Friendly Fire
Following is a fire side chat between two friends on the opposite sides of the same fence. Let’s listen as they talk of words, faith, and the people whom God loves….
Baptism in water or in Spirit
Bob: FV does not distinguish a difference between baptism in water or baptism in the Spirit, but looks at every instance of baptism as referring to in water. Or perhaps it would be better to say that FV believes water and Spirit baptism (as in Matt. 3.11; Rom.6.4; Col. 2.12, Acts 1.5,8) are the same thing and not distinguishable?
Matthias: Yes, and no. I see the Scripture as distinguishing different “baptisms”…
Mat 3:11
This would include HS & water. Though John mentions only the effects we can understand the means to be included; later, X’s baptism is an anointing and is patterned by the OT rites for all of the offices. What did the water//oil signify in these rites? The HS.
Rom 6:4
Again, where does one begin? The OT washings were replete demonstrations of the Spirit’s being poured out. Remember Jeremiah and Ezekiel: I will wash you, I will pour my Spirit out upon you. The Scc tie these two elements together, both the AGENT and the instrument;
Col 2:12 See above;
Acts 1:5,8 Here I see not a reference to baptism by the Spirit for salvation but for equipping. John’s baptism assuredly included the HS (see above) and his comment about Jesus’ HS and fire is merely the anti-type of the sign.
My understanding of water baptism is that it is a seal of the real grace of Holy Spirit baptism.
Yes. But why? Can we not agree that it is such b/c it is the Lord’s promise attached to the element?
I do not believe that the baptism itself conveys anything,
I truly do not know why we are so retiscent to say this. It is only able to do so b/c the Lord says it is what it is. Here is the PCA’s short coming on the power of the sign. It is a sign. It is signficant. Of what? Of God’s word to the recipient. As a sign it is a work and act of God alone to the recipient. God is doing the acting, he is doing the work. As a work of God it is both a benediction and a malediction (really, Larry, you simply must get a hold of By Oath Consigned, by M. Kline). As a good word it conveys the promise of God for life: stick with me, kid, and we’ll go places; as an evil word it threatens death: abandon me and like the people of Noah’s day, you will be washed away.
SIDEBAR:
For Abraham, the sign given to him by God initially was not a sign of blessing but of cursing. Have you ever wondered what Abe understood from the ceremony in Gen 17. Moses does not tell us what the ceremony meant in each detail. But if we listen closely we can hear the whole story. When the skin of the male organ was removed from its source of life, it would die. God was giving a visual picture of what it would mean to Abraham were he to remove himself from the source of life found in YHWH: he would die. “If you leave me Abraham, you are cut off alone to die.” When applied to the recipient, the sign becomes a blessing/curse so that each subsequent generation is reminded that the recipient (CHILD) is placed not only into a saving relationship with God but also is called to follow the LORD upon the pains of death.
But that the Holy Spirit conveys the grace through the sacrament when the sacrament is met with faith.
That baptism requires faith for reception begs a question. Do we baptise an adult who has no faith? No. Why? Because baptism belongs only to those who have exhibited faith. Baptism belongs only to those who have faith. Baptism belongs only to those who have faith…..As PCA-ers we say baptism belongs to all believers and their children (infants). Does the sign change meaning when applied to infants? What does the sign mean for an adult? Does it always mean that? Always? Does it ever change in meaning for Adult A who was baptised at 10:53 AM and Adult B who was baptised at 11:00 AM? Here is the scylla and charybdis. Does the sign change in meaning at all for the infant baptised at 11:05?
This is a bit different with baptism than with the Lord’s Supper as a baby is baptized yet it is not met with faith at that point.
See above
For me this is a pretty simple issue because i do not confine it to time. In other words, 1) i don’t believe that baptism must be met with faith immediately during the sacrament, but the sacrament looks forward to the faith that the child is expected to exhibit.
See SIDEBAR “B” below
2)In the case of adults, faith is to be shown at the same time as the sacrament.
Are you talking of paedo in 1) and adult in 2)? If not, you are contradicting yourself. However, nonetheless, at any baptism faith must be exhibited.
SIDEBAR A:
Even if we allow for the infant not to have faith per se, do we not have faith exhibited in the people? That is, do the people not “faith” that God is fulfilling his promises to them and their children? That is not to say, the child is saved b/c of the people’s faith but that the child is saved b/c the people are seeing God save another child.
