# Is the NEW really NEW or is it just Consummated



## elnwood (Nov 5, 2006)

Although I disagree w/ baby dedication, this position is not inconsistent. Of course you see infants in the covenant in the OT, but there is a change in the NT. The Baptist position is not just based upon lack of infant baptism in the NT, but that a change is taught in the administration of the covenant, not just in the signs and seals, as the paedobaptist teaches, but also in the community itself (Hebrews 8), for the fault on the Old Covenant was with the people, and that fault is removed by a regenerate membership that makes the New Covenant unbreakable. A change is taught for the covenant community, but not for baby dedication.

You begin with the OT, but make sure you you end with the NT!



Greg said:


> What I find as ironic with those who adhere to baby dedications is that they refer to the OT for the support of their belief, yet it is precisely when you begin in the OT that one arrives at exactly that which they reject, namely the inclusion of infants in the covenant and the administration of the covenantal sign.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 5, 2006)

elnwood said:


> The Baptist position is not just based upon lack of infant baptism in the NT, but that a change is taught in the administration of the covenant, not just in the signs and seals, as the paedobaptist teaches, but also in the community itself (Hebrews 8), for the fault on the Old Covenant was with the people, and that fault is removed by a regenerate membership that makes the New Covenant unbreakable.


Ah yes, Reformed Baptists only baptize the Elect.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 5, 2006)

elnwood said:


> Of course you see infants in the covenant in the OT, but there is a change in the NT. The Baptist position is not just based upon lack of infant baptism in the NT, but that *a change is taught in the administration of the covenant,* not just in the signs and seals, as the paedobaptist teaches, but also in the community itself (Hebrews 8), for the fault on the Old Covenant was with the people, and that fault is removed by a regenerate membership that makes the New Covenant unbreakable. A change is taught for the covenant community, but not for baby dedication.


We all agree that the adminstration of the covenant has changed, however, it seems to me that in this world, you still need a _visible adminstration_ of the covenant of grace. This is what the church of Christ in the world is--the continuation of the visible administration of the covenant. What saith the baptist?

Signs and seals have changed, but yet there are still signs and seals. God gave the sign of inclusion in the Covenant of Grace to Abraham before the Old Covenant was even created at Sinai (400+ years). The Old Covenant incorporated that sign _without change_ under the national church. We paedo-baptists acknowledge a change in the sign under the New Testament church, as well as expansion to women who can now receive it alike with men. We still apply the sign only where and when God tells us to.

I understand that the baptist believes God has changed the where/when/whom of the sign, but the baptist needs to understand that we who disagree have yet to see that didactic instruction. For all of the baptist claims that their's is the "clear, straightforward, unambiguious teaching," and the paedo-baptist teaching is "deductive, systematic and non-exegetical," yet there is no NT instruction for baptism comparable to the divine institution of Genesis 17. Sorry, but the baptist position is just as "inferential" as they accuse the paedo-baptist's of being.

The "absence of example" argument simply begs the question regarding Lk. 18:16, Acts 2:39, and household baptism. Demanding a narrative that reads "and so-and-so, infant child of E. Pluribus Unum, was baptized by Peter" or such like, is to insist on something that never was, and not having it is no sound argument. This was the inception of the age of the Gentiles, and without question grown-ups were swept into the church by multitude. Of course, we all agree that adult converts must give a faith profession. What is significant to us paedo-baptists is that so many houses are mentioned (percentage-wise) in conjunction with the baptisms recorded. Why should they be mentioned at all, much less repeatedly, under the baptist conception?

The faith community itself has changed--the visible church is no longer defined as the physical nation of Israel, but is the worldwide church of God. This in and of itself tells us nothing about who properly belongs to the visible church. And under neither the Old Covenant administration, nor the New Covenant adminstration do we know with certainty which of the population belongs to the church-invisible. But no matter what, you can't escape the requirement to exercise a visible adminstration, with its attendant earthly limitations. My baptist friends, is the church the _visible_ New Covenant administration?

