# 1689 LBC on Regenerate Church Membership (26.2; 26.6; 27.2)



## Herald

> 26.2 All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.





> 26.6 The members of these churches are saints by calling, visibly manifesting and evidencing (in and by their profession and walking) their obedience unto that call of Christ; and do willingly consent to walk together, according to the appointment of Christ; giving up themselves to the Lord, and one to another, by the will of God, in professed subjection to the ordinances of the Gospel.





> 27.2 Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; as also in relieving each other in outward things according to their several abilities, and necessities; which communion, according to the rule of the gospel, though especially to be exercised by them, in the relation wherein they stand, whether in families, or churches, yet, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended to all the household of faith, even all those who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus; nevertheless their communion one with another as saints, doth not take away or infringe the title or propriety which each man hath in his goods and possessions.



Regenerate church membership speaks of the true church of Christ; the invisible church. Regenerate church membership is actually _presumed_ regenerate church membership. 26.3 of the 1689 LBC articulates that even the purest church is a mixture of truth and error. Acknowledging the limitations of finite man in knowing the exact spiritual condition of each professed member, we trust that a credible profession of faith is indicative of that spiritual condition. The fact that there are impostors - goats among the sheep (1 JN 2:19; Jude 4) - is proof of our fallibility in ascertaining the hidden things of the heart. It does not, however, change the fact that the body of Christ, the invisible church, is made up only of those who have been born again. 

In the spirit of Rev. 2:2, the church is to be diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3). Questionable teachings are to be tested (Acts 17:11), and sin confronted (Matt. 18:15-20). The church must proceed guided by the truth of the Word and the power of the Spirit, knowing that hell itself cannot overcome it (Matt. 16:18). But hell will try, both outwardly and inwardly. Outwardly through the attacks of the wicked who make no pretense of worshipping our God. Inwardly through ravenous wolves who seek to destroy the body by subterfuge, or through the ungodly ignorant who would stifle the body and make it impotent. For these reasons and more the true church is to remain vigilant and jealous for God's holiness. Better for the house of God to judge itself than to be judged because it considered His church not to be worth the effort (Rev. 2:4, 16, 22; 3:19).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

By the above definition of a Saint and those in the visible congregation (profession and obedience), how does one practically distinguish between a non-Saint and a Saint who Hebrews calls "slow of learning" or "ignorant and going astray"? Might not such a person appear to have "destroyed" their profession?


----------



## Herald

Rich,

There is a difference between a person who professes Christ and struggles with sin and the professor who is given over to sin. Those who continue in sin repudiate their profession. Being put out of the church (Matt. 18) is the formal move of the church in handing such a one over to Satan. The one struggling with sin, but who displays a repentant heart, has not repudiated their profession. This is the saint who may be weak in mind, body, and faith. As I referenced in the OP, even the best of churches are a mix of truth and error; and since churches are made up of people, we can expect that the saints will likewise display truth and error.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

The problem, as I see it, is that the struggling Saint may often seem to be one who has destroyed his profession. The emphasis on visible faithfulness speaks to a concern to uproot anything that resembles a weed in the garden.


----------



## rbcbob

Semper Fidelis said:


> The problem, as I see it, is that the struggling Saint may often seem to be one who has destroyed his profession. The emphasis on visible faithfulness speaks to a concern to uproot anything that resembles a weed in the garden.



The Baptist paradigm for Church membership is the New Covenant identity:
Jeremiah 31:31-34 31 " Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

This is in contrast to the Old Covenant paradigm of a MIXED MULTITUDE. Rich may be alluding to the parable of the tares in the field in Matthew 13 when he says:

"The problem, as I see it, is that the struggling Saint may often seem to be one who has destroyed his profession. The emphasis on visible faithfulness speaks to a concern to uproot anything that resembles a weed in the garden."

But Christ clearly teaches that the prohibition against pulling up the tares at the risk of uprooting true wheat speaks of their growing together in the WORLD rather than in the CHURCH. Thus being an injunction against the STATE seeking to banish those that the RULER would put out of his REALM.
Matthew 13:24-30 24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 "but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 "But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 "So the servants of the owner came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?' 28 "He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Do you want us then to go and gather them up?' 29 "But he said, 'No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 'Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn." ' "
Matthew 13:36-38 6 Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, "Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field." 37 He answered and said to them: "He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 "*The field is the world*, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one.


----------



## Herald

Semper Fidelis said:


> The problem, as I see it, is that the struggling Saint may often seem to be one who has destroyed his profession. The emphasis on visible faithfulness speaks to a concern to uproot anything that resembles a weed in the garden.



Rich,

17.4 of the LBC speaks to this. A credible profession is not flawless profession, for the corruption of sin still is present. 




> And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God's displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.



It is the work of the Holy Spirit to convict of sin and it's resulting repentance (indeed, all of life is repentance). The church exists to be used by the Spirit in this work. Churches that forsake or neglect their responsibility may turn a saint over to despair and unnecessary pain, but it does not lessen the saint's position in Christ. Their profession may seem to be on shakey ground, just as assurance is lacking in the mind of the saint that is ensnared by sin.

I believe what you're getting at is the saint's confidence in their profession, not whether the efficacy of their profession is real. That certainly has validity if profession is only as strong as our level of sanctification. The focus of the OP, as supported by the confession, is a regenerate church membership. I don't think that a saint who struggles in their Christian walk changes the substance of that assertion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

rbcbob said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem, as I see it, is that the struggling Saint may often seem to be one who has destroyed his profession. The emphasis on visible faithfulness speaks to a concern to uproot anything that resembles a weed in the garden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Baptist paradigm for Church membership is the New Covenant identity:
> Jeremiah 31:31-34 31 " Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
> 
> This is in contrast to the Old Covenant paradigm of a MIXED MULTITUDE.
Click to expand...

I assume we agree that only the Lord knows who the Elect are. This gets precisely at the point. It's one thing to talk about the New Covenant consisting of all the Elect but you must stop there and speak only in the abstract.

The visible Church is not the New Covenant in your theology, Bob. I don't know why you would make the mistake of assuming this as I was talking about the visible Church.

With respect to the analogy of pulling up weeds I can also use the term: bruised reed or smoldering wick.

The point of my concern is expressed well by the basic misapprehension and movement between what you believe is the invisible reality of the case (the NC only consists of the Elect) and believing that this knowledge gives a Church some way of determining who is/isn't Elect. In other words where you criticize our paradigm for noting that visible Church consists of a mixed multitude in the NC, you really only escape the dilemma in theory because you have no sense of visible New Covenant as invisible Church = New Covenant.

Thus, again, the issue is the problem with a definition that tries to jump this rail. It uses the terms "profession and obedience" and, as Bill rightly notes, the Confession elsewhere even notes that a person's hardness of heart may cause temporal judgments to fall such that the Church may not be able to determine the children of God from the world on the basis of profession or obedience.

Consequently, I maintain that the definition sounds useful but proves more theoretical than actual because it is an arbitrary decision to decide who has fallen under God's displeasure for sin and is still a Saint and who has fallen away because they were never regenerate.

Finally, I'm aware of the fact that the Parable of Wheat and Tares speaks of the world but disagree with your understanding of the text. Be that as it may, the principle is well established in Hebrews and throughout the NT of restoring the hard hearted.


----------



## Herald

> Consequently, I maintain that the definition sounds useful but proves more theoretical than actual because it is an arbitrary decision to decide who has fallen under God's displeasure for sin and is still a Saint and who has fallen away because they were never regenerate.



Rich,

There are two things running concurrently when the issue of a regenerate church membership is discussed. The first is soteriological in nature; i.e. the elect of God. As I am willing to admit, God is the only one who knows with certainty who is elect. That said, the Baptist view of the New Covenant is that its legitimate members are those who are born from above. This could easily lead into a discussion of the nature of the New Covenant, and the differences between Baptists and Presbyterians on New Covenant inclusion, but it would lead the thread down a whole other path. The second issue about regenerate church membership is the practical aspect. Baptists and Presbyterians share the same limitations regarding perfect knowledge. Both of us must rely on external evidence that validates a profession. Even an adult who was baptized as a child cannot escape this. Profession of faith does not necessarily have to be a one time event. Christians display a profession through sanctified living (Gal. 2:6). When sin rears it's ugly and destructive head in the life of a saint, both camps will counsel the person similarly. Baptists will point to the promises contained in the gospel, which the saint professed to believe. Presbyterians will point to that same promises of the gospel as represented in their baptism. 

As far as an, "arbitrary decision to decide who has fallen under God's displeasure for sin and is still a Saint and who has fallen away because they were never regenerate" how does this differ from the prevalent Presbyterian view? Unless and until an individual is put out of the church, we are to appeal to them as a brother. If he is in sin we call on him to repent (Matt. 18). If he turns back we have won our brother (Matt. 18:15). Instead of an arbitrary decision we have detailed instructions from scripture. Of course, God knows the hidden things of the heart. He knows who is His. His sheep hear His voice, even if they wander off the pasture for a time.


----------



## MW

John 7:24, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

James 2:9, 12, 13, "But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors... So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Concerning excommunication I believe Paul gives us explicit direction in 1 Corinthians 5 on who we should eat and not eat with. 



> (1Co 5:7) Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
> 
> (1Co 5:8) Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
> 
> (1Co 5:9) I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
> 
> (1Co 5:10) Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
> 
> (1Co 5:11) But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
> 
> (1Co 5:12) For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
> 
> (1Co 5:13) But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.



When I get more time I am going to make a blog entry how the New Covenant defines a Covenant Child. I think Alan Conner did a good job of that in his book.


----------



## rbcbob

Semper Fidelis said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem, as I see it, is that the struggling Saint may often seem to be one who has destroyed his profession. The emphasis on visible faithfulness speaks to a concern to uproot anything that resembles a weed in the garden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Baptist paradigm for Church membership is the New Covenant identity:
> Jeremiah 31:31-34 31 " Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
> 
> This is in contrast to the Old Covenant paradigm of a MIXED MULTITUDE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assume we agree that only the Lord knows who the Elect are. This gets precisely at the point. It's one thing to talk about the New Covenant consisting of all the Elect but you must stop there and speak only in the abstract.
> 
> The visible Church is not the New Covenant in your theology, Bob. I don't know why you would make the mistake of assuming this as I was talking about the visible Church.
> 
> With respect to the analogy of pulling up weeds I can also use the term: bruised reed or smoldering wick.
> 
> The point of my concern is expressed well by the basic misapprehension and movement between what you believe is the invisible reality of the case (the NC only consists of the Elect) and believing that this knowledge gives a Church some way of determining who is/isn't Elect. In other words where you criticize our paradigm for noting that visible Church consists of a mixed multitude in the NC, you really only escape the dilemma in theory because you have no sense of visible New Covenant as invisible Church = New Covenant.
> 
> Thus, again, the issue is the problem with a definition that tries to jump this rail. It uses the terms "profession and obedience" and, as Bill rightly notes, the Confession elsewhere even notes that a person's hardness of heart may cause temporal judgments to fall such that the Church may not be able to determine the children of God from the world on the basis of profession or obedience.
> 
> Consequently, I maintain that the definition sounds useful but proves more theoretical than actual because it is an arbitrary decision to decide who has fallen under God's displeasure for sin and is still a Saint and who has fallen away because they were never regenerate.
> 
> Finally, I'm aware of the fact that the Parable of Wheat and Tares speaks of the world but disagree with your understanding of the text. Be that as it may, the principle is well established in Hebrews and throughout the NT of restoring the hard hearted.
Click to expand...


Rich, I am not sure why my comments would cause such agitation. They were specifically expounding upon LBC 26:2 which addresses the paradigm for understanding who it is that ought to be brought into the membership of the church. Again, Baptists see the pattern to be modeled as the NC identification of those, and only those, who personally know the Lord. That is the pattern and we, with all of our finite limitations, seek to use that pattern rather than the OC pattern. 

Now certainly there will be mistakes made by fallible shepherds using either pattern. But that there will be many more admitted into the fold who do not know the Lord using the Old Covenant pattern as contrasted with the New Covenant pattern must be readily apparent to all.


----------



## kceaster

I fear that what this does, practically speaking, is make the criteria for church membership whether or not you're already a disciple. If that were truly the case, we wouldn't have seen so many join the church in the NT. The Ethiopian eunuch? We'd have to look at him awhile. The Philippian jailor? He have to show more fruit in keeping with repentance.

You know, because I'm Presbyterian, that I'm all for protecting the flock from within or without. But some things are God's to sort out. That doesn't mean that we allow just anyone in; or, once they're in, they can never be put out. There are keys to the kingdom and they need to be exercised.

But Rich's point is that if Christ will not crush a bruised reed, or quench a smoking flax, then why would we be so harsh?

Additionally, how far do we go? Do we come along side? Do we weep long hours? Do we look for them in the distance, waiting to see if they'll come home? Do we go rescue them from the pit should they wander? Regenerate church membership will be more impatient, and less gentle, In my humble opinion. What's the use to take time with someone we don't believe is elect? After all, the NC (as it is interpreted by RB) is full of people who do not need to be taught, or corrected, or rebuked. They're the perfect sheep, they never really need care, or can care for themselves.

No, the fact is that we are all like sheep who go astray from time to time. And what we fail to realize when we talk about invisible things, is if a person were able to see into my innermost soul, they would probably say I'm not elect. All the fruit in the world cannot cover a sin-sick soul from God's gaze. If we could have His sight, then perhaps we could have a church where everyone is who they seem to be. But the fact is, we do not have that sight, and we, especially the Reformed, have a tendency to be quick to judge if we are not mature in our faith.

Some of these things need to be left to God. And He will most certainly deal with them. See Matthew 7:21-23 and 25:31ff.

Obviously He's given us some sense of who is a sheep and who is a wolf. And we should take care to exercise the keys. But it's not always so easy to tell a sheep from a goat, especially when we are so prone to judge harshly. We need, rather, to pray and seek the Lord. Let's worry about those in the church, disciple, and care for them. God will sort out the rest.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Contra_Mundum

rbcbob said:


> Rich, I am not sure why my comments would cause such agitation. They were specifically expounding upon LBC 26:2 which addresses the paradigm for understanding who it is that ought to be brought into the membership of the church. Again, Baptists see the pattern to be modeled as the NC identification of those, and only those, who personally know the Lord. That is the pattern and we, with all of our finite limitations, seek to use that pattern rather than the OC pattern.


I don't think Rich is agitated. He's just trying to engage. He explained that he's attempting to use categories you define, not those he imposes. If he's frustrated, its because instead of answering him within your own definitions, you may be assuming he challenges you with an external critique.

Here's what I'm interested in:


rbcbob said:


> Now certainly there will be mistakes made by fallible shepherds using either pattern. But *that there will be many more admitted into the fold who do not know the Lord* using the Old Covenant pattern as contrasted with the New Covenant pattern *must be readily apparent to all*.


I would like to see _specifically_ that *bold* statement defended, biblically. That is not a premise I am willing to grant, as if it were just "obvious to every fair minded person," or some such.

Since the difference you spelled out in the previous paragraph between "the New Covenant pattern" vs. "the Old Covenant pattern" is part of your special claim, it won't do simply to assert it as the basis.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Well said Bruce. I'm not agitated. I do agree with Bruce that the premises shift and it makes it difficult to interact. If you want to talk about the Elect then talk about the Elect but don't be surprised when you jump to visible Church practice and no premises have been introduced to qualify your behavior. I'm trying to internally understand the paradigm.


Using your premises:
1. The New Covenant consists of the Elect alone.
2. We don't know who the elect are.
3. Since we don't know who the elect are, we'll do the next "best thing", which is consider only those whose profession and conduct has not indicated to us they are not unregenerate and make them Church members.
4. But some elect look like the unregenerate.
5. Some unregenerate are baptized (but we did our best not to)
6. The visible Church is not the New Covenant

Thus, Jer 31 does not apply to the visible Church.

In other words, it is not a very long jump to look at the passage you quoted from Jeremiah 31 or the passage that Randy quoted from 1 Cor 5 and say to yourself: "Ah, see, this is saying that only the Elect are in the New Covenant Church..."

Yet the minute you leave your Bible and look up to the people around you there is an immediate problem: you have no idea who is in the New Covenant. At that point, the "...we'll do the best we can to match the ideal New Covenant that we can..." model sets in.

I would simply like to know the _exegetical_ standard for concluding that your NT standard yields to greater "reliability" than the OT standard (especially since, didactically, God blamed a lack of training and discipline in the home for apostasy). How would a person who needs to be rebuked for his long time hard-heartedness look different than one who was clearly unregenerate? How does the Church know who is a smoldering wick and who never had a flame? How does the Church know who is obviously regenerated by their conduct and profession and those that will appeal to the same to Christ on the Last Day and be told to depart from Him because He never knew them?

This is so core to the defintion above, that it is surprising to me that nobody ever lays it out clearly so that the criteria can be defined.

One last question:


> But that there will be many more admitted into the fold who do not know the Lord using the Old Covenant pattern as contrasted with the New Covenant pattern must be readily apparent to all.


Is the "fold" the New Covenant or the visible Church? I thought Christ's sheep were only those in the NC and, consequently, even if a Baptist Church inadvertently baptizes a false professor, does this increase the "fold" according to your understanding? It makes the visible Church bigger but the visible Church is not the New Covenant.


----------



## Herald

> I fear that what this does, practically speaking, is make the criteria for church membership whether or not you're already a disciple. If that were truly the case, we wouldn't have seen so many join the church in the NT. The Ethiopian eunuch? We'd have to look at him awhile. The Philippian jailor? He have to show more fruit in keeping with repentance.



Kevin,

I believe there is a misunderstanding between a credible profession and progressive sanctification. A person who confesses faith in Christ will be questioned by the elders to make sure it is a genuine profession. This does need to be a lengthy period of time. It can be as simple as understanding the basics of law and gospel. There is no scriptural warrant to examine their lives beyond this. Once we are satisified that their profession is real (to the degree any of us know for sure) we will accept the person into the church via baptism. You do the same for adult converts, so there really shouldn't be any disagreement on this point.

Sanctification is a different matter. Not every professor is a possessor. A seemingly credible profession may be proven false by a person who leaves the faith (1 JN 2:19). Each situation has to considered separately; but sanctification is not a requirement for membership, nor is a discipleship evaluation period. Believe and be baptized.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Herald said:


> I fear that what this does, practically speaking, is make the criteria for church membership whether or not you're already a disciple. If that were truly the case, we wouldn't have seen so many join the church in the NT. The Ethiopian eunuch? We'd have to look at him awhile. The Philippian jailor? He have to show more fruit in keeping with repentance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin,
> 
> I believe there is a misunderstanding between a credible profession and progressive sanctification. A person who confesses faith in Christ will be questioned by the elders to make sure it is a genuine profession. This does need to be a lengthy period of time. It can be as simple as understanding the basics of law and gospel. There is no scriptural warrant to examine their lives beyond this. Once we are satisified that their profession is real (to the degree any of us know for sure) we will accept the person into the church via baptism. You do the same for adult converts, so there really shouldn't be any disagreement on this point.
> 
> Sanctification is a different matter. Not every professor is a possessor. A seemingly credible profession may be proven false by a person who leaves the faith (1 JN 2:19). Each situation has to considered separately; but sanctification is not a requirement for membership, nor is a discipleship evaluation period. Believe and be baptized.
Click to expand...


Do you agree with Bob, then, that profession is a better guarantee of introducing less into the "fold" (if that's possible) under the NT paradigm? In other words, the parable of the Sower comes to mind where 2 out of the 4 types of seed yielded temporary fruit.

In other words, is the "make sure we have the fewest number of non-Elect in the visible congregation" the controlling paradigm?


----------



## Damon Rambo

Semper Fidelis said:


> The problem, as I see it, is that the struggling Saint may often seem to be one who has destroyed his profession. The emphasis on visible faithfulness speaks to a concern to uproot anything that resembles a weed in the garden.



I have heard people use this before. But in Jesus' parable of the wheat and the tares, the field is the world, not the local Church. 


Mat 13:38 The field is the world

Jesus is not forbidding Church discipline or excommunication (which He explicitly commands later), but He is forbidding the use of physicality in the furtherance of the Kingdom. Think "inquisition", and the Salem witch trials. these people were not just told "you are no longer welcome at this assembly, until you publicly repent". They were killed, or, "Plucked out of the world".

And before you say "That's a stretch", remember that the 1st century environment was something entirely foreign to ours today. Such brutality was common.

I know this is not really the point of the thread: just wanting to clarify the "plucking weed" idea is not something that applies to the local church.


----------



## Herald

> Is the "fold" the New Covenant or the visible Church? I thought Christ's sheep were only those in the NC and, consequently, even if a Baptist Church inadvertently baptizes a false professor, does this increase the "fold" according to your understanding? It makes the visible Church bigger but the visible Church is not the New Covenant.



Rich,

The fold is only the invisible church. In. A generic sense we may refer to the local church as the body of Christ because we ultimately cannot distinguish between wheat and tares. But this isn't a matter of terminology, which both sides can stumble over. It's about the nature of the New Covenant. Who is in the New Covenant? That's the real issue.


----------



## Herald

Semper Fidelis said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fear that what this does, practically speaking, is make the criteria for church membership whether or not you're already a disciple. If that were truly the case, we wouldn't have seen so many join the church in the NT. The Ethiopian eunuch? We'd have to look at him awhile. The Philippian jailor? He have to show more fruit in keeping with repentance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin,
> 
> I believe there is a misunderstanding between a credible profession and progressive sanctification. A person who confesses faith in Christ will be questioned by the elders to make sure it is a genuine profession. This does need to be a lengthy period of time. It can be as simple as understanding the basics of law and gospel. There is no scriptural warrant to examine their lives beyond this. Once we are satisified that their profession is real (to the degree any of us know for sure) we will accept the person into the church via baptism. You do the same for adult converts, so there really shouldn't be any disagreement on this point.
> 
> Sanctification is a different matter. Not every professor is a possessor. A seemingly credible profession may be proven false by a person who leaves the faith (1 JN 2:19). Each situation has to considered separately; but sanctification is not a requirement for membership, nor is a discipleship evaluation period. Believe and be baptized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you agree with Bob, then, that profession is a better guarantee of introducing less into the "fold" (if that's possible) under the NT paradigm? In other words, the parable of the Sower comes to mind where 2 out of the 4 types of seed yielded temporary fruit.
> 
> In other words, is the "make sure we have the fewest number of non-Elect in the visible congregation" the controlling paradigm?
Click to expand...


The church has no business in establishing some sort of spiritual litmus test in order to welcome a new saint into fellowship beyond what scripture teaches. If you believe and are baptized you are welcomed into the visible body of believers. That elders would interview a candidate for membership to make sure they can articulate the basics of their faith is reasonable and biblical. Anything beyond that is reserved for sheperding the flock.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Damon Rambo said:


> I have heard people use this before. But in Jesus' parable of the wheat and the tares, the field is the world, not the local Church.





Herald said:


> Rich,
> 
> The fold is only the invisible church. In. A generic sense we may refer to the local church as the body of Christ because we ultimately cannot distinguish between wheat and tares.


Just wanted to point this out.



Herald said:


> But this isn't a matter of terminology, which both sides can stumble over. It's about the nature of the New Covenant. Who is in the New Covenant? That's the real issue.



What is the real issue? What does New Covenant composition have to do with the local Church as that is what this thread is about. There is an application or connection being drawn between New Covenant composition and local Church membership. Profession and obedience are seen by some as connecting them. Yet, as you note, no real litmus test is to be applied to ascertain regeneracy.

Does NC membership bear at all upon decisions to admit or bar from local Church membership? If not, then "Who is in the New Covenant?" really is not the issue at all.


----------



## Herald

Rich,

I made the statement about the NC being the issue because of where I perceived the thread was heading. But since you asked...

All who are regenerate are in the NC. I think we would be agreed on that. ONLY those who are regenerate are in the NC. On that we would disagree. The visible church is made up of those who are both regenerate (in the NC) and some who are false saints. The invisible church is made up only of those who are regenerate and, consequently, in the NC. Again, we should be agreed. Our disagreement is including individuals in the NC in the absence of a profession. Baptists believe a credible profession is imperfect evidence of regeneration. Because Baptists believe in a NC church, and since only the regenerate are in the NC, we admit into membership those who profess to be in the NC. In that sense the NC and regeneration are inexorably linked.


----------



## JM

The more I study and read threads like this one the more Baptist I become. Thank you all for posting with charity and clarity.


----------



## kceaster

Herald said:


> Kevin,
> 
> I believe there is a misunderstanding between a credible profession and progressive sanctification. A person who confesses faith in Christ will be questioned by the elders to make sure it is a genuine profession. This does need to be a lengthy period of time. It can be as simple as understanding the basics of law and gospel. There is no scriptural warrant to examine their lives beyond this. Once we are satisified that their profession is real (to the degree any of us know for sure) we will accept the person into the church via baptism. You do the same for adult converts, so there really shouldn't be any disagreement on this point.
> 
> Sanctification is a different matter. Not every professor is a possessor. A seemingly credible profession may be proven false by a person who leaves the faith (1 JN 2:19). Each situation has to considered separately; but sanctification is not a requirement for membership, nor is a discipleship evaluation period. Believe and be baptized.



I would like to know what scriptural warrant we have of our being satisfied that their profession is real. Pentecost welcomed 3000 souls into the young church, and with no sitting down to evaluate and check them out for a time. I realize that Presbyterian elders want to know the person and hear their profession, and I believe generally this process does not take too long. But I also have had experience, ever so briefly, with Reformed Baptists. (I know a RB pastor who would not baptize my children on their profession of faith, so, that is the basis of my statements. He did want to see evidence of progressive sanctification.) And really, if we're talking about regenerate church membership, then we want to know that the thing signified has already been done before we apply the sign, contrary to many places in Scripture. We want to see some proof that they're born again, before we apply the sign that they have been born again. That really is all it boils down to.

But we're supposed to make disciples, not just baptize them once they already are. I have been baptistic most of my life, and I can tell you that that is the way it is in most baptistic churches. You have to show for yourself that you have learned enough to be a disciple before you can be discipled. And I was raised in a Christian home. 

That turns on its head the command given by God to teach our children when we lie down, when we rise up, when we walk along the way, etc.

To be honest, if the apostles could not tell the sheep from the goats, then how can we? At least we know with Paul that he would reason with those who were going astray; that he would plead with them, and I'm sure, spend many tearful hours praying for them. But I really can't believe he would have barred the door from their ever having entered, knowing what he knows now.

If we can't see the invisible church, then we ought not to concern ourselves with trying to maintain it. God knows who are His. If He tells us, that is His prerogative. But He doesn't share that secret knowledge with us, so we need to disciple everyone we can, and welcome them into the discipline of the church. If they go out from us, it should be after we've pleaded with them, and spent many hours praying for them. But we shouldn't look back at all, or rethink who we allow in the doors. We should invite everyone to the wedding feast knowing that some will not come, some will come but will not have put on their wedding clothes, and even some more will come and be welcomed to the feast as family. But we don't know who these are. No matter how much fruit we inspect or how discerning we are.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Semper Fidelis

To break it down.

Premise 1: 


Herald said:


> All who are regenerate are in the NC. I think we would be agreed on that.


Premise 2:


Herald said:


> ONLY those who are regenerate are in the NC.


Premise 3:


Herald said:


> The visible church is made up of those who are both regenerate (in the NC) and some who are false saints.


Premise 4:


Herald said:


> The invisible church is made up only of those who are regenerate and, consequently, in the NC.


Premise 5:


Herald said:


> Baptists believe a credible profession is imperfect evidence of regeneration.


Conclusion:


Herald said:


> Because Baptists believe in a NC church, and since only the regenerate are in the NC, we admit into membership those who profess to be in the NC. In that sense the NC and regeneration are inexorably linked.



The problem with your argument is that you introduced a premise in your conclusion that has not been established, by Scripture, as a valid premise.

In fact, by your Confession, you need to add "...who profess to be in the NC *and obey thereunto..*."

Premise 1-4 only tell you that you don't know who is in the NC but then you are jumping to the conclusion of admitting to the visible Church (not the NC) those who profess and obey.

What is lacking in the argument are these didactic principles, derived from the Word: 
1. A command to the Church to match the identity of those baptized with the composition of those who are Elect.
2. That profession is seen to be the "imperfect means" for establishing that group and none other.
3. If the desire is to match the composition of the visible Church to the composition of the NC then what criteria are used to confidently distinguish between the "bruised reed" and the unregenerate.

If you can provide the didactic principles _then_ the practices may be said to be inexorably linked.


----------



## Herald

Kevin,

Three thousand souls coming to faith at one time is certainly not normative. Would you agree with me that Acts records a transitionary period in the young New Testament church and that we need to proceed cautiously when something is not normative? I would daresay that if three thousand people came to faith at one time in a reasonably sized town that the normative function of the church would be, at a minimum, stressed. But if we must stay in Acts, I can think of a few interesting passages. I'll start with the passage you mentioned.



> Acts 2:41 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls.



Received first --> Baptism --> added to the church



> Acts 5:14 14 And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number;



Believe --> added to the church



> Acts 8:36-37 36 And as they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?" 37 And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."



Believe --> Baptism



> Acts 10:47 47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"



Received the Holy Spirit (after/during regeneration) --> Baptism



> Acts 16:33-34 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.



Believed (verse 34) --> Baptism



> Ephesians 4:4-6 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.



one Lord (through Who salvation is possible) --> one faith --> one baptism

Outside of Acts 2 & 5, membership in the church is assumed once baptism was administered even if there was no church present in that area. As I said earlier, Acts is a transitional period in which the church was being established in prior unevangelized areas. Many times those that were converted were the first members of that local church. 

Kevin, as to your anecdotal accounts, how can they be responded to? I am not an apologist for those Baptist churches who have fuzzy soteriology and ecclesiology. I came out of that background as well; but instead of heading into Presbyterianism, I decided to become a Reformed Baptist. Reformed Baptist churches, along with many Founders churches, are recapturing solid Baptist distinctives that have been blurred over the past 100+ years. 



> I know a RB pastor who would not baptize my children on their profession of faith, so, that is the basis of my statements.



Nor was my daughter allowed to be baptized at five years old after she "said the prayer" in kindergarden. Why? Because she had absolutely no idea what she had done. The pastor came to our house to talk with her and she just thought Jesus was akin to Santa Claus. I am grateful my pastor refused to baptize her at that time.



> To be honest, if the apostles could not tell the sheep from the goats, then how can we? At least we know with Paul that he would reason with those who were going astray; that he would plead with them, and I'm sure, spend many tearful hours praying for them. But I really can't believe he would have barred the door from their ever having entered, knowing what he knows now.
> 
> If we can't see the invisible church, then we ought not to concern ourselves with trying to maintain it.



I believe my position, and that of Reformed Baptists in general, is being mischaracterized. You already came out in support of the Presbyterian practice of verifying a credible profession:



> I realize that Presbyterian elders want to know the person and hear their profession, and I believe generally this process does not take too long.



You then tried to disparage how Baptists do it by injecting anecdotal evidence. If you come to my church we don't "take too long" either. If you can articulate your faith, and don't inject some obvious theological land mine into the discussion, we will accept that. We will accept you as a sheep. I've been saying that in various ways throughout this thread. I'd really like Presbyterians to acknowledge that. The only time we'll question whether a sheep is a sheep is if we find ourselves in advanced church discipline, where the individual has refused to repent and stands on the cusp of being put out.


----------



## kceaster

*Bill...*



Herald said:


> Kevin,
> 
> Three thousand souls coming to faith at one time is certainly not normative. Would you agree with me that Acts records a transitionary period in the young New Testament church and that we need to proceed cautiously when something is not normative? I would daresay that if three thousand people came to faith at one time in a reasonably sized town that the normative function of the church would be, at a minimum, stressed. But if we must stay in Acts, I can think of a few interesting passages. I'll start with the passage you mentioned.



Nowhere in the pastoral epistles, from which we would derive normative practices, do I see anyone telling anyone else to be careful who we allow in the door. Paul does tell Timothy to beware certain individuals, but he doesn't tell him to not let them in.

Additionally, ministers and elders are responsible for what they teach and what they teach others to do. There is NO prohibition anywhere in Scripture that says God is going to hold these men accountable for anyone they let in the door. There are no judgments against any leader of the church for who they baptize, if they show themselves to be false. God does not throw the minister away with the false professor, unless the minister is not known to the Lord either. So this is a false dilemma. 

God is not going to hold someone guilty for who they let in the door, but we do see what happens to teachers who will not allow anyone to come in. They end up like the Pharisees.



> Outside of Acts 2 & 5, membership in the church is assumed once baptism was administered even if there was no church present in that area. As I said earlier, Acts is a transitional period in which the church was being established in prior unevangelized areas. Many times those that were converted were the first members of that local church.



Yet, would you not agree that you are calling normative how the church grew in that time period. If you are going to say that believe=be baptized, then you are saying that it is normative for baptism to be professing believers only. 



