|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Re-Baptism ?
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
[Kaplan Cordite] ![[Smile]](smile.gif) Do I understand correctly that you wish to continue our conversation as good reformed Christians who both believe doctrine should be established biblically?
.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
I'll assume Cordite is an automated text correction in a clearly mangled post. Obviously most unfortunate.
If you want that above post deleted, I'll do that.
[ 12. February 2018, 10:47: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
No, it was a joke, followed by a smiley faced emoticon, in reference to the bombarding of artillery that we stood accused of recently.
If Kaplan is up for it I am quite willing to engage with him in continued, reasoned debate on an issue of obvious concern to us both. As long as invective is restrained and hostilities cease.
Feel at liberty to correct the pun if you wish, but I assure you it was genuinely good natured on my part.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
[Kaplan Corday] A more helpful (while still inadequate) aeronautical analogy would be a comparison of a Sopwith Camel with an F-22 Raptor.
There is continuity, because both are aircraft.
And it in no way detracts from the extraordinary, ground-breaking significance of the earliest aeroplanes, as representing the radical breakthrough triumph of heavier-than-air flight.
But it also acknowledges the reality of the mind-blowing differences between the two, which go far beyond mere tinkering with an existing model (as in the example of the Spitfires).
The mind blowing differences are quite easy to enumerate and the ground breaking significance is not as extensive as you seem to think.
Certainly many of the restrictions, drawbacks and penalties which were inherent under the terms of The Old Covenant have been abolished
quote:
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Heb.8:13
quote:
Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness.
Implying of course that the New Covenant also has regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness.
Under the New Covenant the regulation for worship is "True worshippers will worship the Father in Spirit and in truth." Jn. 4:23.
The earthly place of holiness is the Christian Family, the people of God, the individual Covenant keeping believer. Heb. 10:25, Jn.17:19, Acts 20:32, 26:18, Rom. 15:16, 1 Cor. 1:2, 6:11, 7:14, 1 Tim.4:5, 2 Tim. 2:21, Heb. 2:11, 10:10, 10:14, 10:29, Jude 1:1.
So all the bloody sacrificial system and priestly intermediary system, attached under Moses at Sinai, and appended to the original FAITH Covenant made with Abraham has been abolished and done away with entirely.
But NOT the original promises made by God to Abraham and the unborn Isaac, concerning their descendants. Provisions are attached but the principle remains the same. God keeps His promises. When He says a promise is everlasting it MUST BE. Gen. 9:16, 17:7, 18:8, 17:13, 17:19, and especially Heb. 13:20
quote:
Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
You can't support a thesis in which one Old everlasting covenant has been abolished and replaced with an entirely New likewise everlasting covenant. That just does not make sense of the word everlasting. The only sensible reading of Heb. 13:20-21 would have to be that the whole Covenant with Abraham of FAITH is the one eternal covenant, which continues everlastingly, and the covenant of blood, works and ordinances, added and attached at Sinai under Moses, is the one that is now abolished.
Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits. Heb. 6:1-3.
In infant baptism and its Biblical justification we are not dealing with the milk of the Gospel or elementary doctrines. Discussion of the covenant and its principles pertaining to our own era requires us to go on to maturity.
So only the inessential elements of The Old Covenant, (i.e. the sacrifies, priesthood, tabernacle etc.) have been abolished and superseded by the atoning sacrifice and High Priesthood of Jesus Christ.
quote:
For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. It is called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a second section called the Most Holy Place, having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant. Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.
These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties, but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people. By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age [actually now the age that has past]). According to this arrangement, gifts and sacrifices are offered that cannot perfect the conscience of the worshiper, but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.
.
All this has been abolished. I agree.
quote:
[Kaplan Corday] A more helpful (while still inadequate) aeronautical analogy would be a comparison of a Sopwith Camel with an F-22 Raptor.
There is continuity, because both are aircraft.
To return to your analogy: I don't disagree over the contrast extent between your F-22 Raptor and your Sopwith Camel. The New Covenant is undoubtedly much better without Moses, The Law, The bloody sacrifices, the Priesthood, Scribes and Pharisees, the Tabernacle, the Holy of Holies and all the rest of the unhygienic paraphernalia accrescent to the whole bloody, filthy, sacrificial system.
It took the death of God's Only Son and invasion by The Romans and destruction of The Temple to finally put a stop to all that crap.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
No, it was a joke, followed by a smiley faced emoticon, in reference to the bombarding of artillery that we stood accused of recently.
If Kaplan is up for it I am quite willing to engage with him in continued, reasoned debate on an issue of obvious concern to us both. As long as invective is restrained and hostilities cease.
RdrEmCofE, what counts as invective and hostilities here is subject to the appraisal of the hosts and admins, not whatever standard you choose to set, and may challenged in the Styx, and in the Styx only.
It is up to you to post in accordance with the 10 commandments.
So let me re-state what has already been pointed out to you:
1. Either lay off the invective (and anything that might reasonably be construed as such, which includes mangling other posters' names) or take it to Hell.
2. If you want to dispute those instructions, do so in the Styx, not here on the thread.
Failure to comply will attract Admin attention and potentially, a spell of unrequested shore leave.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The only apparent 'solution' would be to adopt the sort of stance the Salvation Army or the Quakers do - in their very different ways - and brush the whole thing under the carpet.
Ok, ok, I know that Salvationists don't diss or dismiss baptism even though they choose not to practice it and I don't want to start another Salvationists versus everyone else debate ...
And yes, I am fully aware that Salvationists can go and get baptised elsewhere if that's how their conscience moves them.
Not sure what thou meanest Mr G - 'brush it under the carpet'?
Allow me to humbly illuminate my friends here as to the reasoning behind TSA ceasing to practice the Ordinances:
The Christian Mission 9as we were until we changed our title to TSA) celebrated the ordinance of the Lord's Supper (with unfermented wine) and the baptism of infants al la mode of the Methodist churches (especially the New Connexion).
In the early 1880s, again, as with other evangelical Methodists the dominical sacraments were seen as 'lower' than the preaching of the Word and the sacramental life of holiness. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit and entire sanctification was seen to be more significant in the life of the believer than the ordinance of sprinkled water - a ceremony that cannot save.
Why did we cease the practice of both these ordinances? The answer is this - and it is relevant to this discussion: the intransigence of the Bishops and the Clergy in the unity discussions of 1882 (Let the UK Methodists in 2018, in their discussions with Canterbury, take note and beware!)
In 1882 discussions on the merger of The Salvation Army with the Church of England faltered and failed.
1) What would Canterbury do with Methodist minister and Salvation Army General William Booth with no episcopal ordination?
2) What would Canterbury do with the Army's male Captains? Easy, make them Deacons.
