# How does a Paedobaptist relate the teaching of John 1:12-13 to infant baptism?



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

In John 1:12-13, we read the following:
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, [God] gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (ESV). ​Here John appears to identify _the legal_ members of New Covenant community in contrast with _the legal_ members of the Old Covenant community. Verse 13 seems to imply the contrast. Under the Old Covenant one could legally belong to the community of the _tekna Theou_ by _natural birth_, which is described variously in verse 13 (Exo. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1; Rom. 9:4). Under the New Covenant, however, one is conferred the "right" (_exousia_), that is, the legal status of covenant child by means of faith. 

To a Baptist like myself, this passage appears to support a Credobaptist view of New Covenant membership rather than a Paedobaptist view. With the Paedobaptist I acknowledge that nonbelievers do actually enter the New Covenant community via false profession. These may later apostatize from the faith and be excommunicated from the New Covenant community (Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-29; 2 Peter 2; 1 John 2:19). 

But if we take the teaching of John 1:12-13 seriously, it would seem to suggest that such false professors and/or apostates were members of the New Covenant community _de facto_ (as a matter of fact) rather than _de jure _(as a matter of right). And if this is so, then can we assert that individuals who make no credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ, that is, who have not "received him" or "believed in his name, have _legal access_ to New Covenant member status? In simpler langauge, how can the teaching of John 1:12-13 be made to support Paedobaptism? 

Cordially yours,


----------



## blhowes

Joshua said:


> Hi, Dr. Gonzales. I'm not real sure...




I'm sure its been discussed on the PB before, but I couldn't find anything. My guess would be they'd say that the passage doesn't address the question of who should be baptized. The question being addressed would be how is a person born again. Salvation is not of man, but its of God.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Joshua said:


> Hi, Dr. Gonzales. I'm not real sure, but I would assume that the Reformed Paedobaptist would say that the _already/not yet_ distinction might apply here. In other words, _ultimately_, only those who persevere to the end are really the children of God, regardless of their baptism, profession, etc. But, again, I'm not sure as to exactly what one might say in response.



Thanks, Joshua. I affirm the "already/not yet" tension introduced by Christ's first coming. In fact, unlike some of my Credobaptist brothers, I'm willing to apply that tension in some sense to the New Covenant community and promises of Jeremiah 31:31-34. So I would conceptualize the development of God's creation/redemption program as follows (hopefully, I'm not oversimplifying things):
1. The universal covenants (Adamic and Noachic) legally embrace all men, regenerate and unregenerate. 
2. The Jewish covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic) legally embrace the seed of Abraham and Gentile proselytes (whether regenerate or non-regenerate). 
3. The New Covenant legally embraces those who are believers (John 1:12), that is, who are born again (John 1:13). Nevertheless, the blessings of the New Covenant community are not fully realized by every member since some are false professors and members _de facto_ rather than _de jure_. 
4. In the age to come, this "discrepancy" will be eliminated. All _de facto_memberswill also be_ de jure_ members. ​ Of course, an acknowledgement of the "already/not yet" tension still begs two questions: (1) does the reality of an already/not yet tension in the New Testament provide the church warrant to introduce members into the New Covenant community legally when they give no evidence of a credible profession of faith and regeneration? (2) more importantly for this thread, does John 1:12-13 introduce or accommodate the already/not yet tension? 

Regarding the second question, John consistently uses the aorist tense with the finite verbs. While this tense does not always signify past time, it seems to signify past time in this context. According to verse 11, Christ "came [_elthen_; past tense] to his own (i.e., the Jewish people) and his own did not recieve [_parelabon_; past tense] him." John seems to be alluding not to a rejection that takes place in general (gnomic use of aorist) but to a past event (or complex of past events) with which his readers were well-aquainted, namely, the Jewish rejection of the incarnate presentation of their Messiah. 

Verse 12 begins with an adversative, signalling the other side of the past-event coin. Not every Gentile or Jew rejected Christ during his earthly ministry: "But to all who did receive [_elabon_; past tense] him, who are believing [_tois pisteuousin_; present particle, indicating that the past volitional act of receiving continues into the present] in his name, [God] gave [_edoken_; past tense] the right to become [_genesthai_; aorist infinite, signifying, "of persons or things that enter into a new condition," (Freiberg)] the children of God." 

It's important to note the the divine act of legal conferral ("he gave the right") is tied not to the present participle ("who are believing") but to initial human response of faith ("To all who received"). Consequently, it would seem tenuous, at least to me, to accord the aorists of John 1:12 a merely gnomic sense and to introduce the eschatological "already/not yet" tension into this text. 

Unlike the prophet Jeremiah, the apostle John seems to refer not to what God will do (confer a legal right should a person persevere in faith) but to what God had already done with respect to individuals who had responded positively to the Messiah, whether Jew or Gentile. God conferred the legal right to become a member of the New Covenant community upon a discreet act of faith, which in turn sprang from a regenerated heart (v. 13). If this is God's modus operandi, shouldn't it also be the modus operandi of the church? _Shouldn't we make a credible profession of faith prerequisite for the legal conferral of New Covenant member status? _


----------



## ManleyBeasley

*Covenants*

Its interesting that you bring this up. I think it links up very nicely with the Jeremiah 31 passage that describes the NC as being regeneration. His Law is written on their hearts, they all know Him, and their sins are forgiven are all descriptors of the NC in Jer. 31. The very language of Jer 31 excludes creating a pure corralation between the two covenants because the New is an improvement of the old since the old was breakable. The NC is entered by regeneration not baptism (ie baptism should NOT be treated exactly like circumcision) and is unbreakable. Jeremiah 31 excludes the ideas of inward and outward Israel in the NC, and covenant breaking as well.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

blhowes said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, Dr. Gonzales. I'm not real sure...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure its been discussed on the PB before, but I couldn't find anything. My guess would be they'd say that the passage doesn't address the question of who should be baptized. The question being addressed would be how is a person born again. Salvation is not of man, but its of God.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the input, Bob. I agree that baptism is not explicitly addressed. It does appear, however, that the text addresses one's legal right to become a part of the _tekna Theou_, which elsewhere seems to refer to God's covenant children (Exo. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1; Rom. 9:4). Since baptism is commonly viewed as the rite of entrance into this covenantal community, it's administration would seem to be connected with two prerequisites: (1) a human response of faith (v. 12), which is indicative of (2) a divine work of saving grace (v. 13).


----------



## larryjf

What makes you think that this is specifically teaching on NT visible Church membership?

I take the passage as drawing a distinction between those who reject and those who receive...neither of which an infant can do


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

larryjf said:


> What makes you think that this is specifically teaching on NT visible Church membership?



Hello, Larry. Thanks for your input. I confess that at this point I'm assuming that _tekna theou_ in John 1:12-13 is referring to the visible community of God's covenant children in keeping with other passages that refer to God's covenant children (Exo. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1; Rom. 9:4; cf. John 11:52; Phil. 2:15; 1 John 3:1, 10). The concept of "legal right" (_exousia_) seems to be covenantal in nature. I presently feel more inclined to suppose that the apostle John has in view tangible examples of historical individuals (both Jew and Greek) who made credible professions of faith (signifying a divine work of grace, v. 13) and therefore were granted the legal privilege of joining "the children of God," namely, the New Covenant community. It seems less likely that John is speaking of abstract, invisible realities when his referents appear to be, as I argued above, historical events. 



> I take the passage as drawing a distinction between those who reject and those who receive...neither of which an infant can do



I agree that infants are unable to make a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ. That is one reason I've wondered whether such have legal warrant from God to be joined to the New Covenant "children of God." But I appreciate that others may not view this passages as problematic for infant baptism and church membership.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hello Dr. Gonzalez:

First, I do not see any passage here that *forbids* an infant into the New Covenant. You will have to show me clear Scriptural proof that such is the case.

Second, to make the claim that believers are members of the New Covenant is not contrary to Paedobaptism. As part of the New Covenant family - believers and their children are considered members.

Consider Abraham, who was saved by Grace through faith, had the righteousness of Christ imputed to him, and was a member of the New Covenant in all of its respects. His children were also considered members as well.

Now, we come down to New Testament times, and what do we have? We have both Jews and Gentiles being accepted into the New Covenant by the very same faith that Abraham had, Rom. 4:1-4. Is it necessary for the Bible to reiterate that the children of believers are considered members of the New Covenant when God has said so in the past? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Do we have any direct command from God that children in the New Testament do not receive the same rights and priviledges that the children in the Old Testament received? I would be interested to see such a passage in the Scriptures.

Do we have any indirect evidence that the children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant in the New Testament? Yes we do. I am sure you are aware of all of the disputed passages on this matter, Acts 2:39ff, 1 Cor. 7:14, 10:1-5, etc...

Paedobaptism is established by the fact that God included the children of believers in the New Covenant in the Old Testament. This inclusion has not been recinded by any passage in the New Testament that I have ever read, but it is established by the "indirect" passages in the NT that have been cited by Paedobaptists in prior posts.

As such, it appears to Paedobaptists that the Credobaptist position is arguing in a void.

Grace and Peace

-Rob


----------



## larryjf

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Hello, Larry. Thanks for your input. I confess that at this point I'm assuming that _tekna theou_ in John 1:12-13 is referring to the visible community of God's covenant children in keeping with other passages that refer to God's covenant children (Exo. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1; Rom. 9:4; cf. John 11:52; Phil. 2:15; 1 John 3:1, 10). The concept of "legal right" (_exousia_) seems to be covenantal in nature. I presently feel more inclined to suppose that the apostle John has in view tangible examples of historical individuals (both Jew and Greek) who made credible professions of faith (signifying a divine work of grace, v. 13) and therefore were granted the legal privilege of joining "the children of God," namely, the New Covenant community. It seems less likely that John is speaking of abstract, invisible realities when his referents appear to be, as I argued above, historical events.


He may be speaking of tangible examples, but i doubt he is speaking of infants. The whole scenario is set up around two alternatives: rejecting or receiving. Since an infant can do neither it would be quite a stretch to think that he was including them.

I mean...if i said that some folks at church drove cars while others drove motorcycles you wouldn't presume that the children of the church were included as those who were driving.




Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I agree that infants are unable to make a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ. That is one reason I've wondered whether such have legal warrant from God to be joined to the New Covenant "children of God." But I appreciate that others may not view this passages as problematic for infant baptism and church membership.



But they are also unable to reject Christ, and since those are the only two types of people that are spoken of in this passage...well you know the rest.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I'll try to address the OP, and if I miss something germane that has been added in the follow-up posts, please simply bring it back in.


Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> In John 1:12-13, we read the following:
> But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, [God] gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (ESV). ​Here John appears to identify _the legal_ members of New Covenant community in contrast with _the legal_ members of the Old Covenant community. Verse 13 seems to imply the contrast. Under the Old Covenant one could legally belong to the community of the _tekna Theou_ by _natural birth_, which is described variously in verse 13 (Exo. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1; Rom. 9:4). Under the New Covenant, however, one is conferred the "right" (_exousia_), that is, the legal status of covenant child by means of faith.
> 
> To a Baptist like myself, this passage appears to support a Credobaptist view of New Covenant membership rather than a Paedobaptist view. With the Paedobaptist I acknowledge that nonbelievers do actually enter the New Covenant community via false profession. These may later apostatize from the faith and be excommunicated from the New Covenant community (Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-29; 2 Peter 2; 1 John 2:19).
> 
> But if we take the teaching of John 1:12-13 seriously, it would seem to suggest that such false professors and/or apostates were members of the New Covenant community _de facto_ (as a matter of fact) rather than _de jure _(as a matter of right). And if this is so, then can we assert that individuals who make no credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ, that is, who have not "received him" or "believed in his name, have _legal access_ to New Covenant member status? In simpler langauge, how can the teaching of John 1:12-13 be made to support Paedobaptism?
> 
> Cordially yours,


Dr. G.,
It seems to me that you are making the *de facto* the basis for the *de jure*, and not _vice versa_, as I believe it should be.He came unto his own [people], and his own received him not. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, [God] gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.​John 1:11-13 

I think also the prior verse needs to be included, for the sake of completeness.

The implication of v11 is that "his own" were, considered at large, only superficially his, which accounts for their general rejection of him. As a whole, they had a legal connection (via the Mosaic covenant), which was sufficient to establish a true relationship, but not necessarily one from the heart. They were "the children of God" in the legal sense. But, I would argue they were NOT such members _de facto_. The factual is predicated upon the legal.

They were _de facto_ members of the covenant if it was considered alone, and without regard to the Abrahamic covenant, and without regard for any spiritual significance at the heart of it. If Sinai was treated, In other words,, strictly as a covenant of works, at all points according to its externals.

However, when the Mosaic economy is considered as an administration of the Covenant of Grace, it is viewed in its fundamental aspect. The "in fact" relation of the CoG is one that is established on a promise, on a legal relation that is formed by faith. The "legal" identity implies one's a) liability to judgment, and b) expectation of blessing. The "in fact" identity determines the nature of such consequences and prospect for continuation of the factual relation.


According to v12 there were those who did receive him, and while the Gentiles must be regarded as being grafted into this group, in the first place it seems to me that this has to be taken as a subset of the "his own" legally speaking, of the previous verse. Thus, it seems as though John is here saying what Paul elsewhere expresses as "not all who are of Israel are Israel." (Rom. 9:6)

There were those who were "his own" in a better sense than the purely legal. And this was demonstrated by their "believing on his name," the further description. And to these receivers he gave the right, the authorization to become "the children of God." This is certainly indicative of a newly formed covenant relation that abolishes the previous administration. When Messiah comes, it is not so that he may fit into the strictures of the Mosaic covenant (although for the purposes of his saving work, he condescendingly does so). But in the fulfillment of the OT hope, that Law must be replaced, and a new covenant instituted.


The question, it seems to me, as Dr. G. has framed it, thus asks whether the language of v13 sets the parameters of identification for those who may be properly called (under any present circumstances) the new "children of God." Does the language "children born NOT of a, b, & c [naturally], but of God [spiritually]," teach that in the New Covenant anyone born according to a natural manner is _precluded _from the right to be called a "child of God"?

This does not appear to me to follow from the plain language. He gave the NEW right to the OLD designation (which was confined to a special sense of the words) to those who did not follow the general rejection of him, the "his own" who had remaining to them the most tenuous of all claims to the designation (but who of all mankind had the best reason to be so identified in the special sense).

Previously, there were those who claimed the "right," and who based their "legal" claim purely on an external covenant arrangement which (if the facts were all known and brought out for examination) they had forfeited. They based this claim on their national and religious affiliation (a symbiotic affair).

It just doesn't follow logically that simply because ALL those who received him also received a new right to such a designation in the special sense, that ONLY those who received him received that designation, and there are no other classifications (such as the as-yet-not-rejecting seed of such receivers) who may be so called in one sense or another.

The "children NOT..." description in v13 is reserved to describe whatever "legal" claims were being abandoned (or not-asserted) by those who received him. Their reception was the whole basis for their new right.

What needs to be contrasted in this case is this right being granted on the basis of "faith", versus the Siniatic "right" being granted on the basis of the people's confessionExo 24:7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, "*All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient*."​The first Christians were the foundations of a new "children" for a new era, who were nevertheless in continuity with the "internal" Israel of old, and before them with all the sons of Adam, then Noah, then Abraham, who trusted in the promises.

Finally, it should be noted once again that we do not find the inclusion of children in the outward administration of the CoG to be Mosaic in origin. No, but it is Abrahamic in origin. It is part of the fundamental promise of God, and not of the legal superadditions of the Mosaic administration, which (according to Paul) cannot disannul (Gal. 3:17).


Anyway, that's how I would address the logical and the theological questions, from the paedo-baptist standpoint.

Blessings,


----------



## Christusregnat

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> In John 1:12-13, we read the following:
> But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, [God] gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (ESV). ​



This was true in the Old Covenant; this is nothing new. All who received Christ in the Old Covenant times were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God. This is nothing new.

Generally, when we find the Pharisees or Jews condemned in the New Testament, we assume that it's drawing some kind of major difference between the OC and the NC. This is not the case. Rather, it is simply condemning a perversion of the OC, and not the OC itself. By the by, the prophets in the OC did the same thing. Jeremiah 31 is a perfect example of the prophets (albeit backhandedly) upbrading the Jews for their covenant breaking. 

Cheers,


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Excellent Bruce.

Bob, let me also point out something else. The irony in every post where a Baptist poses the "...how can this apply to infants..." question is that it becomes a reflective question that Baptists ought to be asking themselves of those they baptize.

On the one hand, are you implying that faith requires mental acuity? What, precisely, does a man bring to the equation of faith that requires a certain level of mental faculties for the individual to believe in God? Is God able to save the simple much less the infant? What are we to make of the passages that state that some prophets were said to believe from the womb? It is always fascinating to see Baptists get into discussions about what age a person can be baptized as if man is the arbiter of when a person can have faith and that, truly, we can see where the wind blows contra John 3.

On the other hand, you have a real problem of applying this verse to anyone on the basis of what you seem to be insisting with respect to what _believe_ means regardless of mental acuity. What kind of belief do you reckon gives a man the right to be called a Son of God? I think we would both agree that it is a true faith born from above. I assume you're not telling me that a mere profession is in view here. Correct? If so, then we're talking about the Elect.

Where you make an unwarranted leap at this point is assuming that you have any way to administer the ideal (the elect chosen in the Covenant of Redemption) in the setting of the Church (the Covenant of Grace). 

This is the proverbial elephant sitting in the Credo-Baptist living room. On the one hand, a credo-Baptists wants to insist that the New Covenant consists of an ideal community (the Elect) but then believes from that warrant this equates to the baptism of professors. I've never seen a demonstration that the two are connected in credo-Baptist theology - the argument for an elect NC only demonstrates that only the elect are in the NC but the argument _for_ professors only baptism cannot be established on this. The issue of New Covenant membership is completely divorced from the actual decision to baptize as it must be in a Credo-Baptist system that insists that the New Covenant consists of the elect alone.

You really don't establish a credo-Baptist position by appealing to an elect New Covenant membership. At best you divorce Church membership from New Covenant membership (which you successfully achieve in your view of the ordinances) but you do not establish that baptism must be administered to professors alone on the basis of evangelical faith.

Thus, I would ask you: How do _you_ relate the baptism of professors to John 1:12-13 if you believe this passage is teaching that the New Covenant membership and administration are to be ideal according to this passage? That is to say, on the basis of this passage, if a man presents himself to you for baptism then how will this passage inform your decision to baptize a flesh and blood person whose heart only God knows?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hello Dr. Gonzalez:First, I do not see any passage here that *forbids* an infant into the New Covenant. You will have to show me clear Scriptural proof that such is the case.



Greetings, Rob. A pleasure to meet you. I agree that this text does not by itself forbid infant baptism. It does positively teach that legal warrant for membership in the New Covenant community is no longer predicated on one's blood ties to Abraham (v. 13) but on one's faith in Jesus Christ (v. 12). So it does provide positive warrant for believer baptism. Of course, the mere absence of a prohibition against infant baptism is not warrant for the practice according to the RPW. Hence, you offer some positive arguments below.



> Second, to make the claim that believers are members of the New Covenant is not contrary to Paedobaptism. As part of the New Covenant family - believers and their children are considered members.
> 
> Consider Abraham, who was saved by Grace through faith, had the righteousness of Christ imputed to him, and was a member of the New Covenant in all of its respects. His children were also considered members as well.



I'm not well-versed in Paedo/Credo polemics, so I must confess that your assertion "Abraham was a member of the New Covenant in all of its respects" is new to me. I do view Abraham as a precursor or exemplar of a member of the New Covenant in that his circumcision served as a sign (i.e., outward symbol of an inward reality) and a seal (i.e., a badge of authenticity) of the righteousness that he had *by faith before he had been circumcised.* Hence, the sacrament of circumcision *for Abraham *functioned like the sacrament of baptism for *the New Covenant believer*--it pointed *backwards* to salvific realities already realized in Abraham's experience (regeneration and justification). I was not aware that Abraham was a member of _the historical New Covenant community,_ which, at the time of the prophets who lived long after the patriarch, was represented as something future (Jer. 31). Moreover, since baptism and the Lord's Supper are the New Covenant sacraments and since Abraham partook of neither, I find it difficult to affirm that he "was a member of the New Covenant in all of its respects." But perhaps I'm reading too much into your statement. Feel free to clarify.



> Now, we come down to New Testament times, and what do we have? We have both Jews and Gentiles being accepted into the New Covenant by the very same faith that Abraham had, Rom. 4:1-4. Is it necessary for the Bible to reiterate that the children of believers are considered members of the New Covenant when God has said so in the past? Maybe yes, maybe no.



I think I can agree with this. I tithe even though "tithing" is not explicitly commanded in the NT. I believe musical instrumentation in the public worship of God is appropriate under the NT even though I find no specific reference to instruments in NT corporate worship. 



> Do we have any direct command from God that children in the New Testament do not receive the same rights and priviledges that the children in the Old Testament received? I would be interested to see such a passage in the Scriptures.



Interesting question. But before I address it, I might need your help. Can you identify precisely the rights and privileges which a circumcised infant under the Old Covenant could claim? If I'm not mistaken, God had promised Abraham and his physical seed the Land of Canaan and many temporal blessings (conditioned, of course, on their fidelity to the covenant). I'm not aware of any Reformed pastor or theologian who believes the right and privilege of dwelling in Canaan (or Palestine) and enjoying the temporal blessings outlined in the Old Covenant *transfer automatically* to the children of believers in the New Testament. Perhaps you have other specific rights and privileges in view. Could you clarify?



> Do we have any indirect evidence that the children of believers were considered members of the New Covenant in the New Testament? Yes we do. I am sure you are aware of all of the disputed passages on this matter, Acts 2:39ff, 1 Cor. 7:14, 10:1-5, etc...



Yes, I'm aware of these passages and that they are disputed. The fact that they are disputed and that I haven't found clearer unambiguous warrant for infant baptism is what has given me pause. 



> Paedobaptism is established by the fact that God included the children of believers in the New Covenant in the Old Testament. This inclusion has not been recinded by any passage in the New Testament that I have ever read, but it is established by the "indirect" passages in the NT that have been cited by Paedobaptists in prior posts.



The first sentence is giving me a little trouble. But it may be that this is a new argument I haven't heard before. You state that the practice of baptizing infants "is established by the fact that God included the children of believers in the New Covenant [and here's the part that seems confusing to me] in the Old Testament." Are you referring to prophecy? How did God include the children of New Covenant believers, who lived A.D., "in the Old Testament"? I guess I can't address the rest of your argument until I have a better idea precisely what you're seeking to communicate in the first sentence. Pardon me if I'm not as familiar with the common arguments in the Paedo/Credo polemics. 



> As such, it appears to Paedobaptists that the Credobaptist position is arguing in a void.



I'm sorry Paedobaptists feel that way about those of us who are Credobaptists. I don't feel that way about my Paedobaptist brothers. They seem to attempt to argue Scriptural and theological arguments for their position. 

Do you think, perhaps, you might be making an overstatement? In other words, Credobaptists can marshall lots of evidence for believer baptism--evidence which Paedobaptists themselves affirm. Second, Credobaptists do not find a specific command to baptize infants in either Testament. (That would certainly help both sides!). Third, Credobaptists see a shift in redemptive history in which the seed of Abraham is no longer physical but spiritual (Gal. 3:28-29). The text of which this thread is concerned seems to suggest as much. The ones upon whom God *now *confers legal covenant status are no longer such as are merely born naturally into the family of God but supernaturally via regeneration (v. 13) the evidence of which is faith in Jesus Christ (v. 12). Is the term "void," i.e., empty, a fair characterization? Perhaps the term "inadequate" or "inconclusive" might be more charitable. 

But I recognize there's more to it. So I won't oversimplify the matter. Thanks for your time, Rob, and I look forward to any clarifying remarks that can help be better understand your position. 

Grace to you,


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> To a Baptist like myself, this passage appears to support a Credobaptist view of New Covenant membership rather than a Paedobaptist view.



The passage teaches nothing concerning "baptism," the sign, but is concerned with the grace, or what is signified. Paedobaptists teach that the grace signified by baptism belongs only to those who believe. Paedobaptists are credobaptists in this sense.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Hello, Bruce. Nice to meet you. Thanks for the lengthy response. You've given me so much to think about, I'm not sure where to begin. I guess I'll try to work my way through your argument point by point the best I'm able.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Dr. G.,
> It seems to me that you are making the *de facto* the basis for the *de jure*, and not _vice versa_, as I believe it should be.He came unto his own [people], and his own received him not. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, [God] gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.​John 1:11-13 I think also the prior verse needs to be included, for the sake of completeness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for pointing out the need to keep the preceding context in view. Actually, I'm inclined to follow the editors of the UBS Greek NT and include verse 10 as well. So the "all who did receive him" would, in my present view, include a subgroup of believers from two larger groups designated "the world" (v. 10) and "his own" (v. 11), i.e., Gentiles and Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The implication of v11 is that "his own" were, considered at large, only superficially his, which accounts for their general rejection of him. As a whole, they had a legal connection (via the Mosaic covenant), which was sufficient to establish a true relationship, but not necessarily one from the heart. They were "the children of God" in the legal sense. But, I would argue they were NOT such members _de facto_. The factual is predicated upon the legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I'm finding your reasoning a little hard to follow, but it's likely my unfamiliarity with the finer points of the Paedo/Credo debate. From my understanding of Scripture (and correct me if I'm wrong), individuals gained the legal right (_exousia_) to be included within the Old Covenant community via blood-ties to Abraham or by becoming proselytes. In either case, circumcision became the entrance rite for the males. This made them "the children of God" both _de facto_ and _de jure _(Exo. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1; Rom. 9:4). If you'll note the passages I've referenced, it doesn't appear that they're referring to a remnant within the nation that was constituted of only regenerate people. Rather, it seems that the entire nation, whether born again or not, is constituted God's son or his children under the Old Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were _de facto_ members of the covenant if it was considered alone, and without regard to the Abrahamic covenant, and without regard for any spiritual significance at the heart of it. If Sinai was treated, In other words,, strictly as a covenant of works, at all points according to its externals.
> 
> However, when the Mosaic economy is considered as an administration of the Covenant of Grace, it is viewed in its fundamental aspect. The "in fact" relation of the CoG is one that is established on a promise, on a legal relation that is formed by faith. The "legal" identity implies one's a) liability to judgment, and b) expectation of blessing. The "in fact" identity determines the nature of such consequences and prospect for continuation of the factual relation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess here is where I feel confused with some of your language. I believe that back of each postlapsarian historical covenant of God there lies a singular _paradigm of redemption_, which has been commonly called "the covenant of grace." But legal warrant for membership in both the Abrahamic and Mosaic communities appears to have been via one's blood-ties to Abraham and circumcision. In addition, one had to profess agreement to the stipulations of the Sinai treaty. So, I've always understood that every circumcised Jew had _a legal right _to be part of the Old Covenant community unless he was excommunicated. But this is not to say that everyone in the Old Covenant community was _de facto_ a genuine believer and thus _de jure_ an heir of eternal life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to v12 there were those who did receive him, and while the Gentiles must be regarded as being grafted into this group, in the first place it seems to me that this has to be taken as a subset of the "his own" legally speaking, of the previous verse. Thus, it seems as though John is here saying what Paul elsewhere expresses as "not all who are of Israel are Israel." (Rom. 9:6)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that within the Old Covenant community broadly considered there was a remnant of true believers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were those who were "his own" in a better sense than the purely legal. And this was demonstrated by their "believing on his name," the further description. And to these receivers he gave the right, the authorization to become "the children of God." This is certainly indicative of a newly formed covenant relation that abolishes the previous administration. When Messiah comes, it is not so that he may fit into the strictures of the Mosaic covenant (although for the purposes of his saving work, he condescendingly does so). But in the fulfillment of the OT hope, that Law must be replaced, and a new covenant instituted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tend to view John 1:10-13 as describing a "new state of affairs." I don't see it as referring retroactively to the remnant of believers within Israel whom God gave legal warrant to become the "true Israel" under the Old Covenant. Rather, I see this passage as referring to a state of affairs post-incarnation, atonement, resurrection. The "old" has passed away; the "new" has come. Hence, the contrast: no longer does blood-tie suffice as the legal warrant for entrance into the New Covenant family. Now, one must be "born of God" (v. 13) and "receive" (v. 12) the incarnate Messiah to obtain the legal warrant to become part of God's New Covenant family. Of course, people make professions of faith that turn out to be false and thereby find themselves in the New Covenant _de facto_ but not _de jure_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question, it seems to me, as Dr. G. has framed it, thus asks whether the language of v13 sets the parameters of identification for those who may be properly called (under any present circumstances) the new "children of God." Does the language "children born NOT of a, b, & c [naturally], but of God [spiritually]," teach that in the New Covenant anyone born according to a natural manner is _precluded _from the right to be called a "child of God"?
> 
> This does not appear to me to follow from the plain language. He gave the NEW right to the OLD designation (which was confined to a special sense of the words) to those who did not follow the general rejection of him, the "his own" who had remaining to them the most tenuous of all claims to the designation (but who of all mankind had the best reason to be so identified in the special sense).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems, Bruce, that you see less of a historical-redemptive disjunction in this text than I do. Reading on a bit one comes to verse 17: "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." I don't read this text primarily as alluding to the _ordo salutis_ but to the _historia salutis_. In other words, the point of this verse and the verses I've cited (12-13) is not to distinguish between an outward Mosaic administration and an inward Mosaic administration. Nor is it distinguishing between the Mosaic and the Abrahamic Covenant adminstrations. Rather, these verses function to alert the reader to a major historical redemptive shift. The shadows of the Mosaic Covenant (and also the Abrahamic Covenant) have found fulfillment in the New Covenant. And whereas under both the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants one might be a legal member of those covenants by virtue of one's blood-ties to father Abraham; under the New Covenant one must profess faith in Christ (the outward indication of an inward work of grace) in order to obtain the legal right to be a member of God's covenant family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Previously, there were those who claimed the "right," and who based their "legal" claim purely on an external covenant arrangement which (if the facts were all known and brought out for examination) they had forfeited. They based this claim on their national and religious affiliation (a symbiotic affair).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True enough. But that is what makes the New Covenant better. One can no longer claim a legal right base purely on "an external covenant arrangement." Now one must claim that right via an internal circumcision of heart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just doesn't follow logically that simply because ALL those who received him also received a new right to such a designation in the special sense, that ONLY those who received him received that designation, and there are no other classifications (such as the as-yet-not-rejecting seed of such receivers) who may be so called in one sense or another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This text appears to teach that faith is necessary for entrance into the New Covenant community. I believe such a conclusion _does follow_ from a natural reading of the text. One might counter that this text provides us with _the general rule_ but not _the exception to the rule_. Perhaps this is your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "children NOT..." description in v13 is reserved to describe whatever "legal" claims were being abandoned (or not-asserted) by those who received him. Their reception was the whole basis for their new right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by legal claims abandoned. Do you mean that those who received Christ were abandoning their legal claims to the Mosaic Covenant in exchange for legal rights to belong to the New Covenant? I'm not sure that verse 13 is describing people abandoning legal rights. I'm more inclined to view the verse as simply describing the general difference between Old and New Covenant members. A credible profession of faith was not a prerequisite for entrance into either the Abrahamic or Mosaic Covenants. But it is a prerequisite for entrance into the New Covenant. And such faith is an indication of a different kind of circumcision, inward, not outward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What needs to be contrasted in this case is this right being granted on the basis of "faith", versus the Siniatic "right" being granted on the basis of the people's confessionExo 24:7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, "*All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient*."​The first Christians were the foundations of a new "children" for a new era, who were nevertheless in continuity with the "internal" Israel of old, and before them with all the sons of Adam, then Noah, then Abraham, who trusted in the promises.
> 
> Finally, it should be noted once again that we do not find the inclusion of children in the outward administration of the CoG to be Mosaic in origin. No, but it is Abrahamic in origin. It is part of the fundamental promise of God, and not of the legal superadditions of the Mosaic administration, which (according to Paul) cannot disannul (Gal. 3:17).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, the people of the Israel had to agree to the terms of the Sinaitic Covenant. And I'm presently inclined to agree with Meredith Kline and other Reformed writers who view the Mosaic Covenant functioning _at a typical level_ as a covenant of works. Of course, the Mosaic covenant was also, in a certain sense, a covenant of promise (see Eph. 2:12).
> 
> But I also see the New Covenant not merely as a republication of the Abrahamic Covenant. I see it as the fulfillment of both historical covenants. As I said in another thread, circumcision served as both a "sign" (outward symbol of an inward reality) and a "seal" (badge of authenticity) of the righteousness Abraham had received by faith _prior to the sacrament of circumcision_. In this sense, Abraham is a kind of prototype and exemplar of the New Covenant believer since the covenant sacrament was adminstered to symbolize and authenticate _an already existing spiritual reality_, namely regeneration and faith (Rom. 4:11). But not all Abraham's offspring share his faith, and therefore I'm not inclined to view their circumcision as a "seal" or badge of authenticity. (Indeed, I have a difficult time viewing infant baptism as a "seal" since the term _sphragis_ refers to a mark or badge of _authenticity_.) Accordingly, the New Covenant seems to bring us closer to the eschaton than either the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenants. For under the present New Covenant administration, _de facto_ and _de jure_ are closer together than ever before. In the new heavens and new earth, they will be one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, that's how I would address the logical and the theological questions, from the paedo-baptist standpoint.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And to you, brother. Thanks so much for the time and effort put into your response. You've helped me understand the Paedobaptist view better.
> 
> Sincerely yours,
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Larry, Adam, Rich, and Matthew,

I don't have time to respond to your input. But I thank you for it. You've given me plenty to chew on. Thanks for the interaction, which helps me understand your position better. I'll try to get back on the board later this week if I have some time. 

God bless your ministries,


----------



## charliejunfan

Hi doctor bob! I'm Charlie, i had been reformed baptist till recently, John Owen convinced me of paedo through using and relating the scriptures, but anyways I've been studying this subject since then as my primary study, I have read books against the view as well as articles for it, all from a covenant perspective. This doesn't directly answer your specific question but I stumbled upon it in my reading of the scriptures today.

Romans2:25-29 (circumcision was done before faith which is what circumcision represented, we know this because the law is fulfilled by faith, the circumcision done by Christ, Colossians2:11) and then Colossians 2:11 shows us the relationship between circumcision and baptism, they are both, as physical ordinances, the reflections of spiritual things which may or may not be true for each individual that that ordinance is applied to. Baptism is a symbol of the baptism with Christ in his death and resurrection which one partakes in by faith, and like circumcision it is not really baptism unless faith happens at some point in that individual's life.
God bless


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Dr G.,
I probably would not have chosen to look at the passage from a principally a paedo-baptist standpoint, if not for your query. "Put on my paedo hat and look at this while wearing it, and keep in mind the other guy with his credo hat on."

So the length and whatever lack of clarity therein is at least as much to do with just trying to provide a quick analysis, not well-thought-out, as it is of "effort". But thanks for your gracious reading.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Thank you, Dr. Gonzales, for that gracious post.

First, you wrote:



> Greetings, Rob. A pleasure to meet you. I agree that this text does not by itself forbid infant baptism. It does positively teach that legal warrant for membership in the New Covenant community is no longer predicated on one's blood ties to Abraham (v. 13) but on one's faith in Jesus Christ (v. 12). So it does provide positive warrant for believer baptism. Of course, the mere absence of a prohibition against infant baptism is not warrant for the practice according to the RPW. Hence, you offer some positive arguments below.


Believer's Baptism is not in question. Paedobaptists believe in Believer's Baptism. What is the point of difference is "Believer's Only" Baptism in reference to the infants of a Believer. We believe in Believer's baptism and agree that the passages you are citing prove it.

What we don't believe is that only Believer's are to be baptized, and not their children as well. What you have to prove is that the children of believers are now forbidden baptism. We have a positive warrent to include children in the Covenant of Grace from the Old Testament. You have to show a positive warrent in Scripture where children are now forbidden access to the Covenant of Grace. I have yet to see it.

Next,



> I'm not well-versed in Paedo/Credo polemics, so I must confess that your assertion "Abraham was a member of the New Covenant in all of its respects" is new to me. I do view Abraham as a precursor or exemplar of a member of the New Covenant in that his circumcision served as a sign (i.e., outward symbol of an inward reality) and a seal (i.e., a badge of authenticity) of the righteousness that he had *by faith before he had been circumcised.* Hence, the sacrament of circumcision *for Abraham *functioned like the sacrament of baptism for *the New Covenant believer*--it pointed *backwards* to salvific realities already realized in Abraham's experience (regeneration and justification). I was not aware that Abraham was a member of _the historical New Covenant community,_ which, at the time of the prophets who lived long after the patriarch, was represented as something future (Jer. 31). Moreover, since baptism and the Lord's Supper are the New Covenant sacraments and since Abraham partook of neither, I find it difficult to affirm that he "was a member of the New Covenant in all of its respects." But perhaps I'm reading too much into your statement. Feel free to clarify.


I was a bit surprised by your reply here, because most Credobaptists would not admit that there is a relationship between Old Testament circumcision and New Testament baptism. That Abraham was a member of the New Covenant can be proved in many ways:

1) If the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace, then Abraham, being a member of the Covenant of Grace would be a member of the New Covenant.

2) If Paul argues that "Abraham our father" was justified by faith in the same manner as members of the New Covenant, then it speaks volumes about Abraham's status in the New Covenant, Rom. 4:1-6.

3) Paul tells us that the New Covenant Church does not stand on its own, but was:



> ...cut out of the Olive tree, which was wild by nature, and was grafted contrary to nature in a right Olive tree, how much more shall they by nature, be grafted in their own Olive tree? Rom. 11:24 c.f. vs. 17-20.


The passage is clear that the New Covenant Church is grafted into the "Old Covenant Church" which "Old Covenant" was the Covenant of Grace.

4) Jesus says, "Abraham sought to see my day, and rejoiced to see it." 

5) Consider, when we all get to heaven will we be in a different class than that of Abraham or Moses? Is there one group of "Old Covenant believers" and another of "New Covenant believers"?

Insofar as Baptism and the Lord's Supper is concerned. These are outward ordinances only. In their outward sense they do not need to be experienced in order for one to be in the Covenant. The thief on the cross did not partake of Baptism or the Lord's Supper. Yet, when Jesus tells him that "Today you will be with Me in paradise" I think we can hardly deny his status in the New Covenant. As far as Baptism is concerned, though, Abraham partook of the sign of Circumcision which is equivalent to Baptism. Also, when Melchizedek (SP?) brought bread and wine to Abraham some commentators argue that this was a precursor of the Lord's Supper.

Next,



> Interesting question. But before I address it, I might need your help. Can you identify precisely the rights and privileges which a circumcised infant under the Old Covenant could claim? If I'm not mistaken, God had promised Abraham and his physical seed the Land of Canaan and many temporal blessings (conditioned, of course, on their fidelity to the covenant). I'm not aware of any Reformed pastor or theologian who believes the right and privilege of dwelling in Canaan (or Palestine) and enjoying the temporal blessings outlined in the Old Covenant *transfer automatically* to the children of believers in the New Testament. Perhaps you have other specific rights and privileges in view. Could you clarify?


Absolutely,



> By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed God, to go out into a place, which he should afterward received for inheritance, and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he abode in the land of promise, as in a strange country, as one that dwelt in tents with Isaac and Jacob *heirs with him of the same promise* For he looked for a city having a foundation, whose builder and maker is God, Heb. 11:8-10.


The physical nature of the Old Testament was simply a figure for the promises contained in the Covenant of Grace, see Heb. 9:9 cited earlier. Abraham understood these things by faith, and the promises contained in these figures of the Covenant of Grace were handed down to his children through circumcision. The New Covenant expands these promises not simply to the children of believers, but to the gentiles (including myself) through all of eternity:



> For the promise is made unto you (believers), your children (the children of believers), and to all that are afar off, even as many as our Lord God shall call, Acts 2:39.


The promises of the Gospel are given to every one who hears the outward call of God in the preaching of the Word. Those who believe on this outward call, and their children, are baptized into the New Covenant. If Peter believed the Credobaptist position, then the phrase, "your children" would be inconsequental, because "even as many as our Lord God shall call" would include the children.

The promises given in the Gospel of the New Covenant were the same promises given to Abraham in the Old Covenant except under the guise of a figure, and only to the Jews.

Next,



> Do you think, perhaps, you might be making an overstatement? In other words, Credobaptists can marshall lots of evidence for believer baptism--evidence which Paedobaptists themselves affirm. Second, Credobaptists do not find a specific command to baptize infants in either Testament. (That would certainly help both sides!). Third, Credobaptists see a shift in redemptive history in which the seed of Abraham is no longer physical but spiritual (Gal. 3:28-29). The text of which this thread is concerned seems to suggest as much. The ones upon whom God *now *confers legal covenant status are no longer such as are merely born naturally into the family of God but supernaturally via regeneration (v. 13) the evidence of which is faith in Jesus Christ (v. 12). Is the term "void," i.e., empty, a fair characterization? Perhaps the term "inadequate" or "inconclusive" might be more charitable.