God puts persons in his church, man doesn't. That's true for both invisible and visible. That's one reason why we baptize on the basis of commandment, and on no other basis. Now, we know according to the Bible that God grants faith in Christ to _some_ infants (e.g. Lk. 1:44), and if we are BOLD, we say: to a _host_ of infants within the faithful, believing church (after all, shouldn't we expect that, in an age of greater grace and Spirit presence?).

Thus it is perfectly rational that such persons are well-fitted as candidates for baptism. But if we refuse the sign to ALL INFANTS, including _many_ that God has already set apart for himself--on the supposition that we need more fallible information about the state of their hearts before acting, perhaps by their own (erroneous?) verbal statement--then we paedo-baptists believe we should then be declaring ourselves wiser than God on this matter.

We affirm that God would rather a few non-elect be erroneously marked by man, than that many that ought to be designated, not be so. Plus, many covenant children are elect, and shall see their fruit of faith in due time. And so it is evidenced that the mark of God's ownership was not misplaced upon them, as in Paul (Gal. 1:15) whose parents, we should hope, put the Old Covenant sign of the Covenant of Grace upon his flesh _by faith_ in God's saving, Messianic promises. That apostate churches should baptize by formula or rote (abuse) is no argument against right use of the ordinance. What about the scandal of adult "baptisms" all over the baptist world? The inflated rolls of mega-churches (and mina-churches)? Believe me, baptists don't really want to bring forth ths kind of argument against paedo-baptists.

Hebrews 8:8 teaches that the failure in the Old Covenant (which is the Siniatic administration of the CoG) was with the people. Simply put, though God made covenant with them nationally and ecclesiastically, nevertheless he did not elect the majority of them or their descendants. He sent very few revivals among the church for 1500 years. His Holy Spirit was metered out in a sparing, even stingy (if I may use that word descriptively) fashion. There was only a remnant time and again.

The promise of Jeremiah (quoted in Hebrews) for the New Covenant is in reference to to pouring out of the Spirit, and the comparative superiority of efficacy in the age to come (our age). If you read Heb. 8:10 as though it were the _literal_ truth, then you would have to say that regeneration, if it took place at all under the Old Covenant, was completely different in the New. But that is not the case at all. So, putting the laws in the heart and mind has to be comparitive, and not absolute. The Old Covenant people had far fewer regenerated folks, and so the covenant was primarily according to letter, and not Spirit. But for the faithful, it was indeed an administration of the CoG, ministering Christ to them in anticipation.

Therefore, it is out of accord with the tenor of the passage already set in verse 10, to suggest that verse 11 must be taken _absolutely_ and not comparatively, that is by assuming that it teaches that every single individual in the New Covenant*--including its visible administration!--*must be a regenerated person. Verses that warn church-goers, outward professors of Christ, against hypocrisy and apostacy, shouldn't even be in the Bible on this reckoning! Those to whom these warnings apply in truth partake in nothing more of the New Covenant than its outward form. They do not have the Holy Spirit, They do not have the substance of the New Covenant, any more than hypocrites of the Old Covenant had the substance of that covenant (Rom. 9:6). But, they certainly are _within_ the visible church, within the visible administration of the CoG in this age, within the New Covenant visible administration.

What say ye, my baptist brethren? Is the faithful church on earth the visible administration of the New Covenant administration of the Covenant of Grace?

Tell me, what Christian would follow Heb. 8:11 _literalistically_ anyway? What? you wouldn't tell your brother to live up to his profession of faith? OK, true, the unregenerate aren't really (invisibly) brothers. But how do you know who not to tell "Know the Lord!"? Never, ever say that to someone who is not excommunicated? No one argues that those who _show themselves unfaithful_ ought to remain among us! Expell the immoral brother. That speaks not at all to the question of who should be baptized. Neither do these verses from Jeremiah and Hebrews on the New Covenant.


Only believers in Christ have the substance of the New Covenant, or of any administration of the Covenant of Grace. They alone have regeneration and the work of the Holy Spirit. But saying a faithful baptist church most fully exemplifies visibly the purity of the New Covenant (invisible) is a claim that cannot be verified. In fact, by design it excludes certain persons who deserve to be recognized inside of it (regenerated infants).