3) What would the Bishops do with the female Captains? - Not so easy - they would only be recognised as the lower order of less-than-equal-to-me-Deaconesses.
4) What about the sacrament of the Lord's Supper?
Ah.
The stories are of 1882 being a time when SA congregations would attend the local Parish church for communion; the trouble was that when the time came, vicars were telling the congregations that only Salvationists who were baptised as Anglicans before they were converted and became Salvationists, could come to the altar rail; the rest would have to make their way to 'the Nonconformists down the road.'
In response to all this, Booth decided that, because the sacraments are not necessary in order to be saved; that because TSA(at that time) did not see itself as a church; and because 'we are being divided at the church doors' (in relation to who could receive communion), from now on the Army would cease the practice immediately, mind their own business and go its own way, leaving the church to do whatever it liked.
It seems to me that Canterbury was basically insisting that their view was the correct one and that TSA would have to accept everything Anglican for a merger to tske place.
That was not acceptable.
It seems that history is repeating itself with the proposed unity of the Methodist church in the UK with Canterbury. I can see who will compromise more, who will lose their identity and beliefs more - and it won't be Canterbury.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Tomorrow,Tuesday 13th February, is by chance, this year,.the day that is known by some as 'mardi gras'.It was this same day,13th February 1945,also that year, 'mardi gras'(Fastnacht) that there was the bombing of Dresden.I don't know if the 'planes were Spitfires,some of them were Pathfinder Lancasters. whether there was any 'coup de grace' there,I again don't know. 'Grace' (in French with a circumflex over the 'a') is a word for 'grace' or 'mercy',possibly something to do with 'baptism' either of children or adults.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Yes...
only, Mardi Gras is French for 'fat Tuesday' referring to the using up of all the fat in the house before the privations of Lent.
It has nothing to do with grace.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
I'd like to explore the issue of having the covenant imposed upon infants rather than them being compelled to remain outside it until they are able to understand and choose for themselves.
Either way it would seem that a degree of compulsion is involved. The view that their free will would be violated by God renders them bereft of God's everlasting promise to include them under the terms of the Abrahamic covenant, (which is essentially the covenant of The New Testament (Rom. Chapter 4.) when their parents closed with the covenant by placing their faith in Christ and being baptised. But this would require us to assume that God's everlasting promise was abolished along with the blood sacrifices, temple rituals and human priestly intermediaries.
The theological problem with that view is that it accuses God of breaking His eternal promise to Abraham, Isaac and all future keepers of God's covenant.
It also would require us to regard infants of believers as no different in God's estimation than any other infants born outside the covenant but we know infants born of believing parents are Holy to God. 1 Cor.7:14.
The suggestion that for God to choose whom God wants to place in covenant relationship with Himself violates an infants free will is to misunderstand our situation.
It is not as if we, as sons of Adam have three options regarding salvation.
1. Remain slaves to Satan, under sin and rebellion. With unbelieving parents we are born that way.
2. Continue blissfully unaware of either God's grace or condemnation but with the freedom to choose or reject it.
3. Reject God's grace and be condemned.
Only options 1 and 3 are on offer to us.
God decides who will respond positively to His Gospel. We do not choose Christ, God chooses us to serve His purposes. That is the reason for our salvation and no other.
The only persons God has an obligation to are those who respond by agreeing to the conditions of His gracious offer of a covenant relationship and to the children of those who keep covenant with God. If you know of any other class of human being that God has pledged an eternal promise to I would be interested to read it.
The Gospel invitation is open to ALL and the only condition is faith and a willingness to obediently serve Christ. Only adults, (or sufficiently cognisant persons) are able to respond to it. It is the means of entry for adults into the New Covenant. Each individual must respond on their own behalf if they are physically and mentally able.
Infants of believers are a special case. God undertakes to place them under the same covenant as their believing parent/s until such time as they are able to ‘choose for themselves to remain in it'.
Here in Southampton we had a thriving ship building and repair industry. Skilled craftsmen and shipwrights enrolled their sons in apprenticeships from birth. Apprenticeships were highly sought after and unless one’s name was on the list from birth it was very much more difficult to be accepted for one. There were many sons of shipwrights who did not take up the apprenticeship when they reached the age that was required. They were under no obligation to accept indentures and learn their fathers trade. However they were privileged to be able to reject the opportunity, many who would have accepted it were not on the list because their father was not a qualified shipwright.
My point is this. None of the children of shipwrights considered it a violation of their freedom to chose because they realised it was a greater privilege to have the freedom to reject if they so desired.
Children of the covenant are in exactly the same position. Their heavenly Father will provide them with every incentive to accept His offer of covenant relationship on their own behalf under their own volition, when they are old enough to do so, but if they choose not to hear His voice and harden their hearts, then God’s obligation has been fulfilled, His promise kept and they will not enter into His rest. Heb. 3:8, 3:15, 4:7.
This is the double edged sword of The Gospel, it cuts both ways.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
None of this would be a problem if there was no baptism ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
<Social Anthropologist of Religion hat on>Nah we would just create other initiation rites instead and fight over how correctly to apply those<Social Anthropologist of Religion hat off>
Phew! glad to see that part of my brains still working.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
[Mudfrog] None of this would be a problem if there was no baptism.
Ahh, but none of it would be a problem if Eve hadn't taken dietary advice from a talking snake either.
Someone had to take on the problem and He/she/it decided that Baptism was a whole lot less painful than circumcision but still signified symbolically the point he wanted to get across to us.
That being sensitive to His Holy Spirit means being as spiritually vulnerable and intellectually incapacitated as one is physically and procreationally incapacitated for some while after a foreskinectomy.
If a sinner has not yet felt uncomfortable about taking that step of faith, then they haven't yet taken that step.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Mudfrog I was trying to point out ,obliquely perhaps ,that the poster who wrote earlier 'coup de gras' might have been better to write 'coup de grace'.Indeed,as you are right to say that' gras' in 'mardi gras' has nothing to do with grace,whereas 'grace' with a circumflex above the a does.
I'm sure that baptism is a moment of grace.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
I'm sure that baptism is a moment of grace.
Yup! but also a moment of death. Coup de grâce: a finishing blow to put out of pain, a sudden vigorous attack.
It is supposed to put us out of our misery and start again on a better footing.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
Oh, and there would not have been spitfires, they didn't have the range. Mustangs perhaps though, with wing tanks. But it was a night raid and mustangs only usually flew in daylight. Mosquitoes were used as pathfinders and flare droppers though. They would have been there, and many Lancs.
[ 12. February 2018, 19:30: Message edited by: RdrEmCofE ]
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
As EFF has reminded us on another thread this is the first time since 1945 that Ash Wednesday has been on the 14th February.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I did stipulate, Mudfrog, that I didn't want to initiate another Salvationists versus the rest debate.