> Kevin, as to your anecdotal accounts, how can they be responded to? I am not an apologist for those Baptist churches who have fuzzy soteriology and ecclesiology. I came out of that background as well; but instead of heading into Presbyterianism, I decided to become a Reformed Baptist. Reformed Baptist churches, along with many Founders churches, are recapturing solid Baptist distinctives that have been blurred over the past 100+ years.



I can only use them to show that this is the ultimate end of your assumptions. If you assume that you must only allow those regenerate in your midst, then you will, by default, create a false dilemma, and criteria for church membership, which isn't exactly biblical. 



> Nor was my daughter allowed to be baptized at five years old after she "said the prayer" in kindergarden. Why? Because she had absolutely no idea what she had done. The pastor came to our house to talk with her and she just thought Jesus was akin to Santa Claus. I am grateful my pastor refused to baptize her at that time.



Which exercises faith? Making sure your daughter is a believer before applying the sign, or trusting God that He will work by His Spirit in due season? One looks at the profession for assurance, the other looks at God's promise. I know that may be a gross generalization, because I am not saying you don't trust in God for your daughter's salvation. But if her actions or profession ease your mind and give you even an ounce of assurance prior to applying the sign, you're trusting in something that could be fleeting, especially in a child. 

We do not allow children to join the church based upon what they have done, we allow them to join the church based upon what God has done in the family. And we trust that He will continue His work through the means of grace.



> I believe my position, and that of Reformed Baptists in general, is being mischaracterized. You already came out in support of the Presbyterian practice of verifying a credible profession:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that Presbyterian elders want to know the person and hear their profession, and I believe generally this process does not take too long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You then tried to disparage how Baptists do it by injecting anecdotal evidence. If you come to my church we don't "take too long" either. If you can articulate your faith, and don't inject some obvious theological land mine into the discussion, we will accept that. We will accept you as a sheep. I've been saying that in various ways throughout this thread. I'd really like Presbyterians to acknowledge that. The only time we'll question whether a sheep is a sheep is if we find ourselves in advanced church discipline, where the individual has refused to repent and stands on the cusp of being put out.
Click to expand...


But what proof do we Presbyterians look to in order to verify? In the OPC, we ask four specific questions, which, when answered in the affirmative, we receive them into the communion of the saints. They have answered that they will submit in the Lord to the government of the church, and that they will heed its discipline should they be found delinquent in doctrine or life. What other things do we need? Do we need to make sure they can submit, but making a case against so that they submit? Do we try to catch them in any sin to see if they will immediately repent. No, we allow them to live and serve among us. This is the pattern of the NT. And when they are found delinquent in doctrine or life, they are dealt with appropriately, to, hopefully, their restoration. But if needs be, they will be put out from among us. But why go to such great lengths to bar the door, especially when there is no explicit command to do so?

Now the OP expressed the concept of regenerate church membership. Correct me if I am wrong, but if you are going to argue for such membership, then you must go to these lengths in order to find out if the person is really regenerate.

But in the end, you will be fooled. You may be able to see some, but you won't see all. Martin Luther said something to the effect that he will be suprised by two groups of people in heaven, those he thought would never make it, but did, and those he thought were sure to make it, but didn't. And the most surprising of all is that he made it. That's our situation and we cannot do anything about it except for watch and pray.

Paul's words are so warm, "And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will."

We have no idea who will turn from sin unto God. So we should not put a stumbling block in their way, but be gentle and kind to them. Why should anyone want to come into the church, if they must pass the test first? Let them come in first, have a drink of cool water, be refreshed in their soul, hear the word's of the savior, and contemplate their position before their creator. If they hear that they must provide proof of gospel obedience first, they may seek another place.

Again, I am not saying you are advocating what I've experienced. But my statement to you is that this is the ultimate end of your thinking.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Houston E.

> If we can't see the invisible church, then we ought not to concern ourselves with trying to maintain it.



And yet for some reason, a consenting, but non-professing, spouse would be refused baptism....


----------



## rbcbob

kceaster said:


> Additionally, ministers and elders are responsible for what they teach and what they teach others to do. *There is NO prohibition anywhere in Scripture that says God is going to hold these men accountable for anyone they let in the door.* There are no judgments against any leader of the church for who they baptize, if they show themselves to be false. God does not throw the minister away with the false professor, unless the minister is not known to the Lord either. So this is a false dilemma.
> 
> God is not going to hold someone guilty for who they let in the door, but we do see what happens to teachers who will not allow anyone to come in. They end up like the Pharisees.
> 
> KC



Kevin, I strongly disagree with your assertions. As pastors we are indeed held responsible for the integrity and safety of the flock.


Acts 20:27-31 27 "For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 "Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.

Acts 2:41 - 3:1 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved. 
There seems to be a clear sequence in Acts requiring BELIEVER’S baptism wherein the obedient convert, having exercised faith in Jesus follows Christ’s command to be baptized.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This BELIEVER’S baptism presupposes (1) the sovereign work of the Spirit in regeneration, (2) the faith and (3) repentance of the candidate for baptism

Acts 8:36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" 37 Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

Acts 10:47 "Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?

Acts 18:8 Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.

Since, as Baptists, we understand that it is believers who have been (in the inscrutable workings of God’s sovereignty) made members of the New Covenant. As elders charged with shepherding the flock of God how are we to discern who those are who have trusted Christ to the saving of their souls?
We do so by resorting to the Scriptures of the New Covenant and “ … by good and necessary consequence which may be deduced from Scripture”.
Paul, upon encountering “DISCIPLES” in Ephesus finds their conversion and subsequent baptism doubtful. He questions them; preaches Christ to them and THEN baptizes them.

Acts 19:3 And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.


----------



## Herald

Kevin,

You said:



> Nowhere in the pastoral epistles, from which we would derive normative practices, do I see anyone telling anyone else to be careful who we allow in the door.



Would you please point to one thing said by me that indicates otherwise? Words mean things.



> There is NO prohibition anywhere in Scripture that says God is going to hold these men accountable for anyone they let in the door.



Again, would you please show me where I said or even inferred that pastors/elders are accountable for who they let in the door?



> If you are going to say that believe=be baptized, then you are saying that it is normative for baptism to be professing believers only.



Yes, I am.



> If you assume that you must only allow those regenerate in your midst, then you will, by default, create a false dilemma, and criteria for church membership, which isn't exactly biblical.



For the third time, when have I have said or inferred that we must allow only those who are regenerate in our midst? 



> Which exercises faith? Making sure your daughter is a believer before applying the sign, or trusting God that He will work by His Spirit in due season? One looks at the profession for assurance, the other looks at God's promise. I know that may be a gross generalization, because I am not saying you don't trust in God for your daughter's salvation. But if her actions or profession ease your mind and give you even an ounce of assurance prior to applying the sign, you're trusting in something that could be fleeting, especially in a child.



Kevin, it's obvious you do not understand the Reformed Baptist position on baptism or visible church membership. 

As for the rest of your post, what the OPC does is not germane to this discussion (no disrespect to my OPC brethren). You have created a caricature of how Reformed Baptists handle everything from membership to baptism. I believe I have been clear and concise in my previous posts and don't feel inclined to repeat what I've said.


----------



## Herald

Houston E. said:


> If we can't see the invisible church, then we ought not to concern ourselves with trying to maintain it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet for some reason, a consenting, but non-professing, spouse would be refused baptism....
Click to expand...


Trey, you act as though this shocks you. Name me one Reformed Baptist church that would willingly apply the sign of the New Covenant to a professed unbeliever.


----------



## kceaster

rbcbob said:


> Kevin, I strongly disagree with your assertions. As pastors we are indeed held responsible for the integrity and safety of the flock.
> 
> Acts 20:27-31 27 "For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 "Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.




I would humbly assert that you hadn't read all my assertions.

Of course pastors and elders are to care for the flock. And certainly this does include protecting the sheep from within and without. But this does not mean that under-shepherds of the Lord Jesus Christ are to bar the door from those who sincerely want to come in. This sincerity may be more, it may be less. But there is no condemnation against any minister or elder when he brings a sheep into the fold. It's what he does with them afterwards...

And I would also assert that the minister or elder has very little to do with the integrity of the flock. He cannot account for all the souls, he can only do his best to feed and care for them. But in the end, if they are false professors, it is not his burden to bear, unless he knowingly allowed the sheep to stray.



> Acts 2:41 - 3:1 41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. 44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. 46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
> There seems to be a clear sequence in Acts requiring BELIEVER’S baptism wherein the obedient convert, having exercised faith in Jesus follows Christ’s command to be baptized.



I have no problem with believer's baptism in adult converts.



> This BELIEVER’S baptism presupposes (1) the sovereign work of the Spirit in regeneration, (2) the faith and (3) repentance of the candidate for baptism.



I would say it is more assumption than presupposition, but okay. In assuming, we are expecting the Holy Spirit to work in due season. We do not look for proof that He has been working, other than hearing the confession of faith, which can be sincere or not. But we are not checking for the fruit of progressive sanctification, only the gift of repentance, which again, may or may not be sincere.

If this is really the way you look at it, then you can't possibly believe in regenerate ONLY membership. There is no way of knowing whether or not a person is sincere in their confession of faith. 



> Since, as Baptists, we understand that it is believers who have been (in the inscrutable workings of God’s sovereignty) made members of the New Covenant. As elders charged with shepherding the flock of God how are we to discern who those are who have trusted Christ to the saving of their souls?
> We do so by resorting to the Scriptures of the New Covenant and “ … by good and necessary consequence which may be deduced from Scripture”.
> Paul, upon encountering “DISCIPLES” in Ephesus finds their conversion and subsequent baptism doubtful. He questions them; preaches Christ to them and THEN baptizes them.
> 
> Acts 19:3 And he said to them, "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Then Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.



I will most heartily agree that the Holy Spirit can and does regenerate a person (like these in the text) at a point in time such as this. But this is not normative. Paul here did not baptize with water, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit came upon them when they heard the object of their faith preached. Their eyes were opened and their hearts received the gospel. It was a dry baptism.

However, if you are looking for this in everyone, you will rarely, if ever see it. And even if you do see it, your eyes could be deceiving you.

There is no way to infallibly know the elect, and therefore, have a regenerate only church membership. If God would have wanted His church to know infallibly, He would have given them the power to see it. But this is a mystery of God reserved for His eyes alone.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Herald

Rich,

I believe you quoted a snippet of this part of the 1689 LBC:



> 26.2 All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, *and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it*, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.



The "obedience unto God by Christ according unto it" is obedience to the universal command to repent and believe. Those who are obedient to the call of the gospel may be called visible saints. The confession seems to be careful on this matter, not guaranteeing that a visible saint is part of the invisible church. We've already covered that ground -- that no one knows for certain the spiritual condition of another. 

RB's look at the church, both visible and invisible, differently than Presbyterians (quite an understatement, I know). We see no problem with stating, "The visible church is made up of those who profess faith in Jesus Christ. The invisible church is made up of those who actually have placed their faith in Christ." We proceed on the assumption that those who profess actually possess unless actions and behaviors dictate otherwise. The New Covenant enters the conversation as the governing force over the invisible church. RB's are accused of a disconnect in their insistence on a regenerate church membership; with the belief that we somehow know who is regenerate and who is not. When we state that we don't have perfect knowledge in that area the question is asked, "Then how can you have a regenerate church when you don't know if all your members are regenerate?" About regenerate church membership, in my OP, I said:



> Regenerate church membership is actually _presumed_ regenerate church membership.



The church operates as though all are regenerate. The New Covenant governs the function of the visible church (how it should operate), and includes all those who are part of the invisible church. When speaking from a New Covenant perspective we would say that the invisible church only contains those who are regenerate.


----------



## kceaster

*Bill...*



Herald said:


> Kevin,
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the pastoral epistles, from which we would derive normative practices, do I see anyone telling anyone else to be careful who we allow in the door.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you please point to one thing said by me that indicates otherwise? Words mean things.
Click to expand...


I was under the assumption from a regenerate church membership, and from the LBCF stating what is a saint and what is not a saint, that you were saying a person has to be a saint before they may enter. That is what I am questioning.



> There is NO prohibition anywhere in Scripture that says God is going to hold these men accountable for anyone they let in the door.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, would you please show me where I said or even inferred that pastors/elders are accountable for who they let in the door?
Click to expand...


I am assuming that if churches are to maintain their purity according to the LBCF, that there is an implicit responsibility to keep the church pure by keeping those who we believe to be unregenerate, or perhaps have not shown that they are regenerate to our satisfaction, out of our midst.



> Which exercises faith? Making sure your daughter is a believer before applying the sign, or trusting God that He will work by His Spirit in due season? One looks at the profession for assurance, the other looks at God's promise. I know that may be a gross generalization, because I am not saying you don't trust in God for your daughter's salvation. But if her actions or profession ease your mind and give you even an ounce of assurance prior to applying the sign, you're trusting in something that could be fleeting, especially in a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin, it's obvious you do not understand the Reformed Baptist position on baptism or visible church membership.
> 
> As for the rest of your post, what the OPC does is not germane to this discussion (no disrespect to my OPC brethren). You have created a caricature of how Reformed Baptists handle everything from membership to baptism. I believe I have been clear and concise in my previous posts and don't feel inclined to repeat what I've said.
Click to expand...


I do not mean to caricature anyone. I am not making fun of anyone. If you do not believe as I have put forward as "a" Reformed Baptist position, then you are believing differently than I have previously encountered.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## rbcbob

Kevin, in rereading the posts may I offer what I hope will be some clarifying definitions that could prove helpful?

Group 1. *Members of the New Covenant* = The elect from every tribe and tongue and people and nation

Group 2. *Members of the local church* = Those who (in the judgment of charity) are genuinely part of group 1, desire to join our church, and meet the various qualifications of our particular church (Confessional agreement, etc.)

Group 3. *Others in attendance* of the services but not members = all who desire to worship with us and hear the Word of God.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Herald said:


> Rich,
> 
> I believe you quoted a snippet of this part of the 1689 LBC:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 26.2 All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, *and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it*, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "obedience unto God by Christ according unto it" is obedience to the universal command to repent and believe. Those who are obedient to the call of the gospel may be called visible saints. The confession seems to be careful on this matter, not guaranteeing that a visible saint is part of the invisible church. We've already covered that ground -- that no one knows for certain the spiritual condition of another.
> 
> RB's look at the church, both visible and invisible, differently than Presbyterians (quite an understatement, I know). We see no problem with stating, "The visible church is made up of those who profess faith in Jesus Christ. The invisible church is made up of those who actually have placed their faith in Christ." We proceed on the assumption that those who profess actually possess unless actions and behaviors dictate otherwise. The New Covenant enters the conversation as the governing force over the invisible church. RB's are accused of a disconnect in their insistence on a regenerate church membership; with the belief that we somehow know who is regenerate and who is not. When we state that we don't have perfect knowledge in that area the question is asked, "Then how can you have a regenerate church when you don't know if all your members are regenerate?" About regenerate church membership, in my OP, I said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regenerate church membership is actually _presumed_ regenerate church membership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The church operates as though all are regenerate. The New Covenant governs the function of the visible church (how it should operate), and includes all those who are part of the invisible church. When speaking from a New Covenant perspective we would say that the invisible church only contains those who are regenerate.
Click to expand...


Bill,

Again, you have not provided the didactic Scriptural passages to support the premises you introduced into your conclusion above. I know precisely what it is you believe but what I'm disputing is that you have the requisite didactic principles from Scripture to support your premises. It is one thing to simply assert the connection but I see no warrant for the movement from the invisible to the visible.


----------



## Iconoclast

This thread is going along so well I am almost afraid to post. 
I would like to interact however so,
Rich wrote;[summing up what was already posted]


> Using your premises:
> 1. The New Covenant consists of the Elect alone.
> 2. We don't know who the elect are.
> 3. Since we don't know who the elect are, we'll do the next "best thing", which is consider only those whose profession and conduct has not indicated to us they are not unregenerate and make them Church members.
> 4. But some elect look like the unregenerate.
> 5. Some unregenerate are baptized (but we did our best not to)
> 6. The visible Church is not the New Covenant


If I were asked to comment on this it would be;
1} yes
2}We do not know for sure who the elect are> but for sure we know that God is drawing all of the elect out of the world ,and translating them into His Kingdom. Somewhere in this world the elect are visible. 
When they gather together visibly we call it the church. We are given in scripture a portrait of the elect. What to look for ,and characteristics of who and what a saint is. We are given marks and signs of *regeneration* Usually the marks and signs are to be used for * self-examination*
3} As Matthew noted we are to judge righteous judgment.
Our judgements are to be scripturally based . 
In Randy's post 1Cor 5 says if any man who is * called* a brother;


> (1Co 5:11) But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.


 This text allows for a judgment to be made based on fruit, or lack thereof. This judgment is not God's infallible judgment but a direction to protect the actual church from false professors. Or restore one who has gone off toward apostasy,

We do not do the next best thing,and make anyone a church memeber Only God can make a dead sinner come to life as we know. We keep presenting the claims of truth to men and woman ,boys and girls until God is pleased to convert and regenerate someone.
4} santification is a process and also the work of God.
5} No unregenerate are baptized! Persons who profess to believe the gospel and show some evidence of it are baptized.
It may be that some of these individuals fail ,or come short of the promises through unbelief. Sometimes we see this in those who fall away. Like the parable of Mt 13 indicates, or all of the Hebrews 3-4 verses we all are aware of. If any church would baptize someone in order just to say they have baptized more people shame on them.\
6}The elect who visibly assemble are the New Covenant church. The false professors, false brethren, tares, goats who assemble with the true members will not escape the judgment of God.

We are called to obey, one plants ,one waters, But God gives the increase.
A disciple is someone who follows the teaching of a teacher, good or bad
Harold Camping has disciples. there are true disciples of Jesus,and there are false disciples Jn 6:66. 
We are called to be faithful not infallible.


----------



## Herald

A few thoughts before I head off to bed…

An understanding of the Reformed Baptist view of presumed regenerate church membership cannot be done without understanding the nature and scope of the New Covenant. The promises of the New Covenant are spiritual promises made to spiritual people. 



> 1 Peter 2:9-10 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.



Unbelievers are not a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, or a people for God’s own possession. Unbelievers do not proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called (them) out of darkness into His marvelous light. Unbelievers are not the people of God. They have not received mercy. Indeed they have no “hope and (are) without God in the world.” (Eph. 2:12)

The here and now promise of the New Covenant is seen in Hebrews 8, contrasted against the Old Covenant. The recipients of the New Covenant will have the law of God in their minds and written on their hearts. The Lord will be their God, and they shall be His people. This is perfected in the eternal state, but has a foreshadow here on earth in the church. 



> Hebrews 8:8-12 8 For finding fault with them, He says, "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, When I will effect a new covenant With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; 9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers On the day when I took them by the hand To lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they did not continue in My covenant, And I did not care for them, says the Lord. 10 "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel After those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds, And I will write them upon their hearts. And I will be their God, And they shall be My people. 11 "And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, And everyone his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' For all shall know Me, From the least to the greatest of them. 12 "For I will be merciful to their iniquities, And I will remember their sins no more."



The New Covenant is represented in the church through the Lord’s Supper. The cup is the New Covenant in His blood (1 Cor. 11:25-29), and is to be enjoyed only by those who are covered by His blood. 

The New Testament teaches that an individual enters into the church through believing the gospel. Paul makes this clear to the church at Ephesus:



> Ephesians 3:6 6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,



The promise of Christ Jesus is through the gospel. This infers that it is belief in the gospel message (Rom. 10:9, 10) that allows a person to become a fellow partaker of the promise. 

The 1 Cor. 11 passage is very strong in my estimation. Unbelievers and unrepentant sinners place themselves in great peril if they partake of the Lord’s Supper. If we allow someone to become a member in the absence of a credible profession of faith, we may be complicit in their bringing judgment on themselves if they partake of the Supper. I see no scriptural warrant to deny a member coming to the table unless there is knowledge that they are in unrepentant sin. 

In his letters, Paul addresses the “saints.” In Romans 1 he writes, “to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints.” (Rom. 1:7) Paul’s audience was believers within the visible church. He was writing to true believers. 

I’m off to bed now, but these are just a few thoughts I typed out this evening. I’ll deal with it more tomorrow.


----------



## Houston E.

Herald said:


> Houston E. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we can't see the invisible church, then we ought not to concern ourselves with trying to maintain it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet for some reason, a consenting, but non-professing, spouse would be refused baptism....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trey, you act as though this shocks you. Name me one Reformed Baptist church that would willingly apply the sign of the New Covenant to a professed unbeliever.
Click to expand...


Sorry if unclear, my response was to Kevin's quote - that if his above quote were true, then there should be no problem baptizing a non-professing spouse, yet they are required to profess before baptism.

I'm with you on this one brother!


----------



## Herald

Houston E. said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Houston E. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet for some reason, a consenting, but non-professing, spouse would be refused baptism....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trey, you act as though this shocks you. Name me one Reformed Baptist church that would willingly apply the sign of the New Covenant to a professed unbeliever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry if unclear, my response was to Kevin's quote - that if his above quote were true, then there should be no problem baptizing a non-professing spouse, yet they are required to profess before baptism.
> 
> I'm with you on this one brother!
Click to expand...


Brother,

I apologize for the misunderstanding. 

Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Herald said:


> A few thoughts before I head off to bed…
> 
> An understanding of the Reformed Baptist view of presumed regenerate church membership cannot be done without understanding the nature and scope of the New Covenant. The promises of the New Covenant are spiritual promises made to spiritual people.



Bill,

Your entire presentation was essentially a recapitulation of the statement: "The NC is with the Elect alone."

I've left that premise alone because there's little point in arguing that here.

You've already presented the same case:

Premise 1: 


Herald said:


> All who are regenerate are in the NC. I think we would be agreed on that.


Premise 2:


Herald said:


> ONLY those who are regenerate are in the NC.


Premise 3:


Herald said:


> The visible church is made up of those who are both regenerate (in the NC) and some who are false saints.


Premise 4:


Herald said:


> The invisible church is made up only of those who are regenerate and, consequently, in the NC.


Premise 5:


Herald said:


> Baptists believe a credible profession is imperfect evidence of regeneration.



The issue is not whether you believe the NC is with the Elect alone but the premises you are introducing where no didactic Scripture has been brought to bear on how one moves from invisible to visible.

Again:

Conclusion:


Herald said:


> Because Baptists believe in a NC church, and since only the regenerate are in the NC, we admit into membership those who profess to be in the NC. In that sense the NC and regeneration are inexorably linked.



The problem with your argument is that you introduced a premise in your conclusion that has not been established, by Scripture, as a valid premise.

Premise 1-4 only tell you that you don't know who is in the NC but then you are jumping to the conclusion of admitting to the visible Church (not the NC) those who profess and obey.

What is lacking in the argument are these didactic principles, derived from the Word: 
1. A command to the Church to match the identity of those baptized with the composition of those who are Elect.
2. That profession is seen to be the "imperfect means" for establishing that group and none other.
3. If the desire is to match the composition of the visible Church to the composition of the NC then what criteria are used to confidently distinguish between the "bruised reed" and the unregenerate.

What is the exegetical basis for 1-3 above?


----------



## Herald

Rich,

Forgive my not responding to your last post until now. I had to give it some thought and review my own assertions and conclusions. 

You claim that I have not provided sufficient exegesis (from didactic scripture) to prove my thesis beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are looking for one passage that clearly states that only believers are in the New Covenant, than you will never be satisfied with any answer given by a Baptist. Likewise, Presbyterians can not provide a similar passage to defend infant baptism. What I have done is give my exegetical reasons for my thesis, and that, in detail. It's not a matter of whether I am convinced to my own satisfaction; rather it's a matter of what the preponderance of scripture teaches. 

There is nothing I need to challenge you on since this thread was not a critique of the Presbyterian view, but a promotion of the Baptist view. I'm content to let our differences stand on their own merits. Based on the civil nature of this thread I am most encouraged. It has not spiraled downward as so many related threads have. 

Blessings.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Bill,

I don't know how I can make myself any clearer. I'm not debating whether or not you assert the elect are in the NC. I'm letting your internal premises go unchallenged (for the sake of your Confession) that the Elect alone are in the NC. I have been focused on internal consistency of your position throughout and have tried to avoid inserting external premises into the conversation.

Above, as I laid out your argument, I merely quoted every single one of your premises and then noted that you had inserted an additional premise into your conclusion. I asked for the exegetical basis that allows you to move from invisible (elect are in the NC) to the visible (what then?).

In other words, you have not provided any exegetical basis for the assertion that:

1. On the basis that the elect alone are in the NC
2. Therefore, professors alone are in the visible Chuch

The second does not follow from the first and I have not seen any exegesis that links the two although they are clearly linked in Baptist arguments. In other words, I'm suggesting that it is _assumed_ that there is a necessary inference between the two but no grounds has been provided.

As I've noted, I think you can demonstrate the link if you can demonstrate these didactic principles from the Word:
1. A command to the Church to match the identity of those baptized with the composition of those who are Elect.
2. That profession is seen to be the "imperfect means" for establishing that group and none other.
3. If the desire is to match the composition of the visible Church to the composition of the NC then what criteria are used to confidently distinguish between the "bruised reed" and the unregenerate.


----------



## Wannabee

I'm a little late coming in, but I've kept up with most of the posts. There are a couple of inconsistencies that have come up that might help, a little.

God absolutely hold elders responsible for the souls under his care, as Hebrews 13:17 clearly states.
Hebrews 13:17
17Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for *they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account*. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.​
This is part of the point. Elders will give account for how they watched over the souls within their particular fold. They are not responsible for those without. In Ephesians, among other places, Paul makes it clear that we are not to let any uncleanness or covetousness even be named among us (5:3). This responsibility falls to the church in general and the elders specifically, for they are training the flock in order that they will not be lead astray and tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine (4:14). Careful exegesis of these passages will reveal that this is not simply separation from the world, but that it is specifically dealing with the purity of the church from within. And for those who doubt this, "let no on deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath fo God comes upon the sons of disobedience."

All of this is central to the shepherd's responsibility in order that the flock be protected by both the schemes of men (4:14) and of the devil (6:11). Such equipping binds the members together, strengthening each joint so that all grow together in godliness and are strengthened/edified in love and strengthened against the foe. It is because of this that each and every member must strive to be filled with the Spirit, for the flesh cannot engage the spiritual battle. We must be strengthened by the Lord and fight according to the power of His might (6:10). And this is why the believer must put on Christ, the full armor of God, for our battle is spiritual.

You may think that I digress, but I don't. This is inherent in our responsibilities as elders and the fact that we are accountable to God for the care of the flock. And, an integral part of this care is in striving to make sure people don't join the club, but rather have a credible profession of faith. Furthermore, those who exhibit fruit of unrighteousness must be challenged in their walks with the Lord so that they either repent, leave or are disciplined. By "their walks" we're talking about the habitual action of those who profess Christ. For Scripture makes it clear that we ARE to judge those within the church. We ARE to judge one another. We are to continually pursue the righteousness of ourselves and our brother. And, we are to put out those who do not evidence their profession so as to not defile the body. They are given over to Satan in hopes that they will repent. They are to be put out so that their influence will not poison the body. They are to excised as the tumors they are, even if they are believers who refuse to repent. For, once they are out of the body they are no longer to be judged by us, for God judges those who are outside the body. And, by this, the elder will not be accountable for their souls, for they are left to God alone.

1 Corinthians 5:12-13
12For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”​
Let it be graciously acknowledged that we are imperfect and will accomplish these things imperfectly. We are given instruction from God and insofar as we obey and walk accordingly our judgments will be right and righteous. But we will fail, we will be deceived and some will be hurt. But our goal is clearly outlined in Scripture, and part of this is to strive to pursue and maintain the purity of our local church, for what part has Christ with Balial?

Respectfully,


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Joe,

While I agree with you that Elders must give an account for the nature of their shepherding of the flock of God, I don't understand how profession alone makes one subject to the threats of the Church.

What do you suppose the content of instruction that fathers are supposed to teach in Ephesians 6:4? Also, what is the threat to a "non-member" who ignores Eph 6:1-3?

It seems to me that to be consistent with the concern above, children ought to be excluded from the internal life of the Body until they make profession. In other words, if the non-professor is, by definition, a polluting influence to the flock then why are children allowed free access to the Body? Would it not be better to put them in daycare?


----------



## kceaster

Wannabee said:


> I'm a little late coming in, but I've kept up with most of the posts. There are a couple of inconsistencies that have come up that might help, a little.
> 
> God absolutely hold elders responsible for the souls under his care, as Hebrews 13:17 clearly states.
> Hebrews 13:17
> 17Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for *they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account*. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.​
> This is part of the point. Elders will give account for how they watched over the souls within their particular fold. They are not responsible for those without. In Ephesians, among other places, Paul makes it clear that we are not to let any uncleanness or covetousness even be named among us (5:3). This responsibility falls to the church in general and the elders specifically, for they are training the flock in order that they will not be lead astray and tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine (4:14). Careful exegesis of these passages will reveal that this is not simply separation from the world, but that it is specifically dealing with the purity of the church from within. And for those who doubt this, "let no on deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath fo God comes upon the sons of disobedience."
> 
> All of this is central to the shepherd's responsibility in order that the flock be protected by both the schemes of men (4:14) and of the devil (6:11). Such equipping binds the members together, strengthening each joint so that all grow together in godliness and are strengthened/edified in love and strengthened against the foe. It is because of this that each and every member must strive to be filled with the Spirit, for the flesh cannot engage the spiritual battle. We must be strengthened by the Lord and fight according to the power of His might (6:10). And this is why the believer must put on Christ, the full armor of God, for our battle is spiritual.
> 
> You may think that I digress, but I don't. This is inherent in our responsibilities as elders and the fact that we are accountable to God for the care of the flock. And, an integral part of this care is in striving to make sure people don't join the club, but rather have a credible profession of faith. Furthermore, those who exhibit fruit of unrighteousness must be challenged in their walks with the Lord so that they either repent, leave or are disciplined. By "their walks" we're talking about the habitual action of those who profess Christ. For Scripture makes it clear that we ARE to judge those within the church. We ARE to judge one another. We are to continually pursue the righteousness of ourselves and our brother. And, we are to put out those who do not evidence their profession so as to not defile the body. They are given over to Satan in hopes that they will repent. They are to be put out so that their influence will not poison the body. They are to excised as the tumors they are, even if they are believers who refuse to repent. For, once they are out of the body they are no longer to be judged by us, for God judges those who are outside the body. And, by this, the elder will not be accountable for their souls, for they are left to God alone.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 5:12-13
> 12For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”​
> Let it be graciously acknowledged that we are imperfect and will accomplish these things imperfectly. We are given instruction from God and insofar as we obey and walk accordingly our judgments will be right and righteous. But we will fail, we will be deceived and some will be hurt. But our goal is clearly outlined in Scripture, and part of this is to strive to pursue and maintain the purity of our local church, for what part has Christ with Balial?
> 
> Respectfully,



Just to be clear, my position was that there is nowhere saying that God will hold anyone accountable for who they let in, not that He would excuse them for being a poor shepherd.

And to clarify further, if a minister or elder knowingly let a wolf into the fold, then he would most certainly be held accountable. But we are not talking about wolves, per se. We are talking about individuals who have not given us the "satisfaction" we desire in their profession, and so we hold them at arms length. The ones we are talking about would be a bruised reed or smoking flax. Obviously if Christ cares for such as these, so should we, and should not forbid them from being a member in His Church.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## rbcbob

Semper Fidelis said:


> Joe,
> 
> While I agree with you that Elders must give an account for the nature of their shepherding of the flock of God, I don't understand how profession alone makes one subject to the threats of the Church.
> 
> What do you suppose the content of instruction that fathers are supposed to teach in Ephesians 6:4? Also, what is the threat to a "non-member" who ignores Eph 6:1-3?
> *
> It seems to me that to be consistent with the concern above, children ought to be excluded from the internal life of the Body until they make profession. In other words, if the non-professor is, by definition, a polluting influence to the flock then why are children allowed free access to the Body? Would it not be better to put them in daycare?*



Rich, you have not seemed to grasp Baptist ecclesiology. Children in the nursery? Odd place for an unconverted twelve year old in need of hearing the Gospel.

_"1. On the basis that the elect alone are in the NC
2. Therefore, professors alone are in the visible Chuch

The second does not follow from the first and I have not seen any exegesis that links the two although they are clearly linked in Baptist arguments. In other words, I'm suggesting that it is assumed that there is a necessary inference between the two but no grounds has been provided.

