Christianity is loosing its identity. Indeed the reformation has helped to reform Rome and of that I am sure....but the call to seperation is an old dinasour that is trampled on. Seperation not reformation friends. There is coming a day where we all will have to give an account at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

By Bhedr, at 1/11/06 11:04 PM
datalore,

So baptism is the covenant sign of membership in the New Covenant? If so, then we should understand this as one point of continuity with the Old Covenant (i.e. having a physical sign to designate membership). Now we need to apply our understanding of how the sign works in the Old Covenant to our understanding/interpretation of the New Covenant sign. What does this look like?

One did not need to be a physical (i.e. blood) descendent of Abraham in order to become a member of the Old Covenant. Rather, on need but receive the sign or be under the authority of one who had the sign already. For example, since women could not receive the Old Covenant sign, they were members of the covenant by virtue of being married to a covenant member or by having a father who was a covenant member. Paul probably had this very notion in mind when he wrote 1 Cor. 7:14.

It's actually not possible to lose one's membership in either covenant. In both covenants, members who are disobediant and continue in their disobediance are subjected to covenant punishment. This is individually and corporately true as we can see in all of Israel's history throughout the Old Testament, in Jesus' parable of the vine and in the seven letters to the churches in Revelation. Would you say that being a member of the New Covenant is tantamount to having salvation? If so, how do you view those who, having obtained the sign and seal, fall away and never return? Do you simply say that their sign and seal was not valid? How can a sign and seal given by God be invalid? Jesus said that all those who are His are in the Father's hand and that they cannot be removed from His hand.

So, does becoming a member of the New Covenant mean that one is in the Father's hand or does it simply mean he's a member of the New Covenant family? We know that not all who were members of the Old Covenant were saved, why shouldn't the same be true of the New? Here, it seems to me, there needs to be made a distinction between being baptized outwardly ( i.e. receiving the water) and being baptized inwardly (i.e. receiving the Holy Spirit). The two do not always coincide. What I mean is that someone can profess to be saved and not really be saved, yet (since we don't know if he is really saved or not), he receives the water. This distinction works well in explaining the continuity between the signs of the covenants and it allows us to say that one can be a member of the New Covenant yet not be saved. In other words, to be a member of the New Covenant and to be a bona fide saved Christian are not the same thing. Baptism (outward) is a sign of membership in the New Covenant, not of salvation.

If the "Romish" church was never a true church then we should be questioning the content of the canon of Scripture, a great deal of the early Church Father's writings/theology, and a whole lot of the history of Christianity. Perhaps "Romish Church" should be defined more clearly; by "Romish Church" I refer to the Roman Catholic Church which was established in Rome (by Paul, I believe) and which came into political power via Constantine. Some of its more illustrious members include Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Athanasius...

An unbelieving adult is a household unto themselves. If I and my family were unbelievers, then I became saved, I would want everyone in my household to be baptized reguardless if they were saved or not. If my children are adults and no longer live with me, then they are not included as part of my household and, thus, would not be baptized; you can't equate unbelieving adults with infants when it comes to covenant membership.

Abraham was not saved by having faith in Jesus Christ; neither was Noah, Moses, David; none of the prophets and even those two who were taken directly into heaven without tasting death, were not saved by having faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus hadn't been born yet. This is another point of continuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The OT patriarchs (and the regular people too) were brought into the New Covenant by virtue of having faith in God's promise of deliverance. No one in the Old Testament was baptised, no one in the Old Testament had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (He had not been sent out yet).

My points are these (at the moment):

1. Baptism (outward) and circumcision (outward) serve the same purpose; namely they mark one as a member of their respective covenants. Neither sign brings or promises that one will gain entrance into heaven. Adults have the choice of whether or not they receive the sign, infants don't.

2. The believer's baptist view has no historical precident; the Church had established the practice of infant baptism from her earliest days (before the close of the first century), clearly a result of baptizing entire households.

3. The believer's baptist view logically entails that some who receive baptism (the outward sign pointing to the inward reality) can break free of God's salvific grip. This view of baptism is presumptuous in that it assumes (incorrectly) that anyone who receives the sign of baptism has really and truly been saved; that is knowledge which only God and the individual have.

