# Galatians 3:29 and baptism



## Bookworm

I've recently been reading Paul King Jewett's book, 'Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace' and David Kingdon's book, 'Children of Abraham' in order to familiarise myself more thoroughly with the authors' covenantal arguments for believer's baptism (or 'believer baptism' as Jewett would have it). In many ways, Kingdon's book seems to be a popularisation of Jewett's more scholarly treatise.

Both authors concede much to the Paedobaptist position, in terms of the covenantal hermeneutic, the unity of the testaments, and the circumcision-baptism analogy. They basically acknowledge that Abraham's seed are to receive the covenant sign and seal. However, the point at which the authors part company with their Paedobaptist brethren, if I've understood them correctly, is in their identification of 'Abraham's seed'. Citing Galatians 3:29 and other texts, Jewett and Kingdon identify Abraham's seed in the NT with those professing faith in Christ (i.e. true believers). Therefore they conclude that baptism is exclusively for believers in the NT.

However, this leaves me with a question to which I'd appreciate responses from credo- and paedo-baptists on this forum. I understand that the NT seed of Abraham are those that possess genuine saving faith. But I'm left confused as to how can that be an argument for only applying the covenant sign to believers, when the same distinction between the natural and spiritual seed of Abraham was equally true in the OT? As Paul says in Romans 9:6, "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." Yet we know that in the OT the covenant sign was applied to all the male children regardless.

What step in the argument am I missing here?


----------



## rbcbob

> What step in the argument am I missing here?



The change in the New Covenant. In the former covenant membership was by lineage. In the New Covenant membership encompasses "those who know the Lord"

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."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Different Covenants. It comes down to discontinuity and promises of the Covenants. It also has to do with who the Covenant head is. There were promises that were included in the Abrahamic Covenant that included all of his posterity, and other promises that were just meant for the seed and the Covenant of Grace. Ishmael was excluded from that part of the Abrahamic Covenant Promises but there were promises made specifically for him. You can read some things in my blog on the PB. 

The PuritanBoard - PuritanCovenanter

BTW, there are much better books to read besides Jewett. 

Believer's Baptism by Shreiner and Wright
The Baptism of Disciples Alone by Fred Malone
Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ by Nehemiah Coxe
Covenant Children Today by Alan Conner

Blog Engtries.
Is the New Covenant Really New

John Tombe Genesis 17:7

Does Baptism Replace Circumcision


----------



## kceaster

Another interpretation of the 'new' covenant in Jeremiah is that it is a renewed covenant. Notice also with whom that covenant was made. It was to be made with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. Moreover, to whom was this covenant inaugurated? Initially, Jesus says that the cup is the new covenant in His blood. That covenant first came to the disciples of Jesus.

It could then be seen that the 'new' covenant bridges the old with the new, not the old against the new. There is a more sure word and the promises are even better between the old and the new, yet the ones to whom this covenant came were the same children of Abraham, who received not only the lineage of Abraham as Jews, but the faith of Abraham as the Spirit of Christ inaugurates a new outpouring.

But the covenant is made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not to annul the Abrahamic portions, but to include the new spiritual portions as well.

If the covenant had only been made to those of the lineage of Israel and Judah, then the gentiles would have no portion in it. But it is clear that in the renewed covenant with His people, He grafted in wild olive branches to make one olive tree and to expand His covenant to encompass all those who stand afar off.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Peairtach

The New Covenant is a phase of the Abrahamic Covenant, just as was the Old.

When a foreigner came to faith/professed faith in the God of Abraham, not only he was circumcised, but all his males.

In the New Covenant analogies of the Vine and the Olive Tree, there is no indication that only individuals are now to be engrafted in the New Covenant Administration.



> 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."



Certainly if the New Covenant was administered according to Scriptural principles there would be a lot of dead wood removed.


----------



## rbcbob

Richard Tallach said:


> Certainly if the New Covenant was administered according to Scriptural principles there would be a lot of dead wood removed.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Circumcision/baptism is a matter of sanctification, not justification.

The entire nation of Israel was delivered and sanctified; the identifying sign being circumcision, but not all were justified by the grace of God.

This distinction between justification and sanctification applies to both covenants, in my opinion.

N.T. infants are baptised and thereby sanctified under the covenant of grace, but not necessarily (yet?) justified.


----------



## Hamalas

This is going to be a good thread. I can just feel it in my bones!


----------



## Sonoftheday

> However, this leaves me with a question to which I'd appreciate responses from credo- and paedo-baptists on this forum. I understand that the NT seed of Abraham are those that possess genuine saving faith. But I'm left confused as to how can that be an argument for only applying the covenant sign to believers, when the same distinction between the natural and spiritual seed of Abraham was equally true in the OT? As Paul says in Romans 9:6, "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." Yet we know that in the OT the covenant sign was applied to all the male children regardless.
> 
> What step in the argument am I missing here?


Baptists see the sign as to be applied after one enters into the New Covenant. We see the New Covenant as being made up only of regenerate Believers and therefore apply the sacrament of baptism only to those who profess faith in Christ.


----------



## Bookworm

Thanks to everyone for their responses so far. However, I'm still flummoxed,  so please humour me by allowing me to restate the question in a different way.

Kingdon in 'Children of Abraham' seems to argue that because there is in the NT a subset of Abraham's seed that is the 'true seed' (in the sense of sharing Abraham's saving faith), therefore the covenant sign ought to be applied only to them.

But, that was always the case wasn't it? The 'true seed' was only ever a subset of Abraham's offspring, even in the OT. So how does Kingdon get to the therefore in his argument...? (i.e. wouldn't this also have been a reason to apply circumcision in the OT only to the 'true seed', which we know wasn't what God commanded).


----------



## charliejunfan

There are the visible people of God, Professing Christians and their children, and then there are the TRUE people of God within the visible, those who were actually regenerated by Christ. This was the difference between Jacob and Esau, Esau was only visibly elect and Jacob was truly elect.

It is the difference of being in the Covenant of Grace by birth into a Christian home and failing the condition(FAITH in Christ), or fulfilling the condition(FAITH in Christ) of the Covenant of Grace which also proves one a member of the Covenant of Redemption.

Covenant of Works= Adam was to obey the law perfectly, he failed...

Covenant of Grace= kept by obedience to the law perfectly, we do this by faith in Christ who did it for us, for those who are never given faith by the Holy Spirit=they are cursed and judged by their baptism.

Covenant of Redemption= Christ was to obey the law perfectly for the elect and die for them thus fulfilling the Covenant of Works made with Adam in the garden and resulting in the accomplishment of the Covenant of Grace for those elect.

I'm just going to throw this out there until someone wiser and more articulate defends the paedobaptist position.

-----Added 9/15/2009 at 05:52:41 EST-----

"Thanks to everyone for their responses so far. However, I'm still flummoxed, so please humour me by allowing me to restate the question in a different way.

Kingdon in 'Children of Abraham' seems to argue that because there is in the NT a subset of Abraham's seed that is the 'true seed' (in the sense of sharing Abraham's saving faith), therefore the covenant sign ought to be applied only to them.

But, that was always the case wasn't it? The 'true seed' was only ever a subset of Abraham's offspring, even in the OT. So how does Kingdon get to the therefore in his argument...? (i.e. wouldn't this also have been a reason to apply circumcision in the OT only to the 'true seed', which we know wasn't what God commanded)."

The TRUE SEED are the ones who fulfill the condition of the Covenant and that is Faith in Christ(like Abraham had) thus making them a child of Abraham.

Still though the children of believers are IN covenant, but if they do not have faith they do not hold up to the covenant stipulations and are cursed rather than blessed.

You're becoming a Paedobaptist my friend


----------



## MW

Jewett's work is the clearest I have read on the subject from that perspective. His line of attack is simple -- the objectivity of the covenant. By subjectivising the covenant he is able to argue that it only applies to believers. What has he accomplished? (1.) He has followed a dispensational distinctive by discontinuing what was substantial to the covenant under the OT -- objective covenant membership including blessing and curse. If only believers are members of the new covenant there is no place for covenant apostasy and curse. Hence there is a substantial alteration in the covenant as it moves from Old to New Testament. (2.) He has replaced the sign for the thing signified. If baptism is now subjective it really has no objective significance apart from personal possession of the blessings promised. Many of the more recent defenders of antipaedobaptism follow this idea to the point of insanity. The logical conclusion of "true membership" would be that only the elect are to be baptised, but no person can know who the elect are. The only way to relieve this problem is to revert back to an objective criterion for judging who are more likely to be elect. At that point they depart from the biblical criterion and substitute their own in its place.


----------



## Poimen

Bookworm said:


> Thanks to everyone for their responses so far. However, I'm still flummoxed,  so please humour me by allowing me to restate the question in a different way.
> 
> Kingdon in 'Children of Abraham' seems to argue that because there is in the NT a subset of Abraham's seed that is the 'true seed' (in the sense of sharing Abraham's saving faith), therefore the covenant sign ought to be applied only to them.
> 
> But, that was always the case wasn't it? The 'true seed' was only ever a subset of Abraham's offspring, even in the OT. So how does Kingdon get to the therefore in his argument...? (i.e. wouldn't this also have been a reason to apply circumcision in the OT only to the 'true seed', which we know wasn't what God commanded).



