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 | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Re-Baptism ? (Page 9)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Re-Baptism ?
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
[Kaplan Corday] "I disagree with you, but am happy to live in peaceful co-existence with you unless you insist on coming out and asserting that your position is the only biblical possibility, in which case I will take you on".
But isn't that exactly what you are doing on the issue of whether infant baptism is valid? Asserting your position is the only biblical possibility.

I don't remember taking you to task on whether adult baptism is valid. It is! Why should I disagree, I believe in it myself, for adults, currently outside the covenant, until 'regeneration' then requesting baptism. Along with faith in Jesus Christ, it is the recognised scriptural way of adults entering the Covenant.

It seems to be you that is insisting that your "position on Adult baptism is the only biblical possibility", in which case I have disagreed with you and have taken you on.

--------------------
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      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I must admit, Kaplan, that I've rather interpreted your posts as maintaining that credobaptism is THE only true biblical form of baptism.

So whilst I also find some of RdrEmCofE's arguments rather convoluted and arcane, I can certainly see why he wants to 'take you on.'

Perhaps you both want to take the other on?

I do despair at times - at both sides in this equation.

At the risk of reductionism, it oftens sounds like:

Historic Church sacramentalist: We've got apostolic succession and Tradition, the rest of you with your heretickal conventicles can sod right off. Nurh nuh na nurh nurh ...

Gathered church congregationalist: We don't need your steenkin' apostolic succession and Tradition. You can sod right off because we're more biblical and holier than you are - nurh nuh na nurh nurh ...

And round and round and on and on it goes.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15993 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Gamaliel, as so often, I agree.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7599 | 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:
[Gamaliel] Historic Church sacramentalist: We've got apostolic succession and Tradition, the rest of you with your heretickal conventicles can sod right off. Nurh nuh na nurh nurh ...

Gathered church congregationalist: We don't need your steenkin' apostolic succession and Tradition. You can sod right off because we're more biblical and holier than you are - nurh nuh na nurh nurh ...

And round and round and on and on it goes.

And meanwhile, while one side can offer nothing else but "Its not anywhere in the New Testament", as if that is a clinching coup de gras, (ignoring all the other important things missing but still practicing them), the other's Biblically based chapter and verse arguments go unanswered, are ignored and contemptuously dismissed as 'humbug', 'yawn', 'arcane sophistry', 'discursive sophistry', 'bollocks', etc but without any scripturally based refutation of the arguments and their scriptural justification put forward, just dismissive invective. If this what is considered to be debate, I feel I have been wasting my time outlining the exegesis of The Apostles on the subject.

It seems there are none so blind as those who will not see and none so deaf as those who will not hear.

--------------------
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:
The Christian Church is founded on the same covenant and on the same Gospel: the promise of redemption by Christ.

Certainly no-one was ever saved other than by Christ's work.

In that sense, there is undoubtedly a single underlying (or overarching) covenant of grace.

But to leave it at that is an oversimplification, because the limitations of the revelation to, and experience of, OT Israel's covenant with God was such that the writer to the Hebrews could refer to the new, NT-era covenant as a "better" (ie different) covenant.

OT Israelites entered that covenant unconsciously and automatically by birth and circumcision, and were compulsorily obliged to observe its conditions whether they liked it or not, under the threat of the possible death penalty for breaking it.

The NT conception of covenant is better because it is explicitly of grace; is voluntary and relational; and is based on a free response to Christ's offer and invitation, which is impossible for a baby.

You yourself know quite well that your own experience of covenant was quite different from that of an OT Israelite, so don't pretend otherwise.

You did not grow up forced into a covenant relationship which you hadn't chosen, observing rituals and laws coerced upon you, and maintained by reliance on an external priesthood and system of sacrifices.

No wonder Paul rejoices in his freedom from such an obsolete expression of covenant.

quote:
I shall merely say that you do not appear to regard yourself as bound by the exegesis of the Apostles, especially Paul.
This makes me feel very nostalgic.