As I've noted, I think you can demonstrate the link if you can demonstrate these didactic principles from the Word:
1. A command to the Church to match the identity of those baptized with the composition of those who are Elect.
2. That profession is seen to be the "imperfect means" for establishing that group and none other.
3. If the desire is to match the composition of the visible Church to the composition of the NC then what criteria are used to confidently distinguish between the "bruised reed" and the unregenerate."
_

Your premises #2 is incorrect. Professors alone are candidates, for membership. Membership carries duties, blessings, liabilities and responsibilities. Members and non-members sit in the same services and receive the same preaching.
_
"As I've noted, I think you can demonstrate the link if you can demonstrate these didactic principles from the Word:
1. A command to the Church to match the identity of those baptized with the composition of those who are Elect."_

There is undoubtedly as much and more *good and necessary* in our application of NC principles for assessing the proper candidates for baptism and membership as our Paedobaptist have for their ecclesiology.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

rbcbob said:


> Semper Fideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. On the basis that the elect alone are in the NC
> 2. Therefore, professors alone are in the visible Chuch
> 
> The second does not follow from the first and I have not seen any exegesis that links the two although they are clearly linked in Baptist arguments. In other words, I'm suggesting that it is assumed that there is a necessary inference between the two but no grounds has been provided.
> 
> As I've noted, I think you can demonstrate the link if you can demonstrate these didactic principles from the Word:
> 1. A command to the Church to match the identity of those baptized with the composition of those who are Elect.
> 2. That profession is seen to be the "imperfect means" for establishing that group and none other.
> 3. If the desire is to match the composition of the visible Church to the composition of the NC then what criteria are used to confidently distinguish between the "bruised reed" and the unregenerate."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your premises #2 is incorrect. Professors alone are candidates, for membership. Membership carries duties, blessings, liabilities and responsibilities. Members and non-members sit in the same services and receive the same preaching.
Click to expand...

Bob,

All you did was re-state the same premise. You have not demonstrated the premise. I really don't think my questions are that hard to understand. I realize you _believe_ that professors alone are candidates for membership (that is what premise 2 is stating). What I'm asking you to do is demonstrate this didactically. Where is the demonstration?




rbcbob said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> "As I've noted, I think you can demonstrate the link if you can demonstrate these didactic principles from the Word:
> 1. A command to the Church to match the identity of those baptized with the composition of those who are Elect."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is undoubtedly as much and more *good and necessary* in our application of NC principles for assessing the proper candidates for baptism and membership as our Paedobaptist have for their ecclesiology.
Click to expand...

That may be Bob but that's not the subject of this interaction. I'm simply asking for exegetical support to your premises. I've asked about 3-4 times now. I don't think it's an unreasonable demand given the practical weight that is given unsubstantiated premises.

As I've noted earlier, I'm not really interested in defending my own view here as I'm interested in getting inside of and receiving explanation of your view. This is about Baptist practice in this thread. While it might be interesting that "at least you're better than a Presbyterian", it could only prove that we're both wrong but it doesn't establish a Biblical foundation for your own practice.


----------



## Wannabee

Rich,

Unbelievers are never barred from the doors of the church meeting. They are welcome. However, to be "counted among our number" does not "subject one to the threats of the church." It provides them with the privileges of church membership, one of which is church discipline (which carries both proactive and reactive elements - i.e. discipleship). Our children reap the blessings of the church in many ways, but are not members unless they have a credible profession. Praise God for the grace he shows our precious children by giving them many of the blessings of the church before they are saved (in hopes that they will be!). Furthermore, it is impossible for parents to obey Eph 6:4 (Deu 6) if they put their children out. The church meeting is one of the ways in which we instruct our children in the Lord and strive not to exasperate them.

Non-members who ignore any commandment are subject to God. It is ours to judge one another in the church according to the commandments of God. We judge Christians based on Christian doctrine as God has given us and leave those who we see as non-Christians to the judgment of God. Incidentally, it is much more common to let someone in who professes and is not saved than to refuse someone who is actually saved. And excommunication, if done scripturally, is not taken lightly and still always has the goal of restoration. If they are restored then we see the example of Heb 12 lived out, if not then Heb 6.


Kevin,
You can't separate the two. We are responsible for who is let in as well as who stays in. We are accountable for the souls of those in our care before God. We will give an account. If we bring them in as those we rule over (Heb 13:17) then we are responsible for watching out for their souls. It cannot be separated. We will give account.

I addressed your second comment above. We don't desire to hold someone at arms length. All are welcome to join us for worship, as long as they are not disruptive. If someone begins teaching heresy and causing trouble we would close the doors to them. But I've only seen this once, and never experienced it personally. But if someone comes who is hurt and struggling in their faith we have no desire to turn them away. Our desire is to nurture them in the Lord. But, if they fail to have a credible profession of faith, we can do much more harm by taking them in among our number than simply asking them to continue to meet with us and discuss it. In such a case counting them a member could engender a false sense of security on which they might lean, rather than leaning fully on Jesus Christ and desiring to be a member because of their faith. On one hand membership would be a sign of their profession, on the other it could be a means. God forbid. May we err on the side of compassion, love, mercy and grace, and yet be faithful stewards of the trust given us.

Blessings,


----------



## louis_jp

Rich,

At the risk of sounding stupid, I don't understand for the life of me what your question is. Could you perhaps rephrase it somehow? 

It would seem that your first point was answered with the biblical citations linking faith with baptism. That is, an identity of the baptised with the elect is in the identity of baptism with faith. On your other points, it seems axiomatic that a profession of faith provides a presumption of election, since a profession of faith (presuming it is sincere) is what makes one an elect Christian.

I guess I'm just not following your point, and I'm guessing that the reason your question hasn't been answered yet is that others aren't either. Can you help me understand what you're getting at a little better?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

louis_jp said:


> Rich,
> 
> At the risk of sounding stupid, I don't understand for the life of me what your question is. Could you perhaps rephrase it somehow?
> 
> It would seem that your first point was answered with the biblical citations linking faith with baptism. That is, an identity of the baptised with the elect is in the identity of baptism with faith.



I have not argued this point explicitly to keep the argument on track. I have granted this point for the sake of argument.



louis_jp said:


> On your other points, it seems axiomatic that a profession of faith provides a presumption of election, since a profession of faith (presuming it is sincere) is what makes one an elect Christian.



Here is where the wheels fall off. Let's take the assertion apart. You're assuming a lot and don't even realize it.



louis_jp said:


> A profession of faith provides a presumption of election.



What is the didactic basis for this assertion? Don't simply state it because you've always heard it. Demonstrate it by the Word.



louis_jp said:


> A profession of faith (presuming it is sincere) is what makes one an elect Christian.


Again, don't simply assert it. Demonstrate it. I know this is hard because you've come to simply infer it without ever having to provide the didactic basis but I'm asking for the Scriptural demonstration.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wannabee said:


> Rich,
> 
> Unbelievers are never barred from the doors of the church meeting. They are welcome. However, to be "counted among our number" does not "subject one to the threats of the church." It provides them with the privileges of church membership, one of which is church discipline (which carries both proactive and reactive elements - i.e. discipleship). Our children reap the blessings of the church in many ways, but are not members unless they have a credible profession. Praise God for the grace he shows our precious children by giving them many of the blessings of the church before they are saved (in hopes that they will be!). Furthermore, it is impossible for parents to obey Eph 6:4 (Deu 6) if they put their children out. The church meeting is one of the ways in which we instruct our children in the Lord and strive not to exasperate them.



Why did you link Eph 6:4 to Deut 6? That's an odd parallel to draw when one set of parents was commanded to do so on the basis that their children were in the Covenant and, in your case, you clearly do not believe this. 

Is it your contention that children of believers are not under the threats of shrinking away any more than any other non-member that comes to Church?

Also, what is it that the adult "members" of a congregation are receiving or doing that their children are not intimately involved in and familiar with? Beside the Lord's Supper, what practical things are happening in the flock that the children are not in the midst of and see and participate in?


----------



## White Knight

> "On your other points, it seems axiomatic that a profession of faith provides a presumption of election, since a profession of faith (presuming it is sincere) is what makes one an elect Christian"


 quoted by louis_jp

Forgive me for not knowing how to quote properly and sounding inept and for even getting into this discussion, but the lbcf does not make this assertion. Chap 3, 
points 5 & 6...if I am missing something then I need to be corrected. I have never viewed that my profession was what made me elect...


----------



## Herald

White Knight said:


> "On your other points, it seems axiomatic that a profession of faith provides a presumption of election, since a profession of faith (presuming it is sincere) is what makes one an elect Christian" quoted by louis_jp
> 
> Forgive me for not knowing how to quote properly and sounding inept and for even getting into this discussion, but the lbcf does not make this assertion. Chap 3,
> points 5 & 6...if I am missing something then I need to be corrected. I have never viewed that my profession was what made me elect...



Zach, nowhere in this thread has a Baptist argued that a profession makes one elect. What has been argued is that a credible profession is just that -- a profession. Actually there is nothing that makes a person elect. Elect individuals will be regenerated. Regeneration, and any subsequent profession, does not make a person elect. They were elect before they were regenerated and before they professed.


----------



## louis_jp

I meant to say that "faith" in Christ is what makes a person a Christian, not that a "profession of faith" is what makes a person a Christian. Good grief, people.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Actually, Bill, he's just quoting Louis whose sentence was unfortunate but I understood what he was stating.


----------



## White Knight

I had been reading through this and that sentence caught me off gaurd. Where is the icon for a smilie slipping on a banana...

I had already stated that it was me who was inept, not you...I was needing clarification. Im at work, people bugging me still...


----------



## Herald

Semper Fidelis said:


> Actually, Bill, he's just quoting Louis whose sentence was unfortunate but I understood what he was stating.



oops. Sorry. I misread the post. My profuse apology.


----------



## louis_jp

Semper Fidelis said:


> Actually, Bill, he's just quoting Louis whose sentence was unfortunate but I understood what he was stating.



Then I still don't understand your question, Rich. Just what premise are you asking for scriptural support for?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Have you read Bill's premises. Let's walk through them again and simply agree to let you guys have these premises for the sake of argument:

Premise 1: 


Herald said:


> All who are regenerate are in the NC. I think we would be agreed on that.


Premise 2:


Herald said:


> ONLY those who are regenerate are in the NC.


Premise 3:


Herald said:


> The visible church is made up of those who are both regenerate (in the NC) and some who are false saints.


Premise 4:


Herald said:


> The invisible church is made up only of those who are regenerate and, consequently, in the NC.



I assume you agree with Bill at this point. Yes? If so then you're probably already jumping to the point of saying: "And that is why we baptize those who profess faith...."

But all these premises establish is that the elect are the NC and that the visible Church is not the NC. Yet, you want to make it say more. You want your certainty that the elect are in the NC to grant you some implict or explicit inference that this gives you some basis on who to baptize.

There is, however, no _necessary_ link between the two that has been established. 

Premise 5:


Herald said:


> Baptists believe a credible profession is imperfect evidence of regeneration.



Again, agreed, and so the real question is why is this imperfect evidence for regeneration seen as the sole arbitrator for participation in the NT Church? What is the necessary connection between regeneration and profession?

The Baptist Church is very particular about ensuring that professors, and none others, are members of the Church but admit that it is has no necessary connection to the New Covenant other than accidentally.

In other words, by premises 1-4 above, the Baptist Church wants to assert that:

1. God desires that the composition of the NT Church match the identity of the Elect as much as possible by the use of profession
2. God desires the NT Church to utilize profession _and no other_ means to determine who should be in the Church because it is the best thing the Church has to guage regeneration.

Where is it established, in the Scriptures, that the Church's job is to line up the invisible Church to the visible by means of profession and profession alone?


----------



## Wannabee

Semper Fidelis said:


> Why did you link Eph 6:4 to Deut 6? That's an odd parallel to draw when one set of parents was commanded to do so on the basis that their children were in the Covenant and, in your case, you clearly do not believe this.


The _shema _is a commandment for faithful parents to train their children up in the way of the Lord day in and day out and is necessarily linked to Eph 6:4, for to fail to train our children in the ways of the Lord is to exasperate them. Furthermore, the Mosaic covenant is not the NC. The parallel necessarily breaks down. I would also urge proof that "one set of parents was commanded to do so on the basis that their children were in the Covenant." Is this truly "the basis" of the _shema_? If you think so, I would very much beg to differ.


> Is it your contention that children of believers are not under the threats of shrinking away any more than any other non-member that comes to Church?


I certainly didn't say that. God uses means, and a more common means He uses is faithful parents. However, faithful parents do not make Christians. God does. Therefore we use the means He puts at our disposal and strive earnestly for the souls of our children in faithfulness to Christ Jesus, for we know that it is common for Him to save the children of faithful parents.


> Also, what is it that the adult "members" of a congregation are receiving or doing that their children are not intimately involved in and familiar with? Beside the Lord's Supper, what practical things are happening in the flock that the children are not in the midst of and see and participate in?



They are part of all of it. They are, in this sense, sanctified by the parents in the same way an unbelieving spouse is sanctified by a believing spouse (1 Cor 7:4). They receive many of the blessings of the church, but only in so far as they are associated through their parents, not as members. They are not privileged with church discipline, though the model of their parents teaches them such. Therefore, they are in the midst of all of the happenings of the church and blessed for the experiences. And the horror of Hebrews 6 hangs over this if they fall away (recognizing that the discipline of God as in Heb 12 would reveal the opposite, if they repented).
Hebrews 6:4-6
4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.​


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wannabee said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you link Eph 6:4 to Deut 6? That's an odd parallel to draw when one set of parents was commanded to do so on the basis that their children were in the Covenant and, in your case, you clearly do not believe this.
> 
> 
> 
> The _shema _is a commandment for faithful parents to train their children up in the way of the Lord day in and day out and is necessarily linked to Eph 6:4, for to fail to train our children in the ways of the Lord is to exasperate them. Furthermore, the Mosaic covenant is not the NC. The parallel necessarily breaks down. I would also urge proof that "one set of parents was commanded to do so on the basis that their children were in the Covenant." Is this truly "the basis" of the _shema_? If you think so, I would very much beg to differ.
Click to expand...

Was the command to parents in Deut 6 on the basis of Covenant or not?



> Also, what is it that the adult "members" of a congregation are receiving or doing that their children are not intimately involved in and familiar with? Beside the Lord's Supper, what practical things are happening in the flock that the children are not in the midst of and see and participate in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are part of all of it. They are, in this sense, sanctified by the parents in the same way an unbelieving spouse is sanctified by a believing spouse (1 Cor 7:4). They receive many of the blessings of the church, but only in so far as they are associated through their parents, not as members. They are not privileged with church discipline, though the model of their parents teaches them such. Therefore, they are in the midst of all of the happenings of the church and blessed for the experiences. And the horror of Hebrews 6 hangs over this if they fall away (recognizing that the discipline of God as in Heb 12 would reveal the opposite, if they repented).
> Hebrews 6:4-6
> 4For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.​
Click to expand...

The threats of Hebrews 6 are true for a child of a believing parent even though he is not in the Church? In other words, the type that the author of Hebrews uses for these threatenings is the generation in the wildeness. They were in the Covenant but the people it applies to in the NT Church are not in the Covenant?


----------



## Wannabee

Semper Fidelis said:


> I assume you agree with Bill at this point.
> But all these premises establish is that the elect are the NC and that the visible Church is not the NC. Yet, you want to make it say more. You want your certainty that the elect are in the NC to grant you some implict or explicit inference that this gives you some basis on who to baptize.


Wait a minute Rich. Peados baptize based on a credible profession of faith as well. I don't see why you would bother arguing this point, for it mirrors your own understanding of believers' baptism. Would you baptize an adult who didn't profess faith?



> There is, however, no _necessary_ link between the two that has been established.
> 
> Premise 5:
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baptists believe a credible profession is imperfect evidence of regeneration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, agreed, and so the real question is why is this imperfect evidence for regeneration seen as the sole arbitrator for participation in the NT Church? What is the necessary connection between regeneration and profession?
Click to expand...

If you mean a life that displays habitual faithfulness by "imperfect evidence", then the response is because faithfulness is a fruit of salvation. It is the only fruit of salvation, though it incorporates many things. As for the second question, it's basic.
Romans 10:10
10For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.​


> The Baptist Church is very particular about ensuring that professors, and none others, are members of the Church but admit that it is has no necessary connection to the New Covenant other than accidentally.
> 
> In other words, by premises 1-4 above, the Baptist Church wants to assert that:
> 
> 1. God desires that the composition of the NT Church match the identity of the Elect as much as possible by the use of *[insert - credible]* profession *[insert - living testimony as well as verbal*
> 2. God desires the NT Church to utilize profession *[insert - including their walk]*_and no other_ means to determine who should be in the Church because it is the *the means God has provided the church to cleanse, purify, edify and strengthen her in Christ Jesus*
> [*scratch the rest of the sentence - *best thing the Church has to guage regeneration].​
> Where is it established, in the Scriptures, that the Church's job is to line up the invisible Church to the visible by means of profession and profession alone?



If you mean simply a verbal statement, then you have a point. I don't know that anyone here has argued for that. Their profession must be exemplified, not simply testified. For instance, if a man walks in with a Playboy in one hand and a bottle of booze in the other and says he wants to join the church upon credible profession, we have a problem. Even if he articulates the Gospel clearly and fully, his profession is destroyed by his walk. There's no sense in counting one among us that we will _clearly _have to turn around and discipline out.

So as to level the field a little and understand where there is agreement.
Paedos also baptize upon credible profession and bring members in based on such - agreed?
Paedos also would not allow someone with a credible verbal testimony and yet a clearly sinful lifestyle to join their church - agreed?
Paedos will also excommunicate someone who fails to repent for habitual sin - agreed?

It seems like much of the argumentation is around things that both sides are in agreement on. The reason I bring this up is both because of inconsistency inherent in arguing for a point and to find the focal point of the disagreement with Bill's OP. What is the central focus, the root, of what Bill said posted that was so incredible? What is it that seems to violate Scripture? Shouldn't that be the focus?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Joe,

Forgive me but it's exhausting approaching this from so many different Baptists who I'm trying to get an answer from on a key issue.

I'm not debating the propriety of baptizing professors.

I've asked very specifically for the justification that the baptism of professors:

1. Is fundamentally grounded in the fact that the NC is with the elect alone.
2. Since the NC is with the elect alone then the goal for baptizing the professor is toward the end that one tries to match the invisible composition of the NC to the composition of the visible Church.


----------



## louis_jp

"I assume you agree with Bill at this point. Yes? If so then you're probably already jumping to the point of saying: "And that is why we baptize those who profess faith...."

I don't see that as a conclusion that flows from those premises. We attempt to baptize people who HAVE faith, because of the many biblical passages that link faith with baptism, and that grant baptism only to those who come to faith in Christ. 

We determine the presence of faith by a person's profession, because it is logical to do so, and because this is what we see the Apostles doing repeatedly in scripture. They preach the Word, people profess faith, and they are baptized. It has been admitted that this is imperfect, as not all professions of faith are sincere, but this hardly makes it an "accidental" enterprise. 

Are we on the same page so far?


----------



## Wannabee

Semper Fidelis said:


> Was the command to parents in Deut 6 on the basis of Covenant or not?
> 
> 
> The threats of Hebrews 6 are true for a child of a believing parent even though he is not in the Church? In other words, the type that the author of Hebrews uses for these threatenings is the generation in the wildeness. They were in the Covenant but the people it applies to in the NT Church are not in the Covenant?



Rich, perhaps it's my lack of understanding of Covenant theology, but I don't get it. You seem to be splitting hairs to me, rather than truly trying to understand. That's NOT an accusation. It's simply the way it comes across to me; perhaps because of my own lack of understanding.

When you say "on the basis of" I get confused, because it seems to lend an emphasis on the _shema _that I don't perceive as intended by God. For instance, verse four is the great commandment. It is not great because it is the basis of the covenant. The instruction to train our children day in and day out is not because of the covenant. It is part of the covenant, but not limited to it. So I struggle with the language you use.

Furthermore, much of the Mosaic covenant was physical, including circumcision. The NC is purely spiritual. And much in the Old is an illustration of the spiritual reality of the New. So it is fitting that the wilderness be an illustration of the hardness of hearts that have received the blessing of God, and the rightness of God to let them perish there.

From my perspective, it all makes sense. I don't understand why this aspect of the discussion is even an issue.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

louis_jp said:


> "I assume you agree with Bill at this point. Yes? If so then you're probably already jumping to the point of saying: "And that is why we baptize those who profess faith...."
> 
> I don't see that as a conclusion that flows from those premises. We attempt to baptize people who HAVE faith, because of the many biblical passages that link faith with baptism, and that grant baptism only to those who come to faith in Christ.
> 
> We determine the presence of faith by a person's profession, because it is logical to do so, and because this is what we see the Apostles doing repeatedly in scripture. They preach the Word, people profess faith, and they are baptized. It has been admitted that this is imperfect, as not all professions of faith are sincere, but this hardly makes it an "accidental" enterprise.
> 
> Are we on the same page so far?



No. On two points.

1. Faith and profession of faith are not the same thing. You are still assuming that the reality (election->regeneration=>faith) should be visibly present in the member and that profession is commanded to the Church as the measuring rod.
2. I asked for a _didactic_ defense from the Word and not historical narrative.


----------



## rbcbob

Semper Fidelis said:


> Joe,
> 
> Forgive me but it's exhausting approaching this from so many different Baptists who I'm trying to get an answer from on a key issue.
> 
> I'm not debating the propriety of baptizing professors.
> 
> I've asked very specifically for the justification that the baptism of professors:
> 
> 1. Is fundamentally grounded in the fact that the NC is with the elect alone.
> 2. Since the NC is with the elect alone then the goal for baptizing the professor is toward the end that one tries to match the invisible composition of the NC to the composition of the visible Church.




I too, brother, am exhausted in chasing your evident frustration around and around the tree.

The GOAL for baptizing the professor is toward the end of bringing in one whom be believe is a Christian into the visible church. We do not “match the invisible composition of the NC to the composition of the visible Church” as you have stated it several times now. In obtaining the goal of matching the VISIBLE church to the INVISIBLE composition of the NC we baptize credible professing Christians into the local church.


----------



## Wannabee

Semper Fidelis said:


> Joe,
> 
> Forgive me but it's exhausting approaching this from so many different Baptists who I'm trying to get an answer from on a key issue.
> 
> I'm not debating the propriety of baptizing professors.
> 
> I've asked very specifically for the justification that the baptism of professors:
> 
> 1. Is fundamentally grounded in the fact that the NC is with the elect alone.
> 2. Since the NC is with the elect alone then the goal for baptizing the professor is toward the end that one tries to match the invisible composition of the NC to the composition of the visible Church.



Thanks Rich. I thought I directly answered this earlier with my statements in regard to the responsibility of the elders to oversee the flock. Hey, I even used Scripture. 

Justification falls within the realm of the responsibility of the shepherds to protect, guide, nurture, edify and strengthen the flock in the might of God. Their charge in regard to the unregenerate is simply evangelism and to help the poor and needy.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wannabee said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was the command to parents in Deut 6 on the basis of Covenant or not?
> 
> 
> The threats of Hebrews 6 are true for a child of a believing parent even though he is not in the Church? In other words, the type that the author of Hebrews uses for these threatenings is the generation in the wildeness. They were in the Covenant but the people it applies to in the NT Church are not in the Covenant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, perhaps it's my lack of understanding of Covenant theology, but I don't get it. You seem to be splitting hairs to me, rather than truly trying to understand. That's NOT an accusation. It's simply the way it comes across to me; perhaps because of my own lack of understanding.
> 
> When you say "on the basis of" I get confused, because it seems to lend an emphasis on the _shema _that I don't perceive as intended by God. For instance, verse four is the great commandment. It is not great because it is the basis of the covenant. The instruction to train our children day in and day out is not because of the covenant. It is part of the covenant, but not limited to it. So I struggle with the language you use.
> 
> Furthermore, much of the Mosaic covenant was physical, including circumcision. The NC is purely spiritual. And much in the Old is an illustration of the spiritual reality of the New. So it is fitting that the wilderness be an illustration of the hardness of hearts that have received the blessing of God, and the rightness of God to let them perish there.
> 
> From my perspective, it all makes sense. I don't understand why this aspect of the discussion is even an issue.
Click to expand...


Where, in Scripture, is anyone even able to approach or worship God apart from a Covenant? You want to divorce the Shema away from the Confession of the people of God and simply make it a universal possession of every man, woman, child on the face of the Earth.

Israel could only confess the Shema because God had constituted them as a people and it would be quite hypocritical to confess Love for Yahweh apart from the Covenant of Grace.

It is not by accident that the fellowship and thank offerings always had to be preceded by a Sin offering. Man cannot simply approach God on his own without first having his offense put away and there is no way for man to do this without mediation.

Thus, my question is how a child, outside of any mediation, is to be compared to a child within the structure of a Covenant where a means of approach is provided (albeit via types and shadows but the child of the NT believer has nothing between himself and a Holy God).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

rbcbob said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe,
> 
> Forgive me but it's exhausting approaching this from so many different Baptists who I'm trying to get an answer from on a key issue.
> 
> I'm not debating the propriety of baptizing professors.
> 
> I've asked very specifically for the justification that the baptism of professors:
> 
> 1. Is fundamentally grounded in the fact that the NC is with the elect alone.
> 2. Since the NC is with the elect alone then the goal for baptizing the professor is toward the end that one tries to match the invisible composition of the NC to the composition of the visible Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I too, brother, am exhausted in chasing your evident frustration around and around the tree.
Click to expand...

Watch your tone. I may be tired but I have been very respectful of your premises. You may believe you have answered them but you may wish to read more carefully to determine if you have actually provided the basis for this assertion.



> The GOAL for baptizing the professor is toward the end of bringing in one whom be believe is a Christian into the visible church. We do not “match the invisible composition of the NC to the composition of the visible Church” as you have stated it several times now. In obtaining the goal of matching the VISIBLE church to the INVISIBLE composition of the NC we baptize credible professing Christians into the local church.



May I restate what you just said. I'll break it down:

Let A=invisible composition of the NC
Let B=Composition of the visible Church.

You just said: We don't match A to B. We try to match B to A by using profession. 

OK, we understand each other perfectly. Anyone who has read this thread will see that I have granted that this is what you believe. You said as much already:



rbcbob said:


> The Baptist paradigm for Church membership is the New Covenant identity:
> Jeremiah 31:31-34 31 " Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
> 
> This is in contrast to the Old Covenant paradigm of a MIXED MULTITUDE.



In other words, the Baptist paradigm for Church membership is to avoid a mixed multitude.

You've stated it a few times now. Simply quoting that the NC is with the elect alone does not provide a didactic basis for the baptism of professors. There is also nothing in the knowledge the the NC is with the elect that informs the Church that their job is to ensure the baptism of as few unregenerate as possible. I'm sorry you think you've made a compelling case but you just are not providing any grounds for this assertion.


----------



## louis_jp

Semper Fidelis said:


> louis_jp said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I assume you agree with Bill at this point. Yes? If so then you're probably already jumping to the point of saying: "And that is why we baptize those who profess faith...."
> 
> I don't see that as a conclusion that flows from those premises. We attempt to baptize people who HAVE faith, because of the many biblical passages that link faith with baptism, and that grant baptism only to those who come to faith in Christ.
> 
> We determine the presence of faith by a person's profession, because it is logical to do so, and because this is what we see the Apostles doing repeatedly in scripture. They preach the Word, people profess faith, and they are baptized. It has been admitted that this is imperfect, as not all professions of faith are sincere, but this hardly makes it an "accidental" enterprise.
> 
> Are we on the same page so far?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. On two points.
> 
> 1. Faith and profession of faith are not the same thing. You are still assuming that the reality (election->regeneration=>faith) should be visibly present in the member and that profession is commanded to the Church as the measuring rod.
> 2. I asked for a _didactic_ defense from the Word and not historical narrative.
Click to expand...


I agree that faith and profession of faith are not the same thing. The one is an imperfect way of determining the other. As for biblical support, I'm not sure why it needs to be in propositional form, when we have the example of the Apostles. Although as I said, it just seems logical as well.

Perhaps it would help if you explained what your measuring rod is. If someone came to your church and wanted to join or be baptized, what standard would you use? What is it that you are contrasting with the Baptist view here?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

louis_jp said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> louis_jp said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I assume you agree with Bill at this point. Yes? If so then you're probably already jumping to the point of saying: "And that is why we baptize those who profess faith...."
> 
> I don't see that as a conclusion that flows from those premises. We attempt to baptize people who HAVE faith, because of the many biblical passages that link faith with baptism, and that grant baptism only to those who come to faith in Christ.
> 
> We determine the presence of faith by a person's profession, because it is logical to do so, and because this is what we see the Apostles doing repeatedly in scripture. They preach the Word, people profess faith, and they are baptized. It has been admitted that this is imperfect, as not all professions of faith are sincere, but this hardly makes it an "accidental" enterprise.
> 
> Are we on the same page so far?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. On two points.
> 
> 1. Faith and profession of faith are not the same thing. You are still assuming that the reality (election->regeneration=>faith) should be visibly present in the member and that profession is commanded to the Church as the measuring rod.
> 2. I asked for a _didactic_ defense from the Word and not historical narrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that faith and profession of faith are not the same thing. The one is an imperfect way of determining the other. As for biblical support, I'm not sure why it needs to be in propositional form, when we have the example of the Apostles. Although as I said, it just seems logical as well.
> 
> Perhaps it would help if you explained what your measuring rod is. If someone came to your church and wanted to join or be baptized, what standard would you use? What is it that you are contrasting with the Baptist view here?
Click to expand...


Have to run after this.

1. The problem with the historical narratives is that folks have usually made up their mind why it is the Apostles are doing what they're doing. Without getting into my own view, a Baptist will see the baptism of a household and will most certainly conclude that there were no infants in that household but only those that expressed faith. Why, because, _a priori_ you have already established:

a. That the NC is with the elect.
b. God wants us to baptize those who the Church believes are regenerate
c. The way God wants us to best determine their regeneration is through profession.

Thus, to go to a historical narrative would be tautological because it will only confirm what you have already decided ahead of time. If a, b, and c are all true premises then why are they not explicitly derived from the Scriptures. Why must b & C be only by inference.

2. As to what I believe, it's not that I would disagree with baptizing a professed believer. The issue is that neither premises b & c are the reason I believe he should be baptized. I'm trying to get to the bottom of why a Baptist believes there is such strong Scriptural warrant for those premises. What compels one to accept unstated premises?


----------



## Wannabee

Semper Fidelis said:


> Where, in Scripture, is anyone even able to approach or worship God apart from a Covenant? You want to divorce the Shema away from the Confession of the people of God and simply make it a universal possession of every man, woman, child on the face of the Earth.


The answer to that is that any man who truly worships God is necessarily in covenant with Him. However, I would turn your accusation back upon you. I don't divorce it. I simply note that it is confined by it. Is that possibly inherent in our lack of ability to understand one another? I see the _shema _as part of a greater picture, of which the Mosaic Covenant is part. Rather than being shackled by the MC, the MC was an instrument by which it was given, as was the great commandment. Otherwise the command to love God with all our hearts would be "based on" the MC as well. But it's not. It's based on God, as is the whole of the _shema_. And the same principle of training our children in the way of the Lord is stated by Paul in Eph 6:4. 


> Israel could only confess the Shema because God had constituted them as a people and it would be quite hypocritical to confess Love for Yahweh apart from the Covenant of Grace.


Have you switched from the OC to the CoG? And, I would agree with this statement. And that is why the commandment is given to parents, not to children.


> It is not by accident that the fellowship and thank offerings always had to be preceded by a Sin offering. Man cannot simply approach God on his own without first having his offense put away and there is no way for man to do this without mediation.


Precisely. The shadow of the OC represented the reality of the New. Their sin offerings pictured what would be a true sin offering in Christ. It pictured, physically, what would eventually be a spiritual reality. And this is precisely why one must have a credible testimony of the sin offering made on their behalf before becoming a member of the church. 

Now, you don't have to agree with this. But, you asked for teaching that shows the thought process in regard to this. There it is, whether you accept it or not. This, along with the statements made earlier, really do answer your question. Is it possible that you either don't understand or simply will not accept the answer?


> Thus, my question is how a child, outside of any mediation, is to be compared to a child within the structure of a Covenant where a means of approach is provided (albeit via types and shadows but the child of the NT believer has nothing between himself and a Holy God).



I couldn't have set up the answer better myself. It's all there. I think much of the difficulty is inherent in a different understanding of the physical/spiritual nature of the covenants. It also may lie in your use of covenant being more flexible than I realize. For instance, when you said CoG, I was confused because we were comparing the Old with the New, I thought. But the CoG, if you prefer that terminology, would sweep all time and be all-inclusive, as are the heart of the commandments - from the dominion mandate to the great commission. I'm sorry Rich. It all seems to be there clearly. I wish I could do more.

-----Added 8/7/2009 at 03:48:26 EST-----



Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm trying to get to the bottom of why a Baptist believes there is such strong Scriptural warrant for those premises. What compels one to accept unstated premises?



I know we don't want to get into a paedo/credo debate here. But there is an inconsistency in this reasoning. Supposing you have a point, both credos and paedos accept unstated premises. 
a. - Paedos have no clear teaching on the baptism of infants. 
b. - We all have clear teaching on the baptism of believers. 
c. - We have no clear teaching on NOT baptizing infants. 

Supposing that your reasoning is sound, then we scratch a and c and are left with b. I'm okay with that.