Paul:

You are correct. There have always been those who are of Israel and those who are Israel. (Romans 9:6) Paul applies this very principle to the New Testament church in Romans 2:28-29.


----------



## JTB

Credobaptism argues that what was oikonomic (familial) and objective (a sign of promise) under the Abrahamic Covenant has become individual (no longer tied to familial headship) and subjective (a sign of election) under the New Covenant (that is NOT the Abrahamic Covenant).

One of the major reasons why I became paedobaptist was because the Baptist argument for administration upon a subjective declaration smacked of subtle disregard for the purpose of the sign--it isn't testifying about an individual's subjective state of mind, but of the objective work of God toward which we are to look, and hope, and hold fast to with regard to its meaning (a sign of God's promise).


----------



## A.J.

rbcbob said:


> What step in the argument am I missing here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The change in the New Covenant. *In the former covenant membership was by lineage*. In the New Covenant membership encompasses "those who know the Lord"
> 
> 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."
Click to expand...


This is not totally accurate. The institution of circumcision (Gen. 17:9-14) and the stipulations concerning admission to the Passover (Exodus 12:43-48) make it clear the _membership in God's covenant community in the Old Testament was not limited to the physical descendants of the patriarchs_. It was perfectly possible for people who were "not of thy [Abraham's] seed" (Genesis 17:12) to be included among God's people. Indeed, a foreigner who professed faith in the God of Abraham and was consequently circumcised with his household became like "one that is born in the land" (Exodus 12:48).

And as Rev. Winzer has rightly noted, there are blessings and curses in the New Covenant. Texts like John 15:1ff, Romans 11:11ff, 1 Corinthians 10:1ff, Hebrews 3-4, etc. indicate that there are reprobates who are in the covenant outwardly (but not inwardly). In heaven, all will know the Lord from the least of them to the greatest of them. _But we are not in heaven yet_.

-----Added 9/15/2009 at 11:32:26 EST-----



Bookworm said:


> Thanks to everyone for their responses so far. However, I'm still flummoxed,  so please humour me by allowing me to restate the question in a different way.
> 
> Kingdon in 'Children of Abraham' seems to argue that because there is in the NT a subset of Abraham's seed that is the 'true seed' (in the sense of sharing Abraham's saving faith), therefore the covenant sign ought to be applied only to them.
> 
> But, that was always the case wasn't it? The 'true seed' was only ever a subset of Abraham's offspring, even in the OT. So how does Kingdon get to the therefore in his argument...? (i.e. wouldn't this also have been a reason to apply circumcision in the OT only to the 'true seed', which we know wasn't what God commanded).



Brother, you are correct. It has always been the case that the true seed of Abraham are those who are in Christ by grace through faith (Gal. 3:16, 29). In fact, this is the very argument Paul used against the Judaizers.


----------



## Peairtach

There are two phases to the Abrahamic Covenant, the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

During the Old Covenant individuals who had no family were ingrafted, and individuals who had family were ingrafted with their family. It was both individualistic (if you were a bachelor boy) _and_ familial if you had a family. The paedobaptist position follows this pattern.

Baptists are saying that the change that happens with the New Covenant phase of the Abrahamic Covenant is that _part_ of the established form of Covenantal administration ceases, while another part is left. 

I.e. If you have a family, they aren't given the sign of the Covenant, as per the Old Covenant phase.

If you don't have a family, _you_ receive the sign, as per the Old Covenant phase.

An arbitrary change in Covenant administration (?)

On top of that, as Joshua points out, the original Abrahamic Covenant clearly made provision for children to be engrafted along with their parents. The New Covenant is the final phase of the Abrahamic Covenant.


----------



## Spinningplates2

Abraham was to worship the God of promise. By Faith they were to forward. Believers baptism takes away the promise and makes it the response to a work, the act of accepting Christ. This is why so many teach that if a person cannot remember WHEN they where saved then they most likely are still lost. (most recently, Bill Friel and Ray Comfort)

Also, is there a thread where I can read why my Baptist brothers insist that sprinkling and pouring are not to be used in the modern age?


----------



## Bookworm

Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful comments in response to my questions. I've been doing a great deal of reading on the issue of baptism over the last three years, seeking out the best books from both credo- and paedo-baptist perspectives, and things are gradually becoming much clearer to me. I've also appreciated reading the discussions here on PB.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> BTW, there are much better books to read besides Jewett.
> 
> Believer's Baptism by Shreiner and Wright
> The Baptism of Disciples Alone by Fred Malone
> Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ by Nehemiah Coxe
> Covenant Children Today by Alan Conner
> [/URL]



Thanks for these recommendations. I've read Stephen Wellum's chapter from 'Believer's Baptism', but perhaps I should read the whole book. I'm about to order a copy of Conner's book, but Fred Malone's is rather pricey here in the UK (£23.95) so I might need to save my 'pocket money' for that one! Coxe's book was also recommended to me by someone else, so that's another to add to the 'to read' pile...


----------



## louis_jp

Bookworm said:


> Thanks to everyone for their responses so far. However, I'm still flummoxed,  so please humour me by allowing me to restate the question in a different way.
> 
> Kingdon in 'Children of Abraham' seems to argue that because there is in the NT a subset of Abraham's seed that is the 'true seed' (in the sense of sharing Abraham's saving faith), therefore the covenant sign ought to be applied only to them.
> 
> But, that was always the case wasn't it? The 'true seed' was only ever a subset of Abraham's offspring, even in the OT. So how does Kingdon get to the therefore in his argument...? (i.e. wouldn't this also have been a reason to apply circumcision in the OT only to the 'true seed', which we know wasn't what God commanded).



Good question. I've been trying to work through this issue myself. 

If I understand the credo- position correctly (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), I think they would say that baptism relates directly to regeneration in a way that circumcision did not. Circumcision, and the OC with it, had an ethnic-genealogical quality to it (Romans 4:11 notwithstanding); whereas baptism, and the NC, is more purely spiritual. Note, for example -- although I wouldn't make too much of this -- that circumcision is performed on the organ of procreation and only on males, while baptism is performed on all believers and clearly symbolizes washing and purifying. In other words, old covenant boundaries are different from the new. God was dealing with a people-group in the OC; He deals with those washed and regenerated in Christ today. THEREFORE, the new covenant sign is applied only to the true seed, while the old covenant sign was applied to the true seed and to a broader covenantal community. 

Having said all that, I'm a little confused by some of the paedo-answers in this thread. Didn't Calvin say that baptism was applied to infants on the presumption that they were in fact regenerate?


----------



## Peairtach

Apparently circumcision is a sign of cleansing/cleanliness too; the removal of the foreskin with any underlying filth.

Not all paedobaptists agree with Calvin on everything he says on baptism.

The reason that children born into the covenant should be baptised is because they are covenantally holy by being born to believing parents (e.g. I Cor 7:14).

There is no evidence that the Covenant of Grace becomes superspiritual or hyperspiritual in its New Covenant phase.

If this was the case why don't we hear more of it in Scripture, e.g. in connection with the analogies of the Vine and the Olive Tree, and why weren't pastors given the ability to decide infallibly between the saved and the unsaved, instead of stacking the ranks of those baptised as adults with the unspiritual unsaved.


----------



## louis_jp

Richard Tallach said:


> Apparently circumcision is a sign of cleansing/cleanliness too; the removal of the foreskin with any underlying filth.
> 
> Not all paedobaptists agree with Calvin on everything he says on baptism.
> 
> The reason that children born into the covenant should be baptised is because they are covenantally holy by being born to believing parents (e.g. I Cor 7:14).
> 
> There is no evidence that the Covenant of Grace becomes superspiritual or hyperspiritual in its New Covenant phase.
> 
> If this was the case why don't we hear more of it in Scripture, e.g. in connection with the analogies of the Vine and the Olive Tree, and why weren't pastors given the ability to decide infallibly between the saved and the unsaved, instead of stacking the ranks of those baptised as adults with the unspiritual unsaved.



Like I said, I wouldn't make too much of the first point.

1 Corinthians 7 also says that the unbelieving spouse is made holy, but you wouldn't suggest that he be baptized, would you?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

There are several assumptions buried in the question, one of which seems to be that anything predicated of subject A on basis X is likewise predicable of subject B if basis X is likewise present.

This is demonstrably false, logically fallacious. A certain quality may be a prerequisite for one person to be a minister (apt to teach), yet a woman who is "apt to teach" may not properly be a minister, because of Scripture regulations.

So, a holy child (an inherent quality according to the text) may meet a sufficient prerequisite for baptism, whereas a holy spouse (a quality which is invested in the relationship, not in the person, according to the text) may yet not meet that sufficient prerequisite.

1Cor.7 does not speak directly to the question of baptism; all it does is make important statements about individuals and relationships. If a certain apprehensible state of holiness is a proper condition for baptism, then the passage affirms that a child has that status by virtue of his birth--the child "is" holy. It is his own condition.