I did not mean to be uncharitable, and I thought that "void" was a less harsh term than "inadequate" or "inconclusive." However, everyone has their own sensitivities - pardon me - please.

What seems "inadequate" to me is that the Credobaptist argument is placing the word "only" in verses that do not contain it. In an effort to clarify this I will deal with your points:

1) Has already been investigated - that we both agree that believers are to be baptized need no further discussion.

2) I am a bit confused about this second point: You claimed above an equivalence between Circumcision and Baptism. Specifically, you wrote:



> I do view Abraham as a precursor or exemplar of a member of the New Covenant in that his circumcision served as a sign (i.e., outward symbol of an inward reality) and a seal (i.e., a badge of authenticity) of the righteousness that he had *by faith before he had been circumcised.* Hence, the sacrament of circumcision *for Abraham *functioned like the sacrament of baptism for *the New Covenant believer*--it pointed *backwards* to salvific realities already realized in Abraham's experience (regeneration and justification).


It seems to me that if Abraham had been transported into New Testament times, then he would have been Baptized instead of Circumcized. We have an example of a New Testament baptism in the Old Testament, 1 Cor. 10:1-5. Where does the New Covenant forbid a child to be baptized?

We have a command in the Old Testament to circumcize infants. Where has this command specifically been lifted. Possibly your third point answers this question?

3) I think this is the crux of the Credobaptist misunderstanding of Covenant Theology. It is here that they resort to a Dispensationalist view in dividing the Covenants concerning membership. This may take some explaining:

Are infants incapable of faith? The Credobaptist says, "yes." The Bible says, "No." For the following reasons:

3a) If the Second Person of the Trinity can be incarnated into a fetus, then how can one claim that "infants are incapable of faith."? Which is greater? The Second Person of the Trinity, or, faith in Jesus?

3b) If John the Baptist can leap in the womb of Elisabeth upon hearing the voice of Mary (who was pregnant with Jesus), then how can one say that "infants are incapable of faith"?

3c) The Word of the Lord to Jeremiah clearly implies that infants are capable of faith:



> Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee, and before thou camest out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and ordained thee to be a Prophet unto the nations, Jeremiah 1:5.


How can one claim that Jeremiah was "incapable of faith" as an infant?

Since infants are capable of saving faith, and, consequently, can be members of the Covenant of Grace, then what forbids you from Baptizing them? That they are not capable of expressing faith in Jesus Christ? Such is not a good answer.

Infants in the Old Covenant, who were 8 days old, were unable to express faith in Jesus Christ. Yet, the sign of the Covenant was given unto them. Was this direct command from God somehow in error, and needed to be corrected by a greater understanding of the "Seed" of Abraham in the New Testament?

The true Seed of Abraham has always been believers in Christ, "I am the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob" - He is the God of the living, and not the dead. Yet, it was not simply believers who were circumcized/baptized, but their children as well.

What was astonishing concerning Redemptive History is that the Seed of Abraham was now extended to the Gentiles, and the families of the Gentiles. Upon hearing of the conversion of Cornelius and his household:



> When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life, Acts 11:18, c.f. 10:45.


That Cornelius *and his household* were converted by the preaching of the Word was a sign to the Jews that the promises of the Covenant are now also for the Gentiles as well. If we held to Credobaptist views concerning the New Covenant, then we would have expected only Cornelius to be converted, and not his household as well. If the New Covenant was to be understood individualistically, then there would have been no need for the household conversions in the Book of Acts. God granted salvation not only to the head of the household, but to the family and servants as well:



> And every man-child eight days old among you, shall be circumcised in your generations, as well he that is born in thine house, as he that is bought with money of any stanger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thine house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: so my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.


So, the question is restated: If the Seed of Abraham are those who believe in Jesus Christ - whether Jews in the OT or Jews/Gentiles in the NT, then where is the prohibition to forbid the children of believers Baptism?

Grace and Peace,

Rob


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Contra_Mundum said:


> Dr G.,
> I probably would not have chosen to look at the passage from a principally a paedo-baptist standpoint, if not for your query. "Put on my paedo hat and look at this while wearing it, and keep in mind the other guy with his credo hat on."
> 
> So the length and whatever lack of clarity therein is at least as much to do with just trying to provide a quick analysis, not well-thought-out, as it is of "effort". But thanks for your gracious reading.



Bruce. No problem. You gave me a lot to think about and part of my difficulty understanding your argument may point to my need to become better acquainted with the issues involved.

I don't necessarily view this passage as a "clincher" for the Credobaptist position. Both of us affirm that at least for adults, a credible profession of faith in Christ is the way one enters the New Covenant community. So I suppose a Paedobaptist could interpret this passage as stating a general rule but not necessarily addressing the question of infants of believing families, which would be the exception to the rule. And as Matthew Winzer pointed out, it doesn't explicitly mention baptism. I've only inferred baptism in connection with God's conferral of legal warrant to enter the covenant community. 

God bless your week.


----------



## kceaster

Not to get in the middle of any of the arguments, and forgive me if this is repetitive, but I do not see the emphasis of this verse as the rights of the children, but rather, the rights of the Father. When we think of circumcision and baptism of infants, it is not the child's right that seats him within the covenant community. Rather, it is the believing parent's privilege to include their children in the visible community and shows the same passiveness that is echoed in heaven. We are not saved by our actions or words, because, as all of us here agree, God saved us before we knew we needed saving.

Therefore, we can press no right, even though this passage may be read in that way.

The emphasis with which one reads is important. And perhaps this is not well translated between the languages, but read the passage emphasizing the personal pronouns concerning God. That makes a huge difference. Read Ephesians 1 emphasizing personal pronouns, it is very humbling. 

So when reading this passage, I see the emphasis upon the fact that even though He came, and despite the fact that His own did not receive Him, He gave the right to become children of God to those who received Him (and those who received Him were passive in their birth, since they were born of the will of God.) This changes the theme of the verse to magnify, not the children, but the infinitely loving and merciful parent. If read with that lense, it is not so much as who are included in the New Covenant as it is about the One who included them.

Additionally, it seems like a stretch to equate rights with rightful members, especially if one speaks about the actions of the flesh. IF these rights are granted to only NC believers and IF baptism is performed only on those who say they believe, THEN rights and rightful membership is gained by the actions of the flesh in the baptism of believers. Granted, this is a possible interpretation of this text, that: those who believe and receive have a right to become children of God. But surely we all do not accept this as the means of salvation because we know that other passages confirm that we cannot receive or believe without the Holy Spirit making us alive first. Yet, if we emphasize the rights of believers (as it pertains to the NC community) in this passage and posit credobaptism from this passage, then we have set ourselves up for a practice that believes the sovereignty of God in salvation, but does so on the basis of a profession of faith rather than on the promise of God as seen by faith.

Anticipating a rebuttal, let me also say that while paedobaptists also baptize their infants on the credible profession of faith of at least one believing parent (which would be akin to the practice of credobaptists concerning adult converts), we are not conferring salvation to the infant in their baptism, nor are we saying that they do not yet need to be converted so that they can believe and receive. Baptism to us does not equate to the right to become the "saved" children of God, but only confers the right to be in the assembly of the children of God, all of whom are not saved because there are sheep in with the goats and wheat in with the chaff.

Sorry if I have rambled. My synopsis is this: look at John 1 as the rights of the Father over His house, and not the son within the house. I think that steers us clear of pressing the issue beyond what it was intended.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Iconoclast

Kceaster,
I know you are waiting for a response from Bob G. He said he might be away until later on. I had an observation on what you wrote. 
In your post you said the following



> Additionally, it seems like a stretch to equate rights with rightful members, especially if one speaks about the actions of the flesh. IF these rights are granted to only NC believers and IF baptism is performed only on those who say they believe, THEN rights and rightful membership is gained by the actions of the flesh in the baptism of believers. Granted, this is a possible interpretation of this text, that: those who believe and receive have a right to become children of God. But surely we all do not accept this as the means of salvation because we know that other passages confirm that we cannot receive or believe without the Holy Spirit making us alive first. Yet, if we emphasize the rights of believers (as it pertains to the NC community) in this passage and posit credobaptism from this passage, then we have set ourselves up for a practice that believes the sovereignty of God in salvation, but does so on the basis of a profession of faith rather than on the promise of God as seen by faith.


 In this part of your quote;{THEN rights and rightful membership is gained by the actions of the flesh in the baptism of believers. Granted, this is a possible interpretation of this text, that: those who believe and receive have a right to become children of God. But surely we all do not accept this as the means of salvation because we know that other passages confirm that we cannot receive or believe without the Holy Spirit making us alive first. }

This is what is missing from most padeo posts/ Credo's take the profession of faith that the person makes as the apostles did. The person desiring to obey The Lord's command to * believe and be baptized* is saying that God the Holy Spirit has already done the inward work of regeneration, in new birth.
The water baptism that follows is the * result* of the Spirit allowing that person to * receive* the word.
It is not the physical actions of the flesh that grants membership.It is the professed work of regeneration {100%] the work of God, that has placed the person in saving Union with Christ. His *Identification *with the people of God by the ordinance of baptism,while outward and physical is his or her's confession of the gift of repentance and faith; is looking back at the work of God. Not his physical parents, or their faith.
Salvation is always individual,one soul at a time, living stones, that are built into the habitation of the spirit.[EPH2:20-22} {1Pet. 2:5} We are not left as indivduals, alone and isolated. God places us into the body. The corporate does not come first, or automatically.
When Acts speaks of a household being saved, then each individual was saved. It is not like domino's where Dad believes and they all fall down.
We can rejoice that many times God is pleased to save each member of a household to the praise of His glory.
You point to the answer yourself acknowledging the necessary work of the Spirit. No new birth, no heaven. The text cited in the original post is totally speaking of the work of God in new birth, giving the ability to welcome or receive divine truth.
A disciple follows the teaching of a teacher. You could have a false teacher training false disciples. Or you could have a true teacher with false disciples in that they at a point in time depart to follow a different teaching
Jn 6 is a case in point


> 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
> 
> 64But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
> 
> 65And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
> 
> 66From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.


 It is the Spirit that quickens , the flesh profits * nothing*
vs. 66 says /any fell away.
The true making of true disciples is the Spirit of God working through the word of God. Many times in the home of believing parents God blesses the means of parental example and instruction in the word,clothed in prayer to the saving of the children.
The instruction alone does not necessarily


> make disciples


in the Mt 28 sense, until the Spirit quickens.
That is why we say in the 1689-


> Paragraph 1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him;3 of remission of sins;4 and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.5
> 3 Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27
> 4 Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16
> 5 Rom. 6:4
> 
> Paragraph 2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.6
> 6 Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36,37, 2:41, 8:12, 18:8


 Spirit baptism first. Spirit baptism in Romans 6, and Col 2.
Apart from Spirit baptism, the ordinance is stripped of it's meaning.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Iconoclast said:


> Spirit baptism first. Spirit baptism in Romans 6, and Col 2.
> Apart from Spirit baptism, the ordinance is stripped of it's meaning.



And we reply:
Apart from Spirit's baptism, the ordinance is stripped of its *effect*, because there is no benefit to the sacrament apart from faith, and faith is a product of the Spirit's work.

And, the order of its application (prior to/or after conversion) makes no difference in the meaning we draw from it whatsoever. Because prior "profession" is simply the standard way of identifying mentally mature disciples.

However, it is not the ONLY way of identifying disciples.


----------



## Scott1

Once again, a superb quality thread. A 5 of 5. Thank you.


----------



## Iconoclast

Contra_Mundum said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spirit baptism first. Spirit baptism in Romans 6, and Col 2.
> Apart from Spirit baptism, the ordinance is stripped of it's meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we reply:
> Apart from Spirit's baptism, the ordinance is stripped of its *effect*, because there is no benefit to the sacrament apart from faith, and faith is a product of the Spirit's work.
> 
> And, the order of its application (prior to/or after conversion) makes no difference in the meaning we draw from it whatsoever. Because prior "profession" is simply the standard way of identifying mentally mature disciples.
> 
> However, it is not the ONLY way of identifying disciples.
Click to expand...




Contra_Mundum said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spirit baptism first. Spirit baptism in Romans 6, and Col 2.
> Apart from Spirit baptism, the ordinance is stripped of it's meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we reply:
> Apart from Spirit's baptism, the ordinance is stripped of its *effect*, because there is no benefit to the sacrament apart from faith.
> 
> And, the order of its application (prior to/or after conversion) makes no difference in the meaning we draw from it whatsoever. Because prior "profession" is simply the standard way of identifying mentally mature disciples.
> 
> However, it is not the ONLY way of identifying disciples.
Click to expand...


Bruce,
I would see water baptism as an ordinance, indicating what is stated in the 1689. 
Your view seeing it as sacramental would lead to pouring more into the meaning of baptism, as you would seeing it pointing to many things "promised" to the believing parent complying with what you would believe to be covenant faithfulness on the part of the believing parent, on behalf of the child. Would that be an accurate statement? 
This past two month's I have listened to dozens of good padeo Pastors.
Ed Donnelly , David Silversides, Ben Miller, Pastor Shishko,and several others list what is supposed to be contained, or pictured by Infant baptism as a sign and seal. The more I listen it seems like the list grows and grows sometimes very fancifully!
When you say apart from Spirit baptism the ordinance is stripped of it's effect, no faith/ no benefit , I would be in substantial agreement with in that no Spirit baptism leaves us with a dead man walking! Dead while they live.
It just seems to me that your view places it before Spirit baptism. That is where when I hear at an infant baptism language used similar to what is said in the 1689 as true of a believer, used upon the infant , my wires get crossed.
I have to say that I can see how when rightly spoken of The padeo side addesses the same heart issues that the credo side does more so when it comes time to allow the children to partake of the Lord's Supper. You do it in two phases. We do it at the same time.


----------



## larryjf

I am curious as to how a credo would respond to this situation:

A 30 year old individual professes faith in Christ and is baptized. After 5 years he denies Christ and leaves the church. Yet 5 more years and he repents of this, coming back to the church.

Would a credo re-baptize this individual?


----------



## Iconoclast

larryjf said:


> I am curious as to how a credo would respond to this situation:
> 
> A 30 year old individual professes faith in Christ and is baptized. After 5 years he denies Christ and leaves the church. Yet 5 more years and he repents of this, coming back to the church.
> 
> Would a credo re-baptize this individual?



Larry,
I think the eldership would speak with the person involved to determine what to do. Was he saved in the first place? Did he sin as David did, then repent? Did he make a false profession based on a man centered arminian walking the aisle kind of deal? If he made a false profession what was it based on? Does he show fruits of repentance as per MT 18? 
Did he experience divine discipline during his rebellion, as per Hebrews 12:1-14 , or is he a bastard and not a son?
When he first professed faith were their works of faith that followed? Was he able to receive divine truth and exhibit growth in grace?
I have heard it preached where some prominent missionaries in church history, later on in life believed that God actually saved them after they were in the missionary field.
Because of the subjective nature of this supposed case, and scriptural examples like Simon the sorcerer, I do not think there is a one step sure solution. Even as a credo , I know that as the apostles could not always tell who has a profession that was saving at the time of their baptism, nevertheless they were faithful to follow the command to baptize those who believe. Church discipline is also a command to remove any who are "called" a brother.
If you take the same person in a padeo church, call him a covenant breaker, and are eager to have all the hebrews passages come into play, would you say it is * impossible to renew such a one to repentance,if having fallen away * as per hebrews 6;4?


----------



## larryjf

Iconoclast said:


> Larry,
> I think the eldership would speak with the person involved to determine what to do. Was he saved in the first place? Did he sin as David did, then repent? Did he make a false profession based on a man centered arminian walking the aisle kind of deal? If he made a false profession what was it based on? Does he show fruits of repentance as per MT 18?
> Did he experience divine discipline during his rebellion, as per Hebrews 12:1-14 , or is he a bastard and not a son?
> When he first professed faith were their works of faith that followed? Was he able to receive divine truth and exhibit growth in grace?
> I have heard it preached where some prominent missionaries in church history, later on in life believed that God actualled saved them after they were in the missionary field.
> Because of the subjective nature of this supposed case, and scriptural examples like Simon the sorcerer, I do not think there is a one step sure solution. Even as a credo , I know that as the apostles could not always tell who has a profession that was saving at the time of their baptism, nevertheless they were faithful to follow the command to baptize those who believe. Church discipline is also a command to remove any who are "called" a brother.
> If you take the same person in a padeo church, call him a covenant breaker, and are eager to have all the hebrews passages come into play, would you say it is * impossible to renew such a one to repentance,if having fallen away * as per hebrews 6;4?



Hebrews 6 is not speaking of backsliding believers but those who professed to be believers and were found to be reprobate. And yes, it's impossible to restore them.

My position, as a paedo, is that there is 1 baptism. Therefore i would not suggest that the individual be re-baptized. And i don't see any evidence that the NT speaks of being re-baptized into Christ...even for backsliders.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Iconoclast said:


> Bruce,
> I would see water baptism as an ordinance, indicating what is stated in the 1689.
> Your view seeing it as sacramental would lead to pouring more into the meaning of baptism, as you would seeing it pointing to many things "promised" to the believing parent complying with what you would believe to be covenant faithfulness on the part of the believing parent, on behalf of the child. Would that be an accurate statement?
> This past two month's I have listened to dozens of good padeo Pastors.
> Ed Donnelly , David Silversides, Ben Miller, Pastor Shishko,and several others list what is supposed to be contained, or pictured by Infant baptism as a sign and seal. The more I listen it seems like the list grows and grows sometimes very fancifully!


I think this is a fair observation.

I do think that for our part, we tend to pour and pour and pour as much of the gospel message as we possibly can into baptism. And we keep "looking" for ways to do that, always tying it to Scripture of course---the "fancifully" may accurately describe your perception of a great many of them, but I would argue its only truly fanciful when there is no _exegetical_ Scriptural connection. We say that baptism, as much as the Lord's Supper, is a means of preaching the gospel to everyone who is there.Not being Lutheran, I don't believe in the "objectivity" of the gospel's ministerial effect through baptism to an infant subject. They attribute something very close to an _ex opere operato_ effect in the sacrament, whereas we Reformed do not. They would argue that not being refused, it is necessarily received, and God is so powerful in mystery he can effectively preach an age-appropriate gospel to all such infants; and what he has promised he invariably effects. This is where they argue for a form of baptismal regeneration, but then they believe that blessing can be refused later on, i.e. you can lose your salvation.

Our argument would be with the underlined terms/ideas, not being opposed to the principle that certain elect infants may well be so effected.​The Spirit's work (his baptism) brings ALL the benefits of redemption to be applied to the believer, so I do not see how it is wrong to make valid attempts to find as much of that depicted in baptism as possible.



Iconoclast said:


> When you say apart from Spirit baptism the ordinance is stripped of it's effect, no faith/ no benefit , I would be in substantial agreement with in that no Spirit baptism leaves us with a dead man walking! Dead while they live.
> It just seems to me that your view places it before Spirit baptism. That is where when I hear at an infant baptism language used similar to what is said in the 1689 as true of a believer, used upon the infant , my wires get crossed.
> I have to say that I can see how when rightly spoken of The padeo side addesses the same heart issues that the credo side does more so when it comes time to allow the children to partake of the Lord's Supper. You do it in two phases. We do it at the same time.


Again, let me say that this also is a fair, and duly considered observation. We don't agree, of course, however this sort of analytical penetration is, In my humble opinion, one of the benefits of civilized interaction on the P-B between the perspectives. I know that in my time here, I have come to understand the credo perspective better, as well as being able neutrally to note similarities and differences. And it seems clear to me that you have as well.

When it comes to these children, there is no question but that we observe a stage of immature, and a stage of mature, discipleship. Initiation requires only the bare minimum, which is person-variable, to the extent that we differentiate between expectations for an adult and a minor. A minor grown to maturity, who asks for more responsibility, needs to be tested for that maturity.This has been mentioned on other occasions, but it bears repeating here: one can see, at the level of participation, the similarity between the Baptist view of sacrament/ordinance involvement, and that of the paedo-communionist. Both combine initiation and confirmation, the ceremony of induction and the ceremony of renewal. There are a variety of differences, of course, but on this point one might see how the argument is frequently heard from the Baptist camp that Presbyterians are being "inconsistent," and from the paedo-communionist side that the Presbyterians are being "baptistic," regarding the Confessional view of the Lord's Supper.​As far as I'm concerned, my child has attained the status of "disciple" as soon as he has been born; and disciples are to be a) baptized and b) taught (Mt. 28:19-20).

All I'm saying of the infant is that the effect of his baptism is a benefit IF and WHEN he believes, that is to say, it has a positive benefit to the elect. It has no such effect for the non-elect, who never have faith to make use of it. It doesn't matter to us when the sign is applied, other than to follow what we think is God's determination as to when it is commanded for different classes of people.

Peace.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

larryjf said:


> I am curious as to how a credo would respond to this situation:
> 
> A 30 year old individual professes faith in Christ and is baptized. After 5 years he denies Christ and leaves the church. Yet 5 more years and he repents of this, coming back to the church.
> 
> Would a credo re-baptize this individual?



Hi:

I know that Al Martin of Trinity Baptist Church in Montville, NJ had his son baptized 3 times - because he professed faith, then fell away, then professed faith, then fell away, then professed faith. I don't know if he fell away again.

Though Martin is consistent with their philosophy he is inconsistent with the Scriptures.

G&P,

-CH


----------



## kceaster

Contra_Mundum said:


> All I'm saying of the infant is that the effect of his baptism is a benefit IF and WHEN he believes, that is to say, it has a positive benefit to the elect. It has no such effect for the non-elect, who never have faith to make use of it. It doesn't matter to us when the sign is applied, other than to follow what we think is God's determination as to when it is commanded for different classes of people.
> 
> Peace.



Not to correct you incorrectly Pastor, but, couldn't we say that baptism for a non-believer has a negative effect? It's sort of liking hearing the Word. It either softens or hardens. Wouldn't baptism for a non-believer break the commandment to not take the Lord's name in vain?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Hi KC,
I don't mind corrections. In this case, I did write that deliberately.

I thought about the question you raised, and still decided to write as I did, even though "effect" sounds more neutral than "blessing". Note that I wrote baptism on the non-elect infant has no _SUCH_ effect as I described.

I think that the negative effects are not as plainly defined as the positive, when it comes to the infants. We recognize baptisms that take place in churches that are almost corrupt past recognition. Why? because the form of the baptism and the history of that church are still more powerful witness to the triumph of Jesus Christ than their sin has power to take away, even when mixed with so much corruption (as Calvin expressed). I realize that this issue still comes into debate.

So, that little one is more sinned against than sinning. Whereas, the adult is certainly violating many commands, and reaping many sorrows, whether he was baptized as a mature person or as an infant. He abuses his baptism, which carries negative effect.


----------



## timmopussycat

CalvinandHodges said:


> Second, to make the claim that believers are members of the New Covenant is not contrary to Paedobaptism. As part of the New Covenant family - believers and their children are considered members.



I'm joining this late but I have to note that since Galatians 3:7 specifically identifies the children of Abraham as "those who believe", unbelieving children cannot be proved by GNC to be members of the New covenant family.


----------



## kceaster

Contra_Mundum said:


> Hi KC,
> I don't mind corrections. In this case, I did write that deliberately.
> 
> I thought about the question you raised, and still decided to write as I did, even though "effect" sounds more neutral than "blessing". Note that I wrote baptism on the non-elect infant has no _SUCH_ effect as I described.
> 
> I think that the negative effects are not as plainly defined as the positive, when it comes to the infants. We recognize baptisms that take place in churches that are almost corrupt past recognition. Why? because the form of the baptism and the history of that church are still more powerful witness to the triumph of Jesus Christ than their sin has power to take away, even when mixed with so much corruption (as Calvin expressed). I realize that this issue still comes into debate.
> 
> So, that little one is more sinned against than sinning. Whereas, the adult is certainly violating many commands, and reaping many sorrows, whether he was baptized as a mature person or as an infant. He abuses his baptism, which carries negative effect.



I think I understand. When using effectual, it has a positive connection, especially as it pertains to salvation. No problem here. That's good confessional and biblical language... thanks for clarifying.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## ManleyBeasley

timmopussycat said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, to make the claim that believers are members of the New Covenant is not contrary to Paedobaptism. As part of the New Covenant family - believers and their children are considered members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm joining this late but I have to note that since Galatians 3:7 specifically identifies the children of Abraham as "those who believe", unbelieving children cannot be proved by GNC to be members of the New covenant family.
Click to expand...


I completely agree with you. Jeremiah 31 gives a description of those *in* the NC. This description is a picture of regeneration. Regeneration is the entering of the NC *not* baptism. The error comes from creating too close of a parallel between the two covenants. Jer 31 and the book of Hebrews clearly declares the superiority of the NC over the OC. The OC was broken (Jer 31 says) and so God would make a new unbreakable covenant. Circumcision was how the OC was entered and could then be broken by the circumcized. New birth is how the NC is entered and cannot be broken. That is the superiority. From Jer 31 you either have to believe *all* baptised infants are regenerate or you have to believe the covanent is only entered through regeneration and that baptism is not a complete parallel of circumcision.


----------



## kceaster

timmopussycat said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, to make the claim that believers are members of the New Covenant is not contrary to Paedobaptism. As part of the New Covenant family - believers and their children are considered members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm joining this late but I have to note that since Galatians 3:7 specifically identifies the children of Abraham as "those who believe", unbelieving children cannot be proved by GNC to be members of the New covenant family.
Click to expand...


Who received the covenant sign in the OT?

Remember that the early church only had the OT. When Peter preached at Pentecost, the hearers didn't have the benefit of Paul's letter to the Galatians. For that matter, those who participated in John's baptism would not have had such an individualistic view as to leave their children at home or even let them come but told them that baptism was not for them until they reached a certain age. That concept would be completely foreign to them. When household baptisms are in view in Acts, they also did not have the benefit of any NT text, at least not what we have today with the exception of an early gospel.

So excluding children would have been a very new concept for the Jewish believers and since inclusive and not exclusive words are used with new Gentile converts, I think it is safe to say that early believers would have been bringing their children to the waters of baptism.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## timmopussycat

kceaster said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, to make the claim that believers are members of the New Covenant is not contrary to Paedobaptism. As part of the New Covenant family - believers and their children are considered members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm joining this late but I have to note that since Galatians 3:7 specifically identifies the children of Abraham as "those who believe", unbelieving children cannot be proved by GNC to be members of the New covenant family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who received the covenant sign in the OT?
> 
> Remember that the early church only had the OT. When Peter preached at Pentecost, the hearers didn't have the benefit of Paul's letter to the Galatians. For that matter, those who participated in John's baptism would not have had such an individualistic view as to leave their children at home or even let them come but told them that baptism was not for them until they reached a certain age. That concept would be completely foreign to them. When household baptisms are in view in Acts, they also did not have the benefit of any NT text, at least not what we have today with the exception of an early gospel.
> 
> So excluding children would have been a very new concept for the Jewish believers and since inclusive and not exclusive words are used with new Gentile converts, I think it is safe to say that early believers would have been bringing their children to the waters of baptism.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


This reduces to an argument from silence where a change might reasonably be expected. The Confessions do not allow us to accept arguments from silence as normative for requiring Christian doctrine. In this case it is fair to point out that had the disciples announced such a change in who receives the covenant sign and given their theological rationale for it, they would have done so first in teaching the initial converts at Pentecost or soon after, after which it would have been seen as a settled doctrine of the church and would not have been needed to be mentioned.

Yet, as Dr. B and I have pointed out, the change is in fact made likely if not directly explicit by Paul's statement about exactly who is a child of Abraham and John's comment about who has the right to be recognized as a member of the new covenant.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

kceaster said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, to make the claim that believers are members of the New Covenant is not contrary to Paedobaptism. As part of the New Covenant family - believers and their children are considered members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm joining this late but I have to note that since Galatians 3:7 specifically identifies the children of Abraham as "those who believe", unbelieving children cannot be proved by GNC to be members of the New covenant family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who received the covenant sign in the OT?
> 
> Remember that the early church only had the OT. When Peter preached at Pentecost, the hearers didn't have the benefit of Paul's letter to the Galatians. For that matter, those who participated in John's baptism would not have had such an individualistic view as to leave their children at home or even let them come but told them that baptism was not for them until they reached a certain age. That concept would be completely foreign to them. When household baptisms are in view in Acts, they also did not have the benefit of any NT text, at least not what we have today with the exception of an early gospel.
> 
> So excluding children would have been a very new concept for the Jewish believers and since inclusive and not exclusive words are used with new Gentile converts, I think it is safe to say that early believers would have been bringing their children to the waters of baptism.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


Thats alot of speculation (the understanding of the Acts, early Christians?) there to try to support the paedo view. They already had Jeremiah 31 and naturally wouldn't have tried to make a parallel equation of circumcision to baptism.


----------



## kceaster

ManleyBeasley said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, to make the claim that believers are members of the New Covenant is not contrary to Paedobaptism. As part of the New Covenant family - believers and their children are considered members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm joining this late but I have to note that since Galatians 3:7 specifically identifies the children of Abraham as "those who believe", unbelieving children cannot be proved by GNC to be members of the New covenant family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I completely agree with you. Jeremiah 31 gives a description of those *in* the NC. This description is a picture of regeneration. Regeneration is the entering of the NC *not* baptism. The error comes from creating too close of a parallel between the two covenants. Jer 31 and the book of Hebrews clearly declares the superiority of the NC over the OC. The OC was broken (Jer 31 says) and so God would make a new unbreakable covenant. Circumcision was how the OC was entered and could then be broken by the circumcized. New birth is how the NC is entered and cannot be broken. That is the superiority. From Jer 31 you either have to believe *all* baptised infants are regenerate or you have to believe the covanent is only entered through regeneration and that baptism is not a complete parallel of circumcision.
Click to expand...


I know this has been argued to death around here, but let me make a suggestion. Please explain why, in the context of Jeremiah 31, the following references are made:

families, Israel, virgin, Jacob, woman, child, Father, Ephraim, firstborn, nations, flock, young of the flock, young men, Rachel, children, son, daughter, Judah, seed, house, husband, and brother.

Some of these are mentioned multiple times. What does all of this type of language signify? And, did Jesus ever use these types of words in connection with salvation? Did the Apostles?

The question to ask yourself is this: If God's economy (which incidentally connects to the Greek word for house) encompasses families, and God certainly included unbelieving family members in the old covenant, then why would that have changed in the NT era with no commentary as to the change? How would God, who had dealt with families, and even deals with families in the prophecy of Jeremiah, change to an individual basis as pertains the sign of the covenant or any other peripheries of the covenant?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## ManleyBeasley

The church is the New Israel. All of it (children etc) are to be interpreted spiritually; thats the reason for the consistant reference to the church as God's family, we are brothers and sisters, those Paul led to Christ as his children, etc. The fact that the NC is made up of exclusivly regenerate people is clear in Jeremiah 31. God writes His law on thier hearts, they know Him, He forgives them. Jer 31 shouts this change.


----------



## kceaster

timmopussycat said:


> This reduces to an argument from silence where a change might reasonably be expected. The Confessions do not allow us to accept arguments from silence as normative for requiring Christian doctrine. In this case it is fair to point out that had the disciples announced such a change in who receives the covenant sign and given their theological rationale for it, they would have done so first in teaching the initial converts at Pentecost or soon after, after which it would have been seen as a settled doctrine of the church and would not have been needed to be mentioned.
> 
> Yet, as Dr. B and I have pointed out, the change is in fact made likely if not directly explicit by Paul's statement about exactly who is a child of Abraham and John's comment about who has the right to be recognized as a member of the new covenant.



Were there children in the household of Lydia, or the household of Stephanus, or the Philippian jailer. Baptists say no. Is this not an argument from silence?

This same Paul also connects baptism to circumcision in Colossians 2. He opens baptism to all in Galatians 3 in which he identifies those who have been baptized as Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. We can say with certainty that the Jewish side of Abraham's seed had all been circumcised (the males anyway.) And yet, Paul says that now there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male of female, but all may be baptized and may put on Christ. You would think that if there was no link between baptism and circumcision, that Paul might have mentioned it there. Instead, he connects the circumcision (Jews) with those baptized (Greeks).

This is important because what was the subject bothering the Galatians? Circumcision. Paul gives them assurance as he tells them, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Wouldn't this be a source of hope for them after being bewitched by the Judaizers? And yet, what ties it together? Abraham's Seed, which we know from that same chapter, Abraham's Seed is Christ, the circumcision (bloody rite of the flesh) and the baptism (the last bloody sacrifice) made together in one. That is why Christ's baptism is linked to our baptism because of His death and our new life. We no longer have to have the bloody rite of the flesh, because Christ is the bloody sacrifice, once for all.

All of this connects the two in ways that discontinuity can never separate them. And because this is true, infant inclusion is a foregone conclusion based upon God's everlasting covenant. He didn't exclude them in the old, and He didn't say to exclude them in the new.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## kceaster

ManleyBeasley said:


> The church is the New Israel. All of it (children etc) are to be interpreted spiritually; thats the reason for the consistant reference to the church as God's family, we are brothers and sisters, those Paul led to Christ as his children, etc. The fact that the NC is made up of exclusivly regenerate people is clear in Jeremiah 31. God writes His law on thier hearts, they know Him, He forgives them. Jer 31 shouts this change.



If Jeremiah 31 shouts this change using old covenant language of family, what has changed? And, might I gently remind you that with God, there is no shadow of turning and that Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## ManleyBeasley

kceaster said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> This reduces to an argument from silence where a change might reasonably be expected. The Confessions do not allow us to accept arguments from silence as normative for requiring Christian doctrine. In this case it is fair to point out that had the disciples announced such a change in who receives the covenant sign and given their theological rationale for it, they would have done so first in teaching the initial converts at Pentecost or soon after, after which it would have been seen as a settled doctrine of the church and would not have been needed to be mentioned.
> 
> Yet, as Dr. B and I have pointed out, the change is in fact made likely if not directly explicit by Paul's statement about exactly who is a child of Abraham and John's comment about who has the right to be recognized as a member of the new covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were there children in the household of Lydia, or the household of Stephanus, or the Philippian jailer. Baptists say no. Is this not an argument from silence?
> 
> This same Paul also connects baptism to circumcision in Colossians 2. He opens baptism to all in Galatians 3 in which he identifies those who have been baptized as Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. We can say with certainty that the Jewish side of Abraham's seed had all been circumcised (the males anyway.) And yet, Paul says that now there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male of female, but all may be baptized and may put on Christ. You would think that if there was no link between baptism and circumcision, that Paul might have mentioned it there. Instead, he connects the circumcision (Jews) with those baptized (Greeks).
> 
> This is important because what was the subject bothering the Galatians? Circumcision. Paul gives them assurance as he tells them, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Wouldn't this be a source of hope for them after being bewitched by the Judaizers? And yet, what ties it together? Abraham's Seed, which we know from that same chapter, Abraham's Seed is Christ, the circumcision (bloody rite of the flesh) and the baptism (the last bloody sacrifice) made together in one. That is why Christ's baptism is linked to our baptism because of His death and our new life. We no longer have to have the bloody rite of the flesh, because Christ is the bloody sacrifice, once for all.
> 
> All of this connects the two in ways that discontinuity can never separate them. And because this is true, infant inclusion is a foregone conclusion based upon God's everlasting covenant. He didn't exclude them in the old, and He didn't say to exclude them in the new.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


It's not an argument from silence at all. We don't have to argue over something that isn't there. It never says anything about children or infants at all. It never says any who didn't believe on Christ were baptized. It is up to the Paedo's to give real evidence for Paedo-baptism since it is never explicitly taught in the NT. Paedo baptism is *presuming* on the passages something that isn't there, credo baptists follow the only examples given in the New Testament; believer's baptism.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

kceaster said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> The church is the New Israel. All of it (children etc) are to be interpreted spiritually; thats the reason for the consistant reference to the church as God's family, we are brothers and sisters, those Paul led to Christ as his children, etc. The fact that the NC is made up of exclusivly regenerate people is clear in Jeremiah 31. God writes His law on thier hearts, they know Him, He forgives them. Jer 31 shouts this change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Jeremiah 31 shouts this change using old covenant language of family, what has changed? And, might I gently remind you that with God, there is no shadow of turning and that Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


Jeremiah 31:31-32 Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,32 *not like* the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 

The covenant itself claims that it is changed. God not changing does not mean he doesn't do different things at different times (baptism is NOT exactly like circumcision even in how you see it, one is water being applied the other is surgery), its God's nature that is not changing. The book of Hebrews claims the superiority of the NC over the OC; ie change; the change is the NC being unbreakable. We enter the NC by regeneration not any outward act (circumcision or baptism) but by being born again which can never be broken.


----------



## kceaster

ManleyBeasley said:


> It's not an argument from silence at all. We don't have to argue over something that isn't there. It never says anything about children or infants at all. It never says any who didn't believe on Christ were baptized. It is up to the Paedo's to give real evidence for Paedo-baptism since it is never explicitly taught in the NT. Paedo baptism is *presuming* on the passages something that isn't there, credo baptists follow the only examples given in the New Testament; believer's baptism.



Household meant wife, children, servants, mothers, fathers, grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles. It is just as much silence on your part, arguing that there were no children present, as it is from my part, arguing that there were. Household means that there is more than one.

And, forgive me, but since when do we have to prove that because something is not taught explicitly in the NT, that it has no bearing? We'd have to throw out a slew of biblical teaching if we claim that.

I would also posit that baptists are not following the examples given in the NT. They would not agree with household baptisms.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## ManleyBeasley

kceaster said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an argument from silence at all. We don't have to argue over something that isn't there. It never says anything about children or infants at all. It never says any who didn't believe on Christ were baptized. It is up to the Paedo's to give real evidence for Paedo-baptism since it is never explicitly taught in the NT. Paedo baptism is *presuming* on the passages something that isn't there, credo baptists follow the only examples given in the New Testament; believer's baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Household meant wife, children, servants, mothers, fathers, grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles. It is just as much silence on your part, arguing that there were no children present, as it is from my part, arguing that there were. Household means that there is more than one.
> 
> And, forgive me, but since when do we have to prove that because something is not taught explicitly in the NT, that it has no bearing? We'd have to throw out a slew of biblical teaching if we claim that.
> 
> I would also posit that baptists are not following the examples given in the NT. They would not agree with household baptisms.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


No, we don't have to prove that there were no infants present if it never says there are. We assume (from the rest of the NT teaching on baptism) that whomever was present was believers, whether adults or children (though certainly not infants). 

We have no problem with households (it doesn't say who were present in these housholds) being baptized as long as the members believed (you have to pressupose infant baptism in the passages to believe there were infants present). The problem with the paedo view is that it assumes that there were unbelievers present because thats how the OC (circumcision) worked even though there is no actual NT evidence for baptizing infants (just assuming there must have been). Jeremiah 31 shows that the only basis for infant baptism (entry into the NC) is actually only entered by regeneration which cannot be separated from faith.

I think for something as important as baptism, direct biblical teaching is needed. We certainly have it for communion.


----------



## kceaster

ManleyBeasley said:


> Jeremiah 31:31-32 Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,32 *not like* the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.
> 
> The covenant itself claims that it is changed. God not changing does not mean he doesn't do different things at different times (baptism is NOT exactly like circumcision even in how you see it, one is water being applied the other is surgery), its God's nature that is not changing. The book of Hebrews claims the superiority of the NC over the OC; ie change; the change is the NC being unbreakable. We enter the NC by regeneration not any outward act (circumcision or baptism) but by being born again which can never be broken.



I take this passage to say that the new covenant will not be like the old, in that, God will not allow His people to depart from Him again. And why? Because in the "renewed" covenant, the Messiah is promised, the Holy Spirit is promised, the fuller revelation of God is promised. Additionally, the end of the law for believers is promised so that it will act as a proper tutor to Christ. But in the end, we have two choices to make: 1) either man does have a part in his salvation, i.e., a two-way street or, 2) God will continue to provide salvation to His people (monergistically), but on a much larger scale.

I'll not scruple that God's economy changed from old to new, but was it really a change?

Is baptism in the OT? Absolutely. Noah and his family escaped the baptism (judgment) of the flood. The Israelites escaped the baptism in the Red Sea (also judgment) and crossed over on dry ground. They did something similar at the Jordan. Baptism in the OT signifies judgment against the sin of the enemies of God. Appropriate, then, that we should be baptized and linked to Christ's death in the symbolism of it. It symbolizes that by Christ's death, we who were once enemies have been allowed to be members in the family of God. 

The same can be shown of circumcision. In the NT, circumcision is the operation of the Holy Spirit transplanting a new heart of flesh for the heart of stone. Circumcision in the OT symbolized the bloody cutting off of the flesh so that one could be counted among God's people. Paul also called it a sign and seal.

So while the signs changed, the things signified remained the same. 

