Covenant Children

[Cajun Huguenot]

I think we should be careful about going to the Greek and can help but it also can cause trouble.

The more important question is, "Who is Abraham's Seed?"

Hello JM,
Thanks for the comments.

I am not so ready to dismiss the Greek here. I grant that there are aspect of it that are unclear, but the same is true of our own language (English). THe Lord gave us the New Covenant Scriptures is Greek and we must bring them into our own language as best we can and it is important to look to the Greek because no translation is a perfect translation.

Abraham's Seed ultimately is Jesus Christ. In Christ we are Abraham's seed and heirs to the Kingdom.

Now who is in Christ?
The Church is in Christ.

Who is in the Church?
All who have been baptised are in Christ in the visible world.

The Promise to Abraham was to you and to your seed and also to your house. These promisies are not abridged or changed, but repeated in the New Covenant Scriptures. We find household baptisms just as we would expect to find if the covenantal structure and promise were to remain in force. If it were amended or changed I think we would find an explanation because that would be a very dramatic shift in how God deals with His people.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[JM]

I understand your point.

 

[msortwell]

The Promise to Abraham was to you and to your seed and also to your house. These promisies are not abridged or changed, but repeated in the New Covenant Scriptures.

I didn't recall any specific promise to Abraham that made reference "to your seed and also to your house." So I did a quick search for the reference to "your house" in the iterations of the promise to Abraham. I'll admit that I did not spend a great deal of time looking. Is there such a statement in Scripture (in the promise made to Abraham)? Or are you inferring something that isn't actually stated in the text, but would help to support your view of baptism? Where does it say, "to you and to your seed and also to your house?"

We find household baptisms just as we would expect to find if the covenantal structure and promise were to remain in force.

Its fairly common to find what we expect. The trick is to see past what we expect to see clearly what is actually in the text, and what is not. There are arguments on both sides of the credo/paedo argument about what is (and is not) taught in the household baptisms.

If it were amended or changed I think we would find an explanation because that would be a very dramatic shift in how God deals with His people.

Seams like a reasonable (but far from inescapable) conclusion.

Blessings,

Mike

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

I didn't recall any specific promise to Abraham that made reference "to your seed and also to your house." So I did a quick search for the reference to "your house" in the iterations of the promise to Abraham. I'll admit that I did not spend a great deal of time looking. Is there such a statement in Scripture (in the promise made to Abraham)? Or are you inferring something that isn't actually stated in the text, but would help to support your view of baptism? Where does it say, "to you and to your seed and also to your house?"

Hey Mike,
I was not trying to quote Scripture. I am sorry if I came across as though I giving a quote. My wording was very sloppy and misleading. I apologise for that.

The Promise was to Abraham's Seed and his whole house recieved the sign of his faith (i.e. circumcision). Thanks for pointing it out.

Its fairly common to find what we expect. The trick is to see past what we expect to see clearly what is actually in the text, and what is not. There are arguments on both sides of the credo/paedo argument about what is (and is not) taught in the household baptisms.

What you say is true; it is easy to impose what you want to find into the Scriptures, but that is not the case here.

There are five household baptisms mentioned in the Acts and the Epistles. That is a sizable portion of the baptisms mentioned in the Scriptures. We don't have to eisegete into the Scriptures.

Blessings,

Mike

Blessing to you and to your house as well.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[augustine32]

I believe that Acts 2 argues strongly for the credo-baptist position.

First, what is the promise mentioned in vs. 39? The only reference to a promise that I can find presented is the one in the prophesy of Joel and then in vs. 33 being that of the Holy Spirit. The promise of the Holy Spirit is for each of the groups: you and your children and those who are far off-and each group is limited by the statement "as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." Each group needed to repent, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps, may I speculate, that the children were mentioned specifically that the parents would know that their children could repent, believe, receive the Spirit as well.

Second, if the promise to the children was a promise of continued covenant based upon the parents belief, then why were only those that believed baptised? It would seem that if Peter was reemphasising the place of the children in the New Covenant then there would be some indication that it was families being baptized and not only believers. Surely it was not only individuals but families that were present in Jerusalem for Pentecost.

Third, vs. 47 indicates that those being added to their number (the number of the visible church) were those being saved. The point is that the number is made up of those who were saved and not unsaved children who surely would have been in attendance at the indicated fellowship meals.

Let me also express my delight in a thread in which believers disagree, but can do so in such a well-mannered and loving way!

 

[heymikey80]

First, what is the promise mentioned in vs. 39? The only reference to a promise that I can find presented is the one in the prophesy of Joel and then in vs. 33 being that of the Holy Spirit. The promise of the Holy Spirit is for each of the groups: you and your children and those who are far off-and each group is limited by the statement "as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." Each group needed to repent, be baptized, and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps, may I speculate, that the children were mentioned specifically that the parents would know that their children could repent, believe, receive the Spirit as well.