On the other hand, the passage states that the believing spouse does not contract an unclean state by virtue of his marriage to an unbeliever, but that his holiness sanctifies the marriage bond. The unbeliever enjoys (known or not) a quality of sanctity that is dependent upon maintenance of that bond. If he/she "depart", let him depart. But *unlike the child *he/she does not take any relational sanctification away with him/her. It is NOT the case that he/she "is" holy.

Paul points to the known fact of the child's holiness (none here arguing for regenerative holiness) as proof that the union itself is not polluted. The believer's portion is superior to the unbeliever's contribution, and the evidence is present in the child himself.

The question of whether the spouse should or shouldn't be baptized on the basis of the relationship--just as in the case of the child--has to be determined by a complete theology of baptism, and not on a resort to this text. Not too many people propose such a baptism theologically, and especially not in these days of radical social emancipation. But since the Scriptures themselves speak of such emancipations as real entities (Jn.9:21), we must recognize that there could be such a component in determining the propriety of some baptisms.


----------



## Ron

rbcbob said:


> What step in the argument am I missing here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The change in the New Covenant. In the former covenant membership was by lineage. In the New Covenant membership encompasses "those who know the Lord"
> 
> 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."
Click to expand...


First, I'll try to put forth a lucid argument for infant baptism. Secondly, I'll touch upon the passage above in an effort to show that it may not be used as a principle of abrogation. 

*1.* An Old Covenant precept was that whenever possible the sign of entrance into the covenant was to be placed upon all who were to be regarded as God’s people

*2.* Children of professing believers were to be regarded as God’s people under the Old Covenant

*3.* Children of professing believers whenever possible were to receive the sign of entrance into the Old Covenant by way of precept (1, 2)

*4.* God’s precepts may not be abrogated without explicit instruction or good and necessary inference

*5.* God never abrogated the Old Testament precept regarding who was to receive the sign of entrance into the Old covenant

*6. *The sign of entrance into the New Covenant is water baptism

*7.* God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive the sign of entrance into the New Covenant (3, 4 and 5)

*8.* God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive water baptism (6, 7)

Baptist, of course, will disagree with point 5. They will say that the abrogation of the principle in view is implicit in Jeremiah 31:34: "...they will all know me....”, which they say means that the New Covenant is made only with believers who know the Lord. Accordingly, they reason that we should ensure as best as possible to administer the New Covenant only to those who profess faith in Christ, which infants cannot due. The problem they run into with this line of reasoning is that the verse does not teach that the covenant is only made with those who posses belief! The promise of Jeremiah 31 is a promise of greater fidelity (verse 32), greater empowerment (verse 34), and a greater depth of knowledge (verse 34). It does not address the qualification for covenant entrance. (I’ll address “depth of knowledge” later).

Verse 34 does not speak to the question of with whom the covenant will be established. It merely teaches that those with whom the covenant will be established will indeed “know the Lord.” Before considering what it means to “know the Lord” we must first appreciate that verse does not teach us that the covenant will be made only with true believers after they believe. At the very least, if Baptists were correct, then the knowledge of the Lord would not be a blessing of the covenant but rather something that first must be obtained in order to enter into the covenant! Moreover, the verse cannot possibly exclude infants from covenant entrance who will grow up to “know the Lord” because the verse does not imply a change in qualifications for covenant entrance, but rather it speaks to the increase of blessings that will be received by those with whom God establishes the New Covenant! The verse is not speaking of a new qualification for entering into the covenant; rather it is speaking about something different that will occur under the newer economy as compared to the older economy for those who will be in covenant.

Since the Old Covenant was established with the elect alone, we may safely say that a saving knowledge was granted to all with whom God established the Old Covenant, barring no early deaths that would preclude saving knowledge. Consequently, the verse must be speaking to the quality and depth of that saving knowledge under the newer economy as opposed to the mere possession of it, which all those with whom God established the Old Covenant would have received. Not surprisingly, that is what we see in the New Covenant. Under the New Covenant with the establishment of the priesthood of all believers, through the revelation of Christ, the completed Canon and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit – we all “know the Lord”(!) in a manner vastly different than that under the old economy. In summary, Jeremiah 31 may not be used to defend a more stringent entrance examination for covenant privileges simply because it does not imply anything more than increase of blessings. Thankfully the glory of the New Covenant is not to be found in the exlusion of infants!

Ron


----------



## Iconoclast

Ron- In your post you said this in point 2 


> 2. Children of professing believers were to be regarded as God’s people under the Old Covenant


 All male children were given the sign/ there was no stipulation of a profession. They only had to have physical birth to get the sign. What about all the Israelites who were unbelievers as in Psalm 78?
They gave a "sign of the covenant to their children". Was that sign invalid?
Or was the sign valid because the promise was never given to each and every Israelite in particular, apart from faith being mixed into their heart and life? The covenant was breakable because they vowed to keep the terms of the covenant, and were unable to do so. God preserved a remnant, Isa 1:9 Rom9: 29And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha

-----Added 9/26/2009 at 10:24:45 EST-----

The next point I would respond to is this one,


> 6. The sign of entrance into the New Covenant is water baptism


 No, entrance into the NC. is by new birth/Spirit Baptism.
They believed, many times spoke in tongues showing the new birth, then were subjects of water baptism.



> I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
> 
> 32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers



New/ Not according to the covenant.... your 8 point summary is off.
7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 

8For finding fault with them,


----------



## Brian Withnell

armourbearer said:


> The logical conclusion of "true membership" would be that only the elect are to be baptised, but no person can know who the elect are. The only way to relieve this problem is to revert back to an objective criterion for judging who are more likely to be elect. At that point they depart from the biblical criterion and substitute their own in its place.





If the argument were taken to the logical conclusion, we would leave baptism for only those in glory, as we could never be absolutely positive of the salvation of anyone this side of glory.

-----Added 9/27/2009 at 01:16:01 EST-----



rbcbob said:


> The change in the New Covenant. In the former covenant membership was by lineage. In the New Covenant membership encompasses "those who know the Lord"
> 
> 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." [/SIZE]



While I can understand why the church under age and the church now might be looked at as differing covenants, I do not believe this is totally accurate. While part of the promise of Jeremiah passage is realized, it certainly isn't fully realized in this age; we still teach each other, and we say to each other "Know the Lord". The fulfillment of this is not in this age, but only in the age to come. The corruption that remains, and our lack of perfected knowledge will have us teaching each other, telling each other (and our neighbors) of the Lord and his grace. So I would think this speaks to both those that are credo only and those that see baptism as a continuation of the covenant sign (and so rightly applied to both adult believers who have not been previously baptized and the children of believers) not of anything in this age, but only of the state of glory when all our neighbors will be in Christ.


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from Anthony*


> The next point I would respond to is this one,
> 
> Quote:
> 6. The sign of entrance into the New Covenant is water baptism
> 
> No, entrance into the NC. is by new birth/Spirit Baptism.
> They believed, many times spoke in tongues showing the new birth, then were subjects of water baptism.



There are two aspects to the Covenant:-

(a) An internal, living, loving faith. Spiritual baptism/regeneration/washing in the blood.

(b) An external, formal, legal sign or bond. Water baptism.

We see this clearly in the covenant of marriage.

(a) The internal reality of love for one's spouse may happen long before the formal love-bond of marriage or it may happen after.

(b) The marriage ceremony is the outward, formal, legal bond and sign.

In a sense people are really and savingly in Covenant with God if they believe before they are baptised. They won't lose out on salvation if they don't get baptised, but they will disobey God and lose out on the priviledges, responsibilities and promises for those who enter fully into the bond of the Covenant with God by baptism.

Born-again people who refuse the sacraments of baptism the Lord's Supper are like lovers that refuse betrothal and marriage to Christ.

Those that refuse baptism for their children are refusing to betroth their children to Christ. The ceremony and mark of such betrothal is water baptism. 

If Abraham - having faith, and therefore being in that sense in Covenant with God - had refused to be circumcised with his sons, Abraham would have been saved; but what else would have been lost by his refusal to enter the love-bond of the Covenant?


----------



## Iconoclast

Ron said:


> Dear Anthony,
> 
> Your response to premise 2 doesn’t seem to address the premise. The premise is that all children of professing believers were to be regarded (i.e. treated) as believers (until they demonstrated something in doctrine or lifestyle incongruous to a true child of God). Nothing you said comes close to interacting with the premise.
> 
> Regarding your response to point 6, spirit birth is not a sign. Signs are visible - like circumcision.
> 
> In His grace,
> 
> Ron



Ron, Thanks for your response , however it seems as if you did not understand my post. I will clarify it for you. I completely and directly interacted with your premise in that your premise is not accurate at all.
You just said this;


> The premise is that all children of professing believers were to be regarded (i.e. treated) as believers


 All male children were given the sign of circumcision. *not all children of professing believers* Physical birth was all that was required for them to receive the sign. So your first three premises are already not accurate.