What makes the old breakable and the new unbreakable? Was it not God in both covenants? Was it not His design? This by no means lessens the responsibility of the Jews, but if the old covenant had been perfect, there would be no need for the new. The reason the OC was breakable was to show us how it is kept, in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. This does not show a change in God, nor did it change the everlasting covenant whose blood speaks better things than that of Abel.

I would encourage you to look for the links between the covenants instead of looking for the ways they are different.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## ManleyBeasley

kceaster said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah 31:31-32 Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,32 *not like* the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.
> 
> The covenant itself claims that it is changed. God not changing does not mean he doesn't do different things at different times (baptism is NOT exactly like circumcision even in how you see it, one is water being applied the other is surgery), its God's nature that is not changing. The book of Hebrews claims the superiority of the NC over the OC; ie change; the change is the NC being unbreakable. We enter the NC by regeneration not any outward act (circumcision or baptism) but by being born again which can never be broken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take this passage to say that the new covenant will not be like the old, in that, God will not allow His people to depart from Him again. And why? Because in the "renewed" covenant, the Messiah is promised, the Holy Spirit is promised, the fuller revelation of God is promised. Additionally, the end of the law for believers is promised so that it will act as a proper tutor to Christ. But in the end, we have two choices to make: 1) either man does have a part in his salvation, i.e., a two-way street or, 2) God will continue to provide salvation to His people (monergistically), but on a much larger scale.
> 
> I'll not scruple that God's economy changed from old to new, but was it really a change?
> 
> Is baptism in the OT? Absolutely. Noah and his family escaped the baptism (judgment) of the flood. The Israelites escaped the baptism in the Red Sea (also judgment) and crossed over on dry ground. They did something similar at the Jordan. Baptism in the OT signifies judgment against the sin of the enemies of God. Appropriate, then, that we should be baptized and linked to Christ's death in the symbolism of it. It symbolizes that by Christ's death, we who were once enemies have been allowed to be members in the family of God.
> 
> The same can be shown of circumcision. In the NT, circumcision is the operation of the Holy Spirit transplanting a new heart of flesh for the heart of stone. Circumcision in the OT symbolized the bloody cutting off of the flesh so that one could be counted among God's people. Paul also called it a sign and seal.
> 
> So while the signs changed, the things signified remained the same.
> 
> What makes the old breakable and the new unbreakable? Was it not God in both covenants? Was it not His design? This by no means lessens the responsibility of the Jews, but if the old covenant had been perfect, there would be no need for the new. The reason the OC was breakable was to show us how it is kept, in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. This does not show a change in God, nor did it change the everlasting covenant whose blood speaks better things than that of Abel.
> 
> I would encourage you to look for the links between the covenants instead of looking for the ways they are different.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


No, we should look for whatever is true, not similarities or dissimilarities. Again Jeremiah 31 describes the NC. Its mark *IS *1. Law in the mind and written on the heart. 2. Knowing God. 3. Sins forgiven. If someone is in the NC then this is what they are. The covenant is obviously entered through new birth. Yes its the same God who made both covenants and he made the NC superiour to the OC because it cannot be broken (perseverance of the saints).


----------



## kceaster

ManleyBeasley said:


> No, we don't have to prove that there were no infants present if it never says there are. We assume (from the rest of the NT teaching on baptism) that whomever was present was believers, whether adults or children (though certainly not infants).
> 
> We have no problem with households (it doesn't say who were present in these housholds) being baptized as long as the members believed (you have to pressupose infant baptism in the passages to believe there were infants present). The problem with the paedo view is that it assumes that there were unbelievers present because thats how the OC (circumcision) worked even though there is no actual NT evidence for baptizing infants (just assuming there must have been). Jeremiah 31 shows that the only basis for infant baptism (entry into the NC) is actually only entered by regeneration which cannot be separated from faith.
> 
> I think for something as important as baptism, direct biblical teaching is needed. We certainly have it for communion.



I believe I have been fair up to this point that I've tried to answer you point for point. However, I think I've been ignored on the questions I asked earlier. If you would interact with why there is so much familial language in something you're turning into an individually focused passage, I would interact with you. But I find at this juncture, that we'll not be able to see eye to eye.

I would suggest that before you decide on the matter about the new covenant, that you would go back and study the old. I found that to be invaluable and the only real way that one can understand terms especially because of the language of the Bible being so connected between the two. After all, how do you know what is new about the new, if you don't know what is old about the old.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## timmopussycat

kceaster said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm joining this late but I have to note that since Galatians 3:7 specifically identifies the children of Abraham as "those who believe", unbelieving children cannot be proved by GNC to be members of the New covenant family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely agree with you. Jeremiah 31 gives a description of those *in* the NC. This description is a picture of regeneration. Regeneration is the entering of the NC *not* baptism. The error comes from creating too close of a parallel between the two covenants. Jer 31 and the book of Hebrews clearly declares the superiority of the NC over the OC. The OC was broken (Jer 31 says) and so God would make a new unbreakable covenant. Circumcision was how the OC was entered and could then be broken by the circumcized. New birth is how the NC is entered and cannot be broken. That is the superiority. From Jer 31 you either have to believe *all* baptised infants are regenerate or you have to believe the covanent is only entered through regeneration and that baptism is not a complete parallel of circumcision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know this has been argued to death around here, but let me make a suggestion. Please explain why, in the context of Jeremiah 31, the following references are made:
> 
> families, Israel, virgin, Jacob, woman, child, Father, Ephraim, firstborn, nations, flock, young of the flock, young men, Rachel, children, son, daughter, Judah, seed, house, husband, and brother.
> 
> Some of these are mentioned multiple times. What does all of this type of language signify? And, did Jesus ever use these types of words in connection with salvation? Did the Apostles?
> 
> The question to ask yourself is this: If God's economy (which incidentally connects to the Greek word for house) encompasses families, and God certainly included unbelieving family members in the old covenant, then why would that have changed in the NT era with no commentary as to the change? How would God, who had dealt with families, and even deals with families in the prophecy of Jeremiah, change to an individual basis as pertains the sign of the covenant or any other peripheries of the covenant?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


Because "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" is God's own self-declaration and it appears from John 1: 10-13 and Gal 3:7 that he has narrowed the scope of those He has included in his covenant. Now, they that are of faith who have the right to be called children of God and they are the children of Abraham in the new covenant just as it was the children of Isaac and Jacob (and not Ismael and Esau) who were the covenant children of Abraham under the old covenant.


----------



## timmopussycat

kceaster said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> This reduces to an argument from silence where a change might reasonably be expected. The Confessions do not allow us to accept arguments from silence as normative for requiring Christian doctrine. In this case it is fair to point out that had the disciples announced such a change in who receives the covenant sign and given their theological rationale for it, they would have done so first in teaching the initial converts at Pentecost or soon after, after which it would have been seen as a settled doctrine of the church and would not have been needed to be mentioned.
> 
> Yet, as Dr. B and I have pointed out, the change is in fact made likely if not directly explicit by Paul's statement about exactly who is a child of Abraham and John's comment about who has the right to be recognized as a member of the new covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were there children in the household of Lydia, or the household of Stephanus, or the Philippian jailer. Baptists say no. Is this not an argument from silence?
Click to expand...


Not all families have any *infants or children to young to trust in a Saviour* in them at all times. Since Scripture does not answer the question as far as these families status at the times mentioned are concerned, it is the confession not me, that does not allow the hypothetical status of those families to determine our doctrine.



kceaster said:


> This same Paul also connects baptism to circumcision in Colossians 2. He opens baptism to all in Galatians 3 in which he identifies those who have been baptized as Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. We can say with certainty that the Jewish side of Abraham's seed had all been circumcised (the males anyway.) And yet, Paul says that now there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male of female, but all may be baptized and may put on Christ. You would think that if there was no link between baptism and circumcision, that Paul might have mentioned it there. Instead, he connects the circumcision (Jews) with those baptized (Greeks).



If you wish to use Col 2:11ff as a text to derive either water baptism or infant baptism as a necessary consequence you will find yourself biting off more than you can chew. For doing so necessarily leads to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration (since the baptism here mentioned clearly leads to actual union with Christ) and we know that not all who are baptized, especially not all who are baptized as infants, prove regenerate. No, the baptism here is that of the Spirit baptizing us into Christ or regeneration itself. 



kceaster said:


> This is important because what was the subject bothering the Galatians? Circumcision. Paul gives them assurance as he tells them, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Wouldn't this be a source of hope for them after being bewitched by the Judaizers? And yet, what ties it together? Abraham's Seed, which we know from that same chapter, Abraham's Seed is Christ, the circumcision (bloody rite of the flesh) and the baptism (the last bloody sacrifice) made together in one. That is why Christ's baptism is linked to our baptism because of His death and our new life. We no longer have to have the bloody rite of the flesh, because Christ is the bloody sacrifice, once for all.



Indeed their faith in Christ rather than circumcsion should have encouraged them and their regenerate status and union with Christ acheived through the Spirit's baptizing them into Christ should have done likewise. But Paul specifically defines Abraham's seed as "they that have faith" not "they that have faith and their children."



kceaster said:


> All of this connects the two in ways that discontinuity can never separate them. And because this is true, infant inclusion is a foregone conclusion based upon God's everlasting covenant. He didn't exclude them in the old, and He didn't say to exclude them in the new.



What God has said in John 1: 10-13 and Gal 3:7 are enough to make it impossible to prove that presently unbelieving children are, at the time, children of Abraham or are due the right of being recognized as having been born of God.


----------



## kceaster

timmopussycat said:


> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I completely agree with you. Jeremiah 31 gives a description of those *in* the NC. This description is a picture of regeneration. Regeneration is the entering of the NC *not* baptism. The error comes from creating too close of a parallel between the two covenants. Jer 31 and the book of Hebrews clearly declares the superiority of the NC over the OC. The OC was broken (Jer 31 says) and so God would make a new unbreakable covenant. Circumcision was how the OC was entered and could then be broken by the circumcized. New birth is how the NC is entered and cannot be broken. That is the superiority. From Jer 31 you either have to believe *all* baptised infants are regenerate or you have to believe the covanent is only entered through regeneration and that baptism is not a complete parallel of circumcision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know this has been argued to death around here, but let me make a suggestion. Please explain why, in the context of Jeremiah 31, the following references are made:
> 
> families, Israel, virgin, Jacob, woman, child, Father, Ephraim, firstborn, nations, flock, young of the flock, young men, Rachel, children, son, daughter, Judah, seed, house, husband, and brother.
> 
> Some of these are mentioned multiple times. What does all of this type of language signify? And, did Jesus ever use these types of words in connection with salvation? Did the Apostles?
> 
> The question to ask yourself is this: If God's economy (which incidentally connects to the Greek word for house) encompasses families, and God certainly included unbelieving family members in the old covenant, then why would that have changed in the NT era with no commentary as to the change? How would God, who had dealt with families, and even deals with families in the prophecy of Jeremiah, change to an individual basis as pertains the sign of the covenant or any other peripheries of the covenant?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" is God's own self-declaration and it appears from John 1: 10-13 and Gal 3:7 that he has narrowed the scope of those He has included in his covenant. Now, they that are of faith who have the right to be called children of God and they are the children of Abraham in the new covenant just as it was the children of Isaac and Jacob (and not Ismael and Esau) who were the covenant children of Abraham under the old covenant.
Click to expand...


Forgive me, but could you elaborate on the questions I asked? To which question does the above answer?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## ManleyBeasley

kceaster said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we don't have to prove that there were no infants present if it never says there are. We assume (from the rest of the NT teaching on baptism) that whomever was present was believers, whether adults or children (though certainly not infants).
> 
> We have no problem with households (it doesn't say who were present in these housholds) being baptized as long as the members believed (you have to pressupose infant baptism in the passages to believe there were infants present). The problem with the paedo view is that it assumes that there were unbelievers present because thats how the OC (circumcision) worked even though there is no actual NT evidence for baptizing infants (just assuming there must have been). Jeremiah 31 shows that the only basis for infant baptism (entry into the NC) is actually only entered by regeneration which cannot be separated from faith.
> 
> I think for something as important as baptism, direct biblical teaching is needed. We certainly have it for communion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I have been fair up to this point that I've tried to answer you point for point. However, I think I've been ignored on the questions I asked earlier. If you would interact with why there is so much familial language in something you're turning into an individually focused passage, I would interact with you. But I find at this juncture, that we'll not be able to see eye to eye.
> 
> I would suggest that before you decide on the matter about the new covenant, that you would go back and study the old. I found that to be invaluable and the only real way that one can understand terms especially because of the language of the Bible being so connected between the two. After all, how do you know what is new about the new, if you don't know what is old about the old.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


You can know what is different about the new by studying Jeremiah 31 which clearly states what the difference is. The old was broken and the new (because of the description of regeneration) will not be broken. That is the point (the reason God points out that the old had been broken) of the passage.

I wasn't trying to ignore your questions; I apologize if I came across that way. I thought I had answered your questions though my references to Jeremiah 31. The fact that it describes (in detail) regeneration, and regeneration is individual I assumed that would be clear. Again, I do apologize; I did not mean to offend you.


----------



## kceaster

ManleyBeasley said:


> You can know what is different about the new by studying Jeremiah 31 which clearly states what the difference is. The old was broken and the new (because of the description of regeneration) will not be broken. That is the point (the reason God points out that the old had been broken) of the passage.
> 
> I wasn't trying to ignore your questions; I apologize if I came across that way. I thought I had answered your questions though my references to Jeremiah 31. The fact that it describes (in detail) regeneration, and regeneration is individual I assumed that would be clear. Again, I do apologize; I did not mean to offend you.



You've not offended me, brother. What I was trying to get you to talk through is why there would be so much language involving family and household, if there is such narrowing distinction to only regeneration of individuals and not the broader church in view in that passage. I would say that in general, knowing that there are no perfect churches, the prophecy speaks to what is generally true about the church, but is not always true about her membership.

I think you probably know that Presbyterians talk about the visible and invisible church and how we deem it to be crucial to understanding the covenants of God. It helps us make sense of the real warning passages without the danger of abandoning the perseverance of the saints. It also makes sense of passages that talk about goats in with sheep and chaff in with wheat. And that brings up what has been said many times on this discussion that the baptistic view would lead us to a regenerate only church membership, which of course we can't get to. In the final analysis, both Baptists and Presbyterians have to administer baptism to people who could be genuine or false. Because that is the case, Presbyterians see the prophecy of Jeremiah in a completely different light. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of why we would see it differently.

There was an obvious visible and invisible scenario in the old covenant, so it stands to reason, as even our Lord says in Matt. 7:21-23 and various other places, that we would see the same distinction in the new covenant.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## ManleyBeasley

kceaster said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can know what is different about the new by studying Jeremiah 31 which clearly states what the difference is. The old was broken and the new (because of the description of regeneration) will not be broken. That is the point (the reason God points out that the old had been broken) of the passage.
> 
> I wasn't trying to ignore your questions; I apologize if I came across that way. I thought I had answered your questions though my references to Jeremiah 31. The fact that it describes (in detail) regeneration, and regeneration is individual I assumed that would be clear. Again, I do apologize; I did not mean to offend you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've not offended me, brother. What I was trying to get you to talk through is why there would be so much language involving family and household, if there is such narrowing distinction to only regeneration of individuals and not the broader church in view in that passage. I would say that in general, knowing that there are no perfect churches, the prophecy speaks to what is generally true about the church, but is not always true about her membership.
> 
> I think you probably know that Presbyterians talk about the visible and invisible church and how we deem it to be crucial to understanding the covenants of God. It helps us make sense of the real warning passages without the danger of abandoning the perseverance of the saints. It also makes sense of passages that talk about goats in with sheep and chaff in with wheat. And that brings up what has been said many times on this discussion that the baptistic view would lead us to a regenerate only church membership, which of course we can't get to. In the final analysis, both Baptists and Presbyterians have to administer baptism to people who could be genuine or false. Because that is the case, Presbyterians see the prophecy of Jeremiah in a completely different light. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of why we would see it differently.
> 
> There was an obvious visible and invisible scenario in the old covenant, so it stands to reason, as even our Lord says in Matt. 7:21-23 and various other places, that we would see the same distinction in the new covenant.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


I agree that there are sheep, goats and a visible, invisible church; I don't see this as a proof of infant baptism but of the fact that there are people who claim Christ but aren't regenerate. I do not see believer's baptism as a way to create a perfect church but as being obediant to what I believe scripture teaches. We baptists have many goats and tares also. I think the Presbyterian churches I've visited are just as filled with Godly people as any Baptist ones. Please don't think I'm arguing for Baptist churches being more pure in that way because that is not my experience.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

*A Credobaptist Exposition and Application of John 1:12-13*

_But to as many as received him, He granted the legal warrant to become children of God, even to the ones who believe in His name, who were born not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the decision of a husband, but of God (author’s translation).
_​
*Doctrine:* The conferral of covenant sonship status under the New Covenant is limited no longer to the Jewish nation and is predicated no longer on natural descent but on supernatural descent, the fruit and evidence of which is saving faith in Jesus the Messiah.

Below I will offer three propositions to substantiate the doctrine articulated and close with an application related to the question of infant baptism and New Covenant church membership. 

*1. The passage is not merely explaining the ordo salutis, that is, God's way of salvation at all times, but is primarily highlighting a shift in the historia salutis, that is, God's manner of administrating the paradigm of redemption (i.e., commonly called the Covenant of Grace) in history.*

The reader should note that the primarily theme of John 1:1-18 is the Word becoming flesh and dwelling among men. This is obviously a historical event and it marks a new epoch in the history of redemption. The apostle notes this epochal shift when he asserts, "The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." John's reference to Moses alludes to a great event in redemptive history, viz, God redeeming His people from Egypt mediated through Moses and later revealed in the Law. That great redemptive event, however, would pale in comparison to the second great redemptive event. Indeed, the first great event was merely a shadow of the second great event. Now God would redeem His people from their sins by the hand of one greater than Moses (cf. Deut. 18:15ff.; Heb. 3:1-7). The Son of God would come and ratify a New Covenant with His own blood. 

So what we have here are two mediators, two covenants, and two canons! The “law” is the OT canon completed. “Grace and truth,” refer to a New Covenant canon, not yet completed but anticipated and presupposed. Moreover, John’s purpose in this passage is to highlight the superiority of the New Covenant and its mediator. The Old Covenant contained grace and truth (Exod. 34:4-7). That grace and truth, however, was promissory in form. God’s people could not look directly at His glory, but they could only see it as it was reflected from Moses’ face. Even then there was a veil over his face, because God’s people were not ready for the full revelation of God’s glory (34:29-35). 

But in the fullness of time God sent forth His Son, the Word. Now the veil will be taken away from the Law of Moses. Now God’s people are ready to see God’s glory in all of its fullness. Note verse 14: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Now grace and truth are no longer in the promissory form of the OT. Now they’re in the fulfillment form of the incarnate Son of God—the Mediator of a better covenant. Instead of sending Moses down from the mountain in order to reflect His glorious grace and truth, God Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ, has come down from the mountain. Note the declaration of verse 18: “The only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained [i.e., revealed] Him.” Jesus Christ Himself is the New Covenant word from God. 

What, therefore, verses 10-12 describe are human responses to this redemptive-historical event. "The world did not know Him" (v. 10), "his own people did not receive him" (v. 11), and "but as many as received Him" (v. 12) refer primarily those historical human responses that have followed in the wake of this new and greatest of all redemptive events--God become flesh in the person of Christ. Thus, verses 12 and 13 are not merely rehearsing God's way of grace throughout the ages (e.g., God's work of grace in Abraham, Moses, and David) but are concerned primarily with a new state of affairs introduced by the coming of Christ and inauguration of the New Covenant. Now what once characterized only a remnant within God's Old Covenant family will now be the rule characterizing the members of the New Covenant family. Unfortunately, as William Hendricksen notes, "The Jew was very slow to learn that *in the new dispensation* there are no special privileges based upon physical relationships" [emphasis added] (Exposition of the Gospel According to John [Baker, 1953], 1:81). Therefore, Adam Brink’s observation (post #12) that John’s teaching in 1:12-13 “was true in the Old Covenant; this is nothing new” betrays an insensitivity to the clear redemptive-historical emphasis of John’s doctrine. 

*2. The passage is not merely referring to the divine causation of a moral change in individuals, that is, regeneration, but is primarily highlighting a divine conferral of legal covenantal status, that is, adoption. 
*
The rendering of the Authorized Version, "to them gave he power to become the sons of God," has suggested to some that vv. 12-13 are dealing exclusively with regeneration. The Greek term translated "power," however, is _exousia_, not _dunamis_. The later would connote revivification and be consonant with the grace of regeneration. The former denotes legal authority and/or privilege. This is noted by Leon Morris who writes, "John does not speak of power, as in the sense of power of sin (though in fact they receive that too). His thought is that of status. They have received full authority to this exalted title. He does not say 'to be' but 'to become.' Not only is there a status, but there is a change of status" (_The Gospel According to John_ [Eerdmans, 1971], 98). Albert Barnes argues similarly and prefers to translate _exousia _as "privilege." He then identifies this privilege as the legal status of adoption (_Barnes' Notes on the New Testament_ [Kregel, 1962], 265). 

Barnes is not without support from other commentators. John Calvin uses the term "adoption" at least four times in his exposition of verses 12 and 13 (see _Calvin's NT Commentaries_ [Eerdmans, 1993], 4:16-19). Professor John Murray lists John 1:12-13 among "the most important passages in the New Testament bearing upon adoption" (_Collected Works_ [Banner of Truth, 1977], 2:226). He argues,In John 1:12 he speaks of giving authority to become sons of God. Sonship, he indicates, is instituted by the bestowment of a right and this is to be distinguished from the regeneration spoken of in verse 13. When we apply John's own teaching elsewhere to this passage we are compelled to discover the following progression of logical and causal relationship--regeneration (v. 13), the reception of Christ, the bestowment of authority, and becoming thereby children of God (v. 12).... In a word, the representation of Scripture is to the effect that by regeneration we become members of God's kingdom, by adoption we become members of God's family (CW, 2:228-229). ​One should note how Murray connects the blessing of adoption with membership in God's covenant family. Robert Peterson builds on Murray's insights and remarks,Adoption and regeneration are two ways of describing how we enter the family of God.... In regeneration, [God] begets his children, giving new life to those who were spiritual dead. In adoption, the Father places adult sons and daughters, former children of the devil, in his family. Adoption is a legal action, taking place outside of us, whereby God the Father gives us a new status in his family (_Adopted by God_ [P&R, 2001], 105). ​So the grace bestowed in verse 12 is "adoption" in contrast with the grace effected in verse 13, which is "regeneration" (see also J. C. Ryle, _Expository Thoughts on the Gospels_ [Zondervan, 1957], 3:16-17). Of course, as the writers above note, John ties both salvific blessings together. This new covenant family status is conferred on believers (v. 12) whose very faith is itself the fruit or evidence of a supernatural work of God's regenerating grace (v. 13). Thus, this newly conferred covenant status is not the product of human merit but of divine bestowal. So, to answer Kevin Easterday (post #22), the passage is indeed about “the children’s rights.” But no Calvinist, whether Paedo or Credo, denies that “the rights” belong to us as a gift from God, just as the faith and regeneration addressed in this passage are gracious gifts. 

Nevertheless, since verse 13 stands grammatically in subordination to verse 12, the emphasis is not so much upon God's inward work of regeneration but rather upon God's subsequent conferral of legal status upon regenerate believers. And if John is not merely alluding to the _ordo salutis_ but rather to a new stage in redemptive history, then his emphasis on a circumcised heart expressed by faith in Christ as the condition for the divine conferral of a new covenant-familial status suggests a qualitative difference between the constitutional makeup of the Old Covenant people of God, with the most of whom God was not well-pleased (1 Cor. 10:1-5), and the New Covenant people of God (who, as a rule, are truly "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession," marked by the fact that God has not merely called them out of Egypt to Canaan but "out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Pet. 2:9). 

*3. The passage predicates the divine conferral of a legal covenantal status no longer on natural descent but on supernatural descent, the fruit and evidence of which is saving faith in Jesus Christ. *

If, as argued above, John's focus is not merely on the _ordo salutis_ but primarily on the _historia salutis_, then verse 13 takes on new significance. Salvation has always been by grace through faith in the promised Offspring. More specifically, God has always called for a circumcised heart that gives rise to faith and genuine piety (Gen. 15:6; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4, 14). But one might lawfully belong to Abraham's "seed" and to the nation of Israel via the circumcision made with hands without the new birth. Hence, God confers upon the nation of Israel as a whole and indiscriminately the status of sonship (Exo. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Hos. 11:1; Rom. 9:4). 

This redemptive-historical state of affairs, however, has changed with the coming of Christ, says John. Not only does God convey his grace and truth through a better mediator than Moses (see above). But now God will limit the conferral of legal covenant status to those upon whose heart His law is written, who know Him, and whose sins He has forgiven (Jer. 31:31-34). To use the language of John, "To as many as received" the Son of God incarnate (v. 12). Hence, natural descent, the pride of the Jewish people, no longer counts. As Calvin observes,The universal term 'as many' implies an antithesis: the Jews were carried away by a blind glorying, as if God were restricted to them alone. So the Evangelist declares that their lot has changed; the Gentiles have succeeded to the place left empty by the disinherited Jews. It is just as if he transferred the rights of adoption to strangers (_NT Commentaries_, 4:16-17). ​So the legal right of entrance into the covenant family of God is no longer predicated on physical descent or outward circumcision. Instead, "'Whosoever' received Him," notes Ryle, whether "Pharisees, Sadducees, learned or unlearned, male or female, Jews or Gentiles, to them He gave the privilege of sonship to God" (3:22). Hence, with the coming of Christ, God has reconstituted his covenant household. He has indicated through the pen of His inspired apostle that warrant for inclusion within his "covenant household" (see Eph. 2:19) is predicated on faith and the new birth, no longer on natural descent. 

*Application: What are the implications for the New Covenant rite of baptism and church membership status? *

A Paedobaptist might respond like Matthew Winzer (post #15) and assert,The passage teaches nothing concerning 'baptism,' the sign, but is concerned with the grace, or what is signified. Paedobaptists teach that the grace signified by baptism belongs only to those who believe. Paedobaptists are credobaptists in this sense.​I agree with Matthew that "the grace signified by baptism belongs only to those who believe" and that "Paedobaptists are credobaptists in this sense." I would also concede that John does not directly refer to water baptism (which would be a bit premature at this stage in his Gospel presentation). Nevertheless, I'm inclined to think, in light of my exposition above, that this passage does carry implications regarding the recipients of baptism and membership in New Covenant churches. Under both the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations, the _ordo salutis_ was preached primarily through shadows and was not, as a whole, realized in the "people of God." Under the New Covenant, however, God's redemptive program has advanced. Now the _historia salutis _and _ordo salutis_ will more closely coincide. (Note: perfect coincidence will await the eschaton, in response to Rich’s charge (post #13) that the Credobaptist argues for “the ideal.”) To achieve this result, God demands faith in Messiah as _*the warrant for inclusion *_within the New Covenant community. Natural descent and outward circumcision served their typical purposes under the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. But blood-ties to Abraham and removed foreskins failed to effect the kind of changes in the covenant community God ultimately desired. Therefore,Finding fault *with His people*, He says: "Look, 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-- _*not like the covenant that I made with their fathers*_ on the day I took them by their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. Because they did not continue in My covenant, I disregarded them," says the Lord. "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days," says the Lord: "_*I will put My laws into their minds*_, and *I will write them on their hearts*, and I will be their God, and they will be My people. And each person will not teach his fellow citizen, and each his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because _*they will all know Me, from the least to the greatest of them*_. For I will be merciful to their wrongdoing, _*and I will never again remember their sins*_." By saying, _*a new covenant*_, He has declared that the first is old. And what is old and aging *is about to disappear* [emphasis added] (Heb. 8:8-13, CSB). ​In keeping with the redemptive-historical shift portended by the prophet Jeremiah, highlighted by the author of Hebrews, and reinforced by the teaching of John 1:12-13, I would argue that those who have divinely conferred legal warrant to enter into God's newly constituted covenant family are *those who give evidence of the new birth though a credible profession of faith in Jesus the Messiah*. The fact that unregenerate men and women are sometimes baptized and brought into the New Covenant community on profession of faith that later turns out to be false does not contradict or invalidate the Credobaptist argument. Even the Paedobaptist predicates adult baptism on a credible profession of faith. Hence, “the proverbial elephant sitting in the Credo-Baptist living room,” to use Rich’s words (post #13), is in the Paedobaptist’s living room too! He too demands from adult proselytes a credible profession of faith based on John 1:12-13 and other texts without pretending to have he omniscience to read men's hearts. 

The real question is one of *divinely bestowed legal warrant* (John 1:12). What the Credobaptist avers is that this demand for a credible profession of faith as the warrant for inclusion within God's New Covenant family _is not a substantial continuation of the state of affairs under the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants with, of course, a few minor changes, like the switch from circumcision to baptism and from the Passover to the Lord's Supper_. It is, rather, _a new state of affairs_ from a redemptive-historical standpoint. Hence, *the church and her leadership is no longer warranted by God to include physical seed in the covenant by virtue of mere blood-ties to believing parents*. To those who receive Christ and to those alone does God grant _de jure_ the privilege of New Covenant member status. 

In closing, I acknowledge that some (not all) of my Paedobaptist brothers may affirm much of what I have said and acknowledge its validity _as a general rule_. They will, however, quickly remind me of a handful of New Testament passages that, in their minds, provide biblical warrant for _an exception to the rule_. They will point to Jesus' receptive disposition toward children (Acts 18:1-10; Mark 10:14-16), Peter's reference to children in Acts 2:38-39; household baptisms (Acts 16:15; 31-34; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16), and the children made "holy" text (1 Cor. 7:14). But these passages are hardly conclusive and undisputed. It should also be noted in that in all the NT polemic against the Judaizers' attempt to foist the continuing demand of outward circumcision upon the New Covenant community _never once do the apostles settle the confusion with the simple observation that circumcision has been superseded by baptism_. Colossians 2:11-12 does not replace outward circumcision with water baptism. Rather, it replaces _outward circumcision with inward circumcision_ (Phil. 3:3), i.e., regeneration, which in turn is evidenced by faith (John 1:12-13) and symbolized in water baptism (Col. 2:12). So, with all due respect and appreciation for my Paedobaptist brothers, I do not believe the Credobaptists argues in a "void" (contra Rob, post #9). Moreover, though our great esteem for our Reformed Paedobaptist forefathers has even constrained some of us to attempt to swallow infant baptism, yet until we find clear Scriptural warrant for the practice, we dare not violate our conscience and add to God’s word. Without trying to be melodramatic, we might borrow Luther's famous words,Unless we are convicted by Scripture and plain reason ... our conscience is captive to the Word of God.... to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here we stand, we cannot do otherwise. God help us, Amen.​Respectfully yours,


----------



## kceaster

*Dr. Gonzalez....*

I don't think anyone here disputes the fact that this passage covers the proper ordo salutis and historio salutis. We all readily agree that for one to be a true son of Abraham in Christ, he is not so outwardly, but inwardly. This change is made completely of God and due to His election and glory and grace.

But to link this passage to a baptism argument does not help us get any nearer to a resolution. Presbyterians are still going to argue, from a covenant perspective, that Abraham, while under this passage was a true son, his son Ishmael, and his grandson Esau, were not true sons; yet all received the sign of the covenant. And Baptists will argue that circumcision and baptism are not linked.

I won't say that your analysis is not helpful, but I'll renew my primary objection: I still believe that your emphasis, and not just yours, but anyone who stresses the rights of the individual, is in the wrong place. As people who exist only to bring glory to God, we should always stress and press the rights of God to do as He will, and stress and press our rights only for assurance and edification. To place too much upon the forensic or legal rights of a son over His father, seems to be out of place. This passage should give us more gratefulness and appreciation for God's adoption, rather than give us boldness to claim rights as sons. We should claim only the blood of Christ as pertains to our salvation and should never point to a profession or any act that we perform as that which can help us make our claim. I'm not saying you believe this. I'm saying that we should avoid going close to making a profession of faith, that which gives us a right to be in the family of God.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

kceaster said:


> I won't say that your analysis is not helpful ...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Kevin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... but I'll renew my primary objection: I still believe that your emphasis, and not just yours, but anyone who stresses the rights of the individual, is in the wrong place. As people who exist only to bring glory to God, we should always stress and press the rights of God to do as He will, and stress and press our rights only for assurance and edification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kevin, I'm not certain you're interpreting what I've written carefully. By stressing that God has conferred upon us the legal status of sonship, I am stressing "His rights." As John makes clear and as I acknowledged in my exposition, God regenerates (v. 13), gives the gift of faith and grants the legal warrant of sonship. I'm a Calvinist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To place too much upon the forensic or legal rights of a son over His father, seems to be out of place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whoa! Did I say anything about the "legal rights of a son OVER his father"? I don't think I said that. What I did say was that we have been granted legal rights BY our Father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This passage should give us more gratefulness and appreciation for God's adoption, rather than give us boldness to claim rights as sons. We should claim only the blood of Christ as pertains to our salvation and should never point to a profession or any act that we perform as that which can help us make our claim. I'm not saying you believe this. I'm saying that we should avoid going close to making a profession of faith, that which gives us a right to be in the family of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I'm not opposed to reading this passage doxologically. Let God be all and all! But this passage in particular explicitly asserts that God confers "a right to be in the family of God" based on a profession of faith. What more can I say? Since we all believe that faith is a gift of God, there's no reason for boasting.
> 
> Thanks for your response to my post. I genuinely appreciate your desire to keep our focus on God's glory in man's salvation.
Click to expand...


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

There is an easy answer to your post, Dr. Gonzales. That is, you are confusing the New Covenant with the Covenant of Grace.

A person can be baptized into the New Covenant, but not be a member of the Covenant of Grace. This is taught just about everywhere in the Bible.

Grace and Peace,

Rob


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

*Typology*

The answer is in typology.

For instance, it has already been stated that one entered into the Covenant of Israel, the chosen nation of God by blood line...BUT...

There was also, and is still used today, a "sign". The sign is circumcision. If one was NOT circumcised, then one was not considered to be under the covenant made with Abraham, and was not recognized as such.

Baptism avails nothing in and of it's self (as you know), yet is commanded as one professes the gospel and enters into covenant fellowship with God, the baptism commanded of Christ is to note those who have believed and make a public profession of it.

Now, with that, the Bible also teaches to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, and that fellowship with the world is enmity with God, and also, as Paul teaches, if, marriage sanctifies the unbeliever, how does it do so? In like manner, how does baptism sanctify the unbelieving infant? Give it some thought; meditate on it.

If circumcision, a sign of Israel, didn't cut it (ha ha) for Esau...but did for Jacob...what point was there to it? Did circumcision give Esau a place in the 12 tribes of Israel? He ended up OUTSIDE the nation of Israel (God's Chosen). Yet, he was circumcised.

If one would, that their child be understood as being brought in under the New Covenant, and to be raised as such, should the child NOT be baptised?

What is "baby dedication" in many denominations, but a mere mimic of the baptism of one's child, announcing to the church that they (the parents) commit to raising their child under the Covenant for which they belong. As if the child was/is a believer...like Isaac did Esau...and in fact, favored him, as you know.

As for the the Scripture reference, one is not born of the flesh, blood, will of man, but of God...and therefore what has baptism to do with it? One could be tempted to mention Rome's view of infant baptism, which, in essence, they believe regenerates the infant. As if there were something special about the water. As if natural elements somehow Spiritually change someone. Did circumcision change Esau, spiritually? Yet, he recieved the sign of which God commanded.

I know, Paul teaches how circumcision avails nothing, if one doesn't keep ALL the Commandments...of course it doesn't, and Paul also had a problem with baptising...in that many boasted in who baptised them. Neither GIVES eternal life.

A function of Baptism, is to signify one belonging to the Church, until they prove NOT to be otherwise, as mentioned earlier in the thread. It seems fine to baptize someone you don't know is saved, just because they give the impression they are, only to see them leave the fellowship and show they never were. Yet, it isn't o.k. to baptise ones' infant(s) to signify that as long as you are a steward of the child(ren), that you will raise them in all the ways of the Church, in the way of the Gospel and consider them, under the Covenant, until they prove otherwise. Seems odd. Almost hypocritical from an eternal perspective.

If on believes, salvation is of the LORD, and that He will save whom He Wills, then baptising your child goes well with John 1:12,13. Especially, being you are under the Covenant already, and praying for your children and doing all the other things to raise them in spirit of the covenant. Whatever happens to you as head of the family, trickles down to the rest of your family when it comes to the matters of life in general, so why not in the matters of Eternal Life?

It seems to me that those born of the Spirit are simply that, and that nothing but God brought this about in his eternal decree, which is the context in the passage, I believe. If one is Saved by the Grace of God, as head of his family, he should do all that pertains to eternal life, including the baptising of his own, showing forth that one believes that God will deliver his children as they are raised under/ in the Covenant for which the head is called. If you are raising your child as being in the Covenant, by the Commandments and churching them and teaching them the Bible, aren't you in ESSENCE raising them as a believer?

Always a good topic, and hope I haven't offended anyone, unless of course, it helped?...just kidding Thanks!


----------



## ManleyBeasley

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> There is an easy answer to your post, Dr. Gonzales. That is, you are confusing the New Covenant with the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> A person can be baptized into the New Covenant, but not be a member of the Covenant of Grace. This is taught just about everywhere in the Bible.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> Rob


He's not confusing it. The Baptist view is that the NC is superior to the OC in that it is entirely made up of the elect. Its not confusion its disagreement. Our very argument is that the NC is made up of ONLY people that have been born again. That is a key difference between the two covenants and why the new is superior.


----------



## MW

ManleyBeasley said:


> He's not confusing it. The Baptist view is that the NC is superior to the OC in that it is entirely made up of the elect. Its not confusion its disagreement. Our very argument is that the NC is made up of ONLY people that have been born again. That is a key difference between the two covenants and why the new is superior.



No doubt this is the Baptist view, but it is erroneous. In 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, warnings against wickedness and incurring God's ultimate displeasure are as relevant to the new covenant community as they were to the old covenant community. Clearly historic reformed theology was correct to maintain that the differences are in administration and not in substance.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

armourbearer said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's not confusing it. The Baptist view is that the NC is superior to the OC in that it is entirely made up of the elect. Its not confusion its disagreement. Our very argument is that the NC is made up of ONLY people that have been born again. That is a key difference between the two covenants and why the new is superior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt this is the Baptist view, but it is erroneous. In 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, warnings against wickedness and incurring God's ultimate displeasure are as relevant to the new covenant community as they were to the old covenant community. Clearly historic reformed theology was correct to maintain that the differences are in administration and not in substance.
Click to expand...


I would say His warnings are as relevant to the "visible church" as they were to the OC community. All in the NC are regenerate.

Baptists agree (as I mentioned somewhere) that there is a visible and invisible church (sheep/goats, wheat/tares etc); we disagree that eveyone in the visible is in the NC. The NC is entered by regeneration alone and is an unbreakable covenant (Jer 31).


----------



## MW

ManleyBeasley said:


> I would say His warnings are as relevant to the "visible church" as they were to the OC community. All in the NC are regenerate.
> 
> Baptists agree (as I mentioned somewhere) that there is a visible and invisible church (sheep/goats, wheat/tares etc); we disagree that eveyone in the visible is in the NC. The NC is entered by regeneration alone and is an unbreakable covenant (Jer 31).



By dichotomising the visible church and the new covenant community an entity is created which has no temporal value. This new covenant community could only be known to God. Baptism must be irrelevant to this non-temporal entity.

According to Heb. 8-10, Jer. 31 removes the need for priestly mediators in the administration of the covenant, and still leaves open the possibility of apostasy.

Under the Old Testament true Israelites entered the covenant by means of spiritual circumcision (regeneration), whereas the whole nation was visibly in covenant by means of the outward sign of physical circumcision. The state of affairs as described by Jer. 31 is no different, as verses 35-37 reveal. Individuals apostatise but the community remains as the true representative of God's covenant commitment.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

The only Covenant that is entirely composed of the Elect is the Covenant of Grace. It is an error to say that the New Covenant is entirely composed of the Elect. The New Covenant is composed of both the Elect and Non-Elect.

Such is taught in many of the Parables of Jesus Christ:

The Parable of the Sower in the field:

*Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn,* Matt 13:30.

In the New Covenant Kingdom there are both Wheat and Tares. Christ will send His Angels out at the end of the world to separate the good from the bad, see vs. 41.

*Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away,* Matthew 13:47,48.

The New Covenant Kingdom is like a net that captures both good and bad fish. The New Covenant Kingdom is obviously composed of both Elect and Non-Elect.

The example of Simon the Sorceror as he was baptized into the New Covenant, but was never a member of the Covenant of Grace, is as clear an example as one can get of this principle. 

As Pastor Winzer pointed out - the warnings found throughout the NEW COVENANT indicate that there are false sons in the midst of the people.