----------



## louis_jp

Semper Fidelis said:


> louis_jp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. On two points.
> 
> 1. Faith and profession of faith are not the same thing. You are still assuming that the reality (election->regeneration=>faith) should be visibly present in the member and that profession is commanded to the Church as the measuring rod.
> 2. I asked for a _didactic_ defense from the Word and not historical narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that faith and profession of faith are not the same thing. The one is an imperfect way of determining the other. As for biblical support, I'm not sure why it needs to be in propositional form, when we have the example of the Apostles. Although as I said, it just seems logical as well.
> 
> Perhaps it would help if you explained what your measuring rod is. If someone came to your church and wanted to join or be baptized, what standard would you use? What is it that you are contrasting with the Baptist view here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have to run after this.
> 
> 1. The problem with the historical narratives is that folks have usually made up their mind why it is the Apostles are doing what they're doing. Without getting into my own view, a Baptist will see the baptism of a household and will most certainly conclude that there were no infants in that household but only those that expressed faith. Why, because, _a priori_ you have already established:
> 
> a. That the NC is with the elect.
> b. God wants us to baptize those who the Church believes are regenerate
> c. The way God wants us to best determine their regeneration is through profession.
> 
> Thus, to go to a historical narrative would be tautological because it will only confirm what you have already decided ahead of time. If a, b, and c are all true premises then why are they not explicitly derived from the Scriptures. Why must b & C be only by inference.
> 
> 2. As to what I believe, it's not that I would disagree with baptizing a professed believer. The issue is that neither premises b & c are the reason I believe he should be baptized. I'm trying to get to the bottom of why a Baptist believes there is such strong Scriptural warrant for those premises. What compels one to accept unstated premises?
Click to expand...


Point taken about historical narrative. 

I don't see "b." as an inference though, as I think it was supported by scriptural references earlier in the thread. And I would say that "c." is at least a necessary inference drawn from "b."

When you get a chance, I wonder if you could follow up on this statement: "it's not that I would disagree with baptizing a professed believer. The issue is that neither premises b & c are the reason I believe he should be baptized." What are the reasons you would offer for baptizing him?

Thanks for the discussion.

Louis


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wannabee said:


> I couldn't have set up the answer better myself. It's all there. I think much of the difficulty is inherent in a different understanding of the physical/spiritual nature of the covenants. It also may lie in your use of covenant being more flexible than I realize. For instance, when you said CoG, I was confused because we were comparing the Old with the New, I thought. But the CoG, if you prefer that terminology, would sweep all time and be all-inclusive, as are the heart of the commandments - from the dominion mandate to the great commission. I'm sorry Rich. It all seems to be there clearly. I wish I could do more.



I don't mean this to be pejorative but even the LBCF speaks of a single CoG. To note that the Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the CoG is not to jump back and forth and use differing categories. The point is that the Shema cannot be uttered apart from the CoG.

It was not merely adults that recited the Shema but everyone in the community. To distinguish the physical from the spiritual at this point is Gnostic as if a community of faith can be spritual but not physical. The larger point is that the child, who learned the Shema at home, could not be commanded to do so outside of the Covenant. Why? Because a parent cannot teach a child who has no mediated standing before God that he is in a position to love Him. You cannot simply have a child, outside of any gracious Covenant with God, recite a creed that speaks of his love for God. It would be blasphemous to assume that he could do so on his own.

You cannot "train" a child _in_ the fear and admonition of the Lord apart from some hope that God is doing something. This notion of "grace" apart from Covenant is foreign to the Scriptures. The Scriptures cannot conceive of a child of Adam, apart from the CoG, who can learn to fear God or to listen to His commands. Frequency of participation is not going to do anything to him. No matter how many times a dead person hears something it is still death to him. If the parent has no reason to assume any standing whatsoever then it is folly to assume that any spiritual content can be received because the mind of the flesh cannot understand spiritual things and that includes the condemnation of the Law.


Wannabee said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to get to the bottom of why a Baptist believes there is such strong Scriptural warrant for those premises. What compels one to accept unstated premises?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know we don't want to get into a paedo/credo debate here. But there is an inconsistency in this reasoning. Supposing you have a point, both credos and paedos accept unstated premises.
> a. - Paedos have no clear teaching on the baptism of infants.
> b. - We all have clear teaching on the baptism of believers.
> c. - We have no clear teaching on NOT baptizing infants.
> 
> Supposing that your reasoning is sound, then we scratch a and c and are left with b. I'm okay with that.
Click to expand...


That's not the point Joe. It hasn't been the point all along. The point is the _reason_ why professors (not believers) are baptized and them only. The insistence is that the Baptist wants to draw a straight line from IS (the NC is with the Elect) to OUGHT (the Church ought to baptize professors). There is no connection that has been presented didactically. You have presented some Scripture about the purity that God expects of His disciples but it does not follow that those that should have been put out should never have been baptized in the first place. You need to demonstrate that.

Those that act contrary to their baptism are not enjoined to consider whether or not they should have ever been baptized in the Scriptures even though it is admitted it happens. Counterfactual evidence of false professors who have been baptized abounds in the NT Gospels, Acts, and Epistles.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

louis_jp said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> louis_jp said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that faith and profession of faith are not the same thing. The one is an imperfect way of determining the other. As for biblical support, I'm not sure why it needs to be in propositional form, when we have the example of the Apostles. Although as I said, it just seems logical as well.
> 
> Perhaps it would help if you explained what your measuring rod is. If someone came to your church and wanted to join or be baptized, what standard would you use? What is it that you are contrasting with the Baptist view here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have to run after this.
> 
> 1. The problem with the historical narratives is that folks have usually made up their mind why it is the Apostles are doing what they're doing. Without getting into my own view, a Baptist will see the baptism of a household and will most certainly conclude that there were no infants in that household but only those that expressed faith. Why, because, _a priori_ you have already established:
> 
> a. That the NC is with the elect.
> b. God wants us to baptize those who the Church believes are regenerate
> c. The way God wants us to best determine their regeneration is through profession.
> 
> Thus, to go to a historical narrative would be tautological because it will only confirm what you have already decided ahead of time. If a, b, and c are all true premises then why are they not explicitly derived from the Scriptures. Why must b & C be only by inference.
> 
> 2. As to what I believe, it's not that I would disagree with baptizing a professed believer. The issue is that neither premises b & c are the reason I believe he should be baptized. I'm trying to get to the bottom of why a Baptist believes there is such strong Scriptural warrant for those premises. What compels one to accept unstated premises?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Point taken about historical narrative.
> 
> I don't see "b." as an inference though, as I think it was supported by scriptural references earlier in the thread. And I would say that "c." is at least a necessary inference drawn from "b."
> 
> When you get a chance, I wonder if you could follow up on this statement: "it's not that I would disagree with baptizing a professed believer. The issue is that neither premises b & c are the reason I believe he should be baptized." What are the reasons you would offer for baptizing him?
> 
> Thanks for the discussion.
> 
> Louis
Click to expand...


I must have missed where b was established. I may have been too zealous and not noticed. Can you show me where?

There are, in fact, evidences in the Scriptures that I could argue that God uses false baptisms to His own glory. The Isaiah 6 passage is quoted with reference to Christ's own work to harden the hearts of people that God, in His decree, has chosen to judge by the Gospel. During Christ's ministry, men and women were being baptized by His ministry and He lost nearly all of them in John 6.

In other words, even if I accept Premise a, I believe there is counter-factual NT didactic teaching that notes that God would be glorified in the just condemnation of those who rebel even though they have been brought into the Church community.

By Baptist presuppositions, then, I need not worry about the composition of the NC if I baptize on some other basis than worrying if the baptized recipient is regenerate. Why? Because if he is not then the NC is not "polluted", you put the person out, and you know that God has even ordained that baptism for His own glory and the condemnation of the wicked.


----------



## Herald

Semper Fidelis said:


> 1. The problem with the historical narratives is that folks have usually made up their mind why it is the Apostles are doing what they're doing. Without getting into my own view, a Baptist will see the baptism of a household and will most certainly conclude that there were no infants in that household but only those that expressed faith. Why, because, _a priori_ you have already established:
> 
> a. That the NC is with the elect.
> b. God wants us to baptize those who the Church believes are regenerate
> c. The way God wants us to best determine their regeneration is through profession.



"Just when I thought I was out, they sucked me back in!" -- Michael Corleone

I thought I had a break from this thread. So much for good intentions.

*Your point "a":*

1 Cor. 11 (a didactic passage) speaks to this. Why would Paul give his warning in verses 28-30 if this New Covenant ordinance was for believers and unbelievers? The Lord's Supper is for believers only, yet we read these words:



> 1 Corinthians 11:25 "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."


Blood is always related to a covenant when redemption is the topic (Heb. 9:16-18). The blood of Christ speaks out as an indictment against those who come to the table still in their sins. Unlike circumcision, which was applied to elect and non-elect, the promises of the New Covenant are only to the elect; both the imperfect "here" and the perfect "then." 

*Your point "b":*

You state a false premise. God wants us to baptize his sheep; each and every one. But we don't know for certain that a professor is actually a true believer, do we? We've already covered that ground. When the model of "believe and be baptized" is cited from the book of Acts I seem to hear back, "Those are narrative and not didactic passages." I'm not going to grant the sweeping broad brush of that line of reasoning, but I will point elsewhere for the sake of discussion. 



> Romans 6:3-5 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection,


This passage speaks about the _*significance *_of baptism. It's interesting that Paul is writing about a spiritual transformation. Whether there is a underlying premise of water baptism really isn't the issue. Baptism is an identification with Christ's death and resurrection. In the absence of faith (Eph. 2:8, 9) a person can not rightly claim that this spiritual change has taken place in their life. Col. 2:11-12, a parallel passage to Romans 6, connects baptism and faith. 

*Your point "c":*

Once again, your verbiage misconstrues the facts. It's not what God wants US to do in order to best determine a person's regeneration; it's what He's already done. If the Lord has marvelously saved a person we are to receive that person's testimony within certain guidelines. You want the guidelines? There are none if you're looking for a single positive command given in scripture. You also aren't too keen on narrative passages used in defense of a regenerate mindset and similar behaviors. I wish I could grant that narrative is inferior to didactic, but I can't. I spent considerable time with Kevin Easterday explaining that a reasonable "interview" with a candidate for membership is grounded in biblical precedent. I'm not going to cover that ground again for the sake of brevity.


----------



## MW

Three observations on the thread.

1. The external act of receiving church members should not be made to depend on an inward state of the heart which no man can judge. To make the internal state a criteria can only lead to judgementalism. It will require office-bearers to establish non-biblical "tests" for examining candidates, which can only lead to the exaltation of experience over Scripture as the rule of faith and life.

2. The subject of baptism is irrelevant to the proof of the position. (1.) There have been separatist paedobaptists. (2.) I can't imagine any reformed Anabaptist would argue that faith precedes regeneration or that infants can't be regenerated.

3. Two exegetical points.

(1.) The "field" in the parable of the wheat and tares is the "world" in which the Son of man sows His seed. It is clearly referring to the sphere of grace. It cannot refer to the natural or unchurched world.

(2.) Simply alluding to "faith" as a qualification of any church privilege still begs the question as to the nature of the faith that qualifies the person for a specific privilege. The fact that the New Testament often speaks of faith as more than assent to propositions does not contradict the fact that there are also various places where faith is assent to propositions and the psychological state of the person is not introduced. 1 John 5:1 is a prime example: "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." It is not belief in, but belief that, Jesus is the Christ, which was the basic qualification for church membership. It is "presumed" that these church members were born of God because of their belief in the proposition, not because of some internal mark. The quality of love which tests this presumption is introduced as a subsequent step in the chain of reasoning to show how those who are born of God should respond to God and their brethren.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Herald said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The problem with the historical narratives is that folks have usually made up their mind why it is the Apostles are doing what they're doing. Without getting into my own view, a Baptist will see the baptism of a household and will most certainly conclude that there were no infants in that household but only those that expressed faith. Why, because, _a priori_ you have already established:
> 
> a. That the NC is with the elect.
> b. God wants us to baptize those who the Church believes are regenerate
> c. The way God wants us to best determine their regeneration is through profession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Just when I thought I was out, they sucked me back in!" -- Michael Corleone
> 
> I thought I had a break from this thread. So much for good intentions.
> 
> *Your point "a":*
> 
> 1 Cor. 11 (a didactic passage) speaks to this. Why would Paul give his warning in verses 28-30 if this New Covenant ordinance was for believers and unbelievers? The Lord's Supper is for believers only, yet we read these words:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Corinthians 11:25 "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blood is always related to a covenant when redemption is the topic (Heb. 9:16-18). The blood of Christ speaks out as an indictment against those who come to the table still in their sins. Unlike circumcision, which was applied to elect and non-elect, the promises of the New Covenant are only to the elect; both the imperfect "here" and the perfect "then."
Click to expand...

As I promised not to contend point a here I will move on.



> *Your point "b":*
> 
> You state a false premise. God wants us to baptize his sheep; each and every one. But we don't know for certain that a professor is actually a true believer, do we? We've already covered that ground. When the model of "believe and be baptized" is cited from the book of Acts I seem to hear back, "Those are narrative and not didactic passages." I'm not going to grant the sweeping broad brush of that line of reasoning, but I will point elsewhere for the sake of discussion.


My point is not that there is nothing didactic in those passages but, as I've pointed out as well:

1. There are several other portions of those narrative passages where counterfactual evidence is explained as assuming that no households had children.

2. There are counterfactual examples to the fact that people like Simon the Sorceror, the thousands by Jesus, and others were baptized that didn't have true faith. Christ is said to have baptized more people than John and yet, at Pentecost, there were only about 100 in the upper room.

3. Again, you have to remember that the burden here is not to demonstrate that profession is _a_ qualifier for baptism but that:
a. It is the only one.
b. The reason why profession is a qualifier for baptism is because the Apostles were concerned that the NT Church match the identity of the Elect as much as was in them.



> Romans 6:3-5 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection,
> 
> 
> 
> This passage speaks about the _*significance *_of baptism. It's interesting that Paul is writing about a spiritual transformation. Whether there is a underlying premise of water baptism really isn't the issue. Baptism is an identification with Christ's death and resurrection.
Click to expand...

Again, you are making an IS (what the Elect possess) into an OUGHT (therefore baptize only these). The passage does not say that you were baptized because you possessed these realities. In fact, the passage speaks about those who have been baptized into Christ Jesus. Even the Baptist will acknowledge that such language is not true of all recipients of the ordinance, head for head.

As I have studied the above, I see no instructions to the Church on the basis of the spiritual reality to utilize profession as the bar to measure if the person possesses what Paul is talking about here.



> In the absence of faith (Eph. 2:8, 9) a person can not rightly claim that this spiritual change has taken place in their life. Col. 2:11-12, a parallel passage to Romans 6, connects baptism and faith.


I'm not disputing the connection of baptism and faith. I'm disputing that the grounds for baptism is profession and that profession is the guarantor of faith and the reqirement of the Church to closely match the identity of the NC is the beginning premise for why profession is the standard.



> *Your point "c":*
> 
> Once again, your verbiage misconstrues the facts. It's not what God wants US to do in order to best determine a person's regeneration; it's what He's already done. If the Lord has marvelously saved a person we are to receive that person's testimony within certain guidelines. You want the guidelines? There are none if you're looking for a single positive command given in scripture. You also aren't too keen on narrative passages used in defense of a regenerate mindset and similar behaviors. I wish I could grant that narrative is inferior to didactic, but I can't. I spent considerable time with Kevin Easterday explaining that a reasonable "interview" with a candidate for membership is grounded in biblical precedent. I'm not going to cover that ground again for the sake of brevity.



Bill,

I frankly don't understand this. Is it not the title of your post the 1689 LBC on _Regenerate_ Church Membership? Do you not believe that the Church ought to consist only of those who you believe are regenerate? Isn't profession seen to be as the sign by which you best determine if a man is regenerate and has the external fruit and obedience necessary to receive the sign?

The issue is, again, not whether evidence can be found in historical narratives for the baptism of those that gladly receive the News, but the _reason_ cannot be demonstrated by a simple appeal to narratives that describe behavior.

I'm not looking for a single prooftext to demonstrate that the nature of the NT Church is such that the Church ought to be careful to baptize only those that it believes are regenerate but the attempt to draw a straight line from the IS to the OUGHT of the credo-Baptist position lacks foundational principles that cannot simply be established by pointing to more indicative passages where Paul speaks to the spiritual realities that those in Christ possess. If it could, then there could be no room in the Epistles for those that leave us for they were never really of us. Paul, and the other Apostles, could only be addressing the Elect in every Epistle with indicatives. Even you have admitted, throughout this thread, that you operate on the judgment of charity and let the Lord provide the fruit to the indicatives that are used for our spiritual conversion and encouragement.


----------



## Wannabee

Rich,

Apparently you were speaking of the CoG in referring to both the training of children as referred to in Eph 6 as well Deu 6. If so, I was mistaken in thinking you were showing a challenge in my view of the covenants and administering God's Word to our children. If not, then you've left me out in the field with no map. 

To distinguish between spiritual and physical absolutely has a bearing and is positively not gnostic. That's a dangerous accusation brother. I was comparing the Mosaic covenant, which decidedly has physical characteristics to it, to the NC, which is decidedly spiritual. The physical shadows of the MC become spiritual realities in Christ. Furthermore, many in Israel obeyed the letter of the law without obeying the heart. They could "do" all those things without truly loving God. They were still in the Mosaic Covenant though, even if they did not obey it, because of the physical reality of it. That is not so in Christ, for it is spiritual. The circumcision is of the heart, not the flesh. And, perhaps this is where there is a necessary breakdown in communication as well, for baptism cannot be viewed as circumcision in the NC. If you want to understand then you have to accept that as part of the picture, whether you agree with it or not.

God uses means. We're not robots. You know this. That's why you instruct your children in the things of the Lord. It is because this is one of the primary means by which He draws the elect to himself. We see this as a providential result of the faithfulness of godly parenting. It's not because we have done so, but because God has chosen to use this as one of His means in saving men. And it is not fool proof, as though we could box God in. You seem to say that I'm leading in that direction when I made it very clear in my statements that I did not think so. So, let us agree on this. 



> You have presented some Scripture about the purity that God expects of His disciples but it does not follow that those that should have been put out should never have been baptized in the first place. You need to demonstrate that.


Actually, I don't. You want it demonstrated, but it's simply unnecessary. I didn't claim that, so there's no reason to demonstrate it. We baptize false professors. We try not to. We pray that we don't. But we are imperfect and so simply do what we can within the bounds of Scripture to discern if their testimony is credible. If it appears so then we accept their testimony as evidence of their faith and strive on. If they fall away then we respond biblically. I would submit that you've imposed a false criterion on the discussion.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Great thread. I'm jumping in a little late, but I'd like to offer a few comments that I'm sure won't be new to many of you. 

(1) According to John 1:12, "legal warrant" (_exousia_) for membership in the New Covenant community is predicated on "receiving" (_lambano_) Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. 

(2) "Receiving" (_lambano_) is an expression employed in John 1:12 (note the parallel with _pisteuo_) and elsewhere for _a profession of faith_ (see John 3:32-33; 5:43-44; 12:48; 13:20; 14:17; Rev. 3:3; or the synonym _paralambano_, John 1:11; 1 Cor. 15:1; Gal. 1:9; Phil. 4:9; Col. 2:9; 1 Thes. 2:13). 

(3) Such a profession of faith is normally indicative of regeneration, as the apostle John notes--"who are born ... of God" (1:13).

(4) Hence, those who make such a profession of faith are presumed to be regenerate (Matt. 10:40; 1 Cor. 15:1; Gal. 1:9; Col. 2:6; 1 Thes. 2:13) unless they prove otherwise (Matt. 13:20-21; Mark 4:16-17). 

(5) Such a warrant for covenantal membership is, according to John, a facet of a new dispensation where the physical seed blood-ties of the Abrahamic and Mosaic no longer count as legal warrant for inclusion into the covenant community--"children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband's decision" (v. 13, NIV). 

(6) As such, a credible profession of faith and the accompanying credo-baptism advance the _historia salutis_ beyond the older physical seed and accompanying circumcision paradigm of both the Abraham and Mosaic covenants and serve to bring the realities of the covenant of grace into greater realization among the visible New Covenant community than were realized among the Old Covenant community. 

So what is the requirement for membership in the visible New Covenant community? _A credible profession of faith_, which is, ordinarily, an indication of regeneration. What no longer serves as adequate warrant for entrance into God's covenant community? _Family blood-ties_, which are not, ordinarily, a sign of regeneration. Paul, as well as John, notes this shift in redemptive history:
For *in Christ Jesus* you are all sons of God, *through faith*. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, *then you are Abraham's offspring*, heirs according to promise (Gal. 3:26-29).​It is this advance in redemptive history patent throughout the NT that compels the Baptist to withhold the covenant sign from those whose only claim to entrance into the covenant community is a blood-tie and to insist that God has raised the bar for inclusion within the New Covenant community. Nothing less than a credible profession of faith will do--since faith, not physical blood ties, is a more sure indication of regeneration.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> (1) According to John 1:12, "legal warrant" (_exousia_) for membership in the New Covenant community is predicated on "receiving" (_lambano_) Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.



This is an infallible qualification of membership in the invisible church or the church as it exists in the eternal purpose of God; but this thread is concerned to know the marks of membership in the visible church or the church as it appears in the temporal world.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1) According to John 1:12, "legal warrant" (_exousia_) for membership in the New Covenant community is predicated on "receiving" (_lambano_) Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an infallible qualification of membership in the invisible church or the church as it exists in the eternal purpose of God; but this thread is concerned to know the marks of membership in the visible church or the church as it appears in the temporal world.
Click to expand...


John 1:12-13 occurs in a context dealing with _redemptive history_, not a supra-historical context dealing merely with the _ordo salutis_. As the other references I cited above demonstrate, "receiving" or "believing in" Christ is treated elsewhere as _a credible profession of faith_. Those who make such a profession are _presumed regenerate_ in keeping with the connection John draws in verse 13 (unless or until they prove otherwise) and are, therefore, baptized into Christ's death and resurrection and are admitted into the visible New Covenant family of God. Accordingly, the teaching of John 1:12-13 is all about _a shift in the history of redemption_ (cf. 1:17) and has ramifications for the constitution the _historical_ and, hence, the _visible_ New Covenant community of God.

-----Added 8/7/2009 at 10:16:07 EST-----

(1) The blessings of the New Covenant are only promised to the regenerate (Jer. 31:31-34). 

(2) The NT provides warrant for presuming regeneration based on a credible profession of faith (Matt. 10:40; 1 Cor. 15:1; Gal. 1:9; Col. 2:6; 1 Thes. 2:13). 

(3) The NT provides no warrant for presuming regeneration based merely on one's blood-relation to a believer. Indeed, the NT provides evidence that dissuades such presumption (Matt. 3:9; John 1:13; 8:39, 44). 

(4) Therefore, it is mistaken at best and presumptuous at worst to ascribe the blessings of the New Covenant to any individual _on the basis of his relationship to a believing parent (or spouse, or master, for that matter)_ apart from a credible profession of faith. 

(5) Since the NT writers treat New Covenant members as recipients of the blessings of the New Covenant (based on the presumed connection between professed faith as a sign or mark of regeneration), then by good and necessary consequence the non-professing children of believers should be excluded from the covenant community until they make a credible profession of faith. 

(6) The NT does not contain one clear command to baptize infants, one plain example of infant baptism, or any incontrovertible hint that non-professing children were included in the membership of the New Covenant community. The burden of proof lies on the Paedo-Baptist to provide warrant for the lawful inclusion of non-professing children into a covenant community that is by its very design intended to bring the so-called covenant of grace into greater historical realization.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> John 1:12-13 occurs in a context dealing with _redemptive history_, not a supra-historical context dealing merely with the _ordo salutis_. As the other references I cited above demonstrate, "receiving" or "believing in" Christ is treated elsewhere as _a credible profession of faith_. Those who make such a profession are _presumed regenerate_ in keeping with the connection John draws in verse 13 (unless or until they prove otherwise) and are, therefore, baptized into Christ's death and resurrection and are admitted into the visible New Covenant family of God. Accordingly, the teaching of John 1:12-13 is all about _a shift in the history of redemption_ (cf. 1:17) and has ramifications for the constitution the _historical_ and, hence, the _visible_ New Covenant community of God.



It is beyond doubt that John 1 sets forth a redemptive historical development, but it simply begs the question to make this a development of "visible" covenant community. No evidence has been forthcoming to establish that the "community" is the gathering of visible saints on earth as it appears in the sight of men. It is noted in debates on John 6, the Lord's supper was not yet instituted; therefore the flesh and blood of the Son of man cannot have immediate reference to the Lord's supper, even though it may have extended application because of what that ordinance signifies. The same applies here. While there may be extended application to the visible community of saints, with all the adjustments that entails, the first point of reference must be to the covenant community as a group of people who have been "born of God" and therefore known to God as His true people in contrast to those who rejected Christ.


----------



## Herald

For the sake of argument, if it is granted that entrance into the New Covenant community is on the basis of faith, how is scripture contradicted by asking an individual to claim that they have exercised faith? 

The following is the membership criteria from Christ Reformed Presbyterian Church, a local PCA church in Laurel, MD (about ten miles from me):



> Members are received upon their examination by the Session (i.e., congregational board of Elders), on the basis of either:
> 
> 
> Their initial profession of faith in Christ and baptism (if they are unbaptized);
> A letter of dismissal from another evangelical church; or
> A re-affirmation of their faith if they have been inactive, etc.



Wow. This might very well be a Baptist church! I'm not trying to be contentious, but what is their scriptural warrant for requiring a profession of faith and proof of baptism? And what's this re-affirmation of faith? Isn't a re-affirmation the same as a profession? 

If it weren't for our differing views on the New Covenant there would be no telling us apart.


----------



## A.J.

Dr. Bob, 

Hello! 



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> (1) The blessings of the New Covenant are only promised to the regenerate (Jer. 31:31-34).



True.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> (2) The NT provides warrant for presuming regeneration based on a credible profession of faith (Matt. 10:40; 1 Cor. 15:1; Gal. 1:9; Col. 2:6; 1 Thes. 2:13).



No disagreement here. Reformed paedobaptists admit into membership adult converts to the faith upon a credible profession of faith. 



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> (3) The NT provides no warrant for presuming regeneration based merely on one's blood-relation to a believer. Indeed, the NT provides evidence that dissuades such presumption (Matt. 3:9; John 1:13; 8:39, 44).
> 
> (4) Therefore, it is mistaken at best and presumptuous at worst to ascribe the blessings of the New Covenant to any individual _on the basis of his relationship to a believing parent (or spouse, or master, for that matter)_ apart from a credible profession of faith.



It's absolutely true that no person is automatically saved by being born into a believing family. All of us whether adults or children are individually responsible to repent of our sins and believe the gospel (John 1:12-13; Gal. 3:29, etc.). This is has been operative even from the Old Testament. In no way could Ishmael or Esau claim to be a true child of God _only_ because he was a child of a believer. 

But the _equally Biblical_ truth is that God runs his grace in the line of believing families (and generations). He includes families in His redemptive purpose. In fact, the promise of the New Covenant clearly indicates this (Jer. 32:38-40; Psa. 102:28, 103:17-18; Isa. 44:3, 59:20-21, 61:9, 65:23; Ezek. 37:24-28; Acts 2:38-39, 3:25, 16:31, etc.). God raises up spiritual seed of Abraham from the physical seed of believers. God is a God of believers and their seed even in the New Covenant! Sadly, your position does not allow for this. 

Apparently, you are pitting individual responsibility to repent and believe in the gospel against family solidarity in the covenant. Presbyterians accept both without pitting the one against the other. 



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> (5) Since the NT writers treat New Covenant members as recipients of the blessings of the New Covenant (based on the presumed connection between professed faith as a sign or mark of regeneration), then by good and necessary consequence the non-professing children of believers should be excluded from the covenant community until they make a credible profession of faith.
> 
> (6) The NT does not contain one clear command to baptize infants, one plain example of infant baptism, or any incontrovertible hint that non-professing children were included in the membership of the New Covenant community. The burden of proof lies on the Paedo-Baptist to provide warrant for the lawful inclusion of non-professing children into a covenant community that is by its very design intended to bring the so-called covenant of grace into greater historical realization.



Based on what the Bible speaks of the New Covenant (see texts above), I don't think it has been demonstrated that the children of believers are to be excluded from God's covenant and people until they make a credible profession of faith. Contrary to Baptist claims, the New Covenant does not abrogate the generational/household principle. 

It might as well be said that the New Testament does not contain one clear command to baptize children of believers _only_ when they can credibly profess faith, one plain example of the "believer's baptism" of children of professing believers, or any incontrovertible hint that _only_ those who could profess faith among the children of professing believers were included in the membership of the [visible] New Covenant community. The burden of proof lies on the Baptist to provide warrant for the abrogation of the millenia-old principle that the children of believers belong to the covenant and people of God, and, assuming that Christ and His apostles were Baptists, to provide a reason why God's people in the New Testament accepted this radical change (i.e., the exclusion of children of professing believers) without any objection whatsoever. There is total silence in the Bible on this matter. 

It's one thing to say that the New Covenant is made with the elect only. It's another thing altogether to say that _only_ those who credibly profess faith are to be baptized. 

Blessings!

-----Added 8/8/2009 at 02:46:51 EST-----



Herald said:


> For the sake of argument, if it is granted that entrance into the New Covenant community is on the basis of faith, how is scripture contradicted by asking an individual to claim that they have exercised faith?
> 
> The following is the membership criteria from Christ Reformed Presbyterian Church, a local PCA church in Laurel, MD (about ten miles from me):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Members are received upon their examination by the Session (i.e., congregational board of Elders), on the basis of either:
> 
> 
> Their initial profession of faith in Christ and baptism (if they are unbaptized);
> A letter of dismissal from another evangelical church; or
> A re-affirmation of their faith if they have been inactive, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. This might very well be a Baptist church! I'm not trying to be contentious, but what is their scriptural warrant for requiring a profession of faith and proof of baptism? And what's this re-affirmation of faith? Isn't a re-affirmation the same as a profession?
> 
> If it weren't for our differing views on the New Covenant there would be no telling us apart.
Click to expand...


Mr. Brown,

I think what Rich is saying is this:

1. You assumed that the New Covenant is made with the elect only.

And then you are claiming that,

2. Those who credibly profess faith and those _only_ should be admitted into membership (i.e., be baptized). 

Rich is asking how you arrived at (2) from (1). There seems to be something missing in the argument.

Blessings!


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:



> Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from when then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, *Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?* But he said, *Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.* Let them both brow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.


The kingdom of God is the New Covenant Church.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

A.J. said:


> Dr. Bob,
> 
> Hello!
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> (1) The blessings of the New Covenant are only promised to the regenerate (Jer. 31:31-34).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> (2) The NT provides warrant for presuming regeneration based on a credible profession of faith (Matt. 10:40; 1 Cor. 15:1; Gal. 1:9; Col. 2:6; 1 Thes. 2:13).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No disagreement here. Reformed paedobaptists admit into membership adult converts to the faith upon a credible profession of faith.
> 
> It's absolutely true that no person is automatically saved by being born into a believing family. All of us whether adults or children are individually responsible to repent of our sins and believe the gospel (John 1:12-13; Gal. 3:29, etc.). This is has been operative even from the Old Testament. In no way could Ishmael or Esau claim to be a true child of God _only_ because he was a child of a believer.
Click to expand...


Yes, but Ishmael and Esau could claim right to the covenant rite of circumcision. Not a smack of evidence that the children of BELIEVERS can claim the same right. 



> But the _equally Biblical_ truth is that God runs his grace in the line of believing families (and generations).


God "runs his grace in the line of believing families and generations" ONLY WHEN THE MEMBERS OF SAID FAMILIES AND GENERATIONS ARE EFFECTUALLY CALLED, EXERCISE FAITH, AND ARE CONVERTED. Unless you're speaking of common grace. 



> He includes families in His redemptive purpose. In fact, the promise of the New Covenant clearly indicates this (Jer. 32:38-40; Psa. 102:28, 103:17-18; Isa. 44:3, 59:20-21, 61:9, 65:23; Ezek. 37:24-28; Acts 2:38-39, 3:25, 16:31, etc.). God raises up spiritual seed of Abraham from the physical seed of believers. God is a God of believers and their seed even in the New Covenant! Sadly, your position does not allow for this.


WRONG. MY VIEW DOES ALLOW THAT GOD REGENERATES INDIVIDUALS FROM AMONG THE PHYSICAL SEED OF BELIEVERS. AND WHEN GOD REGENERATES THEM AND THEY PROFESS FAITH IN Christ, _THEN THEY HAVE RIGHT TO BAPTISM_. PERIOD. SHOW ME ONE PASSAGE THAT SAYS OTHERWISE.



> Apparently, you are pitting individual responsibility to repent and believe in the gospel against family solidarity in the covenant. Presbyterians accept both without pitting the one against the other.