4. To deny an infant the covenant rite of baptism is to deny that the child is the child of covenant parents, born into the body of Christ. It is the equivalent of saying that the father has no spiritual headship or authority over the child because the child does not yet belong to his spiritual family.

By jared, at 2/11/06 9:36 AM
Hi Jared,
It would be very nice if you would address the host of this blog at some time during your philosophical diatribe. I do want to thank you for proving the points very nicely. In order for one to arrive at such conclusions, one must absolutely ignore the plain, normal approach to Scripture. Circumcision for a Jew is completely unrelated to the Christian Baptism. Israel and the Church are also separate entities.

By J. Wendell, at 2/11/06 9:51 AM
J.wendall,
I use j.k. as shorthand for just kiddng.

By DataLore, at 2/11/06 1:57 PM
j. wendell,

That is precisely the problem with the baptist approach to theology; it doesn't take a holistic approach to interpretation. What about the "plain" meaning of these passages?:

Matthew 5:29-30 (obviously none of us here have obeyed Jesus because we can still see and type on our keyboards)

Matthew 24:32-34 (apparently Jesus' disciples are still alive somewhere in the world)

John 6:50-51 (I suppose Jesus' flesh is made out of bread)

Nothing in any of those passages suggests they should be interpreted otherwise. If you really want to approach scripture in a "plain, normal" way then you need to start thinking like a Jew. What does that mean? Understanding the social and historical background of Judaism, understanding their culture, symbols, rituals, etc. My diatribe has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with understanding Scripture within its historical and cultural context. To take it out of this context is to no longer read it in an appropriate (plain, normal) way.

Tell me this, is the body of Jesus the Church? Is the "son of God" in the Old Testament the nation of Israel? Is the real Son of God Jesus? If Jesus is the true Israel (the true Son of God) and Jesus is the head/cornerstone of the Church, do you really think that Israel and the Church are unrelated? How about if we understand the Church as the bride and Israel as the Son of God? It is not a coincidence that Israel in the Old Testament is a complete failure and that "Israel" in the New Testament is perfect. It is also not a coincidence that Israel is comprised of the people of God and the Church is comprised of the people of God. In Scripture, the Nation of Israel and the Church are not completely separate entities.

Is the rite of circumcision the sign of the Old Covenant? Is rite of baptism the sign of the New Covenant? If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then they are related at least in the fact that both of them are signs. If they are related in at least this manner, then we are obligated to apply our understanding of how the rite of circumcision operates as a sign of the Old Covenant to our understanding of how the rite of baptism should operate as a sign of the New Covenant. The New Testament and the New Covenant are not completely and utterly distinct from the Old Testament and the Old Covenant. To be a Christian is to adopt the "Story" of all of Scripture; that means adopting its culture as a part of our history. The New Testament and the New Covenant stand on the shoulders of the Old, they shed light on Old, they fulfill the Old (i.e. the New is the realization of the Old).

It isn't simply RT and/or CT that advocate infant baptism, it is the practical outworking of understanding the relationship between the Old (Covenant and Testament) and the New (Covenant and Testament). It comes not from some formal dogmatic system of logically coherent theology, rather it comes from the practices and traditions of our culture and history as they were laid out since the very beginning of God establishing a people for Himself. In other words, it comes from adopting the Story of Scripture (all of Scripture) as our own story. We don't get to redefine that story as we see fit, it has already been written for us; we must conform to it, not the other way around.

By jared, at 2/11/06 2:02 PM
So the fact that the Great Commission does not mention children shows that this is not really about whether we believe and are willing to be obediant to the Great Commission.

It is just a matter of how we understand the theology of baptism.

God Bless

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at 2/11/06 3:20 PM
dyspraxic fundamentalist,

I would say, rather, that it's a matter of throwing out 4000 years of Jewish history and culture because of the "Great Commission." No, even the Great Comission should be understood within this context. If you'll notice, Matthew 28 doesn't say who (as in "adults only")to baptize, just that they should be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The call to missions is not the primary purpose of the Church; worship is.