----------



## elnwood (Nov 5, 2006)

Man, just me and four paedos? One objection at a time, please. I didn't even intend to start this discussion, this came from another thread.

Okay, first Greg. Read Hebrews 8. The New Covenant is a NEW covenant. Verse 7 says "if the first had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second." Yes, there is one Covenant of Grace, but the author Hebrews clearly teaches that there is a first and a second covenant.

The fault of the Old Covenant was that the people could not follow it because not all of the members in the Old Covenant were regenerated, and thus you had covenant breakers. The New Covenant members consist only of the regenerate -- they have law in their hearts and minds -- and thus you can't have covenant breaker in the New Covenant. Otherwise, the New Covenant has the same fault as the Old Covenant.

Since the members of the New Covenant (as opposed to the Old Covenant) are those who are regenerated, we should not give a New Covenant sign to those who do not give evidence of regeneration. On the flip side, when someone is not giving evidence of regeneration, we exercise church discipline. These two things preserve what baptists call a "regenerate church membership.

The sarcastic statement from SemperFideles is a statement that can apply to both paedobaptists and credobaptists, because both will give baptism to an unbaptized adult upon a profession of faith. Neither paedobaptists or credobaptists are saying that the recipient is definitely part of the elect, but both are saying that, since there was a profession of faith, they think that the recipient is part of the elect. When a Baptist says he holds to "regenerate membership," he means not that he knows that every member of the church is regenerate any more than the paedobaptist when he tries to make sure the adults are regenerate, but that, because true New Covenant membership is by regeneration, the church should seek to maintain that as best as it can through the use of baptism and church discipline.

Contra_Mundum, you're throwing out a lot of arguments and counter-arguments against things that I did not say and making straw man arguments, even to the point of putting Baptist arguments in quotations, as if I had said them, or that they are representative of what I believe. I'm only interested in discussing Hebrews 8 right now, and since this post is already long enough as it is, I'm going to keep it at just a reply to joshua and Greg, since they've been so polite.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 5, 2006)

elnwood said:


> The sarcastic statement from SemperFideles is a statement that can apply to both paedobaptists and credobaptists, because both will give baptism to an unbaptized adult upon a profession of faith. Neither paedobaptists or credobaptists are saying that the recipient is definitely part of the elect, but both are saying that, since there was a profession of faith, they think that the recipient is part of the elect. When a Baptist says he holds to "regenerate membership," he means not that he knows that every member of the church is regenerate any more than the paedobaptist when he tries to make sure the adults are regenerate, but that, because true New Covenant membership is by regeneration, the church should seek to maintain that as best as it can through the use of baptism and church discipline.



It was not a sarcastic comment. I know Reformed Baptists do not like the implications of their theology actually articulated back to them but you stated that there is regenerate membership in the New Covenant and this formed the basis for your baptism. It is not a paedobaptist problem because our confessions do not conflate the sign with the thing signified.

You restated, yet again, that New Covenant membership is only the regenerate so my question to you are these: 

Who are you actually in Covenant with?
If you say that you're in Covenant with people in your Church then how do you know? Do you know because you know the Secret Will of God and who is Elect?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 5, 2006)

> Contra_Mundum, you're throwing out a lot of arguments and counter-arguments against things that I did not say and making straw man arguments, even to the point of putting Baptist arguments in quotations, as if I had said them, or that they are representative of what I believe. I'm only interested in discussing Hebrews 8 right now, ...


Donald,
Let me start by saying that I used words like "baptist brethren" and "my baptist friends" with intent to be polite. I've gone back and critically re-read my post, and I honestly can't find abusiveness.

1) I used your post to stake out a postion. You called yours The Baptist Position, not My Position. That claim broadens out the arena for responding and critiquing considerably, to include other ideas potentialy included in The Baptist Position, even if you did not include them. The position I presented could be called some version of The Presbyterian Position. If you believe that I attributed specifics to baptists that are not generally accepted by baptists, or reformed baptists, or by yourself, I will acknowledge your comments, as separating yourself or as correcting me.