The only covenant solidarity that really matters is that which men share either with Adam or with Christ. All other covenant headship served a typical function which has since passed away. That's one of John's points in 1:12-13. 



> Based on what the Bible speaks of the New Covenant (see texts above), I don't think it has been demonstrated that the children of believers are to be excluded from God's covenant and people until they make a credible profession of faith. Contrary to Baptist claims, the New Covenant does not abrogate the generational/household principle.


Contrary to Paedo-Baptists claims the NT does in fact abrogate the so-called generational/household principle. Read John 1:13 again. The children of Abraham are now so _exclusively by faith_ and _not by physical lineage_ (Gal. 3:26-29). Failure to see this advance in the _historia salutis_ has been the HUGE blind spot of Paedo-Baptists throughout history.



> It might as well be said that the New Testament does not contain one clear command to baptize children of believers _only_ when they can credibly profess faith, one plain example of the "believer's baptism" of children of professing believers, or any incontrovertible hint that _only_ those who could profess faith among the children of professing believers were included in the membership of the [visible] New Covenant community.


That sounds an awful lot like Rome's complaint against Luther for adding the word "only" in Romans 3:28: "For we hold that one is justified by faith [German: _allein_] apart from the works of the law." 

The fact that the NT redefines the seed of Abraham and legal members of the New Covenant as those who "receive Christ," as those who are "of faith," as "the called," etc., is warrant enough to conclude that God's program of redemption has moved away from the shadows and types of the Old Covenant to the spiritual realities of the New Covenant. 

As I said before, the New Covenant is an advance over the Abrahamic and Mosaic because it brings the realities of the so-called covenant of grace to greater realization among the covenant community. In the Paedo-Baptist system, we virtually revert back to the Abrahamic covenant and sprinkle rather than circumcise. 



> The burden of proof lies on the Baptist to provide warrant for the abrogation of the millenia-old principle that the children of believers belong to the covenant and people of God, and, assuming that Christ and His apostles were Baptists, to provide a reason why God's people in the New Testament accepted this radical change (i.e., the exclusion of children of professing believers) without any objection whatsoever. There is total silence in the Bible on this matter.


(1) The people in the NT saw Christ and the NT church as the fulfillment of the OT shadows and types. Hence, there were plenty of "radical changes" that took place at the coming of Christ. The shift from a physical to a spiritual seed was just one of many. 

(2) With the exception of the headships of Adam and Christ, all other headships served a typical function--no saving grace was conferred _opere ex operato_ via family ties. 

(3) Physical circumcision pointed to spiritual circumcision, i.e., regeneration, the first visible evidence of which is a profession of faith (John 1:12-13). 

(4) No evidence that water baptism is the NC reality to which the OC shadow of circumcision pointed. The only point of similarity is that they are both rites of entrance into their respective covenants. 

(5) When refuting the Judiazers who insisted on physical circumcision the apostles never, never, never pulled out the "ace" and said, "Look, you idiots, isn't it obvious to you from our apostolic practice that baptism has replaced circumcision." Instead, as I noted above, they argue that the true seed of Abraham is now defined by faith not by physical lineage. 



> It's one thing to say that the New Covenant is made with the elect only. It's another thing altogether to say that _only_ those who credibly profess faith are to be baptized.


(1) "It's one thing to say that the New Covenant is made with the elect only. It's another thing altogether to say that _only_ those who credibly profess faith are to receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper." [_reductio ad absurdum_] Amazingly, most Paedo-Baptists just aren't that consistent with their logical inferences. 

(2) Don't you believe in the Regulative Principle? Don't you believe that the burden resides with you to provide positive warrant for any practice you introduce into NC church life and worship? The apostle John says those who "receive" Christ, that is, make a credible profession of faith, have legal warrant (_exousia_) to membership in the household of God (1:12) because they may be presumed regenerate (1:13). 

(3) Neither Acts 2:38-39 nor the household baptism passages like Acts 16:31 provide any positive proof for your position. The former passage identifies "your children" as a subgroup of the "as many as the Lord shall call [effectually]." What follows is the baptism of those who are described in the passage as "those who accepted" the gospel (v. 41), that is, "believers" (v. 44). Acts 16 proves too much or too little for your position.(a) Reading the text literally with stress on your "generational/household principle" results in the absurd notion that the Philippian Jailors family will be converted on the basis of his faith regardless of their own: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." I'm sure you don't believe in proxy-faith--at least I hope not. 

(b) On the other hand, the text does not say, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, and you and your entire household may have access into the visible church." Such a conclusion must be read into the text. It cannot be drawn out from the text. 

(c) Besides, once more, the glaring inconsistency of Paedo-Baptists arises when they limit entrance right to the "children" of believers and do not extend that right to the entire household, which would have included the spouse as well as servants. 

(d) The context does in fact provide us with more information about these household members.They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household." Then *they spoke the word* of the Lord *to him*, *along with all those who were in his house*. At that hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized right away. The jailer brought them into his house and set food before them, and he rejoiced greatly that *he had come to believe* in God, *together with his entire household.*​So, according to this text, the baptized household members were individuals who rejoiced and believed in the message Paul preached. No wonder Paul baptized them!​So, A. J., where is the positive warrant for infant baptism? I find plenty of passages in the OT that provide warrant for including non-professing children in the covenant community. I find absolutely no warrant for including non-professing children in the New Covenant community. The one clear example of minor church members, namely, Ephesians 6:1, clearly treats them as regenerate believers. 

It is for this reason, I'm a Credo-Baptist. With all due respect, your Paedo-Baptist arguments are largely cases of special pleading and unwarranted inference.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from when then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, *Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?* But he said, *Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.* Let them both brow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
> 
> 
> 
> The kingdom of God is the New Covenant Church.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...


How does the passage above equate God's kingdom with the New Covenant church? I've always understood the kingdom of God to refer to God's rule, which presently finds its clearest expression on earth among the New Covenant people of God. But that's different than simply equating the two.


----------



## Herald

A.J. said:


> Mr. Brown,
> 
> I think what Rich is saying is this:
> 
> 1. You assumed that the New Covenant is made with the elect only.
> 
> And then you are claiming that,
> 
> 2. Those who credibly profess faith and those _only_ should be admitted into membership (i.e., be baptized).
> 
> Rich is asking how you arrived at (2) from (1). There seems to be something missing in the argument.
> 
> Blessings!



A.J.,

First, what is the scriptural warrant for Presbyterians to require a credible profession of faith for adults? I want to understand this practice first because it should come with scriptural warrant. No?

Second, this is why I injected the Baptist view of the New Covenant later in the thread. I was asked (paraphrase), "What does the New Covenant have to do with your position on a regenerate _only _church membership?" It has _everything _to do with it. Perhaps a schematic will help.

SINNER --> EFFECTUAL CALL --> REGENERATION* --> PROFESSION OF FAITH* --> BAPTISM --> MEMBERSHIP

In the above schematic the sinner is called, he is then regenerated, professes to believe, submits to baptism, and is accepted into the church. I asterisked regeneration and profession because the veracity of those two things are known only to God. We proceed on the basis that the profession _of _that regeneration is real. Spiritual maturity of the elders and members (Rev. 2:2), and church discipline (Matt. 18), exist to protect the body from false sheep who would seek to do it harm.

The question that seems to be echoing like a refrain in this thread is, "What is your scriptural warrant for a profession of faith and a regenerate _only _church membership?" The fact is that both sides of the debate need to address the profession issue because, as noted earlier, both sides require it for at least _some _candidates for membership. Baptists require it for all, while Presbyterians require it for adults. I see a disconnect from the Presbyterian side. Why? Because they baptize infants in the absence of a credible profession but generally require it from an adult. A consistent position would be to allow an adult to join without a profession of faith. 

Now, back to the Baptist position. The scriptural warrant that I have tried to communicate in this thread is on the nature of the New Covenant. This is a fundamental area of disagreement between Baptists and Presbyterians. Baptists do not believe in covenant families established by physical descent. The CoG is made with those who believe (Acts 2:39; LBC 7.2). Therein the fundamental difference between both camps is exposed. The New Covenant is not simply a temporal administration until it is perfected in glory. The New Covenant is an eternal covenant, made only with the elect from all ages. Impostors will claim to be part of this covenant, and may fool "even the elect." Therefore, logical and reasonable inference compels New Testament churches to admit into membership only those who profess to believe. We will not admit into membership an infant who has no cognitive ability to express faith because we are convinced scripture does not continue the Old Covenant family seed model.


----------



## A.J.

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Yes, but Ishmael and Esau could claim right to the covenant rite of circumcision. Not a smack of evidence that the children of BELIEVERS can claim the same right.



The Bible says that _believers in Christ_ are the _true children of Abraham_ (Rom. 4:1ff; Gal. 3:1ff, etc.). _How_ does this exclude the children of believers from the covenant and people of God? When the Bible speaks of Abraham and Christ, it presupposes continuity. Of course, there are discontinuities. But infant inclusion is definitely not one of it. 



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> God "runs his grace in the line of believing families and generations" ONLY WHEN THE MEMBERS OF SAID FAMILIES AND GENERATIONS ARE EFFECTUALLY CALLED, EXERCISE FAITH, AND ARE CONVERTED. Unless you're speaking of common grace.
> 
> WRONG. MY VIEW DOES ALLOW THAT GOD REGENERATES INDIVIDUALS FROM AMONG THE PHYSICAL SEED OF BELIEVERS. AND WHEN GOD REGENERATES THEM AND THEY PROFESS FAITH IN Christ, _THEN THEY HAVE RIGHT TO BAPTISM_. PERIOD. SHOW ME ONE PASSAGE THAT SAYS OTHERWISE.



Dr. Bob, I am referring to what has been called the _doctrine of covenant succession_. This was promised during the time of Abraham (Gen. 17:7) and Moses (Deut 30:6), and is still operative in the New Covenant (Isa. 59:20-21; Acts 2:38-39, etc.). Abraham didn't wait for his infant Isaac to profess faith before he adminstered the seal of the righteousness received by faith (Rom. 4:11) to his son. And since we believers are the true children of Abraham, what warrant do you have for delaying the adminstration of baptism (the _sacramental equivalent_ of circumcision) to the infant children of believers? 

See THE PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN, COVENANT NURTURE AND COVENANT SUCCESSION by Robert Rayburn for more on this. 



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> The only covenant solidarity that really matters is that which men share either with Adam or with Christ. All other covenant headship served a typical function which has since passed away. That's one of John's points in 1:12-13.
> 
> Contrary to Paedo-Baptists claims the NT does in fact abrogate the so-called generational/household principle. Read John 1:13 again. The children of Abraham are now so _exclusively by faith_ and _not by physical lineage_ (Gal. 3:26-29). Failure to see this advance in the _historia salutis_ has been the HUGE blind spot of Paedo-Baptists throughout history.



The problem is your position confuses God's decree with His administration. Your statements just confirm what I previously stated. You are pitting the individual responsibility to repent and believe the gospel against family solidarity in the covenant when the Bible teaches both of them.

The advance in the _historia salutis_ has nothing to do with the exclusion of children. The expansion of the New Covenant has to do with _the inclusion of the Gentile nations_. Indeed, in Christ, all the _families_ (or nations) of the earth will be blessed (Acts 3:25; Gal. 3:8). Why speak of families if the household principle has been abrogated? 



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> That sounds an awful lot like Rome's complaint against Luther for adding the word "only" in Romans 3:28: "For we hold that one is justified by faith [German: _allein_] apart from the works of the law."
> 
> The fact that the NT redefines the seed of Abraham and legal members of the New Covenant as those who "receive Christ," as those who are "of faith," as "the called," etc., is warrant enough to conclude that God's program of redemption has moved away from the shadows and types of the Old Covenant to the spiritual realities of the New Covenant.
> 
> As I said before, the New Covenant is an advance over the Abrahamic and Mosaic because it brings the realities of the so-called covenant of grace to greater realization among the covenant community. In the Paedo-Baptist system, we virtually revert back to the Abrahamic covenant and sprinkle rather than circumcise.



_The true children of Abraham have always been those of faith_. It's not something that is true now. It has _always_ been true. Isn't this the very argument of the Apostle Paul (Rom. 2:28-29, 4:1ff., 9:6ff; Gal. 3) in defense of justification by faith? The Judaizers didn't understand Christ because they didn't understand Abraham. In no way could Ishmael and Esau, the wicked kings and false prophets of Israel, and the Pharisees and Judaizers say to themselves that Abraham was their father simply because they descended from the believing patriarch or that they were physically circumcised (cf. Matt. 3:7-10; John 8:39ff.). _Only those who believe in Christ_ whether Jew or Gentile are the true children of Abraham in _both testaments_ (Rom. 4:1ff; Gal. 3:16, 29). 



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> (1) The people in the NT saw Christ and the NT church as the fulfillment of the OT shadows and types. Hence, there were plenty of "radical changes" that took place at the coming of Christ. The shift from a physical to a spiritual seed was just one of many.
> 
> (2) With the exception of the headships of Adam and Christ, all other headships served a typical function--no saving grace was conferred _opere ex operato_ via family ties.
> 
> (3) Physical circumcision pointed to spiritual circumcision, i.e., regeneration, the first visible evidence of which is a profession of faith (John 1:12-13).
> 
> (4) No evidence that water baptism is the NC reality to which the OC shadow of circumcision pointed. The only point of similarity is that they are both rites of entrance into their respective covenants.
> 
> (5) When refuting the Judiazers who insisted on physical circumcision the apostles never, never, never pulled out the "ace" and said, "Look, you idiots, isn't it obvious to you from our apostolic practice that baptism has replaced circumcision." Instead, as I noted above, they argue that the true seed of Abraham is now defined by faith not by physical lineage.



What does baptism signify according according to Col. 2:11-12? What did circumcision signify according to Deut. 10:16, 30:6? The sign changed, but the thing signified did not. _Both circumcision and baptism represent the circumcision of the heart_. In order for your argument to stand, you must show that baptism signifies something radically different from circumcision. 

You assert that the Apostles argued that "the true seed of Abraham is now defined by faith not by physical lineage." As I have mentioned, the true children of Abraham have always been those who believe in Christ in both testaments. In the Old Testament, was covenant membership defined purely by physical lineage? Absolutely not. Unless you qualify your statements, this seems to be what you are implying. Scripture is clear that it was perfectly possible for Gentiles to be included in God's covenant community in the Old Testament upon profession of faith in the God of Abraham (Gen. 17:9-14; Exo. 12:43-49). 

Here is what I posted on another thread on Acts 15: 

But why did the Apostles forbid the Gentiles from being circumcised? What warrant did they have for discontinuing a millenia-old command to administer the sign of circumcision to people who enter God's covenant community? The Acts narratives make sense only if the baptism indeed is the sacramental equivalent of circumcision. _The Apostles did not circumcise the Gentiles precisely because the latter have been baptized already_.

If infants are now excluded from the covenant and people of God, Acts 15 would have been the perfect time and place for the Judaizers to present another objection to the Apostles. The Apostles already forbade the Gentiles from receiving circumcision. And now they were excluding the children who have been members of God's people for thousands of years? Yet we see total silence on this matter. There was no outcry whatsoever on the part of the Judaizers or even from the believing Jews.

B.B. Warfield notes,



> No doubt a large number of the members of the primitive Church did insist, as Dr. Strong [an antipaedobaptist] truly says, that those who were baptized should also be circumcised: and no doubt, this proves that in their view baptism did not take the place of circumcision. But this was an erroneous view: is represented in the New Testament as erroneous; and it is this exact view against which Paul protested to the Church of Jerusalem and which the Church of Jerusalem condemned in Acts xv. Thus the Baptist denial of the substitution of baptism for circumcision leads them into the error of this fanatical, pharisaical church-party! Let us take our places in opposition, along with Paul and all the apostles.



From The Polemics of Infant Baptism. 



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> (1) "It's one thing to say that the New Covenant is made with the elect only. It's another thing altogether to say that _only_ those who credibly profess faith are to receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper." [_reductio ad absurdum_] Amazingly, most Paedo-Baptists just aren't that consistent with their logical inferences.
> 
> (2) Don't you believe in the Regulative Principle? Don't you believe that the burden resides with you to provide positive warrant for any practice you introduce into NC church life and worship? The apostle John says those who "receive" Christ, that is, make a credible profession of faith, have legal warrant (_exousia_) to membership in the household of God (1:12) because they may be presumed regenerate (1:13).
> 
> (3) Neither Acts 2:38-39 nor the household baptism passages like Acts 16:31 provide any positive proof for your position. The former passage identifies "your children" as a subgroup of the "as many as the Lord shall call [effectually]." What follows is the baptism of those who are described in the passage as "those who accepted" the gospel (v. 41), that is, "believers" (v. 44). Acts 16 proves too much or too little for your position. (a) Reading the text literally with stress on your "generational/household principle" results in the absurd notion that the Philippian Jailors family will be converted on the basis of his faith regardless of their own: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." I'm sure you don't believe in proxy-faith--at least I hope not.
> 
> (b) On the other hand, the text does not say, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, and you and your entire household may have access into the visible church." Such a conclusion must be read into the text. It cannot be drawn out from the text.
> 
> (c) Besides, once more, the glaring inconsistency of Paedo-Baptists arises when they limit entrance right to the "children" of believers and do not extend that right to the entire household, which would have included the spouse as well as servants.
> 
> (d) The context does in fact provide us with more information about these household members. They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household." Then *they spoke the word* of the Lord *to him*, *along with all those who were in his house*. At that hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized right away. The jailer brought them into his house and set food before them, and he rejoiced greatly that *he had come to believe* in God, *together with his entire household.*
> ​So, according to this text, the baptized household members were individuals who rejoiced and believed in the message Paul preached. No wonder Paul baptized them!​




The force of Acts 2:38-39 and Acts 16:31 is their explicit affirmation of the generational/household principle. Most believers in the apostolic church were Jews, and they knew very well what the language of Peter and Paul meant. 

I'm just learning to read Greek through self-study. So I admit that I cannot confidently contest your arguments from the original language. At any rate, here is what I found: 



> The most detailed and informative account is that of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:30�34). “Believe in the Lord Jesus,” he was told, “and you shall be saved, you and your household” (vs. 31; cf. 11:14). Accordingly, the gospel was preached “to him together with all who were in his house” (vs. 32). In response, he “believed in God with his whole household” (vs. 34), whereupon “he was baptized, he and all his household” (vs. 33).
> 
> The key word in this passage is “with.” It signifies accompaniment. When Luke says that the jailer heard the gospel and believed “with” his household, the implication is that everyone in his household went along with him. Any older household members, such as his wife, evidently became believers, too. But any young children went along with their father, following his lead with whatever limited understanding that they had.
> 
> This crucial distinction between “with” and “and” (regrettably obscured by some translations) is clear in similar passages in Acts: 1:14; 3:4; 4:27; 5:1; 10:2; 14:13; 15:22; 21:5. In each case, “with” introduces those who follow the lead of others and join with them in their activity, however actively or passively. In Acts 21:5, for example, Paul is escorted to the harbor by all the men in the church at Tyre, “with wives and children,” which no doubt included a number of small infants.
> 
> In the household baptism passages, the head of the house always believes “with” his household, but he “and” they are baptized. Just as the heads of households escorted Paul to the harbor “with” infants who were only passive participants, so also heads of households were baptized “with” whatever infants were in their families.
> 
> Some would argue that there may not have been any infants in these households mentioned in Acts. However, household baptism was evidently a common practice in the apostolic church (see also 1 Cor. 1:16). It must have happened thousands of times, often including infants.



From The Biblical Basis for Infant Baptism by James W. Scott.

Acts 2:41 proves the baptism of professing _male_ believers (cf. 2:5, 14, 22). This doesn't prove anything to the Baptist since paedobaptists do baptize professing male believers. In fact, we don't have a positive command to adminster the sign to women until we reach Acts 8:12. But where is the positive command _now_ excluding the children of professing believers? There is none. All you have shown is inference from various texts purportedly saying that they they are in fact now excluded, not an explicit command. 

I am at a loss as to how you find the language of Paul to the Philippian jailer problematic to the paedobaptist. If (you think) it is problematic to the paedobaptist, it is equally problematic to you. The Apostle says, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household" without verbally qualifying the language he used. How does a Baptist interpret these words? 

On the claim that covenant baptism would require the baptism of "unbelieving" adult children and "unbelieving" servants, here is what I wrote on another thread:

Gen. 18:19 (ESV) For I have chosen him [Abraham], _that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice_, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.​
Did Abraham circumcise his household slaves without telling them first about the only true God or "the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice"? The text quoted seems to suggest otherwise. Abraham left his pagan homeland in chapter 12, and, he and his household were circumcised in chapter 17. Are we to suppose that Abraham did not care about the spiritual welfare of his bondservants between the time they left Ur and the time they were circumcised? Did Abraham tolerate idolatry in this household? Did he allow the people under his authority to set up idols for worship while he was worshipping the only true God? And yet many antipaedobaptists assume that Abraham's servants were "unbelievers" though the narrative does not say that. In fact, we see the obedience of one of Abraham's servants in Gen 24. He acknowledged the God of his master (see verse 27). 

And further, Eph. 6:5-7 and Col. 3:22-25 do not address the slaves of Christian households as if they are "unbelievers." Paul, of course, does not address them on the basis of an infallible knowledge of whether they are elect or not. They are addressed on the grounds of their (Christian) profession. The same is also seen in Philemon 15-16. Philemon is exhorted to receive his slave Onesimus as a "brother beloved...in the Lord."

For perhaps he [Onesimus] therefore departed for a season, that _thou shouldest receive him for ever_; Not now as a servant, but above a servant, _a brother beloved_, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and _in the Lord_?​
In the case of adult children, I do think that the same applies. Abraham was commanded to command _his children_ (which would include any adult children present) _and his household_ to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice. Proof that Abraham obeyed God was that _the LORD did bring to Abraham what He has promised him_ (see Gen. 18:19; cf. Rom. 4 and Gal. 3). Abraham obeyed God, and so should we. 
​


Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> So, A. J., where is the positive warrant for infant baptism? I find plenty of passages in the OT that provide warrant for including non-professing children in the covenant community. I find absolutely no warrant for including non-professing children in the New Covenant community. The one clear example of minor church members, namely, Ephesians 6:1, clearly treats them as regenerate believers.
> 
> If is for this reason, I'm a Credo-Baptist. With all due respect, your Paedo-Baptist arguments are largely cases of special pleading and unwarranted inference.



Again, here is what I posted on another thread:

The force of Paul's exhortations to children in Col. 3:20-21 and Eph. 6:1-4 is lost once we cut it off from its Old Testament backdrop. Paul addresses members of _households_: husbands and wives, masters and bondservants, and, fathers and children. Col 3:20-21 and Eph. 6:1-4 simply repeats what we find in Exo. 20:12 and in Deut. 5:16. In the Old Testament, the children (or "little ones," NASB) were members of God's covenant and people. Why would Paul address them at all if they are now outside the covenant community of the Lord as your position must insist?

There is no positive warrant for excluding the children of believers from the New Covenant sign of covenant initiation. Therefore, it is the antipaedobaptist that violates the RPW. 

_Semper Fidelis_' point still stands. What warrant do you have for limiting baptism or local church membership _only_ to those who profess faith?

-----Added 8/8/2009 at 11:35:02 EST-----



Herald said:


> A.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Brown,
> 
> I think what Rich is saying is this:
> 
> 1. You assumed that the New Covenant is made with the elect only.
> 
> And then you are claiming that,
> 
> 2. Those who credibly profess faith and those _only_ should be admitted into membership (i.e., be baptized).
> 
> Rich is asking how you arrived at (2) from (1). There seems to be something missing in the argument.
> 
> Blessings!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A.J.,
> 
> First, what is the scriptural warrant for Presbyterians to require a credible profession of faith for adults? I want to understand this practice first because it should come with scriptural warrant. No?
> 
> Second, this is why I injected the Baptist view of the New Covenant later in the thread. I was asked (paraphrase), "What does the New Covenant have to do with your position on a regenerate _only _church membership?" It has _everything _to do with it. Perhaps a schematic will help.
> 
> SINNER --> EFFECTUAL CALL --> REGENERATION* --> PROFESSION OF FAITH* --> BAPTISM --> MEMBERSHIP
> 
> In the above schematic the sinner is called, he is then regenerated, professes to believe, submits to baptism, and is accepted into the church. I asterisked regeneration and profession because the veracity of those two things are known only to God. We proceed on the basis that the profession _of _that regeneration is real. Spiritual maturity of the elders and members (Rev. 2:2), and church discipline (Matt. 18), exist to protect the body from false sheep who would seek to do it harm.
> 
> The question that seems to be echoing like a refrain in this thread is, "What is your scriptural warrant for a profession of faith and a regenerate _only _church membership?" The fact is that both sides of the debate need to address the profession issue because, as noted earlier, both sides require it for at least _some _candidates for membership. Baptists require it for all, while Presbyterians require it for adults. I see a disconnect from the Presbyterian side. Why? Because they baptize infants in the absence of a credible profession but generally require it from an adult. A consistent position would be to allow an adult to join without a profession of faith.
> 
> Now, back to the Baptist position. The scriptural warrant that I have tried to communicate in this thread is on the nature of the New Covenant. This is a fundamental area of disagreement between Baptists and Presbyterians. Baptists do not believe in covenant families established by physical descent. The CoG is made with those who believe (Acts 2:39; LBC 7.2). Therein the fundamental difference between both camps is exposed. The New Covenant is not simply a temporal administration until it is perfected in glory. The New Covenant is an eternal covenant, made only with the elect from all ages. Impostors will claim to be part of this covenant, and may fool "even the elect." Therefore, logical and reasonable inference compels New Testament churches to admit into membership only those who profess to believe. *We will not admit into membership an infant who has no cognitive ability to express faith because we are convinced scripture does not continue the Old Covenant family seed model*.
Click to expand...


Mr. Brown,

Infant inclusion in God's covenant and people is of the Abrahamic Covenant. It did *NOT* start with the Mosaic ("Old") Covenant (Jer. 31:31-32 [ESV], "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, _not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt_, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord.") The inauguration of the New Covenant ended the priesthood, animal sacrifices, tabernacle/temple, etc. of the Mosaic Covenant (Heb. 7-10) but nowhere does it abroagate infant inclusion. Why? Because infant inclusion preceded these Mosaic forms. Scripture says, 

Gal. 3:16-17 (ESV) Now *the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring*. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward [cf. Exo. 12:40], *does not annul* a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.​
The law which came more than four centuries later (i.e., the time of Moses and the exodus) does not annul the covenant promise of God to Abraham and His seed. What is the promise? 

Gen. 17:7 (ESV) And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.​
The continuation of this promise is explicitly affirmed in both testaments most prominently in Acts 2, Romans 4 and 9, and Galatians 3. 

Blessings!


----------



## Herald

A.J.,

I should have said Abrahamic Covenant and not Old Covenant. That was a misstatement of terms on my part. Thank you for pointing that out. My comments stand, as is, after that change in verbiage. 

I think the systemic problem that is evident in this thread is the nature of the New Covenant, and how both sides view it's application temporally. 

The purpose of this thread was to provide insight into the Baptist view of regenerate church membership. I believe that has been done. I was most encouraged by JM's comments as to how this discussion has strengthened his currently held view. I think my participation in this thread is drawing to a close since we are covering ground previously touched on. I am most appreciative for the participation and charitable manner in which this thread has progressed. Bob, thank you for stating the Baptist position more eloquently than I am able to do.

Blessings.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

A.J. said:


> Again, here is what I posted on another thread: The force of Paul's exhortations to children in Col. 3:20-21 and Eph. 6:1-4 is lost once we cut it off from its Old Testament backdrop. Paul addresses members of _households_: husbands and wives, masters and bondservants, and, fathers and children. Col 3:20-21 and Eph. 6:1-4 simply repeats what we find in Exo. 20:12 and in Deut. 5:16. In the Old Testament, the children (or "little ones," NASB) were members of God's covenant and people. Why would Paul address them at all if they are now outside the covenant community of the Lord as your position must insist?
> 
> There is no positive warrant for excluding the children of believers from the New Covenant sign of covenant initiation. Therefore, it is the antipaedobaptist that violates the RPW.
> 
> _Semper Fidelis_' point still stands. What warrant do you have for limiting baptism or local church membership _only_ to those who profess faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. J.,
> 
> Preparing a sermon and don't have time to respond to all the lengthy citations you offered above to support the Paedo-Baptist position. I will, however, briefly respond to your last argument and that of _Semper Fidelis_.
> 
> (1) First, you misrepresent my position. Above you refer to the _tekna_ (the term refers to minors and is not limited to 'infants') of Ephesians 6:1 and assert that my position insists that they are outside the covenant community. Where in the world did you get that idea?
> 
> Here's what I did say, "Ephesians 6:1, clearly treats them [i.e., the tekna] as regenerate believers." I never said they were outside the church. In point of fact, I argue that they were church members along with the _believing_ husbands, _believing_ wives, _believing_ parents, _believing_ slaves, and _believing_ masters. Would you like me to demonstrate exegetically why the _tekna_ of Ephesians 6:1 are believing children and not the non-believing physical seed of believers? The context makes it quite clear that these are not mere infants but born-again minors whom Paul is addressing.
> 
> (2) My confession and yours states that God "May not be worshipped ... any ... way not *prescribed* in the Holy Scripture" (emphasis added, WCF XXI, 1; LBCF XXII, 1).
> (a) The OT *prescribes* the circumcision of the male infants of parents with whom God has made covenant, as well as household male servants and male proselytes (Gen. 17).
> 
> (b) The NT *prescribes* the baptism of every Jew or Gentile, rich or poor, male or female, adult or child that professes faith in Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:37-38, 41; 8:12; 18:8).
> 
> (c) Neither the OT or the NT prescribe (either by precept or precedent) the baptism of infants.
> 
> (d) Additionally, the whole thrust of NT teaching is to the effect that the shadows of the Old Covenant, one of which was covenant admittance _on the basis of physical blood-ties_, have passed away. Indeed, physical descendancy within the Old Covenant secured at best only temporal blessings and a temporal inheritance. Accordingly, with the passing of those temporal blessings and physical Canaan, which were but types of better things, so passed the outward qualification for such shadowy-blessings. Not surprisingly, the new Israel of God is to be constituted of the true seed of Abraham, those circumcised of heart, born-again believers (John 1:12-13; Gal. 3:26-29).
> 
> (e) It follows, then, that Paedo-Baptism, like Paedo-Communion, is an misguided attempt to import and impose OT shadows into New Covenant church life and worship. As such, it is a violation of the RPW. ​ Respectfully yours,
Click to expand...


----------



## A.J.

Mr. Brown,

Okay. My participation in the thread is also drawing to a close. The discussion has already and clearly shown where Baptists and Presbyterians differ. 

Thank you also. 

Dr. Bob, 

You don't have to respond.  I apologize for the confusion. My paragraph on Eph. 6:1 was a direct quote from another thread as a response to another poster, and I failed to make some editing. But the point still stands. Covenant membership of the children of God's people in the Old Testament was not limited to self-conscious and mature children. It included "little ones" as the NASB would put it. Paul's New Covenant language in Eph. 6:1-4 and Col. 3:20-21, of course, repeats and parallels the command given to God's people in the Old Testament. 

I accept (a) and (b). Premise (c) begs the question. Also, the disagreement is not about infant baptism per se but whether they still belong to the covenant and people of God in the New Covenant. As has been shown, I don't believe in your interpretation of John 1:12-13 and Gal. 3:26-29 (e). The truth of election taught in these texts is far from proving that _only_ those who credibly profess faith should be baptized. An unwarranted leap is done. The conclusion (f) obviously does not follow. The Bible *does not prescribe* the exclusion of the infant children of believers from God's covenant community.

It's already the Lord's Day here in my region. 

Blessings!


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

A.J. said:


> Mr. Brown,
> 
> Okay. My participation in the thread is also drawing to a close. The discussion has already and clearly shown where Baptists and Presbyterians differ.
> 
> Thank you also.
> 
> Dr. Bob,
> 
> You don't have to respond.  I apologize for the confusion. My paragraph on Eph. 6:1 was a direct quote from another thread as a response to another poster, and I failed to make some editing. But the point still stands. Covenant membership of the children of God's people in the Old Testament was not limited to self-conscious and mature children. It included "little ones" as the NASB would put it. Paul's New Covenant language in Eph. 6:1-4 and Col. 3:20-21, of course, repeats and parallels the command given to God's people in the Old Testament.



The fact that Paul employs language from and makes allusions to the OT does not mean that we may import the Old Covenant category of covenant admittance via physical generation any more than we may interpret Paul's allusion to the "promise" in verses 2 and 3, which was originally affixed to the 5th commandment and which originally referred to the Land of Promise, as an assurance to the children of Ephesus that they'll inherit Palestine if they're obedient to their parents. 