The call in Matthew 28 is not "believe and be baptized", rather it's to "make disciples of all nations." Acts 8:14-17 seems to imply that there's not particularly special about being baptized outwardly (again in 19:5). Paul is thankful that he didn't baptize (outwardly) many of the Corinthians because they were bickering about who baptized who and probably how (1 Cor. 1:10-17). The outward sign of baptism, to put it in no uncertain terms, is not necessary or required for one to enter heaven. You might be inclined to cite John 3:5 as a proof-text to the contrary but "water and the Spirit" is meant to contrast with Nicodemus's conception of being born again as a fleshly event (that's the simple version, anyway).

You make an interesting point in saying that the Great Commission does not mention children; by this fact are we, then, to surmise that Jesus does not want us to preach to and make disciples of children? This would seem to utterly contradict His rebuking of the disciples for not allowing the children to be brought to Him (Mark even records that He was indignant towards the disciples, 10:13-16)...

By jared, at 2/11/06 5:38 PM
Jared, my point is that whether children should or should not be baptized is a secondary issue and ought not to divide believers.

By Matthew Celestine, at 3/11/06 4:51 AM
Thanks for all the fine comments here everyone.

I think, Jared, that when one equates Jewish circumcision with baptism one is misrepresenting the actual Word of God. Baptism is, “…the answer of a good conscience toward God...” I'm not sure babies can lay claim to that. All the water in the world can not save!

Here are a couple of links to the regular Baptist view on Baptism,

Intro to Two Ordenences

Believers Baptism

It’s OK to disagree on this folks!

God bless,
Brother John

Matthew~
That is a good point to bear in mind. At the same time if it has caused this much fussing on a web log can you imagine what it can do to the sweet fellowship in a local assembly?

By J. Wendell, at 3/11/06 10:04 AM
Meats sacrificed to idols could cause pelenty of friction if people were not mindful of the consciences of others.

I think the age and mode of baptism belongs in the same category of other delicate matters of conscience.

God Bless

Matthew

By Matthew Celestine, at 3/11/06 10:11 AM
Either circumcisiom=baptism and we only baptize males on the 8th day of there life or Baptism is different from circumcision and we let the Word determine who is to be dipped.

By DataLore, at 3/11/06 12:07 PM
Matthew,
Good point, but I still do not see any evidence in the Bible of unbelievers being sprinkled into a covenant. You may find my next set of posts interesting since I will be posting a book by Fred Whitman, a missionary in Italy.

Data Lore,
Good point! Thanks for that observation.

Jared,
Just to get back to you brother…

You said,
It isn't simply RT and/or CT that advocate infant baptism, it is the practical outworking of understanding the relationship between the Old (Covenant and Testament) and the New (Covenant and Testament). It comes not from some formal dogmatic system of logically coherent theology [;] rather it comes from the practices and traditions of our culture and history as they were laid out since the very beginning of God establishing a people for [Him self]. In other words, it comes from adopting the Story of Scripture (all of Scripture) as our own story. We don't get to redefine that story as we see fit, it has already been written for us; we must conform to it, not the other way around.

It is true that it is not simply RT and CT that advocate infant sprinkling, so does Romanism and this is a very formal dogmatic system, rich in the practices of invented tradition. This is a result of adopting a “story” that has been redefined to that system. Reformers (who did not want to separate from Rome) have never really shed that teaching from their theology. There are other doctrines that they have not shed too.

Brother John

By J. Wendell, at 4/11/06 8:21 AM
dyspraxic fundamentalist,

I don't think it's a salvation issue, so in that I can agree with you.

datalore and j. wendell

No one is equating baptism and circumcision. It is quite obvious that baptism does not equal circumcision; one involves the shedding of male blood (a shadow of blood to be shed) and the other involves water which can be given to both male and female. One is a sign of promises to be fulfilled and the other is a sign of promises already fulfilled. If you won't make a distinction between inward baptism and outward baptism, then your view(s) logically end up advocating that some Christians will not be entering heaven. This alone should be reason enough to look a little more carefully at the purpose of covenant signs.

