“That’s a bit silly, though. The passages that discuss the Lord’s supper (i.e. 1 Cor 11 and elsewhere) use the plural “you” without regard to gender. It is understood that all believers are included in the call to honor the memory of the Lord that way”
Yes, I do think that it is a bit silly, but that’s why I wrote it to argue ad reductio absurdum. We both know and affirm that the Lord’s Supper is for both male and female, and I agree from your assessment of the gender neutral “you” plural in 1 Corinthians 11. However, my argument was that to admit this would also admit that infants could be baptized based on “household baptism”. It is using a similar implicit reading from the word “household” that is done for the word “you”. Hope that clarifies it a bit, brother. :)
How lovely is thy dwelling-place,
O Lord of hosts, to me!
The tabernacles of thy grace
how pleasant, Lord, they be!
My writings on the sacraments have been postponed due to work BUT, those questions you have on infant baptism, etc. and some of the objections put forward, I will try to address as I write on that specific section. Although, its not going to be polemical, more just a reason why I think its right. If you guys have any questions, shoot me messages, and i’ll try to address them in my upcoming writings. Thanks, and God bless.
“I was talking about the women and communion issue you brought up. Since scripture doesn’t specifically allow it, according to you in earlier posts, then it should not be done. Or is communion not worship now?”
Again, you don’t understand the regulative principle…and you are making comments on something that doesn’t even have to do with that persay. Its an inhouse debate. Thanks for your comments though.
Decided to write some responses to some of the comments made first, then I’ll write a post on it later.
“If baptism is a sign of true conversion, and infants are incapable of understanding the Gospel, let alone converting, then what purpose does infant baptism serve? (I’m not familiar with the pro arguments on this).” - Apologetics and Stuff
A simple answer to this is just to ask if “baptism is a sign of true conversion”? I do not see the sacraments to be in any sense a sign of “true conversion” but a sign of God’s promises and a seal of those promises.
“He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well,” Romans 4:11 It wasn’t his conversion that was the seal, it was the righteousness that he had by faith. The promise given to him. Also consider that there are many baptists who get baptized yet aren’t truly saved. If baptism is a sign of true conversion then is everyone who gets baptized people who must have true faith? I do not believe that the gospel is about knowledge, its about grace. So infants of believers are in that category of those who are recipients of grace.
“Yea you need to give a basic post on the pro’s of infant baptism. The NT doesn’t talk about infant baptism but it heavily correlates conversion and baptism. It never says woman can take the lords supper, but it never says anything about they can’t” He calls them by name
Yea, and this is precisely the argument that I’m saying against those who state that the NT never talks about infant baptism, therefore infant baptism shouldn’t be practiced. This is a misunderstanding of the regulative principle because it limits the regulative principle to direct commands and not to inferences from the Scriptures.
“Sometimes holding to the regulative principle of worship is just a bit too stringent isn’t it?” Derek Thornton
I don’t think you understand the regulative principle of worship, and I would say that the baptists who use it against infant baptism misuse it too.
going back to studying why I believe what I believe. On that note:
1. The NT never talks about infants being baptized
2. So we shouldn’t
Let’s turn this argument around
1. The NT never talks about women being allowed to take part of the Lord’s Supper
2. So they shouldn’t
:I
“Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.”
Likewise: refers to how Paul wants women to act as he had just finished speaking to the men.
1. Women are to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly
This is what women are to do
2. Not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,
Instead of this
3. but rather by means of good works,
but rather with this
4. As is proper for women making a claim to godliness
for this is proper godliness
5. In short, Women who are making a claim to godliness ought to act as if they do, adorning themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly and not through fancy things such as braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but with good works.
11A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
1. Woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness
Woman are to do this
2. Woman are not to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet
Women are not to do this; being “quiet” is defined as not teaching or exercising authority over a man.
3. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
The argument for the above practice is from the creational institution itself
4. It was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression
A continuation of the argument from creation by the Apostle Paul
I am far from convinced that the Scriptures say anything about faith being a prerequisite to baptism, though the two are heavily correlated and those who outwardly profess faith ought to outwardly get baptized, I do not find it a convincing argument to deny covenant infants the sign and seal of baptism. It does not persuade me because for me to see that those who are raised up and guided to the Lord by their believing parents were never denied the sign and seal of that covenant in the Old Testament is to see that a revoking of such a privilege to the infant seems contrary to the nature of God’s goodness and the expansion of God’s grace in the New Testament dispensation of the Covenant of Grace.
The root of doubt is not a lack of knowledge about God but rather taking what you do know and attributing to it a sense of falsehood. It is to attribute to the God of Truth, falsehood concerning His promises.
traditional marriages in our society are largely treated as contractual rather than covenantal, means of mutual self-fulfillment more than serving a larger purpose ordained by God. The state of the traditional family is so precarious that one wonders how same-sex marriage can appreciably deprave it.
- Michael Horton
when the serpent tempted Eve to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, is it perhaps that the disobedience was that Adam and Eve took part in the rejection of God as the true source of knowledge, a true knowledge that brought life, for a source of knowledge that would inevitably bring death? It is then only the knowledge of the man on the tree of death that brings life to those who partake.
I have no problem with a re-institution of the Mosaic Theocratic Law for use for governmental policies. However, it doesn’t mean I advocate it.
