# Argument for Credo-Baptism from the Nature of the New Covenant



## Semper Fidelis

I've been engaged in some healthy (and not so healthy) debate on the subject of baptism for some time. I've been leaving the subject alone for a while as I don't really have the energy for some of the polemics.

I thought of a way to advance the discussion where I normally have trouble interacting with Credo-Baptists and that is to try to understand if the argument for Credo-Baptism is a valid argument.

In order for this thread to work, I need to first define what an argument is. I'm doing this, not because I believe that the end of all truth is propositional but because, in this case, it is important to be able to see the argument in its parts and whether or not the conclusion is true or false.

It is important to remember that Arguments are not True or False. They are either valid or invalid. It is the propositions (or premises of the argument) that are either true or false. For example, this is a valid argument:

Proposition 1: All mermen can breathe underwater.
Proposition 2: Rich is a merman.
Conclusion: Rich can breathe underwater.

The argument is _valid_. That is to say that the form leads to the conclusion drawn BUT Proposition 2 is false, therefore the conclusion is false.

Let's look at another argument:

P1: All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
P2: Rich is among the All.
C: Rich has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Valid argument, true premises, true conclusion.

*OK, here we go. I want my Credo-Baptist friends to provide the missing premises to this argument:

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2: ?
P3: ?
....
Pn: ?
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.*

A few rules for this thread:

1. No soliloquies. I'm not interested in long editorial comments.

2. Present your premises as concisely as possible.

3. After you've presented your premises, please provide the Scriptural reference that supports the premise.

4. I want to see, specifically, the missing premises that connect the membership of the New Covenant to the subjects of baptism. For the purposes of this exercise, we are assuming that P1 is True. On the assumption that P1 is true, string true premises that logically connect to one another to form a valid argument with a conclusion is that true by necessity of its premises.

5. Only Credo baptists are permitted to reply per the forum rules.


----------



## Iconoclast

> OK, here we go. I want my Credo-Baptist friends to provide the missing premises to this argument:
> 
> P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
> P2: ?
> P3: ?
> ....
> Pn: ?
> Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.


P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
p2 The Servant of The Lord, [the True Israel, Jesus] Seeks and Saves His elect body,given to Him by the Father-in the CoR. The New Covenant is made with the Elect Servant,and those in Union with Him,[by Spirit baptism]
Isa 40,41, 42, 49......Ezk34,lk19......Jn6:37-44......Hebrews 2:9-16. Rom6:3-6 Col2:11-12 1cor 12:13 Gal3:16-27
p3 Those sheep convicted of sin and drawn by the Spirit,and given a new heart ,do effectually come to the Son,[through the ministry of the word] openly confess/profess Christ, both with their lips and goodworks bearing fruit. They obey the command to believe and be baptized.They receive forgiveness of sins. Heb8, Heb10 Jer31,Ezk36, jn 3,Romans6, Mk16
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Anthony,

P2 is a re-statement of P1. I won't haggle with that.

You're missing a few premises between P3 and the Conclusion.

Unless it is your contention that *only* those sheep identified in P3 are those who are actually baptized in the visible Church, and none others, then your argument is incomplete. In other words, connect "those who give a credible confession" with P3 and demonstrate that the non-elect cannot do so..

Also, for clarity's sake, please provide one valid argument.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Anthony, deleted your post. As I noted, I need this to provide clarity. You need to shore up one valid argument rather than trying to present multiple variations of the same. Work on the first and then move on if you can't complete it. The problem with these discussions is a lack of discipline and I need to ensure we make some tight arguments.


----------



## Iconoclast

Rich,
Sorry if I messed up. I was trying to set out a couple of ideas, they came out together in one post! Let me look at your response and see if I can clarify.
I am not the best at syllogisms....you probably have seen that by now,lol


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Anthony,

I understand. I don't normally write this way either. Try writing out in a paragraph offline and then connecting the dots and then form the premises that way.


----------



## Iconoclast

> Unless it is your contention that *only* those sheep identified in P3 are those who are actually baptized in the visible Church, and none others, then your argument is incomplete. In other words, connect "those who give a credible confession" with P3 and demonstrate that the non-elect cannot do so..