The passage in 1 Peter 3 is not speaking of outward baptism. Read the passage carefully and you will notice that "baptism" is being symbolized by the flood waters which saved Noah (and his family). Since it is the saving through the water that symbolizes baptism here, we can be sure that "baptism" does not refer to the outward symbol (which avails nothing) but to the inward reality (like in John 3, "water and the Spirit"). Also, if your children are not covenant children then why would you feel obligated to raise them as such? The promises are always "to you and your children" not "to you and your children once they are old enough." Do you think Jesus had a pledged conscience to God when He was an infant? What about John? You're absolutely right, all the water in the world cannot save (unless you're Noah floating on top of it); that's precisely the point. It isn't the physical water that saves you. All the physical water rite does is mark you as a member of the covenant. Who is eligible to receive this mark? Anyone who has believed and their families.

Many of the Reformers didn't want to split from Rome because they didn't want to create a schism. They wanted those in authority to acknowledge what the Scriptures really taught about justification and faith. They were also familiar with the history of the Church (unlike many of us today) and they knew that the only reason the Church was still around was because of the RCC. The Church was never (and is not now) perfect, but that is not a good reason to lambast 2000 years of history; especially a history that contains some of the greatest men of faith who ever lived. You can't bash Rome without also bashing what Rome produced. The RCC is in error and teaches error, to be sure, but that is not a reason to hate them; it is a reason to pray for them that they might faithfully return to God's word. Many of the traditions that the Reformers did not abandon are good traditions (liturgical worship and celebrating the eucharist at every service, for example) that were established long before Rome was "officially" corrupt.

By jared, at 4/11/06 11:30 AM
The celebrating the Eucharist or as Rome puts it, the sacrifice of the Mass is an invention of the Rome and many of the reformers have been martyred for saying as much. If one holds to works righteousness, he or she is on sandy ground. Salvation is of the Lord.

By J. Wendell, at 4/11/06 12:08 PM
j. wendell

Eucharist = Lord's Supper. Rome celebrates it with an incorrect view of the elements and their purpose. The Reformers celebrate it with a correct view of the elements and their purpose. Either way it's still the "Eucharist." Whenever you participate in the Lord's Supper, you are participating in the eucharist, regardless of the particular theology behind it. I'm pretty sure Jesus and Paul were the two most responsible for "inventing" it.

By jared, at 4/11/06 4:48 PM
Jared,
I must have misunderstood. I thought you said, "Many of the traditions that the Reformers did not abandon..." referring to RC traditions. I personally would not refer to the Lord's Table as "the Eucharist" because "the" Eucharist shed His blood for us on the cross. Jesus is the life giving gift, not a wafer that presumable becomes God.

If you are referring to the Lord's Table as "the Eucharist", a memorial to Him, that is most acceptable and I do apologize for my misunderstanding.

I think we both agree that RC has even distorted this into a diabolical invention too.

God Bless,
Brother John

By J. Wendell, at 5/11/06 5:36 AM
j. wendell,

I was referring to RC traditions. The style and order of worship (does your pastor use a pulpit? do you sing hymns before the sermon is preached, do you recite and creeds or confessions during the service? does the pastor close the service by giving the benediction?), the use of icons and visual aids (do you have any crosses hanging up in your church? stained glass windows? banners with scripture on them? candles? incense? paintings?), and the various takes on the forms of church government (elders, deacons, pastors, and other hierarchys) can all be linked back to the RC. None of these traditions are set forth in the Scriptures and most likely didn't materialize until the RCC became an influence and power to be reckoned with in the 5th century.

This is partly why I refuse to disrepect the RCC (to certain extents) and wish that we all took a little more time to understand and learn about the history of the Church. For all her shortcomings, the history of the RCC is, essentially, our history up until the 15th and 16th centuries. It does us ill not to be mindful of that fact.

By jared, at 5/11/06 12:44 PM
God bless you Jared,
You are right RCC is the heritage of the reformation. Yet, there have been and are distinct and separated indigenous local churches since Pentecost. These indigenous churches were and still are completely unrelated to Constantine’s State Church with all of her trappings and inventions. In fact we are not even correctly spoken of as Protestant.

God bless,
Brother John

By J. Wendell, at 5/11/06 1:58 PM
Amen John.

By Bhedr, at 5/11/06 4:54 PM