Moreover, where are you getting the translation "little ones" for the Greek tekna. Neither the older NAS or the updated NASB uses that phrase. Like other English versions it translates the word "children." The semantic range is not limited to small children or infants. The Greek had other words to designate infants or small children. Paul clearly addresses the tekna of Ephesians 6:1 as regenerate believers. Accordingly, that text provides no support whatsoever for the practice of including non-believing children in the New Covenant community. 



> I accept (a) and (b).



Good.



> Premise (c) begs the question. Also, the disagreement is not about infant baptism per se but whether they still belong to the covenant and people of God in the New Covenant. As has been shown, I don't believe in your interpretation of John 1:12-13 and Gal. 3:26-29 (e). The truth of election taught in these texts is far from proving that _only_ those who credibly profess faith should be baptized. An unwarranted leap is done. The conclusion (f) obviously does not follow. The Bible *does not prescribe* the exclusion of the infant children of believers from God's covenant community.



A. J., you're argument sounds a lot like that of the Church of England. The Bible *doesn't prescribe the exclusion* of episcopacy or priestly vestments or the imposition of the Book of Common Prayer, therefore God's people must submit to these ordinances. That doesn't sound truly Reformed. You must provide positive warrant for your practice. 



> It's already the Lord's Day here in my region.



Why do you celebrate the 4th commandment on Sunday? The Bible does enjoin the hallowing of the Sabbath. But there is no didactic passage in the NT that commands the shift from the 7th day to the 1st day. All we find is apostolic and early church precedent. Nevertheless, Reformed theology has found such precedent sufficient grounds for establishing the normative practice of keeping the first day of the week holy. 

Similarly, Reformed Baptists read their NT and find abundant evidence of the precedent of the baptism of professing believers but no precedent of the baptism of infants. In the OT, physical descendancy mattered at least at a temporal-typical level. In the NT, physical descendancy no longer serves that function. Hence, there is no biblical or theological warrant to introduce an OT shadow into the NT economy. 

May the Lord bless your Sabbath!


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greetings:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from when then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, *Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?* But he said, *Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.* Let them both brow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
> 
> 
> 
> The kingdom of God is the New Covenant Church.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does the passage above equate God's kingdom with the New Covenant church? I've always understood the kingdom of God to refer to God's rule, which presently finds its clearest expression on earth among the New Covenant people of God. But that's different than simply equating the two.
Click to expand...


Hi:

Are you a Dr. and know not these things? 

The Kingdom of Heaven is expressed through the preaching and teaching of the Word of God. The New Covenant Church is given the mandate to go and disciple all nations through the preaching and teaching of the Word of God. Are you now arguing that the parable in Mt 13:24ff somehow relates to the whole world, and not the Kingdom of God? Such a view seems a bit disfunctional in relation to the rest of Scripture. I would think that Jesus would have said that there are already tares in the world, and that God is planting wheat among them?

The parable seems rather straighforward: God is building His Church, and the enemy is sowing weeds among it - it is not our job to uproot the weeds lest we take out some wheat with them.

I have seen, firsthand, how this Baptist theology of a fully regenerate church membership has affected men and women who may very well have been wheat, but were judged by the church to be tares. Who has made you a judge of God's servants? Where is the love, the patience and the gentleness that we are often called to have with professing brothers and sisters in Christ?

When I saw this baptist doctrine for the fruit that it bore - I only saw it as a prideful act on some to make judgments on matters that they are not given to judge.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Herald

CalvinandHodges said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greetings:
> 
> The kingdom of God is the New Covenant Church.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does the passage above equate God's kingdom with the New Covenant church? I've always understood the kingdom of God to refer to God's rule, which presently finds its clearest expression on earth among the New Covenant people of God. But that's different than simply equating the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Are you a Dr. and know not these things?
> 
> The Kingdom of Heaven is expressed through the preaching and teaching of the Word of God. The New Covenant Church is given the mandate to go and disciple all nations through the preaching and teaching of the Word of God. Are you now arguing that the parable in Mt 13:24ff somehow relates to the whole world, and not the Kingdom of God? Such a view seems a bit disfunctional in relation to the rest of Scripture. I would think that Jesus would have said that there are already tares in the world, and that God is planting wheat among them?
> 
> The parable seems rather straighforward: God is building His Church, and the enemy is sowing weeds among it - it is not our job to uproot the weeds lest we take out some wheat with them.
> 
> I have seen, firsthand, how this Baptist theology of a fully regenerate church membership has affected men and women who may very well have been wheat, but were judged by the church to be tares. Who has made you a judge of God's servants? Where is the love, the patience and the gentleness that we are often called to have with professing brothers and sisters in Christ?
> 
> When I saw this baptist doctrine for the fruit that it bore - I only saw it as a prideful act on some to make judgments on matters that they are not given to judge.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...


Rob, your conclusion cuts both ways. Baptizing an infant can have any almost de facto acceptance of their salvation. We can both point out churches that have neglected the more important aspects of their ministry. The truth resides in what scripture teaches, not in isolated cases of poor orthodoxy.

I have seen the opposite of what you state; churches over looking sin in the camp for far too long. So, what is the correct approach in dealing with professing believers in the church? Treat them as fellow heirs of salvation. Yes, to their own master they do stand, but no member is above the measuring rod of the Word. When a saint strays into sin they are to be lovingly confronted. The extreme of Matthew 18 exists to protect the body from wolves. It is only at that point that a person is put out and treated as an unbeliever. That is a fry cry from the caricature you painted.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Herald said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the passage above equate God's kingdom with the New Covenant church? I've always understood the kingdom of God to refer to God's rule, which presently finds its clearest expression on earth among the New Covenant people of God. But that's different than simply equating the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Are you a Dr. and know not these things?
> 
> The Kingdom of Heaven is expressed through the preaching and teaching of the Word of God. The New Covenant Church is given the mandate to go and disciple all nations through the preaching and teaching of the Word of God. Are you now arguing that the parable in Mt 13:24ff somehow relates to the whole world, and not the Kingdom of God? Such a view seems a bit disfunctional in relation to the rest of Scripture. I would think that Jesus would have said that there are already tares in the world, and that God is planting wheat among them?
> 
> The parable seems rather straighforward: God is building His Church, and the enemy is sowing weeds among it - it is not our job to uproot the weeds lest we take out some wheat with them.
> 
> I have seen, firsthand, how this Baptist theology of a fully regenerate church membership has affected men and women who may very well have been wheat, but were judged by the church to be tares. Who has made you a judge of God's servants? Where is the love, the patience and the gentleness that we are often called to have with professing brothers and sisters in Christ?
> 
> When I saw this baptist doctrine for the fruit that it bore - I only saw it as a prideful act on some to make judgments on matters that they are not given to judge.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rob, your conclusion cuts both ways. Baptizing an infant can have any almost de facto acceptance of their salvation. We can both point out churches that have neglected the more important aspects of their ministry. The truth resides in what scripture teaches, not in isolated cases of poor orthodoxy.
> 
> I have seen the opposite of what you state; churches over looking sin in the camp for far too long. So, what is the correct approach in dealing with professing believers in the church? Treat them as fellow heirs of salvation. Yes, to their own master they do stand, but no member is above the measuring rod of the Word. When a saint strays into sin they are to be lovingly confronted. The extreme of Matthew 18 exists to protect the body from wolves. It is only at that point that a person is put out and treated as an unbeliever. That is a fry cry from the caricature you painted.
Click to expand...


Hi:

Good point, Bill, but there is a pro-active nature to judging the heart in this baptist doctrine of a fully regenerate church that can nowhere be found in Scripture. I believe the parable in Mt 13 directly contradicts such a doctrine.

Whereas we are commanded to baptize our children. There is no command in the Scriptures for a fully regenerate church membership.

Grace and Peace,

Rob


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

CalvinandHodges said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the passage above equate God's kingdom with the New Covenant church? I've always understood the kingdom of God to refer to God's rule, which presently finds its clearest expression on earth among the New Covenant people of God. But that's different than simply equating the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Are you a Dr. and know not these things?
> 
> The Kingdom of Heaven is expressed through the preaching and teaching of the Word of God. The New Covenant Church is given the mandate to go and disciple all nations through the preaching and teaching of the Word of God. Are you now arguing that the parable in Mt 13:24ff somehow relates to the whole world, and not the Kingdom of God? Such a view seems a bit disfunctional in relation to the rest of Scripture. I would think that Jesus would have said that there are already tares in the world, and that God is planting wheat among them?
> 
> The parable seems rather straighforward: God is building His Church, and the enemy is sowing weeds among it - it is not our job to uproot the weeds lest we take out some wheat with them.
> 
> I have seen, firsthand, how this Baptist theology of a fully regenerate church membership has affected men and women who may very well have been wheat, but were judged by the church to be tares. Who has made you a judge of God's servants? Where is the love, the patience and the gentleness that we are often called to have with professing brothers and sisters in Christ?
> 
> When I saw this baptist doctrine for the fruit that it bore - I only saw it as a prideful act on some to make judgments on matters that they are not given to judge.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...


Rob,

(1) Having an earned doctorate doesn't mean that a person knows everything there is to know about the Bible. Nor does it mean he has nothing to learn from brothers without academic credentials. That's why I asked you to clarify your assertion "The kingdom of God *is* the New Covenant Church" (emphasis added). 

(2) The word "kingdom" is commonly used to describe _an activity_ (i.e., ruling) or _a realm_. Most commentators and biblical theologians interpret the primary usage of the phrase "kingdom of God" as referring to _God's rule_, with redemptive overtones of course. 

(3) Saying that the kingdom of God "is expressed through the preaching and teaching of the Word of God" and identifying the "New Covenant Church" as the agent through which God's word is preached and taught throughout the world _is not the same_ as saying the Kingdom of God is equivalent to the New Covenant church. You have clearly equivocated. 

(4) You then veer off on a tangent:Are you now arguing that the parable in Mt 13:24ff somehow relates to the whole world, and not the Kingdom of God? Such a view seems a bit disfunctional [_sic_] in relation to the rest of Scripture. I would think that Jesus would have said that there are already tares in the world, and that God is planting wheat among them?​I have no idea what you're talking about. Where did I say that? I simply asked you to prove that the Kingdom of God = the New Covenant church.

(5) Then you get way off track and introduce an _ad hominem_ argument against a Credo-Baptist view of warranted New Covenant church membership:I have seen, firsthand, how this Baptist theology of a fully regenerate church membership has affected men and women who may very well have been wheat, but were judged by the church to be tares. Who has made you a judge of God's servants? Where is the love, the patience and the gentleness that we are often called to have with professing brothers and sisters in Christ? When I saw this baptist doctrine for the fruit that it bore - I only saw it as a prideful act on some to make judgments on matters that they are not given to judge.​I'm terribly sorry you've apparently had a negative experience in a Baptist church. But consider the following:(a) What may have been true of the Baptist church or churches you attended is not necessarily true of every Baptist church.

(b) You're experience is not everyone's experience--certainly not mine. Hence, it cannot serve as a standard for right or wrong. 

(c) I grew up in a church that practiced infant baptism. Most the members were unregenerate, but they were assured that they were on their way to heaven partly if not largely on the basis of their infant baptism. That experience doesn't in itself make infant baptism wrong. It does, however, underscore the point I made above. Our personal experiences cannot be the ultimate standard by which the truthfulness or falsity of a position is judged.

(d) The sins of judgmentalism, a lack of brotherly love, and pride are not the fruits of Baptist theology per se. I can assure you that these sins were in existence long before the New Covenant. Indeed, from the first sin of man and throughout the days _when folks included their physical seed in the covenant_(!), judgmentalism, hatred, and pride have been alive and well. Indeed, the Pharisees and scribes were some of the most judgmental, hateful, and pride people who ever walked the earth. Yet they shared in great part your ecclesiology! ​Your attempt to discredit the Credo-Baptist position using the _ad hominem_ argument, therefore, fails. If you're going to make a case against the Credo-Baptist position, stick with the Bible. 

Respectfully yours,

-----Added 8/8/2009 at 04:30:24 EST-----



CalvinandHodges said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whereas we are commanded to baptize our children. There is no command in the Scriptures for a fully regenerate church membership. Grace and Peace, Rob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rob,
> 
> You've gotta be kidding?! We're commanded to baptize our children? Most Paedo-Baptists I know concede the practice is based on inference. Where do you find a "command" to baptize the children of believers irrespective of a profession of faith? In the Gospel of Thomas?
> 
> And while there may not be an explicit command for a fully regenerate membership, there is plenty of biblical warrant for _a fully professing membership_. On those who "receive" (= profess faith in) Christ have _the legal right_ (_exousia_) to be part of God's New Covenant family--family ties no longer suffice. See A Credo-Baptist Exposition and Application of John 1:12-13.
> 
> Respectfully yours,
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Herald

CalvinandHodges said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Are you a Dr. and know not these things?
> 
> The Kingdom of Heaven is expressed through the preaching and teaching of the Word of God. The New Covenant Church is given the mandate to go and disciple all nations through the preaching and teaching of the Word of God. Are you now arguing that the parable in Mt 13:24ff somehow relates to the whole world, and not the Kingdom of God? Such a view seems a bit disfunctional in relation to the rest of Scripture. I would think that Jesus would have said that there are already tares in the world, and that God is planting wheat among them?
> 
> The parable seems rather straighforward: God is building His Church, and the enemy is sowing weeds among it - it is not our job to uproot the weeds lest we take out some wheat with them.
> 
> I have seen, firsthand, how this Baptist theology of a fully regenerate church membership has affected men and women who may very well have been wheat, but were judged by the church to be tares. Who has made you a judge of God's servants? Where is the love, the patience and the gentleness that we are often called to have with professing brothers and sisters in Christ?
> 
> When I saw this baptist doctrine for the fruit that it bore - I only saw it as a prideful act on some to make judgments on matters that they are not given to judge.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rob, your conclusion cuts both ways. Baptizing an infant can have any almost de facto acceptance of their salvation. We can both point out churches that have neglected the more important aspects of their ministry. The truth resides in what scripture teaches, not in isolated cases of poor orthodoxy.
> 
> I have seen the opposite of what you state; churches over looking sin in the camp for far too long. So, what is the correct approach in dealing with professing believers in the church? Treat them as fellow heirs of salvation. Yes, to their own master they do stand, but no member is above the measuring rod of the Word. When a saint strays into sin they are to be lovingly confronted. The extreme of Matthew 18 exists to protect the body from wolves. It is only at that point that a person is put out and treated as an unbeliever. That is a fry cry from the caricature you painted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Good point, Bill, but there is a pro-active nature to judging the heart in this baptist doctrine of a fully regenerate church that can nowhere be found in Scripture.
Click to expand...


Rob, I am going to chalk this up to our disagreement over the New Covenant. Bob has done a yeoman's job in this thread of establishing biblical precedent for Reformed Baptist orthodoxy in this area.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Much has been addended to this thread but I want to back up because this thread was supposed to deal with the Baptist understanding of Regenerate Church membership and I want to interact with Dr. Bob as I believe he adds no new premises to the argument but only takes some premises that had already been asserted and elaborates upon them. Let's take them in turn:


Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> (1) According to John 1:12, "legal warrant" (_exousia_) for membership in the New Covenant community is predicated on "receiving" (_lambano_) Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.


Again, as "membership in the NT community" means elect, this simply states that only the elect, who receive Christ as Lord and Savior, are in the New Covenant. I won't debate this point for the sake of internal critique but, suffice to say, it adds no warrant for physical Church membership at this point. It simply asserts that those in the NC are the Elect of God who will truly express faith and obedience to the Gospel.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> (2) "Receiving" (_lambano_) is an expression employed in John 1:12 (note the parallel with _pisteuo_) and elsewhere for _a profession of faith_ (see John 3:32-33; 5:43-44; 12:48; 13:20; 14:17; Rev. 3:3; or the synonym _paralambano_, John 1:11; 1 Cor. 15:1; Gal. 1:9; Phil. 4:9; Col. 2:9; 1 Thes. 2:13).
> 
> (3) Such a profession of faith is normally indicative of regeneration, as the apostle John notes--"who are born ... of God" (1:13).


Further elaboration on (1) - those that are Elect will express faith in the Gospel and profess it.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> (4) Hence, those who make such a profession of faith are presumed to be regenerate (Matt. 10:40; 1 Cor. 15:1; Gal. 1:9; Col. 2:6; 1 Thes. 2:13) unless they prove otherwise (Matt. 13:20-21; Mark 4:16-17).


A further unpacking to note that we may see the Elect in this life demonstrating faith in the Gospel except that a qualifier is added at this point that some may prove otherwise.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> (5) Such a warrant for covenantal membership is, according to John, a facet of a new dispensation where the physical seed blood-ties of the Abrahamic and Mosaic no longer count as legal warrant for inclusion into the covenant community--"children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband's decision" (v. 13, NIV).


Again, not an argument for Church membership but only New Covenant membership at this point because "covenant community" can only refer to the Elect of Christ by Baptist presuppositions.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> (6) As such, a credible profession of faith and the accompanying credo-baptism advance the _historia salutis_ beyond the older physical seed and accompanying circumcision paradigm of both the Abraham and Mosaic covenants and serve to bring the realities of the covenant of grace into greater realization among the visible New Covenant community than were realized among the Old Covenant community.


This is unsubstantiated. You have not demonstrated the link between what precedes and what follows. You have demonstrated only that the New Covenant consists of the Elect, who will profess at some pont, and that it cannot be presumed that a chld of a believer is elect. You have not demonstrated that it is God's purpose to show forth a visible Church that matches the identity of the New Covenant. You have not demonstrated that Baptism of professors "advances the _historia salutis_".

Why doesn't Christ's baptism of thousands that desert Him in John 6 advance the _historia salutis_? Why doesn't the baptism of Simon the Sorceror advance it?

In other words, you have convinced yourself and others that you have an airtight case that the NC is with the Elect alone but you have failed to present a Biblical premise that it is the Church's job in baptism to ascertain those who are regenerate on the basis of profession. You have only demonstrated that some profess that are in the invisible New Covenant.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> So what is the requirement for membership in the visible New Covenant community? _A credible profession of faith_, which is, ordinarily, an indication of regeneration. What no longer serves as adequate warrant for entrance into God's covenant community? _Family blood-ties_, which are not, ordinarily, a sign of regeneration. Paul, as well as John, notes this shift in redemptive history:
> For *in Christ Jesus* you are all sons of God, *through faith*. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, *then you are Abraham's offspring*, heirs according to promise (Gal. 3:26-29).​



Again, you are going back to quote passages that deal with invisible Covenant Membership according to your schema. You have not demonstrated that the grounds for baptism is to approximate regeneration. There is no "...and you shall know and baptize them by their profession alone...." There is nothing in any of these passages that demands that the Church act upon what God knows or to proceed in such a way that makes their qualification upon entrance into the local Church on the basis of assumption that the person is regenerate. You have simply moved from the IS (the New Covenant is with the Elect) to the OUGHT (the Church ought to baptize those they believe are Elect) without providing the necessary linkage except that you assert that profession is seen to be the imperfect means to establish this. Where is this spelled out?



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> It is this advance in redemptive history patent throughout the NT that compels the Baptist to withhold the covenant sign from those whose only claim to entrance into the covenant community is a blood-tie and to insist that God has raised the bar for inclusion within the New Covenant community. Nothing less than a credible profession of faith will do--since faith, not physical blood ties, is a more sure indication of regeneration.



Again, where is this spelled out? In one sense, the only thing you've demonstrated is that the invisible CoG now has no certain visible component in the world. Even the LBCF notes that the Church of the Elect in the CoG has always existed. It had a clearly definable boundary of visible Covenant inclusion in previous administrations of the CoG. Under the NC, however, you have demonstrated that, in our current administration, there is no clear visible marker because the NC consists of those that truly participate in the CoG. Whether a local Church more or less succeeds in approximating it is beside the point because the local Church has false professors and the members of the Church cannot be said to be identical to the New Covenant community.

In other words, in the _historia salutis_ the visible CoG disappears in this current administration for all intents and purposes because nobody can identify who is and who is not in the current Covenant except by approximation through profession. To put another way, a person used to be able to say in the OC who was and who was not in the Covenant. As redemption progressed into this new administration Baptists can state who is/isn't in the local Church but not who is/isn't in the New Covenant. This is progression?​


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Herald said:


> For the sake of argument, if it is granted that entrance into the New Covenant community is on the basis of faith, how is scripture contradicted by asking an individual to claim that they have exercised faith?
> 
> The following is the membership criteria from Christ Reformed Presbyterian Church, a local PCA church in Laurel, MD (about ten miles from me):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Members are received upon their examination by the Session (i.e., congregational board of Elders), on the basis of either:
> 
> 
> Their initial profession of faith in Christ and baptism (if they are unbaptized);
> A letter of dismissal from another evangelical church; or
> A re-affirmation of their faith if they have been inactive, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. This might very well be a Baptist church! I'm not trying to be contentious, but what is their scriptural warrant for requiring a profession of faith and proof of baptism? And what's this re-affirmation of faith? Isn't a re-affirmation the same as a profession?
> 
> If it weren't for our differing views on the New Covenant there would be no telling us apart.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure why this is surprising to you. I've repeatedly noted that the issue is not whether the Baptist Church baptizes professors but that they believe the reason they should baptize professors is because they are under charge to approximate the New Covenant with the Elect and that profession is seen as the guarantee that they are doing the best possible job of approximating the Elect and those that they allow into the visible Church.

I can quote the same criteria from a freewill Baptist Church above and remark: "Wow! if it weren't for their differing views on Election there would be no telling them apart from a Reformed Baptist Church!"


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wannabee said:


> To distinguish between spiritual and physical absolutely has a bearing and is positively not gnostic. That's a dangerous accusation brother. I was comparing the Mosaic covenant, which decidedly has physical characteristics to it, to the NC, which is decidedly spiritual. The physical shadows of the MC become spiritual realities in Christ. Furthermore, many in Israel obeyed the letter of the law without obeying the heart. They could "do" all those things without truly loving God. They were still in the Mosaic Covenant though, even if they did not obey it, because of the physical reality of it. That is not so in Christ, for it is spiritual. The circumcision is of the heart, not the flesh. And, perhaps this is where there is a necessary breakdown in communication as well, for baptism cannot be viewed as circumcision in the NC. If you want to understand then you have to accept that as part of the picture, whether you agree with it or not.


My point on Gnostic tendencies stands. The distinction between "spirit" and "flesh" in the Scriptures is not pitting spirit against matter but is an ethical issue - those who are fallen in Adam and those that are redeemed in Christ. When a man is redeemed, he may be said to be a Spiritual person and not a Fleshly person but the Spiritual man is body and soul and not to be contrasted against the OC that was meant to be primarily physical. 

I can warn against tendencies without having to say you are a Gnostic but the fact remains that one can overplay the "spiritual" dimension to assume that everything that we see that is physical in the OC has primarily a physical component in view. OC types and shadows were physical but they pointed to higher realities of redeeming both soul and body. God even recounts physical events (the Flood, the Exodus, the Resurrection) as the grounds for worshipping and obeying Him throughout the Scriptures.

The point, then, about children is that an OC confession about loving the Lord cannot be seen in purely physical terms. The confession of the Shema requires much more than a bare recital of a creed because someone is born in a Jewish womb. It would not be possible to claim a universal right to every man, woman, and child to recite a creed about his love of Yahweh. This confession would have to be grounded upon a right to recite this creed borne out of something that the Lord has given them in order to recite it.

I only brought this up because you paralleled the fact that a current NT believer ought to be training his children to recite this creed or some like it. I am merely noting, that on Baptist presuppositions, a non-professing child must be treated as anyone else outside of Covenant relationship with God. He cannot recite this because he has no Sin offering by which he may approach God to recite his love for Him.



> You have presented some Scripture about the purity that God expects of His disciples but it does not follow that those that should have been put out should never have been baptized in the first place. You need to demonstrate that.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I don't. You want it demonstrated, but it's simply unnecessary. I didn't claim that, so there's no reason to demonstrate it. We baptize false professors. We try not to. We pray that we don't. But we are imperfect and so simply do what we can within the bounds of Scripture to discern if their testimony is credible. If it appears so then we accept their testimony as evidence of their faith and strive on. If they fall away then we respond biblically. I would submit that you've imposed a false criterion on the discussion.
Click to expand...

Actually you do and you admit to the same:


> We baptize false professors. We try not to.


You try not to admit them to the Church to begin with. It is not a false criterion that I have imposed but you admit to it even as you deny it.


----------



## Herald

Semper Fidelis said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the sake of argument, if it is granted that entrance into the New Covenant community is on the basis of faith, how is scripture contradicted by asking an individual to claim that they have exercised faith?
> 
> The following is the membership criteria from Christ Reformed Presbyterian Church, a local PCA church in Laurel, MD (about ten miles from me):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Members are received upon their examination by the Session (i.e., congregational board of Elders), on the basis of either:
> 
> 
> Their initial profession of faith in Christ and baptism (if they are unbaptized);
> A letter of dismissal from another evangelical church; or
> A re-affirmation of their faith if they have been inactive, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. This might very well be a Baptist church! I'm not trying to be contentious, but what is their scriptural warrant for requiring a profession of faith and proof of baptism? And what's this re-affirmation of faith? Isn't a re-affirmation the same as a profession?
> 
> If it weren't for our differing views on the New Covenant there would be no telling us apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why this is surprising to you. I've repeatedly noted that the issue is not whether the Baptist Church baptizes professors but that they believe the reason they should baptize professors is because they are under charge to approximate the New Covenant with the Elect and that profession is seen as the guarantee that they are doing the best possible job of approximating the Elect and those that they allow into the visible Church.
> 
> I can quote the same criteria from a freewill Baptist Church above and remark: "Wow! if it weren't for their differing views on Election there would be no telling them apart from a Reformed Baptist Church!"
Click to expand...


No, Rich. It's not about our doing the best possible job of approximating the Elect, as though we are the guardians of the church. It's about the nature of the CoG and who is in the New Covenant. We believe that the New Covenant contains only believers. If I start quoting clear definitive passages, as well as those passages that make the case by inference, I'll simply be repeating myself. It's not about "we", it's about God. It is His covenant. It is His elect. It is His church. Since the administration of Christ's church has been entrusted to human instruments (for a season), those instruments are responsible to maintain it's purity (1 John 1:5, 2:19, 4:1-6; 2 John 10; Jude 4; Rev. 2:2). We are not binding consciences or turning away genuine saints because of some capricious whim. We rejoice when someone tells us that they believe. They are then welcomed into our fellowship as members of the New Covenant. If they later prove to be illegitimate, that's not an indictment on us, but on themselves.


----------



## Wannabee

Rich,

You really didn't state anything different then I did in your explanation. So, I assume that in your mind you see me putting influence where I did not intend to in regard to the spiritual/physical discussion. Furthermore, Bob said the same thing I stated only he did it much better and more fully. I really can't elaborate any more clearly than has already been done.

As for this statement


> You try not to admit them to the Church to begin with. It is not a false criterion that I have imposed but you admit to it even as you deny it.


I simply find it baffling. I'm not blaming you. It could be mis-communication between us. It could be a gap in my own mind. If you can connect the dots for me I'll follow up. If not, it seems that I've done all I can to clarify. And Bill's comments pretty much echo my own thoughts on this, so further comment may be superfluous.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Herald said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why this is surprising to you. I've repeatedly noted that the issue is not whether the Baptist Church baptizes professors but that they believe the reason they should baptize professors is because they are under charge to approximate the New Covenant with the Elect and that profession is seen as the guarantee that they are doing the best possible job of approximating the Elect and those that they allow into the visible Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Rich. It's not about our doing the best possible job of approximating the Elect, as though we are the guardians of the church. It's about the nature of the CoG and who is in the New Covenant. We believe that the New Covenant contains only believers. If I start quoting clear definitive passages, as well as those passages that make the case by inference, I'll simply be repeating myself. It's not about "we", it's about God. It is His covenant. It is His elect. It is His church. Since the administration of Christ's church has been entrusted to human instruments (for a season), those instruments are responsible to maintain it's purity (1 John 1:5, 2:19, 4:1-6; 2 John 10; Jude 4; Rev. 2:2). We are not binding consciences or turning away genuine saints because of some capricious whim. We rejoice when someone tells us that they believe. They are then welcomed into our fellowship as members of the New Covenant. If they later prove to be illegitimate, that's not an indictment on us, but on themselves.
Click to expand...


Bill,

Honestly, I see you violently objecting to something and then restating it with different verbiage that amounts to no substantive difference.



> It's not about our doing the best possible job of approximating the Elect, as though we are the guardians of the church.


I didn't say you were guardians of the Church, I said that you believed you have been charged by God to ensure that the Church consists only of those you believe to be Elect and to do the best job you can.


> It's about the nature of the CoG and who is in the New Covenant. We believe that the New Covenant contains only believers.


Right. You believe that the New Covenant contains only the Elect. Did I state otherwise?


> If I start quoting clear definitive passages, as well as those passages that make the case by inference, I'll simply be repeating myself. It's not about "we", it's about God. It is His covenant. It is His elect. It is His church. Since the administration of Christ's church has been entrusted to human instruments (for a season), those instruments are responsible to maintain it's purity (1 John 1:5, 2:19, 4:1-6; 2 John 10; Jude 4; Rev. 2:2). We are not binding consciences or turning away genuine saints because of some capricious whim. We rejoice when someone tells us that they believe. They are then welcomed into our fellowship as members of the New Covenant. If they later prove to be illegitimate, that's not an indictment on us, but on themselves.


I never inferred any motive other than that you were trying your best. What, above, do you believe changes my description substantively?

You state that the Church has been entrusted to you.

You believe that you are to maintain its purity and...when someone tells us that they believe...we welcome them into our fellowship....

In other words, you believe that you have been charged by God to ensure that the NT Church matches the composition of those who are in the NC to the greatest degree possible.

You may prefer your language as being more expansive but it adds nothing substantive to the nature of the case. The fundamental reason you baptize only professors is that you want to make sure they are regenerate. The fundamental reason you want to make sure they are regenerate is that you believe that you have been charged by God to ensure they are regenerate (to the best of your ability) before you baptize them.

Why is this controversial?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

*Rick writes:*


> Much has been addended to this thread but I want to back up because this thread was supposed to deal with the Baptist understanding of Regenerate Church membership and I want to interact with Dr. Bob as I believe he adds no new premises to the argument but only takes some premises that had already been asserted and elaborates upon them. Let's take them in turn:





Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> (1) According to John 1:12, "legal warrant" (_exousia_) for membership in the New Covenant community is predicated on "receiving" (_lambano_) Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.



*Rick writes:*


> Again, as "membership in the NT community" means elect, this simply states that only the elect, who receive Christ as Lord and Savior, are in the New Covenant.


*Bob replies:*
I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't say "membership in the NT community" means "elect." You need to read my position carefully and don't suppose that you're well-acquainted with Credo-Baptist views. I've argued that membership in the visible New Covenant community should only include the elect by right but does not always include the elect in fact. Those who have the legal warrant to become part of God's NC family are those who profess faith in Christ, which profession becomes the basis for presumed regeneration and, therefore, admission into the NC community. 

*Rick writes:*


> I won't debate this point for the sake of internal critique but, suffice to say, it adds no warrant for physical Church membership at this point. It simply asserts that those in the NC are the Elect of God who will truly express faith and obedience to the Gospel.


*
Bob replies:*
No. It doesn't simply say that the NC are the elect of God. Where is the term election used? The passage is talking about a shift in the history of redemption from the dispensation of Moses to that of Christ (v. 17). We're talking about real time and space. We're talking about real visible people who make professions of faith and are thereby warranted to wear the badge "children of God" (v. 12). That badge no longer belongs to those who are merely physical seed (v. 13). 



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> (2) "Receiving" (_lambano_) is an expression employed in John 1:12 (note the parallel with _pisteuo_) and elsewhere for _a profession of faith_ (see John 3:32-33; 5:43-44; 12:48; 13:20; 14:17; Rev. 3:3; or the synonym _paralambano_, John 1:11; 1 Cor. 15:1; Gal. 1:9; Phil. 4:9; Col. 2:9; 1 Thes. 2:13).
> 
> (3) Such a profession of faith is normally indicative of regeneration, as the apostle John notes--"who are born ... of God" (1:13).



*Rick writes:*


> Further elaboration on (1) - those that are Elect will express faith in the Gospel and profess it. A further unpacking to note that we may see the Elect in this life demonstrating faith in the Gospel except that a qualifier is added at this point that some may prove otherwise. Again, not an argument for Church membership but only New Covenant membership at this point because "covenant community" can only refer to the Elect of Christ by Baptist presuppositions.


*
Bob replies:*
Oh boy! Here we go again. What "Baptist presuppositions" are you talking about? Certainly not mine. I get the impression you haven't taken the time to read through my arguments very carefully. 

*Rick writes:*


> This is unsubstantiated. You have not demonstrated the link between what precedes and what follows. You have demonstrated only that the New Covenant consists of the Elect, who will profess at some pont, and that it cannot be presumed that a chld of a believer is elect. You have not demonstrated that it is God's purpose to show forth a visible Church that matches the identity of the New Covenant. You have not demonstrated that Baptism of professors "advances the _historia salutis_".