In the normal course of events, those "sheep" in p3 having been placed into the "invisible church"[Hebrews 12:22-24} by The Holy Spirit,and quickened are then water baptized and accepted as members in what is spoken of as the "visible church".
As you have posted dozens of times we cannot know the heart that only God knows. We can only baptize those who profess and confess Jesus as Lord. judgment begins at the House of the Lord,all tares,goats , false professors, will be found out.Mt7:21-24 presupposes this reality. In the padeo model this would be the covenant breaking apostate,Heb6,Heb 10. falling from membership in the "visible" church.
In the credo model ,these unfortunate persons are described in 1JN 2:19.
Again sorry if I did not follow the model..[I am in central Wyoming, Rawlins,low oxygen up here,, heading to woodland Ca.] so that is my excuse,lol. Ps. I like the exercise, I think it can be helpful both ways!


----------



## Hunn

This isn't necessarily a string of biblical arguments, but it makes sense to me and I look forward to having it torn to pieces. I'm still new to covenant theology so I'm here to learn!


P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2: Baptism is the sign of the new covenant.
P3: We have no way to infallibly know who is among the elect.
P4: We should seek to avoid giving the New Covenant sign to those who are not elect.
P5: Our best indication that someone is numbered among the elect is when they provide a credible profession of faith.
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.

P4 is the most questionable in my mind. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me will provide a good argument. I'm really intrigued by the question. Thanks!


----------



## Iconoclast

Semper Fidelis said:


> Anthony, deleted your post. As I noted, I need this to provide clarity. You need to shore up one valid argument rather than trying to present multiple variations of the same. Work on the first and then move on if you can't complete it. The problem with these discussions is a lack of discipline and I need to ensure we make some tight arguments.


 
Ok thats fine, i was just trying to get this rolling. it was too confusing the way I went about it. I agree with your deletion,it is the marine training at work ,haha


----------



## Iconoclast

Semper Fidelis said:


> Anthony,
> 
> P2 is a re-statement of P1. I won't haggle with that.
> 
> You're missing a few premises between P3 and the Conclusion.
> 
> Unless it is your contention that *only* those sheep identified in P3 are those who are actually baptized in the visible Church, and none others, then your argument is incomplete. In other words, connect "those who give a credible confession" with P3 and demonstrate that the non-elect cannot do so..
> 
> Also, for clarity's sake, please provide one valid argument.


 
I am thinking this verse might be useful;


> 24Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
> 
> 25Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.


 Those false professors,acting in the strength of the flesh fall away, others who maintain the facade are discovered on the Last Day mt7.
The visible church is called to be faithful to what they see as a pattern in scripture, not attempting to delve into the secret thingsDeut29
but to be faithful to the revealed things,Deut. 29.
False professors [credo] covenant breakers[padeo] are a sad tradgedy to any assembly, causing reproach to the Name of the Lord.
The scripture gives the objective truths about the "things that accompany salvation[Heb6:9]. The warnings are passages dealing with self -examination are given so no one in any true assemblies follow the wicked example of those who came short of His rest.Hebrews 3-4 psalm95. Either view deals with the same group of persons.

That there are false professors does not mean that the true believers are not to follow the Lord's command.
We would say your covenant breaker,never knew the forgiveness of sins, never knew the Lord, so could never have actually been in the New Covenant, as forgiveness of all sins and a saving knowledge of Jesus as Lord is part of the "newness" Heb8


----------



## MW

Hunn said:


> P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
> P2: Baptism is the sign of the new covenant.
> P3: We have no way to infallibly know who is among the elect.
> P4: We should seek to avoid giving the New Covenant sign to those who are not elect.
> P5: Our best indication that someone is numbered among the elect is when they provide a credible profession of faith.
> Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.


 
Premises 3-5 might be combined to make a substantive connection between the sign, the covenant, and profession, which will then lead to the necessary inference required to form the conclusion.


----------



## rbcbob

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2: The Elect alone are “in Christ”
P3: Those alone who are “in Christ” comprise the *true church* (Eph 5:23-25; Jeremiah 31:34: Acts 13:38; Romans 11:26)
P4: The Church is to take the paradigm of the New Covenant [knowing the Lord, “in Christ”] for a pattern of admittance into the *local church* (Acts 13:48; Romans 8:14; Galatians 3:26)
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.


----------



## eqdj

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.