SIDEBAR B:
Now, as to the above, this is what is preached in every non FV church in the PCA. I hear it regularly. And it truly breaks my heart. Here’s why. What are we saying that Baptists are not? Our reformed baptisms are nothing less than baptist dedications. They are. We emasculate Christ and dehydrate the element. We end up saying NOTHING less than an evangelist at a crusade. “If you will but come to Jesus he will…..” The only thing missing is water. Why not (I know why not, it’s rhetoric) baptise everyone and say, “OK, when you get around to believing this stuff…” How is what we do different than our baptist brethren? Here is where we change the meaning of baptism for the adult and baptism for the child. Where in the Scc do we get that prerogative?
If all of the saving benefits of Christ are conferred upon the person through baptism, wouldn't perseverance be a part of that?
Just as much as the others: justification, et al.
...and if it was, then none would fall away who were baptized.
Well, then there wouldn’t be any need to warn of apostasy would there?
And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. (Phi 1:6)
Read this article by Pratt. It will help in the area of tacit conditions and historical contigencies:
www.thirdmill.org/magazine/search.asp/keyword/preterism/
The warning of apostacy found in Heb 3:12 is a call to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith.
Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus
Christ is in you?–unless indeed you fail to meet the test! (2Co 13:5)Which, from what I understand FV does not teach
that one needs to examine one’s self, but rather to rest in the fact that they are part of the visible Church. Perhaps you are thinking of different passages regarding apostasy, if so please let me know what they are.
Hebrews is a major text for warning against an unbelieving heart. Chs 1-10 are vital. I would disagree that it's an examination to be in the faith per se. The text says, see to it that none of you has an unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God. Seems to warn against apostasy to me.
Think rather of redemptive history. The author of Hebrews is using THE OT people of God to warn the NT
people of God against apostasy. Consider my earlier in depth comments here.
The same is true of the tree and branches. The branches are taken away because they do not have saving faith (which produces fruit) but are found fruitless, which is proof of lack of faith.
Again, this may be valid. But consider the language of John 15: the Greek preposition "en" translated "in" governs those about whom the parable is told. The first use says, Every branch IN me.
EVERY: define
BRANCH: define
IN : define
ME: define
Whatever one says here about these four words must understand its effect on the whole passage. I cannot see how one can gymnasium his way out of this.
They are IN Christ in the sense that they are in His visible Church.
Who are your "they"? Please, take the time to exegete the four words. It seems you are driving a wedge between "every branch." Jesus would have said to Andrew (had he asked, "Yes, Jesus, but are the branches of which thou-est speaketh truly in you or are they merely relating to you by association and not really in you b/c we all know that those who are truly in you cannot fall away?"),
"Yes." I love ST & BT but very often-er our ST does damage to BT.
This is where the distinction between the visible and invisible Church is important. If you could be in Christ in a saving way and then come out of Christ, then we have no assurance of our salvation….
Truly we do. Hopefully, you are assured weekly as you feast at the Table.
and God may not finish what He started in us...which would go against Scripture.
Let me ask you a truly pastoral question. Are you in Christ right now? Is there the slightest possibility that you could fall away?
Then, wherein doth thine assurance lieth?
Hear the Confession on this:
Chapter XVIII: Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation
I. Although hypocrites, and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favour of God and estate of salvation; which hope of theirs shall perish; yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God; which hope shall never make them ashamed.
Here the Confession bases assurance in one’s faithful walk. How may one be assured in this life? By endeavouring to walk….
II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith, founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation,
In this place, one’s assurance comes from without the believer. It is the promises of God made to his children.
the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God: which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.
III. This infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God,
So here we see the conflict. That which a believer may have inwardly can be thwarted even by that which is inward. His own heart can deceive him. So where is he to go to find shelter from the storm?
he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means,
What are these means? Are they not that which the WCF also requires for salvation? The diligent use of all the outward means: sacraments and prayer.
attain thereunto. And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure; that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance: so far is it from inclining men to looseness.
IV. True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it; by falling into some special sin, which wounds the conscience, and grieves the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation; by God’s withdrawing the light of his countenance, and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness, and to have no light: yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ, and the brethren, that sincerity of heart and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may in due time be revived, and by the which, in the mean time, they are supported from utter despair.
All this to say, assurance and perseverance are predicated upon one’s faith. One’s assurance depends upon the place of one’s faith at that moment. Do I look to myself? Or do I look to the promises of God given to me in the Gospel? Therein lies my assurance. It is not in me but in God’s promises to me, that, despite how weak my faith or how gross my sin, His love cannot be cloven from me.