As a young Christian I can remember this form of syllogistic spiritual blackmail:-
My interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one.
You disagree with it.
Ergo, you think you know better than the Bible and God.

quote:
it became well established before the Biblical cannon was fixed, as history and tradition attest.
Certainly there are references to the practice of paedobaptism prior to the finalisation of the cannon (sic) as evidenced by Athanasius's 367 Paschal Letter, but the first references to it are in Irenaeus, long after the NT material was completed.

Given the number of NT passages which refer to the practice and theology of baptism without a single reference to paedobaptism, it is obtuse to persevere in trying to read it back into the canon.

quote:
Obviously a watertight case can easily be made for women receiving communion by use of other considerations besides the mere fact that no actual example of it exists throughout the whole of the NT scripture.

The same principles and considerations can just as easily be used to justify the baptism of infants.

You are comparing apples with oranges.

Women are exactly the same as men in being capable of entering into, and living out, a faith relationship with Christ.

An unconscious baby is capable of neither.

Posts: 3353 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post 
quote:
Do you wish to to pretend that you possess a greater measure of the Holy Spirit than the Apostles and a better understanding of the 'secrets' of God?

To reject the authority of the Apostles on one point is to invalidate any authoritative appeal to them when our opinion happens to be in accordance with theirs!

Just another reminder that you are not God.

It's true!

Don't take my word for it - ask anyone.

Posts: 3353 | 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:
[Kaplan Coorday] OT Israel's covenant with God was such that the writer to the Hebrews could refer to the new, NT-era covenant as a "better" (ie different) covenant.
There are many ways in which the New Covenant is a 'better' covenant. Not the least of which is that both men and women are visibly signed and sealed with the symbol of its effect, namely baptism instead of circumcision. That is not however to say that it is (i.e.different).

In WW2 there were more than 23 different marks of Spitfire, each one (better) than the previous, but all of them were Spitfires, none of them was an (i.e. different) aircraft.

If a supposed improvement to the latest one rendered a major beneficial aspect of all previous ones inoperative, it would not have been considered (in all respects a better Spitfire). Each Mk retained the best features of the previous with modifications and improvements.

God's central promise of the covenant in both old and new testaments remains,
quote:
"I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. Gen.17:7.
"I will be your God and you shall be my people; I will be your God and you shall be My son; I shall call you My son and you shall call me Father, " is the promise of the Gospel of which baptism is the sign and seal, fulfilled for whoever believes the promise and repents. God declares to us by baptism that He wishes to possess us for His people and His heritage.

God even assured Abraham beforehand that he would have a son, he would call him Isaac and says to Abraham, "I will establish my covenant with him [Isaac] as an everlasting covenant, (though he has not even yet been born), for his descendants after him." Gen. 17:19.

Yet you continue to insist that this most gracious promise to include descendants, has been incised, rescinded, abolished, cut out, missing and (you imply broken by God who promised it would be 'an everlasting promise'), IS YET STILL a "Better Covenant".

It is as if you think a Mk 25 Spitfire, (there were only 24), that has an 88mm cannon and 2000lb bombs fitted but can no longer FLY is a better Spitfire.


You say:
quote:
The NT conception of covenant is better because it is explicitly of grace; is voluntary and relational; and is based on a free response to Christ's offer and invitation, which is impossible for a baby.
Your NT conception, not the NT conception in fact St Paul would profoundly disagree with your conception, judging from Rom. Chapter 11. where he emphasises the essential continuity of The Covenant in all its beneficial aspects to both Jew and Gentile.

Christ's invitation was "Come unto me all you that travail and I will give you rest". Little children and infants included, in fact, even held up as an example of what "coming unto Him entailed".

You say:
quote:
You did not grow up forced into a covenant relationship which you hadn't chosen, observing rituals and laws coerced upon you, and maintained by reliance on an external priesthood and system of sacrifices.
Your problem seems to be that you have a very jaundiced view of God's promises within a covenant relationship. We are not 'forced into it', just as Abraham was not 'forced' into it, neither was Isaac 'forced' into it. We are Graciously permitted to enter it. Though being a covenant between Almighty God and sinful man it is a very unequal relationship, we are nevertheless not 'forced'.