Nor was I defending the 1880s treatment of the Salvationists by the Anglican establishment.
The Salvationist position on baptism doesn't make the 'problem' go away. Had the CofE been credo-baptist then a different set of problems would have arisen.
The only way of dealing with it, short of removing all references to baptism from the NT would be for everyone to become Salvationists and that ain't going to happen anytime soon.
For some reason it seems ok for the SA to maintain its principled position on the issue but not for the CofE to maintain its equally principled but different position.
I wonder why that is?
On the issue of Methodist and Anglican reunification. That's foundered on two occasions to my knowledge and not just because Anglo-Catholics were squeamish about Methodist orders. Some of the more reformed evangelical types within the CofE were also opposed. They didn't want those nasty liberal Methodists queering their pitch.
I don't know how to resolve the issues and controversies about baptism but not bothering with it at all doesn't strike me as much of a solution.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
It also would require us to regard infants of believers as no different in God's estimation than any other infants born outside the covenant but we know infants born of believing parents are Holy to God. 1 Cor.7:14.
God's everlasting covenant is with his people, OT and NT.
God's people, under the NT revelation, are those who trust and obey him, which a baby by definition cannot do.
God "does not show favoritism" (Acts 10:34), and loves the children of non-Christians in exactly the same way as he loves the children of Christians.
Whatever I Cor.7:14 means, it no more teaches that the children of believers are automatically "Holy to God", than it teaches that a Christian's spouse who displays every conceivable sub-Christian and anti-Christian characteristic is to be regarded, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, to be "Holy to God".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
In infant baptism and its Biblical justification we are not dealing with the milk of the Gospel or elementary doctrines.
As regards the christening of babies, we are dealing with something which is neither implied nor explicitly taught in anything which Hebrews says about the covenant.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, but is something the Church seems to have practiced from a relatively early date, alongside credobaptism for adult converts - following a far lengthier period of catechesis that applies anywhere today.
As an evangelical you are, of course, going with the assumption that something had to be explicitly stated in scripture before it is accepted. That wasn't an assumption the early Christians made. You can't claim that they did without redacting post-Reformation ideas anachronistically into the early centuries of Christianity.
One of the reasons, it seems to me, that there have been some sparks flying on this thread is that both our reformed Anglican friend and yourself are reading post-Reformation ideas and developments back into a first and second century context and reaching opposite conclusions.
The Covenantal approach is a very 16th century one. So is the radical reformation emphasis on individual and personal faith. I'm not saying that neither of those concepts or concerns existed prior to the 16th century, but that the earliest generations of Christians thought in somewhat different terms.
Expecting to have chapter and verse to back up every single aspect is very much a post-Reformation concern.
Besides, as has been said before, by the time the canon of scripture was agreed the various churches were already baptising babies and had been doing so for some time.
Also, it's interesting that those Christians outside the boundaries or on the fringe of the Roman Empire also practised paedopbaptism. It seems to have become universal by the 3rd and 4th centuries and can't be blamed on Constantine. What can be blamed on Constantine is its rather indiscriminate application.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I wasn't trying to rerun TSA v The Church argument again, I was simply showing that in merger talks, the one side (Canterbury) was immovable in its view on apostolic succession, ordination, sacraments, etc.
That seemed to be the overall theme of the thread in recent days - is there one view and if there is, it must be mine.
What people don't realise is that TSA is not against sacraments, we just don't practice them. I have no particular view, for example, on which form of baptism is correct though if pushed I would lean on infant baptism rather than believers' baptism. That's because of my Wesleyan heritage and the fact that we did baptise babies.
Someone said to me once that TSA would make a good Catholic Order. I quite like that. Maybe Canterbury should have accepted us as an Order of the Church of England, allowing us our freedom to have our own identity and mission under the Anglican umbrella.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Someone said to me once that TSA would make a good Catholic Order. I quite like that. Maybe Canterbury should have accepted us as an Order of the Church of England, allowing us our freedom to have our own identity and mission under the Anglican umbrella.
Or maybe we should stop fighting the battles of the past. Out of the mess created by the Anglican-Booth battle grew the Church Army, which in my experience is a worthy institution - and is a kind of Order within the Church of England with an identity and mission.
Booth and the Salvation Army (as it became) walked away when the Anglican structure wouldn't budge. Carlile and the Church Army remained at the edges of the Anglican structure and quietly got on with it.
125 years later, the Church Army and Salvation Army are quite different, and fair enough too. The Salvation Army has developed their own ideas about issues like baptism whereas the Church Army never really worried too much about it and let others in the Church of England get on with deciding the theology whilst they got on with the other stuff.
What else is there to say?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
125 years later, the Church Army and Salvation Army are quite different, and fair enough too. The Salvation Army has developed their own ideas about issues like baptism whereas the Church Army never really worried too much about it and let others in the Church of England get on with deciding the theology whilst they got on with the other stuff.
I'm not sure what you meant by "developed their own ideas about issues like baptism". AIUI, the SA takes the approach that administration of sacraments is not a matter for it, but for more traditional churches. So local SA members will come to St Sanity for baptism, the Eucharist, even marriage, and are perfectly welcome to do so. The same happens throughout Aust. Is it different in the UK?
I can't speak for other States, but the Church Army had largely died out in NSW by WW II, and is now unknown here.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Not a great deal.
It's one of those 'what-ifs?'
Had the Salvation Army become some kind of order within the Anglican communion I'm sure it would have pursued that particular vocation admirably.
Is the Salvation Army better off operating outside the CofE or the other historic Churches and the denominations whilst remaining true to its Wesleyan roots?
I don't know.
One could argue that the institutional nature of the CofE could have stifled or blunted it to some extent.
Or else we could argue that it could have helped the wider CofE maintain a sense of mission ...
Who knows? It didn't happen. We are where we are.
What if Luther and Melancthon had turned East and joined the Orthodox?
What if The Great Schism hadn't happened in 1054. What if the Council of Florence had prevailed and East and West been reconciled and reunited at that point?
What if the Restoration of the Monarchy hadn't happened in 1660 and Presbyterians and Independents continued to hold sway?
What if Calvin had become an Anabaptist?
What if? What if? What if?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
You wrote: quote:
God's everlasting covenant is with his people, OT and NT.
True, but how is that covenant expressed and what is the extent of its promise?
There is no revised statement of the terms and conditions of The Abrahamic Covenant in New Testament scripture because it was so well known and accepted that it did not need explanation to any converting Jew. Rom. Chapter 4 again.
The oath made by God to Abraham concerning Isaac, Abraham's yet unborn infant was that he, Isaac would be covered by the self same covenant as was Abraham, his believing father. Not only with Isaac though but FOR all his descendants after him.