Then you put forth premise 4


> 4. God’s precepts may not be abrogated without explicit instruction or good and necessary inference


 Acts 15 answers that question.
24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
In Acts 21 this was clearly understood;


> 21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.


 This speaks to your premise number 5.

Then you offer premise 6;


> 6. The sign of entrance into the New Covenant is water baptism


 The bible does not offer this. It does not say "water baptism " is a replacement sign. They did not say it in Acts 15, or Acts 21. Your theological system says it, but the bible does not.
Again you misunderstood my response to premise 6. I did not use the language of *"sign"* Here is what I actually wrote-


> No, entrance into the NC. is by new birth/Spirit Baptism.
> They believed, many times spoke in tongues showing the new birth, then were subjects of water baptism



Ron, I understand that you do not support the credo view. Your view is that we are identical to the OT saints with a few improvements. You have to come up with an explanation to explain away the newness of the covenant.


> 9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers


 Your view says it is just like that covenant ,with a new sign although the Nt does not quite confirm this ascertion.

You then state this;


> At the very least, if Baptists were correct, then the knowledge of the Lord would not be a blessing of the covenant but rather something that first must be obtained in order to enter into the covenant!



Ron in the baptist view God makes himself known to us at new birth-


> 2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
> 
> 3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.





> 45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.





> 12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
> 
> 13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


 These three passages in Jn 17,6, and 1 are clear in this to a baptist.
Being in the covenant is the work of God. We cannot, or do not exclude anyone, we just wait until the Spirit does the work of regeneration and works in the life of the person. We look to their profession as we cannot see their heart. That is what the Apostles did.
You and I might not be in agreement here, as a matter of fact I am confident that we are not. I did however react very directly with your post


----------



## Ron

"_All male children were given the sign of circumcision. *not all children of professing believers* Physical birth was all that was required for them to receive the sign. So your first three premises are already not accurate._"

Anthony,

A non-professing person was not to have his male child circumcised, for such a head of household had either broken covenant or was a complete stranger to the covenant. Accordingly, the first three premises stand without any legitimate refutation. 

"_Then you put forth premise 4 - Acts 15 answers that question.
24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:"_

Premise 4 is: “God’s precepts may not be abrogated without explicit instruction or good and necessary inference.” Accordingly, in order to refute premise 4, you must argue that God’s precepts may be abrogated without explicit instruction or good and necessary inference. Do you really want to go there? Such an argument would obviously be absurd. For if it was true that God’s precepts could be abrogated without his instruction then the entire Christian faith could be abrogated on a whim. Consequently, you have not begun to interact with premise 4. For the life of me I cannot see why any Christian would argue against that premise. 

"_In Acts 21 this was clearly understood; This speaks to your premise number 5._"

That is unintelligible. Accordingly, we may not say that you have interacted with premise 5. 

"_Then you offer premise 6;
The bible does not offer this. It does not say "water baptism " is a replacement sign. They did not say it in Acts 15, or Acts 21._"

Baptist theology recognizes baptism as the sign of entrance into the new covenant. That’s why they withhold the sign from infants!They consider infants as non-participants in the covenant and they reserve baptism for those they believe are to be regarded as the children of God, namely professing believers only. Accordingly, your argument does not interact with the premise 6 - not to mention that you are speaking contrary to Baptist theology.

I'm afraid that the rest of your post seems to be more of a short sermon than an argument. So, I've opted not to interact with that portion. 

Anthony, I would suggest that you run your thoughts by a Reformed Baptist who is acquainted with these things because much of what you are saying is not true to the tradition you believe you are upholding. 

Unworthy but His,

Ron


----------



## Iconoclast

Ron said:


> "_All male children were given the sign of circumcision. *not all children of professing believers* Physical birth was all that was required for them to receive the sign. So your first three premises are already not accurate._"
> 
> Anthony,
> 
> A non-professing person was not to have his male child circumcised, for such a head of household had either broken covenant or was a complete stranger to the covenant. Accordingly, the first three premises stand without any legitimate refutation.
> 
> "_Then you put forth premise 4 - Acts 15 answers that question.
> 24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:"_
> 
> Premise 4 is: “God’s precepts may not be abrogated without explicit instruction or good and necessary inference.” Accordingly, in order to refute premise 4, you must argue that God’s precepts may be abrogated without explicit instruction or good and necessary inference. Do you really want to go there? Such an argument would obviously be absurd. For if it was true that God’s precepts could be abrogated without his instruction then the entire Christian faith could be abrogated on a whim. Consequently, you have not begun to interact with premise 4. For the life of me I cannot see why any Christian would argue against that premise.
> 
> "_In Acts 21 this was clearly understood; This speaks to your premise number 5._"
> 
> That is unintelligible. Accordingly, we may not say that you have interacted with premise 5.
> 
> "_Then you offer premise 6;
> The bible does not offer this. It does not say "water baptism " is a replacement sign. They did not say it in Acts 15, or Acts 21._"
> 
> Baptist theology recognizes baptism as the sign of entrance into the new covenant. That’s why they withhold the sign from infants!They consider infants as non-participants in the covenant and they reserve baptism for those they believe are to be regarded as the children of God, namely professing believers only. Accordingly, your argument does not interact with the premise 6 - not to mention that you are speaking contrary to Baptist theology.
> 
> I'm afraid that the rest of your post seems to be more of a short sermon than an argument. So, I've opted not to interact with that portion.
> 
> Anthony, I would suggest that you run your thoughts by a Reformed Baptist who is acquainted with these things because much of what you are saying is not true to the tradition you believe you are upholding.
> 
> Unworthy but His,
> 
> Ron



Ron,
Thanks again for your response. Again it is clear to me that we are not communicating very well. Sorry I could not be more helpful to you.
For you to say that Acts 15 and Acts 21 do not teach that circumcision was abrogated and that i did not interact with it is instructive to me.
No replacement sign was mentioned in those verses or anywhere else. It is not as you say


> That is unintelligible. Accordingly, we may not say that you have interacted with premise 5.


 You just do not accept it, would be more accurate.
Once again you are wrong when you state this-


> Baptist theology recognizes baptism as the sign of entrance into the new covenant.


 This statement indicates to me that you do not really understand the baptist position. You are mixing your view of water baptism as a replacement sign/and having a breakable NC., which baptists do not hold to.
Not at all. Baptists see water baptism as an outward sign and proper confession of an inward reality that has already come to pass,ie being born again. The person being baptized has already been placed in saving union with Christ by the Spirit.[*Spirit Baptism is the entrance and seal.Eph 1:13* I was clear on that ,you do not believe it that way so you say it is,unclear or whatever. I am okay with you believing what you do and do not suggest that you are unintelligable, because I have not come to the same conclusion you do.
I see the logic of your position, and have come to understand what you think and infer is contained in scripture.
I just read the verses and try not to explain them away. 
In Acts 21 when the Jews say christians are teaching no more circumcision I just believe they understood very clearly that a New Covenant is in place. They did not comment and say Paul taught baptism as a replacement sign.
No mention is made of a replacement sign. None at all. Not in Acts 15, Not in Acts 21, Not in Galatians.
As far as offering a short sermon that you did not interact with that is your choice to see it that way. I will stand by the verses I offered and the teaching contained in them.
Ron if you think about it you cannot see what I am saying or you would be a Reformed Baptist. There is a clear difference in how each side views the covenant of grace in the old and new covenant. You are not looking for any answer here as you believe you have come to truth.I get that Ron.
Thanks for taking some time to partially interact, but I think we would do better to speak face to face with open bibles as I would like to press you on some of your statements about Ot profession/ the condition of the apostates and their children in Psalm 78 which you did not really address.
Maybe in the providence of God I will get to visit you and see if we can come to a better understanding


----------



## Ron

Anthony,

All thinking Christians consider baptism as the sign of entance into the visibile church. Added to that, the visible church is what all thinking Christians regard as the people of God. The inward reality of what baptism contemplates is not a sign of the covenant, which again all thinking Christians appreciate. Maybe start here, was circumcision a sign? 

Ron


----------



## Iconoclast

Ron said:


> Anthony,
> 
> Added to that, the visible church is what all thinking Christians regard as the people of God.
> 
> 
> Ron
> Thinking christians view the elect that Jesus died for as the church, His body, The Sheep, The people of God.No more no less. Not all who visibly assemble are those "called out" or as members in particular. No new birth , no heaven. Thinking christians understand that some who assemble have placed themselves among the people of God by their own will, the will of the parents, or any other fleshly reason. These are not "the people of God"
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe start here, was circumcision a sign?
> 
> 
> 
> It was.
Click to expand...


----------



## JTB

iconoclast said:


> Baptists see water baptism as an outward sign and proper confession of an inward reality that has already come to pass,ie being born again.



Which is only different from circumcision in the expectation of the inward reality coming to pass. Both depend upon a promise rather than a knowledge of the reality. Paedobaptism rests upon promises evidenced in the OT. Credobaptism depends upon a promise made according the individual's confession of the truth. Whereas Paedobaptism accepts both promises as valid, the Baptist denies the former on a basis you have not proven.