In Hebrews 10, which is Paul's commentary on Jeremiah 31, we find dire warnings of Apostasy, vs 29, which would be unnecessary if all of the members of the New Covenant were Elect, see Heb. 8:8ff.

Blessings,

-Rob


----------



## ManleyBeasley

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> The only Covenant that is entirely composed of the Elect is the Covenant of Grace. It is an error to say that the New Covenant is entirely composed of the Elect. The New Covenant is composed of both the Elect and Non-Elect.
> 
> Such is taught in many of the Parables of Jesus Christ:
> 
> The Parable of the Sower in the field:
> 
> *Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn,* Matt 13:30.
> 
> In the New Covenant Kingdom there are both Wheat and Tares. Christ will send His Angels out at the end of the world to separate the good from the bad, see vs. 41.
> 
> *Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away,* Matthew 13:47,48.
> 
> The New Covenant Kingdom is like a net that captures both good and bad fish. The New Covenant Kingdom is obviously composed of both Elect and Non-Elect.
> 
> The example of Simon the Sorceror as he was baptized into the New Covenant, but was never a member of the Covenant of Grace, is as clear an example as one can get of this principle.
> 
> As Pastor Winzer pointed out - the warnings found throughout the NEW COVENANT indicate that there are false sons in the midst of the people.
> 
> In Hebrews 10, which is Paul's commentary on Jeremiah 31, we find dire warnings of Apostasy, vs 29, which would be unnecessary if all of the members of the New Covenant were Elect, see Heb. 8:8ff.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -Rob



No, you have to presuppose your view to interpret the text that way. You keep using the term NC even though the text doesn't because you're assuming it. Jeremiah 31 is clear that the NC is made up of the elect only. Baptism doesn't bring entry into the NC, regeneration does. That is the difference between the 2.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

armourbearer said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say His warnings are as relevant to the "visible church" as they were to the OC community. All in the NC are regenerate.
> 
> Baptists agree (as I mentioned somewhere) that there is a visible and invisible church (sheep/goats, wheat/tares etc); we disagree that eveyone in the visible is in the NC. The NC is entered by regeneration alone and is an unbreakable covenant (Jer 31).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By dichotomising the visible church and the new covenant community an entity is created which has no temporal value. This new covenant community could only be known to God. Baptism must be irrelevant to this non-temporal entity.
> 
> According to Heb. 8-10, Jer. 31 removes the need for priestly mediators in the administration of the covenant, and still leaves open the possibility of apostasy.
> 
> Under the Old Testament true Israelites entered the covenant by means of spiritual circumcision (regeneration), whereas the whole nation was visibly in covenant by means of the outward sign of physical circumcision. The state of affairs as described by Jer. 31 is no different, as verses 35-37 reveal. Individuals apostatise but the community remains as the true representative of God's covenant commitment.
Click to expand...


1.Argument from practicality is not ours to make. Jeremiah 31 makes it clear that ultimately only God does know as evidenced by the parable of the wheat and tares.

2.It certainly makes the point that Christ is the mediator but does not leave any openings for apostacy in the NC.

3. Was there no perseverance of the saints in the OC? Jeremiah 31 says the reason God gives the new was because the Jews broke the old. The OC was breakable the NC is not. Vs 35-37 do not say anything about the NC being broken but is speaking of the permanance of the New.


----------



## timmopussycat

kceaster said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know this has been argued to death around here, but let me make a suggestion. Please explain why, in the context of Jeremiah 31, the following references are made:
> 
> families, Israel, virgin, Jacob, woman, child, Father, Ephraim, firstborn, nations, flock, young of the flock, young men, Rachel, children, son, daughter, Judah, seed, house, husband, and brother.
> 
> Some of these are mentioned multiple times. What does all of this type of language signify? And, did Jesus ever use these types of words in connection with salvation? Did the Apostles?
> 
> The question to ask yourself is this: If God's economy (which incidentally connects to the Greek word for house) encompasses families, and God certainly included unbelieving family members in the old covenant, then why would that have changed in the NT era with no commentary as to the change? How would God, who had dealt with families, and even deals with families in the prophecy of Jeremiah, change to an individual basis as pertains the sign of the covenant or any other peripheries of the covenant?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" is God's own self-declaration and it appears from John 1: 10-13 and Gal 3:7 that he has narrowed the scope of those He has included in his covenant. Now, they that are of faith who have the right to be called children of God and they are the children of Abraham in the new covenant just as it was the children of Isaac and Jacob (and not Ismael and Esau) who were the covenant children of Abraham under the old covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Forgive me, but could you elaborate on the questions I asked? To which question does the above answer?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


All of them but especially the last.


----------



## kceaster

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I won't say that your analysis is not helpful ...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Kevin.
> 
> Kevin, I'm not certain you're interpreting what I've written carefully. By stressing that God has conferred upon us the legal status of sonship, I am stressing "His rights." As John makes clear and as I acknowledged in my exposition, God regenerates (v. 13), gives the gift of faith and grants the legal warrant of sonship. I'm a Calvinist.
> 
> Whoa! Did I say anything about the "legal rights of a son OVER his father"? I don't think I said that. What I did say was that we have been granted legal rights BY our Father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This passage should give us more gratefulness and appreciation for God's adoption, rather than give us boldness to claim rights as sons. We should claim only the blood of Christ as pertains to our salvation and should never point to a profession or any act that we perform as that which can help us make our claim. I'm not saying you believe this. I'm saying that we should avoid going close to making a profession of faith, that which gives us a right to be in the family of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I'm not opposed to reading this passage doxologically. Let God be all and all! But this passage in particular explicitly asserts that God confers "a right to be in the family of God" based on a profession of faith. What more can I say? Since we all believe that faith is a gift of God, there's no reason for boasting.
> 
> Thanks for your response to my post. I genuinely appreciate your desire to keep our focus on God's glory in man's salvation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm happy I misunderstood. Thanks for clearing that up.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


----------



## timmopussycat

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> The only Covenant that is entirely composed of the Elect is the Covenant of Grace. It is an error to say that the New Covenant is entirely composed of the Elect. The New Covenant is composed of both the Elect and Non-Elect.
> 
> Such is taught in many of the Parables of Jesus Christ:
> 
> The Parable of the Sower in the field:
> 
> *Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn,* Matt 13:30.



To predicate that the field is the New Covenant Kingdom is to predicate that "the world" is the new covenant kingdom for Jesus explicitly says that the field is "the world" v. 38. Since Christ says "My kingdom is not of this world" in John 18:36 something is wrong with your predicate. If the New Covenant kingdom cannot be the world in this parable, it cannot be the full net in the next parable you cite nor do the fact that there are false professors found within the church militant make the case that such folk are in the kingdom of heaven. Nor do the warnings in Hebrews establish the point.
For the members of the New Covenant are not coterminus with members of the church militant.



CalvinandHodges said:


> *Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away,* Matthew 13:47,48.
> 
> The New Covenant Kingdom is like a net that captures both good and bad fish. The New Covenant Kingdom is obviously composed of both Elect and Non-Elect.
> 
> In Hebrews 10, which is Paul's commentary on Jeremiah 31, we find dire warnings of Apostasy, vs 29, which would be unnecessary if all of the members of the New Covenant were Elect, see Heb. 8:8ff.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:There is an easy answer to your post, Dr. Gonzales. That is, you are confusing the New Covenant with the Covenant of Grace. A person can be baptized into the New Covenant, but not be a member of the Covenant of Grace. This is taught just about everywhere in the Bible. Grace and Peace, Rob



Rob,

After reading several of the preceding responding to my initial question, I can see how some, like you, would chalk up my argument to a failure to make a distinction between the New Covenant and the "Covenant of Grace." I don't think you would have arrived at your "easy answer" if you had read my post more carefully. 

To begin with, the so-called "Covenant of Grace" or _foedus gratiae_ is not in fact a historical covenant (such as the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, New Covenant) but _a theological construct_ that describes God's gracious solution to the First Adam's breach of the primordial covenant. As Jeffrey Niehaus observes, "This overarching covenant is not expressed as such anywhere in Scripture" ("An Argument Against Theologically Constructed Covenants," _Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society_ 50/2 [June 2007]: 260). Niehaus then cites Meredith Kline who describes the process at which Reformed theologians construct a "covenant of grace." Kline writes, "The traditional procedure of covenant theology whereby the individual berith-diatheke transactions of redemptive history are combined into ever more comprehensive 'covenant' entities" culminates "in what is usually called the Covenant of Grace, which encompasses all the redemptive administrations from the Fall to the Consummation" (_Kingdom Prologue_ [Wipf & Stock, 2006], 6). As a result of man's fall, God determined to save sinners by grace through faith in a promised Redeemer. This _paradigm of redemption_ is first revealed in the protoevangel of Genesis 3:15 and progressively in all the postlapsarian covenants. In reality, the "covenant of grace" is simply a theological depiction of the _ordo salutis_ stated in the language of covenant (appropriately so, since the historical covenants serve as the vehicle through which God's one way of salvation is revealed). 

With this in view, one will note that I took great pains in my post to distinguish the _ordo salutis_, to which pertains the "Covenant of Grace," and the _historia salutis_, to which pertains the "New Covenant." For example, I said, "Verses 12 and 13 are not merely rehearsing God's way of grace throughout the ages (e.g., God's work of grace in Abraham, Moses, and David) [which would could be called a "covenant of grace"] but are concerned primarily with a new state of affairs introduced by the coming of Christ and inauguration of the New Covenant." To offer a more lengthy quote, I said, 
If, as argued above, John's focus is not merely on the _ordo salutis_ but primarily on the _historia salutis_, then verse 13 takes on new significance. Salvation has always been by grace through faith in the promised Offspring *[once again, this proposition can be summarized by the term "covenant of grace"]*. More specifically, God has always called for a circumcised heart that gives rise to faith and genuine piety (Gen. 15:6; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4, 14). But one might lawfully belong to Abraham's "seed" and to the nation of Israel via the circumcision made with hands without the new birth. Hence, God confers upon the nation of Israel as a whole and indiscriminately the status of sonship (Exo. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Hos. 11:1; Rom. 9:4). 

This redemptive-historical state of affairs, however, has changed with the coming of Christ, says John. Not only does God convey his grace and truth through a better mediator than Moses (see above). But now God will limit the conferral of legal covenant status to those upon whose heart His law is written, who know Him, and whose sins He has forgiven (Jer. 31:31-34) *[here we are now talking about the New Covenant, which is a bona fide historal covenant and not equivalent to the covenant of grace]*​Does that mean I see no relation between the "covenant of grace" and the historical covenants? Of course not, the "covenants of the promise," as Paul styles the Jewish covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) all served as vehicles to reveal God's one way of salvation (aka, covenant of grace). The New Covenant also is a historical covenant that likewise reveals God's gracious work of redemption. But the New Covenant also surpasses the prior covenants in that it more clearly reveals the "covenant of grace" and brings the _ordo salutis_ to a greater realization in God's covenant community. To use the language of my previous post, 
Under both the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations, the _ordo salutis_ *["covenant of grace"] *was preached primarily through shadows and was not, as a whole, realized in the "people of God." Under the New Covenant, however, God's redemptive program *["covenant of grace"]* has advanced. Now the _historia salutis _and _ordo salutis_ will more closely coincide. (Note: perfect coincidence will await the eschaton, in response to Rich’s charge (post #13) that the Credobaptist argues for “the ideal.”)​Did you catch that? I said, "Under the New Covenant the _historia salutis_ [God's revelation of redemption via real historical covenants] has advanced. Now the _historia salutis_ and _ordo salutis_ will more closely coincide." Notice carefully that I did not say they perfectly coincide. Had I made that claim, I would have been guilty of confusing the two. But instead, I added the parenthical comment: "perfect coincidence will await the eschaton." 

To turn the tables, I believe it is the Paedobaptists who often confuse the Abrahamic covenant with the "covenant of grace." That is the reason why they argue that we should include our children in the covenant since Abraham did. I reject the notion that either the Abrahamic Covenant or the New Covenant should be simply equated with the covenant of grace. But I do content that the New Covenant more clearly reveals the ordo salutis ("covenant of grace") and advanced God's redemptive program by removing the provisional, typical, and symbolic conditions of physical descent and/or outward circumsion as the legal warrant for membership in God's covenant family and replaced them with a credible profession of faith (John 1:12), which is the fundamental evidence and fruit of a circumcised heart (John 1:13). 

I hope this clarifies my position for you and others. 

Your servant,


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ManleyBeasley said:


> I agree with you. Jeremiah 31 gives a description of those *in* the NC. This description is a picture of regeneration. Regeneration is the entering of the NC *not* baptism. The error comes from creating too close of a parallel between the two covenants. Jer 31 and the book of Hebrews clearly declares the superiority of the NC over the OC. The OC was broken (Jer 31 says) and so God would make a new unbreakable covenant. Circumcision was how the OC was entered and could then be broken by the circumcized. New birth is how the NC is entered and cannot be broken. That is the superiority. From Jer 31 you either have to believe *all* baptised infants are regenerate or you have to believe the covanent is only entered through regeneration and that baptism is not a complete parallel of circumcision.





ManleyBeasley said:


> The church is the New Israel. All of it (children etc) are to be interpreted spiritually; thats the reason for the consistant reference to the church as God's family, we are brothers and sisters, those Paul led to Christ as his children, etc. The fact that the NC is made up of exclusivly regenerate people is clear in Jeremiah 31. God writes His law on thier hearts, they know Him, He forgives them. Jer 31 shouts this change.



Manley,

My time has been and is short but let me just cut to the heart of this by asking you a simple question (and please be careful how you answer this):

Who do you know, personally, that is in the New Covenant and how do you know they are in the New Covenant? If you could just give me 5 first names of people you know that are in the New Covenant that you've seen baptized then this will help facilitate some basic level of dialogue.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's not confusing it. The Baptist view is that the NC is superior to the OC in that it is entirely made up of the elect. Its not confusion its disagreement. Our very argument is that the NC is made up of ONLY people that have been born again. That is a key difference between the two covenants and why the new is superior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt this is the Baptist view, but it is erroneous. In 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, warnings against wickedness and incurring God's ultimate displeasure are as relevant to the new covenant community as they were to the old covenant community. Clearly historic reformed theology was correct to maintain that the differences are in administration and not in substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Matthew, thanks for your comments. Though I agree with much of Manley's posts, I don't unqualifiedly agree, "The Baptist view is that the NC is superior to the OC in that it is entirely made up of the elect." I'm a Baptist and would not state it quite that way. As I've tried to emphasize, I do not equate the New Covenant with the "covenant of grace." To state it differently, I allow for the fact that the New Covenant closely approximates the "covenant of grace" in that it calls for a credible profession of faith which is the fruit and evidence of regeneration. In agreement with my Paedobaptist brothers, I acknowledge, however, that false professors may enter the New Covenant community and later prove that their so-called "conversion experience" was spurious (Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26ff.). Hence, the continued need for warnings directed to the New Covenant community (1 Cor. 10:1ff; 2 Cor. 13:5; Heb. 3:12; etc.).
> 
> I also agree that "historic reformed theology was correct to maintain that the differences are in administration and not in substance." I am nonplussed, however, why some Reformed theologians continue to affirm natural descent as a warrant for entrance into the New Covenant. Blood-tie as a legal warrant for inclusion within the covenant community is, in my view, _an administrative circumstance_ in the _historia salutis_, not a substantial element in the "covenant of grace" or _ordo salutis_.
> 
> Respectfully yours,
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

The book of Hebrews might be properly called, "An Epistle of Warning." I believe that the author alludes several times to individuals who were once part of the New Covenant community but who later apostatized from the faith. This fact is often used as an argument in favor of Paedobaptism. From the fact of the presence of unregenerate members in the New Covenant community, some Paedobaptists argue for the warrant of including infants who at the time of their baptism and inclusion make no credible profession of faith and hence, give no evidence of regeneration. But this reasoning appears, at least to me, a stretch in logical and theological inference. Nowhere in the epistle are the apostates identified as individuals who had been baptized as infants and raised in a Christian family. On the contrary, the author describes them as individuals who had a "conversion experience" that later proved spurious (Heb. 6:4-6). Accordingly, I don't interpret such apostasy passages as permission to include nonbelievers in the New Covenant community.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Matthew, thanks for your comments. Though I agree with much of Manley's posts, I don't unqualifiedly agree, "The Baptist view is that the NC is superior to the OC in that it is entirely made up of the elect." I'm a Baptist and would not state it quite that way. As I've tried to emphasize, I do not equate the New Covenant with the "covenant of grace." To state it differently, I allow for the fact that the New Covenant closely approximates the "covenant of grace" in that it calls for a credible profession of faith which is the fruit and evidence of regeneration. In agreement with my Paedobaptist brothers, I acknowledge, however, that false professors may enter the New Covenant community and later prove that their so-called "conversion experience" was spurious (Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26ff.). Hence, the continued need for warnings directed to the New Covenant community (1 Cor. 10:1ff; 2 Cor. 13:5; Heb. 3:12; etc.).
> 
> I also agree that "historic reformed theology was correct to maintain that the differences are in administration and not in substance." I am nonplussed, however, why some Reformed theologians continue to affirm natural descent as a warrant for entrance into the New Covenant. Blood-ties as a legal warrant for inclusion within the covenant community is, in my view, _an administrative circumstance_ in the _historia salutis_, not a substantial element in the "covenant of grace" or _ordo salutis_.
> 
> Respectfully yours,



In this respect, Bob, you're sort of an amalgam. It's not really a Confessional view for Baptists to affirm that the NC consists of those that can break it. It's Scriptural, obviously, but just not Confessional according to historical Baptist theology.

I think Rob made a point that the idea to assert the Abrahamic Covenant has some sort of genetic component that goes away ignores the breadth of Scripture given the number of entreaties that call men to circumcise their hearts as well as Paul's examples of OT Saints who were part of the CoG but weren't elect.

Fundamentally, one of the questions to ask would be: Has there ever been a time when a man was saved who was not united to Christ and, if not, then what was this administration from Adam to Christ about that included children? 

I've seen some crass Baptist assertions that God was really more concerned that the Israelites exist to make sure that babies were cranked out and the birth of their children had no real spiritual value - just ensuring the nation was around long enough for Christ to be born and then the Jews could just die out. Nobody quite states it that bluntly but that's what it amounts to. You practically have to ignore the "prolegomena" of Proverbs and all the other passages in the OT that see the purpose of parenting in the Covenant to raise a child that would believe upon the Lord - but somehow OT Israel is all about genetics.

The paedobaptist view is this: disciples are those that are to be trained in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Christian parents are commanded to do this to their children - their children are by definition disciples. I don't know how a Baptist believes their children can escape the warnings of Hebrews unless they choose to put their children in daycare while they attend Church every Sunday without them.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Matthew, thanks for your comments. Though I agree with much of Manley's posts, I don't unqualifiedly agree, "The Baptist view is that the NC is superior to the OC in that it is entirely made up of the elect." I'm a Baptist and would not state it quite that way. As I've tried to emphasize, I do not equate the New Covenant with the "covenant of grace." To state it differently, I allow for the fact that the New Covenant closely approximates the "covenant of grace" in that it calls for a credible profession of faith which is the fruit and evidence of regeneration. In agreement with my Paedobaptist brothers, I acknowledge, however, that false professors may enter the New Covenant community and later prove that their so-called "conversion experience" was spurious (Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26ff.). Hence, the continued need for warnings directed to the New Covenant community (1 Cor. 10:1ff; 2 Cor. 13:5; Heb. 3:12; etc.).



Thankyou for this helpful clarification, Bob. I'm not sure how this compares to Samuel Waldron's Exposition of the Confession, p. 351, but it is good to see you have a place for a temporal entity in the new covenant. Otherwise we would be left with a theological concept which provides no beneficial didactic function, which seems to me to be contrary to the utility of Scripture, 2 Tim. 3:16, 17.

Out of interest, when you consider the New Testament witness, I wonder if you can establish on a sure exegetical basis that profession of faith is subjective and includes "conversion experience." I've never encountered it in my reading of the Old or New Testament.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I also agree that "historic reformed theology was correct to maintain that the differences are in administration and not in substance." I am nonplussed, however, why some Reformed theologians continue to affirm natural descent as a warrant for entrance into the New Covenant. Blood-ties as a legal warrant for inclusion within the covenant community is, in my view, _an administrative circumstance_ in the _historia salutis_, not a substantial element in the "covenant of grace" or _ordo salutis_.



I'm not sure about the language of "natural descent," but natural relations are clearly included in the covenant community. Hence the instructions relative to fathers, children, masters, slaves, etc. When God takes a man into covenant He takes all that a man is and has. Children are an extension of the man's own body; hence it is impossible for the man to live in covenant with God and not acknowledge that his children belong to the Lord.


----------



## Scott1

One thing that helped me understand the "holy" nature of the children of Believers, is that that they are set apart as part of the covenant community, marked out by baptism.

The children are "holy" not in the sense of [necessarily] being saved, but in terms of a position of privilege. They have the benefit of believing parents (at least one) and a community of believers that the child of a nonbeliever does not have. The Reformers would say the grace that is available to a child of a believer as a result of their relationship to a believing parent and a covenant community of believers is very real.

In one sense, baptism marks this position of privilege out in a visible way.


----------



## kceaster

*Dr. Gonzalez...*

If there is not an historical covenant of grace, what then, is the everlasting covenant? Further, if this everlasting covenant is a spiritual covenant (possibly anticipating your answer), then how can the physical blood of the great Shepherd of the sheep be attached to it?

If blood is attached to a covenant, as all covenants did involve blood, then how is a specific event not not attached to it? If a specific event, then there has to be an historical covenant of grace.

I guess you can tell that I equate the covenant of grace with the everlasting covenant of Hebrews 13. If this is not the covenant of grace, then how can anyone be made complete to do good works in God's will, who is working in us to do what is well pleasing, through Jesus Christ (the mediator of the new covenant), for His infinite glory. I'm not, incidentally, trying to pin too much on one verse, as I see this theme as the overarching theme of the Bible.

This blood, I would also add, speaks better things than that of Abel. Why Abel? Why not Moses? Why not Aaron? To show us that the everlasting covenant began in the Garden with the sacraments given to the first family.

The everlasting covenant is history, it makes history possible. It was from before the beginning and will be after the end (olam), but it made its entrance in time and space and with real blood.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Semper Fidelis said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you. Jeremiah 31 gives a description of those *in* the NC. This description is a picture of regeneration. Regeneration is the entering of the NC *not* baptism. The error comes from creating too close of a parallel between the two covenants. Jer 31 and the book of Hebrews clearly declares the superiority of the NC over the OC. The OC was broken (Jer 31 says) and so God would make a new unbreakable covenant. Circumcision was how the OC was entered and could then be broken by the circumcized. New birth is how the NC is entered and cannot be broken. That is the superiority. From Jer 31 you either have to believe *all* baptised infants are regenerate or you have to believe the covanent is only entered through regeneration and that baptism is not a complete parallel of circumcision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> The church is the New Israel. All of it (children etc) are to be interpreted spiritually; thats the reason for the consistant reference to the church as God's family, we are brothers and sisters, those Paul led to Christ as his children, etc. The fact that the NC is made up of exclusivly regenerate people is clear in Jeremiah 31. God writes His law on thier hearts, they know Him, He forgives them. Jer 31 shouts this change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Manley,
> 
> My time has been and is short but let me just cut to the heart of this by asking you a simple question (and please be careful how you answer this):
> 
> Who do you know, personally, that is in the New Covenant and how do you know they are in the New Covenant? If you could just give me 5 first names of people you know that are in the New Covenant that you've seen baptized then this will help facilitate some basic level of dialogue.
Click to expand...


As far as I'm concerned you are asking me "who do you know, personally, that is elect?". I've already admitted that I see the two as *practically* the same. Those in the NC know God, have His Law written on their hearts, and have their transgressions forgiven. Only God knows those things about people though we can certainly see evidence of it.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> I'm not sure about the language of "natural descent," but natural relations are clearly included in the covenant community. Hence the instructions relative to fathers, children, masters, slaves, etc. When God takes a man into covenant He takes all that a man is and has. Children are an extension of the man's own body; hence it is impossible for the man to live in covenant with God and not acknowledge that his children belong to the Lord.



One may acknowlege that God has the right to all one's children, but one cannot move from that recognition to predicate that when God takes a man into covenant He always takes all of that man's descendents into that covenant. The reality that He does not do so is demonstrated by God's rejections of Ishmael and Esau despite the Abrahamic covenant.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's not confusing it. The Baptist view is that the NC is superior to the OC in that it is entirely made up of the elect. Its not confusion its disagreement. Our very argument is that the NC is made up of ONLY people that have been born again. That is a key difference between the two covenants and why the new is superior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, thanks for your comments. Though I agree with much of Manley's posts, I don't unqualifiedly agree, "The Baptist view is that the NC is superior to the OC in that it is entirely made up of the elect." I'm a Baptist and would not state it quite that way. As I've tried to emphasize, I do not equate the New Covenant with the "covenant of grace." To state it differently, I allow for the fact that the New Covenant closely approximates the "covenant of grace" in that it calls for a credible profession of faith which is the fruit and evidence of regeneration. In agreement with my Paedobaptist brothers, I acknowledge, however, that false professors may enter the New Covenant community and later prove that their so-called "conversion experience" was spurious (Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26ff.). Hence, the continued need for warnings directed to the New Covenant community (1 Cor. 10:1ff; 2 Cor. 13:5; Heb. 3:12; etc.).
> 
> I also agree that "historic reformed theology was correct to maintain that the differences are in administration and not in substance." I am nonplussed, however, why some Reformed theologians continue to affirm natural descent as a warrant for entrance into the New Covenant. Blood-tie as a legal warrant for inclusion within the covenant community is, in my view, _an administrative circumstance_ in the _historia salutis_, not a substantial element in the "covenant of grace" or _ordo salutis_.
> 
> Respectfully yours,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize for including you in my view in any way. The view I'm defending is the one held by Paul Jewett in his book " Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace" and more recently defended by Greg Welty of the Founders (Calvinist soteirology) movement of the SBC in his essay "A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism".
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Thankyou for this helpful clarification, Bob. I'm not sure how this compares to Samuel Waldron's Exposition of the Confession, p. 351, but it is good to see you have a place for a temporal entity in the new covenant. Otherwise we would be left with a theological concept which provides no beneficial didactic function, which seems to me to be contrary to the utility of Scripture, 2 Tim. 3:16, 17.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Reformed Baptists I know, including my former mentor, Sam Waldron, take the language of Jeremiah 31:31-34, and apply them unqualifiedly to the present New Covenant, which Jesus inaugurated at His first coming. I once held this view. Two factors have led me to rethink the matter. First, the "already/not yet" eschatological tension introduced by Christ's first coming has led me to view the fulfillment of the New Covenant in two stages. Hence, the powerful language of efficacy found in Jeremiah 31:31-34 (repeated in Hebrews 8, 10) will apply without qualification to God's covenant community in the eschaton.
> 
> Second, like other Reformed Baptists, I have recognized the reality that uncoverted people may enter the church upon a false profession of faith. I don't believe these individuals belonged there in the first place (Luke 8:13; 1 Peter 2:1ff.; 1 John 2:19; Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-31). I believe that most Reformed Baptists would argue that these unregenerate individuals were members of the church militant but not members of the New Covenant community. I realize their reasoning for the dichotomy is required because they interpret the promises of Jeremiah 31:31-34 as de facto fully realized in the New Covenant community with the New Covenant's inauguration. In contrast, I see no reason why the NT church has to be distinguished from the New Covenant community. And since non-believers do find their way into the present New Covenant community, then its promises are not fully realized in this age. In this respect, I think I agree (at least somewhat) with much of Paedobaptist exegesis of the New Covenant promises and the extent their realization in this age and the age to come.
> 
> I differ somewhat with Paedobaptists, however, in my explanation for the presence of non-believers in the New Covenant community. I hold that non-believers may be members of the New Covenant community _de facto_ but not _de jure_. That is, they have _no warrant_ to be in the covenant family because the spiritual promises of the New Covenant do not belong to them. Once their true colors show (via apostasy, heretical teaching, scandalous sin, etc.), they should be removed. With regard to infants, since they are unable to provide any credible evidence of a profession of faith in Christ, which is elsewhere in Scripture represented as a sign of regeneration and a prerequisite for baptism, I do not believe I have _the warrant_ to grant them entrance into the New Covenant community though they would have had warrant for entrance into the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant communities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of interest, when you consider the New Testament witness, I wonder if you can establish on a sure exegetical basis that profession of faith is subjective and includes "conversion experience." I've never encountered it in my reading of the Old or New Testament.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is faith subjective? I assume by "subjective" you mean "proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world" (American Heritage Dictionary, 2006). To answer you question, faith has both subjective and objective elements. The _locus classicus_ is Romans 10:9-10 where Paul highlights both:
> That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (NKJ).​The "heart" is the seat of one's mind and affections. So according to Paul, saving faith has a subjective dimension. On the other hand, saving faith also expresses itself outwardly by means of a public confession of Jesus as Lord and Savior. Here we find an outward or objective dimension to faith.
> 
> The writer of Hebrews defines faith as "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1). Once again, we have faith described subjectively, as that which proceeds from and takes place in the human heart. Nevertheless, as the author of Hebrews continues, such inward faith expresses itself outwardly in deeds of piety (Heb. 11:4ff.).
> 
> Jesus also draws attention to both the subjective and objective elements of saving faith in the Parable of the Sower: "But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience." Hearing the word "with a noble and good heart" presupposes a positive inward response. That response, in turn, bears the fruit of an outward piety that perseveres to the end.
> 
> With these paradigmatic examples in view, one may infer an inward subjective response from the various professions of faith that precede baptism. Thus, "those who gladly received [Peter's] word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added" to the New Covenant community (Acts 2:41). The glad reception must have had both an inward subjective as well as an outward objective element. The outward objective profession of faith was, of course, the prerequiste for baptism and church membership. Similarly, it was only after the Philippian jailor "believed on the word of the Lord" that the apostle Paul baptized him (16:31-34). Since Paul could not judge the hearts of this man and his household, then he must have acted on the basis of an outward profession, treating it as the normal evidence of an inward disposition. Later when "Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household," they "were baptized" (Acts 18:8). The act of faith here described had to include an outward expression in order to give the apostles warrant to baptize such individuals. Yet, based on the considerations noted above, a credible profession with the mouth that Jesus is Lord is _ideally_ the outward indicator of a heart conviction that God has raised Him from the dead.
> 
> As far as a conversion experience being linked to faith, the passage under discussion makes such a link. Those who recieve Christ, that is, who believe in his name (including both the inward disposition and outward demonstration of faith) (v. 12) are also described as having been born of God (v. 13). The new birth is certainly the beginning of one's "conversion experience." The apostle Paul describes the conversion of the Thessalonians in stark terms: "you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God" (1 Thess. 1:9). The transition of the Ephesian believers from spiritual death (2:1-3) to spiritual life (2:4-10) may also be deemed a conversion experience. So to answer your question, I do believe that there is "sure exegetical basis that profession of faith is subjective and includes 'conversion experience.'"
> 
> Of course, I also acknowledge with Scripture that an outward profession of faith along with the inward "conversion" experience may, in some cases, be spurious. Jesus not only describes seed falling upon good soil but also upon bad soil. In some cases, certain individuals may, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away" (Luke 8:13). Here we have a profession of faith, i.e., hearing and receiving, accompanied by an inward experience of "joy." Hence, the person appears to have been converted. Later, however, trials and temptations reveal that the profession of faith and so-called conversion turn out to be spurious because the individual did not have the "root of the matter" in him. Perhaps the most descriptive passage of a spurious conversion experience is that described in Hebrews 6:4-6. Like most Reformed commentators, I interpret the apostate described as one who never had been truly converted. Nevertheless, he did have an experience which appears to have been analogous to a conversion experience since the author of Hebrews uses some of the same language that is elsewhere employed to describe a true work of grace. There were "once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come," but they apostatized. The terminology "enlightened," "tasted," and "become partakers" are descriptions of personal experience, not merely outward profession. So in addition to an exegetical basis for seeing a subjective as well as objective element in faith, there is also evidence for seeing a subjective as well as an objective element in conversion.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also agree that "historic reformed theology was correct to maintain that the differences are in administration and not in substance." I am nonplussed, however, why some Reformed theologians continue to affirm natural descent as a warrant for entrance into the New Covenant. Blood-ties as a legal warrant for inclusion within the covenant community is, in my view, _an administrative circumstance_ in the _historia salutis_, not a substantial element in the "covenant of grace" or _ordo salutis_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure about the language of "natural descent," but natural relations are clearly included in the covenant community. Hence the instructions relative to fathers, children, masters, slaves, etc. When God takes a man into covenant He takes all that a man is and has. Children are an extension of the man's own body; hence it is impossible for the man to live in covenant with God and not acknowledge that his children belong to the Lord.
Click to expand...


Here is where I think what was typical in the Old Testament is being smuggled into the New. Of course, I affirm that there is one naturally relationship that applies accross the board to all, namely, our being "in Adam." This covenant headship was illustrated in the postlapsarian covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic) through "natural relations," which in turn served as types of something better to come. That something better to come is *the Messianic Covenant* (unfortunately overlooked by most Reformed theologians) in which the Father makes a historical covenant with the Son, as the Second Adam, to give him the heathen as His inheritance (Pss. 2:6-8; 110:4; Heb. 7:17-22, 28). Following the covenant made with His Righteous Servant, Jesus, God makes the *New Covenant* with Jesus' spiritual offspring (Isa. 53:10; Heb. 2:13), which is called the New Covenant. This pattern of Righteous Servant covenant followed by Servant's Offspring covenant was typified in the Abrahamic Covenant (Righteous Servant) which was followed by the Mosaic Covenant (Servant's Offspring). 

As you can see, I believe that the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, which were based largely on the principle of natural descent or natural relations have served their typical function and have given way to the Messianic and New covenants, which are based, ideally, on supernatural descent and spiritual relations. Of course, we still live in the "not yet" period of redemptive history, so the full realization of the Messianic and New covenants will not be consummated until Christ returns. Until then, Reformed Baptists confess together with their Paedobaptist brothers that "the purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and to error" (WCF 25.5/LBC 26.3).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ManleyBeasley said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you. Jeremiah 31 gives a description of those *in* the NC. This description is a picture of regeneration. Regeneration is the entering of the NC *not* baptism. The error comes from creating too close of a parallel between the two covenants. Jer 31 and the book of Hebrews clearly declares the superiority of the NC over the OC. The OC was broken (Jer 31 says) and so God would make a new unbreakable covenant. Circumcision was how the OC was entered and could then be broken by the circumcized. New birth is how the NC is entered and cannot be broken. That is the superiority. From Jer 31 you either have to believe *all* baptised infants are regenerate or you have to believe the covanent is only entered through regeneration and that baptism is not a complete parallel of circumcision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> The church is the New Israel. All of it (children etc) are to be interpreted spiritually; thats the reason for the consistant reference to the church as God's family, we are brothers and sisters, those Paul led to Christ as his children, etc. The fact that the NC is made up of exclusivly regenerate people is clear in Jeremiah 31. God writes His law on thier hearts, they know Him, He forgives them. Jer 31 shouts this change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Manley,
> 
> My time has been and is short but let me just cut to the heart of this by asking you a simple question (and please be careful how you answer this):
> 
> Who do you know, personally, that is in the New Covenant and how do you know they are in the New Covenant? If you could just give me 5 first names of people you know that are in the New Covenant that you've seen baptized then this will help facilitate some basic level of dialogue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as I'm concerned you are asking me "who do you know, personally, that is elect?". I've already admitted that I see the two as *practically* the same. Those in the NC know God, have His Law written on their hearts, and have their transgressions forgiven. Only God knows those things about people though we can certainly see evidence of it.
Click to expand...


So, are you saying that the knowledge that a person is elect/reprobate has no bearing upon whom you baptize?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Semper Fidelis said:


> I've seen some crass Baptist assertions that God was really more concerned that the Israelites exist to make sure that babies were cranked out and the birth of their children had no real spiritual value - just ensuring the nation was around long enough for Christ to be born and then the Jews could just die out.





Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> As you can see, I believe that the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, which were based largely on the principle of natural descent or natural relations have served their typical function and have given way to the Messianic and New covenants, which are based, ideally, on supernatural descent and spiritual relations. Of course, we still live in the "not yet" period of redemptive history, so the full realization of the Messianic and New covenants will not be consummated until Christ returns. Until then, Reformed Baptists confess together with their Paedobaptist brothers that "the purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and to error" (WCF 25.5/LBC 26.3).


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

ManleyBeasley said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize for including you in my view in any way. The view I'm defending is the one held by Paul Jewett in his book " Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace" and more recently defended by Greg Welty of the Founders (Calvinist soteirology) movement of the SBC in his essay "A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manley, no problem. You're assuming the majority view among Reformed Baptists--a view I was once taught and held. I am willing to concede to the Paedobaptists that "the passage in Hebrews that speaks of an apostate counting "the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified [i.e., set apart] a common thing" (10:29) apparently implies that unbelievers were "set apart" as members of the New Covenant community, which I equate more or less with the NT church. But I do not concede that they are members by right (_de jure_). Accordingly, though I'm willing to view the fulfillment of the New Covenant progressively. The visible New Covenant community does not yet fully resemble the consumate New Covenant community. But this concession does not furnish warrant for the purposeful inclusion of individuals into the New Covenant apart from any credible profession of faith.
> 
> Keep up the good work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Semper Fidelis said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Manley,
> 
> My time has been and is short but let me just cut to the heart of this by asking you a simple question (and please be careful how you answer this):
> 
> Who do you know, personally, that is in the New Covenant and how do you know they are in the New Covenant? If you could just give me 5 first names of people you know that are in the New Covenant that you've seen baptized then this will help facilitate some basic level of dialogue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I'm concerned you are asking me "who do you know, personally, that is elect?". I've already admitted that I see the two as *practically* the same. Those in the NC know God, have His Law written on their hearts, and have their transgressions forgiven. Only God knows those things about people though we can certainly see evidence of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, are you saying that the knowledge that a person is elect/reprobate has no bearing upon whom you baptize?
Click to expand...


No, I'm saying that like all who practice believer's baptism I must go by the proffession of the person and the evidence of their behavior to determine who is baptized. This isn't a perfect knowledge of election; only God has that knowledge. If you're taking this the direction that Baptists don't baptize only regenerate people then there is no need. I comepletely agree. My argument for baptism is not one from pragmatism.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Manley, no problem. You're assuming the majority view among Reformed Baptists--a view I was once taught and held. I am willing to concede to the Paedobaptists that "the passage in Hebrews that speaks of an apostate counting "the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified [i.e., set apart] a common thing" (10:29) apparently implies that unbelievers were "set apart" as members of the New Covenant community, which I equate more or less with the NT church. But I do not concede that they are members by right (_de jure_). Accordingly, though I'm willing to view the fulfillment of the New Covenant progressively. The visible New Covenant community does not yet fully resemble the consumate New Covenant community. But this concession does not furnish warrant for the purposeful inclusion of individuals into the New Covenant apart from any credible profession of faith.
> 
> Keep up the good work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wouldn't let me thank you for some reason so I'll just say it here. Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ManleyBeasley said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I'm concerned you are asking me "who do you know, personally, that is elect?". I've already admitted that I see the two as *practically* the same. Those in the NC know God, have His Law written on their hearts, and have their transgressions forgiven. Only God knows those things about people though we can certainly see evidence of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you saying that the knowledge that a person is elect/reprobate has no bearing upon whom you baptize?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying that like all who practice believer's baptism I must go by the proffession of the person and the evidence of their behavior to determine who is baptized. This isn't a perfect knowledge of election; only God has that knowledge. If you're taking this the direction that Baptists don't baptize only regenerate people then there is no need. I comepletely agree. My argument for baptism is not one from pragmatism.
Click to expand...


Thus, the identity or nature of the New Covenant has no bearing upon the decision to baptize. What I'm pointing out is that it is typical for Baptists to argue that the NC is ideal in discussions about baptism only to admit that the decision to baptize has no bearing upon the identity of those in the NC.

In one sense you discussion of the NC is interesting but not related to the practice of baptism.


----------



## ManleyBeasley

Semper Fidelis said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you saying that the knowledge that a person is elect/reprobate has no bearing upon whom you baptize?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying that like all who practice believer's baptism I must go by the proffession of the person and the evidence of their behavior to determine who is baptized. This isn't a perfect knowledge of election; only God has that knowledge. If you're taking this the direction that Baptists don't baptize only regenerate people then there is no need. I comepletely agree. My argument for baptism is not one from pragmatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thus, the identity or nature of the New Covenant has no bearing upon the decision to baptize. What I'm pointing out is that it is typical for Baptists to argue that the NC is ideal in discussions about baptism only to admit that the decision to baptize has no bearing upon the identity of those in the NC.
> 
> In one sense you discussion of the NC is interesting but not related to the practice of baptism.
Click to expand...