P2: WLC 162: A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church,[Gen. 17:7, 10; Exod. ch. 12; Matt. 26:26-28; 28:19] to signify, seal, and exhibit [Rom. 4:11; I Cor. 11:24-25] *unto those that are within the covenant of grace,[Rom. 15:8; Exod. 12:48] (e.g. "believers" cf. WSC 92, Gal. 3:27; I Cor. 10:16-17)* the benefits of his mediation;[Acts 2:38; I Cor. 10:16] to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces;[Rom. 4:11; Gal. 3:27] to oblige them to obedience;[Rom. 6:3-4; I Cor. 10:21] to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another;[Eph. 4:2-5; I Cor. 12:13] and to distinguish them from those that are without [Eph. 2:11-12; Gen. 34:14] (cf. WCF 27:1, and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word. [Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 10:16, 21.])

P3: WLC 163: The parts of a sacrament are two; the one an outward and sensible sign, used according to Christ's own appointment; the other an inward and spiritual grace thereby signified.[Matt. 3:11; I Peter 3:27; Rom. 2:28-29]

P4: WLC 165: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,[Matt. 28:19] *to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself,[Gal. 3:27] of remission of sins by his blood,[Mark 1:4; Rev. 1:5] and regeneration by his Spirit;[Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:26] of adoption,[ Gal. 3:26-27] and resurrection unto everlasting life;[ I Cor. 15:29; Rom. 6:5] and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church,[I Cor. 12:13] and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.[Rom. 6:3-4]*

P5: WLC 166: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him [Acts 2:38; 2:41; 8:12, 36-38; 18:8]

Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.


----------



## MW

rbcbob said:


> P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
> P2: The Elect alone are “in Christ”
> P3: Those alone who are “in Christ” comprise the *true church* (Eph 5:23-25; Jeremiah 31:34: Acts 13:38; Romans 11:26)
> P4: The Church is to take the paradigm of the New Covenant [knowing the Lord, “in Christ”] for a pattern of admittance into the *local church* (Acts 13:48; Romans 8:14; Galatians 3:26)
> Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.


 
The conclusion contains a term, "baptized," which is not accounted for in the premises.


----------



## rbcbob

armourbearer said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> 
> P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
> P2: The Elect alone are “in Christ”
> P3: Those alone who are “in Christ” comprise the *true church* (Eph 5:23-25; Jeremiah 31:34: Acts 13:38; Romans 11:26)
> P4: The Church is to take the paradigm of the New Covenant [knowing the Lord, “in Christ”] for a pattern of admittance into the *local church* (Acts 13:48; Romans 8:14; Galatians 3:26)
> Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The conclusion contains a term, "baptized," which is not accounted for in the premises.
Click to expand...

 
Didn't feel the liberty to change Rich's conclusion. We baptize believers and bring them into the church at the same time.


----------



## MW

The purpose of a logical form is to make it possible to test whether the argument is logically correct, that is, do the premises lead to the conclusion. That is all. Whether the premises and conclusion are true or false is irrelevant to the process.


----------



## KMK

I don't think it is possible to leave this in "Credo-Only" any longer. Did anyone read Rich's OP?


----------



## steadfast7

Rich, your desire to avoid lengthy commentary is being challenged. How about this:
1. True baptism is a baptism into Christ
2. Water baptism is a picture of true baptism
3. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.


----------



## rbcbob

KMK said:


> I don't think it is possible to leave this in "Credo-Only" any longer. Did anyone read Rich's OP?


 
yes


----------



## Semper Fidelis

First of all, this is for credo-baptists to respond to.


Iconoclast said:


> Unless it is your contention that *only* those sheep identified in P3 are those who are actually baptized in the visible Church, and none others, then your argument is incomplete. In other words, connect "those who give a credible confession" with P3 and demonstrate that the non-elect cannot do so..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the normal course of events, those "sheep" in p3 having been placed into the "invisible church"[Hebrews 12:22-24} by The Holy Spirit,and quickened are then water baptized and accepted as members in what is spoken of as the "visible church".
> As you have posted dozens of times we cannot know the heart that only God knows. We can only baptize those who profess and confess Jesus as Lord. judgment begins at the House of the Lord,all tares,goats , false professors, will be found out.Mt7:21-24 presupposes this reality. In the padeo model this would be the covenant breaking apostate,Heb6,Heb 10. falling from membership in the "visible" church.
> In the credo model ,these unfortunate persons are described in 1JN 2:19.
> Again sorry if I did not follow the model..[I am in central Wyoming, Rawlins,low oxygen up here,, heading to woodland Ca.] so that is my excuse,lol. Ps. I like the exercise, I think it can be helpful both ways!
Click to expand...

 Please put this into an argument to demonstrate logical connection between hidden things and revealed things as a basis for baptism.