The point being: circumcision and baptism are both outward signs of an expected inward reality. That this inward reality has or has not come to pass is beyond the knowledge of those called upon to judge. The judge can only believe or disbelieve the profession (of adults) or the promise (to covenant children). There is no greater warrant for the former than the latter.



iconoclast said:


> The person being baptized has already been placed in saving union with Christ by the Spirit



Except when it is a false profession, in which case the outward sign is not of an inward reality at all. So how then is baptism an outward sign of an inward reality when the inward reality does not exist? What function does baptism have that distinguishes it from circumcision, which was also given to those not known, but expected, to be in the covenant?

An outward sign is just that, an outward sign. No one but the individual and God can know the inward reality, and what one expresses does not always communicate what one knows; and what one professes to know is not always true--no different from the infant who cannot express and does not yet know.


----------



## Ron

"_Thinking christians view the elect that Jesus died for as the church, His body, The Sheep, The people of God.No more no less."_

Anthony,

No more, no less? There can be people living on earth for whom Christ died that are currently sacrificing pigs on alters to appease wooden idols. Are they to be regarded as the people of God prior to their conversion? I think not. That you would define the people of God in such a way, especially in a discussion that is aimed at defining not the elect of God but rather those who are to be regarded as children in covenant with God, is unfortunate indeed. 

“_No new birth , no heaven. _”

Yup, but that doesn’t advance your argument; nor does it get close to addressing the proof that awaits a critical response. We’re to be discussing who the elders should allow to be baptized. 

Both Presbyterians and Baptists would recommend for baptism a hypocrite adult, who had never been baptized, inwardly denied the faith but professed orthodoxy and lived a life that was consistent with that of a Christian witness. Accordingly, your Baptist theology requires that some unsaved men, who qualify in outward affirmation and life, be admitted to baptism by the elders. It would be the responsibility of the elders to admit such a one to baptism. God would have it no other way _where the elders are concerned!_ The question we were to have been dealing with is who are the elders responsible to admit to baptism, and it is without question that even Baptist pastors are before God to baptize some who are unbelievers. It’s not a question of inward grace but of what God requires of the elders. *So, just like with the adult hypocrite who the Baptist pastor is to baptize by God’s precept - the only question at this point is not whether the infant of a professing believer is elect or even regenerated, but whether it is to be regarded as a heritage of the Lord and, therefore, to be baptized*. The OT precept was that infants of professing believers were to be regarded as part of the people of God. I have yet to find a Baptist put forth a series of justifiable premises with a valid form that would lead to the conclusion that the New Covenant requires that this OT principle be abrogated and that professing believers are to regard their children as now outside the visible people of God. 

Anthony, if you don’t mind, I’m going to bow out of this discussion. I am fully persuaded that if God would be pleased to do so, he could use what I’ve written to persuade you of what I believe you are missing for some reason that is not available for me to know.

Warmly yours,

Ron


----------



## Iconoclast

JTB said:


> iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baptists see water baptism as an outward sign and proper confession of an inward reality that has already come to pass,ie being born again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is only different from circumcision in the expectation of the inward reality coming to pass. Both depend upon a promise rather than a knowledge of the reality. Paedobaptism rests upon promises evidenced in the OT. Credobaptism depends upon a promise made according the individual's confession of the truth. Whereas Paedobaptism accepts both promises as valid, the Baptist denies the former on a basis you have not proven.
> 
> The point being: circumcision and baptism are both outward signs of an expected inward reality. That this inward reality has or has not come to pass is beyond the knowledge of those called upon to judge. The judge can only believe or disbelieve the profession (of adults) or the promise (to covenant children). There is no greater warrant for the former than the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> The person being baptized has already been placed in saving union with Christ by the Spirit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except when it is a false profession, in which case the outward sign is not of an inward reality at all. So how then is baptism an outward sign of an inward reality when the inward reality does not exist? What function does baptism have that distinguishes it from circumcision, which was also given to those not known, but expected, to be in the covenant?
> 
> An outward sign is just that, an outward sign. No one but the individual and God can know the inward reality, and what one expresses does not always communicate what one knows; and what one professes to know is not always true--no different from the infant who cannot express and does not yet know.
Click to expand...


Hello JTB.
I would like to respond to your post. You said this;


> Both depend upon a promise rather than a knowledge of the reality.


 JTB- When a believer is baptized he is saying that he knows God has done a saving work in his life. He confesses openly and publickly that he is a sinner that God has been merciful too, in granting him repentance and faith.
You say that both depend upon a promise. God's covenant promise is sure for all of the elect. The perfect work of our Lord was completely effectually.
The objective truth of the full atonement that has been accomplished is wonderful.
The padeo who believes he is following the teaching of scripture has this promise in mind when he sprinkles his child,as he views it as an entrance into the covenant. Prayerfully they seek to instruct the children about God's truth.
The credo desires the same thing for his child but does not so much see water baptism as the entrance into the covenant. He sees the promise of Christ and his saving work extended in the gospel.
He looks forward to the day when the Spirit of God works that grace in his child. Instead of looking to say the child is in an [ outward, external,administration of the covenant] and needs to work to "improve his baptism" he goes about the work of being faithful to instruct his child from the scriptures. He instructs his child about God, the fall and salvation.
We do not include or exclude our child in the covenant but leave that where it belongs which is in God's hands.
It never has appeared to me that any of my children were saved from the womb . We saw evidence of the sin nature with all of them. Take a turn doing nursery duty at your local assembly and I suspect you will see the same thing. We do our part and wait upon the Lord for salvation to be granted to each child in particular. We know the God of all the earth will do right and rest in that as part of the promise.
When salvation does come- there is a knowledge of the reality however.
JTB do you know you are saved by the grace of God? or are you waiting for a future day when the promise is a reality?

you then said this;


> Credobaptism depends upon a promise made according the individual's confession of the truth.


 I do not see it this way, that it is *a promise made according to the individuals confession*
The profession made , the confessing of Christ comes from the reality of the work of God. Not according to the individual person.

The next question is an important question,you ask;


> Except when it is a false profession, in which case the outward sign is not of an inward reality at all. So how then is baptism an outward sign of an inward reality when the inward reality does not exist?



A false profession is a tragedy. The baptism of a false professor, a hypocrite, a deceived individual is sad. The scripture speaks to this reality in several places.


> 15Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
> 
> 16They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.


The fact that the scripture speaks of such persons and gives examples,Simon in Acts 8, Demas, Alexander the coppersmith,etc just goes to show that we are to faithful to follow God and leave the results to Him.
A false baptism is unbelievers baptism. Getting wet does not save. A wet goat is a wet goat. That does not mean we should not perform credo baptism does it? When an assembly of believers assembles, if some goats dress up as sheep/ it does not negate the fact that believers have assembled for worship! the letters to the seven churches makes it clear.
In Ezekiel 9 believers where marked with a mark that when the judgment came, they would be spared by the angels. In REv.14 believers are given the Fathers mark in the same way. We can be fooled here, but tares and goats will not slip by having been disguised as sheep when judgment begins at the house of God.
The church of Hebrews 12 :22-24 has not fully assembled yet, but in that day it will be pure. 
Next you offer this


> The point being: circumcision and baptism are both outward signs of an expected inward reality.


 In your view yes.
In my view circumciscion was, ie, looking forward/ baptism looks back toan *actual real condition*.

next was this;


> That this inward reality has or has not come to pass is beyond the knowledge of those called upon to judge. The judge can only believe or disbelieve the profession (of adults) or the promise (to covenant children). There is no greater warrant for the former than the latter.


 If someone tells me who and what they believe and confesses Christ is Lord I think that has greater warrant than sprinkling the sleeping, or crying infant.

The objective promise of Jesus saving sinners does not help anyone unless it is applied by saving faith to an actual person. 

So when you say this;


> An outward sign is just that, an outward sign. No one but the individual and God can know the inward reality, and what one expresses does not always communicate what one knows; and what one professes to know is not always true--no different from the infant who cannot express and does not yet know.


[/QUOTE]
I see a big difference as I have previously explained. It is much different than an infant who does not know. 1st jn says we can know. I believe that.

-----Added 9/28/2009 at 11:38:43 EST-----

Ron, Again thanks for your responses , you have tried to help me in my understanding of these things. I am not sure I am making myself clear to you however, but lets see if in my travels I can discuss these things with you on a Lord's Day.


----------



## Ron

_"Ron, Again thanks for your responses , you have tried to help me in my understanding of these things. I am not sure I am making myself clear to you however, but lets see if in my travels I can discuss these things with you on a Lord's Day." _

Sure thing my brother.

Ron


----------



## JTB

Iconoclast,

I'm going to deal with a few specific and important conclusions you draw in the hope that you see your own inconsistency.



Iconoclast said:


> When a believer is baptized he is saying that he knows God has done a saving work in his life. He confesses openly and publickly that he is a sinner that God has been merciful too, in granting him repentance and faith.
> You say that both depend upon a promise. God's covenant promise is sure for all of the elect. The perfect work of our Lord was completely effectually.