We (typically) see baptism as a symbol of what the person is professing. It is an outward identifying of inward "professed" experience. I certainly agree that baptism does nothing to place anyone in covenant but does proclaim the NC to all who see it.

It does bear upon the baptismal debate in that the Paedo view of the NC is the basis for Paedo Baptism. If the NC is not breakable (as I say) and only made up of the elect then there is no basis for baptizing infants (including them in covenant).


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

kceaster said:


> If there is not an historical covenant of grace, what then, is the everlasting covenant? Further, if this everlasting covenant is a spiritual covenant (possibly anticipating your answer), then how can the physical blood of the great Shepherd of the sheep be attached to it?
> 
> Kevin, the appellation "everlasting covenant" (Hebrew: _berit 'olam_) is predicated of God's primordial covenant with Adam (Isa. 24:5), the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:16), the Abrahamic covenant (Ps. 105:9-10), the Sabbath within the Mosaic (Lev. 24:8), the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 23:5), and the New Covenant (Isa. 55:3; 61:8). The meaning of the Hebrew _'olam_ is debated in each of these contexts is debated by interpreters for the simple reason that each of these covenants contain provisional elements that have or eventually will pass away. Consequently, most commentators translate _'olam_ as perpetual and confine its duration to the particular dispensation in which it holds force. By the way, the term _'olam_ can also point backwards to that which is from antiquity. Hence, I interpret Isaiah's reference to the _berit_ _'olam_ as "the primordial covenant" which God made with Adam and under which all nations perpetually abide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If blood is attached to a covenant, as all covenants did involve blood, then how is a specific event not not attached to it? If a specific event, then there has to be an historical covenant of grace.[/olam]
> 
> I do not agree with O. Palmer Robertson that "all covenants ... involve blood." The original covenant God inaugurated with Adam did not involve blood. Blood was only shed after that covenant was violated. There is no reference to a historical "covenant of grace" in Scripture. That is, as I said earlier, a theological construct employed to describe God's modus operandi in saving sinners the substance of which is progressively revealed by means of several successive historical covenants. I have no problem with using the nomenclature provided that we distinguish between a theological construct and an actual historical treaty or royal grant made between God and man in time and space.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you can tell that I equate the covenant of grace with the everlasting covenant of Hebrews 13. If this is not the covenant of grace, then how can anyone be made complete to do good works in God's will, who is working in us to do what is well pleasing, through Jesus Christ (the mediator of the new covenant), for His infinite glory. I'm not, incidentally, trying to pin too much on one verse, as I see this theme as the overarching theme of the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> If you read the Greek of Hebrews 13:20, you'll find the "everlasting covenant" is anarthrous, namely, it doesn't have an article. Young's Literal translation reads as follows: "and the God of the peace, who did bring up out of the dead the great shepherd of the sheep -- in the blood of an age-during covenant -- our Lord Jesus." So I think you're correct not to pin the Covenant of Grace on this one verse but to see its substance as an "overarching theme of the Bible."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This blood, I would also add, speaks better things than that of Abel. Why Abel? Why not Moses? Why not Aaron? To show us that the everlasting covenant began in the Garden with the sacraments given to the first family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amen, Kevin. I believe the primordial covenant God made with Adam remains in force. God's "covenant of grace" may be viewed as His gracious intervention to redeem mankind from sin and to insure that the original covenant charter God gave to Adam (Gen. 1:26-30; 2:1-3; 2:15-17) is fulfilled through the Second Adam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The everlasting covenant is history, it makes history possible. It was from before the beginning and will be after the end (olam), but it made its entrance in time and space and with real blood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not sure I would use your exact words. I think history is more than just "the everlasting covenant." If anything, I would prefer to define human history as the establishment, advance, and consumation of the kingdom of God via covenant. Covenant is the administrative tool by which God's kingdom is advanced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Christ, KC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks again for the helpful interchange.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Semper Fidelis said:


> Hi, Rich. Are you pensive, puzzled, perturbed, or pickled?
Click to expand...


----------



## kceaster

ManleyBeasley said:


> No, I'm saying that like all who practice believer's baptism I must go by the proffession of the person and the evidence of their behavior to determine who is baptized. This isn't a perfect knowledge of election; only God has that knowledge. If you're taking this the direction that Baptists don't baptize only regenerate people then there is no need. I comepletely agree. My argument for baptism is not one from pragmatism.



I think it is nigh on impossible to apply this to the NT church. At Pentecost, there was no way to see evidence of their behavior to determine who was to be baptized. And pratically speaking, in baptistic churches, even calvinistic ones, a lengthly watch is expected of candidates for baptism. A calvinistic baptist pastor would not baptize my sons until he'd had a good long observation of them to determine their fruit. That's flat out unbiblical. If baptists really believe that a profession is all that is needed, they would practice immediate baptisms for people they had just met. But they don't do this, do they? They want to wait. Wait for what?

What they're forced to admit, then, is that they either believe the Apostles of the NT had infallible knowledge of who was the proper subject of baptism and thus are forced to allow times of observation based upon the fact that they do not have such infallible knowledge; or, that they practice something outside the Bible. However, we know that the Apostle's knowledge was fallible concerning this because they baptized Simon, Ananias and Saphira, Hymenaeus, Alexander, and Philetus, not to mention the Judaizers who were preaching a different gospel.

I still have never heard any baptist (please correct me if I am wrong) ever come up with any evidence that elders are held accountable by God for those they baptize who are not, or turn out to be, credible professors. At least in the OT, we see sanctions against the subject of circumcision if he is not circumcized according to the law. His parents weren't sanctioned, neither were the priests. But the subject was to be cut off from his people. That's a definite sanction. But where is there any sanction against an elder for improperly baptizing anyone?

There isn't one. And if there was, infants are the least of their worries. There are plenty of mistakes made in the adult realm to go around. Did Jesus ever meet an Apostle on the road to anywhere asking them why they baptized Simon or Ananias and Saphira? Does Paul write against his brethren for the practice? John? James? Peter?

I can understand the practice of not baptizing infants based upon the evidence of Scripture. I see how that understanding can be reached, as errant as it may be. But I do not understand the "probationary period" along with that practice. It is unbiblical and unwarranted.

And, it tears down the argument of only the regenerate may receive the sign of baptism in the new covenant. In order to know that, baptistic elders must go beyond Scripture for the practice. And it clearly is not in concert with the NT practice of Acts, which is the basis for their normative doctrine of baptism.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## ManleyBeasley

kceaster said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying that like all who practice believer's baptism I must go by the proffession of the person and the evidence of their behavior to determine who is baptized. This isn't a perfect knowledge of election; only God has that knowledge. If you're taking this the direction that Baptists don't baptize only regenerate people then there is no need. I comepletely agree. My argument for baptism is not one from pragmatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is nigh on impossible to apply this to the NT church. At Pentecost, there was no way to see evidence of their behavior to determine who was to be baptized. And pratically speaking, in baptistic churches, even calvinistic ones, a lengthly watch is expected of candidates for baptism. A calvinistic baptist pastor would not baptize my sons until he'd had a good long observation of them to determine their fruit. That's flat out unbiblical. If baptists really believe that a profession is all that is needed, they would practice immediate baptisms for people they had just met. But they don't do this, do they? They want to wait. Wait for what?
> 
> What they're forced to admit, then, is that they either believe the Apostles of the NT had infallible knowledge of who was the proper subject of baptism and thus are forced to allow times of observation based upon the fact that they do not have such infallible knowledge; or, that they practice something outside the Bible. However, we know that the Apostle's knowledge was fallible concerning this because they baptized Simon, Ananias and Saphira, Hymenaeus, Alexander, and Philetus, not to mention the Judaizers who were preaching a different gospel.
> 
> I still have never heard any baptist (please correct me if I am wrong) ever come up with any evidence that elders are held accountable by God for those they baptize who are not, or turn out to be, credible professors. At least in the OT, we see sanctions against the subject of circumcision if he is not circumcized according to the law. His parents weren't sanctioned, neither were the priests. But the subject was to be cut off from his people. That's a definite sanction. But where is there any sanction against an elder for improperly baptizing anyone?
> 
> There isn't one. And if there was, infants are the least of their worries. There are plenty of mistakes made in the adult realm to go around. Did Jesus ever meet an Apostle on the road to anywhere asking them why they baptized Simon or Ananias and Saphira? Does Paul write against his brethren for the practice? John? James? Peter?
> 
> I can understand the practice of not baptizing infants based upon the evidence of Scripture. I see how that understanding can be reached, as errant as it may be. But I do not understand the "probationary period" along with that practice. It is unbiblical and unwarranted.
> 
> And, it tears down the argument of only the regenerate may receive the sign of baptism in the new covenant. In order to know that, baptistic elders must go beyond Scripture for the practice. And it clearly is not in concert with the NT practice of Acts, which is the basis for their normative doctrine of baptism.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


Baptism is a symbol for those who profess Christ and the truth. Some churches do have a waiting period but most baptist churches baptize any who profess that they are born again according to a biblical gospel. Your argument isn't against believers baptism but against a waiting period before believers baptism (you do a fine job of it). 

I've never heard of any baptist Pastors being diciplined for baptizing people who end up being apostate either. The baptist view (normally) is that baptism is a *symbol* for *professing* believers. Since we don't believe that baptism places the person in covenant then its not a problem. Some baptists try to be more careful (waiting period) but as you mentioned the apostles didn't have any waiting periods either and also baptized some who were unsaved.

Let me make absolutely clear. The basis for my belief in Credo-Baptism is not pragmatic. I think we baptize many unregenerate people also. I believe in credo-baptism because of my view of the testimony of scripture. When I take my credo stance its *not* because I think we have more saved people then bible believing presbyterian churches in our baptist churches.


----------



## reformedcop

ManleyBeasley said:


> No, I'm saying that like all who practice believer's baptism I must go by the proffession of the person and the evidence of their behavior to determine who is baptized. This isn't a perfect knowledge of election; only God has that knowledge. If you're taking this the direction that Baptists don't baptize only regenerate people then there is no need. I comepletely agree. My argument for baptism is not one from pragmatism.



How long must one's behavior be observed before being granted his baptism?


----------



## ManleyBeasley

reformedcop said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying that like all who practice believer's baptism I must go by the proffession of the person and the evidence of their behavior to determine who is baptized. This isn't a perfect knowledge of election; only God has that knowledge. If you're taking this the direction that Baptists don't baptize only regenerate people then there is no need. I comepletely agree. My argument for baptism is not one from pragmatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How long must one's behavior be observed before being granted his baptism?
Click to expand...


I guess I would say instantly to the profession. Instead of behavior I should probably say the belief expressed in the one professing. I don't mean watching them to see if they screw up.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

kceaster said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying that like all who practice believer's baptism I must go by the proffession of the person and the evidence of their behavior to determine who is baptized. This isn't a perfect knowledge of election; only God has that knowledge. If you're taking this the direction that Baptists don't baptize only regenerate people then there is no need. I comepletely agree. My argument for baptism is not one from pragmatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is nigh on impossible to apply this to the NT church. At Pentecost, there was no way to see evidence of their behavior to determine who was to be baptized. And pratically speaking, in baptistic churches, even calvinistic ones, a lengthly watch is expected of candidates for baptism. A calvinistic baptist pastor would not baptize my sons until he'd had a good long observation of them to determine their fruit. That's flat out unbiblical. If baptists really believe that a profession is all that is needed, they would practice immediate baptisms for people they had just met. But they don't do this, do they? They want to wait. Wait for what?
> 
> What they're forced to admit, then, is that they either believe the Apostles of the NT had infallible knowledge of who was the proper subject of baptism and thus are forced to allow times of observation based upon the fact that they do not have such infallible knowledge; or, that they practice something outside the Bible. However, we know that the Apostle's knowledge was fallible concerning this because they baptized Simon, Ananias and Saphira, Hymenaeus, Alexander, and Philetus, not to mention the Judaizers who were preaching a different gospel.
> 
> I still have never heard any baptist (please correct me if I am wrong) ever come up with any evidence that elders are held accountable by God for those they baptize who are not, or turn out to be, credible professors. At least in the OT, we see sanctions against the subject of circumcision if he is not circumcized according to the law. His parents weren't sanctioned, neither were the priests. But the subject was to be cut off from his people. That's a definite sanction. But where is there any sanction against an elder for improperly baptizing anyone?
> 
> There isn't one. And if there was, infants are the least of their worries. There are plenty of mistakes made in the adult realm to go around. Did Jesus ever meet an Apostle on the road to anywhere asking them why they baptized Simon or Ananias and Saphira? Does Paul write against his brethren for the practice? John? James? Peter?
> 
> I can understand the practice of not baptizing infants based upon the evidence of Scripture. I see how that understanding can be reached, as errant as it may be. But I do not understand the "probationary period" along with that practice. It is unbiblical and unwarranted.
> 
> And, it tears down the argument of only the regenerate may receive the sign of baptism in the new covenant. In order to know that, baptistic elders must go beyond Scripture for the practice. And it clearly is not in concert with the NT practice of Acts, which is the basis for their normative doctrine of baptism.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


Kevin, I think I understand some of the concern you've expressed. Some baptists have historically required a long "waiting period" in order to discern whether the professing individual is truly converted. In light of the relative immediacy of baptism upon profession of faith, I don't believe that view and practice is tenable. I believe there is a difference between the marks of a genuine conversion and the marks of a credible profession of faith. I have elsewhere attempted to define the marks of a credible profession of faith as

1) An awareness of and sorrow for one's personal sin (Matthew 3:6; Luke 18:16; Acts 2:37).
2) An understanding of and belief in the basic truths of the gospel (Rom. 10:9; Heb. 11:6). 
3) A willingness to trust and commit oneself to Christ (Rom. 10:9; 2 Tim. 1:12). 

None of these elements require a protracted period of time for the church to discern. And I believe that's all God expects from pastors and this people when assessing the validity of one's profession. I would suppose that the elders of a Presbyterian church would ask an adult applicant whether he's sorry for his sin, understands the gospel, and has placed his trust in Jesus before baptizing him. Is that true? Do all Paedobaptist ministers baptize "on the spot," or do they at least schedule the baptismal service for the upcoming Sunday? 

In any case, I hope my response has helped to show that not all Baptists are as they are sometimes caricatured to be. And btw, we do seek to raise our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, encouraging faith, not doubt in God's promises to save all those who believe.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

reformedcop said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying that like all who practice believer's baptism I must go by the proffession of the person and the evidence of their behavior to determine who is baptized. This isn't a perfect knowledge of election; only God has that knowledge. If you're taking this the direction that Baptists don't baptize only regenerate people then there is no need. I comepletely agree. My argument for baptism is not one from pragmatism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How long must one's behavior be observed before being granted his baptism?
Click to expand...


Hello, Dan. See my comments above.

Your servant,


----------



## kceaster

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Kevin, the appellation "everlasting covenant" (Hebrew: _berit 'olam_) is predicated of God's primordial covenant with Adam (Isa. 24:5), the Noahic covenant (Gen. 9:16), the Abrahamic covenant (Ps. 105:9-10), the Sabbath within the Mosaic (Lev. 24:8), the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 23:5), and the New Covenant (Isa. 55:3; 61:8). The meaning of the Hebrew _'olam_ is debated in each of these contexts is debated by interpreters for the simple reason that each of these covenants contain provisional elements that have or eventually will pass away. Consequently, most commentators translate _'olam_ as perpetual and confine its duration to the particular dispensation in which it holds force. By the way, the term _'olam_ can also point backwards to that which is from antiquity. Hence, I interpret Isaiah's reference to the berit _'olam_ as "the primordial covenant" which God made with Adam and under which all nations perpetually abide.



And I would posit, since it is an infinite God making the covenant, and the One providing all of the things necessary to that covenant, then all covenants exist outside of time and space. That is why it is from before time and will be after time, the way I take olam. Further, just because some administrative elements of the covenant fall away and seem to be temporal, each of those "earthly" elements has spiritual significance in heaven. Therefore, the covenant remains. It remains because God has done all of the work associated with it. Either He fulfills all the administrative aspects of it, or they stand as a witness against those for whom the fulfillment does not apply.

Additionally, as with the covenant of works, it, too, is an everlasting covenant; because all those who have broken that covenant have rebelled against God and incurred His righteous anger and wrath. He's not angry and wrathful against them because they broke something that no longer exists. Rather, that covenant stands as a reminder and accuser of what they have done to incur His wrath. And so, everyone judged not to be in the covenant of grace is relegated to the only other covenant still in effect, the covenant of works. It will be for always and the reason why the judgment of God is not "soul death," but eternal punishment of the eternal soul. 



> I do not agree with O. Palmer Robertson that "all covenants ... involve blood." The original covenant God inaugurated with Adam did not involve blood. Blood was only shed after that covenant was violated. There is no reference to a historical "covenant of grace" in Scripture. That is, as I said earlier, a theological construct employed to describe God's modus operandi in saving sinners the substance of which is progressively revealed by means of several successive historical covenants. I have no problem with using the nomenclature provided that we distinguish between a theological construct and an actual historical treaty or royal grant made between God and man in time and space.



I would gently remind you that the covenant of works did not involve blood because there was no sin. Sin is what makes blood necessary as, "...without the shedding of blood, there is no remission."

And, I disagree that there is no historical covenant of grace. I would also posit that God does not do anything without a covenant. I am not too thrilled with Robertson in His definition, either. But I think that it is safe to say that God operates within a covenant because He is the ultimate responsible party. What I mean by that is that He upholds all things. There is no one besides Him. The reason He operates through covenant is because He alone has the power for something to be or not to be. So, He swears by Himself. He makes a covenant with the night and with the day. He enters a relationship with His creation by way of condescension in covenant, etc.

The reason there must be an historical covenant of grace is because of God's actions in time. It is not an ethereal covenant because He physically manifests Himself in time and space in order to do that which He has determined. If He does not operate in covenant, then I could see your point. But God does nothing without covenant. He says something will be, and He does it, redounding to the glory of Himself. He does all things because of His own glory and therefore, willl not leave up to any detail to anything He has created. If He did, He would cease to be God because there would be something outside of His control.



> If you read the Greek of Hebrews 13:20, you'll find the "everlasting covenant" is anarthrous, namely, it doesn't have an article. Young's Literal translation reads as follows: "and the God of the peace, who did bring up out of the dead the great shepherd of the sheep -- in the blood of an age-during covenant -- our Lord Jesus." So I think you're correct not to pin the Covenant of Grace on this one verse but to see its substance as an "overarching theme of the Bible."



I know you know more about Greek than I do, however, I would humbly suggest you're missing the key. It's not whether there is an everlasting covenant as a singular entity needing the article, the main focus is the blood. Without blood being part of the equation, then it makes no sense to talk about the Great Shepherd of the sheep, or the resurrection, or peace with God, or ability to do good works in the will of God, to the glory of God. The blood is the only thing making it possible, for it is the only thing that takes away sin.

If it is true that the blood does not point to an historical covenant, but only a spiritual one running outside of time, then Jesus' death on the cross was unnecessary (may it never be so!) God used the real blood of His real Son, to take away the real sins of His real covenant people. Because the blood is the key, there has to be an historical and in time covenant that we have to deal with even though it is not in so many words spoken of.



> I'm not sure I would use your exact words. I think history is more than just "the everlasting covenant." If anything, I would prefer to define human history as the establishment, advance, and consumation of the kingdom of God via covenant. Covenant is the administrative tool by which God's kingdom is advanced.



As I said above, I do not believe that God acts without covenant, so that would be my disagreement. 



> Thanks again for the helpful interchange.



You're welcome. Thanks to you and thanks be to God that we can even discuss these things with peace and love in our hearts.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

kceaster said:


> And I would posit, since it is an infinite God making the covenant, and the One providing all of the things necessary to that covenant, then all covenants exist outside of time and space.
> 
> 
> 
> In God's mind and decree, yes, "all covenants exist outside of time and space." But the specific divine-human covenants of Scripture were enacted in time and space. Thus, the are historic and pertain to the _historia salutis_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why it is from before time and will be after time, the way I take olam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can take _'olam_ that way if you please. But if you consult any standard Hebrew lexicon its semantic range is not limited to that meaning. In fact, in the majority of its usages it applies to objects or institutions within time and space.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further, just because some administrative elements of the covenant fall away and seem to be temporal, each of those "earthly" elements has spiritual significance in heaven. Therefore, the covenant remains. It remains because God has done all of the work associated with it. Either He fulfills all the administrative aspects of it, or they stand as a witness against those for whom the fulfillment does not apply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think I agree with much of what you're saying here though I'm uncertain of some of your language.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally, as with the covenant of works, it, too, is an everlasting covenant; because all those who have broken that covenant have rebelled against God and incurred His righteous anger and wrath. He's not angry and wrathful against them because they broke something that no longer exists. Rather, that covenant stands as a reminder and accuser of what they have done to incur His wrath. And so, everyone judged not to be in the covenant of grace is relegated to the only other covenant still in effect, the covenant of works. It will be for always and the reason why the judgment of God is not "soul death," but eternal punishment of the eternal soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very good. That's what I said above. And I referenced Isaiah 24:5 as proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would gently remind you that the covenant of works did not involve blood because there was no sin. Sin is what makes blood necessary as, "...without the shedding of blood, there is no remission."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I would urge you to re-evaluate all the references to "covenant" in Scripture before you assert that every postlapsarian covenant required the shedding of blood. The Davidic Covenant corresponds to the ancient Near Eastern royal grant in which the Suzerain grants his vassal an enduring dynasty as a gift for loyalty rendered. There was not blood shed as a necessary element of this kind of covenant.
> 
> If you'd like a fuller definition of "covenant," which I believes does more justice to the breadth of biblical evidence than the definition offered by Robertson, I'll offer you the one I suggested in a recent article I published:The standard Hebrew term for “covenant” is _berit_. Its semantic range is multifaceted and somewhat flexible. Not surprisingly, it is challenging to find one definition that suits every context in which the term is found. Delbert Hillers alludes to the challenge of defining the term and the difference of opinion when he observes, “It is not the case of six blind men and the elephant, but of a group of learned paleontologists creating different monsters from the fossils of six separate species.” _Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea _(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1969), 7. Robertson, _The Christ of the Covenants_, 3, compares it to the challenge of defining “mother.”
> 
> At its most basic level, a _berit_ refers to _a formal commitment or obligation that is self-imposed or imposed upon another party or parties_. When the commitment or obligation is imposed upon another party, it assumes the form of _law _or _commandment _(Exod. 19:5; 24:3-8; Deut. 4:13; 33:9; Isa. 24:5; Psa. 50:16; 103:18). When the commitment or obligation is self-imposed, it takes the form of _promise_ or_ threat_, which is often solemnized with an oath (Gen. 15:17-18; 21:22-27; 26:28-30; Psa. 89:3,28,34) and sometimes accompanied by symbolic gestures or signs.
> 
> The Bible contains examples of both parity and non-parity covenants. Some human covenants are made among parties that are more or less equals (Gen. 14:13; 31:44; 1 Sam. 20:14-17; 23:18; 1 Kgs. 5:12 [Heb. 26]; 15:19; Mal. 2:14). On the other hand, there are examples of human covenants involving a superior and inferior. In such cases, the superior usually imposes the terms of the covenant upon the inferior (Josh. 9:6; 1 Sam. 11:1; Ezek. 17:12-18; Jer. 34:8), though in a few cases the inferior may request the terms (1 Kgs. 15:19; 20:34; Hos. 12:1 [Heb. 2]). Obviously, the covenants between God and man are non-parity in nature.
> 
> Some modern scholars have argued that the concept of a divine-human covenant was a late theological development in Israel. However, recent archaeological discoveries have brought to light numerous similarities between the divine-human covenants of Scripture and ancient Near Eastern suzerain-vassal treaties and royal grants, particularly those dating to the middle part of the second millennium (1400-1200 B.C.). The suzerain-vassal treaty consisted of three basic or primary elements: (1) the suzerain’s preamble and historical prologue by which he introduces himself and reviews his benevolent deeds on behalf of the vassal; (2) the suzerain’s covenant obligations for the vassal to which the vassal must render fealty; (3) the suzerain’s covenant sanctions in which he pledges to reward loyalty with blessings and threatens to punish disloyalty with curses. In the royal grant, the suzerain rewards the vassal usually with land and/or perpetual dynasty for loyalty rendered. Both of these ancient Near Eastern covenant types find striking analogies in the divine-human covenants of OT Scripture.​
> 
> 
> 
> And, I disagree that there is no historical covenant of grace. I would also posit that God does not do anything without a covenant. I am not too thrilled with Robertson in His definition, either. But I think that it is safe to say that God operates within a covenant because He is the ultimate responsible party. What I mean by that is that He upholds all things. There is no one besides Him. The reason He operates through covenant is because He alone has the power for something to be or not to be. So, He swears by Himself. He makes a covenant with the night and with the day. He enters a relationship with His creation by way of condescension in covenant, etc.
> 
> The reason there must be an historical covenant of grace is because of God's actions in time. It is not an ethereal covenant because He physically manifests Himself in time and space in order to do that which He has determined. If He does not operate in covenant, then I could see your point. But God does nothing without covenant. He says something will be, and He does it, redounding to the glory of Himself. He does all things because of His own glory and therefore, willl not leave up to any detail to anything He has created. If He did, He would cease to be God because there would be something outside of His control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kevin, I do believe that God adminsters His kingdom through covenant. And once Adam broke the primordial or creation covenant, God had to graciously intervence with a promised blessing encapsulated within the curse (Gen. 3:16) which become the seed of the outworking of his salvific plan throughout human history. This paradigm of redemption does operate within history inasmuch as it is revealed in the several historical covenants God makes with his servants and their offspring. My one caveat with Paedobaptists is over the definition of Messiah's offspring (Isa. 53:10; Heb. 2:13).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you know more about Greek than I do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't make me any smarter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> however, I would humbly suggest you're missing the key. It's not whether there is an everlasting covenant as a singular entity needing the article, the main focus is the blood. Without blood being part of the equation, then it makes no sense to talk about the Great Shepherd of the sheep, or the resurrection, or peace with God, or ability to do good works in the will of God, to the glory of God. The blood is the only thing making it possible, for it is the only thing that takes away sin. If it is true that the blood does not point to an historical covenant, but only a spiritual one running outside of time, then Jesus' death on the cross was unnecessary (may it never be so!) God used the real blood of His real Son, to take away the real sins of His real covenant people. Because the blood is the key, there has to be an historical and in time covenant that we have to deal with even though it is not in so many words spoken of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kevin, not only do I affirm that the shedding of blood did feature prominently in both the Old and New Covenants, I also believe it is an implied element of the redemptive promise inaugurated immediately after the fall in the protoevangel (Gen. 3:15). And I have no problem affirming that the shedding of Christ's blood is an absolutely essential element of God's transtemporal paradigm of redemption, which, following the Reformed tradition, we may appropriately call, The Covenant of Grace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to you and thanks be to God that we can even discuss these things with peace and love in our hearts. In Christ, KC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I too am glad we can discuss our differences as blood-bought brothers with peace and love in our hearts. I also commend you for your zeal to uphold the very heart of redemption--the cross of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...


----------



## kceaster

*Dr. Gonzales...*

My knowledge of Hebrew is limited as well. However, what I was going by was the only reference I really have at hand - Holladay's lexicon. He suggests that olam is remote time or eternity. Further, I recall discussing this in Hebrew class and it was Dr. Shaw's commentary that really gives me the sense I have as time before time and time after time, or eternity past and eternity future.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

kceaster said:


> My knowledge of Hebrew is limited as well. However, what I was going by was the only reference I really have at hand - Holladay's lexicon. He suggests that olam is remote time or eternity. Further, I recall discussing this in Hebrew class and it was Dr. Shaw's commentary that really gives me the sense I have as time before time and time after time, or eternity past and eternity future.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



Kevin, no problem. I'm sorry if I came across condescending. Holladay's lexicon is based on the larger Koehler and Baumgartner's _Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament_, which suggests three primary meanings. The first one is probably the one you're referring to, namely, "*long time, duration* (usually eternal, but not in a philosophical sense)." In other words, even when referring to something that is infinite in duration, the word does not necessarily connote the philosophical idea of outside of or above time as we know it. When applied to institutions that are inaugurated in time and space history, the sense is rather that which is perpetual or enduring, that which extends beyond the foreseeable future, or which extends beyond the present age into the age to come. This last sense is probably what you have in view with regard to the unfolding of God's redemptive plan which continues into eternity. HALOT also lists *"future time"* and *"a long time back"* as common usages. 

Of course, when applied to God, the term may indeed connote the idea of eternity in the sense of outside of or above time. Moreover, since everything that happens in human history existed in God's plan from all eternity past, I suppose that we can speak of every historical reality, including the Fall, as "eternal." But here we must be careful not to dishistorize God's acts in human history. 

In any case, I think we both agree that the Covenant of Grace is transtemporal, that is, it extends throughout human history into eternity. Where we disagree over are what particular elements or facets of that "covenant" carry over from the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations into the New Covenant administration. But I count the degree of likemindness with Paedobaptists to be of such a degree that I can joyfully sit at the Lord's Table with them and celebrate the Lord's death till He come. 

Cordially yours,


----------



## kceaster

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> My knowledge of Hebrew is limited as well. However, what I was going by was the only reference I really have at hand - Holladay's lexicon. He suggests that olam is remote time or eternity. Further, I recall discussing this in Hebrew class and it was Dr. Shaw's commentary that really gives me the sense I have as time before time and time after time, or eternity past and eternity future.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin, no problem. I'm sorry if I came across condescending. Holladay's lexicon is based on the larger Koehler and Baumgartner's _Hebrew & Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament_, which suggests three primary meanings. The first one is probably the one you're referring to, namely, "*long time, duration* (usually eternal, but not in a philosophical sense)." In other words, even when referring to something that is infinite in duration, the word does not necessarily connote the philosophical idea of outside of or above time as we know it. When applied to institutions that are inaugurated in time and space history, the sense is rather that which is perpetual or enduring, that which extends beyond the foreseeable future, or which extends beyond the present age into the age to come. This last sense is probably what you have in view with regard to the unfolding of God's redemptive plan which continues into eternity. HALOT also lists *"future time"* and *"a long time back"* as common usages.
> 
> Of course, when applied to God, the term may indeed connote the idea of eternity in the sense of outside of or above time. Moreover, since everything that happens in human history existed in God's plan from all eternity past, I suppose that we can speak of every historical reality, including the Fall, as "eternal." But here we must be careful not to dishistorize God's acts in human history.
> 
> In any case, I think we both agree that the Covenant of Grace is transtemporal, that is, it extends throughout human history into eternity. Where we disagree is over what particular elements or facets of that "covenant" carry over from the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations into the New Covenant administration. But I count the degree of likemindness with Paedobaptists to be of such a degree that I can joyfully sit at the Lord's Table with them and celebrate the Lord's death till He come.
> 
> Cordially yours,
Click to expand...


Absolutely! It is great to have this much agreement over so grand a theme and only points to the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Iconoclast

KC,
Earlier, in your post you said this;


> I think it is nigh on impossible to apply this to the NT church. At Pentecost, there was no way to see evidence of their behavior to determine who was to be baptized. And pratically speaking, in baptistic churches, even calvinistic ones, a lengthly watch is expected of candidates for baptism. A calvinistic baptist pastor would not baptize my sons until he'd had a good long observation of them to determine their fruit. That's flat out unbiblical. If baptists really believe that a profession is all that is needed, they would practice immediate baptisms for people they had just met. But they don't do this, do they? They want to wait. Wait for what?
> 
> What they're forced to admit, then, is that they either believe the Apostles of the NT had infallible knowledge of who was the proper subject of baptism and thus are forced to allow times of observation based upon the fact that they do not have such infallible knowledge; or, that they practice something outside the Bible. However, we know that the Apostle's knowledge was fallible concerning this because they baptized Simon, Ananias and Saphira, Hymenaeus, Alexander, and Philetus, not to mention the Judaizers who were preaching a different gospel.


 It is not so much that it is unbiblical as it prudent. In the days of the Apostles many times they were able to see manifestations of the Spirit, such as people speaking in tongues so they knew God had given them the Spirit as it had been previously manifested. Here is one such example;


> 44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
> 
> 45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
> 
> 46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
> 
> 47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
> 
> 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.


 1] they heard the word
2] The Holy Ghost fell on them [quickened them]
3]They spoke in tongues,magnified God
4] Believer's baptism followed
Now that revelatory gifts have ceased, don't you think it makes sense to observe and instuct a person about the faith.
Why baptize someone, then hope they { improve their baptism???} and look to see fruit later on? Why not take some time and instruct the person to count the cost? See if they glorify God with their life and lips. Have some reason to believe they have put their hand to the plow.
If they have been quickened by the Spirit they will obey from the heart the form of doctrine delivered unto them ;


> 16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
> 
> 17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
> 
> 18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
> 
> 19I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> One may acknowlege that God has the right to all one's children, but one cannot move from that recognition to predicate that when God takes a man into covenant He always takes all of that man's descendents into that covenant. The reality that He does not do so is demonstrated by God's rejections of Ishmael and Esau despite the Abrahamic covenant.



Ishmael and Esau were received into covenant. It was election which rejected them, showing clearly that election and covenant administration are not to be identified together in the same act.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Most Reformed Baptists I know, including my former mentor, Sam Waldron, take the language of Jeremiah 31:31-34, and apply them unqualifiedly to the present New Covenant, which Jesus inaugurated at His first coming. I once held this view. Two factors have led me to rethink the matter.



I think this is a step in the right direction. The two factors you go on to mention are undeniable. Only I would be careful not to use the salvation history school language of "tension" in relation to the now/not yet.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I differ somewhat with Paedobaptists, however, in my explanation for the presence of non-believers in the New Covenant community. I hold that non-believers may be members of the New Covenant community _de facto_ but not _de jure_. That is, they have _no warrant_ to be in the covenant family because the spiritual promises of the New Covenant do not belong to them.



Surely the language must be consistently applied. These ones are _de facto_ in the covenant community, and not _de jure_, because only God knows who are and who are not His own. This principle should apply to infants as equally as to adults, and cannot be used as a reason for excluding infants.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Is faith subjective? I assume by "subjective" you mean "proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world" (American Heritage Dictionary, 2006). To answer you question, faith has both subjective and objective elements. The _locus classicus_ is Romans 10:9-10 where Paul highlights both:
> That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation (NKJ).​



Faith, in so far as it precedes baptism in the NT, is an external acceptance of the proclamation of Christ without consideration of the subjective state of the person. Hence "Simon himself believed," Acts 8:13, though his heart was not right in the sight of God, v. 21. Again, the reader is told that the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, but at the time of her baptism all that is known is that "she attended unto the things which were spoken by Paul." Certainly there is no place for making "conversion experience" a means of entrance into the new covenant community; and if that is the case with adults it should certainly not be imposed upon children who have nothing to externally convert from.

Rom. 10:9-10 militates against infant salvation if used to deny infant baptism. But it is noteworthy that the heart is being used here as the centre of religious consciousness (please consult John Murray's commentary). A revivalist context might infer from this expression a "conversion" to the faith, but there is nothing in the text or context which implies it. There is nothing to forbid a child being brought up with the religious consciousness described in this passage.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> The writer of Hebrews defines faith as "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1).



If you have access to Lane's commentary in the Word series it will be seen that the words cannot be given a subjective sense without destroying the very thing the apostle proves throughout the chapter -- the objective reality which exists by faith. Certainly the chapter shows the _effects_ of faith but it does not give a definition of faith so far as subjective criteria are concerned. Assurance is not of the essence of faith.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Jesus also draws attention to both the subjective and objective elements of saving faith in the Parable of the Sower: "But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience." Hearing the word "with a noble and good heart" presupposes a positive inward response. That response, in turn, bears the fruit of an outward piety that perseveres to the end.



One cannot make the good ground the epitome of "hearing the word" without destroying the force of the parable, which is to show that the word is not only sown on good ground. The positive inward response is therefore ideal, but not a "kingdom reality."



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> That something better to come is *the Messianic Covenant* (unfortunately overlooked by most Reformed theologians) in which the Father makes a historical covenant with the Son, as the Second Adam, to give him the heathen as His inheritance (Pss. 2:6-8; 110:4; Heb. 7:17-22, 28). Following the covenant made with His Righteous Servant, Jesus, God makes the *New Covenant* with Jesus' spiritual offspring (Isa. 53:10; Heb. 2:13), which is called the New Covenant.



You seem to be reverting back to the new covenant as a non temporal entity, a spiritual seed which is known only to God.

Obviously the Messianic age has brought the end of the ages. Reformed theology acknowledges the differences which this coming has brought into the world. But it is absurd to say that it has overturned the inclusion of natural relations within the covenant because it is clearly taught that children who obey their parents "in the Lord" enjoy the promise annexed to the fifth commandment, Eph. 6:1-3. The better covenant does not destroy the law but rather establishes it; hence natural relationships are not destroyed by the Messianic age but rather confirmed.


----------



## kceaster

Iconoclast said:


> It is not so much that it is unbiblical as it prudent. In the days of the Apostles many times they were able to see manifestations of the Spirit, such as people speaking in tongues so they knew God had given them the Spirit as it had been previously manifested. Here is one such example;
> 
> 1] they heard the word
> 2] The Holy Ghost fell on them [quickened them]
> 3]They spoke in tongues,magnified God
> 4] Believer's baptism followed
> Now that revelatory gifts have ceased, don't you think it makes sense to observe and instuct a person about the faith.
> Why baptize someone, then hope they { improve their baptism???} and look to see fruit later on? Why not take some time and instruct the person to count the cost? See if they glorify God with their life and lips. Have some reason to believe they have put their hand to the plow.
> If they have been quickened by the Spirit they will obey from the heart the form of doctrine delivered unto them ;



No, because I'm Presbyterian. I believe you baptize, then disciple.

I see what you're saying from above and I can see why you would conclude it prudent. And yet, Jesus says that there will be those at Judgment who will claim they "prophesied," "cast out demons," and "done many wonders." What does He say to them? Depart.

There's still no implicit command, and in fact, the practice with several of the baptisms shows the contrary.

The point is, it really doesn't matter how much we think we can discern fruit, we're not infallible, and it is clear we can be deceived. It is therefore a matter of faith. And there is no sanction against any elder for baptizing anyone in good faith.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Iconoclast

Kevin,
Even in the presbyterian model, you say that children of one* believing* parent can receive baptism . I can turn around your last post and ask you how do you know the parent believes? What if the parent is a false professor?Like our famous Simon? Is the baptized child then , not a covenant child? Did the * sacrament* not have any efficacy, or did it lose the promise attached to it, or pictured by it ,in your understanding?
If we cannot know anything about anyone, how can you call an elder to serve? Can you know his heart?
Kevin, we are told not to be unequally yoked together with an unbeliever!
Can we know for certain the condition of our wifes heart?

This becomes a never ending cycle of questions and doubts. The Apostles instructed us to watch and make judgements as in 1 Cor 5


> 11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
> 
> 12For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
> 
> 13But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that



If any man is "called a brother"
Why would it not make sense that this is what we are supposed to do with reference to church membership?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Anthony,
It fine if you agree with us on that point! Our point of difference would be: _WE don't make the validity of that profession of any account_ in determining whether or not a "valid" baptism has taken place. The sacraments are only efficacious for the elect--the one who has FAITH, and its MADE effectual by the Spirit, in his time.

You are trying to maintain that there is no difference between one form of ecclesiatical discipline or judgment and any other. That somehow it is all a matter of "reading the heart" to some degree. This is simply contrary to our practice.

So far as we are concerned, in matters of initiation all that matters is that the outward belief be *professed,* whether by a new convert (alleged), or by parents who (allegedly) are converted. We take no further pains than to ascertain (as best a human can) that a man _understands_ the gospel. That is what we mean by a "credible profession." Basic instruction and a few questions suffice. Of course, his immediate lifestyle is relevant--is there evidence he is repentant? It doesn't take that much observation.

His baptism is final. It is once and done. It was real, irrespective of his true intentions, even if he was misled within himself as an adult "believer". Even if he or others become sure his conversion was not til much, much later.

We don't have to go around on this; if you are a baptist, this cannot be your position if it becomes at all apparent that this man's profession was a false one. He must be converted, then baptized.


So, you can say to us, "You have the same problem!" or whatever, but that totally misses the point. It isn't a problem for us in the slightest.

While it may not be "problematic" for you, being simply something you have to deal with: and yet, it is for that man, for any church where he wishes to fellowship. He must become baptized. His previous actions, the church's actions--all is null and void. _The way I see it, this is a most intractable problem._

How can a church make an objective statement on God's behalf (and this is what WE do, but your side does not), and it be *nullified* by a mere man? BAPTISM is an announcement about TRUE BELIEVERS, not about this individual person being baptized right here. He is submitting to it, he is thereby making a claim to the promise (or that parent is), but it is only for him if he is elect!