Hunn said:


> This isn't necessarily a string of biblical arguments, but it makes sense to me and I look forward to having it torn to pieces. I'm still new to covenant theology so I'm here to learn!
> 
> 
> P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
> P2: Baptism is the sign of the new covenant.
> P3: We have no way to infallibly know who is among the elect.
> P4: We should seek to avoid giving the New Covenant sign to those who are not elect.
> P5: Our best indication that someone is numbered among the elect is when they provide a credible profession of faith.
> Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.
> 
> P4 is the most questionable in my mind. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me will provide a good argument. I'm really intrigued by the question. Thanks!


 Well, I'm not simply looking for arguments that "make sense". I need you to demonstrate that all your premises have a Biblical foundation. Yours is actually the most sound argument presented so far in terms of connected premises to the conclusion but, as I noted, an argument can be valid even with false premises. I need you to demonstrate that each of your premises is true by Scripture.


Iconoclast said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anthony,
> 
> P2 is a re-statement of P1. I won't haggle with that.
> 
> You're missing a few premises between P3 and the Conclusion.
> 
> Unless it is your contention that *only* those sheep identified in P3 are those who are actually baptized in the visible Church, and none others, then your argument is incomplete. In other words, connect "those who give a credible confession" with P3 and demonstrate that the non-elect cannot do so..
> 
> Also, for clarity's sake, please provide one valid argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am thinking this verse might be useful;
> 
> 
> 
> 24Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
> 
> 25Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those false professors,acting in the strength of the flesh fall away, others who maintain the facade are discovered on the Last Day mt7.
> The visible church is called to be faithful to what they see as a pattern in scripture, not attempting to delve into the secret thingsDeut29
> but to be faithful to the revealed things,Deut. 29.
> False professors [credo] covenant breakers[padeo] are a sad tradgedy to any assembly, causing reproach to the Name of the Lord.
> The scripture gives the objective truths about the "things that accompany salvation[Heb6:9]. The warnings are passages dealing with self -examination are given so no one in any true assemblies follow the wicked example of those who came short of His rest.Hebrews 3-4 psalm95. Either view deals with the same group of persons.
> 
> That there are false professors does not mean that the true believers are not to follow the Lord's command.
> We would say your covenant breaker,never knew the forgiveness of sins, never knew the Lord, so could never have actually been in the New Covenant, as forgiveness of all sins and a saving knowledge of Jesus as Lord is part of the "newness" Heb8
Click to expand...

OK, but we still haven't bridged between your prior premises and conclusion. Without stating the premise, you're acknowledging that some seem to have a credible profession of faith and are baptized. In other words, you're noting that there is a "gap" between the idea that all true believers confess Christ and those that seem to have a credible confession of Christ are baptized. Again, you need to provide the necessity of the conclusion somehow factoring in false profession (if necessary).


rbcbob said:


> P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
> P2: The Elect alone are “in Christ”
> P3: Those alone who are “in Christ” comprise the *true church* (Eph 5:23-25; Jeremiah 31:34: Acts 13:38; Romans 11:26)
> P4: The Church is to take the paradigm of the New Covenant [knowing the Lord, “in Christ”] for a pattern of admittance into the *local church* (Acts 13:48; Romans 8:14; Galatians 3:26)
> Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.


As noted, you've conflated "true church" with "local church". Furthermore is "knowing the Lord" and "in Christ" synonymous with "giving a credible confession"?


eqdj said:


> P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
> 
> P2: WLC 162: A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church,[Gen. 17:7, 10; Exod. ch. 12; Matt. 26:26-28; 28:19] to signify, seal, and exhibit [Rom. 4:11; I Cor. 11:24-25] *unto those that are within the covenant of grace,[Rom. 15:8; Exod. 12:48] (e.g. "believers" cf. WSC 92, Gal. 3:27; I Cor. 10:16-17)* the benefits of his mediation;[Acts 2:38; I Cor. 10:16] to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces;[Rom. 4:11; Gal. 3:27] to oblige them to obedience;[Rom. 6:3-4; I Cor. 10:21] to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another;[Eph. 4:2-5; I Cor. 12:13] and to distinguish them from those that are without [Eph. 2:11-12; Gen. 34:14] (cf. WCF 27:1, and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word. [Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 10:16, 21.])
> 
> P3: WLC 163: The parts of a sacrament are two; the one an outward and sensible sign, used according to Christ's own appointment; the other an inward and spiritual grace thereby signified.[Matt. 3:11; I Peter 3:27; Rom. 2:28-29]
> 
> P4: WLC 165: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,[Matt. 28:19] *to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself,[Gal. 3:27] of remission of sins by his blood,[Mark 1:4; Rev. 1:5] and regeneration by his Spirit;[Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:26] of adoption,[ Gal. 3:26-27] and resurrection unto everlasting life;[ I Cor. 15:29; Rom. 6:5] and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church,[I Cor. 12:13] and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.[Rom. 6:3-4]*
> 
> P5: WLC 166: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him [Acts 2:38; 2:41; 8:12, 36-38; 18:8]
> 
> Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.