The point isn't whether or not a professing individual knows, but what the elders affirm. The elders who determine a credible profession can have no knowledge of any individual's elect status. Therefore, they cannot base their decision to administer baptism on the knowledge that a person is indeed elect. Baptism, as a sign administered by the leaders of the church upon an adult, is not based upon their knowledge of that adult's election. It is based upon their belief in two things: 1) the credible profession of the individual, and 2) the commandment to baptize according to the Covenant.



iconoclast said:


> You say that both depend upon a promise. God's covenant promise is sure for all of the elect. The perfect work of our Lord was completely effectually.
> The objective truth of the full atonement that has been accomplished is wonderful.



This is irrelevant. If baptism were based only upon the objective work of Christ, then all people everywhere ought to be baptized. There are qualifications, as you well recognize. You say election is a qualification, but an elder who must administer the sacrament cannot know any but his own election. Does he then baptize in ignorance? No, he must baptize upon the nature of the sign: an outward sign of an expressed promise. For infants, the promise is based upon OT promises of God. For adults, the promise is based upon their declaration of assent to promises God has made in Scripture. Both are grounded in Scripture, but the latter requires a subjective (not an objective) element---not a certainty or a knowledge about election by those who must judge.



iconoclast said:


> We do not include or exclude our child in the covenant but leave that where it belongs which is in God's hands.



One is either in covenant, or one is not. There is no middle ground or half-way status. The reality is that most baptists treat their children as part of the covenant (praise God!), but think of them as excluded from it (more is the shame!).



Iconoclast said:


> When salvation does come- there is a knowledge of the reality however.
> JTB do you know you are saved by the grace of God? or are you waiting for a future day when the promise is a reality?



Of course _I_ know that God has saved me, but no other man or woman can, and unless I am authorized to baptize myself (which I am not), then the one who baptized me does not know that I am elect. He only knows that I have a credible profession of belief. When the minister baptized me, he hoped upon God's promise to keep those who are His, and since I professed to be His, the minister faithfully administered the sign upon me. Our children are given promises that you have not demonstrated to be abrogated. The baptists denies what is known (the promise to children), and affirms what cannot be known (the election of another person)



iconoclast said:


> I do not see it this way, that it is a promise made according to the individuals confession
> The profession made , the confessing of Christ comes from the reality of the work of God. Not according to the individual person.



Whether you see it that way or not, it is inescapable. You can never _know_ (though you may believe with reasonable warrant) whether or not the confession is true, or based upon ignorance or deception. How can an inward reality exist where it does not exist in the case of the baptism of an unbeliever who falsely professes? If baptism is ONLY a sign of an inward reality, it can NEVER be administered upon those who ultimately deny Christ. To do so is to undermine entirely your definition of the sign.



iconoclast said:


> In my view circumciscion was, ie, looking forward/ baptism looks back toan actual real condition.



Is it an actual real condition when the profession is false? Of course not! Yet you treat it the same, you administer the sign in the same way, and you believe the same. 



iconoclast said:


> A false baptism is unbelievers baptism. Getting wet does not save. A wet goat is a wet goat. That does not mean we should not perform credo baptism does it?



A perfect tuquoque: "A false baptism is unbelievers baptism. Getting wet does not save. A wet goat is a wet goat. That does not mean we should not perform paedo baptism does it?" Your logic is no different from a paedo's on this point, yet you fail to see the inconsistency you persist in regarding the Scriptures.



Iconoclast said:


> If someone tells me who and what they believe and confesses Christ is Lord I think that has greater warrant than sprinkling the sleeping, or crying infant.
> 
> The objective promise of Jesus saving sinners does not help anyone unless it is applied by saving faith to an actual person.



It doesn't matter what you think has greater warrant. It matter what actually has warrant. Scripture provides the warrant for both. Saving faith is not made a reality on the basis of its expression, but rather its expression is evidence of that reality. Sometimes evidences can be false. John the Baptist leapt in the womb. David was known by God election prior to his birth. Joseph was destined prior to even being conceived. We have great evidence that David and Joseph exhibited a sinful nature, even long after they were professors of God.

Let the little children come, for such is the kingdom of heaven. Children are a heritage from the LORD. This promise is to you, and to your children, and to all who are far off. God's faithfulness endures to the thousandth generation. Thousandth generation of what, if not faithful believers?

To summarize:

1) Baptism cannot be a sign of an inward reality, for the inward reality does not exist in every administration of the sign, therefore the sign can be false, which nullifies it as a sign. I don't think a baptist will argue that they administer false signs, for that would destroy the entire purpose of the sign to mark out something true.

2) Baptism, not being a sign of an inward reality, must be the sign of an objective status. An infant born into a believing home and a professing adult both have a claim to the promises of God. That claim is the objective standard by which baptism is to be administered truly.

3) Whereas the individual may know himself elect by the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, that knowledge cannot be transferred into the mind of another. Therefore, the ministers who administer baptism do not know the inward reality of a person's status, be they elect or reprobate, regardless of their outward profession.

I haven't been as concise as I should,

~Joshua


----------



## Iconoclast

Hello JTB,
I enjoyed your last post and would like the opportunity to investigate where the inconsistencies might be.
Part of the difference obviously is we are viewing it from two different perspectives. Your sacremental view of the ordinance does not need much participation on the part of the person being baptized.
You correctly state that the elder performing a baptism cannot know a persons heart. We agree on this.
you said this;


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by iconoclast
> We do not include or exclude our child in the covenant but leave that where it belongs which is in God's hands.
> 
> One is either in covenant, or one is not. There is no middle ground or half-way status. The reality is that most baptists treat their children as part of the covenant (praise God!), but think of them as excluded from it (more is the shame!).


 Joshua, we do not believe in a breakable new covenant. That is part of the newness of the NC. You believe the NC is identical to the old,ie,breakable.
I do not believe this is the biblical case.
For someone to be actually and really *In Christ* they are one of the elect, Jn 6:37-44 Jn 10:27-30. We do not believe there is as you say a middle ground at all. Much to the contrary it is your view of the outward administration, visible /invisble distinction that holds this forth.
You can say your child is a covenant child-although it might not be a saving covenant relationship?
You are correct in saying most baptists treat their children as if they were in the covenant, sure because we cannot see the heart. But then you say we think of them as excluded..... No, not at all. We think of them as sinners who need the mercy and salvation of God. We think of them in biblical terms,Romans 5, 1 Cor 15:22.
We see the promises of God as you do but we interpret the data somewhat differently. The promise to OC. families did not profit many of them as for example those described in Psalm 78. 
The book of Hebrews warns of this ,as well as 1 Cor10


> 1Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.
> 
> 2For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it


 The promise did not profit them, they came short of it, not being mixed with faith.
So it is not that we think of them as excluded, but we urge them to lay hold of the promises. We instruct them in this and look for evidence that God has regenerated them. A baptist parent does not rest well until he sees his lambs safely folded. I suspect you are the same,looking for "an improvement of your childs baptism" a credible profession ,just the same as I would.

With my view of the COG to be in the covenant is to be saved as in Jn 10

you are not in, until you are regenerated and that salvation cannot be lost.
You are reading my post with your understanding of the COG so you see it as inconsistent.
What I find interesting Joshua is that when we speak with sinners about gospel truth we explain 1Cor 2:14;


> 14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


 Yet it seems to me,and I hope I am mistaken in this when I hear the covenat child teaching that you look at your child *as if* they can be believers without the Spirit indwelling them, that they can mortify sin, understand the word effectually,pray. Ironically I find this an inconsistency as when questioned every faithful padeo will deny that they believe the christian life can be lived without the indwelling Spirit.

Baptism is administered upon profession , not upon perfect knowledge which i have already posted.

you said the following;


> A perfect tuquoque: "A false baptism is unbelievers baptism. Getting wet does not save. A wet goat is a wet goat. That does not mean we should not perform paedo baptism does it?" Your logic is no different from a paedo's on this point, yet you fail to see the inconsistency you persist in regarding the Scriptures.


 The difference here is you are sort of taking what I said but only part of it. I was addressing the issue of false professions/versus true. We baptize upon believing profession of spiritual birth. You baptize upon no profession,just physical birth.

next you said;


> Is it an actual real condition when the profession is false? Of course not! Yet you treat it the same, you administer the sign in the same way, and you believe the same.


We obey the scripture in reference to believers baptism.Time and the devil will tell if the profession holds up.If it is false church discipline comes into play. sometimes it is not sorted out till the white throne judgment.

Now to your summary;


> 1) Baptism cannot be a sign of an inward reality, for the inward reality does not exist in every administration of the sign, therefore the sign can be false, which nullifies it as a sign. I don't think a baptist will argue that they administer false signs, for that would destroy the entire purpose of the sign to mark out something true.


This does not follow at all. I am not sure you said what you were trying to here Joshua.
baptism * cannot *be a sign of an inward reality??? it was with the eunuch in Acts 8, and most all the baptisms recorded. Because false professors come along does not negate the truth of believers baptism.
a false pastor does not negate the true, a false church does not negate the reality of the true!
A baptist will not knowingly baptize a sinner who does not believe.
Believers baptism is an open and public profession of faith in obediance to the command of Jesus.
nextyou say;


> 2) Baptism, not being a sign of an inward reality


 I do not agree with you here, its just the nature of it.