"I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him". Gen.17:19.
quote:
Be ye mindful always of his covenant;
the word which he commanded to a thousand generations;
Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham,
and of his oath unto Isaac; 1 Ch.16:15-16.
He hath remembered his covenant for ever,
the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.
Which covenant he made with Abraham,
and his oath unto Isaac; Psa.105:8-9.
There is Old Testament record therefore of the fact that God swore an oath to an unborn infant, which God has not yet broken nor ever will. The precedent principle that God can do it and has done it, is therefore established.
Search as you may for an instance anywhere in scripture OT or NT where God swears an oath to the adult, cognisant, decision-making, mature, grown up Isaac, and you will not find one. The Oath was only sworn to Abraham on behalf of Isaac.
Notice though that God makes a solemn promise of covenant to Isaac, an unborn infant, but only undertakes only to make provision for his descendants to have that same covenant available to them. "WITH Isaac", but "FOR his descendants after him".
And who are Isaac's and Abraham's true descendants?
According to St Paul they are these:
quote:
Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of all that believe.
Clearly Isaac, who was not even yet conceived when God gave His oath to Abraham, must have had faith, because he is declared by scripture to have benefited from God's oath when he finally was born and became an adult.
quote:
It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. Rom.9:6-8.
Furthermore: whether God in his omniscience chooses to pledge oaths to human offspring is entirely His own affair. God may be impartial but from a human perspective He definitely has favorites.
quote:
—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by Him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” Rom.9:11b-15.
And yet you declare that God does not have favourites. You are missing something somewhere.
If infants of believers are covered by the same provision of God's Grace as their parents, as OT scripture bids us believe and as NT scripture does not rescind, there is no reason for us not to believe that our children are Holy to God, especially since the NT says so. Also the extension of God's covenant grace to the infants and children of believers has nothing to do with their ability to trust and obey. As St Paul rightly observes:
quote:
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. Rom.9:16.
You wrote: quote:
God's people, under the NT revelation, are those who trust and obey him, which a baby by definition cannot do.
By your definition, as a Baptist, not by God's as The Almighty.
So you seem to be saying that your 'trust in and obedience to God' are what guarantee to you, God's Grace. You have the cart before the horse, and the poor horse is trying to push a loaded cart uphill, backwards.
We are FIRST recipients of God's Grace, (while we are still yet sinners, Rom.5:8), just as infants of believers are recipients of God's covenant grace as promised to their believing parents, (before they, as infants, are even able to sin).
That is where the OT Israel went wrong. They turned a covenant of faith, (The oath of God to Abraham and Isaac and their descendants), who through faith were counted righteous, into a covenant of works whereby obedience to The Law was seen as their entitlement to salvation and providence by God. Their works failed them miserably but there were many whose faith saved them spectacularly as is related in Heb. Chapter 11.
quote:
By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks. By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.
These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. By faith Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau. By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, bowing in worship over the head of his staff. By faith Joseph, at the end of his life, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites and gave directions concerning his bones.
By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was beautiful, and they were not afraid of the king's edict. By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward. By faith he left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king, for he endured as seeing him who is invisible. By faith he kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them.
By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as on dry land, but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned. By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days. By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies.
And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated— of whom the world was not worthy—wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.Heb. Chapter 11.
You wrote: quote:
Whatever I Cor.7:14 means, it no more teaches that the children of believers are automatically "Holy to God", than it teaches that a Christian's spouse who displays every conceivable sub-Christian and anti-Christian characteristic is to be regarded, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, to be "Holy to God".
Well at least you seem to know what it does not mean to be Holy to God, but you still do not have any understanding of what it does mean. Especially since St Paul draws a definite distinction between the children of believing parents and those of unbelieving ones, namely that the children of unbelieving parents are 'unclean'. You need to be able to explain what Paul means by that before you start teaching me what Holy to God might mean.
you wrote: quote:
As regards the christening of babies, we are dealing with something which is neither implied nor explicitly taught in anything which Hebrews says about the covenant.
You seem to have ignored the fact that Hebrews is a book which is almost entirely concentrating on The Covenant as it is enacted from both OT and NT perspectives. It explains and describes what has been abolished and what has been added but not what had been retained, that is taken for granted. It states that the New is better than the Old and nowhere does it even imply that God has broken His Oath to include the unborn infants of believers in His Covenant with their parents, as God promised to Abram and his seed for ever. This was ALWAYS a promise of The Covenant of FAITH and it is supremely a promise to believing parents that is apprehended only by faith. This is what Baptists, as a denomination, almost uniquely seem to lack, regarding God's ability or determination to keep His promises, clearly stated in OT scripture.
If not one jot or tittle have been erased from The Law, then how much more is the Covenant of Faith God made with Abraham and extended in the New Testament to the Gentiles, confirmed by St Paul and the writer to The Hebrews, then how much more shall not a single promise and oath made by Almighty God, who keeps all his promises for ever, not be erased from the Everlasting Covenant.
I'm getting tired of explaining all this to you only to get back "Babies are too thick to receive promises from God", "Babies are not mentioned in the New Testament" or such like nonsense. Why don't you get a good book on Covenant Theology and study it properly for yourself?
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
AIUI, the SA takes the approach that administration of sacraments is not a matter for it, but for more traditional churches. So local SA members will come to St Sanity for baptism, the Eucharist, even marriage, and are perfectly welcome to do so. The same happens throughout Aust. Is it different in the UK?
I refer you to Mudfrog's posts, in particular the one(s) I was replying to. He says that issues like baptism were a stumbling block for SA-Anglican unity talks, which I think is largely true.
quote:
I can't speak for other States, but the Church Army had largely died out in NSW by WW II, and is now unknown here.
I'm not an expert on the Church Army, but I understand it is more extensive in some parts and countries than others. Much like the Mothers Union and other Anglican "orders" of the kind we are discussing.
The Salvation Army clearly is bigger than the Church Army overall and do different things, in the UK at least. It's not a competition, I only introduced it into discussion because they have very similar roots and Mudfrog was talking about what might have happened if SA-Anglican unity talks had gone differently.
[ 13. February 2018, 12:47: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I'm still agreeing with Gamaliel. Just saying.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
And I'm afraid, the more I've read on the more I'm agreeing with what I wrote earlier ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
[ Gamaliel] As an evangelical you are, of course, going with the assumption that something had to be explicitly stated in scripture before it is accepted. That wasn't an assumption the early Christians made.
Indeed Jewish Christians had no immediate guidance on the issue apart from Apostolic advice. The New Testament had not yet been written. All that existed until 10-20 years after Pentecost were correspondence between Paul and his churches.