*Bob replies:*
(1) I don't really care whether I've demonstrated this point. It's enough for me that the apostle John has. 

(2) Opening the covenantal door to non-professing physical seed is certainly not a way to bring the spiritual realities of the so-called Covenant of Grace to greater realization. Limiting admission into the New Covenant community to those who give a credible profession of faith is a much more effective method. Not surprisingly, that's precisely what we find the NT church doing--baptizing upon a profession of faith. 

(3) How in the world does baby-sprinkling advance the _historia salutis_? Granted, it's a little cleaner and less painful than circumcision. But including non-professors in the covenant community based on physical descent takes us right back to the shadows of the Old Covenant. 

*Rick writes:*


> Why doesn't Christ's baptism of thousands that desert Him in John 6 advance the _historia salutis_? Why doesn't the baptism of Simon the Sorceror advance it?


*Bob replies:*
How do you know the thousands that deserted Christ were all baptized by him? Yes, there are apostates in the New Covenant community. But far, far, far less than there were in the Old Covenant community *the most of whom* were not well-pleasing to God (1 Cor. 10). Yahweh had to disown that rebellious nation and call another nation that would bear fruit. Concerning that nation, Christ's NC church, it will be built--not just typically but spiritually--and the gates of hell will not prevail. 

*Rick writes:*


> In other words, you have convinced yourself and others that you have an airtight case that the NC is with the Elect alone ... STOP


*Bob writes:*
Let's be more precise here. I've argued above that the New Covenant blessings pertain only to the elect. I have NOT argued that the New Covenant community, which is by nature visible, consists only of the elect. Please stop ascribing the views of others to me. 

*Rick continues:*


> but you have failed to present a Biblical premise that it is the Church's job in baptism to ascertain those who are regenerate on the basis of profession. You have only demonstrated that some profess that are in the invisible New Covenant.


*Bob replies:*
Once again, another misrepresentation. It is the role of the minister to ascertain whether someone makes a credible profession of faith as a prerequisite to baptism. And the NT itself provides warrant for presuming that those who profess faith in Christ are regenerate until they prove otherwise. 



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> So what is the requirement for membership in the visible New Covenant community? _A credible profession of faith_, which is, ordinarily, an indication of regeneration. What no longer serves as adequate warrant for entrance into God's covenant community? _Family blood-ties_, which are not, ordinarily, a sign of regeneration. Paul, as well as John, notes this shift in redemptive history:For *in Christ Jesus* you are all sons of God, *through faith*. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, *then you are Abraham's offspring*, heirs according to promise (Gal. 3:26-29).​




*Rick writes:*


> Again, you are going back to quote passages that deal with invisible Covenant Membership according to your schema.


*Bob replies:*
Rick, until you take the time to read my argument carefully, you're wasting your time, my time, and the precious time of our readers. You keep referring to some kind of "schema" that I'm supposedly locked into. But you're arguments show that you are superimposing some kind of schema that is foreign to my position. 

*Rick writes: *


> You have not demonstrated that the grounds for baptism is to approximate regeneration.


*Bob replies:*
What? I've only argued that the grounds of NT baptism is a credible profession of faith.

*Rick writes:*


> There is no "...and you shall know and baptize them by their profession alone...." There is nothing in any of these passages that demands that the Church act upon what God knows or to proceed in such a way that makes their qualification upon entrance into the local Church on the basis of assumption that the person is regenerate. You have simply moved from the IS (the New Covenant is with the Elect) to the OUGHT (the Church ought to baptize those they believe are Elect) without providing the necessary linkage except that you assert that profession is seen to be the imperfect means to establish this. Where is this spelled out?


*Bob replies:*
Here you engage in a little equivocation. One moment you represent me as teaching that "the Church act upon what God knows." That I DO NOT TEACH. GOT IT? 

Then you say, "Or to proceed in such a way that makes their qualification upon entrance [did you mean "for entrance"?] into the local Church on the basis of assumption that the person is regenerate." The wording is jumbled but you're getting closer to what I'm saying. Let me try to spell it out for you plainly--and please take off those "Baptist schema" glasses you're wearing.(1) Inclusion within the VISIBLE NC COMMUNITY is warranted on the basis of a credible profession of faith.
(2) The NT writers treat PROFESSING BELIEVERS as the elect of God, the called, saints, regenerate, etc., unless they deny the faith or engage in conduct that subverts their profession of faith. 
(3) Since WATER BAPTISM is the initiatory rite for entrance into the VISIBLE NC COVENANT COMMUNITY (by the way, I've never seen an invisible person baptized or an invisible church for that matter), then it follows from the above that baptism is to be administered to those who PROFESS FAITH IN Christ, or to use John's language, who RECEIVE him (_lambano_, see John 3:32-33; 5:43-44; 12:48; 13:20; 14:17; Rev. 3:3; or the synonym _paralambano_, John 1:11; 1 Cor. 15:1; Gal. 1:9; Phil. 4:9; Col. 2:9; 1 Thes. 2:13), which is precisely the pattern established in the NT (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:37-38, 41; 8:12; 18:8). 
(4) Not surprisingly, those baptized are spoken of as being united to Christ, that is, they are presumed regenerate (Rom. 6:3; Col. 2:11-12). ​


Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> It is this advance in redemptive history patent throughout the NT that compels the Baptist to withhold the covenant sign from those whose only claim to entrance into the covenant community is a blood-tie and to insist that God has raised the bar for inclusion within the New Covenant community. Nothing less than a credible profession of faith will do--since faith, not physical blood ties, is a more sure indication of regeneration.



*Rick writes:*


> Again, where is this spelled out?


*Bob replies:*
You've gotta be kidding? Do you really think a profession of faith provides no more sure indication of regeneration than baby sprinkling?"As many as *received* him, to them he gave the right ... who were born .. of God" (John 1:12-13). 
"Without *faith* it is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11:6).
"the just shall live *by faith*" (Rom. 1:17; Heb. 10:38)
"By grace are you saved *through faith*" (Eph. 2:8)​Need I keep citing passages? Do you hold the position that physical descent and the application of the sacrament apart from a profession of faith are a more sure sign of regeneration than a credible profession of faith? Where in the Bible is that taught? I'm sure you can find some support among the traditions of Rome for such a teaching but not the Bible. 

*Rick writes:*


> In one sense, the only thing you've demonstrated is that the invisible CoG now has no certain visible component in the world.


*Bob replies:*
There you go again attributing views to me that I do not espouse. Indeed, I said the opposite above. It is among the VISIBLE NC COMMUNITY that the spiritual realities of the CoG are most clearly seen. How in the world is that equivalent to "the invisible CoG now has no certain visible component in the world"? 

*Here he goes again:*


> Even the LBCF notes that the Church of the Elect in the CoG has always existed. It had a clearly definable boundary of visible Covenant inclusion in previous administrations of the CoG. Under the NC, however, you have demonstrated that, in our current administration, there is no clear visible marker because the NC consists of those that truly participate in the CoG. Whether a local Church more or less succeeds in approximating it is beside the point because the local Church has false professors and the members of the Church cannot be said to be identical to the New Covenant community. In other words, in the _historia salutis_ the visible CoG disappears in this current administration for all intents and purposes because nobody can identify who is and who is not in the current Covenant except by approximation through profession. To put another way, a person used to be able to say in the OC who was and who was not in the Covenant. As redemption progressed into this new administration Baptists can state who is/isn't in the local Church but not who is/isn't in the New Covenant. This is progression?


*
Bob replies:*
Okay. I give up.  It's taken too much of my time to answer a guy who doesn't bother to read and understand his opponent's position but instead continually ascribes teachings to his opponent that his opponent doesn't hold. I suggest you jettison those so-called "Baptist presuppositions" you're carrying around and take the time to learn what some of us Baptists REALLY BELIEVE. Then we might get somewhere. 

Respectfully yours,​


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wannabee said:


> Rich,
> 
> You really didn't state anything different then I did in your explanation. So, I assume that in your mind you see me putting influence where I did not intend to in regard to the spiritual/physical discussion. Furthermore, Bob said the same thing I stated only he did it much better and more fully. I really can't elaborate any more clearly than has already been done.
> 
> As for this statement
> 
> 
> 
> You try not to admit them to the Church to begin with. It is not a false criterion that I have imposed but you admit to it even as you deny it.
> 
> 
> 
> I simply find it baffling. I'm not blaming you. It could be mis-communication between us. It could be a gap in my own mind. If you can connect the dots for me I'll follow up. If not, it seems that I've done all I can to clarify. And Bill's comments pretty much echo my own thoughts on this, so further comment may be superfluous.
Click to expand...

Joe,

When you stated this:


Wannabee said:


> I would submit that you've imposed a false criterion on the discussion.


I was trying to note that it was not my criterion. My point is that Baptists believe they are not following the Biblical mandate for the NT Church if they do not guard the baptismal font to ensure only those that they believe are true professors (and most likely regenerate) might receive the ordinance.

Throughout, passages have been provided that speak of putting people out of the Church for their scandalous behavior and that the Church's officers must maintain the purity in the Church in this way. What has not been demonstrated is that any Church officers are chastised by Christ or the disciples for letting people in to begin with.

In other words, if the Baptist presup is correct (that the purity of the Church is served by baptizing only the professing and obedient) there ought to be some exegetical support rather than simply pointing to the desire for purity in a different context. For example, if a man is caught in adultery, Church officers deal with the sin. They don't regret ever having allowed the marriage to begin with because they should have been more careful about who they allow marry.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Okay. I give up.  It's taken too much of my time to answer a guy who doesn't bother to read and understand his opponent's position but instead continually ascribes teachings to his opponent that his opponent doesn't hold. I suggest you jettison those so-called "Baptist presuppositions" you're carrying around and take the time to learn what some of us Baptists REALLY BELIEVE. Then we might get somewhere.
> 
> Respectfully yours,



My problem, perhaps, is trying to interact with a person who confuses his own demonstrations with those of the Apostles. I'm content to leave it here.


----------



## Wannabee

You're putting too much emphasis on it I think. And I don't think you followed my argument in regard to the purity of the church. We are not to have fellowship with sons of disobedience. This involves the front door as well as the back door. The picture I painted from Ephesians serves this quite well. It's simply a matter of doing the best we can to protect both the church and those who profess Christ and yet are not saved. 
Perhaps it would help to understand that baptism is part of one's profession. If they are not saved then their baptism is not genuine. We cannot always know this. But if a false-professor is baptized then they really aren't, they're just getting wet, for the baptism (physical) cannot truly picture a spiritual reality if the spiritual is not present. It's really not that difficult.

I would also echo some of Bob's comments above. It seems like you've spent a lot of time imposing your understanding of credo doctrine on what we believe rather than taking what we say as we say it at face value. It might be because your own presuppositions won't allow you to get here from there, which is understandable. But it is something you might consider.

And I don't want to come across as ungrateful for the discussion. You are a blessing to me.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wannabee said:


> I would also echo some of Bob's comments above. It seems like you've spent a lot of time imposing your understanding of credo doctrine on what we believe rather than taking what we say as we say it at face value. It might be because your own presuppositions won't allow you to get here from there, which is understandable. But it is something you might consider.
> 
> And I don't want to come across as ungrateful for the discussion. You are a blessing to me.



I hear that a lot Joe - that I'm imposing what I think you believe upon you. I've restrained myself from interacting with some straw men about what Paedobaptists believe in this thread including some facile notes about simple blood lines or even impious comparisons to Rome. The interesting thing is that I never put forward my view but it was rebutted as if I was trying to argue for a position. I was simply observing what I believe the premises that Baptists presented within the thread yielded based upon the Scriptures presented to state the premises.

I may not always succeed in summarizing to the Baptists' satisfaction but I also believe that one of the reasons for the anger is that some of the weak inferences seem so rock solid to you because you've all grown comfortable with them. When Bob, above, recapitulates an argument for profession, he cites passages that only God could know the person possesses and then, in so many words, adds: "What idiot can't see this?!"

I say that this idiot doesn't attempt to jump from what God knows about true faith and about who He has given the right to be called sons of God and assume that visible profession can be substituted to express the same.

In other words, while I agree that I can always do a better job of understanding, I think that it doesn't hurt to look at the arguments again rather than assuming they're as airtight as they are believed to be.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Wannabee said:


> I would also echo some of Bob's comments above. It seems like you've spent a lot of time imposing your understanding of credo doctrine on what we believe rather than taking what we say as we say it at face value. It might be because your own presuppositions won't allow you to get here from there, which is understandable. But it is something you might consider. And I don't want to come across as ungrateful for the discussion. You are a blessing to me.



Thanks, Joe. It's nice to know that I wasn't merely imagining things when I sensed that Rick was inserting his understanding of Credo-Baptist doctrine into the discussion and seeking to debunk it rather than seriously trying to read and understand his opponent's position.


----------



## Herald

Rich wrote:


> I may not always succeed in summarizing to the Baptists' satisfaction but I also believe that one of the reasons for the anger is that some of the weak inferences seem so rock solid to you because you've all grown comfortable with them.



Rich,

I'm content to allow disagreement stand and our arguments rise or fall on their merits. Open debate is healthy. Theology does matter. But please don't think - not even for a moment - that it's a matter of us growing comfortable with inferences. These things have occupied a great deal of my thought and study. Go back to my "Baptist in Crisis" days. The turmoil I was going through was very personal and very real. I am never truly comfortable with certain doctrinal convictions. I constantly push myself; seeking to test my convictions against scripture. I believe what I do about regenerate church membership, and the New Covenant, because of how I interpret scripture. If comfort was what I was seeking I would never have embraced Reformed theology.  It has lead me over and under hurdles and around various road blocks. I'm sure my journey is far from over.


----------



## Wannabee

I was never angry brother. Like you, I can sometimes have a tendency to be rather frank. If my writing "tone" came across that way then I must be more careful. 


Be blessed,


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Wannabee said:


> I was never angry brother. Like you, I can sometimes have a tendency to be rather frank. If my writing "tone" came across that way then I must be more careful.
> 
> 
> Be blessed,



Not at all. I enjoyed the thread and have always appreciated your presence here.


----------



## Herald

Some passages that came from this mornings sermon.



> Hebrews 12:18-24 18 For you have not come to a mountain that may be touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind, 19 and to the blast of a trumpet and the sound of words which sound was such that those who heard begged that no further word should be spoken to them. 20 For they could not bear the command, "If even a beast touches the mountain, it will be stoned." 21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, "I am full of fear and trembling." 22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.





> Hebrews 13:17 17 Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.


The individuals being spoken of in Hebrews 12:18-24 are the true members of the New Covenant -- believers. 

The passage in Hebrews 13 is obviously instructing believers to submit to their leaders, "for they keep watch over your souls." Would it not be a reasonable inference that elders should not let wolves into the flock?


----------



## rbcbob

Herald said:


> Some passages that came from this mornings sermon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hebrews 12:18-24 18 For you have not come to a mountain that may be touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind, 19 and to the blast of a trumpet and the sound of words which sound was such that those who heard begged that no further word should be spoken to them. 20 For they could not bear the command, "If even a beast touches the mountain, it will be stoned." 21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, "I am full of fear and trembling." 22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hebrews 13:17 17 Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The individuals being spoken of in Hebrews 12:18-24 are the true members of the New Covenant -- believers.
> 
> The passage in Hebrews 13 is obviously instructing believers to submit to their leaders, "for they keep watch over your souls." Would it not be a reasonable inference that elders should not let wolves into the flock?
Click to expand...


Yes Bill, and bless God for such shepherds who will discharge this unpopular duty and guard the flock of God which He purchased with His own blood.


----------



## Houston E.

Semper Fidelis said:


> In other words, while I agree that I can always do a better job of understanding, I think that it doesn't hurt to look at the arguments again rather than assuming they're as airtight as they are believed to be.



(And from someone who is primarily a follower of the threads and doesn't speak often...)I would like to simply add that I pray the sentiment above is applied to the "other side" as well.... 

BTW, this has been a great thread. Thanks to all for the great comments.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Most certainly Trey.

I was teaching on Joseph this morning and the great humility he demonstrated in light of his brothers coming to bow down to him. The Lord brought to remembrance the dream that he had years earlier. I believe what follows in Genesis 42 and following is not the mark of a vindictive man but one who is humbled by the Providence of God and how He brought everything to pass in the most unexpected way. He sets about restoring his family and bringing them through a trial that the whole family might reconcile.

I had a heavy heart this AM, therefore, that I had caused so much unintended grief. The thread got too large and too many things were stated and rebutted yesterday before I had time to come in. On the heels of all of that, I could no longer weigh in to try to probe in what I believed was an honest way because my probes were misinterpreted as being more than they were. It was a fault of prudence on my part where the same probes might not have raised hackles in another context.

I ask the forgiveness of my brothers for unintended offense because I did not ever intend to ridicule or anger in this thread. Insofar as it appeared I was not trying to understand your position I also ask your forgiveness.

I'm a man with far too much to be humble for than to seek my own vindication in this matter and so I simply ask that no offense be between me an any brother that was offended.


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> The individuals being spoken of in Hebrews 12:18-24 are the true members of the New Covenant -- believers.



It also includes those who may "turn away from Him that speaketh from heaven," verse 25. The climactic parallelism indicates beyond a shadow of a doubt that apostates are included amongst the members of the new covenant community even as they were to be found in the old covenant community, only now it is treason of the worst kind.


----------



## Herald

Matthew,

Thank you for pointing out this sobering passage (Heb. 12:25). Along with it's companion passages (Phil. 3:2, 18-19; 1 Tim 4:1; Heb. 2:3, 3:1, 12) this verse is a warning against unbelief. Heb. 3:1 begins by addressing _holy brethren_, only to warn against having an unbelieving heart in verse 12. It doesn't change the fact that believers are being addressed, or that the promises of chapter 12 are limited _only _to believers; but it recognizes that apostates number themselves with the elect. This numbering does not equate with being an actual part of the New Covenant community.


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> This numbering does not equate with being an actual part of the New Covenant community.



Bill, your preconstructed theological framework is bringing you to that conclusion, not the sacred text of Scripture. Verse 22 says, "ye are come." You have correctly identified what follows with the new covenant community. But verse 25 immediately moves from covenant privilege to covenant responsibility and addresses the same people: "See that ye refuse not him that speaketh." It does violence to the sacred word to divorce the covenant responsibility of verses 25ff from the covenant privilege of verses 22-24.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> This numbering does not equate with being an actual part of the New Covenant community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill, your preconstructed theological framework is bringing you to that conclusion...
Click to expand...


Matthew,

We both have preconstructed theological frameworks (i.e. presuppositions). I would like to say that I approach the text independent of these presups, but that would be disingenuous. Both our arguments stem from how we view the temporal administration of the New Covenant.


----------



## Herald

rbcbob said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some passages that came from this mornings sermon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hebrews 12:18-24 18 For you have not come to a mountain that may be touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind, 19 and to the blast of a trumpet and the sound of words which sound was such that those who heard begged that no further word should be spoken to them. 20 For they could not bear the command, "If even a beast touches the mountain, it will be stoned." 21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, "I am full of fear and trembling." 22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hebrews 13:17 17 Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The individuals being spoken of in Hebrews 12:18-24 are the true members of the New Covenant -- believers.
> 
> The passage in Hebrews 13 is obviously instructing believers to submit to their leaders, "for they keep watch over your souls." Would it not be a reasonable inference that elders should not let wolves into the flock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Bill, and bless God for such shepherds who will discharge this unpopular duty and guard the flock of God which He purchased with His own blood.
Click to expand...


Bob, 

I've come to know first hand how the shepherd(s) cannot protect the flock alone. Faithful elders, and praying saints, are of no small value. This is true whether a church has a pastor or elders (or both).


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> We both have preconstructed theological frameworks (i.e. presuppositions). I would like to say that I approach the text independent of these presups, but that would be disingenuous. Both our arguments stem from how we view the temporal administration of the New Covenant.



Bill, I can't buy your scepticism, sorry. The word says what it says: "ye ... ye." You are trying to make it say, "Ye ... some of you." The person who accepts the former construction is building his theological framework on the text; while the person who insists on the latter construction is making the text conform to his theological framework.


----------



## Houston E.

Ok, so if there is no distinction or even inference of a distinction, why then the different standard toward church membership? Why are infants (young children) baptized and therfore automatically church members, but those of age or adults must profess in order to just be a church member (covenant member)?
Or for sake of argument, take for example professing parents who join the church, yet 20 year old son would be refused baptism (and therefore church membership - not speaking of communicant member) because he has not professed.


----------



## kceaster

*All...*

The reason I have argued for more latitude, if it can be called that, is because I've seen too many times (and heard about many more) where fallible, ignorant men have shut up the kingdom because they have incorrectly applied the truth.

I'm not saying that my baptists brothers are necessarily wrong. We could be applying the truth in exactly the same way. But we need to be careful not to exclude those from our midst, or hold them at arms length until we're satisfied with them, or that we're perhaps too zealous for our own good. And let's face it, church government falls under the category of the light of nature and Christian prudence. While it is prudent to keep the wolves out of the fold, it is not prudent to go around trying to ascertain who is a true or a false sheep. Even our best guest, gut feeling, inner confidence or whatever cannot allow us to see the heart of anyone. We need to take care of all who come to us.

But isn't it amazing how much charity we're afforded, and how little charity we dispense. Jesus constantly dealt with this, and continues to deal with it in us. We need to remember that He is the great shepherd of the sheep, not us. We can be fully confident in His adminstration of His own covenant. And where we think we understand the covenant and who is to be membered in it, we need to remember that it is His covenant, not ours. When He includes someone, it is inward and spiritual. When we include someone, it is outward and physical. As such, we cannot infallibly make the determination of whom we are to include.

But having said that, what will be judged more harshly on the Day of the Lord? Keeping sheep out, or letting goats in? I think it is pretty clear that keeping sheep out will make us tremble at the thought. Perhaps my baptist brothers do not like the question being divided, but before you think that, recall the Lord saying that we should not neglect tender souls in our judgment.

Another degree of separation on this debate is the fact that the Reformed consider the means of grace, sacraments, and prayer to be the all encompassing benefits (in this life) of Christ upon His Church. Consider, then, that you may indeed be withholding benefits from those who would receive them gladly were you not standing in the way of them. By virtue of your office, you may well be keeping them from the Spirit's good gifts. Of course, ultimately, true sheep will be fed by the Shepherd either with you or without you. So, that is my humble warning to you. Be careful that you do not get in the way of the Spirit because of your lack of faith. If you must see His work before you'll allow His sheep to be included in your fold, then you may be heaping up judgments upon yourselves and your churches.

"See that you do not refuse Him," is just as applicable for office bearers as well as members. And if you refuse Him by not including those you should include, then you will miss the great opportunity to be His instruments of His great affection and grace.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## MW

Houston E. said:


> Ok, so if there is no distinction or even inference of a distinction, why then the different standard toward church membership? Why are infants (young children) baptized and therfore automatically church members, but those of age or adults must profess in order to just be a church member (covenant member)?



If they are of age they can speak for themselves. When baptised infants come of age they will be required to speak for themselves also.


----------



## Houston E.

armourbearer said:


> It also includes those who may "turn away from Him that speaketh from heaven," verse 25. The climactic parallelism indicates beyond a shadow of a doubt that apostates are included amongst the members of the new covenant community even as they were to be found in the old covenant community, only now it is treason of the worst kind.





armourbearer said:


> If they are of age they can speak for themselves. When baptised infants come of age they will be required to speak for themselves also.



So they are abrogated from the covenant until profession? I thought the offspring of the believer was a covenant child? (Gen 17)

And aren't baptized infants considered church members and members of the new covenant community? Does not the passage apply to them as well? 

If not, if the passage only applies to communicant members, then how does that not imply the distinction that Bill was referencing earlier??


----------



## Herald

*keceaster *said:


> The reason I have argued for more latitude, if it can be called that, is because I've seen too many times (and heard about many more) where fallible, ignorant men have shut up the kingdom because they have incorrectly applied the truth.


Kevin,

You are injecting personal experience and anecdotal accounts into the discussion while overlooking scripture. Are we really to believe that only Baptists (inferred by your previous posts) have "shut up the kingdom"? 

*keceaster *said:


> I'm not saying that my baptists brothers are necessarily wrong.


If you're not saying it outright, you're strongly suggesting it. Actually, I'd have less of a problem with you accusing Baptists of being wrong. 

*keceaster *said:


> We could be applying the truth in exactly the same way.


But we're not applying it the same way. We don't even agree on what is truth regarding the New Covenant or church membership. The fact is that there are substantial differences between Presbyterians and Baptists. For the most part we co-exist well in this venue; but every once in a while a subject comes up in which our differences are quite pronounced. There is nothing wrong with that, so long as our differences don't bring out an uncharitable nature.

*keceaster *said:


> But we need to be careful not to exclude those from our midst, or hold them at arms length until we're satisfied with them, or that we're perhaps too zealous for our own good. And let's face it, church government falls under the category of the light of nature and Christian prudence. While it is prudent to keep the wolves out of the fold, it is not prudent to go around trying to ascertain who is a true or a false sheep. Even our best guest, gut feeling, inner confidence or whatever cannot allow us to see the heart of anyone. We need to take care of all who come to us.
> 
> But isn't it amazing how much charity we're afforded, and how little charity we dispense. Jesus constantly dealt with this, and continues to deal with it in us. We need to remember that He is the great shepherd of the sheep, not us. We can be fully confident in His adminstration of His own covenant. And where we think we understand the covenant and who is to be membered in it, we need to remember that it is His covenant, not ours. When He includes someone, it is inward and spiritual. When we include someone, it is outward and physical. As such, we cannot infallibly make the determination of whom we are to include.
> 
> But having said that, what will be judged more harshly on the Day of the Lord? Keeping sheep out, or letting goats in? I think it is pretty clear that keeping sheep out will make us tremble at the thought. Perhaps my baptist brothers do not like the question being divided, but before you think that, recall the Lord saying that we should not neglect tender souls in our judgment.


Here is where your veiled indictment of Baptists rears its head. You word your criticism in such a way to make it appear that Baptists are capricious in deciding who gets to join our churches. Perhaps you are basing this on your first hand accounts and anecdotal evidence (see first paragraph)? The Baptist responses in this thread have been in unison. Believe and be baptized; that is the requirement. Of course, if you say you believe, you should have no reservations in articulating that to the elders. I won't inject anecdotal or second hand accounts, I will simply say that in my church, we want to hear a person articulate that they have a basic understanding of the gospel, and that they believe. We are not binding consciences or holding anyone, as you said, "at arms length."

*keceaster *said:


> Another degree of separation on this debate is the fact that the Reformed consider the means of grace, sacraments, and prayer to be the all encompassing benefits (in this life) of Christ upon His Church. Consider, then, that you may indeed be withholding benefits from those who would receive them gladly were you not standing in the way of them. By virtue of your office, you may well be keeping them from the Spirit's good gifts. Of course, ultimately, true sheep will be fed by the Shepherd either with you or without you.


You're not saying Baptists are necessarily wrong? 

I don't disagree with the premise of your first sentence, but I do disagree with how you view the church. I am assuming you are referring to the visible church. I base that assumption on the paedobaptist hermeneutic. I would accept your statement if it was emphasizing the invisible church. The blessings of the New Covenant are upon _true _saints; those that are actually born again. I am not going to play "gotcha" with your words (although others might). When you say, "the Reformed consider the means of grace, sacraments, and prayer to be the all encompassing benefits (in this life) of Christ upon His Church" you need to keep in mind that the Lord's Supper, a sacrament (ordinance), is actually a means of judgment on the _professed _visible saint, who actually is not saved. In other words, the New Covenant blessings are actually a curse to those who reject Christ, even to those who call themselves saints but aren't. This is why the term "church" doesn't always mean the same thing to Presbyterians and Baptists, depending on context.

*keceaster *said:


> So, that is my humble warning to you. Be careful that you do not get in the way of the Spirit because of your lack of faith. If you must see His work before you'll allow His sheep to be included in your fold, then you may be heaping up judgments upon yourselves and your churches.


My *frank *warning to you is to be careful about attributing motives and questioning, not only my faith, but that of my Baptist brothers. You take too much upon yourself. You have this idea stuck in your craw that we require a candidate for membership to somehow parade themselves before us, to our satisfaction. You then make a not-so-veiled statement that we may be heaping judgment on ourselves. Kevin, I would proceed carefully if I were you. Check your own motives before impugning others. There are some dear Presbyterian brothers that I have been disagreeing with during this thread, but I never questioned their motives.


----------



## kceaster

*Bill...*



Herald said:


> Kevin,
> 
> You are injecting personal experience and anecdotal accounts into the discussion while overlooking scripture. Are we really to believe that only Baptists (inferred by your previous posts) have "shut up the kingdom"?



I was not addressing baptists only. I am saying that we all have the propensity to shut up the kingdom of God and it doesn't matter what flavor we are.

You continue to repeat the phrase personal experience and anecdotal accounts, but if I may, you are doing the same thing. If you have experienced something different in regards to how the Scripture is applied in your churches, then you are also interjecting the same thing I am.

In other words,, the beliefs of RB churches may all be the same on paper, but they are not always applied in the same way. Application of Scripture is personal and anecdotal, so I really do not understand why you would object to my pointing it out.



> *kceaster *said:I'm not saying that my baptists brothers are necessarily wrong.





> If you're not saying it outright, you're strongly suggesting it. Actually, I'd have less of a problem with you accusing Baptists of being wrong.



I said necessarily wrong. We are all wrong in some way or another. The Word is truth. How we apply that truth is where we go wrong. 



> But we're not applying it the same way. We don't even agree on what is truth regarding the New Covenant or church membership. The fact is that there are substantial differences between Presbyterians and Baptists. For the most part we co-exist well in this venue; but every once in a while a subject comes up in which our differences are quite pronounced. There is nothing wrong with that, so long as our differences don't bring out an uncharitable nature.



I should say, then, that we're applying the truth with the same motive. No one wants to shut out sheep that are the Lord's. No one wants to let a wolf in, either. Everyone wants to take care of the sheep. However, we are imperfect... all of us. And sometimes, by our practice, we do what we do not want to do. If you have a practice, which I personally believe will restrict those to come to the Lord, I should point it out, shouldn't I? They're not your sheep. They're not my sheep. They're the Lord's. We should each be jealous for the Lord's sheep to ensure their proper care, should we not?



> Here is where your veiled indictment of Baptists rears its head. You word your criticism in such a way to make it appear that Baptists are capricious in deciding who gets to join our churches. Perhaps you are basing this on your first hand accounts and anecdotal evidence (see first paragraph)? The Baptist responses in this thread have been in unison. Believe and be baptized; that is the requirement. Of course, if you say you believe, you should have no reservations in articulating that to the elders. I won't inject anecdotal or second hand accounts, I will simply say that in my church, we want to hear a person articulate that they have a basic understanding of the gospel, and that they believe. We are not binding consciences or holding anyone, as you said, "at arms length."



Again, in my experience, either Presbyterian, or Baptist, or any church with formal membership, there are always going to be those who fall through the cracks, and who will not be taken care of. There will be those misused, abused, and in all ways abandoned. It is unavoidable. We still sin... all of us, we're going to get things wrong... all of us. All I'm saying is that we should be cautious in laying down hard and fast rules that the scriptures obviously do not warrant.

For instance, there is no Scripture telling us how to examine a young child. We have to look to the light of nature and Christian prudence. There is no Scripture telling us what level of zeal or enthusiasm one is supposed to have in order for us to see what God has done in their lives.



> *kceaster *said: Another degree of separation on this debate is the fact that the Reformed consider the means of grace, sacraments, and prayer to be the all encompassing benefits (in this life) of Christ upon His Church. Consider, then, that you may indeed be withholding benefits from those who would receive them gladly were you not standing in the way of them. By virtue of your office, you may well be keeping them from the Spirit's good gifts. Of course, ultimately, true sheep will be fed by the Shepherd either with you or without you.





> You're not saying Baptists are necessarily wrong?
> 
> I don't disagree with the premise of your first sentence, but I do disagree with how you view the church. I am assuming you are referring to the visible church. I base that assumption on the paedobaptist hermeneutic. I would accept your statement if it was emphasizing the invisible church. The blessings of the New Covenant are upon _true _saints; those that are actually born again. I am not going to play "gotcha" with your words (although others might). When you say, "the Reformed consider the means of grace, sacraments, and prayer to be the all encompassing benefits (in this life) of Christ upon His Church" you need to keep in mind that the Lord's Supper, a sacrament (ordinance), is actually a means of judgment on the _professed _visible saint, who actually is not saved. In other words, the New Covenant blessings are actually a curse to those who reject Christ, even to those who call themselves saints but aren't. This is why the term "church" doesn't always mean the same thing to Presbyterians and Baptists, depending on context.



Yes, when I talk about the benefits of the NC, obviously the Spirit only works within the elect for blessing and good, and judges those who are false professors. But since we do not know who they are infallibly, we must allow the visible sheep to come, which is why we warn everyone who comes to examine themselves.