Of course we also believe the children need to repent, believe, and receive the Spirit as well. That's not peculiar to credobaptists, so ... it doesn't argue strongly for credobaptism.

The point is that Peter specially points out "your children" -- likely the children right beside them. It bears strong parallels to the other covenant of promise with Abraham: "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." Gn 17:7, and through this covenant "all the nations of the earth will be blessed," much as are "those afar off" in the Acts 2 verse.

Second, if the promise to the children was a promise of continued covenant based upon the parents belief, then why were only those that believed baptised? It would seem that if Peter was reemphasising the place of the children in the New Covenant then there would be some indication that it was families being baptized and not only believers. Surely it was not only individuals but families that were present in Jerusalem for Pentecost.

Well, yeah. Do you think the kids were excluded while Mom & Dad were baptized? Or were they baptized right along with 'em? As far as I read the text doesn't say either way.

Third, vs. 47 indicates that those being added to their number (the number of the visible church) were those being saved. The point is that the number is made up of those who were saved and not unsaved children who surely would have been in attendance at the indicated fellowship meals.

Um, if one of these 3000 souls apostasized then was Scripture broken? Likely not. I think the text makes certain assumptions about identifying those being saved. Those called were baptized: about 3000 souls. Calling could just as readily be assumed through the childhood of a believer as through an adult profession of faith.

"this promise is to you and your children" serves as a specific allusion to the children of a believer. To Israeli ears this echoes Abraham. The stated extension of Abraham is, "All those in your household shall be circumcised," even though only those (infant-circumcised kids) who received the faith of Abraham would inherit the promise (Rom 4).

I realize the credobaptist assumption can comprehend Acts 2 logically with some kind of statement of faith before baptism, but it's a model of what happened in Acts 2. I think the text sustains a familial picture that is more in line with paedobaptism, just as the same words would've been quite in line with paedo-circumcision in Genesis 17.

 

[augustine32]

Of course we also believe the children need to repent, believe, and receive the Spirit as well. That's not peculiar to credobaptists, so ... it doesn't argue strongly for
credobaptism.

I'm not denying that you believe they need to repent, etc. But the promise seems to be that each of the groups needed to repent, be baptized, receive the Spirit. What do you believe the promise refers to in vs. 39?

The point is that Peter specially points out "your children" -- likely the children right beside them. It bears strong parallels to the other covenant of promise with Abraham: "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." Gn 17:7, and through this covenant "all the nations of the earth will be blessed," much as are "those afar off" in the Acts 2 verse.

There are promises in the Bible to Abraham, his physical seed, his spiritual seed, but nowhere to the physical seed of Abraham's spiritual seed.

Well, yeah. Do you think the kids were excluded while Mom & Dad were baptized? Or were they baptized right along with 'em? As far as I read the text doesn't say either way.

All I see the text saying is those who received Peter's words were baptized. If the children received his words, then I believe they would have been baptized as well. I think you are in a tough spot exegetically if you assume the text really means those who received his words and their children were baptized.

Um, if one of these 3000 souls apostasized then was Scripture broken? Likely not. I think the text makes certain assumptions about identifying those being saved. Those called were baptized: about 3000 souls. Calling could just as readily be assumed through the childhood of a believer as through an adult profession of faith.

No-those called were not baptized. It was those who had received Peter's words. And yes, they could have apostatized. But those in vs. 39 who were called could not have apostatized.

Even so, please provide another example from the NT in which the calling of God could be readily assumed to cover a non-believer (such as a covenant child). If that cannot be done then I think the calling of vs. 39 must be taken to mean what it does in so many other NT passages. Those predestined are called, those called are justified, etc. This calling could not include unsaved children.

"this promise is to you and your children" serves as a specific allusion to the children of a believer. To Israeli ears this echoes Abraham. The stated extension of Abraham is, "All those in your household shall be circumcised," even though only those (infant-circumcised kids) who received the faith of Abraham would inherit the promise (Rom 4).

I realize the credobaptist assumption can comprehend Acts 2 logically with some kind of statement of faith before baptism, but it's a model of what happened in Acts 2. I think the text sustains a familial picture that is more in line with paedobaptism, just as the same words would've been quite in line with paedo-circumcision in Genesis 17.

