homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Re-Baptism ? (Page 10)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Re-Baptism ?
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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. [Smile]

--------------------
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      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Dear Lord, save us from sermons like this....

[Eek!]

IJ

--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)

Posts: 10149 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Mine are not usually like that. Would you like one of my better ones? [Devil]

[ 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      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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: 10149 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post 
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      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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] ), 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] .

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      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools