• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Cajun Huguenot

Cajun's for Christ
Aug 18, 2004
3,055
293
65
Cajun Country
Visit site
✟4,779.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Children born to Christian parents are born to great privilege. This was true of Israelites in the Old Covenant and it is true of Christians in the New Covenant.

Paul, in his letter to the church at Rome writes, “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.” (Romans 3:1-4).

The Bible doesn’t speak only of heaven. In the Scriptures Heaven and earth are, important. Who, what, how, when, and where we are born and live are important to us and impact eternity. We are not philosophical Gnostics who see the world of spirit as good, and this physical world as evil. God created both. He said of all His creation it is “very good.” Yes, the creation is fallen and marred by sin. But man alone, in the physical creation, is a moral creature. God’s creation is still a wonder and bears witness that He is creator.

If one is born in the covenant (i.e. to Christian parents), he is born into great advantage. An Israelite was at birth a part of the people of God. He is warned time and again not to take this outward benefit for granted and assume that he had a ticket to heaven. This is because he had to have true faith, as did his father Abraham. An Israelite was born into a privileged position, because he was born among God’s people who had God’s Word and were the only people in all the earth that worshipped the true God.

That is sure a benefit in this life, if it is used properly and not misused and perverted. If the individual misuses the privilege that he receives by birth, and is condemned for it, that does not take away from the fact that he was still born into an advantaged situation.

This is what Paul is speaking of in the verses quoted above. Covenant (Christian) children today have greater benefits than that of the ancient Israelites. They are far better off than are the children born in Arabia, where the Bible and the Christian faith are outlawed. Does this fortunate birth guarantee heaven? No. The covenant child, like the ancient Israelite, must have true faith in Jesus Christ. If he denies Christ then this very benefit will be a witness against him on the day of Judgement.

Does that last fact mean that the person born in a Christian home was not born in an advantageous place and time? No, he was born in a privileged position and he is responsible for that.

With this in mind, look at all the warnings that some of our brethren use to prove that salvation can be lost. Those verses, I believe, only make sense covenantally. Can you loose salvation? No, but you can be a covenant member and go straight to hell. That is why covenant people are told to workout your salvation with fear and trembling. That is why James could write to his fellow Christians (whom he called “the twelve tribes”) and say the things he does. This is why John could write to the churches and say “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” (1 John 2:3,4). John tells Christians how they can objectively examine their lives to know that they are truly saved.

There are thirty some odd verses used to prove salvation can be lost. I believe all of those verses are rightly understood only from a covenant perspective, because, as in the Old, you can be a covenant member, born to privilege and loose your soul, if you don’t make your salvation sure through repentance, faith and new obedience to Jesus Christ.

All my children were baptised as infants. Every time I have prayed with them I pray “remember your baptism, because you are marked as belonging to the Lord,” and I inform them that they must make their salvation sure and not take it for granted.

Question: Does the fact that some people born in the privileged position by being covenant children, but don't take advantage of their position by believing on Christ mean that their position was not really an advantageous one?
Answer: No; their position was one of great privilege and benefit (in this world), but if they deny Christ this very privilege will bring them greater condemnation. The Scripture make this point in both the Old and New Testaments.

I know that is an alien concept to many of my “credo-baptistism only" brethren, but it is, I believe, very biblical. (credo= believer)

In Christ,
Kenith
 

reformedfan

Senior Veteran
Dec 18, 2003
4,358
168
http://lightintheblack.co.uk/forum/portal.php
Visit site
✟20,404.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yeah! Dispensationalists have to have such a weird view of their kids to be self consistent.I once read part of a letter Luther wrote that shocked me. (He preached more on predestination than Calvin, after all.)
In his letter to his former nanny or babysitter or someone, he said, "we have given birth to a little heathen. <which was horrible & unBiblical enough, but then came something like> We hope you can save this one like you did the last one! (Spiritually)WOW!
 