The Law is not 'coerced upon the human race'.
quote:
"For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law.". Prov. 4:2. "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Rom.7:12. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." Matt.5:17.
And the external priesthood and system of sacrifices was temporarily instituted and ordained by God Himself, in case you have forgotten. Being no longer necessary it has been superseded by the Priesthood of Jesus Christ.
quote:
" . . . we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God". Heb.4:14.
You say:
quote:
No wonder Paul rejoices in his freedom from such an obsolete expression of covenant.
I think you rudely misrepresent Paul with your assertion.
quote:
"And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins." Rom.11:26-27.
You say:
quote:
My interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one.
You disagree with it.

So we have it from your own mouth, or rather, keystrokes, you do apparently believe you alone are privy to God's mind.

quote:
You are comparing apples with oranges.
I am applying you own bogus principle to another issue that is not expressly exemplified in New Testament scripture. If a principle is to be applied it should be applied consistently, not selectively as you seem to want to do.

quote:
Women are exactly the same as men in being capable of entering into, and living out, a faith relationship with Christ. An unconscious baby is capable of neither.
That is true of a 'faith relationship' in adulthood, but untrue of the relationship God has with the infants of believers. Their relationship with God is based upon different principles, outlined in scripture for those of us who take the trouble to seek them out and accept them by faith. You obviously have not and don't. Don't blame me if you don't understand them.

--------------------
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      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
The mention of cannon on Spitfires highlights one of the difficulties I'm having with this conversation.

Is it coincidence that both Kaplan and RdrEmCofE have mis-spelt canon as 'cannon' at times?

Because it seems to me that both are using the scriptures as they would pieces of artillery, to shoot off round after round at their opponents ...

[Roll Eyes]

There are blind-spots and ironies on both sides, it seems to me and I have no idea how to resolve them.

Kaplan's accusing RdrEmCofE of syllogism and of baseball batting his opponents over the head with a 'correct' interpretation of scripture without apparently realising that he is doing exactly the same thing himself.

I'd like to bash both their heads together but realise that my own head would get sandwiched and knocked between the two.

There is no way around it.

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.

But I've yet to see how Kaplan's argument is any different in its approach than that of RdrEmCofE.

Kaplan is effectively saying:

'I can interpret scripture better than you can so sod off.'

RdrEmCofE is also saying:

'I can interpret scripture better than you so you can also sod off.'

Perhaps someone would care to point out where the differences lie in their respective approaches?

All they are doing is trying to bombard one another into submission, it seems to me.

Eventually they'll run out of energy or run out of ammunition.

Enough of the 'cannons' already. Enough of the self-appointed artilleryman role ...

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15993 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Host Hat On

RdrEmCofE, Kaplan Corday

You are demonstrating, very clearly, something more than a clash of ideas. Read Commandment 4. There is also a clash of personalities in play, leading to a mutual loss of respect for one another's arguments, and further personal sniping (Commandment 3).

You have two options. End the argument or take it to Hell. You've already had one Hostly rebuke. Ignore this formal warning and you get reported to Admin.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Host Hat Off

[ 11. February 2018, 11:21: 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: 21347 | 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:
Kaplan is effectively saying:

'I can interpret scripture better than you can so sod off.'

RdrEmCofE is also saying:

'I can interpret scripture better than you so you can also sod off.'

Perhaps someone would care to point out where the differences lie in their respective approaches?

Could I suggest that the difference is that I have tried to give account of the hope that is in me, using scripture to try to explain my position on why God allows infants to be batised. A fairly positive approach.

Whereas Kaplan is effectively explaining to me why I should not believe what I do believe, using what is not in scripture as proof that baptising infants is not permitted by God. A fairly negative approach, I think.

--------------------
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 
RdrEmCofE

If you want to discuss any aspect of my ruling, take it to the Styx.

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: 21347 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

quote:
Historic Church sacramentalist: We've got apostolic succession and Tradition, the rest of you with your heretickal conventicles can sod right off. Nurh nuh na nurh nurh ...