2) If I meant to attribute something to you, I would have made that very clear, by including your name, or creating a quote box. I'm sorry you thought I was putting words in your mouth. That was not my intention. Again, I was responding more to The Baptist Position than I was to you personally. As it is, I think you can find only one place in my whole post (3rd paragraph) where that might not have been clear. In none of the other places I used "quotes" can it be reasonably inferred that I was placing words in anyone's mouth.

3) I started with your comment that I bolded, and replied to it--by pointing out that _as stated_ it really didn't state a uniquely baptist position. Presbyterians will argue that there is indeed change in the administration of the covenant, and not just in the signs and seals. Someone who read what you wrote would come away thinking that presbyterians teach there are only changes to signs and seals, because that is *exactly* what you said.

It was necessary to explain in somewhat fuller language not only that your statement was inaccurate, but also something of what we do actually teach.

What we believe is _constant_ is found in the substance of the Covenant of Grace, not some substance found in the Old Covenant.

I also responded to the evident implication that presbyterians don't see a change in the covenant community. Again, that could be a very misleading notion to someone not familiar with the larger question.

4) As you referenced Hebrews 8 (generally, no development) as though the chapter somehow taught The Baptist Position, that the covenant community changed, I felt it proper to spend a few paragraphs on the text of vv 8-12. _That was probably 1/3 of my post._ I'm sorry that my comments on the passage you expressed primary interest in discussing were not worthy of your response.


----------



## satz (Nov 6, 2006)

Forgive me for asking what may seem like an obvious question, but why would we assume that circumcision and baptism are _necessarily_ so related that we would reference the OT teaching on circumcision to come up with our practice on baptism? They are both signs, but why could they not be completely seperate signs such that the teaching on the hows and whos of baptism would come completely from the New Testament (where baptism was first introduced) ?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 6, 2006)

Short answer:
They both are symbols of regeneration. They both are signs of initiation/inclusion in the covenant of grace. Paul ties the two together in Col. 2:11-12, "You were also circumcised ... [sub. clauses] having been buried with him in baptism."


----------



## elnwood (Nov 6, 2006)

SemperFideles said:


> It was not a sarcastic comment. I know Reformed Baptists do not like the implications of their theology actually articulated back to them but you stated that there is regenerate membership in the New Covenant and this formed the basis for your baptism. It is not a paedobaptist problem because our confessions do not conflate the sign with the thing signified.



SemperFideles, what is your basis for baptism of adults? Is it not the same basis that the Baptist uses? So I think it is a paedobaptist problem.



SemperFideles said:


> You restated, yet again, that New Covenant membership is only the regenerate so my question to you are these:
> 
> Who are you actually in Covenant with?
> If you say that you're in Covenant with people in your Church then how do you know? Do you know because you know the Secret Will of God and who is Elect?



As far as I know, I never said I held to an elect membership. Regenerate and elect are not the same thing. A person who is elect but has not come to Christ is not part of the New Covenant community. We are in Covenant with Christ and other believers.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 6, 2006)

joshua said:


> I agree. I think maybe you're not distinguishing between the Abrahamic and the Mosaic (Sinaitic) Covenants. God made an everlasting covenant with Abraham. Abraham is pointed to as an example for us (believing and being saved by faith).


 
I do distinguish, but I believe, like you do (I think), that the everlasting covenant w/ Abraham has different administrations with different signs and seals. Where we differ is whether the different administrations have different recipients.

Yes, there are people who are in the church who are not believers, but I would not call them members of the New Covenant. I would say the warnings are a) the means of God to keep believers in the New Covenant (once again, not the visible church, but the invisible), and b) for people in the church, believers and unbelievers, to look at themselves and see whether or not they are in Christ.

I think repenting is giving evidence of regeneration.

Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." Acts 2:38-39

The apostles required repentance before they baptized. Surely, you would require repentance of an adult before you would baptize him?