Let's look at the vine/branches on this wise...
The vine is Christ (Jn 15:5)...the branches are those who abide in Christ (live in Christ), in other words believers...those thrown away because of their unfruitfulness are thrown away LIKE a branch, they are not called branches, but are told they will be thrown away LIKE a branch and wither. The point is not that they were ever a true branch, but that they will be burned up like dead branches. So believers are the branches and the apostates are LIKE the branches, but are not branches.
I would like to note that the adverb like in the text is used as a simile. That is, like branches are thrown away, this one will be so if he does not produce fruit. The adverb is not being used as lamely as you would have it; it is not “like” as in “She is acting like a cat” and we are to understand that she really isn’t a cat but is only “like” one. No. Think of it this way. A child is acting like a brat. The parent comes in and says, “If you do not shape up, I will spank you like a brat.”
John 15 (esv) “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me
that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes,
that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken
to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides
in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches.
Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can
do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers;
and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. If you abide in me, and
my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. By this my Father
is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. As the Father has loved
me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in
my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. These things I
have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.
That is, like branches are thrown away, this one will be so if he does not produce fruit. To say more than that is to seriously damage a simple parable. The adverb like is not meant to define ontology but rather teleology; that is, Jesus is not saying that non-fruit bearers are not truly united to him but that “like chaff is separated from the wheat and thrown into the fire…” The idea is the end result not, to be clear, not the true essence of the non-fruit bearer. The essence of that one has already been established. He is a disciple. What you are doing (much like our well intentioned Bruce Wilkinson) here is reading into the text your presupposition about soteriology. True, you might accuse me of the same; however, the text is clear and that you are the one to bear the burden of proof. I say the text is clear and take its words at face value; you say the words do not mean what they normally ought to mean.
And looking at the visible Church we can see that there are those who appear to be branches but are not because they are fruitless.
This fruitfulness of believers is God working through them. Since Christ relates our abiding in Him with His abiding in the Father (Jn
15:10) your interpretation of us being able to fall out of the abiding in Christ would also imply that He could fall out of abiding in the Father. As to the Trinitarian nature of God, that is not possible. Unless you also have different views on the Trinity.
Again, your conclusion begs you to prove your assertion. However, I will attempt to address it. Let me recap what I said above concerning the Abrahamic Cov’t in Gen. 17. To paraphrase: And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall [abide in me], you and your [branches] after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be [pruned]. You shall be [pruned] in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be [pruned]. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be [pruned]. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any male who [does not bear fruit] shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my [not abided in me].”
Now, to be sure, I was licentious but that does not take away from the validity of the illustration. Refer again to my first SIDEBAR.
To read the text as you do, you must abuse the text and say what it does not. Here is the key example of words or phrases twisted out of context to say what you would:
1) Already you are clean
About whom does this speak? Can we truly see Peter putting his arm around Andrew and whispering maliciously (breaking the 9th word), “Pssst. Surely, he can’t mean Judas, can he? I mean, we all know he pilfers and….didn’t he say just two chapters ago that not all of us are clean?”
No. Truly, truly, I say to you, Judas was in league with Jesus. Judas was a disciple; Judas was a branch. As John Michael Talbot says, “Only a friend can betray a friend.”
Now, to be sure, your mind will hearken back to John 13 wherein Jesus alludes to Judas’ not being clean. Let us consider this a severe mercy. Jesus is warning Judas there but unfortunately, he did not heed. (I know you will follow up on this…have at thee!!)
2) Now, to the Trinity. How absurd to address ontology when clearly economy is intended. Jesus’ speaking of God and relating to God in many passages is relational. Of course, the Trinity cannot be cloven in twain; but of that, here, Jesus is not speaking.
Vine and branches again…
When the branch is in the vine it bears fruit, when it’s not in the vine it does not.
Therefore it is the branches that are not in the vine that are fruitless and are thrown away.
Aha!! So you admit they ARE branches…..
In Jn 15:5 Jesus says, “Whoever abides in my [sic] and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit” –
so we know that branches that are in the vine of Jesus do bear fruit and nor [sic] not fruitless
and [sic] the branches that are thrown away.
Is it possible to be in Christ and yet be fruitless?