Upvote 0

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟28,628.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Hello Cajun -

Thanks for inviting me to take a look at this post. As already stated I am very leery in comparing baptism to circumcision - or by statements claiming that baptism is a form of circumcision within the new covenant. I'm assuming that is the point you are trying to make here.

I can't understand how you are using Romans 3:1-4 in relation to this topic. You really didn't explain it - Paul is specifically dealing with the dilemma of why many of his people (the Jews) have rejected Christ. In other words - since Israel received the covenant of old and it didn't do them any good in regards to salvation - then what benefit is it at all to be called a Jew. Paul talks about those advantages but basically reiterates in vs 3 and 4 of this passage that to Jews who didn't believe the advantage didn't apply. These verses do not reflect the idea that being born of Christian parents gives one any advantage at all. Those thoughts expressed are an addition to and unsupported by scripture.

In Galations chapter 5, Paul attaches the act of circumcision directly to a works based salvation (vs. 3) which he goes on to say that if you try to follow the law for salvation then you have fallen from grace (vs. 4). This is why I am not willing to accept the idea that infant baptism marks "you as belonging to the Lord." It is too close to what Paul preaches against in Galations. Its as if you substitute the word baptism for the word circumcision when you apply it as a covenantal act.

Having looked into it a little bit this weekend I would say I am definitely leaning towards Baptism as being nothing more than a significant act of obedience to be a powerful witness to all those who have not surrendered to Christ and that only those who have made a profession of faith should be baptized through immersion - NOT infants.

Correct me if I am wrong - but isn't the word "baptize" a direct carry over from the Greek language spelled out phonetically which actually means "to immerse?" Any Greek students out there care to set me straight on this? If that is indeed the meaning however, doesn't the name itself then indicate how one should be baptized? Wouldn't one logically conclude that the act itself should not be performed on infants and is therefore not intended for infants? Just some thoughts to consider in this discussion we are having.

Finally - I'd like to share a story I heard this weekend at a "Planet Wisdom" Youth conference up in Houston - that really made me consider the validity of Baptism by immersion as a sign of faith. The story goes like this -

A young college student took a missions trip to India some time ago for a few weeks and while he was there he went to the Baptism of a woman who had recently accepted Christ. He considered his own Baptism as he watched people around him begin to pick up rocks and cow dung to fling at her and the Indian evangelist administering the sacrament. At his own Baptism he had loved ones and family members to watch his profession of faith. At his Baptism he got to pick which restraunt his family would eat at after church. It was a far cry from the fear on the woman's face that he saw in India. Despite the fear he saw a look of firey determination as she was indeed immersed and Baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. When she came up she was indeed pelted with rocks and dung.

Later the missions student asked the evangelist what the deal was with the stones and stuff. The evangelist explained that nobody really makes a big deal out of people being converted to Christianity - but when someone is Baptized it infuriates people to no end. He went on to say that after his own Baptism his father tied him to a tree in the woods and let his brothers beat him with sticks till his teeth were knocked out.

That story brought it all home for me on the sacrament of Baptism. When we are Baptized it is a way to glorify God. It is a step of faith that should be made by an individual - not his parents or anyone else for that matter - and that is currently what I believe about Baptism and I how I feel about the situation.

Thanks for bringing this topic up though - because it helped me to reaffirm to myself the importance of this act of obedience in a believer's life.
 
Upvote 0
D

Dmckay

Guest
Most believers today are not aware that Baptism wasn't new with John The Baptist. Baptism has been praciced by the Jews since long before John came around. If you witness to a Jew and get them to come to your church, their family will become upset. If you get them to confess Christ as Lord they may reject the family member and shun them. But if that family member follows Christ through the waters of Baptism, the family will have a formal funeral for their now deceased family member. To the Jews, baptism in a formal, public rejection of your former life, basically telling the world that you have died to your old lifestyle.

This also is what believer's baptism is supposed to mean in the life of the believer, "I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I Christ liveth in me."
 
Upvote 0