In view of the fact that Jews already had a very clear understanding that their male infants at the very least were born under covenant and needed to be circumcised at 8 days old according to the law, it is surprising indeed that there is no restriction forbidding the practice. Uncircumcised gentiles didn't come into the picture either until about the time of the break up of the Jerusalem Church.
Instead we have Paul making it widely known that the circumcised should not seek to be uncircumcised, (how ever that might have worked in practice), and the uncircumcised should not seek to be circumcised, (1 Cor.7:18), and that baptism is all that is necessary as the symbolism of entry into the New Covenant whether circumcised or uncircumcised. Rom.6:4, Eph.4:5, Col.2:12,
Surely we should expect a clear prohibition forbidding the circumcision,(and by extension, baptism), of infants by Apostolic authority if it was as anathema as Baptists would have us believe.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
There are a range of views among Baptists, of course and not all of them would regard paedopbaptism as 'anathema'. They might regard it as less than ideal but they wouldn't consider paedo-baptist to he beyond the pale.
Let's keep things in proportion and in perspective.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
Let's keep things in proportion and in perspective.
Ok with that myself. I have Baptist friends of very long standing who have no problem with it all. Nor I with them. They just think its a bit quirky and C-of-e-ish but not actually a hot stake and faggots issue. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
One aspect of baptism or re-baptism that has not yet been mentioned is the fact that baptism is a witness and a symbolic demonstration of God's Grace in accepting sinful human beings into fellowship with Himself.
Quite apart from its relevance to the individual person involved, it is a public demonstration of God's Grace to the onlookers as well.
It is a visible, sacramental, revelation of The Gospel in action and as such builds up the faith of The Church and can draw nearer any serious seeker of God not yet fully committed.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Indeed Jewish Christians had no immediate guidance on the issue apart from Apostolic advice.
A reference to the apostles' authority as "advice" is on a par with a description of the Decalogue as "The Ten Suggestions".
I believe in "one holy catholic and apostolic church".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
I'm getting tired of explaining all this to you
And all to no avail - you must be exhausted!
Your "explanation" still doesn't (and never will) cope with the obstinate complete absence of any mention of paedobaptism in the NT.
Nor is it compatible with God's universal love for all children, of Christians and non-Christians; and does not explain how a child born into a Christian family who rejects the gospel, is any conceivable manner better off than someone born into a non-Christian family who accepts the gospel (and thereby instantly really does come under the covenant).
Nor, on the assumption (based on your posts) that you are a Calvinist (apologies if you are not), what possible relevance being born as a baby of Christians into the covenant can involve, given that the baby is either one of the elect (and automatically saved) or one of the reprobate (and automatically damned); in the case of the former it is no help, and in the case of the latter it is of no benefit.
Nor why Calvinists (such as the Particular Baptists, and Charles Spurgeon, to quote historical instances) can be credopbaptists (and while we are talking history, why paedobaptism has been such a hot potato in the CofE at least as far back as the mid-C19 Gorham Case.
quote:
Why don't you get a good book on Covenant Theology and study it properly for yourself?
Because I am already quite familiar with your sort of covenant theology, having been exposed to it many years ago, and having then seen through it and moved on.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There are a range of views among Baptists, of course and not all of them would regard paedopbaptism as 'anathema'.
I'm one of them. The only thing I' add is that please don't try to tell me that anyone's system for baptism is better than any other. It isn't. The more you argue either side, the more it sounds awfully like a badge that must be worn to be saved.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
[Caplan] A reference to the apostles' authority as "advice" is on a par with a description of the Decalogue as "The Ten Suggestions".
I believe in "one holy catholic and apostolic church".
So you see New Testament leadership of Christ's Church as the imposition of New Law, dictated by Apostles then do you?
The only New Commandment in the New Testament is "Love one another as I [Jesus] have loved you."
Perhaps you would like to add the commandment, "Thou shalt not baptise your infants because I have forbidden them entry into my rest until they can obey commandments, because I am no longer keeping my promise to Abraham and his seed for ever".
But you then say you believe in God's Grace.
How can you ever sing the Magnificat without feeling hypocritical. All that was spoken of Jesus concerning the covenant here was spoken of Him when He was an infant 8 days old. Luke 1:55, Luke 1:68-79. particularly (72-74).
Yes, the Apostles spoke with authority, but it was all good advice, not handed down on tablets of stone enforced by threats of eternal damnation.
I too am a member of one holy catholic and apostolic church. That is why I consider their doctrine on the covenant to be binding on the church. Why do you suppose Paul and the writer of Hebrews banged on so much about The Everlasting Covenant. Obviously because it must be EVERLASTING surely. The covenant addendum of The Law, attached to the eternal covenant under Moses, is the only part of the eternal covenant that was ever abolished. The covenant with Abraham continues everlastingly through both Old and New Testaments, unbroken. It is the sole basis for salvation for both Jew and Gentile, male and female alike.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
RdrEmCofE
There is no need to repeat yourself. Particularly since you are getting tired of this.
I am closing this thread temporarily. We need to consider its continuing value as a vehicle for serious discussion. Hosts and Admin also need to review the need for disciplinary action in the light of posts since the previous warnings.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Thread re-opened for serious discussion. We'll give it another chance.
Since it looks like there will be a Styx thread, I'll refrain from further comment for now.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
Thread re-opened for serious discussion. We'll give it another chance.
Thank you Barnabus62. And it is indeed a serious discussion since The Covenant is the very glue which holds all other Christian Theology of Salvation together and baptism is the point at which that covenant is physically expressed as a sacrament. [A visible and tangible outward sign of an invisible, intangible, inward Grace.]
quote:
[Caplan] Nor is it compatible with God's universal love for all children, of Christians and non-Christians; and does not explain how a child born into a Christian family who rejects the gospel, is any conceivable manner better off than someone born into a non-Christian family who accepts the gospel (and thereby instantly really does come under the covenant).
If I am to tackle the objections you raise, with the care and seriousness that they deserve, my reply will need to be extensive and quote much scripture. I hope you will patiently endure a rather long repost.
Since Christ is the fulfilment of the covenant, (Luke 1:72-75), the promised Mediator of the covenant, (Is. 49:8), He is "the messenger of the covenant" who was expected in faith (Mal. 3:1), He is confessed in NT scripture as The Mediator of the covenant, (Heb. 8:6, 9:15,12:24), He is the Guarantor of the covenant (Heb. 7:22), He introduces His own into the covenant, (Rom.5:2), Christ himself described His blood shed for the remission of sins as "the blood of the covenant", (Mt.26:28, Mk. 14:24, Lk. 22:20, 1 Cor.9:25), (I have already explained how 'New' should be understood in the last two verses). It is by the blood of the everlasting covenant that Christ has become "the great shepherd of the sheep" (Heb.13:20); and His resurrection from the dead took place in virtue of the promise of the covenant, (Acts 13:32 f.).