The YOU cannot be taken to mean believer, but should only be taken as a reference to those Peter was speaking to. No one had even come forward as a believer when he made that statement so it should not be assumed he meant "to believers and their children and all who are far off." What do you believe the promise to the children was? It seems grammatically correct to infer that the words of vs 38 refer to each of the groups mentioned in vs 39, all of them being restricted by "as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

You seem to believe it says:

YOU - need to repent, be baptized, receive the Spirit
CHILDREN - are therefore baptized, but still need to repent, be baptized (no wait, they already had that done), receive the Spirit
FAR OFF - need to repent, be baptized, receive the Spirit

While I believe it says:

YOU - need to repent, be baptized, receive the Spirit
CHILDREN - need to repent, be baptized, receive the Spirit
FAR OFF - need to repent, be baptized, receive the Spirit

 

[heymikey80]

I'm not denying that you believe they need to repent, etc. But the promise seems to be that each of the groups needed to repent, be baptized, receive the Spirit. What do you believe the promise refers to in vs. 39?

Again, no disagreement. All groups need each. But not all need each in that sequential order.

There are promises in the Bible to Abraham, his physical seed, his spiritual seed, but nowhere to the physical seed of Abraham's spiritual seed.

Hah? We're staring one in the face: "this promise is to you and your children."

The promise is solely to the children of promise, not to Abe's physical seed in the first place.

That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. Rom 9:8
​

All I see the text saying is those who received Peter's words were baptized. If the children received his words, then I believe they would have been baptized as well. I think you are in a tough spot exegetically if you assume the text really means those who received his words and their children were baptized.

Not really. I don't see the words as individualistically as you do. That's how I can explain why in another passage only the men were counted, for instance. If they were individuals you'd think every person baptized would be counted.

Even so, please provide another example from the NT in which the calling of God could be readily assumed to cover a non-believer (such as a covenant child). If that cannot be done then I think the calling of vs. 39 must be taken to mean what it does in so many other NT passages. Those predestined are called, those called are justified, etc. This calling could not include unsaved children.

Well there're two household baptisms that don't state belief directly in Acts 16. There's Lydia. The one believing (singular) is Lydia, yet the household was baptized. There's the household of the Philippian jailer. The one believing (singular) is the jailer, yet the household was baptized. Of course you can assume that the rest of the household believed; it's not directly stated in the passage, though.

There're those baptized for the dead in 1 Cor 15:29.

The baptism into Moses in 1 Cor 10 wasn't accompanied by the faith God desired, according to Heb 3:16-19.

The faith of the person in Heb 6:4-6 is poignantly omitted; yet he appears to have been a member of the church the Apostle is writing to, and was likely baptized.

And if we refer to pre-Crucifixion baptisms there're always the classic examples of Judas Iscariot and Thomas.

The YOU [Acts 2:39] cannot be taken to mean believer, but should only be taken as a reference to those Peter was speaking to. No one had even come forward as a believer when he made that statement so it should not be assumed he meant "to believers and their children and all who are far off." What do you believe the promise to the children was?

To me this means far more, that something much different than "believe and be baptized afterward" is happening here. Peter doesn't call the people directly to faith, but he does call them to repent, to receive baptism and the Holy Spirit.

It's certainly true that they believe. It's stated afterward. But I think it's significant that it's not directly a part of Peter's appeal.

The promise is to those who repent, receive baptism and the Holy Spirit. I'm not sure who else the promise could be directed to.

The promise of God in this context is to save a people, bringing them to repentance, baptizing them and giving them the Spirit. That is the promise Peter is declaring. And as I said above, it's those the promise is directed to, always. Rom 9:8. Or in this passage, "as many as the Lord shall call."

It seems grammatically correct to infer that the words of vs 38 refer to each of the groups mentioned in vs 39, all of them being restricted by "as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."

It's grammatically permitted either way.

You seem to believe it says:

YOU - need to repent, be baptized, receive the Spirit
CHILDREN - are therefore baptized, but still need to repent, be baptized (no wait, they already had that done), receive the Spirit
FAR OFF - need to repent, be baptized, receive the Spirit

While I believe it says:

YOU - need to repent, be baptized, receive the Spirit
CHILDREN - need to repent, be baptized, receive the Spirit
FAR OFF - need to repent, be baptized, receive the Spirit

I don't see the sequential order as being a requirement. It's clear from the events in the early church that the Spirit of God doesn't see it that way, either.

I've answered your challenge to finding baptisms occurring before faith. Try this equivalent challenge yourself. Is there Scripture requiring that the Spirit of God always be given after baptism, and must never precede it? Does the Spirit of God never follow a different sequence? If Scripture never offers any different sequence in any move of the (always right and good) Spirit of God, then I'll accept your requirement of the sequential order of these events.

 

[plmarquette]

ephesians chapters 1 and 2 all promises are past tense ... deuteronomy 28.1-6 covenant promises , curse destroyed ...