I'm going to assume P1 as you have used the WLC, which disputes this point.

In P2, how is the Church to identify "those who are in the Covenant of Grace"?
P5 is confusing because you're borrowing language that doesn't fit the premises of P1. A "stranger to the Covenant of Promise" is a reprobate person. I haven't seen a logical connection made between being outside of the visible Church and being reprobate. I also haven't seen a connection made between being a professor and being elect.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> The purpose of a logical form is to make it possible to test whether the argument is logically correct, that is, do the premises lead to the conclusion. That is all. Whether the premises and conclusion are true or false is irrelevant to the process.


 
That's right.

This is an exercise. If it was not, I would not be admitting Premise 1. I'm trying to see if a logical connection can be formed between two things which are axiomatic to Reformed Baptist theology.

1. Can a sound argument be formed?
2. Can each of the premises be sustained by Scripture or GNC therefrom?


----------



## eqdj

Semper Fidelis said:


> eqdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
> 
> P2: WLC 162: A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church,[Gen. 17:7, 10; Exod. ch. 12; Matt. 26:26-28; 28:19] to signify, seal, and exhibit [Rom. 4:11; I Cor. 11:24-25] *unto those that are within the covenant of grace,[Rom. 15:8; Exod. 12:48] (e.g. "believers" cf. WSC 92, Gal. 3:27; I Cor. 10:16-17)* the benefits of his mediation;[Acts 2:38; I Cor. 10:16] to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces;[Rom. 4:11; Gal. 3:27] to oblige them to obedience;[Rom. 6:3-4; I Cor. 10:21] to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another;[Eph. 4:2-5; I Cor. 12:13] and to distinguish them from those that are without [Eph. 2:11-12; Gen. 34:14] (cf. WCF 27:1, and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word. [Rom 6:3-4; 1 Cor 10:16, 21.])
> 
> P3: WLC 163: The parts of a sacrament are two; the one an outward and sensible sign, used according to Christ's own appointment; the other an inward and spiritual grace thereby signified.[Matt. 3:11; I Peter 3:27; Rom. 2:28-29]
> 
> P4: WLC 165: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,[Matt. 28:19] *to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself,[Gal. 3:27] of remission of sins by his blood,[Mark 1:4; Rev. 1:5] and regeneration by his Spirit;[Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:26] of adoption,[ Gal. 3:26-27] and resurrection unto everlasting life;[ I Cor. 15:29; Rom. 6:5] and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church,[I Cor. 12:13] and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.[Rom. 6:3-4]*
> 
> P5: WLC 166: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him [Acts 2:38; 2:41; 8:12, 36-38; 18:8]
> 
> Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume P1 as you have used the WLC, which disputes this point.
> 
> In P2, how is the Church to identify "those who are in the Covenant of Grace"?
> P5 is confusing because you're borrowing language that doesn't fit the premises of P1. A "stranger to the Covenant of Promise" is a reprobate person. I haven't seen a logical connection made between being outside of the visible Church and being reprobate. I also haven't seen a connection made between being a professor and being elect.
Click to expand...

 
P1: It was also my understanding that P1 was assumed from, "For the purposes of this exercise, we are assuming that P1 is True."

P2: I have not and would not claim that the church can know the elect, or "identify those who are in 'the Covenant of Grace'". 

P5: This is the negative of P4.

I have not and would not claim that every professor is elect.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

eqdj said:


> P1: It was also my understanding that P1 was assumed from, "For the purposes of this exercise, we are assuming that P1 is True."
> 
> P2: I have not and would not claim that the church can know the elect, or "identify those who are in 'the Covenant of Grace'".


Notice in P2, then, you have stated that a acrament...is instituted...unto those that are within the covenant of grace..."

P1 makes clear that elect="those that are within the covenant of grace.