Gathered church congregationalist: We don't need your steenkin' apostolic succession and Tradition. You can sod right off because we're more biblical and holier than you are - nurh nuh na nurh nurh ...

And round and round and on and on it goes.

I think this is bang on. I was Baptised as an infant, Baptised/ endured a watery reaffirmation of faith (delete as appropriate) as an adult and subsequently Confirmed. I think the Baptised and Confirmed guys were bang on as to doctrine. As to holiness there was a cigarette paper between them, if that.

There should be a German word for positions we hold strongly without thinking our opponents are bad people. Oh wait, what's the German for being a grown up?

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9754 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

quote:

Historic Church sacramentalist: We've got apostolic succession and Tradition, the rest of you with your heretickal conventicles can sod right off. Nurh nuh na nurh nurh ...

Gathered church congregationalist: We don't need your steenkin' apostolic succession and Tradition. You can sod right off because we're more biblical and holier than you are - nurh nuh na nurh nurh ...

And round and round and on and on it goes.

It only goes 'on and on and round and round' because one 'side' effectively accuses the other of heresy while the accused, when answering the charge using arguments employed by the Apostles from the scriptures is then tacitly assumed to be merely 'twisting them to the destruction of infants'. So the whole debate becomes embroiled in antagonism like a 'Court of The Star Chamber' or a 'Trial of the Spanish Inquisition'. (I never expected that). (Nobody expected that).

Meanwhile others contribute only by either throwing the occasional stone themselves or by standing by 'with the coats of those who do, at their feet'. Acts 8:38.

I could have gone on to describe in detail exactly how New Testament scripture supports the contention that The New Covenant is essentially the fulfilment and improvement of the Old, not the eradication and complete replacement of it by a covenant which is 'paired down' and 'lobotomised' with respect to the gracious promises inherent and integral to the Old one, namely the everlasting promise of God to the children of believers and covenant keepers.

I say I could have, but I won't because obviously there is a palpable lack of interest here in what the cannon of scripture says on the matter, (it having been said so may times before apparently), and the general opinion aboard ship seems to be that the reliance upon the truth of scripture, and recourse to it, backed by chapter and verse, is characterised as an unwelcome bombardment and a disturbance of the peace, rather than a scriptural illumination of the subject.

--------------------
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:
In WW2 there were more than 23 different marks of Spitfire, each one (better) than the previous, but all of them were Spitfires, none of them was an (i.e. different) aircraft.

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).

Any conception of the developing revelation of biblical covenant must retain the element of continuity (ie the ongoing desire of God for relationship with his people, both OT and NT), but must also do justice to the superiority ("better" Heb 8:6) of its NT form of expression - which sees covenant not only transformed by its grounding in the Christ-event, but also as now including volition and relationship as a replacement for legalism and coercion (eg the circumcision of unconscious babies).

[ 12. February 2018, 09:37: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posts: 3353 | 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:
[Kaplan Cordite] [Smile] 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      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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: 21347 | 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 
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      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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: 17886 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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: 3441 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
None of this would be a problem if there was no baptism [Biased]

--------------------
"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      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
<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: 20884 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
[Mudfrog] None of this would be a problem if there was no baptism. [Biased]
Ahh, but none of it would be a problem if Eve hadn't taken dietary advice from a talking snake either. [Smile]

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      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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: 3441 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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      Profile for Forthview   Email Forthview   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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: 3441 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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: 15993 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post 
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: 3353 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post 
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: 3353 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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: 15993 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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: 10688 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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: 7017 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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: 15993 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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: 10688 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I'm still agreeing with Gamaliel. Just saying. [Smile]

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7599 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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: 15993 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

 - Posted      Profile for RdrEmCofE   Author's homepage   Email RdrEmCofE   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
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: 15993 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511

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

--------------------
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 
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      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post 
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: 3353 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119

 - Posted      Profile for Kaplan Corday         Edit/delete post 
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: 3353 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  6  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