Here is the shifting deck of reciprocity. How much is enough? How fruitful is fruitful? How fruitless is fruitless? I do not think that there is an easy quid pro quo here. How disobedient did Israel have to be in order to be exiled? How fruitful did the remnant (i/e Daniel) have to be for the restoration to take place (but didn’t; hmmmmmmmmmmmmm).
Day 2
Even though FV seems to take the distinction away from the visible vs. invisible Church, they create a distinction between those that are elect to the covenant and those that are elect to salvation.
I personally do not see this.
This is related to baptism because it is in baptism that i believe the children of believers enter into the visible Church, but you believe they enter into the invisible Church, but only into its covenant and not into its salvation. At least that’s the take that i am getting.
No. As David’s infantile experience is the experience of every cov’t child, each child is born of God and called to persevere in the faith.
So a distinction still has to be made because we see that some children of believers are not saved.
I would say, “Do not persevere.”
There’s no way of getting around that reality unless you want to do damage to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. So i make the distinction between visible & invisible Church, and FV makes distinction between elect to covenant and elect to salvation.
Ok. Let me define my terms.
Visible church: all those who profess faith in the true religion and their children locally.
Invisible church: all those…..throughout all history who persevere thereunto.
I think FV tries to redefine the idea of the elect in this instance. The Church via Scripture has looked at the elect as being those who are elect to salvation from eternity. Therefore the FV distinction can’t stand in the light of Scripture. Why do i say that the Scripture speaks of the elect as those saved and not merely those in a covenant outside of salvation? Here’s why…
Mat 24:31
You give me a text on AD 70? I don’t get it. This is not a very strong proof text for your point.
As to the Church via scripture, consider all the Gospel accounts wherein Jesus attributes to the children access, nay, possession of the kingdom. If you want to explain away these instances as analogies of “dependence”, John MacArthur would love to have you on staff.
I would like to talk about the imputation of Christ’s righteousness now, if you don’t mind.
It is my understanding that FV denies the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the elect. I think this is erroneous.
As do I. BTW, not all do.
Our righteousness is apart from the law, it is the righteousness of God through Christ (Rom 3:22). As a matter of fact, if we count our righteousness as not coming from the imputation of Christ, but from the law, then we make Christ’s death vanity (Gal 2:21).
Rom 5:17 is an exellent picture in how Adam and Jesus are our federal head in this area. As one mans’ sin was imputed to us and allowed death to reign over us, so one man’s righteous act is imputed to us and allows justification of life.
Rom 8:10 tells us that the Spirit is life because of righteousness…whose righteousness?…Christ’s.
1 Cor 1:30 tells us that Christ became our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. Jesus is no less our righteousness than He is our redemption.
We do not have our own righteousness, but one that comes from Christ (Phi 3:9)
A couple of issues...
The OT economy is different from the NT economy as there was a national identity as well as a religious identity in the OT. In the NT there is only a religious identity.
I would disagree semantically: all nations come to Christ so there is a national element.
Abraham's offspring were not merely brought into religious Jewish-ness by circumcision, but they were brought into their Jewish identity as a nation.
We know that not all baptized children are saved.
I would prefer to say do not persevere.
In taking away the distinction between the visible and invisible Church FV must make a new distinction to account for this fact. What they have come up with is "elect to covenant" and "elect to salvation."
The thing is, the visible/invisible paradigm seems much more appropriate. We can only judge by what we see (visible). We don't know the secret counsel of God, so we can't say, "I know Bob is saved." However, we do assume that Bob
is saved if He exhibits Christian behavior. So we judge him visibly. This is why we call it the "visible Church."
Ok. Let me ask you a question I would truly like you to work out.
Are you saved? Can you say of yourself, “I know I am saved”?
Personally, I can say of myself AND Bob that we are saved b/c we celebrate communion each week. I think the burden of proof falls back to you and there will be more explaining away of simpler terms if your position is maintained.
A second item I would like to ask you is this. Do you have children? If so, how do you speak to them about these things? Now, in a BT world it is simple: Jesus loves you; Jesus died for you; God loves you; God has forgiven you. But in your ST world, what can you say but, “You do not belong to God. If you do not come to Jesus he will destroy you. Jesus does not love you, yea, and verily, he cannot until you repent.”
I know of no PCA-er who treats his child this way. Do you see the disconnect? All PCA-ers are closet FV-ers but profess that we should all be Baptists.