P2 then makes clear that sacraments are "...unto...the elect..." and are for none others.

This would mean that where P4 speaks about "parties being solemnly admitted" is also the elect alone (as P2 makes clear).

You have already admitted you don't know who these are so you're speaking of visible signs and activities toward those you cannot identify.



> P5: This is the negative of P4.


Consequently, P5 states that baptism is not to be administered to the "non-elect" (strangers from the covenant of promise). Again, you've admitted you don't know who they are.



> I have not and would not claim that every professor is elect.


In other words, you have not connected your premises to your conclusion yet.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> Rich, your desire to avoid lengthy commentary is being challenged. How about this:
> 1. True baptism is a baptism into Christ
> 2. Water baptism is a picture of true baptism
> 3. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.


 
Oops, I missed this one.

1. Provide the Biblical references.
2. You haven't shown a logical connection between 3 and the conclusion. You also haven't shown a connection between P1 and 2.


----------



## eqdj

Semper Fidelis said:


> eqdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> P1: It was also my understanding that P1 was assumed from, "For the purposes of this exercise, we are assuming that P1 is True."
> 
> P2: I have not and would not claim that the church can know the elect, or "identify those who are in 'the Covenant of Grace'".
> 
> 
> 
> Notice in P2, then, you have stated that a acrament...is instituted...unto those that are within the covenant of grace..."
> 
> P1 makes clear that elect="those that are within the covenant of grace.
> 
> P2 then makes clear that sacraments are "...unto...the elect..." and are for none others.
> 
> This would mean that where P4 speaks about "parties being solemnly admitted" is also the elect alone (as P2 makes clear).
> 
> You have already admitted you don't know who these are so you're speaking of visible signs and activities toward those you cannot identify.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P5: This is the negative of P4.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Consequently, P5 states that baptism is not to be administered to the "non-elect" (strangers from the covenant of promise). Again, you've admitted you don't know who they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not and would not claim that every professor is elect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, you have not connected your premises to your conclusion yet.
Click to expand...


We can not *know* absolutely who the elect are, but we are told who to apply the sacarament to (P4: *open and professed *engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.[Rom. 6:3-4] and P5: till they *profess* their faith in Christ, and obedience to him [Acts 2:38; 2:41; 8:12, 36-38; 18:8])


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Your premises are self-referentially incoherent Enrique. You can remove the language within them that make them such and improve your argument. P2 makes clear that *only* the Elect (members of the covenant of grace) are to receive the sacraments. Here's an easy way to look at what you said (removing the distractors as you can't seem to follow what I'm saying).

P2: A sacrament is to be administered unto the elect alone.
P3: The parts of a sacrament are a sign and a seal.
P4: Baptism is a sacrament whereby the elect are solemnly admitted into the visible church,[I Cor. 12:13] and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.
P5: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and are not elect, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him.

At best, you've established that people who are elect are not to be baptized until they have professed.

Before you dispute with P4, you need to remember that you've already admitted that a Sacrament is to be admitted to the elect alone in P2. Because baptism is a sacrament, it is to be administered to the elect alone.


----------



## eqdj

Semper Fidelis said:


> Your premises are self-referentially incoherent Enrique. You can remove the language within them that make them such and improve your argument. P2 makes clear that *only* the Elect (members of the covenant of grace) are to receive the sacraments. Here's an easy way to look at what you said (removing the distractors as you can't seem to follow what I'm saying).
> 
> P2: A sacrament is to be administered unto the elect alone.
> P3: The parts of a sacrament are a sign and a seal.
> P4: Baptism is a sacrament whereby the elect are solemnly admitted into the visible church,[I Cor. 12:13] and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord's.
> P5: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and are not elect, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him.
> 
> At best, you've established that people who are elect are not to be baptized until they have professed.
> 
> Before you dispute with P4, you need to remember that you've already admitted that a Sacrament is to be admitted to the elect alone in P2 and Baptism is a sacrament (and to be administered to the elect alone).


 
Whew! Thank you! I see now that we interpret the WLC differently.

P2: I didn't read WLC 162 to say who anything about who the sacraments are to to be adminstered to but rather the definition/purpose of a sacrament in general.

P4: I read WLC 165 as a specfiic definition of the sacrament of Baptism

P5: WLC 166 - This is where i read about who the sacraments are to and not to be administered to.