What sort of difference is there in your ecclesiology between a man who is put out in excommunication under discipline for the purposes of reclamation, and one put out because he isn't a Christian (you can't "reclaim" a person who was never inside!). Does he get baptized if he comes back? How do you know when to do it? How do the elders try to judge a heart, as to when it was real conversion?

That question would never even enter into our minds. It was never meant to enter into any elder's mind in the history of the world.


So, actually there is a tremendous difference.


----------



## kceaster

*Anthony...*

The only thing I would add to Pastor Buchanan's good post is that faith plays a huge role in all of this, obviously. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. Additionally, your problem with our practice can be laid at the feet of Israel as well, because they did the same thing. Covenant inclusion is the rite of circumcision, but church discipline takes over after that. You can't very well exercise church discipline over someone who is not in the church. The passage you cite refers to someone who is unrepentant and undergoing church discipline. We should judge in those matters. But to not give them the sign of the covenant, after they have just professed that they are a sinner in need of a savior, like the Philippian jailor, and those men at Pentecost, is not biblical at all. But in the end, we must have faith.

We obviously don't baptize unrepentant sinners who refuse to give up their sin, so I don't see where there is a problem. Further, if the "believing" parents were under church discipline, I think most sessions would believe it prudent to delay the child's baptism. I could be wrong. I don't know that I've ever heard of such a case. Perhaps someone else has.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> I differ somewhat with Paedobaptists, however, in my explanation for the presence of non-believers in the New Covenant community. I hold that non-believers may be members of the New Covenant community _de facto_ but not _de jure_. That is, they have _no warrant_ to be in the covenant family because the spiritual promises of the New Covenant do not belong to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely the language must be consistently applied. These ones are _de facto_ in the covenant community, and not _de jure_, because only God knows who are and who are not His own. This principle should apply to infants as equally as to adults, and cannot be used as a reason for excluding infants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Premise: Scripture tells us the children of Abraham are those who have faith
> or put another way
> Scripture tells us those with the right to be called children of God are the same (those that believed in Jesus).
> 
> We may not know absolutely who among the professing believers will be found a sheep or a goat on the last day but our lack of knowledge of this distinction is irrelevant to whether or not we treat them as a child of God. When somebody professes faith in Christ, we know that they may be elect and may have the right to be called the children of God and we make the judgment of charity that their profession is real unless subsequent events strongly indicate otherwise — and even in such cases we can't quite rule out the possibility of backsliding.
> 
> What we do know abosolutely from John 1: 12, 13 is this: that anyone who has not yet professed faith in Jesus for forgiveness of his or her sins at the moment, does not believe in Christ's name, have not yet been born of God, and therefore by GNC, does not have the right to be called a child of God, and does not have the right to be treated as as if he or she is one.
> 
> It is only the individuals who profess faith in Christ who may have been born again, it is only those individuals who have the right to be treated as children of God.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faith, in so far as it precedes baptism in the NT, is an external acceptance of the proclamation of Christ without consideration of the subjective state of the person. Hence "Simon himself believed," Acts 8:13, though his heart was not right in the sight of God, v. 21.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not so. While faith can be used to describe acceptance external to the heart as in the case of Simon, it is also found used to describe the true heart based attitude of trust in Christ in such scriptures as Acts 3:16. We may not ourselves know which kind of faith a professor has, but we know that it may be possible he or she has real faith before baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the reader is told that the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, but at the time of her baptism all that is known is that "she attended unto the things which were spoken by Paul." Certainly there is no place for making "conversion experience" a means of entrance into the new covenant community; and if that is the case with adults it should certainly not be imposed upon children who have nothing to externally convert from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't buy the necessesity for a "conversion experience" narrative before baptism and thus I am quite unsurprised when somebody tells me that although they can't rember how it came about that they came to it, they have an active trust in Christ. I would, and have recommended such people as candidates for baptism, but if someone cannot tell me that he believes in Christ for salvation of his sins, I know that that person does not yet have the right to be recognized as a child of God.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rom. 10:9-10 militates against infant salvation if used to deny infant baptism. But it is noteworthy that the heart is being used here as the centre of religious consciousness (please consult John Murray's commentary). A revivalist context might infer from this expression a "conversion" to the faith, but there is nothing in the text or context which implies it. There is nothing to forbid a child being brought up with the religious consciousness described in this passage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is nothing to forbid such a child, even of very young years, having believed on Christ, from professing Christ and seeking baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob G said:
> 
> 
> 
> The writer of Hebrews defines faith as "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1). Once again, we have faith described subjectively, as that which proceeds from and takes place in the human heart. Nevertheless, as the author of Hebrews continues, such inward faith expresses itself outwardly in deeds of piety (Heb. 11:4ff.).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> [On Heb. 11:1] If you have access to Lane's commentary in the Word series it will be seen that the words cannot be given a subjective sense without destroying the very thing the apostle proves throughout the chapter -- the objective reality which exists by faith. Certainly the chapter shows the _effects_ of faith but it does not give a definition of faith so far as subjective criteria are concerned. Assurance is not of the essence of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will agree that a subjective "felt" "assurance" as that term is usually used is not of the essance of faith, but a subjective certainty (=trust, faith) that the gospel itself is true and that the Christian hope is a good one, is indeed specifically given as the definition for faith in Heb 11:1. I don't know Lane's argument and you provide no details, but I cannot see how any argument that no possible subjective sense can be given of "faith" in the beliver can be meant in this verse without destroying the objective realities toward which faith necessarily looks. Nor do I see how anyone could possibly refute the point that faith both precedes from and takes place in the human heart. For the whole point of this section of the letter is to show that it was by holding onto this subjective certainty that the heroes of faith achieved what they did: a fact clearly seen by the persistent repititions of "by faith" that (so and so did something) throughout the chapter.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously the Messianic age has brought the end of the ages. Reformed theology acknowledges the differences which this coming has brought into the world. But it is absurd to say that it has overturned the inclusion of natural relations within the covenant because it is clearly taught that children who obey their parents "in the Lord" enjoy the promise annexed to the fifth commandment, Eph. 6:1-3. The better covenant does not destroy the law but rather establishes it; hence natural relationships are not destroyed by the Messianic age but rather confirmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This passage will not bear the use you attempt to put on it. For all agree that when writing to the churches the Apostles often write as if all were born again while they quite well knew that some were not. How do you know that the children here referred to were not addressed on this presumed assumption that they were regenerate rather than Apostolic knowledge that they were unprofessing children of professors and therefore granted covenant recognition.
Click to expand...


----------



## kceaster

timmopussycat said:


> Premise: Scripture tells us the children of Abraham are those who have faith
> or put another way
> Scripture tells us those with the right to be called children of God are the same (those that believed in Jesus).
> 
> We may not know absolutely who among the professing believers will be found a sheep or a goat on the last day but our lack of knowledge of this distinction is irrelevant to whether or not we treat them as a child of God. When somebody professes faith in Christ, we know that they may be elect and may have the right to be called the children of God and we make the judgment of charity that their profession is real unless subsequent events strongly indicate otherwise — and even in such cases we can't quite rule out the possibility of backsliding.
> 
> What we do know abosolutely from John 1: 12, 13 is this: that anyone who has not yet professed faith in Jesus for forgiveness of his or her sins at the moment, does not believe in Christ's name, have not yet been born of God, and therefore by GNC, does not have the right to be called a child of God, and does not have the right to be treated as as if he or she is one.
> 
> It is only the individuals who profess faith in Christ who may have been born again, it is only those individuals who have the right to be treated as children of God.



How many have you just excluded from the kingdom of God! You just excluded my child who died as a result of a miscarriage. You have just excluded the dumb who can't speak. You have just excluded the mentally retarded. You don't really mean to say this, do you?

Additionally, when does anyone chosen by God from the foundation of the world to salvation by faith in Christ become Elect in time and space? They are elect beforehand, are they not? Does God not have the freedom to regenerate anyone whenever He wishes? Does He not have the right to work with means or without them?

What about the many people who have a glorious testimony that they can't remember ever not believing in Jesus? 

Further, I am so glad that my parents (who were in a baptistic arminian church) didn't treat me as if I were not a child of God. I was dedicated as a baby. In fact, my parents were baptized shortly after I was born. They don't believe in covenant and they don't share my same understanding of Reformed Theology, and my father does not walk with the Lord anymore, but they sure didn't treat me as if I were not a Christian. They prayed for and with me. They taught me to read my bible and live as a Christian should. They allowed me to sing praise to God. I was afforded all of the things that covenant kids (as we understand it) are born with.

Frankly, I don't understand how you can write what you did. You surely do not believe this in practice, do you?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Iconoclast

Contra_Mundum said:


> Anthony,
> It fine if you agree with us on that point! Our point of difference would be: _WE don't make the validity of that profession of any account_ in determining whether or not a "valid" baptism has taken place. The sacraments are only efficacious for the elect--the one who has FAITH, and its MADE effectual by the Spirit, in his time.
> 
> You are trying to maintain that there is no difference between one form of ecclesiatical discipline or judgment and any other. That somehow it is all a matter of "reading the heart" to some degree. This is simply contrary to our practice.
> 
> So far as we are concerned, in matters of initiation all that matters is that the outward belief be *professed,* whether by a new convert (alleged), or by parents who (allegedly) are converted. We take no further pains than to ascertain (as best a human can) that a man _understands_ the gospel. That is what we mean by a "credible profession." Basic instruction and a few questions suffice. Of course, his immediate lifestyle is relevant--is there evidence he is repentant? It doesn't take that much observation.
> 
> His baptism is final. It is once and done. It was real, irrespective of his true intentions, even if he was misled within himself as an adult "believer". Even if he or others become sure his conversion was not til much, much later.
> 
> We don't have to go around on this; if you are a baptist, this cannot be your position if it becomes at all apparent that this man's profession was a false one. He must be converted, then baptized.
> 
> 
> So, you can say to us, "You have the same problem!" or whatever, but that totally misses the point. It isn't a problem for us in the slightest.
> 
> While it may not be "problematic" for you, being simply something you have to deal with: and yet, it is for that man, for any church where he wishes to fellowship. He must become baptized. His previous actions, the church's actions--all is null and void. _The way I see it, this is a most intractable problem._
> 
> How can a church make an objective statement on God's behalf (and this is what WE do, but your side does not), and it be *nullified* by a mere man? BAPTISM is an announcement about TRUE BELIEVERS, not about this individual person being baptized right here. He is submitting to it, he is thereby making a claim to the promise (or that parent is), but it is only for him if he is elect!
> 
> What sort of difference is there in your ecclesiology between a man who is put out in excommunication under discipline for the purposes of reclamation, and one put out because he isn't a Christian (you can't "reclaim" a person who was never inside!). Does he get baptized if he comes back? How do you know when to do it? How do the elders try to judge a heart, as to when it was real conversion?
> 
> That question would never even enter into our minds. It was never meant to enter into any elder's mind in the history of the world.
> 
> 
> So, actually there is a tremendous difference.



I think it was David Silversides who said that a person who despises his or her baptism or turns from the church is just that much more guilty of the additional sins of taking the Lord's name in vain and becoming a covenantbreaker. So the position would be that at the time of a baptism service, it has more to do with;
1] Instruction about the saving promise contained in the gospel of Christ
2] a reminder to those in the congregation of the need to "improve upon 
their baptism" all throughout this life
3] this would be the start of the discipleship process,and inclusion in the outward administration of the visible church, but not yet a full member{Lord's supper}
Is this mostly the position?

You asked


> What sort of difference is there in your ecclesiology between a man who is put out in excommunication under discipline for the purposes of reclamation, and one put out because he isn't a Christian (you can't "reclaim" a person who was never inside!). Does he get baptized if he comes back? How do you know when to do it? How do the elders try to judge a heart, as to when it was real conversion?


 A man is put out because he is acting like an unbeliever. The desire is that the man would own up to his sin, and repent asking the congregation to forgive him of that sin, witha view to restore him to fellowship.


> 15Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
> 
> 16But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
> 
> 17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.


 If the man is a christian he will repent. If not he is as the text says ,to be counted as a heathen man. So we do not reclaim a man who was never in.


----------



## timmopussycat

kceaster said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Premise: Scripture tells us the children of Abraham are those who have faith
> or put another way
> Scripture tells us those with the right to be called children of God are the same (those that believed in Jesus).
> 
> We may not know absolutely who among the professing believers will be found a sheep or a goat on the last day but our lack of knowledge of this distinction is irrelevant to whether or not we treat them as a child of God. When somebody professes faith in Christ, we know that they may be elect and may have the right to be called the children of God and we make the judgment of charity that their profession is real unless subsequent events strongly indicate otherwise — and even in such cases we can't quite rule out the possibility of backsliding.
> 
> What we do know abosolutely from John 1: 12, 13 is this: that anyone who has not yet professed faith in Jesus for forgiveness of his or her sins at the moment, does not believe in Christ's name, have not yet been born of God, and therefore by GNC, does not have the right to be called a child of God, and does not have the right to be treated as as if he or she is one.
> 
> It is only the individuals who profess faith in Christ who may have been born again, it is only those individuals who have the right to be treated as children of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many have you just excluded from the kingdom of God! You just excluded my child who died as a result of a miscarriage. You have just excluded the dumb who can't speak. You have just excluded the mentally retarded. You don't really mean to say this, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said what I meant, but the consequence of my position is not what you think it is. While only those who have faith have the right to be recognized by the church as being children of God, I have not said that such folk are in fact all the children of God. I have not necessarily excluded anybody from God's kingdom-neither your miscarried child, (Sripture simply does not speak of the future of miscarried children but leaves us with the hope of "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy" — a profoundly hopeful statement — and the assurance of "Shall not the Judge of the earth do right?") the dumb, who can sign, or the mentally retarded who can indeed both trust in Christ and profess the same, something I well know as until recently one such was a member of my church.
> 
> 
> 
> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally, when does anyone chosen by God from the foundation of the world to salvation by faith in Christ become Elect in time and space? They are elect beforehand, are they not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed so. But before the elect profess faith, the church has no warrant for recognizng them as children of God.
> 
> 
> 
> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does God not have the freedom to regenerate anyone whenever He wishes? Does He not have the right to work with means or without them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What God is free to do is not what is at issue here. God is free to have mercy on whom He will have mercy, but the question under discussion is not who are the children of God?, but rather who has the right to be recognized as the children of God by the church? The Apostle John tells us it is those that have faith that have that right.
> 
> 
> 
> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the many people who have a glorious testimony that they can't remember ever not believing in Jesus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed this in my previous post. We treat them as believers.
> 
> 
> 
> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Further, I am so glad that my parents (who were in a baptistic arminian church) didn't treat me as if I were not a child of God. I was dedicated as a baby. In fact, my parents were baptized shortly after I was born. They don't believe in covenant and they don't share my same understanding of Reformed Theology, and my father does not walk with the Lord anymore, but they sure didn't treat me as if I were not a Christian. They prayed for and with me. They taught me to read my bible and live as a Christian should. They allowed me to sing praise to God. I was afforded all of the things that covenant kids (as we understand it) are born with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As do the parents in my church. And they are right to do so. After all Jesus did say openly "Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest" and "...he that cometh unto me shall I in no wise cast out." We simply enourage our kids to come to him and when they give evidence that they have done so, we treat them accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I don't understand how you can write what you did. You surely do not believe this in practice, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As noted above, the conclusions I come to are not the ones you think I must come to, but yes I believe what I said.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Reformed Baptists I know, including my former mentor, Sam Waldron, take the language of Jeremiah 31:31-34, and apply them unqualifiedly to the present New Covenant, which Jesus inaugurated at His first coming. I once held this view. Two factors have led me to rethink the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew writes: I think this is a step in the right direction. The two factors you go on to mention are undeniable. Only I would be careful not to use the salvation history school language of "tension" in relation to the now/not yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By way of clarification, what I meant to say above is, "Most Reformed Baptists I know ... take the language of Jeremiah 31:31-34 and apply it unqualifiedly to the present New Covenant *community,* which Jesus inaugurated at His first coming." As are as using the term "tension," I accept your caution. I certainly don't mean any close to "contradiction" or "divergent theologies," etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> I differ somewhat with Paedobaptists, however, in my explanation for the presence of non-believers in the New Covenant community. I hold that non-believers may be members of the New Covenant community _de facto_ but not _de jure_. That is, they have _no warrant_ to be in the covenant family because the spiritual promises of the New Covenant do not belong to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew writes: Surely the language must be consistently applied. These ones are _de facto_ in the covenant community, and not _de jure_, because only God knows who are and who are not His own. This principle should apply to infants as equally as to adults, and cannot be used as a reason for excluding infants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that any unregenerate person belonging to the New Covenant community is there _de facto_ and not _de jure_. That was the point I was trying to make. It is, I believe, God's expressed will that the New Covenant community be made up of those described by John--born again believers (1:12-13). What is more, I don't see the necessity of the following equation:
> New Covenant community + _de facto_ unregenerate = infant baptism​Rather, the NT evidence points in the direction of
> New Covenant community + _de facto_ unregenerate = false professors​
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew writes: Faith, in so far as it precedes baptism in the NT, is an external acceptance of the proclamation of Christ without consideration of the subjective state of the person. Hence "Simon himself believed," Acts 8:13, though his heart was not right in the sight of God, v. 21. Again, the reader is told that the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, but at the time of her baptism all that is known is that "she attended unto the things which were spoken by Paul." Certainly there is no place for making "conversion experience" a means of entrance into the new covenant community; and if that is the case with adults it should certainly not be imposed upon children who have nothing to externally convert from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do not advocate making a conversion experience per se the qualification for baptism. I do advocate making a credible profession of faith the qualification. I've defined such a profession above as (1) An awareness of and sorrow for one's personal sin (Matthew 3:6; Luke 18:16; Acts 2:37), (2) An understanding of and belief in the basic truths of the gospel (Rom. 10:9; Heb. 11:6), and (3) A willingness to trust and commit oneself to Christ (Rom. 10:9; 2 Tim. 1:12). (see post 97). Ideally, such an outward profession is indicative of an inward conversion (Rom. 10:9-10).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rom. 10:9-10 militates against infant salvation if used to deny infant baptism. But it is noteworthy that the heart is being used here as the centre of religious consciousness (please consult John Murray's commentary). A revivalist context might infer from this expression a "conversion" to the faith, but there is nothing in the text or context which implies it. There is nothing to forbid a child being brought up with the religious consciousness described in this passage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matthew, I think your alluding the the possibility of regenerate infants who are born again but not yet conscious of it. It's true that our respective confessions assert that "elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ" (10.3). I don't deny the possibility of elect infants. And certainly, if they die in infancy they must be regenerated by the Spirit and enter glory on the basis of Christ's redemptive work. Of course, the Scriptural evidence for "elect infants" is not free from ambiguity. That doesn't mean I don't believe in such--indeed, like Spurgeon, I hope that all infants who die in infancy turn out to be among "the elect." But I think the following should be kept in view: (1) the thief on the cross was regenerated, professed faith, and went to Paradise without baptism. Hence, we need not take the still born child or the remains of aborted children and baptize them to ensure their entrance into glory (I know you agree with this point--just making it for rhetorical affect ). (2) I think we must operate on the data afforded in the New Testament. In my reading of the NT, a credible profession of faith is the prerequsite for water baptism. So I believe we should wait until a child can make that conscious profession. If he's one of the elect, we need not worry. He'll go to heaven without the sprinkle or dunk. Moreover, if he's one of the elect and he doesn't die in infancy, then what the heart truly believes will eventually come out the mouth (Rom. 10:9-10). (3) I believe there is danger in baptizing a child and bringing him into a covenant the promises of which are spiritual and eternal in nature when there is no credible profession of faith upon the grounds that he might be one of the elect. Not only does that practice begin to fill the church with unregenerate people, who, according to John 1:12-13, have no divinely conferred legal warrant to be in the community. It also can breed a kind of presumption or complacency in the heart of the child. He may assume he's been regenerate from conception or birth and has never been a "child of wrath like the rest" (Eph. 2:1-3) in need of conversion (Eph. 2:4-9).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have access to Lane's commentary in the Word series it will be seen that the words cannot be given a subjective sense without destroying the very thing the apostle proves throughout the chapter -- the objective reality which exists by faith. Certainly the chapter shows the _effects_ of faith but it does not give a definition of faith so far as subjective criteria are concerned. Assurance is not of the essence of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't own Lane's commentary but have used it before. I have great respect for his ability. I would agree that the words cannot be given an *exclusively* subjective sense without destroying the objective reality which exists by faith. But I also find it hard to separate "the thing hoped for" (objective) from "the act of hoping" (subjective). He who comes (subjective) to God (objective) must believe that (subjective) he is (objective) and that he is a rewarder (objective) of those who earnestly seek (subjective) him (objective) (Heb. 11:6).
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus also draws attention to both the subjective and objective elements of saving faith in the Parable of the Sower: "But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience." Hearing the word "with a noble and good heart" presupposes a positive inward response. That response, in turn, bears the fruit of an outward piety that perseveres to the end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew writes: One cannot make the good ground the epitome of "hearing the word" without destroying the force of the parable, which is to show that the word is not only sown on good ground. The positive inward response is therefore ideal, but not a "kingdom reality."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't limit the "good ground" merely to the human response to the word. It includes God's prevenient efficacious grace, which, so to speak, fertilizes the soil of the heart of the elect.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> That something better to come is *the Messianic Covenant* (unfortunately overlooked by most Reformed theologians) in which the Father makes a historical covenant with the Son, as the Second Adam, to give him the heathen as His inheritance (Pss. 2:6-8; 110:4; Heb. 7:17-22, 28). Following the covenant made with His Righteous Servant, Jesus, God makes the *New Covenant* with Jesus' spiritual offspring (Isa. 53:10; Heb. 2:13), which is called the New Covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew writes: You seem to be reverting back to the new covenant as a non temporal entity, a spiritual seed which is known only to God.
> 
> Obviously the Messianic age has brought the end of the ages. Reformed theology acknowledges the differences which this coming has brought into the world. But it is absurd to say that it has overturned the inclusion of natural relations within the covenant because it is clearly taught that children who obey their parents "in the Lord" enjoy the promise annexed to the fifth commandment, Eph. 6:1-3. The better covenant does not destroy the law but rather establishes it; hence natural relationships are not destroyed by the Messianic age but rather confirmed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes, the gospel does destroy natural relations:
> NKJ Matthew 10:21 "Now brother will deliver up brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.
> 
> NKJ Matthew 10:34 " Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 "For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; 36 "and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.'​Moreover, the juvenile church members described in Ephesians 6 are old enough to understand Paul's exhortation and consciously obey their parents in the Lord. I think the context makes it clear that Paul is address whom he believes to be regenerate children. Grammatically, Ephesians 6:1-3 is tied to Ephesians 5:21, which in turn is tied to Ephesians 5:18 ("Be filled with the Spirit"). The Greek tekna refers to minors, not necessarily to infants.
> 
> Brother, thanks for the time you've taken to interact over this text and subject.
Click to expand...


----------



## py3ak

Semper Fidelis said:


> In this respect, Bob, you're sort of an amalgam. It's not really a Confessional view for Baptists to affirm that the NC consists of those that can break it. It's Scriptural, obviously, but just not Confessional according to historical Baptist theology.



Rich, can you demonstrate that point from the 1689?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

py3ak said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this respect, Bob, you're sort of an amalgam. It's not really a Confessional view for Baptists to affirm that the NC consists of those that can break it. It's Scriptural, obviously, but just not Confessional according to historical Baptist theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, can you demonstrate that point from the 1689?
Click to expand...


Rich, I second the motion.  Actually, in all seriousness, I made a clarifying remark in a post above which might help to relieve some tension or perceived inconsistency. Here's what I presently believe, but I'm willing to adjust my views if necessary: I don't think it is possible for someone upon whose heart God has efficaciously written his law, who knows the Lord, and whose sins are forgiven (Jer. 31:31-34) to break the New Covenant. After all, God has put his fear into their hearts so that they will not depart from him (Jer. 32:39-40). Nevertheless, I do believe it is possible for unregenerate individuals to enter the New Covenant *community* by means of what turns out to be a false profession of faith and later to apostatize. 

Can such individuals be considered "covenant breakers" since they, according to a Reformed Baptist, were never really in? Well, some of my Baptist brethren prefer not to use "covenant breaker" for a NT apostate. But might we not here employ the distinction between _literal_ and _phenomenal_ language? In 2 Peter 2:1, the apostle accuses false teachers (who presumably have entered the church) of "denying the Lord who bought them." Certainly, Jesus did not _literally _redeem them. But _phenomenally_, they belong to the community of the redeemed and their denial betrays a rejection of their _phenomenological_ Master. Similarly, the apostle John speaks of certain "antichrists" who
went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.​So, on the one hand, these apostates departed "from" those whom they had been "with," i.e., phenomenally, they were part of the NC community. But, says John, "they did not really [i.e., in the literally sense] belong to us" since their "going showed that none of them belonged to us." So in one sense they were members of local churches or the visible New Covenant community. Yet, they did not have divine warrant to the promises of the New Covenant itself because their faith was spurious, which in turn indicated that they had not been born of God. 

Consequently, I'm willing to accept the langauge of Hebrews 10:29--"counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing"--as referring to a kind of phenomenological "covenant breaking." Of course, some have encouraged me to follow Owen and interpret the pronoun "he" as referring to Christ, not the apostate. Owen may be correct. My point, however, is that I'm willing to concede that on a phenomenological level the New Covenant may be broken by whose who appeared to be partakers thereof. But the NC itself cannot be broken by those who, according to John, "really belong to us." 

Cordially yours,


----------



## Herald

> Here's what I presently believe, but I'm willing to adjust my views if necessary: I don't think it is possible for someone upon whose heart God has efficaciously written his law, who knows the Lord, and whose sins are forgiven (Jer. 31:31-34) to break the New Covenant. After all, God has put his fear into their hearts so that they will not depart from him (Jer. 32:39-40). Nevertheless, I do believe it is possible for unregenerate individuals to enter the New Covenant community by means of what turns out to be a false profession of faith and later to apostatize.



Bob, you're articulating the dichotomy between the visible and invisible church. I believe chapter 26.1-3 of the 1689 LBC speaks to this. I'm glad you made this statement because the New Covenant is entered into on the basis of faith.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Here's what I presently believe, but I'm willing to adjust my views if necessary: I don't think it is possible for someone upon whose heart God has efficaciously written his law, who knows the Lord, and whose sins are forgiven (Jer. 31:31-34) to break the New Covenant. After all, God has put his fear into their hearts so that they will not depart from him (Jer. 32:39-40). Nevertheless, I do believe it is possible for unregenerate individuals to enter the New Covenant community by means of what turns out to be a false profession of faith and later to apostatize.
> 
> 
> 
> Bob, you're articulating the dichotomy between the visible and invisible church. I believe chapter 26.1-3 of the 1689 LBC speaks to this. I'm glad you made this statement because the New Covenant is entered into on the basis of faith.
Click to expand...


Thanks, brother. I'm not crazy about the nomenclature "visible" and "invisible" since the church on earth always consists of _visible_ people. But I agree with the concept behind the terminology. 

Some Reformed Baptist brothers are willing to speak of unregenerate people belong to the "visible church," but they are uncomfortable with equating visible _ekklesia_ with the "New Covenant community." Moreover, they prefer not to call NT apostates "covenant breakers." Personally, I think that we may be entering the realm of _logomache_ (quibbling over mere words), and by doing such are not advancing the debate with our Paedobaptist brothers.


----------



## Herald

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what I presently believe, but I'm willing to adjust my views if necessary: I don't think it is possible for someone upon whose heart God has efficaciously written his law, who knows the Lord, and whose sins are forgiven (Jer. 31:31-34) to break the New Covenant. After all, God has put his fear into their hearts so that they will not depart from him (Jer. 32:39-40). Nevertheless, I do believe it is possible for unregenerate individuals to enter the New Covenant community by means of what turns out to be a false profession of faith and later to apostatize.
> 
> 
> 
> Bob, you're articulating the dichotomy between the visible and invisible church. I believe chapter 26.1-3 of the 1689 LBC speaks to this. I'm glad you made this statement because the New Covenant is entered into on the basis of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks, brother. I'm not crazy about the nomenclature "visible" and "invisible" since the church on earth always consists of _visible_ people. But I agree with the concept behind the terminology.
> 
> Some Reformed Baptist brothers are willing to speak of unregenerate people belong to the "visible church," but they are uncomfortable with equating visible _ekklesia_ with the "New Covenant community." Moreover, they prefer not to call NT apostates "covenant breakers." Personally, I think that we may be entering the realm of _logomache_ (quibbling over mere words), and by doing such are not advancing the debate with our Paedobaptist brothers.
Click to expand...


Bob, definition of terms is essential in this discussion. If the New Covenant is entered into through regeneration (by faith), then it is impossible to be an unregenerate member of the same. However, the visible-invisible church distinction makes it possible for unbelievers to _identify_ with the New Covenant. Terminology may seem secondary to the argument but it's helpful to the argument to support accurate definitions. It's difficult to advance any debate when semantics may seem to contradict our position. Some of the more adept debaters on this board will pick up on an apparent contradiction and assume there is agreement on a point. In actuality nothing could be further from the truth. The baptism debate has clear lines of demarcation.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bob, you're articulating the dichotomy between the visible and invisible church. I believe chapter 26.1-3 of the 1689 LBC speaks to this. I'm glad you made this statement because the New Covenant is entered into on the basis of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, brother. I'm not crazy about the nomenclature "visible" and "invisible" since the church on earth always consists of _visible_ people. But I agree with the concept behind the terminology.
> 
> Some Reformed Baptist brothers are willing to speak of unregenerate people belong to the "visible church," but they are uncomfortable with equating visible _ekklesia_ with the "New Covenant community." Moreover, they prefer not to call NT apostates "covenant breakers." Personally, I think that we may be entering the realm of _logomache_ (quibbling over mere words), and by doing such are not advancing the debate with our Paedobaptist brothers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bob, definition of terms is essential in this discussion. If the New Covenant is entered into through regeneration (by faith), then it is impossible to be an unregenerate member of the same. However, the visible-invisible church distinction makes it possible for unbelievers to _identify_ with the New Covenant. Terminology may seem secondary to the argument but it's helpful to the argument to support accurate definitions. It's difficult to advance any debate when semantics may seem to contradict our position. Some of the more adept debaters on this board will pick up on an apparent contradiction and assume there is agreement on a point. In actuality nothing could be further from the truth. The baptism debate has clear lines of demarcation.
Click to expand...


Bill, does that mean you agree with what I've said above or don't? 

I don't deny that definition of terms is helpful. I think choice of terms is also helpful. That's why I don't like "visible" vs. "invisible." I'm a member of a New Covenant assembly, and I think I'm actually regenerate. But I've never yet acquired the ability to be "invisible." Nor have any of the other regenerate members of my church. I'd prefer "true" vs. "apparent." But, as I indicated, I'm supportive of the theological point behind the confession's choice of words. 

Personally, I find the insistence on a distinction between the NT church (which may contain unbelievers) vs. the NC community (which may not contain unbelievers) unhelpful. I believe that NT churches are New Covenant communities or assemblies. Moreover, when people join our NT church, they agree to our "church covenant." When they apostatize, I don't have a problem with calling them covenant breakers in the sense I've articulated above. For this reason, I think the pedantry of some Baptist brothers to insist that the visible NT church cannot be equated with the visible NC community clogs the debate. My comments above were designed to provide a definition of terms in order to clarify not to obfuscate the discussion.


----------



## Herald

Bob,

I think we're agreed on who is actually in the New Covenant (by faith alone) but diverge on other points. I attach the term "New Covenant" to those who are regenerate. It applies _only_ to those people. Ergo, how can someone break a covenant that is unbreakable? Secondary uses of the term tend to obfuscate the significance of the New Covenant In my humble opinion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this respect, Bob, you're sort of an amalgam. It's not really a Confessional view for Baptists to affirm that the NC consists of those that can break it. It's Scriptural, obviously, but just not Confessional according to historical Baptist theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, can you demonstrate that point from the 1689?
Click to expand...


Compare WCF VII with LBCF VII.

Especially compare WCF XXVII & XXVIII with LBCF XXVIII and XXIX.

The omission of certain paragraphs on the nature of Covenants is more subtle but the inference becomes clearer when you look at the nature of the ordinances in the later Chapters.

It is clear that there is no method of admission into the New Covenant in the LBCF by the ministrations of the Church. In other words, where the WCF is explicit that Sacraments do join a person to the Covenant of Grace, the LBCF omits this.

Hence, one can theoretically state that a person can be a member of the NC and break the NC as a Baptist but there is no _means_ for a person to become a member of the New Covenant in Baptist Ecclesiology.


----------



## py3ak

I have compared them before. I think you're making the omissions in the 1689 (many of which are in my view needless and regrettable) carry more significance than they will naturally bear.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> I have compared them before. I think you're making the omissions in the 1689 (many of which are in my view needless and regrettable) carry more significance than they will naturally bear.



Granted it's not explicit Ruben but my point is that the LBCF speaks of no means by which a person can gain entrance into the New Covenant through the ordinances of the Church. I don't think that's accidental. I'm no historian but I'm nearly certain that you can read the dialog surrounding the formation of the Confessions to support this premise.

I'm certain you would agree with me that we would need to look at original intent for the formation of the Confession rather than look for silence on the matter to be able to read into the Confession support for a notion that baptism confers visible Covenant membership. How _does_ a person gain Covenant membership according to the LBCF? 

In short, it cannot be argued that the LBCF allows for admission through the ordinances of the Church since the ordinances themselves are merely _signs_ of something but do not confer anything. That is more than mere silence.

The point that the ordinance of baptism does not confer visible membership in the New Covenant was something I believed to be a pretty obvious staple of Reformed Baptist Covenant theology. Are you aware of any strain in historic Particular Baptist theology that would indicate otherwise


----------



## py3ak

Why would it have to be through the ordinances of the church as opposed to say, profession?

I am very interested in the question of the difference in Baptist vs. Presbyterian vs. Congregational covenant theology, but looking at the confessions (as opposed to the views of individual theologians), I have to admit that the difference on a confessional level seems less than discussions on the PB might lead one to think. 

So if I were to subscribe to the 1689 tonight, do you think I would have to have ceased believing that apostates are covenant breakers?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> Why would it have to be through the ordinances of the church as opposed to say, profession?
> 
> I am very interested in the question of the difference in Baptist vs. Presbyterian vs. Congregational covenant theology, but looking at the confessions (as opposed to the views of individual theologians), I have to admit that the difference on a confessional level seems less than discussions on the PB might lead one to think.
> 
> So if I were to subscribe to the 1689 tonight, do you think I would have to have ceased believing that apostates are covenant breakers?



You might have missed a point I added above as I smoothed out what I was trying to note about the nature of an ordinance in the LBCF. If you look at the language on the ordinances, the ordinances of the LBCF are only signs of what a person that has faith in Christ possesses. Nothing is ministerially conferred by the ordinances. The only inference one can draw is that the person can only possess the thing signified through faith. There is no room in the LBCF for profession, apart from faith, to grant this nor does the ordinance grant entrance into the Covenant.

I think it depends on your subscription. I wasn't telling Bob he was an amalgam to poke him in the eye and tell him that he'd be skewered for standing between two positions but that's essentially what is happening. It's not really LBCF or WCF on that point.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Semper Fidelis said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it have to be through the ordinances of the church as opposed to say, profession?
> 
> I am very interested in the question of the difference in Baptist vs. Presbyterian vs. Congregational covenant theology, but looking at the confessions (as opposed to the views of individual theologians), I have to admit that the difference on a confessional level seems less than discussions on the PB might lead one to think.
> 
> So if I were to subscribe to the 1689 tonight, do you think I would have to have ceased believing that apostates are covenant breakers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might have missed a point I added above as I smoothed out what I was trying to note about the nature of an ordinance in the LBCF. If you look at the language on the ordinances, the ordinances of the LBCF are only signs of what a person that has faith in Christ possesses. Nothing is ministerially conferred by the ordinances. The only inference one can draw is that the person can only possess the thing signified through faith. There is no room in the LBCF for profession, apart from faith, to grant this nor does the ordinance grant entrance into the Covenant.
> 
> I think it depends on your subscription. I wasn't telling Bob he was an amalgam to poke him in the eye and tell him that he'd be skewered for standing between two positions but that's essentially what is happening. It's not really LBCF or WCF on that point.
Click to expand...


Hi, Rich. I didn't take it as a poke. But I'm not exactly sure how I'm standing between two positions. 

First, I don't agree with the WCF that the sacrament of baptism is _ipso facto_ "a sign and seal of the covenant of grace" when applied to an unregenerate infant or adult. As I've stated before, I'm of the opinion that the "covenant of grace" is a theological construct, not an actual historical covenant. It's God's one paradigm of redemption, his one way of salvation by grace through faith in a redeemer that was first announced in the protoevangel (Gen. 3:15). The covenant of grace as such is revealed in the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, and most clearly in the New Covenant. The covenant of grace is most fully realized in the present New Covenant community, which I identify as the visible NT church. But the covenant of grace is not truly realized in any individual who is not born again. Thus, baptism can only serve as a sign (outward symbol of an inward reality) and seal (badge of authenticity) for those who are truly born again. That's precisely how circumcision served for Abraham (Rom. 4:11) but not for Isaac. That's what makes Abraham, not Isaac, the father of all those who believe (first) then are baptized (second) since the patriarch believed (first) then was circumcised (second). 

Second, I've made the distinction above between professors who are _authentically_ recipients of NC promises and professors who are only _apparently _recipients of these promises but are in fact only members of the visible NC community. Here, as I pointed out above, I agree with Reformed Baptists who, using the language of 1 John 2:19, insist that such individuals did not "really belong" to the_ authentic_ NC community. Yet, I am willing to allow for the use of phenomenological language or the language of _appearance_. If the 3rd person personal pronoun in Hebrews 10:29 is referring to the apostate rather than to Christ, then it seems to me that we Baptists have to concede that the language of "covenant breaker" can be applied to those who were in the visible NC community but departed from the faith. I understand that some RB brothers, like Bill, are uncomfortable with such a "concession." They prefer to apply terminology related to "New Covenant" only to those who are regenerate. This is why Bill concludes,Ergo, how can someone break a covenant that is unbreakable? Secondary uses of the term tend to obfuscate the significance of the New Covenant In my humble opinion.​Perhaps Hebrews 10:29 does not refer to a "covenant breaker." But if it does, then one has to reconcile the language of Jeremiah 31:31-34 and 32:39-40 which depict the _authentic_ recipients of the NC promises as incapable of covenant-breaking or apostasy. The solution I've suggested is to distinguish between *authentic* and *apparent*. The confessions use the terms "invisible" and "visible." Personally, I find the term "invisible" a little confusing (Does the Bible every speak of an "invisible" church or Christian?). But I think the concept is basically the same. 

We all, as Calvinists, believe that those whom Christ has purchased with his blood will persevere in faith to the end. _Ergo, how can someone bought by Christ deny him_? Well, according to Peter, that's what certain false teachers *in the church* will do (2 Peter 2:1). As Calvinists, we quickly assure ourselves that they, by virtue of a previous false profession and outward attachment to the church, only _*appeared*_ to belong to those purchased by Christ's blood. In reality, Christ did not die for them. I'm only suggesting that we allow for the same kind of "authentic" vs. "apparent" distinction when speaking of NC members or covenant-breakers. I'm still uncertain how my view is incompatible with the LBCF though I do concede it's not consistent with the WCF. 

BTW, it appears that at least some of the omissions in the LBCF on the doctrine of the church were prompted by the Congregationists.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Rich,

Is your avatar a picture of your children? Are they dressed in oriental costume?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Hi, Rich. I didn't take it as a poke. But I'm not exactly sure how I'm standing between two positions.


By stating that you were an amalgam, I didn't mean to imply that you can be found precisely between the positions but your language below brings you off the normal Baptist position and more toward a paedo position on the nature of those only outwardly joined to the NC.



> First, I don't agree with the WCF that the sacrament of baptism is _ipso facto_ "a sign and seal of the covenant of grace" when applied to an unregenerate infant or adult.


This is a misapprehension of the WCF on this issue. Baptism is a sign and seal but the benefits only confer to those who are elect.

I think one of the things that Bruce pointed out to you is that the chasm between Presbyterians and Baptists is often exaggerated by both sides.

You've probably already noted this but we don't really disagree about what benefits the elect enjoy (i.e. those that possess vital union with Christ through faith). The problem really arises where Baptists try to apply the ideal in history. In one sense Presbyterians believe that God has ordained a purposefully fallible institution as a means toward the salvation of His elect. Where Baptists tend to see too much danger of letting in wolves among the sheep, Presbyterians see a breaking of bruised reeds or the snuffing of smoldering wicks in a zeal to ensure that no "non-elect" join the membership roles.