The "invisible Church" on the other hand only God can know. We can know if we are part of the invisible Church, but we can't know if others are. This belongs to the secret decree of election of God. The election to covenant/salvation paradigm is less appropriate because it forces a division in God's decree instead of in man's perception.
It is not David’s infantile experience that we read of in the Psalm, but the man David looking back on his infancy. So yes, at the time of writing the Psalm David knew that he was elect. And if elect, he was elect from before the foundation of the world.
I do not think this will do. You are giving with one hand and taking with the other. The Psalter was the inspired hymn book for the people of God. When they sang Psalm 22, they were singing what was true of all of them: they were made (by God) to trust in him from the womb.
Let me define my terms:
Visible Church – Those we “see” as being elect.
Invisible Church – Those who actually “are” elect.
Children possessing the kingdom in as much as they are possessing the visible kingdom. But i see no biblical warrant to suppose that all believers children inherit Heaven itself.
Again, I think this is splitting heirs. (ahem)
I am glad that you don’t deny the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.
All nations coming to Christ is not a national element, it is the destruction of the national element. All nations are not a single nation. I suppose your thinking here is due to a postmil view?
No, I’m not P-M. I was just stream of conscious-ing.
Yes i am saved. I can “say” that Bob is saved, but i can’t know it. Simply because he demonstrates outward signs doesn’t mean that inwardly he is saved.
But how do you know you are saved? Bob and you know the same things, believe the same things, confess the same things. What is the difference right now? Here is the next step for you. Larry, is there the slightest chance, you could go AWOL? Ever? What is Bob perseveres but you don’t? What does that do to your doctrine of assurance?
I have children. I teach them that they are part of the Church (visible). I teach them that through my headship they are counted holy.
I still don’t know what PCA-ers mean by this. I know what Paul means, but not the PCA. What does this mean?
I teach them that they personally are sinners, and that God needs to draw them to Christ for salvation if they want to enter Heaven and be spared of Hell. I teach them to pray to God for His Holy Spirit that they may be saved.
Ok, you sound like a good PresBapterian. So before your 4 year old professed faith, you gave her no assurance of God’s love? You only evangelized her?
My oldest daughter (in her 20’s now) is not saved. Was she baptized?…yes. Was she a church-goer?…yes. Did she even appear to be Christian for a while?…yes. But she never was. If she was ever truly part of the invisible Church she would have never left the Church (1 Jn 2:19).
Wow. Thank you for sharing such a tremendous confidence. I appreciate it. May I play out a scenario that I do not mean to be offensive but pastoral? Here is how I might follow up with a congregant in my church.
Melissa: I know why you’re here Pastor.
P: Oh, really? Why?
Melissa: You’re here to tell me how I’m in sin and how I’m grieving the Spirit and yada, yada, yada…
P: Well, it sounds like you’ve gotten some good from going to church. Those things are true but I’m here for a much more serious talk.
Melissa: Yeah, I was afraid of that, too.
P: Melissa, you are a precious child of God and he loves you very much. He loves you so much that even this episode of your rebellion is forgiven already. It’s taken care of and he has even given you the gift of his Spirit to strengthen you to repent from death and turn to him for life. Melissa I want you to know that I am not angry with you; God is not angry with you…
Melissa: There’s a “but” coming isn’t there?
P: Heh! Yes. There is a “but”. Melissa, the Bible is so full of God’s mercy and grace to his children when they have wandered, but there are just as many instances when even when God’s mercies have gone out, his children still persist in rebellion. Melissa, there will come a time when God’s mercy and love may turn into a stronger discipline that our little talk right now.
Melissa: What do you mean? I thought Jesus paid it all, all to him I owe.
P: Yes, that’s true but only if you endeavor to walk in holiness and truth. You, see, you are baptised. You have God’s mark upon you. He says that you are his. He says that you are not to act like those who are not. Your baptism is God’s word to you of warning and blessing. As a warning God admonishes you not to abandon his family or else like the people in Noah’s day and the Egyptians, you are washed away in his wrath. You see, that’s the first implication of baptism: God uses water to cleanse the earth of the wicked. But your baptism holds out hope for you. And I like this part a whole lot more than the other. The beauty of God’s promises given to us in baptism by Christ are that he will always be merciful and kind to his children who come back. The beauty of baptism teaches me that no matter how much I return to my own vomit; no matter how many times I go back to wallowing in my own slop, God promises to wash me off if I come to my senses. No questions. No tapping foot. No wagging finger. He throws his arms around me and clothes me in new clothes and tells me that I am his favorite child.