----------



## Ron

"_Our children are given promises that you have not demonstrated to be abrogated. _"

Joshua,

We must be clear that the promises are to the elect alone - "I will be your God and you will be my people." In other words, the promise is made to _the children of the promise. _

*Covenant Theology and Baptism in a nutshell:*

Immediately after the fall of man God promised that he would inflict a deep seated hatred between the seed of the woman and the seed of Satan. That promise, which would come to fruition being a _promise_(!), included the good news that the seed of the woman would crush the serpent’s head(Genesis 3:15). Then the Lord of the covenant covered with skins the two who were naked and ashamed(Genesis 3:21).

God later expanded upon his promise with respect to the seed, saying that he would establish his covenant between himself and Abraham; but not only would God establish his covenant promise with Abraham, he would also establish it with Abraham’s seed after him. This promise that was made to Abraham and his seed was that God would be a God to them and that they would occupy the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession (Genesis 17:7, 8). In response to the promise of God, which was one of redemption of a people and land for them to occupy, Abraham pleaded that his son Ishmael might live before God in faithfulness. (Genesis 3:18) God refused Abraham’s request, saying “as for Ishmael, I have heard thee… *but my covenant will I establish with Isaac*” not Ishmael (Genesis 17: 20, 21).

God’s promise of redemption of the seed would come to fruition; yet it did not apply to all of Abraham’s physical descendents. In fact, it even applied to those who were not of physical descent. Notwithstanding, all those who were of the household of Abraham were to receive the sign and seal of the covenant, *as if they themselves were partakers of the promise of God*. Even more, those within a professing household who did not receive the sign and seal of the covenant were to be considered outside the people of God and covenant breakers. In other words, infants who did not receive the sign of the covenant due to a parent’s spiritual neglect were to be considered lost and, therefore, under the dominion of Satan (Genesis 17:13, 14). This sign of the covenant was so closely related to the covenant that it was actually called the covenant by the Lord (Genesis 17:10). Consequently, those who had received the sign were to be _considered_ in covenant with God; whereas those who had not received the sign yet qualified to receive it were to be treated as covenant breakers. We might say that the invisible church was to be found within the visible church, "out of which there was no ordinary way of salvation" (Acts 2:47b; WCF 25.2).

When we come to Galatians 3 we learn something quite astounding. The promise was made to a single Seed, who is the Christ; and it is by spiritual union with him, pictured in the outward administration of baptism, that the promise extends to the elect (in Christ). “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. _He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ…For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ… And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”_ (Galatians 3:16, 26-29) The apostle in no uncertain terms teaches that the covenant promise is established with the God-man - the incarnate Christ, and by covenantal extension with all who would be truly, _by the Spirit_, buried and raised with him in baptism.

Although God’s covenant was _established_ from the outset with the elect in Christ, it was to be _administered_ to all who professed the true religion along with their households. The theological distinction of the visible and invisible church was well in view, even at the time of Abraham. Although this was the theology of the Covenant, the apostle still had to labor the point to the New Testament saints at Rome. After telling his hearers that nothing could separate God’s people from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:39), the apostle had to explain why the people of God, to whom the promises pertained, had fallen away from the faith. How, in other words, could the people of God become apostate if the promise of redemption would come to fruition? With his pedagogical background in place, the apostle explained the timeless Old Testament _Covenant_ Theology, which is that although God established his covenant with the elect in Christ, it was to be administered to those who were reprobate as long as they were of the household of a professing believer. Consequently, it is not hard to imagine that they are not all true Israel who are from external Israel (Romans 9:6); and that all the New Testament church is not the true church. “That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Romans 9:8).

With respect to the promise of the land of Canaan, it too was a _type_, as were the sacrifices that have passed away. The promise was seen as part- for-whole even by Abraham, who in his own time was looking not for the dirt of Palestine but the streets of gold, “a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” (Hebrews 11:10). In fact, all the “heroes of the faith” died without receiving the promises, “but having seen them afar off…confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth… For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called *their God* [the very essence of the covenant! “I _will_ be your God...”]: for he hath prepared for them a city.” (Hebrews 11:13-16)

In sum, God’s promise was that he would redeem a people that he would place in his recreation, the church. The church’s final destiny is the consummated New Heavens and New Earth, wherein righteousness dwells. Until God separates the sheep from the goats, the visible church will contain unbelievers and hypocrites. Upon consummation, the visible church and the elect will be one and the same.

*From a proper view of the covenant, we can now take a look at the practice of covenant baptism.*

Under the older economy, although the covenant of promise was established solely with the elect in Christ, it was to be administered to the households professing believers. This means that the children of professing believers were to receive the mark of inclusion and, therefore, be counted among the people of God prior to professing faith in what the sign and seal of the covenant contemplated. Covenant children, even if they were reprobate, were to be treated as the elect of God and heirs according to the promise based upon corporate solidarity with a professing parent.

When we come to the New Testament nothing has changed with respect to the heirs of the promise. The promise remains established with the elect in Christ, as it always was. The question is whether the children of professing believers have somehow lost the privilege of receiving the sign of entrance into the New Testament church.

By way of review, God's promise to save Abraham and his "seed" was without any preconditions (Genesis 17:7) that had to be met by those prior to God establishing his promise with the elect. Abraham responded to God's promise of salvation in faith, which was first issued in Genesis 12, whereby he was justified (Genesis 15:6). Although God promised Abraham and his elect son Isaac salvation, God rejected Ishmael (Genesis 17:18-21). Nonetheless, Ishmael was to receive the outward sign of the covenant-promise, which was circumcision (Genesis 17:10ff). Accordingly, God's precept was that his covenant sign be _administered_ to the household of Abraham, even though God _established_ his covenant solely with the elect in Christ. The apostle Paul reminds us in Romans nine that the promise of salvation was not intended for every single person to whom the outward administration of the covenant was to be administered. In fact, the apostle explicitly tells us that the children of the "promise" are counted as Abraham's seed, and not the children of the flesh (Romans 9:8). Accordingly, all those who would believe the promise are the true children of Abraham (Romans 9: 8; Galatians 3:9). Most importantly, the "seed" to whom the promise was made was actually Christ alone (Galatians 3:16). It is through union with Christ, the single Seed of Abraham, that we become seeds of Abraham. As Galatians 3:29 states, "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, and heirs according to the promise."

We must keep in mind that Abraham was not Jewish. Indeed, Israel according the flesh eventually came from Abraham's loins, but the promise was that Abraham would be the father of many nations. Israel did not even become a nation until 430 years after God called Abraham according to the promise (Galatians 3:17). Consequently, contrary to what so many Baptists think, the sign of circumcision primarily had spiritual significance as opposed to national or ethnic significance. As Romans 4:11 states, "[Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, _a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith..._" The verse does not state that Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of his ethnic origin.

God always had an elect people, which he formed into a nation about 2400 years into redemptive history. Nonetheless, the promise both precedes and transcends the nation and could, therefore, not be abrogated upon the apostasy of the nation. God has now taken the kingdom away from the nation of Israel and has started his final building project, the church. The church is the _international_ people of God, a nation bearing the fruit of the covenant. Consequently, when one is converted to Christ he need not become part of the nation of Israel; for Christ has sent his followers into the world to make disciples of all nations.

God commanded 4,000 years ago that the sign of the covenant be placed upon the males within the household of professing believers. Although the sign of entrance into the people of God has changed from circumcision to baptism, God never rescinded his covenant principle concerning the subjects who were to receive the sign and seal of the covenant promise. In the same way that all Israel was not Israel, all the church is not the church. Nonetheless, we are _by precept_ to place the sign of membership in the church upon those who qualify, per the instruction of God – which was never rescinded or abrogated.