> *keceaster *said:So, that is my humble warning to you. Be careful that you do not get in the way of the Spirit because of your lack of faith. If you must see His work before you'll allow His sheep to be included in your fold, then you may be heaping up judgments upon yourselves and your churches.





> My *frank *warning to you is to be careful about attributing motives and questioning, not only my faith, but that of my Baptist brothers. You take too much upon yourself. You have this idea stuck in your craw that we require a candidate for membership to somehow parade themselves before us, to our satisfaction. You then make a not-so-veiled statement that we may be heaping judgment on ourselves. Kevin, I would proceed carefully if I were you. Check your own motives before impugning others. There are some dear Presbyterian brothers that I have been disagreeing with during this thread, but I never questioned their motives.



I'm not sure where I ever questioned anyone's motives. If I did, I certainly didn't mean to and humbly ask for your forgiveness.

As I said previously, we all want to let sheep into the fold and care for them. And we also want to protect them, nourish them, and discipline them. And we want our churches to be as pure as they can be.

BUT WE DO THIS IMPERFECTLY. 

Why should I not want to spur you on to perfection? Why should you want me to be imperfect? That is the whole reason for the debate... to spur each other on out of love for Christ and His bride, and eager to glorify Him in every way.

But the fundamental differences between us are who we allow to come before the Lord. If you want to ensure a regenerate only church membership, which was the OP, then you are going to have to employ stricter standards than I am, by default. Your standard, according to how you interpret Scripture, automatically refuses the young who cannot profess their faith in an appropriate manner (also a subjective standard on your part). I have to also assume that you may not allow a person of simple mind without some satisfaction that they also meet your criteria.

So, if you do not know infallibly who is elect and who is not, then by necessity, you must make a judgment call. That judgment call will err at some point. The same judgment call in a Presbyterian church, will by necessity, err at some point. WE ARE ALL FALLIBLE.

But faith is looking backwards to what God has done, and forwards to what God will do. And which faith is more informed? A faith that looks for the thing signified before applying the sign, or the faith that knows that the sign applied is for us, not for the thing itself. We apply the water of baptism and take the elements of communion by faith, realizing that there is nothing in the water, bread, or wine. And, also by faith, we realize that these things are not used in a physical, tangible way ordinarily, but ordinarily work in the spirit where eyes cannot see, by the Spirit who we cannot see, working in ways we cannot fathom, using spiritual means we barely understand.

I will ask my question again, "What brings more judgment? Keeping a sheep from the fold, or bringing a goat into the fold?" If you do not believe there is a difference, why did Jesus pronouce a woe to anyone who led His sheep astray? Why also did He suffer the little children, when His disciples wanted to keep them away?

These are sobering truths to anyone exercising the keys of the kingdom.

Bill, please rest assured that I am not singling out any church or denomination. EVERYONE has to be on guard to keep their hearts from turning cold to those who want a cup of cold water, are hungry, are naked, are in prison. And let us not forget that we will be judged by the same measure in which we judge. That ought to make us all tremble.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## rbcbob

Kevin asks


> "I will ask my question again, "What brings more judgment? Keeping a sheep from the fold, or bringing a goat into the fold?" If you do not believe there is a difference, why did Jesus pronouce a woe to anyone who led His sheep astray? Why also did He suffer the little children, when His disciples wanted to keep them away?"



This sets up a false dilemma. God does not put His shepherds into a _Catch 22_ situation. We are not confronted with an either/or choice between two evils. Neither "keeping a sheep from the fold" nor "bringing a goat into the fold" are acceptable practice for shepherds of God's flock. In faith and dependence upon the Lord the pastor is determined to do neither.


----------



## kceaster

rbcbob said:


> Kevin asks
> 
> 
> 
> "I will ask my question again, "What brings more judgment? Keeping a sheep from the fold, or bringing a goat into the fold?" If you do not believe there is a difference, why did Jesus pronouce a woe to anyone who led His sheep astray? Why also did He suffer the little children, when His disciples wanted to keep them away?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This sets up a false dilemma. God does not put His shepherds into a _Catch 22_ situation. We are not confronted with an either/or choice between two evils. Neither "keeping a sheep from the fold" nor "bringing a goat into the fold" are acceptable practice for shepherds of God's flock. In faith and dependence upon the Lord the pastor is determined to do neither.
Click to expand...


Jesus certainly did not believe it to be a false dilemma when He pronounced His woe to the scribes and Pharisees. That is precisely what happens in churches who become a thing unto themselves. I have heard and seen many cases where the elders become a law to themselves and will require things of their sheep that are not commanded. They will put out sheep who are guilty of nothing but disagreeing with their conscience-binding arguments.

On the other hand, I read nowhere in the Bible any case in which a disciple, apostle or otherwise are ever indicted for bringing in a goat. Who was to blame for Simon the magician? Ananias and Saphira? Hymenaeus and Alexander? Did John blame himself for those who had gone out from among them? What about all the people who left Jesus? Was He to blame for allowing them to be followers in the first place? And Judas?

In arguing for a regenerate church membership, it must needs be that there will be some accountability for allowing a false professor in the door. I'm not talking about accountability for the sheep, and the ones who need discipline, or any abuse, neglect, or otherwise. The elders will certainly have to give an account for all sheep. But there is no where said that they will give account for the goats. I would be happy to see the reference where they are...

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Herald

> You continue to repeat the phrase personal experience and anecdotal accounts, but if I may, you are doing the same thing. If you have experienced something different in regards to how the Scripture is applied in your churches, then you are also interjecting the same thing I am.
> 
> In other words,, the beliefs of RB churches may all be the same on paper, but they are not always applied in the same way. Application of Scripture is personal and anecdotal, so I really do not understand why you would object to my pointing it out.



Kevin, I point it out because it has absolutely zero to do with the subject at hand. Baptists are generally agreed that the New Testament church consists only of believers. I've been a member of three Baptist churches since 1984, and I've yet to see a professing believer turned away from a church, so long as their profession was reasonable. In fact, I have objected to one church that was a "baptism factory." This church would baptize anything that moved in order to swell their roles. The point being that I have seen just the opposite of what you warn against. 

So, where does that leave us? If Presbyterians and Baptists fail to fulfill all their convictions consistently each and every time, what do we do about it? I'll tell you one thing we shouldn't do; we shouldn't paint with a broad brush. Baptists accept professed believers into membership on the basis of that profession and submission to baptism. If you disagree with that, argue it on its theological merits. 



> I should say, then, that we're applying the truth with the same motive. No one wants to shut out sheep that are the Lord's. No one wants to let a wolf in, either. Everyone wants to take care of the sheep. However, we are imperfect... all of us. And sometimes, by our practice, we do what we do not want to do. If you have a practice, which I personally believe will restrict those to come to the Lord, I should point it out, shouldn't I? They're not your sheep. They're not my sheep. They're the Lord's. We should each be jealous for the Lord's sheep to ensure their proper care, should we not?



I have no problem with you disagreeing with a theological conviction that I hold to. I've been disagreed with this entire thread! If I was afraid of being disagreed with I would have left this dialog long ago. The question I constantly ask myself is, "Am I clinging to my position because of pride, or because I am convinced, by scripture, that it is true?" In this case, it is the latter, and I'm not really trying to change the minds of Presbyterians. 

When I first participated in baptism threads I used to become angry when I saw a Baptist move closer, or even embrace, the Presbyterian position. Much of that was due to my own insecurities that I was experiencing. Over the last few years my anger has turned to a sort of contentment. I am content in my own position because I am convinced by scripture. I am not called to patrol the conscience of others, and I have no direct pastoral responsibility over those who are not in my church. I wasn't even excited when a former moderator on the PB changed his view from paedo to credo, although I was pleased. It's not like score is being kept. I am more concerned with the glory of God, even though I often fall short in glorifying him in every area of my life. If a brother changes his conviction on the issue of baptism, I pray that God will continue to use him for his glory, regardless of which baptismal position he embraces.



> Yes, when I talk about the benefits of the NC, obviously the Spirit only works within the elect for blessing and good, and judges those who are false professors. But since we do not know who they are infallibly, we must allow the visible sheep to come, which is why we warn everyone who comes to examine themselves.



Which is why we only admit, and baptize, professed believers. They are visible saints, but only God knows whether they are true sheep. We fence the table every week with a warning about partaking of the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner. In both our systems we have no iron-clad guarantee that those who come to the table are saved. 



> I'm not sure where I ever questioned anyone's motives. If I did, I certainly didn't mean to and humbly ask for your forgiveness.



I believe when you attributed to Baptists a "lack of faith", you were questioning our motives. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that's how it was received. As for me, I interpret the motives of Rich, Matthew, and yourself as being desirous of protecting God's glory as manifested in his church. I've never doubted that for a moment. It would be nice to believe you think the same of your Baptist brethren, even if you disagree with our theological conclusions.


----------



## MW

Houston E. said:


> So they are abrogated from the covenant until profession? I thought the offspring of the believer was a covenant child? (Gen 17)
> 
> And aren't baptized infants considered church members and members of the new covenant community? Does not the passage apply to them as well?
> 
> If not, if the passage only applies to communicant members, then how does that not imply the distinction that Bill was referencing earlier??



I'm not sure I understand the intent of the questions. Yes, children are in the covenant, but their responsibility in the covenant is measured according to their personal development. In the family home parents may require courtesy of their children and so to say please and thankyou; they may even deprive certain gifts from a child who _will not_ say please and thankyou; but the child who _cannot_ say please and thankyou isn't deprived because he is treated according to his developmental stage. I hope that helps to clarify.


----------



## kceaster

Herald said:


> I'm not sure where I ever questioned anyone's motives. If I did, I certainly didn't mean to and humbly ask for your forgiveness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe when you attributed to Baptists a "lack of faith", you were questioning our motives. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that's how it was received. As for me, I interpret the motives of Rich, Matthew, and yourself as being desirous of protecting God's glory as manifested in his church. I've never doubted that for a moment. It would be nice to believe you think the same of your Baptist brethren, even if you disagree with our theological conclusions.
Click to expand...


If you told me I had a lack of faith regarding something, I would not be thinking that you were questioning my motives. To me, the two do not relate except that they can both be hampered by sin.

When I use the phrase lack of faith, I am thinking of Peter on the water. He was just fine when he kept his eyes on Jesus, but when he started concentrating on the external things, he started to sink. This is applicable in so many ways to all of us.

And yet, when you look at the subject of church membership and baptism, it is not without its externals. We are so many times like the Pharisees when we try to wash the outside of the cup, when the inside is what needs attention.

Church membership is outward. Membership with the Elect and true Church is inward. Baptism with water is outward. Baptism by the Spirit working in due season is inward.

If you will only apply these outward signs when you are sure of the promise, then that is a lack of faith. Because what does the Bible say about Abraham, who is the father of all who have faith. He was included in the promise by God before any outward signs were shown. There was no circumcision, no animals cut in two, no burning caldron. All of those things were outward signs. And what was the promise? Was the promise of circumcision? Hardly. Yet, Abraham saw his sons and his whole household circumcised. Was the promise of a ratified covenant? No, yet he saw the animals and the caldron. Was the promise of a people? Yes, and absolutely, yet he only saw the beginning small seed of it. Was the promise of a land, yes and he only caught a glimpse of it. Was the promise of a sacrifice? Yes, and he experienced that with eyes filled with tears. But none of the signs of God depended upon what Abraham saw with his own eyes. His circumcision was not performed because of something Abraham saw. The sacrifices were not made because of what Abraham saw. He wasn't included in the people of God, of which he was father, because of what he saw.

He was included because God saw and included him.

He was sealed because God had already sealed him. But before anyone gets too far ahead and tries to tie circumcision to what was already sealed by the Holy Spirit, just as is done with baptism, remember that he circumcised Isaac, who had not proven anything yet, but a promise given. Abraham circumcised Isaac and included him in God's family on the basis of God's promise and the faith he had.

So what does that tell us about faith? Faith adds a soul to church membership on the basis of the promise of God in salvation. The adult souls who come to us and wish to be membered with us, we rejoice in the promise of God for them, and we welcome them as those potential heirs with us in the promise of God. If they should need to be baptized we baptize them. But we are not looking for proof that God has fulfilled His promise in them before we admit them. We believe the promise of God for our own salvation, and if He can save us, then He can save them.

And what of our children? If He can save us, He can save them. We add them to the church because of the promise of God, not because we have already seen it fulfilled in the child, but because we know God saves.

If the object of our faith is Christ, and we look to Christ, then we will not concentrate on the signs, but upon the thing signified. Is there any consolation in the promises of God? Absolutely because we know, when the Spirit imparts it to us, that He has fulfilled all things according to His righteousness.

Our baptism is supposed to link us to Christ, is it not? What has He left unfulfilled? Can we not rest in His promises? Do we need evidence? Do we need proof? We need only believe in Him. We don't believe in fruits of the Spirit, although they are important. We don't believe the words of someone's mouth, although they do need to speak. We believe the promise of God for salvation. If we apply the outward benefits of the church only on the ones we are sure have obtained the promise of God by grace, then we are not looking on them with faith, nor do we rest in the promise of God as He means us to rest.

So much of redemptive history is looking forward. God could have accomplished in a few hundred years what He is continuing to do even now. You would think by now we would see what God has done, and not need to see another thing in order to completely trust in His work. And yet our faith is still so weak that we need to feel His hands and side in order to believe that He is risen.

We need to stop believing with our eyes, and start believing with our hearts. If this is the only thing that truly divides us, such a small thing as baptism, then we need repent and look to Christ and rest on His amazing grace. Let's stop believing because of what God has done, and start believing on what He is doing and will do. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. He is, not was. If only we could grasp His promise by faith and see with eyes like the Spirit.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Houston E.

armourbearer said:


> Houston E. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they are abrogated from the covenant until profession? I thought the offspring of the believer was a covenant child? (Gen 17)
> 
> And aren't baptized infants considered church members and members of the new covenant community? Does not the passage apply to them as well?
> 
> If not, if the passage only applies to communicant members, then how does that not imply the distinction that Bill was referencing earlier??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand the intent of the questions. Yes, children are in the covenant, but their responsibility in the covenant is measured according to their personal development. In the family home parents may require courtesy of their children and so to say please and thankyou; they may even deprive certain gifts from a child who _will not_ say please and thankyou; but the child who _cannot_ say please and thankyou isn't deprived because he is treated according to his developmental stage. I hope that helps to clarify.
Click to expand...


I'm just having difficulty understanding that while on one hand their can't be a distinction made in the new covenant community concerning who are members, (i.e. the Hebrews passage you and Bill have been discussing) yet there is a distinction made concerning responsiblity. The above response makes it seem that the Hebrews warning passage would not apply to non-professing covenant children...This was also evident in a previous thread when no one wanted to acknowledge the sign placed upon their still non-professing children as a curse. Either there is a distinction or there's not.
And if this passage does not apply, then that will lead to many other questions...

Further, how is it that just because a child is "of age" he is denied the application of the covenant sign? (any Scriptural support of this?)
Being a child of a believing parent, he would be a covenant child. If he is consenting, still under parents authority, but unprofessing, then why refuse?

-----Added 8/10/2009 at 09:24:15 EST-----



kceaster said:


> The adult souls who come to us and wish to be membered with us, we rejoice in the promise of God for them, and we welcome them as those potential heirs with us in the promise of God. If they should need to be baptized we baptize them. But we are not looking for proof that God has fulfilled His promise in them before we admit them. We believe the promise of God for our own salvation, and if He can save us, then He can save them.
> 
> And what of our children? If He can save us, He can save them. We add them to the church because of the promise of God, not because we have already seen it fulfilled in the child, but because we know God saves.



So, you baptize all children of believers who come to the church regardless of age?


----------



## MW

Houston E. said:


> I'm just having difficulty understanding that while on one hand their can't be a distinction made in the new covenant community concerning who are members, (i.e. the Hebrews passage you and Bill have been discussing) yet there is a distinction made concerning responsiblity. The above response makes it seem that the Hebrews warning passage would not apply to non-professing covenant children...This was also evident in a previous thread when no one wanted to acknowledge the sign placed upon their still non-professing children as a curse. Either there is a distinction or there's not.



The passage in question bases responsibility on privilege, and a specific privilege which non-members do not enjoy. Hence, while it is true that those who refuse the gospel in its first calling shall suffer grievous punishment, these might be considered less stripes in comparison to those who have been engaged to be the Lord's but refused submission to Him. Or, as 2 Peter 2 states the matter, those who have been washed (i.e., externally and federally) are in a worse condition than those who have not known the way of righteousness.



Houston E. said:


> Further, how is it that just because a child is "of age" he is denied the application of the covenant sign? (any Scriptural support of this?)



This becomes an intramural discussion within the paedobaptist position, because there are those who believe the sign should be administered in this case. OTOH, the liberty of our modern nations removes parental rights beyond a certain age, so it may be deemed appropriate to not administer the sign where it could entail the word of God being blasphemed on account of the scandalous actions of children who cannot be disciplined.


----------



## kceaster

Houston E. said:


> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> The adult souls who come to us and wish to be membered with us, we rejoice in the promise of God for them, and we welcome them as those potential heirs with us in the promise of God. If they should need to be baptized we baptize them. But we are not looking for proof that God has fulfilled His promise in them before we admit them. We believe the promise of God for our own salvation, and if He can save us, then He can save them.
> 
> And what of our children? If He can save us, He can save them. We add them to the church because of the promise of God, not because we have already seen it fulfilled in the child, but because we know God saves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you baptize all children of believers who come to the church regardless of age?
Click to expand...


We Presbyterians like to ask questions... always. And, we shouldn't forget that all children baptized in infancy must give a profession of faith when they come to understand. So, here's how I've seen it approached. Those children who would otherwise not be able to confess on their own, if they have at least one believing parent, would be baptized upon the desire of the parent. If a child is older and understands their sin and need of a savior, they would be baptized upon their own confession and profession.

If a family moved in with an older child, say in his teens, perhaps he would be treated as an adult.

But questions are always asked, and affirmed. If a child will not affirm their reliance upon Scripture, their need of a savior, their willingness to submit to the church, then I would say they've articulated enough to refuse baptism, and so they would not be baptized.

But everyone baptized must, at some point, give their profession of faith in Christ. There is not a drop dead age, again, we ask questions; we constantly ask questions. And we don't cease asking questions after they've been answered once.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Herald

> If you will only apply these outward signs when you are sure of the promise, then that is a lack of faith.


Really? Look at Acts 10 and 16. For that matter the Ethiopian eunuch. They believed and were then baptized. Show me one verse in the New Testament where we are told to baptize those who do not believe. It is precisely because confessional Baptists do have faith, faith in the Word of God, that we baptize those who profess to believe. 

Right after the previous quote you went on a litany about the Abrahamic Covenant. You then conclude that thought with this statement:



> So what does that tell us about faith? Faith adds a soul to church membership on the basis of the promise of God in salvation. The adult souls who come to us and wish to be membered with us, we rejoice in the promise of God for them, and we welcome them as those potential heirs with us in the promise of God. If they should need to be baptized we baptize them. But we are not looking for proof that God has fulfilled His promise in them before we admit them.


So let me get this straight. If a stranger walks into your church and wants to be "membered with us", that automatically equates to them having the promise, and you welcome them as fellow heirs of salvation? It doesn't matter whether they profess faith in Jesus Christ, or whether not they have been or desire baptism; so long as they want to be "membered", that is good enough? Forgive me for saying this, but your view sounds more like the United Methodist Church. You would welcome someone into your church who presents not even one iota of being a saint, and then you rejoice with them? I understand your reasons for baptizing infants. I disagree with it, but understand it. For the life of me, I can't understand your willingness to let an adult join your church based on the sole reason that he wants to join.



> And what of our children? If He can save us, He can save them. We add them to the church because of the promise of God, not because we have already seen it fulfilled in the child, but because we know God saves.


I'm not going to debate paedobaptism with you. That is not the purpose of this thread.



> Our baptism is supposed to link us to Christ, is it not? What has He left unfulfilled? Can we not rest in His promises? Do we need evidence? Do we need proof? We need only believe in Him.


Our baptism is a sign that we have ALREADY been linked to Christ, through regeneration. We can rest in the promise that "all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." THAT is the promise we rest in. If you have believed, and view your baptism as a symbol of that belief, fine. 

As far as not needing proof - just believing; how does not play out with a person asking to join the church? Are we supposed to assume they believe just because they come in the door and ask to join. "I suppose they believe. They're here, aren't they?" Kevin, you wrote:



> We don't believe the words of someone's mouth, although they do need to speak.


Are you saying that they do need to say that they believe, or not? Guess what? If they do need to say that they believe, do you know what we call that? A profession! Ding! Ding! Ding! I know what it is that you don't believe. I do understand the Presbyterian position. You're not believing the profession, although you want to hear it. You believe the covenant promise. But you do require that adult to say he believes, don't you? Of course you do. But it almost pains you to say that, because it forces you to concede that a profession of faith (Romans 10:9, 10) is not extra-biblical.


----------



## kceaster

Herald said:


> If you will only apply these outward signs when you are sure of the promise, then that is a lack of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Look at Acts 10 and 16. For that matter the Ethiopian eunuch. They believed and were then baptized. Show me one verse in the New Testament where we are told to baptize those who do not believe. It is precisely because confessional Baptists do have faith, faith in the Word of God, that we baptize those who profess to believe.
Click to expand...


Bill, I'm not discounting believer's baptism, we practice it too. What I am discounting is that your whole premise is based upon adult conversions during the beginning of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. You think it normative now, and derive your doctrine from it. But we do not look at the adult conversions as normative of all conversions (with a view to membership). We look to the whole Bible for what is normative. And in the covenant children are included.

So, you're right, we are not given a command anywhere to baptize those who do not believe. But by extension, you automatically baptize SOME believers who are NOT true believers. The disciples did.

And I'm not saying you don't have faith. What I am saying is that you don't have the faith to baptize your children or anyone else you are not sure is a believer. You must see with your own eyes that they believe, otherwise you will not baptize them and member them in your church.

And what do you see? You can only see external things; things we are not to take stock in. How do you know a person is telling you the truth? You don't, and can't see into their heart. So you are exercising faith in their profession, and hope in God that they're being sincere. That is faith. But you don't have the same faith for those who are included in the covenant of God, of whom you believe to be strangers of the covenant. 



> Right after the previous quote you went on a litany about the Abrahamic Covenant. You then conclude that thought with this statement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what does that tell us about faith? Faith adds a soul to church membership on the basis of the promise of God in salvation. The adult souls who come to us and wish to be membered with us, we rejoice in the promise of God for them, and we welcome them as those potential heirs with us in the promise of God. If they should need to be baptized we baptize them. But we are not looking for proof that God has fulfilled His promise in them before we admit them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight. If a stranger walks into your church and wants to be "membered with us", that automatically equates to them having the promise, and you welcome them as fellow heirs of salvation? It doesn't matter whether they profess faith in Jesus Christ, or whether not they have been or desire baptism; so long as they want to be "membered", that is good enough? Forgive me for saying this, but your view sounds more like the United Methodist Church. You would welcome someone into your church who presents not even one iota of being a saint, and then you rejoice with them? I understand your reasons for baptizing infants. I disagree with it, but understand it. For the life of me, I can't understand your willingness to let an adult join your church based on the sole reason that he wants to join.
Click to expand...


I'll give you the questions we ask and then you may determine whether or not we believe that just anyone can come join us.

1. Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation? 
2. Do you confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and humble yourself before God, and that you trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone? 
3. Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord and do you promise, in reliance on the grace of God, to serve him with all that is in you, to forsake the world, to mortify your old nature, and to lead a godly life? 
4. Do you agree to submit in the Lord to the government of this church and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to heed its discipline? 



> Our baptism is supposed to link us to Christ, is it not? What has He left unfulfilled? Can we not rest in His promises? Do we need evidence? Do we need proof? We need only believe in Him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our baptism is a sign that we have ALREADY been linked to Christ, through regeneration. We can rest in the promise that "all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." THAT is the promise we rest in. If you have believed, and view your baptism as a symbol of that belief, fine.
> 
> As far as not needing proof - just believing; how does not play out with a person asking to join the church? Are we supposed to assume they believe just because they come in the door and ask to join. "I suppose they believe. They're here, aren't they?"
Click to expand...


The thing signified is baptism, the sign is the water applied. You cannot see the thing signified, no matter how sure you are. So, how can you base your applying the water in the name of the Trinity upon something you cannot see? At this point, you do have faith, even perhaps unawares. You are applying the sign because you hope in the spiritual reality. But don't look to the profession, or your own confidence that it is genuine. It can only be reality because of the inward work of the Spirit which you cannot see.

How is this not putting confidence in the flesh? You're saying that you must know that regeneration has occurred, yet you cannot know it. You will not apply the sign unless you know that the thing signified has been completed. This is confidence in the flesh. It cannot be confidence in the Spirit, because you have not been given the eyes to peer into the heart to see whether it is of stone or of flesh.



> Kevin, you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't believe the words of someone's mouth, although they do need to speak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that they do need to say that they believe, or not? Guess what? If they do need to say that they believe, do you know what we call that? A profession! Ding! Ding! Ding! I know what it is that you don't believe. I do understand the Presbyterian position. You're not believing the profession, although you want to hear it. You believe the covenant promise. But you do require that adult to say he believes, don't you? Of course you do. But it almost pains you to say that, because it forces you to concede that a profession of faith (Romans 10:9, 10) is not extra-biblical.
Click to expand...


Bill, I am not arguing against profession of faith (see above). These are the questions we ask. Yet we do not have faith in the profession or the professor. We have faith in Christ who knows His sheep. We put no confidence in the flesh. The person could be in tears, weeping over their sin, and bewailing their position before the Lord; could be loud in their pronouncement of their sin, and their confession and repentance. But they could still be false. They could still have a heart of stone.

We baptize these, just as you would. But we do not baptize them with the thinking that we have seen the proof of their regeneration, and so we can admit them in. That is what the OP is about, regenerate church membership. We take their vows before the Lord to be their sincere desire, but we also know that it may not be sincere, in which the Lord now stands against them because of what they have vowed.

We have faith that God will help us shepherd them, but we cannot save them, and they cannot save themselves. We must trust in the promise of God for them, not based upon anything in them, but based upon what God can do.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Herald

> Bill, I'm not discounting believer's baptism, we practice it to.



Kevin, I'm happy to hear you finally say it plainly. I'm not trying to trip you up or attribute something to you that you haven't said. As I told you previously, I'm not playing "gotcha."

if I understand you correctly you require a profession of faith from an adult convert because their situation is much different from that of an infant. You baptize infants on the basis of a promise inherent to covenant families. Paedo baptism does not equal regeneration in your view. I understand that. This is why the premise of this thread is really built on the nature of the New Covenant. I disagree with you that the New Covenant's temporal administration is linked to the Abrahamic Covenant's "seed" promise. I'd even disagree with John Gill on this matter, for I am of the opinion, as are almost all confessional Baptists, that the true seed of Abraham are those that are born again, and that the New Covenant contains only those who are born again. The fact that our finite knowledge does not allow us to know for certain who is truly born again does not take away from the veracity of the New Covenant; either it's substance or application.

I like the questions your church asks of adult converts. I wonder why you would consider those questions permissible but balk at Baptists requiring the same thing. And it is the same thing. Whether in writing or verbally, both are professions of faith. 

Before you respond please keep in mind that there is no misunderstanding on my part of the Presbyterian position. I understand it. I simply disagree with it. 

Blessings.


----------



## Houston E.

armourbearer said:


> The passage in question bases responsibility on privilege, and a specific privilege which non-members do not enjoy.



Ok, this is helpful, but leads me to another question. When you say "non-members" in the above, are you speaking of non-communicant members (which would include non-professing covenant children church members) or are you speaking of non-church members period?

From what I understand, the new covenant community consists of communicant members AND their covenant children even though they have yet to profess....Am I wrong on this??


----------



## kceaster

Herald said:


> Bill, I'm not discounting believer's baptism, we practice it to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin, I'm happy to hear you finally say it plainly. I'm not trying to trip you up or attribute something to you that you haven't said. As I told you previously, I'm not playing "gotcha."
Click to expand...


Sorry it took so long for that to come out, I assumed it was a given.



> if I understand you correctly you require a profession of faith from an adult convert because their situation is much different from that of an infant. You baptize infants on the basis of a promise inherent to covenant families. Paedo baptism does not equal regeneration in your view. I understand that. This is why the premise of this thread is really built on the nature of the New Covenant. I disagree with you that the New Covenant's temporal administration is linked to the Abrahamic Covenant's "seed" promise. I'd even disagree with John Gill on this matter, for I am of the opinion, as are almost all confessional Baptists, that the true seed of Abraham are those that are born again, and that the New Covenant contains only those who are born again. The fact that our finite knowledge does not allow us to know for certain who is truly born again does not take away from the veracity of the New Covenant; either it's substance or application.



I agree as well that only the elect are truly members of the New Covenant, for only true members are united to Christ with whom the covenant is both made and ratified. The WCF says it this way, "Wherefore, those who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by the Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only." WCF 4:6. This clearly states that no one is going to undergo the process of salvation without having been elected and joined to Christ and redeemed by Him.

However, we all know that there are those who, by our accounts, would be to our eyes undergoing the salvation of the Lord. But, if they are not elect, no matter what appearances there are, or evidences, or proofs, they will not be saved and will not be part of Christ in any way. He will say to them, "I never knew you." There are many who would say they know Him, but the important thing, as you well know, is if He knows them. They have all the appearances of being in the New Covenant, yet in the end, they were fooling themselves and everyone else.

So there is, if you will, a manifestation problem. How is the New Covenant manifested in both its temporal state and in its eschatological state? Would you agree that it should be divided thus? I am thinking no, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

And therein lies our disagreement. The Reformed recognize that there are external and internal aspects to the way the covenant and the church are manifested temporally this side of heaven. In this manifestation, not all who are Israel are Israel. There are sheep and goats. The only way to account for sheep and goats in the church is to realize that some are members only externally, and others are members both externally and internally. The sheep know His voice. And it may be inferred and understood, that the goats do not, yet they are part of the visible body of Christ.

I do not see how anyone can escape this reality. And no amount of rationalization and doctrinal manuevering will overcome the simple fact that we cannot know infallibly who the elect are, and that we are not supposed to know. If we were supposed to know, God would have designed that in His church. But He wants us to rely upon Him, not upon birth, not upon works, not upon the flesh in any way. He designed us for faith; belief in what we cannot see.

And because we cannot see, we should include those whom He has included, and exclude those who by way of their life and testimony are enemies of God. Yet there exists a tertium quid. And these are those you want to exclude by the OP, whom you cannot see; and the ones I would include on the basis of their compliance to the law of Christ and the rule of the church.



> I like the questions your church asks of adult converts. I wonder why you would consider those questions permissible but balk at Baptists requiring the same thing. And it is the same thing. Whether in writing or verbally, both are professions of faith.



This is where that anecdotal evidence comes in to play. While it may be agreed upon on paper; in practice, not just in RB churches but probably in all kinds of churches including Presbyterian, those who hold the keys require more than just an affirmative response to the questions. I have heard the words, "we want to see the fruit." If that isn't you, which you said it is not and I believe you, at least know that there are those who say the same thing as you, but in practice want more evidence.

I should say also, that part of my reservation of your practices is because I know that you will not baptize an infant. This COULD mean that although you say you simply want belief, you also want proof of that belief in anyone, not just infants.

These will be my last words for now. Regenerate church membership is a misunderstanding of the covenant of grace. In a sense, all those written in the Lamb's Book of Life are the regenerate church membership. But since we cannot see that book, we must include in the earthly church those who come to her with at least a modicum of religious zeal, who say they have love for Christ and the desire to worship God, and who will submit to the discipline of the church. We will care for them and for their children as long as they are there. And we will hope for their salvation and attempt to spur them on to good works and perfection in the Lord. But in the end, God planted, we watered, and God will harvest. Salvation belongs to the Lord. We must serve Him to His ends appropriately and with humility.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Herald

Kevin,

I won't counter anything you've said. I'm content to allow our convictions to stand on their merits. My main goal was to make sure we undertand each other. I believe our dialog has accomplished some of that.

Blessings.


----------



## MW

Houston E. said:


> Ok, this is helpful, but leads me to another question. When you say "non-members" in the above, are you speaking of non-communicant members (which would include non-professing covenant children church members) or are you speaking of non-church members period?



If the Hebrews 12 passage speaks to the visible covenant community then that equates to all who profess the true faith and their children. So, yes, it includes communicants and catechumens.



Houston E. said:


> From what I understand, the new covenant community consists of communicant members AND their covenant children even though they have yet to profess....Am I wrong on this??



That is correct.


----------



## Houston E.

Thanks Rev. Wizner...this has been most helpful. 

Thanks also Bill for this thread. It has really shed some light on this issue for me.


----------



## Herald

With that I believe this thread has run it's course.


----------