And I say incredulously, “But how, Father? I did it again. I went back to my sin. I spurned your grace and love.”
And he says, “Yes, I know don’t remind me. But you know the good news don’t you? The good news is that my Son has died. My son has died for your rebellion; therefore, I am not mad. I will not punish you. You heard him knocking on your heart and you opened up and took him in. Now, like He says, “Come in to us and let us dine together. All has been made ready.”
Melissa: Wow!! Is the Gospel really that good?
P: Come and see. Come and taste and see how good the Lord is.
My youngest (boy 7, girl 4) I do look at as being saved. But I did the same thing with my oldest daughter when she was younger. The bottom line is that we can’t know the hidden decree of God, we only know His promise to our children and we act in faith of that fact. But that is a general promise to believers and their children, not a specific promise that each child will be saved.
Ok. So let me ask you another question. Your girl is four. I have four boys and a girl. My last boy is 2. If he dies right now, I know where he will go based upon the Abrahamic cov’t. I know he will see Jesus. Same for my 5 month old girl. Now, I am able to justify this belief. However, I do not think the same of you. What comfort can you offer a parent whose child died? How? Each parent of different families? Which ones get comforted?
Day 3
But how do you know you are saved? Bob and you know the same things, believe the same things, confess the same things. What is the difference right now? Here is the next step for you. Larry, is there the slightest chance, you could go AWOL? Ever? What is Bob perseveres but you don’t? What does that do to your doctrine of assurance?
One doesn’t know that one is saved by the things that one does. It is not that i know i am saved because i go to church or take communion or have certain beliefs (the same beliefs about Christ that the Devil himself has).
I would beg to disagree. Our assurances can come from our actions. Jesus said that we could know certain things by one’s fruit; he said that the world and we, ourselves, would know we are his disciples by our love for one another; and Peter (at least) called us to make our calling and election as(sure) by our actions.
I know that i am saved because the Holy Spirit bears witness with my spirit that i am a child of God (Rom 8:16). And it is precisely because the Holy Spirit only bears witness with my spirit that i can’t know if He bears witness to another’s spirit.
No, not only. Besides, have you ever had a dark night of the soul? I have. I have doubted my faith many times in the past; I have struggled with my election at times in the present. Our hearts can deceive even us. And when faith is weak I have never found more comfort than to go to the table and hear that I am still loved, that I am still adopted, that I am still an heir of the kingdom.
Why are you so reticent to have confidence in what you see? It is perfectly all right for you to assign salvation to those who are in the VC precisely b/c they are there to begin with. There is no ordinary means of salvation outside if the VC. So if someone belongs to that church, he has every right to presume that EVERY promise is his forever anon. I mean, really. Think of your wife. How many times has she exhibited an ungodly attitude? If she hasn’t, may God be praised!! But when she has, do you then question her faith? “Gee, is she a Christian….?” I think not. Give credit where credit is do. And the credit always goes to the Spirit who is the agent of truth.
No, there is no chance that i could go AWOL if i am truly saved. Because He that started the good work in my will finish it (Phi 1:6).
I used this as an illustration in a sermon once: think of all those people who put their faith in the daily “horrors”copes. Think of the business man who read that his Taurine (Taurus) day will be filled with his ability to demonstrate leadership and prowess….. And as he walks to work thinking of the possibilities he passes a drunk in the gutter lying on the very same page he read that morning and he thinks to himself, “Huh! What if he’s a Taurus, too?”
Please read Pratt’s article I referred to earlier. Calvin taught of tacit conditions. That is, there are many promises in the Word that are true but that (even though unwritten) have implied conditions to them. Here is one. Imagine the angel of the Philippian church reading this letter to his people. Is he going to make the disclaimer, “Now there are some of you who are wolves in sheep’s clothing so when Paul tells us that God will finish the work, he doesn’t mean you”? No. Paul says to the whole church body, you are all partakers of grace with me.
There is no way that on of God’s children can be snatched out of His hand, because there is no power greater than His to remove us from God’s hand (Jn 10:29).
Again, read Pratt’s article (It’s not long). http://reformedperspectives.org/newfiles/ric_pratt/ot.ric_pratt.hyperpreterism.html
You must be a good dispensationalist, too. How many of the OT promises to Israel have yet to be seen? How many promises that God made to Israel of perpetuity fell to the ground? How could this be? If God said Zerubbabel would be ruler over Israel as King (Haggai) wouldn’t it be so?