> As I've stated before, I'm of the opinion that the "covenant of grace" is a theological construct, not an actual historical covenant. It's God's one paradigm of redemption, his one way of salvation by grace through faith in a redeemer that was first announced in the protoevangel (Gen. 3:15). The covenant of grace as such is revealed in the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, and most clearly in the New Covenant. The covenant of grace is most fully realized in the present New Covenant community, which I identify as the visible NT church. But the covenant of grace is not truly realized in any individual who is not born again. Thus, baptism can only serve as a sign (outward symbol of an inward reality) and seal (badge of authenticity) for those who are truly born again. That's precisely how circumcision served for Abraham (Rom. 4:11) but not for Isaac. That's what makes Abraham, not Isaac, the father of all those who believe (first) then are baptized (second) since the patriarch believed (first) then was circumcised (second).


Perhaps your language is unintended but the CoG is more than a construct and it is certainly "historical" or men would not be able to participate or know if they are actually in the CoG or not.

One of a few defects in your presentation is to treat Abraham as an individual instead of a head. I've noticed this repeatedly in many who try to see descriptions of Abraham in Romans 4:11 and conclude that, because Paul only mentions his name, that the nature of Abraham's circumcision is unlike Isaac or Jacob's or anybody else's. This sort of atomistic thinking about men who are represented as Covenant fathers is foreign to the tenor of Scripture. God is repeatedly called the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and to refer to the God of Abraham and what Abraham received is to refer to what those who were in the same Covenant received. This is why it is faulty to reckon that only Abraham's circumcision was a seal of faith and not everybody else's thereafter. It works for an American to reckon this way but not for a Biblical mind.



> Second, I've made the distinction above between professors who are authentically recipients of NC promises and professors who are only apparently recipients of these promises but are in fact only members of the visible NC community. Here, as I pointed out above, I agree with Reformed Baptists who, using the language of 1 John 2:19, insist that such individuals did not "really belong" to the authentic NC community. Yet, I am willing to allow for the use of phenomenological language or the language of appearance. If the 3rd person personal pronoun in Hebrews 10:29 is referring to the apostate rather than to Christ, then it seems to me that we Baptists have to concede that the language of "covenant breaker" can be applied to those who were in the visible NC community but departed from the faith. I understand that some RB brothers, like Bill, are uncomfortable with such a "concession." They prefer to apply terminology related to "New Covenant" only to those who are regenerate. This is why Bill concludes, Ergo, how can someone break a covenant that is unbreakable? Secondary uses of the term tend to obfuscate the significance of the New Covenant In my humble opinion.​Perhaps Hebrews 10:29 does not refer to a "covenant breaker." But if it does, then one has to reconcile the language of Jeremiah 31:31-34 and 32:39-40 which depict the authentic recipients of the NC promises as incapable of covenant-breaking or apostasy. The solution I've suggested is to distinguish between authentic and apparent. The confessions use the terms "invisible" and "visible." But I think the concept is basically the same. We all, as Calvinists, believe that those whom Christ has purchased with his blood will persevere in faith to the end. _Ergo, how can someone bought by Christ deny him_? Well, according to Peter, that's what certain false teachers _in the church_ will do (2 Peter 2:1). As Calvinists, we quickly assure ourselves that they, by virtue of a previous false profession and outward attachment to the church, only *appeared* to belong to those purchased by Christ's blood. In reality, Christ did not die for them. I'm only suggesting that we make that same kind of "authentic" vs. "apparent" distinction when speaking of NC members or covenant-breakers. I'm still uncertain how my view is incompatible with the LBCF though I do concede it's not consistent with the WCF.


I'm having a bit of difficulty as you jump back and forth on whether or not you believe a person is "really" in the New Covenant or not. If to "really" be in the New Covenant is to truly possess faith in Christ and that the New Covenant "really" cannot be broken and that those in the Book of Hebrews only "appear" to break the Covenant then you don't really believe a false professor can be a part of the New Covenant.

As I noted earlier, I always find this discussion a bit convoluted as it begins to interact with the subject of baptism. That is to say that, once the New Covenant is just another name for the Elect of God, then it becomes enshrouded as one of the hidden things of God - something we know exists in the mind of God but not something we can interact with in the history of here and now.

Manley Beasley earlier stated that the New Covenant is relevant to the discussion of baptism because, if the paedo view of the NC is not true then, by default, we cannot baptize infants and the dumb. This does not follow. Granting that the NC is ideal says nothing about the work of the historical Church. 

In fact, as you note above, you essentially make the CoG the same nature - not a historical covenant but a "theological construct". Men don't know its participants in history but simply know that God has an elect. Thus, circumcision itself was not an ordinance of the CoG at all and did not confer admission into the CoG any more than baptism does in the NC.

In other words, baptism is just like circumcision in that it stands apart from the CoG in terms of what men are doing in the Church. It stands to reason, then, that the Baptist cannot appeal to the ideal nature of the NC (the CoG) as an argument that only professors must be baptized because in the OC, the CoG existed and yet infants were circumcised. In either case, circumcision or baptism only admits to the historical people that might be in the CoG.

In other words, by insisting that the NC is ideal, the Baptist doesn't get anywhere toward insisting _who_ should be baptized but only establishes that, like circumcision, baptism doesn't confer covenant of grace membership.

Now, that all said, I want to shift trails a bit and talk about why I believe Baptistic thinking on this is perilous and un-Scriptural on the nature of the ordinances. I think this thread is excellent in drawing this out: http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/simple-question-my-paedo-brethren-35416/

I'm glad you bring up Hebrews because, of any book in the NT, it really underlines a consistent theme that the visible community of the Saints in the Church is to neither think too highly of themselves (that they cannot fail) nor to be presumptuous about those falling behind. On the one hand, it is interesting that the author of Hebrews notes the generation in the wilderness as a model of unbelief and apostasy and specifically notes that _what_ they rejected was none other than the Gospel itself. On the other hand, there is a continuing refrain that our current state is not that the species of what we are to be believing is _completely different_ than the generation of the wilderness but that we have much more light, have received what is promised, know the Son, etc, and that things are _much worse_ for us now if we shrink away in disbelief.

Turning this into a mere hypothetical, either by saying that it is impossible to break or saying the same thing by just saying it "appears" to be historically breakable but not really breakable, has the same effect. First, it breeds an attitude that this whole notion of "...not leaving any behind..." is really just a matter of going through the motions in one sense. After all, nobody is really in danger of being left behind that could have kept up by the grace of God. On the other hand, if I'm among the elect then I have no fear of shrinking away in disbelief so I'll go ahead and fear but I don't "really" have to fear because it will only "appear" that I might shrink back.

I think there really is a sense in which this idea breeds over-confidence for those that have been baptized on the basis that the Church has made the assertion that "...we think you're elect so we're going to baptize you...." Further, what of the poor sinner who was baptized the same way and now concludes that his falling behind is a sure signal that he's not elect.

You may balk at this but, even in your description of the CoG and how the Church administers ordinances and what this whole thing is about, you focus it upon identifying and signifying those who are elect. Inevitably, then, Baptists are focused upon not what the Church's _historical_ work is in the things revealed but a focus upon the hidden things of God as the basis for its ordinances.

I wish I had more time to develop what I'm trying to say but dinner beckons. I know this thread is sort of moving afield and I hope my thoughts are coherent.

The bottom line is that the end goal for Baptists and Presbyterians in the mind of God is achieved: the redemption of the elect of God. The real problem is that God has ordained that imperfect men will think they're elect who are not and imperfect men will think they're reprobate who are not. God has revealed to men that it is dangerous to focus upon what is hidden in His counsel and the Church's Sacraments are instituted to point men to Christ. This is performed in a Covenant community and there are real dangers to those who have been enlightened that shrink back in disbelief. Yes, there really are Covenant breakers but, just like Esau didn't make Jacob's union with Christ of no effect by forsaking a Promise, neither do those that forsake Christ in the light of this period of redemptive history. The real danger is that we fear that they will and refuse to call men brother or sister out of suspicion that they're not "elect like us" and, instead of striving together to ensure _none_ shrink back, some are content to make sure we don't let any slackers in to begin with.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Rich,
> 
> Is your avatar a picture of your children? Are they dressed in oriental costume?



Bob,

You joined about a month and a half after I left Okinawa, Japan after 3 years stationed there.

They are dressed in Japanese costumes. I'm not too fond of the costume they had for Calvin (the youngest) but we love the picture nonetheless.

More here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f37/last-pic-kids-okinawa-35251/


----------



## Herald

> That is to say that, once the New Covenant is just another name for the Elect of God, then it becomes enshrouded as one of the hidden things of God - something we know exists in the mind of God but not something we can interact with in the history of here and now.



Actually, this is not completely accurate. I concur that only the elect are members of the New Covenant, but there is a richness in the promises associated with the New Covenant that simply saying "elect" doesn't convey. As a matter of course, Baptists don't worry about whether a professed Christian is in the New Covenant. If regeneration has genuinely taken place then the person is part of the New Covenant. Let's lay aside "apparent" members (the term that Bob Gonzalez uses) for a moment. Baptists concede that there are tares among the wheat, although we do not recognize the tares as being of substance with the New Covenant. But we also understand that the New Covenant was initiated by the blood of Christ. With the blood comes the atonement. The atonement makes election and justification possible. And if justification, then adoption. Since we are joint-heirs with Christ, to us belongs the promises of the Father to the Son. To teach these things is to interact with the history of the New Covenant here and now.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

North Jersey Baptist said:


> That is to say that, once the New Covenant is just another name for the Elect of God, then it becomes enshrouded as one of the hidden things of God - something we know exists in the mind of God but not something we can interact with in the history of here and now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this is not completely accurate. I concur that only the elect are members of the New Covenant, but there is a richness in the promises associated with the New Covenant that simply saying "elect" doesn't convey. As a matter of course, Baptists don't worry about whether a professed Christian is in the New Covenant. If regeneration has genuinely taken place then the person is part of the New Covenant. Let's lay aside "apparent" members (the term that Bob Gonzalez uses) for a moment. Baptists concede that there are tares among the wheat, although we do not recognize the tares as being of substance with the New Covenant. But we also understand that the New Covenant was initiated by the blood of Christ. With the blood comes the atonement. The atonement makes election and justification possible. And if justification, then adoption. Since we are joint-heirs with Christ, to us belongs the promises of the Father to the Son. To teach these things is to interact with the history of the New Covenant here and now.
Click to expand...


Bill,

Again, the issue is not a disagreement over the benefits that extend to the Elect. We can agree that the NC is the Covenant through which God blesses them.

The point is that once you make the NC consist of the Elect alone then you have removed it from the ordinances in human history. You cannot make an argument that the NC consists of the elect and then base a decision by a human minister with that fact. The decision on whom to baptize cannot be connected to an ideal NC any more than the decision on who to circumcise was connected to who had union with Christ in the OC.


----------



## py3ak

But the 1689 doesn't require me to believe that there are no covenant-breakers in the NT.


----------



## Herald

> The point is that once you make the NC consist of the Elect alone then you have removed it from the ordinances in human history. You cannot make an argument that the NC consists of the elect and then base a decision by a human minister with that fact.



Rich, please explain this. I think I know what you mean but I want to be sure.

Thanks.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Brothers,

Thanks for all the input on the question I posted, as well as the constructive criticism on my own interpretation of John 1:12-13 from a Credobaptist perspective (post #57). I agree with Rich and others that there is much that unites us though there are real differences. I appreciate the brotherly and patient way you men have addressed these differences. I think I'll be signing out for a while. Other duties beckon, May the Lord bless your Sabbath!


----------



## MW

This thread has developed since my last contribution, so I won't give particular replies. Personally I see that it comes down to the "natural relations." The non-paedo polemic has insisted these are done away in the New Testament, but the household duty codes consistently repeated throughout the epistles teach that New Testament grace does not destroy the natural bond but renews it. Hence one argues in vain for discontinuity between Old and New Testaments with respect to "natural relation." If the new covenant community were in fact a "spiritual" community, there would be no place for recognising natural relations "in the Lord," contrary to these duty codes.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

North Jersey Baptist said:


> The point is that once you make the NC consist of the Elect alone then you have removed it from the ordinances in human history. You cannot make an argument that the NC consists of the elect and then base a decision by a human minister with that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, please explain this. I think I know what you mean but I want to be sure.
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...


I thought I explained it above but I'll try to explain it again.

You and I can discuss Hebrews 9-10, for example, and marvel at the perfection of Christ's one, perfect sacrifice for sin. You and I can agree that only the elect, those united to Christ, benefit from that sacrifice. There is no partial atonement for sin and there is no sense in which the text allows for someone, who does not draw near in faith, to participate in the benefits that Christ offers. Why? Because part of this work is that His intercession ensures that those who He has died for are kept by His power.

Thus, as you noted above, we're not merely talking about election here but real benefits that attend the New Covenant for the elect of God.

But, when we actually get to the subject of baptism, we cannot use the above discussion to ask ourselves: "In light of the fact that Christ does all this for those who are elect in the NC, who then should we baptize?"

If we adopt a Baptist view of the NC, that states that the _only_ administration of the NC is the administration where everyone who is in it receives the full benefits of Christ's atonement and intercessory work then we are still no closer to deciding, in human history, who to baptize.

In fact, the only thing the Baptist has ensured is that the ordinance of baptism does not join a person to the NC but only joins to the visible Church. The Church cannot be said to have any ministerial authority from God to grant membership to the NC because it admits false professors, hence the Church can only admit to the visible Church and now the visible Church must be said to be distinguished from the NC.

Thus, in the end, the local congregation is in one sphere (what we know about in human history) and the NC is in another sphere (what God knows).  Baptism only conveys local membership but not NC membership.

Thus, the Baptist cannot use the nature of the NC to argue for who to baptize or not baptize and must stick to the issue of what the Scriptures prescribe for local Church membership. Honestly, I think if Baptists would recognize this fact then many of these back and forth "the NC can be broken/no it can't/yes it can" might be saved for Covenant theology discussions but Baptism discussions cannot proceed on that basis.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> But the 1689 doesn't require me to believe that there are no covenant-breakers in the NT.



My larger point is that the 1689 provides no means for a covenant breaker to join the New Covenant.


----------



## py3ak

I'll have to keep your larger point in mind next time I read the 1689.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> I'll have to keep your larger point in mind next time I read the 1689.



I'm not sure if you're being facetious but I do think we need to respect original intent here. I'm not sure that taking the stance that "...you never said that Covenant breakers couldn't be in the NC..." is a historically responsible way to approach the 1689. Again, I'm not a historian but it would be interesting to read whether or not those omissions were deliberate and that they were guarding against the very view you are stating that their silence permits.

Does the Covenant theology that one derives by GNC from the 1689 permit the idea of a person who can break the NC? I would argue that it does not.

But that is probably a subject for another thread.


----------



## py3ak

No, I'm not. I'm not going to reread it right now, but what you said was interesting: so next time I read it I'll watch for that. At this point, though, what's been established is that the Confession doesn't explicitly require that. What it presupposes is, as you say, a topic for another thread.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> No, I'm not. I'm not going to reread it right now, but what you said was interesting: so next time I read it I'll watch for that. At this point, though, what's been established is that the Confession doesn't explicitly require that. What it presupposes is, as you say, a topic for another thread.



 I just didn't want to offend you by my larger point and I wasn't sure if it had so I wanted to make sure you understood me.


----------



## py3ak

No, it's only your minor points that offend me!


----------



## Semper Fidelis




----------



## Herald

Rich,

I'm not sure we have to decide who is a true member of the New Covenant. We're straying into the area of perfect knowledge if we claim it is possible to know who is in the covenant. Paedobaptists seem to eliminate this problem by including infants in the covenant, not on basis of faith, but on the basis of being born into a covenant family and upon being baptized. But the paedo has no more perfect knowledge than the credo on whether an individual is regenerate. You're right to draw the distinction between the visible and the invisible but I don't see where it has any practical ramifications. If the evidence of faith is visible in the life of a professed believer we must assume their profession is real. Would you not do the same? If the evidence is not there we must assume otherwise.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Semper Fidelis said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the 1689 doesn't require me to believe that there are no covenant-breakers in the NT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My larger point is that the 1689 provides no means for a covenant breaker to join the New Covenant.
Click to expand...


I realize that I said I was getting out of this discussion, but I couldn't help offering one more response. 

Rich, do you let actual "covenant breakers" join you church? I doubt it. You probably mean "potential covenant breakers." London Baptist Confession, 26.2All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation are and may be called visible saints, and of such ought all particular congregations be constituted.​So, according to the 1689 one may enter the local church by a credible profession of faith and remain in the visible church so long as he doesn't commit sin worthy of excommunication. So the "covenant breaker" may get in through what latter turns out to be a false profession, but he must be removed once that spurious profession is shown for what it is. I assume Presbyterians practice church discipline when necessary.


----------



## Herald

> I realize that I said I was getting out of this discussion, but I couldn't help offering one more response.



Give up. Resistance is futile.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> This thread has developed since my last contribution, so I won't give particular replies. Personally I see that it comes down to the "natural relations." The non-paedo polemic has insisted these are done away in the New Testament, but the household duty codes consistently repeated throughout the epistles teach that New Testament grace does not destroy the natural bond but renews it.



The credo positon does not alt all insist that all the "natural relations" are done away in the NT. Nor does the fact that the household duty codes carry over into the NT prove that the OT's inclusion of descendants carry over. 

For the children addressed in the household duty codes are not addressed as infants but children able to comprehend the exhortations they receive either by mouth or by letter.
They may well have been either Christian or as yet unbelieving. But both groups might need to be taught the same thing if they had been taught doctrine yet misunderstood the implications of that doctrine. 

These children may have been children of either pagan or Christian parents. If the former, they might have jumped to the conclusion that their freedom in Christ meant that they were free from parental control in the same way as slaves may have jumped to the conclusion that they were now free of their owners. No, says Paul, just as slaves previously obeyed their pagan masters before conversion and must equally obey their masters after conversion, Christian children must obey their parents "in the Lord" (i.e.) as part of their Christian life, whether those parents are Christian or pagan, and he applies the OT promise to remind them of the benfits of doing that. 

The Christian kids would need this info to know what God required of them as believers, the as yet unregenerate would need to know the obligations they would take on if they believed.



armourbearer said:


> Hence one argues in vain for discontinuity between Old and New Testaments with respect to "natural relation." If the new covenant community were in fact a "spiritual" community, there would be no place for recognising natural relations "in the Lord," contrary to these duty codes.



A false conclusion. For as I have shown above Christian children of either pagan or Christian parents might have misunderstod their continuing "natural relations" obligations for the same reasons as Christian slaves apparently misunderstood their continuing obligations to their owners and so Paul reiterates the "natural relations" obligations. But issuing such a reminder proves nothing about whether all those addressed were either children presumed to be in the covenant by virtue of IB or a mixture of those who having professed faith had been baptised and those who had not.


----------



## MW

"In the Lord" and "of the Lord" spell out a Christian relation and not simply a relation to be addressed in a Christian manner. Further, it is a relation without qualification, because the father's reciprocal duty is to bring up his children in the Lord's discipline. This cannot be referred to certain children only; therefore the instruction to children to obey their parents "in the Lord" cannot be limited to a certain class of them.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> "In the Lord" and "of the Lord" spell out a Christian relation and not simply a relation to be addressed in a Christian manner.Further, it is a relation without qualification, because the father's reciprocal duty is to bring up his children in the Lord's discipline. This cannot be referred to certain children only; therefore the instruction to children to obey their parents "in the Lord" cannot be limited to a certain class of them.



The household duties texts are imperatives: commanding what all should do,
they say nothing about what any or all children may be presently doing. Neither does the parental obligation to bring up their children in the Lord's discipline tell us anything about where the children presently stand in relation to God. The parental obligation remains whether the children are yet believing or do not yet believe and the loving discipline of a parent can be powerfully effective in the evangelism of a child.

I never said the instruction was limited to certain children only. In fact, I specifically stated it addressed all children capable of comprehending and obeying to whom those instructions would come. Since all the children addressed were either believers, the unbelieving children of the same (and I forgot to include pagan children without believing parents), "in the Lord" does indeed spell out a Christian relation: one in which the believers were presently experiencing or the non-belivers were called to.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

timmopussycat said:


> "in the Lord" does indeed spell out a Christian relation: one in which the believers were presently experiencing or the non-belivers were called to.
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew,
> 
> I agree with Tim that the phrase "in the Lord" (in and of itself) may refer to a present relationship that the _tekna_ whom Paul addresses may already sustain to Christ or proleptically to a relationship that such _tekna_ are obliged to enter into as creatures made in God's image.
> 
> As I stated in an earlier post, I personally feel constrated to see Paul's words as directed to _minors who were members of the church_. Grammatically, Ephesians 6:1-3 is tied to Ephesians 5:21, which in turn is tied to Ephesians 5:18 ("Be filled with the Spirit"). Study the grammatical connections and look at the commentaries.
> 
> This does not, however, open the door for infant baptism. The Greek _tekna_ is not the special word for infants (_nepios_) or young children (_paidion_) but the more generic term for _non-adult minors_. Moreover, these juvenile church members are old enough to understand Paul's exhortation and consciously obey their parents in the Lord. Hence, I think the context makes it clear that Paul is addressing whom he believes to be *regenerate children*--capable of fulfilling the command to obey their parents *in the fear of Christ* (5:21) and *under the dominating influence of the Holy Spirit* (5:18).
> 
> Okay, this time will be my last response on this meandering thread! *
> *
Click to expand...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Rich,
> 
> I'm not sure we have to decide who is a true member of the New Covenant. We're straying into the area of perfect knowledge if we claim it is possible to know who is in the covenant. Paedobaptists seem to eliminate this problem by including infants in the covenant, not on basis of faith, but on the basis of being born into a covenant family and upon being baptized. But the paedo has no more perfect knowledge than the credo on whether an individual is regenerate. You're right to draw the distinction between the visible and the invisible but I don't see where it has any practical ramifications. If the evidence of faith is visible in the life of a professed believer we must assume their profession is real. Would you not do the same? If the evidence is not there we must assume otherwise.


Bill,

There's a disconnect here. In these discussions, I've tried to keep my focus very narrow. I realize that Baptists, like Presbyterians, have to operate upon what we might call a judgment of charity.

The very narrow point is that Baptist insistence on the nature of the New Covenant does not buttress an argument for professors-only baptism. It is relevant to discussions on the nature of the New Covenant but cannot be utilized to present a positive case for the baptism of certain individuals.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the 1689 doesn't require me to believe that there are no covenant-breakers in the NT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My larger point is that the 1689 provides no means for a covenant breaker to join the New Covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize that I said I was getting out of this discussion, but I couldn't help offering one more response.
> 
> Rich, do you let actual "covenant breakers" join you church? I doubt it. You probably mean "potential covenant breakers." London Baptist Confession, 26.2All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation are and may be called visible saints, and of such ought all particular congregations be constituted.​So, according to the 1689 one may enter the local church by a credible profession of faith and remain in the visible church so long as he doesn't commit sin worthy of excommunication. So the "covenant breaker" may get in through what latter turns out to be a false profession, but he must be removed once that spurious profession is shown for what it is. I assume Presbyterians practice church discipline when necessary.
Click to expand...

I think you missed my point, Bob. I appreciate the fact that you are wise enough to notice that Presbyterians don't go out of their way to baptize Covenant breakers contrary to the impious charges of some Baptists when arguing against the position.

The point is a narrow one.

Conversations with Ruben have indicated that he agrees with me that the Book of Hebrews clearly teaches that the New Covenant can be violated. This is obviously disputed by Reformed Baptists who insist the contrary.

There are those I've met that want to agree with paedobaptists on the point that the New Covenant can be entered but that there are those that shrink away in disbelief and really do fall into the hands of the living God. The intent of the Church in baptizing them is not to encourage them toward that end but, in spite of ministry's best efforts, there are those that do fall away.

Notice in your language above, however, that the individual being baptized on the basis of valid profession is said to be a member of the local congregation. The 1689 is very careful not to assert, as does the WCF, that baptism actually joins to the New Covenant.

Thus, in a Baptist view, a person can join the local Church through baptism, hear the preaching for many years, participate in the ordinance of the Lords Supper, pray with others in the Church, and then ultimately fall away. But (and this is important), the person was _never_ in the New Covenant.

Ruben's point is that the 1689 is silent about whether or not this person is in the New Covenant who falls away but my point is that the 1689 provides no means for him to ever have entered the NC.


----------



## kceaster

You better watch out, you better not cry, you better not pout I'm telling you why... you better be good for goodness sake.

As I heard in a sermon recently, if we want our children to misunderstand, even from a toddler's perspective, that obedience is not commanded of them unless they have made a credible profession of faith in Christ, then we should teach them the moralistic mantra of the above.

It's easy to conclude, if you're a baptist, that Paul is not writing to anyone other than regenerate kids. But that is only because of the presupposition that they are strangers to the covenant of promise until such time as they are regenerate.

However, if they are strangers, then the only possible thing we can teach them is, "you better be good for goodness sake." This brings them up with what Baptists must call "works-righteousness." If the same thing happened in the OT, (which it did, because they were commanded to bring up their children to know the Lord) and Baptists call that works-righteousness, then the same must apply to children in the NT who cannot possibly be taught to know the Lord because they are not regenerate. After all, when one becomes regenerate, they no longer have to be taught to know the Lord, according to the J prophecy, strictly interpreted.

I'm sure that there will be great arguments that follow, but realize what the implications are. If these verses in Ephesians and Colossians are only for regenerate kids, then the rest of the kids may be as unruly as they want to be. That is the logical conclusion. Paul is telling all the regenerate kids to obey, but if it doesn't apply to you, then you have all rights to disobey. This is akin to telling them (unregenerate) they are part of a group called, "the sons of disobedience," following their father, the devil.

Or,

Paul is commanding the unregenerate kids that they should obey their parents because it is moral to do so. One day it might pay off, but only if they become good first, so that the Holy Spirit can make them really good.

Or,

Paul is talking to covenant kids. This seems the most logical because of the promise given in Ephesians. If Paul is talking to all children, but it is meant for the regenerate kids, then how are the unregenerate ones to understand the promise given in Ephesians 6:3? If they better be good for goodness sake and they actually are, won't they also receive a long life on earth? Or, did Paul somewhere else tell them that they can't obey properly unless they are regenerate and so give them permission to be rebellious until God finally catches up to them? None of us would say this.

But that is the logical conclusion. Paul is either talking to all kids, giving permission to the unrenerate ones to be as rebellious as they want to be, or he's talking to all kids as being in covenant and so liable to do their duty before God.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Semper Fidelis

That's a good point Kevin - one that probably would cause some chaffing but something that needs to be seriously considered.

There is a Biblical novelty to Tim's inistence that "...well this is probably because they're pagan kids..." or something like that as if Paul wrote in a Scriptural vaccum and the entire Scriptures (and historical-grammatico context) are completely irrelevant.

I don't think Baptists sometimes think through what they're arguing for when they try to make these injunctions just any other "law" that all kids and all parents must obey. Really, what they're saying, is that kids need to be told to obey the Law and pursue the Law - because they're not Christians after all and cannot be obeying on its third use.

Thus, a child is taught that it is his religious duty to obey God, not on the basis of redemption, but on the basis that the keeping of the Law is an end to itself. When he is converted, is it then time to "undo" all the pedagogy that has preceded and explain what the Law is really for? 

This ought to scream out the broad inconsistency on this point and the absolute need to understand what the purpose of discipling kids is. If you raise a child to be a Pharisee then it is a bit late in his development to "shift trails" and re-train as a Christian once he's made a decision to be baptized.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Kevin and Rich,

Please stop the straw-man caricatures! As a Baptist father I don't teach a "works righteousness" or encourage doubt in my children. Following my Lord's example, I encourage my children to come to Jesus with optimism and hope. Praise be to God, not one of my 5 children appears to be a Pharisee even though they've had the unfornunate providence of having been born in a Baptist home!

A portion of my dissertation dealt with the Pharisaic presumption that developed among the Jews, leading them to assume that because they were in the covenant family (sons of Abraham) and had received the sacrament (circumcision) they were _ipso facto_ ensured entrance into paradise. And there is plenty of historical evidence to demonstrate this spiritually destructive tendency that led many Jews to assume a right relationship with God on the basis of "natural descent" or "natural relations." I could marshall plenty of quotes from Rabbinic literature that illustrate the danger of predicating a right relationship with God based on natural relations ("we have Abraham as our father"). But I've refrained, because out of charity I assume that the Paedobaptist brothers on this list encourage their "covenant children" to believe on the Lord, warn them against an unbelieving heart, and make a distinction between belonging to the visible covenant community as opposed to being part of the authentic or, if you prefer, "invisible" New Covenant community. 

Please extend the same courtesy to your Reformed Baptist brothers.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Kevin and Rich,
> 
> Please stop the straw-man caricatures! As a Baptist father I don't teach a "works righteousness" or encourage doubt in my children. Following my Lord's example, I encourage my children to come to Jesus with optimism and hope. Praise be to God, not one of my 5 children appears to be a Pharisee even though they've had the unfornunate providence of having been born in a Baptist home!
> 
> A portion of my dissertation dealt with the Pharisaic presumption that developed among the Jews, leading them to assume that because they were in the covenant family (sons of Abraham) and had received the sacrament (circumcision) they were _ipso facto_ ensured entrance into paradise. And there is plenty of historical evidence to demonstrate this spiritually destructive tendency that led many Jews to assume a right relationship with God on the basis of "natural descent" or "natural relations." I could marshall plenty of quotes from Rabbinic literature that illustrate the danger of predicating a right relationship with God based on natural relations ("we have Abraham as our father"). But I've refrained, because out of charity I assume that the Paedobaptist brothers on this list encourage their "covenant children" to believe on the Lord, warn them against an unbelieving heart, and make a distinction between belonging to the visible covenant community as opposed to being part of the authentic or, if you prefer, "invisible" New Covenant community.
> 
> Please extend the same courtesy to your Reformed Baptist brothers.



As I noted to Kevin, I knew his observation would chaff. I think you need to calm down and follow what is being noted rather than getting emotional.

I've noticed that the thing that will make a Baptist father the angriest is when you actually start applying the arguments they make about children of believers in general to their own children. I've also, thankfully, encountered few Baptists that actually _consistently_ treat their children as unregenerate even though they are wont to insist that every child born into a Christian home surely must be.

If you follow what he's noting, he's responding to the thread as it developed and you need to note what your Baptist friends have claimed so far.

Rev. Winzer notes that there is a responsibility "in the Lord" for both children in the local Church and their fathers. If it is claimed, as the Baptists have, that this is a general rule of thumb (whether or not the kids are believers) then you have to deal with the nature of the Law at this point. I've seen Baptists consistently argue here that children are responsible to the Law just as any other unbeliever is - thus we have to discuss the nature of the Law at this point since discipline is all about applying the Law in a pedagogical way with kids.

If a child is to be treated as unregenerate until such time as he makes profession of faith then what is the nature of the Law for that child? What is the manner in which a parent is going to direct that child toward the Law on the Baptist presumption that the child is unregenerate?

If you don't like the conclusion I drew then please explain what a more appropriate conclusion is on the nature of the Law in this case but don't get upset with me when I follow a Baptist argument out.

In other words, how exactly does a Baptist father consistently train a child from the knee on a third use of the Law to a child he really doesn't believe can apprehend a third use? If not a third use, then what use of the Law may a Baptist consistenly apply when telling Johnny why he should obey Dad?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

In raising my 3 boys, I taught them the need to obey the Ten Words. It had direct implications to their understanding of who God was and what he required. It also is allowing me to teach them the Covenant significance of how God relates to man by Covenant. When they discovered they couldn't keep the Ten Words I taught them about the Covenant of Works and why they couldn't keep them. Never the less they were required by God to walk before him. That is true of all men. 
The three uses of the law are very applicable here. Even for children. I was able to relate the Covenant of Grace and what Christ did in fulfilling the COW on our behalf and reconciling mankind to God. When a child comes to understand this it has great significance in their lives. And the three uses of the law become very apparent to them. How one applies the law of God and when one is awakened to God the use of God's law becomes more apparent. The law condemns. It is judicial. And when the Person and Work of Christ are a reality to the believer they can rightly apply the use of the law in guiding the believer into knowing God's will for their life in a way that is relational without condemnation. The Covenant of Grace is marvelous.



> (Gal 3:24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
> 
> (Gal 3:25) But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
> 
> (Gal 3:26) For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
> 
> (Gal 3:27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
> 
> (Gal 3:28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
> 
> (Gal 3:29) And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Everyone has a Covenant Relationship to God. In the first Adam or in the Second. I don't see any gray area here.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> In raising my 3 boys, I taught them the need to obey the Ten Words. It had direct implications to their understanding of who God was and what he required. It also is allowing me to teach them the Covenant significance of how God relates to man by Covenant. When they discovered they couldn't keep the Ten Words I taught them about the Covenant of Works and why they couldn't keep them. Never the less they were required by God to walk before him. That is true of all men.
> The three uses of the law are very applicable here. Even for children. I was able to relate the Covenant of Grace and what Christ did in fulfilling the COW on our behalf and reconciling mankind to God. When a child comes to understand this it has great significance in their lives. And the three uses of the law become very apparent to them. How one applies the law of God and when one is awakened to God the use of God's law becomes more apparent. The law condemns. It is judicial. And when the Person and Work of Christ are a reality to the believer they can rightly apply the use of the law in guiding the believer into knowing God's will for their life in a way that is relational without condemnation. The Covenant of Grace is marvelous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Gal 3:24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
> 
> (Gal 3:25) But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
> 
> (Gal 3:26) For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
> 
> (Gal 3:27) For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
> 
> (Gal 3:28) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
> 
> (Gal 3:29) And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Click to expand...


I think you're missing a larger point Randy. I don't disagree that we ought to teach the Law as perfect but, if all you have is the assumption that they're unregenerate then the only motivation the Law can have for a child is to be perfect even as God is perfect. That doesn't set a child up very well later in life where he's supposed to obey "in the Lord" on the basis of a redeemed life.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Everyone has a Covenant Relationship to God. In the first Adam or in the Second. I don't see any gray area here.



Correct. Thus, those who we must assume are only in covenant relationship with Adam cannot be disciplined on the basis that they should be obeying to please their heavenly Father. If a person is in Adam then there is nothing they can do to please Him. There is only the threat of condemnation. God, to them, is only a fearful judge every time they disobey.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think you're missing a larger point Randy. I don't disagree that we ought to teach the Law as perfect but, if all you have is the assumption that they're unregenerate then the only motivation the Law can have for a child is to be perfect even as God is perfect. That doesn't set a child up very well later in life where he's supposed to obey "in the Lord" on the basis of a redeemed life.



I disagree Rich. That is why a credible confession is important. 



> (Rom 10:8) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
> 
> (Rom 10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
> 
> (Rom 10:10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
> 
> (Rom 10:11) For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.



A person or child's assurance in Christ is the promises given to them in His word and their faith. Faith is their victory as the word of God says. A child must see that he can't keep the law perfectly. It brings them to reality and Christ for Salvation as I noted above. It truly sets a child up for Gospel Obedience in a very proper understanding.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone has a Covenant Relationship to God. In the first Adam or in the Second. I don't see any gray area here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. Thus, those who we must assume are only in covenant relationship with Adam cannot be disciplined on the basis that they should be obeying to please their heavenly Father. If a person is in Adam then there is nothing they can do to please Him. There is only the threat of condemnation. God, to them, is only a fearful judge every time they disobey.
Click to expand...


Unless the schoolmaster chases them to Christ. 

Concerning the disciplining, I don't agree. Judges and the laws of the land are there for discipline. And the Church is there to show judgment against such who are outside of Christ. God is the Father of all. He is the Father of the First Adam and the Second. Their relationships differ though. One is Good and the other is not so good.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're missing a larger point Randy. I don't disagree that we ought to teach the Law as perfect but, if all you have is the assumption that they're unregenerate then the only motivation the Law can have for a child is to be perfect even as God is perfect. That doesn't set a child up very well later in life where he's supposed to obey "in the Lord" on the basis of a redeemed life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree Rich. That is why a credible confession is important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Rom 10:8) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
> 
> (Rom 10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
> 
> (Rom 10:10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
> 
> (Rom 10:11) For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person or child's assurance in Christ is the promises given to them in His word and their faith. Faith is their victory as the word of God says. A child must see that he can't keep the law perfectly. It brings them to reality and Christ for Salvation as I noted above. It truly sets a child up for Gospel Obedience in a very proper understanding.
Click to expand...


Again, you're missing the point. No, the child can't keep the Law perfectly and that's the point. Yet, when you're training them to obey you, there is an implicit or explicit motivation that is instilled into the child every time discipline occurs. We are given explicit instructions by God to train "in the Lord".

So now the discipline moment arrives for the 4 year old that must be assumed to be unregenerate by the Baptist for lack of a credible profession. Hence, the child is to be presumed to only be at enmity with God and to suppress knowledge of Him in unrighteousness. The child must be presumed to be an enemy with God and everything that God commands, the child hates (the child is unregenerate after all).

The parent tells this child, whose heart is at enmity with God, to obey "in the Lord", but the child's relationship to the Lord is only wrath and judgment.

Thus, from the knee, if this is consistently carried out then the child learns that obedience is on the basis of minimizing wrath and judgment.

This is antithetical to Christian discipleship. If such program of discipline were carried out in ruthless consistency then the child would need to be re-trained to see the motivation to the Law as of a completely different species then what he grew up with up until the point that he made a credible profession.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone has a Covenant Relationship to God. In the first Adam or in the Second. I don't see any gray area here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. Thus, those who we must assume are only in covenant relationship with Adam cannot be disciplined on the basis that they should be obeying to please their heavenly Father. If a person is in Adam then there is nothing they can do to please Him. There is only the threat of condemnation. God, to them, is only a fearful judge every time they disobey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless the schoolmaster chases them to Christ.
> 
> Concerning the disciplining, I don't agree. Judges and the laws of the land are there for discipline. And the Church is there to show judgment against such who are outside of Christ. God is the Father of all. He is the Father of the First Adam and the Second. Their relationships differ though. One is Good and the other is not so good.
Click to expand...


Am I having a dialogue with a Reformed person here? Did you just state that a person in Adam has a "not so good" relationship with God under the Law? Is this the need for the Cross to redeem from a "not so good" condition?


----------



## kceaster

*To Dr. Gonzalez and others...*

I didn't mean to sharply divide this discussion by what I wrote. I do apologize and ask forgiveness.

I believed the argument would draw ire, but I had no intention of making anyone upset.

The way I and others look at it, we cannot enforce godly discipline in our families just for the sake of moralism. As Rich pointed out, we will have to re-train our sons and daughters afterwards if we do. If we didn't have the OT as an example, we might not think this way. But we are told and all of us repeat that we must bring up our children to fear the Lord and we discipline them to that end. We all do this. I am in no way saying that any of us are bringing up our kids in the wrong way. 

I am simply pointing out that if Paul is only talking to regenerate kids in Colossians, but especially Ephesians, where he clearly talks about a spiritual benefit coming from their obedience, then by default, we allow all kids who are not regenerate to rebel against their parents, or we teach them some sort of moral obedience that they can misconstrue as works-righteousness. Remember, works-righteousness is inherent because of the fall of man into sin. Just because it is not taught, per se, does not mean it won't be invoked at every instance for sin - even in our kids. If we actually taught from the pulpit or in sunday school that Paul's words only apply to regenerate kids, then by their own desperately wicked hearts, they now have even more license to sin and every right to rebel against their parents. By default.

But we don't teach this. And I submit that Baptists do not teach it because they are being logically inconsistent or they choose to teach a moralistic approach. If there is a third option, please tell me.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're missing a larger point Randy. I don't disagree that we ought to teach the Law as perfect but, if all you have is the assumption that they're unregenerate then the only motivation the Law can have for a child is to be perfect even as God is perfect. That doesn't set a child up very well later in life where he's supposed to obey "in the Lord" on the basis of a redeemed life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree Rich. That is why a credible confession is important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Rom 10:8) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
> 
> (Rom 10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
> 
> (Rom 10:10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
> 
> (Rom 10:11) For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A person or child's assurance in Christ is the promises given to them in His word and their faith. Faith is their victory as the word of God says. A child must see that he can't keep the law perfectly. It brings them to reality and Christ for Salvation as I noted above. It truly sets a child up for Gospel Obedience in a very proper understanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you're missing the point. No, the child can't keep the Law perfectly and that's the point. Yet, when you're training them to obey you, there is an implicit or explicit motivation that is instilled into the child every time discipline occurs. We are given explicit instructions by God to train "in the Lord".
> 
> So now the discipline moment arrives for the 4 year old that must be assumed to be unregenerate by the Baptist for lack of a credible profession. Hence, the child is to be presumed to only be at enmity with God and to suppress knowledge of Him in unrighteousness. The child must be presumed to be an enemy with God and everything that God commands, the child hates (the child is unregenerate after all).
> 
> The parent tells this child, whose heart is at enmity with God, to obey "in the Lord", but the child's relationship to the Lord is only wrath and judgment.
> 
> Thus, from the knee, if this is consistently carried out then the child learns that obedience is on the basis of minimizing wrath and judgment.
> 
> This is antithetical to Christian discipleship. If such program of discipline were carried out in ruthless consistency then the child would need to be re-trained to see the motivation to the Law as of a completely different species then what he grew up with up until the point that he made a credible profession.
Click to expand...