*The problem many Paedobaptists have:*

Here's the problem that many paedobaptists run into when dealing with Baptists, especially Reformed Baptists. Reformed Baptists will argue that the Old Covenant was established with the elect and reprobates in professing households since many who were to receive the sign of the covenant fell away. Then they rightly show that the New Covenant is established only with the elect. Accordingly, they reason: if the covenant has changed from including non-believers to including only true believers, then baptism should be reserved only for professing believers in order to ensure (as best as possible) that the visible church resemble the true regenerate church of the New Testament. The paedobaptist gets tripped up by that argument when he tries to argue that both the New and the Old Covenants are established with reprobates within professing households, which Randy Booth tries to do in his book "Children of the Promise." Such paedobaptists are certainly correct with respect to the continuity from Old to New but they cannot argue effectively that the New Covenant is established with certain unbelievers, which is the error that the Reformed Baptist zeros in on and exposes simply by highlighting the doctrine of "Perseverance Of The Saints," which is so well argued in the New Testament by the apostle Paul. Consequently, the Baptist argument often goes like this: "Hey Mr. Paedobaptist, you and I agree that the Old Covenant was made with the visible people of God, which includes believers and unbelievers (since many Israelites fell away from the true religion); therefore, we can agree that circumcision was to be administered to all males, elect or not, within a professing houshold. However, since the New Covenant is clearly made with the elect in Christ who will persevere in the faith (unlike unfaithful Israel), then it is reasonable to maintain that the covenant has changed with respect to inclusiveness. Therefore, the sign of the covenant should be reserved for those the elders are persuaded are actually believers." In other words, the Baptist argues that since the people of God fell away under the older economy, then the Old Covenant promise must have been made with at least some reprobates; yet the elect of God will not fall away in the New Covenant, therefore, the New Covenant promise must be made with the elect alone. The flaw in reasoning should be obvious. The Baptist is contrasting the Old Testament visible church with the New Testament invisible church! By using a twisted comparison, the Baptist argues for a covenant in the Old Testament based upon those who were to receive the sign (elect and reprobate), only then to turn around and argue for the New Testament sign to be reserved for the elect alone based upon the New Covenant being established with the elect alone! Baptists change their criteria in order to suit their desired ends. *They determine whom the covenant was made with under the older economy by looking at who was to receive the sign; then they determine who is to receive the sign under the new economy by looking at whom the New Covenant was made with!*

The one, single covenant of promise was established with the incarnate Christ and all who were elected in Him; yet this covenant, although established with the elect in Christ, was to be administered even to the reprobate who qualifies even by birth.


----------



## Iconoclast

Ron, this article from your blog is pretty good.


> The Baptist is contrasting the Old Testament visible church with the New Testament invisible church! By using a twisted comparison, the Baptist argues for a covenant in the Old Testament based upon those who were to receive the sign (elect and reprobate), only then to turn around and argue for the New Testament sign to be reserved for the elect alone based upon the New Covenant being established with the elect alone!



In Hebrews 8 when it says this


> 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
> 
> 8For finding fault with them,


 The fault was with the people,that is why a New Covenant was to be made.


> 9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers


it was new, there was to be a difference


> because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.



What follows is not a baptist twist[unless as I suspect the writer to Hebrews was a baptist] but this a description of the newness of the covenant


> I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:





> for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.





> 12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more


 It is only true for the elect that their sins and iniquities will no longer be remembered by God. If this is a twist, I like it quite a bit.

God is the active one in all of this;
I will- put my laws into *their* minds/hearts { not true of apostates}
- be to *them* a God { "" "" ""}
- be merciful to *their*unrighteousness { " " " }
- no longer remember*their*sins and iniquites {" " reprobates}
Then you conclude with this:


> They determine whom the covenant was made with under the older economy by looking at who was to receive the sign


 Yes, but we also look at what the Holy Spirit gave to Paul and the other new testament writers who gave commentary on the condition of OT Israel.


> 7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
> 
> 8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.


 Are you sure you have the right "twist" on this when you say this on your blog?


> Accordingly, all those who would believe the promise are the true children of Abraham (Romans 9: 8; Galatians 3:9). Most importantly, the "seed" to whom the promise was made was actually Christ alone (Galatians 3:16). It is through union with Christ, the single Seed of Abraham, that we become seeds of Abraham. As Galatians 3:29 states, "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, and heirs according to the promise."


 You wrote this in your blog
Only the elect are ever in Union with Christ, so why would you look back to what is described as- he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
That model is abrogated, not a pattern for us.
How do you see Hebrews 8: 9-13? where do you think I have gone off,or twisted the clear teaching here?
The first part of your summary statement was fine;


> The one, single covenant of promise was established with the incarnate Christ and all who were elected in Him; yet this covenant, although established with the elect in Christ,



But where do you see this statement taught in the NT.?


> was to be administered even to the reprobate who qualifies even by birth.


 You must go back before the cross to support this which Hebrews 8 says is being done away. No reprobate qualifies by birth to be in the New Covenant.


----------



## Ron

Dear Iconoclast,

Please receive this in the most charitable light possible. Once again I am unable to discern any progression of thought in your post. All I find are unrelated fragments. If you'd like to discuss this over the phone so I might better flesh things out with you, please drop me a note on my blog with a number you may be reached. I won't publish your post, or make reference to any discussions we might have. 

Blessings,

Ron


----------



## JTB

*J*



Ron said:


> "Our children are given promises that you have not demonstrated to be abrogated. "
> 
> Joshua,
> 
> We must be clear that the promises are to the elect alone - "I will be your God and you will be my people." In other words, the promise is made to the children of the promise.



Ron,

Thanks for the reminder, and I hope my post did not imply anything other than what your subsequent post conveyed.

My intention was not to argue that the covenant was made even to the reprobate, but rather than the sign is conferred based upon an external objective status, and not the internal reality of the baptist.

However, I would argue (and I believe you would also) that the Christian should presume his children to be saved because the passing on of the faith generationally is the normative standard God indicates in His Word. The main caveat being that the normative standard includes the normative means, which is the faithful obedience of parents to train their children to fear the Lord.

Best to you brother,
~Joshua


----------



## Ron

JTB said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Our children are given promises that you have not demonstrated to be abrogated. "
> 
> Joshua,
> 
> We must be clear that the promises are to the elect alone - "I will be your God and you will be my people." In other words, the promise is made to the children of the promise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron,
> 
> Thanks for the reminder, and I hope my post did not imply anything other than what your subsequent post conveyed.
> 
> My intention was not to argue that the covenant was made even to the reprobate, but rather than the sign is conferred based upon an external objective status, and not the internal reality of the baptist.
> 
> However, I would argue (and I believe you would also) that the Christian should presume his children to be saved because the passing on of the faith generationally is the normative standard God indicates in His Word. The main caveat being that the normative standard includes the normative means, which is the faithful obedience of parents to train their children to fear the Lord.
> 
> Best to you brother,
> ~Joshua
Click to expand...


Joshua,

I don't know that you implied anything different than what I wrote but I do like to make the point clear that the promise is to the elect alone; so to say that the promises are "given" to everyone born of professing believers is a bit unclear to me. 

As for presuming children to be saved, I'm not altogether happy with the term "presume" and I certainly don't base anything upon what I believe to be "normative".

We do not _know_ whether it is normative that God saves the children of professing believers. We can only discern whether it is normative that God brings to pass a credible profession of faith in them. Yet even if a credible profession of faith among children of professing believers has been normative in most places and at most times, God could change what is historically normative should he so desire. Accordingly, I think it would be a mistake to base things on what is normative because what is normative has to do with what God is choosing to do, or not do, with the Joneses in the church at any point in history. Accordingly, I would suggest that we ignore what seems to be normative but rather behave according to biblical precept with respect to how we are to regard our covenant children. God teaches in his word that our offspring are to be regarded as in Christ, which is why we baptize them. This precept of how we are to regard our children is to be followed even if we are living in a time where it becomes normative for God to do more grafting out than not. When we think about it further, we can see that basing practice on what is normative can cause one to do the wrong thing (in times when God is withholding grace, we would end up not regarding our children as in Christ). Even if what is normative causes us to do the right thing (in times when God is pouring out his blessings upon covenant families), it would be for the wrong reason. Precept is the issue, not providence. 

Presumption often connotes taking something for granted. Someone who is “presumptuous” is someone who is not merely assuming something to be true. Rather, presumption can imply taking something for granted, as if what was being assumed was thought of as deserved apart from any means – in this case grace. Now I appreciate that those who favorably own the term “presumptive regeneration” understand grace and the need for it. So, it might be semantic more than anything, but let's see if those who own the term will agree with this:

Let’s keep in mind the distinction between regarding and believing. Let’s also keep in mind that not to believe x is true does not mean to believe x is false. {It might be true that you don’t believe that someone is saved (or that Dover is the capital of Delaware), but that is not to say that you believe he is lost (or that Wilmington is the capital of Delaware). You might have nothing to base an opinion on.} With that in view, I regarded my infants as united to the risen Christ. In other words, I regarded (treated) my infants as regenerate, having the seed of faith and repentance, which in time was to be exercised in belief and turning - as disciples not devils – which is to be a matter of life, not a one time occurrence. Did I assume (believe) they were as I regarded them to be? In other words, did I believe them to be regenerate and united to Christ? (Let’s get an exception out of the way first. If one of them died in infancy, then given that I believed they were elect, it stands to follow that I would have also believed such a one to be regenerate prior to their passing.) With regard to covenant children who are not taken in infancy, I don’t know what I would base such a belief upon because I don’t know that Scripture has a precept on the matter. I do believe I have reason to believe that God will convert the children of faithful parents, even at a very young age when instruction can be discerned, but whether God typically converts in the womb or at the font - I don’t believe it to be true, *but nor do I disbelieve* he operates that way. God might prefer to convert with the Word being sung by a mother with her child at her breast, or when her water breaks, or when water is poured in the name of the Trinity, or at inception, or he might not. I do believe that those who staunchly confess "presumptive regeneration" transition from hope to belief where the children's conversion is concerned. I also believe that many of these pray for their infants that God would regenerate them if he hasn't done so already, which is something I have no burden to pray for with my pastor or wife and now all my girls. 

Yours in Christ,

Ron


----------