There is nothing NEW in the character, behaviour or nature of Christ in the NEW Testament that is not absolutely true of also The Old Testament and Christ is the unifying factor of BOTH. Jn. 5:39, Lk. 24:44-45.
"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Heb.13:8.
God's universal love for all children, of Old Testament Jews and non-Jews, and New Testament Christians and non-Christians should presumably, according to your reasoning be easily confirmed in both Old Testament and New. However, if that is so obviously the case, why were Jews punished by God for covenant breaking and Gentiles were not? Was that favouritism for the Gentiles?
Why were the infants and children of Israelite covenant keepers included in God's covenant with their parents but the children of Gentiles were not? Indeed Gentiles were not at that time in the covenant at all, not being descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Favouritism for the Israelites this time perhaps?
Why Jesus came only for "The lost sheep of the house of Israel" and not, at that time, for every nation on earth. Favouritism for The Jews perhaps?
quote:
Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matt.10:6.
quote:
But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matt.15:23-24.
Have Jesus and God suddenly changed from being "the same yesterday, today and forever."
For certain God is gracious to all infants and children, but God, through the words of St. Paul, declares the infants of New Covenant believers, "Holy", in contrast to the infants of unbelievers, whom St. Paul, implies are "Unclean" (simply an expression describing the fact thay they are outside the covenant. How do you explain that, unless there is indeed an identifiable difference between them, as far as God is concerned.
quote:
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: Eph.2:11-12.
quote:
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
quote:
no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Eph.5:5-6.
Clearly you no doubt agree we are graciously saved from 'something' and for 'something'. What you have not shown me is a single reason to believe that as covenant keeping believers, there is any scriptural reason to believe that for some time between the birth of our infants and them: Quote: "accepting the gospel (and thereby instantly really coming under the covenant)", that they ever at any time, come under the wrath of God.
If our infants are not included under the New Covenant as they were under The Old then, infants/children/adults/old age pensioners are then: "outside the covenant' and therefore under the wrath of God, they being children of disobedience, having not yet knowingly declared themselves FOR Christ. Christ himself said "You cannot serve two masters". In the world we serve the interests of either God or Satan. There is no other option.
You have, by imposing this theoretical 'Time Gap' between birth and conversion for the children of believers, passed into another theological world than that of the Apostolic Church.
In this new un-apostolic world - to cite a few facts, without wishing to paint too black a picture - the children of believers are no longer heirs to the promises, indeed, they are no longer in the covenant, since it no longer exists for them; they are no longer in the Church which cannot embrace them because of their unconscious state; the family is spiritually and organically disintegrated and disrupted; the infant, removed from his/her setting and from the collectives, albeit divinely instituted, of which he/she forms a part, and separated from his/her own, is placed alone in the presence of God who acts only towards him or her and for him or her. It is desired to bestow upon the children of believers a dangerous and imaginary liberty which they will misuse. The Church becomes a society of adults to which our children are admitted as proselytes at the time when each on his/her own believes and is converted and sanctified.
To quieten the fears of believing parents for the danger of exclusion of their children by God, through their children's inevitable failure to immediately confess their sinful state, (whenever God deems that to have taken place), and thereupon take advantage of God's abundant grace through confession and baptism, Baptists have concocted their own ceremony called "dedication" or "blessing" of which there is not the slightest trace in the New Testament. Neither is there the slightest trace of cases of believer's children being baptised when, and only when they reach a sufficiently cognisant adult age.
This is not a happy picture of the community of the Church but it would be factually an accurate one if believers are left in the position of being unable to find scriptural justification for believing their infants are acceptable to God, by covenant promise.
So what should we make of the fact that there is not a single instance in the New Testament of an adult who has believing parents being baptised after reaching adulthood. If as you suggest only adults could receive baptism is it not strange that neither The Acts of The Apostles nor any other book of the New Testament provides either a single example nor does it ever state the requirement of the children of believers to wait until adulthood before baptism would be permissible.
How is an argument purely resting on lack of New Testament examples seen as an irrefutable scripture supporting argument for not allowing infants to be baptised yet when the same argument of paucity of examples of adult baptism of children of believers is put forward it is discounted as irrelevant by those who oppose paedo-baptism?
So it seems that the non-believing cognisant children of Baptist parents, (according to this new theology), are considered in need of 'Salvation' just as are the unbelieving cognisant children of unbelievers. All very equitable I'm sure but not what God says to the parents of believers and keepers of His covenants both Old and New.
There are very clear advantages extended by God, over and above prevenient grace, to the infants and non-cognisant children of believers.
Let us be careful here though! The baptism of infants is not administered by reason of faith of the parents or of their sponsors nor of the confession of faith of the church or congregation. It is the covenant which is the sole basis of baptism. It is not a matter of faith by substitution, neither is faith or righteousness imputed by the performance of a ceremony. It is entirely in obedience to the divine command according to the covenant conditions that infants of parents declaring faith in God's covenant with either one or both of them, should receive the sign and seal of that covenant for their infant, which is, the scripturally instituted rite of baptism, previously circumcision.
A child born into such a Christian family, is in the privileged position of being regarded by God as 'Holy', that is, already set apart for God's purposes, by virtue of the fact that the infant is already covenant bound and covenant protected, but not yet fully cognitively regenerate.
When a proselyte is introduced through baptism into the communion of the Church it is necessary that he or she, himself or herself should have heard the Word exhorting him or her to conversion, to faith, and to repentance. But what is the promise that is given to him or her and sealed by his or her baptism? "I will be your God and the God of your children after you."
The promise of salvation is not given to him or her for his or her self alone, but also for his or her children.
quote:
And they shall be my people, and I will be their God: And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them: And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. Jer.32:38-40
quote:
For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your heart, as in the provocation,
and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: Ps. 95:7-8. Heb.3:8.
Is this then the everlasting covenant we read of in Hebrews chapter 13:20? It most certainly must be. I know of no other everlasting covenant. If you do, perhaps you can show me where it is spoken of in scripture. I am willing to learn of it if you can provide the references.
quote:
[Caplan] Nor, on the assumption (based on your posts) that you are a Calvinist (apologies if you are not), what possible relevance being born as a baby of Christians into the covenant can involve, given that the baby is either one of the elect (and automatically saved) or one of the reprobate (and automatically damned); in the case of the former it is no help, and in the case of the latter it is of no benefit.
