When Is An Infant Saved?

Light of the East said:

The parents, with the father acting as the covenant head, recites the vows for the child.

Click to expand...

Then it isn't a vow you took.

It is the responsibility of the parents to teach the child these vows and the importance of keeping them.

Click to expand...

And that's not even remotely what you said.

The covenant head always acts on behalf of those who are under his headship, whether for curse or blessing.

Click to expand...

Verse?

From the book THAT YOU MAY PROSPER - Dominion by Covenant by Ray Sutton, who, incidentally, is Protestant.

We can summarize Biblical hierarchy as the idea that one represents others. Notice how individuals are chosen to represent larger
groups in God's Deuteronomic hierarchy (Deut. 1:9-18). In a sense,
everyone is a representative and everyone needs a representative. No
man stands alone. He has a representative either way; there is one at
the top, like Moses; there is one at the bottom, like the captain over
tens. Even the individual is in some sense representative of the whole
group. If he sins, this affects the entire camp (Josh. 7). The idea of
one for many cannot be avoided.

Click to expand...

This is the second principle of covenant - that of hierarchy or representation. It is not found spelled out word for word in a verse, as you would like to see it. It is a principle that you must find in scripture. Such representation is seen in the act of the father being circumcised on behalf of his female family members.

Representation is seen in Leviticus 16 where the high priest offers Yom Kippur for the entire nation. That same principle is seen in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The high priest condemned Jesus, and since he did, it was the entire nation which condemned Jesus, which led to its destruction some 40 years later.

The baptismal vows made for the child are considered to be the child's vows until the child is old enough to take those vows for him/herself.

Light of the East - " The seventh day Sabbath belongs to the Old Covenant"

This is not the case. The seventh day Sabbath was never changed in the New Testament. There is nowhere in the Bible that shows the day of rest being moved to Sunday.
The Apostles and their disciples in the church continued to observe the seventh day Sabbath even 40 years after the resurrection of Christ.
The Sabbath was made for mankind (everybody) not only one special people.
Mark 2:27

Let's try this again:

Exo 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel that is, the Jewish Nation, who were the special people of God under the Old Covenant shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their their generations. Who is the "their" who are being spoken of? It is the Jews and the Hebrew Nation. This belonged to them alone.generations, for a perpetual covenant. How do you miss this, sir? It states right here that it is for a perpetual covenant with the Jews. Since the Old Covenant is passed away (Heb 8:13) then please tell me how this applies anymore.

The fact that the first Christians kept the Old Covenant Sabbath is due to the fact that they did not yet understand the transition from the Old to the New Covenant. There were disciplines and doctrines which had to develop as the Church grew. A mustard seed does not look like or have the function of a full grown tree. Neither did the early Church in seed form have the fullness of understanding that the mature tree has developed over the ages. Your argument is another Protestant straw man.

Light of the East said:

Let's try this again:

Exo 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel that is, the Jewish Nation, who were the special people of God under the Old Covenant shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their their generations. Who is the "their" who are being spoken of? It is the Jews and the Hebrew Nation. This belonged to them alone.generations, for a perpetual covenant. How do you miss this, sir? It states right here that it is for a perpetual covenant with the Jews. Since the Old Covenant is passed away (Heb 8:13) then please tell me how this applies anymore.

The fact that the first Christians kept the Old Covenant Sabbath is due to the fact that they did not yet understand the transition from the Old to the New Covenant. There were disciplines and doctrines which had to develop as the Church grew. A mustard seed does not look like or have the function of a full grown tree. Neither did the early Church in seed form have the fullness of understanding that the mature tree has developed over the ages. Your argument is another Protestant straw man.

Click to expand...