Tell me Rich... What are you trying to mirror to a child. It looks like a false pretense to a child. Did not God deal out longsuffering towards the unregenerate also? He rains upon the just and unjust. God teaches he is gracious to all who seek him. Therefore I have taught my children to seek for mercy because they need it. Whether they do or not is up to other circumstances outside of me. While discipline or judgment is always to lead to the Saviour it is not always taken that way or given in that fashion. Sometimes a mere condemnation is just pronounced. Remember Jonah and Nineveh. That was God's doing.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> Am I having a dialogue with a Reformed person here? Did you just state that a person in Adam has a "not so good" relationship with God under the Law? Is this the need for the Cross to redeem from a "not so good" condition?



What stinks in that statement? The condition isn't good. And man, have we gotten off of topic. Sorry.


----------



## kceaster

*Randy...*



PuritanCovenanter said:


> (Rom 10:8) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
> 
> (Rom 10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
> 
> (Rom 10:10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
> 
> (Rom 10:11) For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
> 
> A person or child's assurance in Christ is the promises given to them in His word and their faith. Faith is their victory as the word of God says. A child must see that he can't keep the law perfectly. It brings them to reality and Christ for Salvation as I noted above. It truly sets a child up for Gospel Obedience in a very proper understanding.



I don't think you're being as clear as I know you are. You were saying that it is by their profession they know these things, which is why you included the passage above. But it makes it seem like the child can begin to obey the gospel message based upon their belief in their confession, not in the One they confess. That's what it seems like you're saying.

If that is the case, then I think you would agree with me, that the object of the child's faith would not be Christ, but their profession of Christ and I don't think you mean to say that. Forgive me for my denseness.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I would like to say one more thing about parenting that was very real in my life. I grew up with a really great Dad. One thing that was impressed upon me in my childhood was that I had a loving relationship with my Dad. Wrong doing and tresspasses against God and law destroyed that when I got older. It awakened something in me that never left my heart. Sin destroyed that relationship. In retrospect I learned a little of what Adam went through. I had something that was good and destroyed it. And I wanted it back but didn't know how to accomplish it. And I couldn't. Christ came and reconciled that relationship along with many far superior things. Not many people get to experience that kind of thing. 

In a way that is what Child rearing should be. Something good gone array and in need of repair. Once you have experienced the good you will always have a taste for it. Adam was created with knowing what was good. He lost it and God gave it back.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Semper Fidelis said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin and Rich,
> 
> Please stop the straw-man caricatures! As a Baptist father I don't teach a "works righteousness" or encourage doubt in my children. Following my Lord's example, I encourage my children to come to Jesus with optimism and hope. Praise be to God, not one of my 5 children appears to be a Pharisee even though they've had the unfornunate providence of having been born in a Baptist home!
> 
> A portion of my dissertation dealt with the Pharisaic presumption that developed among the Jews, leading them to assume that because they were in the covenant family (sons of Abraham) and had received the sacrament (circumcision) they were _ipso facto_ ensured entrance into paradise. And there is plenty of historical evidence to demonstrate this spiritually destructive tendency that led many Jews to assume a right relationship with God on the basis of "natural descent" or "natural relations." I could marshall plenty of quotes from Rabbinic literature that illustrate the danger of predicating a right relationship with God based on natural relations ("we have Abraham as our father"). But I've refrained, because out of charity I assume that the Paedobaptist brothers on this list encourage their "covenant children" to believe on the Lord, warn them against an unbelieving heart, and make a distinction between belonging to the visible covenant community as opposed to being part of the authentic or, if you prefer, "invisible" New Covenant community.
> 
> Please extend the same courtesy to your Reformed Baptist brothers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I noted to Kevin, I knew his observation would chaff. I think you need to calm down and follow what is being noted rather than getting emotional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about getting emotional? I simply requested that you men have the respect not to caricature Reformed Baptist parents and their children. I will endeavor to show you the same respect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that the thing that will make a Baptist father the angriest is when you actually start applying the arguments they make about children of believers in general to their own children. I've also, thankfully, encountered few Baptists that actually _consistently_ treat their children as unregenerate even though they are wont to insist that every child born into a Christian home surely must be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go again, "I've noticed ...." Anecdotal arguments don't advance debates. I could share all sorts of personal "I've noticed ...." opinions regarding various types of Paedobaptists, pointing out various inconsistencies. But my "experiences" are not the subject of discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you follow what he's noting, he's responding to the thread as it developed and you need to note what your Baptist friends have claimed so far. Rev. Winzer notes that there is a responsibility "in the Lord" for both children in the local Church and their fathers. If it is claimed, as the Baptists have, that this is a general rule of thumb (whether or not the kids are believers) then you have to deal with the nature of the Law at this point. I've seen Baptists consistently argue here that children are responsible to the Law just as any other unbeliever is - thus we have to discuss the nature of the Law at this point since discipline is all about applying the Law in a pedagogical way with kids.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've already stated my view of the _tekna_ in Ephesians 6.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a child is to be treated as unregenerate until such time as he makes profession of faith then what is the nature of the Law for that child? What is the manner in which a parent is going to direct that child toward the Law on the Baptist presumption that the child is unregenerate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do hold a general biblical presumption that all men are born sinners () and in need of the gospel. I teach this biblical presupposition in the home. I teach my children that we're all born under the primordial covenant. In Adam, we are covenant breakers and children of wrath just as the rest. But I also stress the richness of God's mercy. And I point out to my children the tremendous privilege they have of being born into a home where Christ is proclaimed by life and lip. And I emphasis not only that I sincerely desire their eternal good but that God desires it (contra Rev. Winzer).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like the conclusion I drew then please explain what a more appropriate conclusion is on the nature of the Law in this case but don't get upset with me when I follow a Baptist argument out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, who said anything about being "upset" or "ire"? I simply asked the courtesy of refraining from creating straw men out of so called conclusions you've drawn. Many of the conclusions you seem to "draw out" from your experiences are foreign to my experiences. Such slippery slope arguments do not advance the discussion. The real discussion is what does the Bible teach. Does the Bible warrant infant Baptism. I and other Credobaptists with me don't find such warrant. We're consistently argued that a credible profession of faith is the warrant for inclusion within the NC community. You and your Paedobaptist brothers think the Bible does warrant the inclusion of infants. Very well. Lets focus on what the Bible actually says rather than drawing supposed conclusions on how children growing up in a Baptist family are going to be warped because of your perceived deficiency in our views. As I said before, I could marshall lots of Rabbinic citations that indicate the soul-damning tendency of a "I'm in the covenant family because of natural relations" position. But I'll refrain out of good will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, how exactly does a Baptist father consistently train a child from the knee on a third use of the Law to a child he really doesn't believe can apprehend a third use? If not a third use, then what use of the Law may a Baptist consistenly apply when telling Johnny why he should obey Dad?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again (why do I have to keep repeating myself?), I've already given exegetical evidence that the tekna of Ephesians 6 were believing minors. I can also teach both unregenerate children and unregerate adults about the third use of the law because they are still images of God who have the law written on their heart and they know what God expects (Rom. 1:18-21, 32; 2:12-15) and because God's word calls them to obey evangelically (Exo. 20:2; Eph. 2:9-10), which means they need to trust in Christ for forgiveness (Matt. 11:28-29; John 6:37) and obey him from the heart (Prov. 23:26; Deut. 6:5). What in my Baptist theology proves an obstacle to this? I am nonplussed. But I can assure you, I'm not angry. Actually, I confess I've found some of your argumentation quite amusing.
> 
> Cordially yours,
Click to expand...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

kceaster said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> (Rom 10:8) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
> 
> (Rom 10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
> 
> (Rom 10:10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
> 
> (Rom 10:11) For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
> 
> A person or child's assurance in Christ is the promises given to them in His word and their faith. Faith is their victory as the word of God says. A child must see that he can't keep the law perfectly. It brings them to reality and Christ for Salvation as I noted above. It truly sets a child up for Gospel Obedience in a very proper understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you're being as clear as I know you are. You were saying that it is by their profession they know these things, which is why you included the passage above. But it makes it seem like the child can begin to obey the gospel message based upon their belief in their confession, not in the One they confess. That's what it seems like you're saying.
> 
> If that is the case, then I think you would agree with me, that the object of the child's faith would not be Christ, but their profession of Christ and I don't think you mean to say that. Forgive me for my denseness.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


I was responding to Rich in context. But I do think the Order is set up in the passage. 

(Rom 10:10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

(Rom 10:11) For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Their profession is based upon belief in righteousness and on Him. Confession is made unto salvation. Confession is not salvation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree Rich. That is why a credible confession is important.
> 
> 
> 
> A person or child's assurance in Christ is the promises given to them in His word and their faith. Faith is their victory as the word of God says. A child must see that he can't keep the law perfectly. It brings them to reality and Christ for Salvation as I noted above. It truly sets a child up for Gospel Obedience in a very proper understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're missing the point. No, the child can't keep the Law perfectly and that's the point. Yet, when you're training them to obey you, there is an implicit or explicit motivation that is instilled into the child every time discipline occurs. We are given explicit instructions by God to train "in the Lord".
> 
> So now the discipline moment arrives for the 4 year old that must be assumed to be unregenerate by the Baptist for lack of a credible profession. Hence, the child is to be presumed to only be at enmity with God and to suppress knowledge of Him in unrighteousness. The child must be presumed to be an enemy with God and everything that God commands, the child hates (the child is unregenerate after all).
> 
> The parent tells this child, whose heart is at enmity with God, to obey "in the Lord", but the child's relationship to the Lord is only wrath and judgment.
> 
> Thus, from the knee, if this is consistently carried out then the child learns that obedience is on the basis of minimizing wrath and judgment.
> 
> This is antithetical to Christian discipleship. If such program of discipline were carried out in ruthless consistency then the child would need to be re-trained to see the motivation to the Law as of a completely different species then what he grew up with up until the point that he made a credible profession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me Rich... What are you trying to mirror to a child. It looks like a false pretense to a child. Did not God deal out longsuffering towards the unregenerate also? He rains upon the just and unjust. God teaches he is gracious to all who seek him. Therefore I have taught my children to seek for mercy because they need it. Whether they do or not is up to other circumstances outside of me. While discipline or judgment is always to lead to the Saviour it is not always taken that way or given in that fashion. Sometimes a mere condemnation is just pronounced. Remember Jonah and Nineveh. That was God's doing.
Click to expand...


Randy,

You keep mixing uses of the Law and don't realize you're doing it. I can guarantee this, if this was not a discussion about your children then you wouldn't keep sneaking in 3rd use concepts into the 2nd use.

We would never approach the Law to an unbeliever with the promise that God's mercy rains on the wicked and righteous. An unbeliever, apart from Christ, has only a relationship of wrath with respect to the Law.

Until you interact with this point then you have failed to interact with the main issue.

We're dealing with a Baptist understanding of children, if you want to understand how a Covenant understanding presumes a person within can respond then ask yourself why you assume your children can now obey God out of gratitude when you have no true knowledge of their regeneracy.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

kceaster said:


> I didn't mean to sharply divide this discussion by what I wrote. I do apologize and ask forgiveness.
> 
> I believed the argument would draw ire, but I had no intention of making anyone upset.



As I remarked to Rich, I wasn't upset. That was a conclusion he drew form my request that straw man arguments be avoided. The Bible is our rule. Not personal experiences. 



> The way I and others look at it, we cannot enforce godly discipline in our families just for the sake of moralism.



I agree with that. 



> As Rich pointed out, we will have to re-train our sons and daughters afterwards if we do. If we didn't have the OT as an example, we might not think this way. But we are told and all of us repeat that we must bring up our children to fear the Lord and we discipline them to that end. We all do this. I am in no way saying that any of us are bringing up our kids in the wrong way.



Good. Because what you teach your children--"to fear the Lord [from the heart] and keep his commandments"--is what I, as a Baptist father teach my children. 



> I am simply pointing out that if Paul is only talking to regenerate kids in Colossians, but especially Ephesians, where he clearly talks about a spiritual benefit coming from their obedience, then by default, we allow all kids who are not regenerate to rebel against their parents, or we teach them some sort of moral obedience that they can misconstrue as works-righteousness.



_Non sequitur_. I'm sorry, Kevin, but I do not follow your logic. Must I tell all my children that they're "in the covenant" in order to have some kind of moral right to prevent them from rebelling? And "no," I don't have to teach or encourage an unregenerate child "some sort of moral obedience that they can construe as works-righteousness" any more than I'm forced to that absurdity with unregenerate adults to whom I preach. Give me a break!



> Remember, works-righteousness is inherent because of the fall of man into sin. Just because it is not taught, per se, does not mean it won't be invoked at every instance for sin - even in our kids.



Yes, even in children spinkled at the font and brought up in "covenant families." I agree. 



> If we actually taught from the pulpit or in sunday school that Paul's words only apply to regenerate kids, then by their own desperately wicked hearts, they now have even more license to sin and every right to rebel against their parents. By default.



I never said Paul's admonition to the tekna of Ephesians 6 only has application to the regenerate tekna who are members of that church any more than I would teach that the 5th commandment only applies to the elect. What Moses and Paul says applies to all men. That's different from saying, "Who is Paul specifically addressing." When Paul tells wives to honor their husbands and husbands to love their wives, he's speaking to the members of that church. But that doesn't mean his teaching has no application to pagans outside the church. 



> But we don't teach this. And I submit that Baptists do not teach it because they are being logically inconsistent or they choose to teach a moralistic approach. If there is a third option, please tell me.



Brother, I must be dense because I can't figure out the inconsistency. But if I'm somehow Confessionally or in a Paedobaptist's mind inconsistent, then I'm happy to remain so as long as I follow the teaching of Scripture. Rev. Winzer thinks I'm inconsistent because I believe God desires the salvation even of the reprobate. Very well. I guess I'll have to join the ranks of Charles Spurgeon who once declared,
My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. . . . God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it.​ Thanks for your desire to clarify your remarks. If I don't seem to get it, please accept my sincere apologies. 

Cordially,


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

さようなら


----------



## Herald

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> さようなら



Huh?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> さようなら
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh?
Click to expand...


Not a cuss word . Rich should know what さようなら means.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

As the preceding really doesn't interact with anything on a substantive level, let's interact here.



> In other words, how exactly does a Baptist father consistently train a child from the knee on a third use of the Law to a child he really doesn't believe can apprehend a third use? If not a third use, then what use of the Law may a Baptist consistenly apply when telling Johnny why he should obey Dad?
> 
> 
> 
> Once again (why do I have to keep repeating myself?), I've already given exegetical evidence that the tekna of Ephesians 6 were believing minors. I can also teach both unregenerate children and unregerate adults about the third use of the law because they are still images of God who have the law written on their heart and they know what God expects (Rom. 1:18-21, 32; 2:12-15) and because God's word calls them to obey evangelically (Exo. 20:2; Eph. 2:9-10), which means they need to trust in Christ for forgiveness (Matt. 11:28-29; John 6:37) and obey him from the heart (Prov. 23:26; Deut. 6:5). What in my Baptist theology proves an obstacle to this? I am nonplussed. But I can assure you, I'm not angry. Actually, I confess I've found some of your argumentation quite amusing.
> 
> Cordially yours,
Click to expand...


The third use of the Law requires much more than simply teaching _about_ the fact that the Law is to be obeyed evangelically. It requires that the person being taught about the third use have the capacity to do so. You don't go into the highways and byways teaching the lost about the third use of the Law. The third use of the Law isn't written on men's hearts. It's a matter of special revelation and the teaching of such things occurs within the Church where the Gospel is proclaimed and then the nature of the Law is expounded in light of it.

This is all about presumption. Regardless of your take on Ephesians 6 with respect to the charge to children (which I disagree with but that's beside the point), the issue remains that there is a charge to the fathers to raise a child in the Lord. As I noted, the father must discipline and cannot remind the child that the reason for his obedience is of the nature of the third use.

Part of the real problem here stems from an importing of notions from the Covenant of Grace into the Adamic Covenant.

For example, if you encounter a man on a street, you don't testify of God as being rich in mercy apart from Christ. You call him to repentance. If he committed a sin in your sight then you wouldn't start teaching Him about obeying God out of gratitude toward Christ's work for sinners in general. You would remind him that sin brings about wrath. If our children truly are no different than the man on the street then we can't conveniently mix these ideas.

Finally, I suppose we can both spend some time ridiculing each other's arguments and degenerating into personal insults. Whether or not my arguments "amuse" you, I find some issues here that I believe need to be consistently interacted with. As much as you believe your case is airtight and you are nonplussed, this is more than simply an "experience" issue. It has to do with having interacted with Baptists on this issue for a number of years and desiring to have them account for certain aspects of their theology both in terms of the Scripture and how they apply them in their practical theology. If a Baptist cannot given an account for how a father is to train a child in the fear and admonition of the Lord on a very practical level then there is a defect in theology. Sometimes things look good on paper and they are only revealed to be deficient when we realize that they cannot be practiced in the real world.


----------



## kceaster

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> _Non sequitur_. I'm sorry, Kevin, but I do not follow your logic. Must I tell all my children that they're "in the covenant" in order to have some kind of moral right to prevent them from rebelling? And "no," I don't have to teach or encourage an unregenerate child "some sort of moral obedience that they can construe as works-righteousness" any more than I'm forced to that absurdity with unregenerate adults to whom I preach. Give me a break!



Yes, you should tell your kids they are in covenant, because they are. Whether you believe it or not, God has promised to be a God to you and to your children. You're going to punish them for rebellion are you not? On what grounds? Vengence is the Lord's perview to meet out to the ungodly. If they are not the Lord's, then He'll sort them out right? Wrong. You don't believe that. But, you're forced to believe it if your children are not in relationship to God, or in other words, in covenant.

You said: "Hence, I think the context makes it clear that Paul is addressing whom he believes to be regenerate children--capable of fulfilling the command to obey their parents in the fear of Christ (5:21) and under the dominating influence of the Holy Spirit (5:18)."

If you truly believe that Paul is addressing only regenerate children, then your own children would have to be taught that this message from Paul is only for those who have shown, by their profession and the fruit they produce, that they have faith in Christ and therefore can obey the command. If they have not professed faith in Christ, then they cannot obey. At which point, they will ask, "Why do you punish us if we can't obey?" If they don't ask it out loud they'll think it. What is your answer? Your answer is that you expect them to obey. On what grounds?

If you are atypical of most parents I apologize. But most baptistic parents expect their kids to become Christians, or at least, act like Christians before they actually are Christians by strict definition. So this verse applies to unregenerate kids before they are regenerate. If it is, then it is moralistic and works righteousness. 

And what's more, there is a spiritual benefit from obeying Paul's command. Do we really want our children to believe that their profession makes the promises of God available to them. That they can procure these things if they believe and receive? Or rather, would we want them to believe that these promises were theirs before they did anything? Don't we want to focus more upon God's promises delivered before we even heard they were coming?



> Yes, even in children spinkled at the font and brought up in "covenant families." I agree.



Will a person not die for a good man? Perhaps. Jesus died for bad men. Our children must know that Christ died for the ungodly before the ungodly were even aware. He didn't die for them while they were becoming aware, or right before they were ready to settle on Him, or even after they'd already made their decision. I think you'd agree that telling our children that there is nothing they can do to make God want them to be His kids is what we should teach. But we should also teach that Jesus did embrace the children of those who followed Him. He did have a special relationship with them because of their parents. No, it wasn't saving. But it was promising. 



> I never said Paul's admonition to the tekna of Ephesians 6 only has application to the regenerate tekna who are members of that church any more than I would teach that the 5th commandment only applies to the elect. What Moses and Paul says applies to all men. That's different from saying, "Who is Paul specifically addressing." When Paul tells wives to honor their husbands and husbands to love their wives, he's speaking to the members of that church. But that doesn't mean his teaching has no application to pagans outside the church.



That is what I took you to mean from your above quote.




> Brother, I must be dense because I can't figure out the inconsistency.
> 
> Cordially,



I don't believe you're dense. But I do believe you've allowed your bias against paedobaptism to muddy the waters that are clear.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Rich,

I love you as a brother in Christ. さようなら is Japanese for "goodbye" or "I'm signing out." I've enjoyed much of the discussion though I think we've drifted at times away from the focus of the original post. But I realize the issue is bigger than John 1;12-13, so I understand the need to discuss related matters. I'm sorry you've had bad experiences with Baptists. I certainly hope your experience with me hasn't been another such experience. I also hope that we Baptist parents aren't warping our children's view of _who God is and what he requires of them_. Hopefully, we're constantly pointing them to Christ and the gospel. If doing so makes us inconsistent with our Baptist principles, then praise God for overruling our mixed up thinking. I don't say this as a jab, but in sincerity as a friend. I confess I have a lot to learn, and I appreciate all the time you and Kevin and Matthew and other brothers have taken to try to help me better understand the Scriptures. I'm also gratefully for the opportunity for discussion on the PB. May the Lord bless your ministries. 

Sincerely,


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Bob,

Grace and peace unto you.

My experiences with Baptists have been positive having labored for 3 years in a congregation while a Presbyterian. I love them as brothers and sisters in the Lord.

I do want to say that I reject that I have made a caricature of any Baptist parent. I merely proceeded (as did Kevin) on the things that Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians should agree with: what does it mean to be unregenerate? What is the nature of the Law? What is the relation of the unregenerate under and to the Law?

If we were discussing these items in another thread and it didn't involve children of believers then we would answer the Arminian objector the same way. The categories of law would be clean and there would be no confusion. When the subject of how a father is to train a child in the fear of the Lord in light of the insistence that the child is unregenerate then we need to consider how we would address the issue of the unregenerate man before the Law apart from any reference to how we're actually treating our own kids. If we're treating their capacities of the nature of the Law differently for our kids, contra our confession, then the problem is either with our confession or our consistency in believing the confession.

I'm not trying to "score points" here by getting Baptists to interact on this but I'm pointing out what the pitfalls are if you insist that non-professors are unregenerate. If you treat them with the judgment of charity as if they are regenerate then you deny that insistence in practice while you uphold it in principle.

I answer that the principle itself is erroneous and this is why only a very few Baptists actually live out consistently an ideal that insists that they know their children are unregenerate and must treat them that way.

Simply getting Baptists to think about these things is not a straw man or a caricature. I neither misrepresented the nature of the Law nor the nature of unregenerate men. To extend these two ideas to the children of believers, who Baptists insist are unregenerate, is not a caricature, nor is it a slippery slope fallacy. It is merely interacting with categories that we all agree with until our kids faces are put on those categories and we realize that no Baptists that we know truly act like their kids are unregenerate.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're missing the point. No, the child can't keep the Law perfectly and that's the point. Yet, when you're training them to obey you, there is an implicit or explicit motivation that is instilled into the child every time discipline occurs. We are given explicit instructions by God to train "in the Lord".
> 
> So now the discipline moment arrives for the 4 year old that must be assumed to be unregenerate by the Baptist for lack of a credible profession. Hence, the child is to be presumed to only be at enmity with God and to suppress knowledge of Him in unrighteousness. The child must be presumed to be an enemy with God and everything that God commands, the child hates (the child is unregenerate after all).
> 
> The parent tells this child, whose heart is at enmity with God, to obey "in the Lord", but the child's relationship to the Lord is only wrath and judgment.
> 
> Thus, from the knee, if this is consistently carried out then the child learns that obedience is on the basis of minimizing wrath and judgment.
> 
> This is antithetical to Christian discipleship. If such program of discipline were carried out in ruthless consistency then the child would need to be re-trained to see the motivation to the Law as of a completely different species then what he grew up with up until the point that he made a credible profession.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me Rich... What are you trying to mirror to a child. It looks like a false pretense to a child. Did not God deal out longsuffering towards the unregenerate also? He rains upon the just and unjust. God teaches he is gracious to all who seek him. Therefore I have taught my children to seek for mercy because they need it. Whether they do or not is up to other circumstances outside of me. While discipline or judgment is always to lead to the Saviour it is not always taken that way or given in that fashion. Sometimes a mere condemnation is just pronounced. Remember Jonah and Nineveh. That was God's doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Randy,
> 
> You keep mixing uses of the Law and don't realize you're doing it. I can guarantee this, if this was not a discussion about your children then you wouldn't keep sneaking in 3rd use concepts into the 2nd use.
> 
> We would never approach the Law to an unbeliever with the promise that God's mercy rains on the wicked and righteous. An unbeliever, apart from Christ, has only a relationship of wrath with respect to the Law.
> 
> Until you interact with this point then you have failed to interact with the main issue.
> 
> We're dealing with a Baptist understanding of children, if you want to understand how a Covenant understanding presumes a person within can respond then ask yourself why you assume your children can now obey God out of gratitude when you have no true knowledge of their regeneracy.
Click to expand...


Your first statement is an assumption. 



> We would never approach the Law to an unbeliever with the promise that God's mercy rains on the wicked and righteous. An unbeliever, apart from Christ, has only a relationship of wrath with respect to the Law.



And I agree with you on this. So goes what I am saying concerning how we look at our children. But I also do see that God providentially does deal with the unregenerate in terms of mercy and graciousness or all of his days would be constant hell and torment on earth. 



> We're dealing with a Baptist understanding of children, if you want to understand how a Covenant understanding presumes a person within can respond then ask yourself why you assume your children can now obey God out of gratitude when you have no true knowledge of their regeneracy.



My children's response to gospel obedience has nothing to do with my assumpitons. It is totally in relation between their reconciliation to God. How can I assume you can now obey God out of gratitude when I have no knowledge of your regeneracy. From without I rely upon ones conversation as we are told to look at. The fruit, it is the converstion of fruit and experience. The reason I know some things about you and my children is because I have seen you and them both. I do have some knowledge based upon knowing and experiencing our relationships together. I may see through a glass darkly but it isn't total blindness. As I posted above..... Romans 10:9-11. How does the church disciple and discipline anyone? By examination and experience.


----------



## timmopussycat

kceaster said:


> You better watch out, you better not cry, you better not pout I'm telling you why... you better be good for goodness sake.
> 
> As I heard in a sermon recently, if we want our children to misunderstand, even from a toddler's perspective, that obedience is not commanded of them unless they have made a credible profession of faith in Christ, then we should teach them the moralistic mantra of the above.
> 
> It's easy to conclude, if you're a baptist, that Paul is not writing to anyone other than regenerate kids. But that is only because of the presupposition that they are strangers to the covenant of promise until such time as they are regenerate.



I don't buy the argument that Paul was necessarily addressing only regenerate kids. Even if he was his teaching of the hosehold codes has broader application as it fits the other situations I alluded to. For it is not impossible that he knew of situations where children had come to faith before the parents (one of the neatest evangelists in my congregation is the eight year old girl who was used of God to bring her Daddy to Christ!) and even on paedo premises, Paul must have encoutered cases of believing parents whose children gave signs of being currently unregenerate. 



kceaster said:


> However, if they are strangers, then the only possible thing we can teach them is, "you better be good for goodness sake." This brings them up with what Baptists must call "works-righteousness." If the same thing happened in the OT, (which it did, because they were commanded to bring up their children to know the Lord) and Baptists call that works-righteousness, then the same must apply to children in the NT who cannot possibly be taught to know the Lord because they are not regenerate. After all, when one becomes regenerate, they no longer have to be taught to know the Lord, according to the J prophecy, strictly interpreted.



A little thought shows that this is simply not true. We do not teach our kids to be good for goodness' sake. We teach our kids that there is a God who made all things, including them and that by virtue of that fact God is Lord of all. We then teach them that biblical ethics not only to show what God is like and what He requires of His creation, but also to prove, by demonstration of our shortcomings, that because our first father sinned we all have within us a bent to do evil and that we constantly sin and therefore are vulnerable to God's judgment of sinners. Next we teach that God is perfectly holy and the perfectly holy response to sin is judgment and eternal damnation and that a even a perfect life less one sin (which none of us are good enough to have achieved) =damnation. But we also teach that God provided the Saviour to take the deserved punishment of those who have faith in Jesus (Rom 3:23) so that he need not punish them. Finally we teach them that Christ made an open call inviting anyone to come to Him (Matt. 11:28,29) and a promise that He would never cast out any who did so (John 6:37). So we encourage our kids to come to Jesus and, once they have done so, we then teach that Biblical ethics is now the way of pleasing our heavenly father and the way of blessing for us. 



kceaster said:


> I'm sure that there will be great arguments that follow, but realize what the implications are. If these verses in Ephesians and Colossians are only for regenerate kids, then the rest of the kids may be as unruly as they want to be. That is the logical conclusion. Paul is telling all the regenerate kids to obey, but if it doesn't apply to you, then you have all rights to disobey. This is akin to telling them (unregenerate) they are part of a group called, "the sons of disobedience," following their father, the devil.
> 
> Or,
> 
> Paul is commanding the unregenerate kids that they should obey their parents because it is moral to do so. One day it might pay off, but only if they become good first, so that the Holy Spirit can make them really good.
> 
> Or,
> 
> Paul is talking to covenant kids. This seems the most logical because of the promise given in Ephesians. If Paul is talking to all children, but it is meant for the regenerate kids, then how are the unregenerate ones to understand the promise given in Ephesians 6:3? If they better be good for goodness sake and they actually are, won't they also receive a long life on earth? Or, did Paul somewhere else tell them that they can't obey properly unless they are regenerate and so give them permission to be rebellious until God finally catches up to them? None of us would say this.
> 
> But that is the logical conclusion. Paul is either talking to all kids, giving permission to the unrenerate ones to be as rebellious as they want to be, or he's talking to all kids as being in covenant and so liable to do their duty before God.



Please review my previous comment. You have overlooked a possibility. Paul is commanding the unregenerate kids who, he knows live in the context I have described above.


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> That's a good point Kevin - one that probably would cause some chaffing but something that needs to be seriously considered.
> 
> There is a Biblical novelty to Tim's inistence that "...well this is probably because they're pagan kids..." or something like that as if Paul wrote in a Scriptural vaccum and the entire Scriptures (and historical-grammatico context) are completely irrelevant.



Ahem...Will you please read what I wrote and not what you think I wrote? I specifically stated (twice now no less!) that Paul's assertion of the duties of children applies to all classes of children, regenerate or not. So there is no novelty here whatsoever. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't think Baptists sometimes think through what they're arguing for when they try to make these injunctions just any other "law" that all kids and all parents must obey. Really, what they're saying, is that kids need to be told to obey the Law and pursue the Law - because they're not Christians after all and cannot be obeying on its third use. Thus, a child is taught that it is his religious duty to obey God, not on the basis of redemption, but on the basis that the keeping of the Law is an end to itself. When he is converted, is it then time to "undo" all the pedagogy that has preceded and explain what the Law is really for?



And I think, and your and Kevin's reaction to my post is one reason why, that paedo's often give credo arguments less than their full attention. You think you see a disasterous consequence and you proclaim it immediately, never wondering if perhaps, there might not be something within Baptist pedagogy that nulliifies the consequence. 

As I said in my previous post to Kevin, we don't teach our children their relationship to the law in isolation apart from of teaching them the Christian faith and their relationship to it. Basically we _simultaneously_ teach the law as a holy God's expected standard for his creation, and the proof of human sinfulness when we fall short and therefore face damnation and the necessities for both trusting Christ for salvation and keeping the law thereafter to please God and live blessedly.



Semper Fidelis said:


> This ought to scream out the broad inconsistency on this point and the absolute need to understand what the purpose of discipling kids is. If you raise a child to be a Pharisee then it is a bit late in his development to "shift trails" and re-train as a Christian once he's made a decision to be baptized.



Since we are not inconsistent, no retraining is necessary.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> Bob,
> 
> Grace and peace unto you.
> 
> My experiences with Baptists have been positive having labored for 3 years in a congregation while a Presbyterian. I love them as brothers and sisters in the Lord.
> 
> I do want to say that I reject that I have made a caricature of any Baptist parent. I merely proceeded (as did Kevin) on the things that Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians should agree with: what does it mean to be unregenerate? What is the nature of the Law? What is the relation of the unregenerate under and to the Law?
> 
> If we were discussing these items in another thread and it didn't involve children of believers then we would answer the Arminian objector the same way. The categories of law would be clean and there would be no confusion. When the subject of how a father is to train a child in the fear of the Lord in light of the insistence that the child is unregenerate then we need to consider how we would address the issue of the unregenerate man before the Law apart from any reference to how we're actually treating our own kids. If we're treating their capacities of the nature of the Law differently for our kids, contra our confession, then the problem is either with our confession or our consistency in believing the confession.
> 
> I'm not trying to "score points" here by getting Baptists to interact on this but I'm pointing out what the pitfalls are if you insist that non-professors are unregenerate. If you treat them with the judgment of charity as if they are regenerate then you deny that insistence in practice while you uphold it in principle.
> 
> I answer that the principle itself is erroneous and this is why only a very few Baptists actually live out consistently an ideal that insists that they know their children are unregenerate and must treat them that way.
> 
> Simply getting Baptists to think about these things is not a straw man or a caricature. I neither misrepresented the nature of the Law nor the nature of unregenerate men. To extend these two ideas to the children of believers, who Baptists insist are unregenerate, is not a caricature, nor is it a slippery slope fallacy. It is merely interacting with categories that we all agree with until our kids faces are put on those categories and we realize that no Baptists that we know truly act like their kids are unregenerate.



Rich,

I did treat my children as unregenerate and warned them very lovingingly about the wrath that was to come. Did I pound it into their heads till it hurt. Of Course not. I am called to be longsuffering and pray that God would peradventure grant them repentance. And at the same time I told them to obey the Ten Words. I also do this with the unregenerate unbelieving adult. There are still benefits to the unregenerate if he does try to obey the Ten words. Marriages are better if the physical act of adultery is not committed.  Men stay our of jail if they do not murder or steal. It is a good thing to be honest and you do have better relationships. There are still the benefits of not committing certain acts of evil. And society is better for it. 



> (1Pe 2:12) Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.





> 2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.



Personally I admonish everyone in the Lord. Whether they be regenerate or not. If they are on the outside I admonish them to obey the Lord. If they are in Christ I admonish them to obey the Lord. I admonish the unregenerate to call upon Him, obey Him, and seek Him. Life is easier for the unregenerate if he has some conviction of sin. And as you know many a man do apologize for bad language when they are in our presence because they do not want to be offensive in our relationships. And they know that God is watching. They may not understand it all but maybe God will grant them repentance.

I might be inconsistent in your eyes but that is ok. I try to let men know the issues as best as I can.


----------



## timmopussycat

kceaster said:


> Will a person not die for a good man? Perhaps. Jesus died for bad men. Our children must know that Christ died for the ungodly before the ungodly were even aware. He didn't die for them while they were becoming aware, or right before they were ready to settle on Him, or even after they'd already made their decision. I think you'd agree that telling our children that there is nothing they can do to make God want them to be His kids is what we should teach. But we should also teach that Jesus did embrace the children of those who followed Him. He did have a special relationship with them because of their parents. No, it wasn't saving. But it was promising.



The Scripture says nothing about whether Christ counted the children of those who followed him to be already regenerate or even elect. All we are told is that he let them come to him one day. We cannot read the idea that they had any more relationship than the blessings he gave them into that statment.
And there is one thing we can and should teach our kids to do: and that is to cry to God for his mercy and grace.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timmopussycat said:


> And I think, and your and Kevin's reaction to my post is one reason why, that paedo's often give credo arguments less than their full attention. You think you see a disasterous consequence and you proclaim it immediately, never wondering if perhaps, there might not be something within Baptist pedagogy that nulliifies the consequence.
> 
> As I said in my previous post to Kevin, we don't teach our children their relationship to the law in isolation apart from of teaching them the Christian faith and their relationship to it. Basically we _simultaneously_ teach the law as a holy God's expected standard for his creation, and the proof of human sinfulness when we fall short and therefore face damnation and the necessities for both trusting Christ for salvation and keeping the law thereafter to please God and live blessedly.


And you expect dead hearts to apprehend this pedagogy?

The issue is not whether or not I believe you have an answer but whether or not I think your answer does justice to what you claim in your insistence that those you are training must be treated as unregenerate and apart from Christ.

The main question is not whether or not they think you fall short and have someone to go to for your sins but whether or not you train them to recognize that _they_ have someone to go to when they fall short.

Now, you can answer that they will if they believe - perhaps a sort of "...maybe someday I'll be able to go to Christ for my sin..." kind of thing.

In the meantime, however, there's a four year old child who you are convinced is unregenerate. On that basis, you cannot train them to repent of their sin or turn to Christ for the sin they committed today. I suppose you could but then you'd be denying your insistence that they are unregenerate until they've made a profession of faith.

Thus, from the knee, they cannot be trained to approach God in the manner that you will expect of them when they have more mature faculties. The very time of their lives when mimicry and memorization sets in habits in other areas, you deny them a habit of a posture of faith on the insistence that they are unregenerate and incapable of turning to Christ in repentance until a time when you can evaluate it and pronounce it legitimate.


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I think, and your and Kevin's reaction to my post is one reason why, that paedo's often give credo arguments less than their full attention. You think you see a disasterous consequence and you proclaim it immediately, never wondering if perhaps, there might not be something within Baptist pedagogy that nulliifies the consequence.
> 
> As I said in my previous post to Kevin, we don't teach our children their relationship to the law in isolation apart from of teaching them the Christian faith and their relationship to it. Basically we _simultaneously_ teach the law as a holy God's expected standard for his creation, and the proof of human sinfulness when we fall short and therefore face damnation and the necessities for both trusting Christ for salvation and keeping the law thereafter to please God and live blessedly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you expect dead hearts to apprehend this pedagogy?
Click to expand...




Semper Fidelis said:


> Of course and so do you, as illustrated every time you expect dead hearts to apprehend the same pedagogy when you preach to unbelieving adults. In that situation you have no expectation that your words alone will do any good; you rely on the Holy Spirit to honour your attempt to glorify God by regenerating the individual. You don't give up if the initial response is imimical, instead you pray and try again. So what's wrong with us expecting the Holy Spirit to work every bit as much as you do?
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is not whether or not I believe you have an answer but whether or not I think your answer does justice to what you claim in your insistence that those you are training must be treated as unregenerate and apart from Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. As I pointed out to Matthew originally, the existence of the household codes does not lead to a GNC consequence that the children so addressed must be believed to be within the covenant. Nobody has yet proven the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main question is not whether or not they think you fall short and have someone to go to for your sins but whether or not you train them to recognize that _they_ have someone to go to when they fall short.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, you can answer that they will if they believe - perhaps a sort of "...maybe someday I'll be able to go to Christ for my sin..." kind of thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we train them that they may call on Christ for mercy at any time.
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the meantime, however, there's a four year old child who you are convinced is unregenerate. On that basis, you cannot train them to repent of their sin or turn to Christ for the sin they committed today. I suppose you could but then you'd be denying your insistence that they are unregenerate until they've made a profession of faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As Dr. Bob said: Quit with the straw men.
> I can show an apparently unregenerate child the biblical testimony to the seriousness of the sin he committed five minutes ago, i.e. that he is under the judgment of a holy God and doomed unless God has mercy on him. I can also show him that Christ provided the one way for God to do that and that all God now requires is to trust Christ for forgiveness. I know my words alone won't have any effect, every bit as much as you also know your words alone won't have any effect on any sinner apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. But both of us freely testify to the evil of sin and the availability of the grace of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus, from the knee, they cannot be trained to approach God in the manner that you will expect of them when they have more mature faculties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baloney. Jonathan Edwards records in his "Faithful Narrative" the case of a three year old girl who could definetely understand biblical repentence. And there are others.
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very time of their lives when mimicry and memorization sets in habits in other areas, you deny them a habit of a posture of faith on the insistence that they are unregenerate and incapable of turning to Christ in repentance until a time when you can evaluate it and pronounce it legitimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you are presuming a consequence that does not follow. I never deny the capacity for a posture of faith. I just ask to see it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Where is that thread where the author recommends stating "This is a straw man..." as a response to a query in a discussion....

I'll simply leave this as saying that we're talking past each other. You don't understand the point I'm making and I'll chalk it up to lacking the language necessary to make the point. For those that can understand the point that has been made I'll let what I've written speak for itself at this point.

Your example of discipline is inadequate on a few points that are apparent to a person who has to do more than simply call a child to repentance but we don't want any more straw men erected that may cause exclamations of the Baloney expletive.


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> As I stated in an earlier post, I personally feel constrated to see Paul's words as directed to _minors who were members of the church_. Grammatically, Ephesians 6:1-3 is tied to Ephesians 5:21, which in turn is tied to Ephesians 5:18 ("Be filled with the Spirit"). Study the grammatical connections and look at the commentaries.



So you would have us believe that the apostle was telling fathers to only bring up their children who were church members (i.e., who had made a profession of faith) in the Lord?

Also, I am not sure why you think the statement, "be filled with the Spirit" cannot apply to infants.


----------