Actually I am an Anglican, not a Calvinist, but even so I require no apology. I do not believe in either predestination or free will as an either or concept. To have to choose one or the other assumes that we know more about God The Eternal being, than is possible for any human being to ever know. Both theories can be supposedly supported by scripture equally effectively. Both are probably only part of the true picture, which we will only see in proper perspective when we view things from the exulted parapets of the New Jerusalem in The World following this one.
quote:
[Caplan] (and while we are talking history, why paedobaptism has been such a hot potato in the CofE at least as far back as the mid-C19 Gorham Case.
Gorham's views on baptism had caused comment, particularly his contention that by baptism infants do not become members of Christ and the children of God. He was obviously wrong, because one cannot BE a member of the Church unless one is in Christ. The little children who Christ bid come to him were covenant covered children of the house of Israel, Gorham obviously did not study his Bible sufficiently, nor understand how the covenant affects infants.
But Gorham's view was also that baptismal regeneration was conditional and dependent upon a later personal adoption of promises made.
I find myself actually in agreement with him on this specific point but his idea of what is meant by regeneration would differ from mine. To be fully 'regenerate' involves full acceptance of God's authority, full understanding of Christ's unearned and imputed righteousness, full acceptance of the discipline involved in the lifelong process of Sanctification by The Holy Spirit. There are many adults that never ever get all the way there it might seem.
All of these awarenesses grow slowly from infancy, through childhood, into adulthood, and all overseen by God Himself in the spirit of the child of covenanted believers. (Even the children of Baptists, who unfortunately give God no thanks or credit for it, because they don't believe it happens). And also of course in every individual adult who God in his Gracious Mercy decides to draw to himself to be added to Christ's Church and thereby receive covenant promises to both themselves and their children, if they have any.
The bishop found Gorham's view of baptism to be Calvinistic, making him unsuitable for the post. The Church of England is not Calvinistic. It does not denigrate all Calvinist doctrine, but it does not espouse all Calvinist doctrine either. I can understand however why the Bishop was unhappy with Revd. Gorham if he was a double predestinist. The CofE don't hold to it.
There are other ways of looking at the promises of God besides resorting to either predestination or imagined, uninfluenced, independent, autonomous individual choice.
"Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations". Deut.7:9.
How is this possible if each individual adult in each generation has to choose to become a believer before they can be saved.
It would be possible however if God has promised to "draw to Himself", (Jn.6:44) each successive generation of those who keep his covenant and love Him by keeping His commandments.
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me, draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day". Even Jesus recognised this fundamental fact of the Father's covenant role in bringing us each to an understanding of His saving grace. God IS the only Saviour. (Isa. 45:21).
By my estimation 1000 generations is about 20 thousand years, which I think all theologians will agree, takes us well into the New Testament Dispensation from the time this promise was first relayed to his generation, by Moses.
Under the terms of the New Covenant, the better covenant, God draws to himself even those who previously were "strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world". Eph.2:12. They of course will need to respond as adults with understanding, then repent and be baptised. But their infants and children enter the covenant along with them, they and all else that rightly belonged to this new initiate into the Church, belong to God and though they themselves must agree to God's terms of remaining in His covenant, God will see to it that they are drawn to Him and given every opportunity to "seek after Him and find Him for themselves".
I apologize beforehand to anyone who found this 'Preachy' or see it as 'a lesson in sucking eggs'. As a retired preacher used to homiletic exposition, I find it hard to get out of the habit. For that matter, at 72 with the arthritis I find it hard to get out of my trousers or get my socks off too.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Somewhat stunned! I recognise the effort that went into that post, but it really is far too long. We do have this Purgatorial Guideline 6, which actually gives me authority to delete preachy posts, but I'll take advice back stage before doing that.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Dear Lord, save us from sermons like this....
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
Mine are not usually like that. Would you like one of my better ones? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
[ 16. February 2018, 18:12: Message edited by: RdrEmCofE ]
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
No.
Thank you.
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Consistent with the decision to reopen the thread, the very long post by RdrEmCofE stays in place for comments by Shipmates.
If anyone feels the need for clarification of any of the Hostly rulings in this thread, or would like further clarification re Purgatory Guideline 6, please feel free to voice your concerns in either the Styx thread which RdrEmCofE opened, or a separate one.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Are we going to be called to come up out of our seats and kneel at the sinners' bench?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
Are we going to be called to come up out of our seats and kneel at the sinners' bench?
That can be done alone in private, just us and God, if we are beginning to feel it a matter of urgency. Mat. 6:6.
There is no other Jesus recommended way to come close to a Holy and Righteous God.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Why Jesus came only for "The lost sheep of the house of Israel" and not, at that time, for every nation on earth. Favouritism for The Jews perhaps?
You have again trapped yourself in selective proof-texting.
The NT is full of passages proclaiming that "the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world" - Jew, Gentile, everyone who accepts the free gift.
quote:
For certain God is gracious to all infants and children, but God, through the words of St. Paul, declares the infants of New Covenant believers, "Holy", in contrast to the infants of unbelievers, whom St. Paul, implies are "Unclean" (simply an expression describing the fact thay they are outside the covenant.
I have already shown that I Cor.7:14 no more "proves" that children of one Christian parent are under the covenant than it "proves" that the obviously unregenerate spouse of a Christian is under the covenant.
quote:
What you have not shown me is a single reason to believe that as covenant keeping believers, there is any scriptural reason to believe that for some time between the birth of our infants and them: Quote: "accepting the gospel (and thereby instantly really coming under the covenant)", that they ever at any time, come under the wrath of God.
Infants of both Christians and non-Christians are safe should they die while they are babies and small children, and infants of both Christians and non-Christians are sinners who need to repent and believe after the age of accountability - which is known only to God.
quote:
of which there is not the slightest trace in the New Testament.
Now you are talking about paedobaptism.
quote:
So it seems that the non-believing cognisant children of Baptist parents, (according to this new theology), are considered in need of 'Salvation' just as are the unbelieving cognisant children of unbelievers.
After the age of accountability, precisely.
And there is nothing "new" about it, apart from its being "New" Testament doctrine.
quote:
[QB[ The little children who Christ bid come to him were covenant covered children of the house of Israel[/QB]
Christ - the whole NT - bids all children, and adults, Jew and Gentile, come to him.
quote:
Even the children of Baptists, who unfortunately give God no thanks or credit for it, because they don't believe it happens.
Credobaptists thank the God who, Peter taught, "does not show favoritism", for providing salvation for all people, and on exactly the same conditions.
quote:
at 72 with the arthritis I find it hard to get out of my trousers or get my socks off too.
At not too many years off your age myself, I am finding it increasingly hard to remember what to do once my trousers are off.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
[Caplan] At not too many years off your age myself, I am finding it increasingly hard to remember what to do once my trousers are off.