The passage says that the gift of the Holy Spirit is given to those who repent (truly repent, not just a profession). The old sign and seal was circumcision. Paedobaptists teach that baptism is the new sign and seal, and yet the NT refers to baptism as only the sign. The paedobaptist cannot claim "continuity" for the seal, because that would mean that circumcision is still the seal. The NT consistently points to the Holy Spirit as the seal (John 3:33-34, 2 Cor. 1:21-22, Eph. 4:30), which can only be received by the regenerate.

As far as the "you and your children" passage, it also says "for those who are far off." Are all who are far off in the covenant? Of course not, because it says "as many as the Lord calls." It says the promise is to a) you, b) your children, and c) those who are far off. Paedobaptists want to apply the "as many as the Lord calls" to a) and c), but not b).



> Please don't take offense from Rich and Bruce, as I know they're both humble men and certainly don't intend to bring offense to you. The Baptism forum is a tough one meant for discussion, and sometimes polemics take some sarcasm. Anyway, thanks for your response.


 
Thank for this. I'm a little on the defensive side because I did not intend to start this thread, and I had four paedos going at me at once. Some moderator branched this off of another discussion, complete with a green obnoxious smiley face, as if I intended to start a fight. It's as if the moderators are trying to throw the credobaptist newbie to the wolves. I'm not trying to start an argument. It's fine if you disagree with me on the signs and seals. Christians will always differ on these issues until Christ comes back.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 6, 2006)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Donald,
> Let me start by saying that I used words like "baptist brethren" and "my baptist friends" with intent to be polite. I've gone back and critically re-read my post, and I honestly can't find abusiveness.
> 
> 1) I used your post to stake out a postion. You called yours The Baptist Position, not My Position. That claim broadens out the arena for responding and critiquing considerably, to include other ideas potentialy included in The Baptist Position, even if you did not include them. The position I presented could be called some version of The Presbyterian Position. If you believe that I attributed specifics to baptists that are not generally accepted by baptists, or reformed baptists, or by yourself, I will acknowledge your comments, as separating yourself or as correcting me.



I didn't really want to start this argument, and certainly didn't want to defend arguments that I did not make. But I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt, because you may not have known this, but suffice to say, I don't feel the need to defend the arguments that I did not make. In particular, I would never say that the paedobaptist position is "deductive, systematic and non-exegetical," or that the Baptist position is the "clear, straightforward, unambiguious teaching." Of course there's ambiguity, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. If you quote me in the future and ask for a response, I certainly will make my best effort to do so, but I won't defend a polemic Baptist straw man.



> 4) As you referenced Hebrews 8 (generally, no development) as though the chapter somehow taught The Baptist Position, that the covenant community changed, I felt it proper to spend a few paragraphs on the text of vv 8-12. _That was probably 1/3 of my post._ I'm sorry that my comments on the passage you expressed primary interest in discussing were not worthy of your response.



This does deserve a response. I think my previous posts have responded to most your objections, and you can springboard from that. As for the other things ...

I don't think that "putting the law in the hearts and minds" is comparative. Otherwise, it would have the same fault as the Old Covenant.

And generally, I'm confused as to what your basis of baptism really is. I understand if you say it's because of obedience to give the sign to whom God commands, but you also seem to make arguments to baptize infants because they are or might be elect, or are or might be regenerate. So what is your basis? Is it just obedience to the signs, or presumptive election / regeneration? If it's based on presumptive regeneration, really, your position is the same as the Baptist's (regenerated church membership), just that your standard for believing that one is regenerate is different.

I don't believe in presumptive election or presumptive regeneration, and there are many paedobaptists that don't, but if you want to start that discussion, feel free to create another thread.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 6, 2006)

Donald, to answer your query (not to get off in a long discussion, or prune the thread)
I believe in placing the sign in obedience to command, and on no other basis. On this point I belong to the extreme regulative principle position. I do not believe in presumptive regeneration, although it might be possible to characterize my position as presumptive election--but I really hate to import the idea of "presuming" anything, when all I want to advocate is obedience to commands, and faith in God.