Jesus was an avid Sabbath keeper and the greatest proponent for it to be observed. He brought new understanding to the way we should conduct ourselves on this Holy day versus the zealots misapplications.
Jesus said He was Lord of the Sabbath which was a sign that sets mankind apart with God in a special way for worship and service. If the plan was for the Sabbath to be changed to the 1st day of the week wouldn't it make more sense for Jesus to declare such a major change since He was the only one that could sanctify something, not man.
You have to understand the 7th day Sabbath was in effect from the beginning of creation - Gen 2:2-3.
it was observed long before the Jews or the Sinai covenant and Ten Commandment-look at the wording of the 4th commandment- ' Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy...." You can't remember something you haven't kept before.
It was only later primarily by the likes of Constantine that God's holy day, the 7th day Sabbath was changed for political and appeasement reasons
Nowhere in the bible was a divine order or permission given to change God's Sabbath from the 7th day to a Sunday.
the seventh day is a reminder of our creator
if we look ahead at the prophecies for the end time we see the whole world will be keeping the Sabbath at that time -why wait until then to maintain the true Sabbath that God created for us.

Jesus was an Old Covenant Jew under the Law of the Old Covenant, which, as I have shown you but you continue to reject, was done away with.

As early as the book of Acts, mention is made of meeting on the first day of the week to break bread (Eucharist). You will no doubt ignore that also. You have made up your mind and only the Holy Spirit will be able to change it.

It's been fun, but I've said all I need to say. Anything else is just pride on my part, which I refuse to indulge in.

This Sabbath subject is off topic for this particular thread. So I will start a new thread with the Sabbath matter the main theme. thank you.

South Bound said:

Do you know the difference between a regulative practice in scripture and a normative practice?

Click to expand...

I am well aware of Mr. Calvin. I am also well aware that the Scripture leads us to believe in some things that are not spelled out word for word the way we would like them to be; but after 40+ years of faith I am quite comfortable with and fully adhere to bringing infants into the New Covenant by the means that Christ Himself prescribed...Baptism. The concept that infants should be excluded from the Covenant is fairly new and very much a tradition of man. One could plausibly argue that the baptism of infants is equally 'of man', but they would have to ignore the Scriptural evidence, some of which I have provided, that demonstrates that infants have always been included. Twist away the Scriptures I provided if you must, but Scripture itself warns against this. The Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth, and even the eunuch recognizes that the words must be explained to him...

To ignore that the practice of the earliest of Church fathers was to baptize infants is to propose that those living closest to the time of Christ got things wrong from the very beginning...and thus goes against Scripture: 'For I am with you always', Scripture does not say 'You will follow the wrong path for 1600 years, and THEN, will I deliver someone to you who will get it right'. It says ALWAYS.

Peace in Christ

South Bound said:

Do you know the difference between a regulative practice in scripture and a normative practice?

Click to expand...

I'm familiar with the Reformed tradition that makes this distinction, but I'm not aware of its concrete existence as a traditional part of Christianity.

On what basis should we accept this Protestant tradition as normative (or regulative?) for how we interpret Scripture?

Those who believe the unBiblical Soteriology of salvation apart from faith in Christ often use the rhetoric of Sacramental theology, which is of little distinction from Judaizing the faith. For they make salvation apart from faith, contingent upon a ritual done to the flesh. I reckon such theologians to be as far outside the faith as those whom Paul contended with in Acts 15 and Galatians.

In contrast to the propositions of the modern Judaizers, the Bible declares the gospel to be this:

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." Rom 3:20-22

There is no promise of salvation apart from faith in the LORD Jesus Christ

bcbsr said:

Those who believe the unBiblical Soteriology of salvation apart from faith in Christ often use the rhetoric of Sacramental theology, which is of little distinction from Judaizing the faith. For they make salvation apart from faith, contingent upon a ritual done to the flesh. I reckon such theologians to be as far outside the faith as those whom Paul contended with in Acts 15 and Galatians. In contrast to the propositions of the modern Judaizers, the Bible declares the gospel to be this: "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." Rom 3:20-22 There is no promise of salvation apart from faith in the LORD Jesus Christ

Click to expand...

Please substantiate any or all of this. You have completely misunderstood sacramental theology is you believe what you wrote to be accurate.

And see my preceding post. On what basis should I accept Protestant *traditions* about what is "biblical" and what is not?