Notwithstanding, (and I sometimes find that problematic too ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ), you seem to have retained a sense of humour. Let's continue our discussion somewhat less confrontationally. That will not only please the Admin bods but also help establish some areas of mutual agreement.
quote:
The NT is full of passages proclaiming that "the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world" - Jew, Gentile, everyone who accepts the free gift.
I had stated earlier that The Gospel is for all nations. It is clearly outlined in OT scripture that God intended at its inception that the covenant would be eventually extended to include all people.
"And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." Gen.22:18, 26:4, Ps.72:17
"And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." Gal.3:8-9.
The Gospel however can only be understood by cognisant adults, whatever nation, race, creed or ethnicity. However once they hear and receive the Gospel thankfully, the promise is to them the same as it was to Abraham, "I will be your God and the God of your children also".
They will however need to keep the conditions of the covenant, one of which is to teach their children the moral law and develop a respect for God's Authority, (i.e. fear The Lord).
"When all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God, and observe to do all the words of this law: And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear the Lord your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it." Deu.31:11-13.
"And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." Deut. 6:7, 11:19.
Incidentally the Christian Church originally called themselves Followers of or in The Way, and Jesus claimed Himself to be that very same WAY. I like to think this is where he got the idea of personifying Himself as the WAY in which every parent would eventually teach their children.
"What man is he that feareth the Lord?
him shall He teach in the way that he shall choose." Ps.25:12.
quote:
I have already shown that I Cor.7:14 no more "proves" that children of one Christian parent are under the covenant than it "proves" that the obviously unregenerate spouse of a Christian is under the covenant.
Yes and of course I agree that this verse is no proof positive that the children of believers are 'regenerate', but it does clearly and irrefutably state that they are Holy and that by comparison the children of unbelievers are not. The comparison is merely confirmation, (as far as the Apostle Paul was concerned), that a marriage between a Christian woman and a Pagan man did not place the offspring of such a union outside the covenant and therefore unclean. Paul's reasoning placed the FAITH of the mother over and above any idea of male headship of a pagan father in a mixed faith family. The man was at that time generally held to be responsible to God for the conduct of his whole family. Hence when the head of the family was converted and baptised, the whole family would be baptised as demonstration of their allegiance to his example and leadership responsibility, under God.
quote:
Infants of both Christians and non-Christians are safe should they die while they are babies and small children, and infants of both Christians and non-Christians are sinners who need to repent and believe after the age of accountability - which is known only to God.
This supposition introduces an element of insecurity for both believing parents and unbelieving parents, that their children, once God has deemed them accountable will inevitably come under God's wrath and are not safe from fear of retribution until they repent and respond positively to The Gospel. For believing parents this is a matter of much importance because they are very aware of God's grace and are rightly in fear of His wrath. (see Job. 1:1-5). With unbelieving parents it may not matter in the least. They are somnolently unaware
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif) .
God has promised everlastingly that this period of insecurity will not exist for any parents who keep God's covenant with them, until such time as their children either take up their covenant responsibilities for themselves, by willingly aligning themselves with His purposes for them, or reject God's oversight of their lives, break covenant with Him and go their own stiff necked adult way ignoring His guidance and advice.
The saddest thing to witness is some down and out drunk, druggie or criminal reprobate coming to the sinners bench in later life, in a Hot Gospel traveling show, after a lifetime of denying God's attempts to shepherd him into the right WAY, FINALLY allowing himself to be bourn home on the shoulders of The Good Shepherd who has risked the rest of his flock just to rescue a renegade child of the covenant after a lifetime of abusing the gift that was within him.
quote:
After the age of accountability, precisely. And there is nothing "new" about it, apart from its being "New" Testament doctrine.
Pray, where do we find the New Testament doctrine stating unequivocally that the children of believers must wait until adulthood before baptism will be permitted for them?
quote:
Christ - the whole NT - bids all children, and adults, Jew and Gentile, come to him.
That was not what I intended you to take away from the example I quoted. I in no way disagree that Christ invites ALL children to come unto Him. ALL children come under the prevenient grace of God from birth, in fact from conception, throughout even their being knitted together in the womb.
The example of the Children Christ bid come to Him were ALL covenant covered children, there were no gentiles, (excluded at that time from the Old Covenant), among them. Had there been it would have been such a noteworthy event that it could not possibly have escaped mention when the incident was later related in scripture.
However "The wicked are estranged from the womb:
they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Ps.58:3. might give the parents of the Cray twins, Myra Hindly or Adolf Hitler et. al. pause for thought.
quote:
Credobaptists thank the God who, Peter taught, "does not show favoritism", for providing salvation for all people, and on exactly the same conditions.
God truly, is said in scripture to not show favouritism. But what does this mean in terms of the special provisions God has made in the covenant for the children of believers?
Ex.23:3 tells us that we must not favour the poor person in a law suit. But that does not mean we should be equally generous to the poor who have need of our support as to the rich who do not require it.
Acts 10:34 Peter is quite specific in what he means by God's impartiality. "God accepts from every nation the one who fears Him and does what is right".
According to the reasoning which says babies can't choose, so they can't be saved, so they cant be baptised, it also would presumably follow that they also can't fear God or do what is right. So God's supposed impartiality to infants is not supported by this verse, is it.
Rom.2:9-11. According to St Paul, "There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism."
Clearly again God's equanimity extends only as far as treating all nations equally under judgment. He certainly discriminates between those who do evil and those who do good though. So this verse also does not support the contention that ALL babies and children regardless and unconditionally are beyond God's censure until they hear and accept The Gospel.
Col,3:25 says, "Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism." Anyone presumably means children as well was adults. When did the murders of Jamie Bulger come under the wrath of God? Before the age of twelve I imagine.
Whatever might be said in criticism of God's right to be especially gracious to the infants and children of believers, as opposed to the children of unbelieving parents, it can never negate God's inalienable right to be especially gracious to whom ever He pleases, without his impartiality being called into question by accusations of favoritism.
"Moses said, “Please show me your glory.” And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy." Ex.33:18-19.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
Before there are complaints at the length of the previous post, may I suggest that the debate would be considerably restrained if it were not possible to comprehensively reply to classic, snappy "Gish Gallop" reposts.
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
RdrEmCofE, you were given the benefit of the doubt and this thread was reopened to give you a chance to demonstrate some adjustment to the ethos of the boards here.
You have since been reminded twice about the length of your posts, pursuant to Purgatory Guideline 6: quote:
Purgatory is not the place to impose your particular view on others (...). Preachy postings will be deleted by the board hosts
and chosen to ignore this advice. In my view, attempting to justify a post over 1500 words long after the fact does not constitute appropriate adjustment, either.
We are not here for you to post walls of text.
I'm closing this thread again, pending review by the admins, and suggesting you get a blog.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
