Comments on: The Enemy’s Tree http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2011/07/13/the-enemys-tree/ Theology you can eat and drink Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:01:57 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.41 By: Mike Bull http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2011/07/13/the-enemys-tree/comment-page-1/#comment-10272 Thu, 14 Jul 2011 22:01:13 +0000 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?p=7534#comment-10272 Steven

Best approach is to use the ‘baptism’ tag around here and start with the oldest posts. They have the ‘matrix’ pattern applied to baptism and then take it from there.

Kind regards,
Mike

]]> By: Steven Opp http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2011/07/13/the-enemys-tree/comment-page-1/#comment-10270 Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:24:43 +0000 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?p=7534#comment-10270 Hi Mike,
I’ve read some of your discussions both here and on Doug’s blog about the paedo/credo baptism debate. I find it interesting and am thinking I might write a paper on it for my grad studies. Do you happen to have all your ideas about baptism in a big article which summarizes your defense of credo baptism?
Thanks,
Steven

]]> By: Mike Bull http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2011/07/13/the-enemys-tree/comment-page-1/#comment-10244 Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:09:43 +0000 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?p=7534#comment-10244 Today, Pastor Wilson writes:

“There really are people who really are removed from the Vine. They are described in Scripture as branches which bear no fruit. The Bible teaches that these are people who are connected to Christ (they have to be connected to Him in order to be removed from Him), who nevertheless have no saving interest in Him. If they were regenerate, they would bear fruit. They are not regenerate, but they are attached to the Vine. And in God’s providence, the fruitless branches are removed” (To a Thousand Generations, p. 85).

Here’s my reply:

As mentioned yesterday, if the disciples were natural branches, and they were, they grew out of the trunk under the Old Covenant, a Covenant of flesh. The branches grew from nothing, and it was not apparent if they would be fruitful or not until they reached harvest time.

But branches that are grafted in are a different story, surely? They must already be, to some degree, mature. If they weren’t, you wouldn’t be grafting them in.

All of which leaves twigs, er, infants, out of the picture. Babies aren’t branches. Not only can they not have Old Covenant fruit (flesh) they can’t have New Covenant fruit.

I think I’ve pushed the analogy far enough, but it should be clear that this angle in the argument for grafting babies into the Covenant tree — whose nature was entirely changed by Jesus from flesh to Spirit, from structure to glory — is a dead end.

Not only can babies not be “cut” in a New Covenant way (repentance), but baptism was very obviously the beginning of fruit bearing, of witness. It is the public vindication of the first stage of maturity. Let’s not mess with it any longer.

To hone it down some more, the question Pastor Wilson is asking seems to be this:

Since the Church can mistakenly baptize unregenerate adults, surely it is acceptable, if not expected, for us to do it deliberately to our infants.

But we are not seed in the way Jews were, and this idea of a “New Covenant” pedigree that is bereft of Spirit is entirely carnal.

Just imagine if we could combine FV Covenant child rearing with credobaptism? Now that would be a force to reckon with. Forming AND filling!

]]>