Thank you for the clarification!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Enrique,

The problem is that you borrowed WLC language (that does not assume P1) and then injected it into your argument. If you want to use *some* of the language of the WLC, then you need to remember that wherever you see "members of the covenant" that this will mean "elect" wherever you find it.

I know how to properly interpret the WLC, it was your use of it with the first premise that makes it incoherent.


----------



## eqdj

Semper Fidelis said:


> Enrique,
> 
> The problem is that you borrowed WLC language (that does not assume P1) and then injected it into your argument. If you want to use *some* of the language of the WLC, then you need to remember that wherever you see "members of the covenant" that this will mean "elect" wherever you find it.
> 
> I know how to properly interpret the WLC, it was your use of it with the first premise that makes it incoherent.


 
I do understand "members of the covenant" to mean "elect".

I only said we interpreted the WLC differently. I hope you didn't infer from that, that I think you do not know how to interpret the WLC.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

No worries Enrique. I wasn't offended. I just wanted to point out the problem we ran into. I understood you were using the WLC and, if you note my first response, that's why I made the point of clarifying that P1 had to be carried through to look at the WLC language through Baptist eyes if it was going to be employed for premises.


----------



## moral necessity

Perhaps this might work:

1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone.
2. The sign of the New Covenant is baptism.
3. Therefore, baptism is for the elect alone.
4. Only those who give a credible confession are recognized as elect.
5. Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.

I'll think on the references.


----------



## brandonadams

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2: Jesus commanded that we baptize disciples (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36-37; 2:41; 8:12; 18:8; Matt 28:19-20)
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

moral necessity said:


> Perhaps this might work:
> 
> 1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone.
> 2. The sign of the New Covenant is baptism.
> 3. Therefore, baptism is for the elect alone.
> 4. Only those who give a credible confession are recognized as elect.
> 5. Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.
> 
> I'll think on the references.


Missing a premise between 2 & 3.

4. "Recognized as elect" is not the same as "actually elect".


brandonadams said:


> P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
> P2: Jesus commanded that we baptize disciples (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36-37; 2:41; 8:12; 18:8; Matt 28:19-20)
> Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.


Invalid argument. What is the missing premise between elect and "disciple"? P2 is true but what is the necessary connection between P2 & Conclusion?


----------



## brandonadams

> Invalid argument. What is the missing premise between elect and "disciple"? P2 is true but what is the necessary connection between P2 & Conclusion?



Invalid objection. I didn't say anything about the elect in the Conclusion.


----------



## VictorBravo

brandonadams said:


> Invalid argument. What is the missing premise between elect and "disciple"? P2 is true but what is the necessary connection between P2 & Conclusion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Invalid objection. I didn't say anything about the elect in the Conclusion.
Click to expand...

 
The objection is perfectly valid. P1 and P2 have no connection at all. You introduced disciples but didn't connect the dots.


----------



## VictorBravo

Rich, I don't like the starting point (what a surprise  )

But I'll try to play by the rules--here is a sloppy and too wordy version:

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2: No Church can definitively judge who are among the Elect.
P3: A given local Church that faithfully worships and preaches the Gospel must be obedient to the commands of Christ, including the method of administration of sacraments.
P4: Baptism is the only sign allowed by which a Church may acknowledge that a potential member appears to be in the New Covenant. 
P4: Baptism is required by the commands of Christ to be administered to those who appear to be in the New Covenant and who are Elect.
P5: Because no Church can judge who are among the Elect, it is called to make its determination upon appearances.
P6: The only means the Church has to determine if a potential member appears to be in the New Covenant is by hearing from him a credible profession of faith. 
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.


----------



## brandonadams

> The objection is perfectly valid. P1 and P2 have no connection at all. You introduced disciples but didn't connect the dots.



That wasn't his objection. His objection was the connection between P2 & Conclusion.

And your objection is also invalid. Its a premise. I don't need to connect it to P1.


----------



## VictorBravo

Brandon, both objections are valid.

If P2 has no connection to P1, there is no hope for a conclusion.

For example:

P1: All dogs have fur.

P2: This animal is a cat:

Conclusion? Not possible.

Your argument:



> P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
> P2: Jesus commanded that we baptize disciples (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36-37; 2:41; 8:12; 18:8; Matt 28:19-20)
> Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.



P2 is functionally the same as "this animal is a cat." It does not connect with P1.

And the conclusion contains terms that are not found in either premise.


----------



## brandonadams

Victor, you are incorrect. Please allow Rich to speak to the issue. Rich, please clarify if you still believe your objection is valid.