However, the question does come up, _if baptism symbolizes regeneration (repentance & faith) how can anyone baptize infants--is it basically because presbyterians baptize "in prospect of" a profession of faith?_ My answer to that is "no," but rather that given the promises of God, and explicit examples in Scripture, infants not only may be elect, but may even be regenerated. And certainly all regenerated persons deserve to be baptized and recognized by the church. That some children may not be regenerated, or even be elect, 1) is not addressed in the presbyterian's understanding of the command to be obeyed; and 2) does not imply that we presume as much on their behalf. That they might well be so, simply removes one objection (that says they are *evidently* unfit candidates). And I won't attribute this objection to you personally.

Perhaps this clarifies.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 6, 2006)

That does clarify, thank you.

I'm not convinced that infants can be regenerate, but since it's off-topic, I'll start a new topic for that one. I'm interested in what you have to say on that.

I do agree that as a Baptist, I would want to baptize all the regenerate, but we of course do this imperfectly. We would rather not apply the sign of a New Covenant without evidence. I would think that, in the same way, a paedobaptist would want to give the Lord's Supper to all who are regenerate as well, but would not want to bring condemnation upon the regenerate, who cannot take it in a worthy manner, and so thus are similarly careful about giving that sacrament as a Baptist would be about Baptism.

When a Baptist says he hold to regenerate church membership, he means the same thing a paedobaptist does about communicant membership.



Contra_Mundum said:


> I believe in placing the sign in obedience to command, and on no other basis. On this point I belong to the extreme regulative principle position. I do not believe in presumptive regeneration, although it might be possible to characterize my position as presumptive election--but I really hate to import the idea of "presuming" anything, when all I want to advocate is obedience to commands, and faith in God.
> 
> However, the question does come up, _if baptism symbolizes regeneration (repentance & faith) how can anyone baptize infants--is it basically because presbyterians baptize "in prospect of" a profession of faith?_ My answer to that is "no," but rather that given the promises of God, and explicit examples in Scripture, infants not only may be elect, but may even be regenerated. And certainly all regenerated persons deserve to be baptized and recognized by the church. That some children may not be regenerated, or even be elect, 1) is not addressed in the presbyterian's understanding of the command to be obeyed; and 2) does not imply that we presume as much on their behalf. That they might well be so, simply removes one objection (that says they are *evidently* unfit candidates). And I won't attribute this objection to you personally.
> 
> Perhaps this clarifies.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 6, 2006)

Donald,
Regarding Heb. 8/Jer. 31:
Did God restore his "law upon the heart" in the breasts of OT regenerated covenant-keepers? If so, wouldn't that make the statement of verse 10 comparative?


P.S. I don't think the green-face label (that the thread-splitter added, but which I have now removed for peace) means "obnoxious". The label is "talking". I think it just meant we were ALL blabbing, off topic.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 6, 2006)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Donald,
> Regarding Heb. 8/Jer. 31:
> Did God restore his "law upon the heart" in the breasts of OT regenerated covenant-keepers? If so, wouldn't that make the statement of verse 10 comparative?



Yes, He did. It's comparative in that it's gone from "some" (and in actuality, probably very few) to "all" (Hebrews 8:11). I know we Calvinists are fond of saying "all" doesn't necessarily mean "all," but in this case, in light of the fault of the Old Covenant, I think "all" really does mean all!



Contra_Mundum said:


> P.S. I don't think the green-face label (that the thread-splitter added, but which I have now removed for peace) means "obnoxious". The label is "talking". I think it just meant we were ALL blabbing, off topic.



Appreciated, thank you.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 6, 2006)

Acts 2:38-39. You're not necessarily going to agree with me, but that's the way I view it.

Yes, we do baptize people who are Covenant members because we are unable to apply the sign perfectly, but we are called to do it the best we can. Same with Paedos and the Lord's Supper.

I think your confusion with the warning passages is that you seem to think that members of the church who are not saved are in the New Covenant. I don't think this is the case.

You yourself said that we cannot know for sure if someone is regenerated. It's not as if a thorough examination is going to remedy that.