I teach them that they are part of the Church (visible). I teach them that through my headship they are counted holy.
I still don’t know what PCA-ers mean by this. I know what Paul means, but not the PCA. What does this mean?
If you are asking about what i mean by our children being counted holy because of our faith, 1 Cor 7:14 deals with that.
Yes, I know where it is. But I am asking you to define your terms.
Ok, you sound like a good presBapterian. So before your 4 year old professed faith, you gave her no assurance of God’s love? You only evangelized her?
Of course i did, because i presumed a seminal faith in the child. But that doesn’t mean that i was correct in my presumption because i don’t know the secret counsel of God.
Yes, you do. Yes, you can. God has made a promise to you, “I will be your God and I will be your children’s God.” I truly believe it is to castigate God for our not taking him at his word.
I think it is the Christian parents duty to presume seminal faith, but they ought not go so far as to mandate it as if they knew God’s hidden decree.
What do you mean here by seminal faith?
&
the scenario that you presented is “nice”
What??! I thought it was brilliant.
…but i don’t find it very biblical for the reasons i am sure you are aware of by our conversations. I never think it’s a good idea to give people hope at any cost, in other words they may like what you say and even respond to it, but if it’s not biblical it should be avoided.
Are you referring to my “prodigal” talk here? How is my scenario not biblical? You have person A who has been baptised (that’s key) and has persevered in the faith to a certain point. Here we have credibility of circumstance; that is, this person is a member of the VC (with all of its ordinary means of which he has partaken) and is therefore under the rule of the session. Due process ought to be given (see BCO, R.O.D., chapters 27ff)
What comfort can you offer a parent whose child died?
First, i don’t think that the end result in everything should be our comfort.
WHAT?!??!??!?!??!??!? What about the Heidelberg Confession Q 1 :
1. Q. What is your only comfort in life and death?
A. That I am not my own,[1] but belong with body and soul, both in life and in death,[2] to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ.[3] He has fully paid for all my sins with His precious blood, and has set me free from all the power of the devil.[5] He also preserves me in such a way[6] that without the will of my heavenly Father not a hair can fall from my head;[7] indeed, all things must work together for my salvation.[8] Therefore, by His Holy Spirit He also assures me of eternal life[9] and makes me heartily willing and ready from now on to live for Him.[10]
[1] I Cor. 6:19, 20 [2] Rom. 14:7-9. [3] I Cor. 3:23; Tit. 2:14. [4] I Pet. 1:18, 19; I John 1:7; 2:2. [5] John 8:34-36; Heb. 2:14, 15; I John 3:8. [6] John 6:39, 40; 10:27-30; II Thess. 3:3; I Pet. 1:5. [7] Matt. 10:29-31; Luke 21:16-18. [8] Rom. 8:28. [9] Rom. 8:15, 16; II Cor. 1:21, 22; 5:5; Eph. 1:13, 14. [10] Rom. 8:14.
Second, if the child was of believing parents i would tell them that they do have a hope. That Jesus is able to save even in the womb
Not able, but does. Think of David’s paradigmatic comfort that he will see his child again. Or did he have a sudden glimpse into the eternal decree?
and that as believing parents they should hold on to fact that the promise is for us and our children.
No “buts”.
But again, this i a general promise as is evidenced by children of believers not being saved (i would not bring this part up to the parents).
Surely not, as the child had not had time to apostatize (contra Esau).
One of the main differences in our ideas comes form our beliefs on perseverance it would seem.
If the saved always persevere, then you teaching can’t be right.
(I suppose my vanity will have to be curbed at this point. I wrote a letter to MR mag back in ‘03 or ’04 on this subject and can’t find it for reference.)
Tacit conditions. They do, unless they don’t. Think of Rom 8 38: For I am convinced that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities, nor things present nor things to come nor powers; nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord..(here is what Paul didn’t say but tacitly implied….unless you go AWOL.)
If they don’t always persevere then you have a point. But since i believe that the saved always persevere i can’t believe your view on this matter.
Sigh. Too true. Say, “Bob”. I have thoroughly enjoyed this and hope it continues as “iron sharpens iron”, what! Too bad we aren’t closely approximated, we could talk @ this over some pints or what have you. May God richly bless your heart as you recall his promised love to you in Christ by faith even though you return to death at times thinking to satiate your thirst from the putrescence of cracked vessels.