Like I said, we never *know* that they truly have repented. This is a Baptist straw man that I've already addressed.

Are you saying that "called" in this passage is not the effectual call, but the general, universal call? In that case, isn't the promise is for everyone to whom the gospel is preached? Surely this is not the case. It has to be the effectual call.

My impression is that paedobaptists give baptism to their descendents because the Covenant promise applies to them. But Acts 2:38-39 is saying that the Covenant promise now only applies if the Lord calls them.

I think we all agree that the Old Covenant community (Israel) was based upon both a) faith, and b) being a descendent of someone who had faith. Even after Israel was unfaithful and in exile for several generations, the Bible still calls them His people. Even when they are called cut-off, He never fully cast them aside in the Old Testament, or stop calling them His people. Why? Because they were descendents of Abraham, thus they were still His Old Covenant people.

Paedobaptism today seems to practice a one-generation faith rule, in that "to your children" only means the first generation of children, and not to grandchildren or beyond if their parents were not faithful. But God seems to think multi-generationally, in that, because of the "promise to your forefathers," God considered unbelieving ethnic Israel to be His people. There doesn't seem to be any indication of a "one-generation descendents only" covenant.

I think to be consistent with paedobaptist theology, you would have to say that ethnic Israel is still in the covenant, because they are descended from those who had faith.

Baptists see the Old Testament Community of Israel as a typology of faith, which is more fully realized in the New Covenant. They see the promise to children as being realized and manifested in the New Covenant as spiritual children, not physical children (Luke 8:20-21).


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 6, 2006)

For the record, I split the thread because it was heading off topic. As well, the green smiley had no ill intent.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 6, 2006)

John 13:34 34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 

Is this a NEW command?

Luke 22:20 20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Did this NEW 'pouring' become effectual here?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 6, 2006)

> Originally Posted by elnwood
> Okay, first Joshua and Greg. Read Hebrews 8. The New Covenant is a NEW covenant. Verse 7 says "if the first had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second." Yes, there is one Covenant of Grace, but the author Hebrews clearly teaches that there is a first and a second covenant.





> I agree. I think maybe you're not distinguishing between the Abrahamic and the Mosaic (Sinaitic) Covenants. God made an everlasting covenant with Abraham. Abraham is pointed to as an example for us (believing and being saved by faith).




Hebrews is speaking of the covenant of works and the new covenant.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 7, 2006)

You're making at least five different arguments in this one paragraph, and I'm having a difficult time parsing it all. Suffice to say, I see abrogation in Acts 2:38-39. The "no-examples" arguments go both ways -- no clear examples of infant baptism, no example of believer baptism of a child born to Christians, although I think you do see baptisms of children born to faithful Jews. Why the discontinuity there?

Wait, you're supposed to examine YOURSELF? I thought the elders were supposed to examine you? Where do you find support for that? Oh, I see -- you examine yourself, and then you take the Lord's Supper. The elders trust your examination if it is credible. Just like you repent before you are baptized, and the baptizers trust you if your repentance is credible. Same thing.

I already addressed the warning passages.

Baptists do not believe that there aren't unregenerate Church members. You keep bringing up the same arguments and the same straw men, and I've already responded to those. Please don't do this.

Well, all I can say is, ultimately, only those who believe by faith are in the Covenant of Redemption. But I think maybe you're mixing up the difference between the Covenant of Redemption (that council of peace made between God the Father, and Christ the Son) whereby the Father elected a people unto Himself, to be effectually called, and gave them to Christ. All others' covenant memberships just bring condemnation.[/quote]

I believe all of that. I just believe that the point that the unbelieving Jews were cut off (along with unbelieving infants) was with the institution of the New Covenant. Ethnic Jews, I believe, were always a part of the Old Covenant. God still referred to Israel as his people even when they were unfaithful, and he redeems them time and again. (Otherwise, for example, "unfaithful Israel" and "my people have been unfaithful" would be oxymorons.) Hence the disagreement with the Pharisees with John 8 because the Pharisees thought their Old Covenant membership was good enough. I think that when you understand that the New Covenant excludes unbelieving Jews when they were included before, it follows that the New Covenant excludes unbelieving infants.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 7, 2006)

*Acts 2:38-39*

I'm going to elaborate on the passage in Acts because I don't think my position is being properly understood.

Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." Acts 2:38-39

We have three groups to whom the promise is given:
1) You (i.e. the people Peter is talking to)
2) Your children
3) All who are far off

So is the promise for all the people Peter is talking to? Of course not -- only if they believe, or as the passage states, only if the Lord calls them to himself.

How about all who are far off? Is the promise for all who are far off? Once again, no. Only if the Lord calls them to himself.

So far, we have:
1) You (whom the Lord calls them to Himself)
2) Your children (?)
3) All who are far off (whom the Lord calls them to Himself)

So what is Peter saying about "your children"? Is he saying that the promise is to the children of everyone whom he is speaking? Once again, of course not. And since "whom the Lord calls" to both 1) and 3), it must logically apply as so:

1) You (whom the Lord calls to Himself)
2) Your children (whom the Lord calls to Himself)
3) All who are far off (whom the Lord calls to Himself)

The paedobaptist wants 2 to be:
2) Your children (OF whom the Lord calls to Himself)

But that doesn't seem to be what Peter is saying. If he meant that, he would have said, "For the promise is for you and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself, and your children." But he doesn't. You can't have "whom the Lord calls" apply to the first group, the third group, and not the second. Grammar doesn't work that way.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 12, 2007)

I assume you mean _baptism_ after profession, not repentance after profession. Hopefully the latter is not characteristic of paedobaptistic converts!

To which I would reply that, although baptism and circumcision signify the same thing, they are different as far as application. The Old Testament never says "repent and be *circumcised*," and the New Testament never says "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 *baptized*." (modified from Genesis 17:10-13)

I think paedobaptists often assume continuity where there is no reason to. Most paedobaptists are inconsistent with their application of household baptism anyway. In a parallel thread on Redeemer Presbyterian, one paedobaptist said that he wouldn't have even considered baptizing the 23-year-old son in his household. In the Genesis 17 account, there was no exception made for those who did not profess faith, nor an age limit at which they must profess faith. There was an assumption that every male in the household would be circumcised.

Further, the command was for "every male throughout your generations" -- it does not say all generations that believed. It was assumed that the sign would be passed on regardless of profession of faith. How was this covenant said to be broken? Not by unbelief! By failing to be circumcised. "But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." That's why I believe even unbelieving, exiled Israel was in the Old Covenant. They continued to be circumcised -- they were never completely cut off until the New Covenant.

I'm not saying they are identical, but every time baptism is mentioned, it is in conjunction with faith and repentance. "Repent" and "believe" are commands.

Fair enough. I do take the hypothetical view, and I understand your point, but I don't think some Paedo answers are adequate either (esp. on Hebrews 8). Hence, we disagree. That's just the way things go sometimes.

Credos DO believe that men ought to show fruit of regeneration before baptism, just like most Paedos believe men ought to show fruit of regeneration before taking the Lord's Supper.

The strawman I was referring to is this common Paedo argument: that Baptists believe that every member that they baptize and bring into membership is regenerate.

The reason that paedos make this argument is that they assume that the visible church is an administration of the New Covenant. So when they hear baptists talk about regenerate church membership, they think, how in the world can they know their church membership is regenerate? How can they say that the New Covenant has all regenerate members?

The answer is that baptists don't consider the visible church a New Covenant administration. From a baptist's perspective, membership in the New Covenant is only the invisible church, and has nothing to do with membership in the visible church. When a baptist says "regenerate church membership," they simply mean that the visible church should approximate the invisible church as close as possible. (The paedo does the same for communicant membership). To accomplish this, the baptist guards who they let in (only by profession of faith and baptism) and puts out who don't continue to live it (church discipline).

You've been very gracious. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to explain my position. There have been lots of strawman arguments on credobaptism on this board, and I'm glad when paedos take the time to understand the position.


----------