> And the conclusion contains terms that are not found in either premise.


This is the only valid objection. To modify I will remove the word "disciple" and instead say "those who confess faith" - or if you prefer, add P3: Disciples are those who profess faith


----------



## VictorBravo

Spell it out. That's what Rich asked for.


----------



## brandonadams

I did. Waiting for Rich's reply. He doesn't need you to reply for him.

Rich, is your objection the connection between P2 and Conclusion or P1 & P2?


----------



## brandonadams

If you prefer, Rich, you can comment on the following:

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2: Jesus commanded that we baptize those who confess faith (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36-37; 2:41; 8:12; 18:8; Matt 28:19-20)
P3: The administration of baptism is to be governed by Christ and His Apostles.
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church. 

I understand that P1 is not employed in the rest of the argument, but that is because it is irrelevant to the rest of the argument. It only becomes relevant when Rich or others import a faulty view of 1) the nature of the New Covenant and 2) baptism as a seal of the New Covenant.


----------



## VictorBravo

brandonadams said:


> I did. Waiting for Rich's reply. He doesn't need you to reply for him.


 
Brandon, I was not replying for Rich. I was trying to nudge you into seeing that you were ignoring the ground rules of the thread. You do not need to tell me how to moderate threads.

In case you missed it, the original post included this statement: 



> For the purposes of this exercise, we are assuming that P1 is True.



Your responses indicated that you were ignoring that rule for the thread.

If you don't want to abide by the thread's rules, start another one. Rich expressly asked to deal with the premises as given, not argument over whether it is true.


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, your desire to avoid lengthy commentary is being challenged. How about this:
> 1. True baptism is a baptism into Christ
> 2. Water baptism is a picture of true baptism
> 3. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, I missed this one.
> 
> 1. Provide the Biblical references.
> 2. You haven't shown a logical connection between 3 and the conclusion. You also haven't shown a connection between P1 and 2.
Click to expand...

P1 is agreed on by both sides of the debate. The connection between P1 and P2 is plain from the word "baptism".


> Luk 3:16 John answered them all, saying, "I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.





> Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?





> 1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit.





> Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.





> Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call--
> Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,


 I think it's clear from this that baptism (the spiritual essence) and the figure are pictured as sacramentally united. When the spiritual essence was referred to, the believers would have been reminded of their own baptism - and this was probably the whole point of the sacrament.

So, from P3 to the conclusion: Those who are in Christ ought to receive baptism, for that is what the picture represents. Who are they who are in Christ? The elect, the regenerate, the believers, the faithful, etc. Obviously, only God knows infallibly the identity of the elect, what then should be the practice of the church who baptizes? It is reasonable that the church should attempt to match the sign with the thing ones signified by the best possible means.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

You don't have to argue for credo-baptism. That is something we all believe and practice.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

VictorBravo said:


> Rich, I don't like the starting point (what a surprise  )
> 
> But I'll try to play by the rules--here is a sloppy and too wordy version:
> 
> P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
> P2: No Church can definitively judge who are among the Elect.
> P3: A given local Church that faithfully worships and preaches the Gospel must be obedient to the commands of Christ, including the method of administration of sacraments.
> P4: Baptism is the only sign allowed by which a Church may acknowledge that a potential member appears to be in the New Covenant.
> P4: Baptism is required by the commands of Christ to be administered to those who appear to be in the New Covenant and who are Elect.
> P5: Because no Church can judge who are among the Elect, it is called to make its determination upon appearances.
> P6: The only means the Church has to determine if a potential member appears to be in the New Covenant is by hearing from him a credible profession of faith.
> Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.


Vic,

What is the necessary connection between P1 and P2? You jump from elect to "no Church can definitively judge who are among the Elect." Also, I'd like some Scriptural references for the remaining premises.

By the way, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on why you don't like the starting point. Do you disagree with it as a true premise confessionally?



brandonadams said:


> If you prefer, Rich, you can comment on the following:
> 
> P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
> P2: Jesus commanded that we baptize those who confess faith (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36-37; 2:41; 8:12; 18:8; Matt 28:19-20)
> P3: The administration of baptism is to be governed by Christ and His Apostles.
> Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.
> 
> I understand that P1 is not employed in the rest of the argument, but that is because it is irrelevant to the rest of the argument. It only becomes relevant when Rich or others import a faulty view of 1) the nature of the New Covenant and 2) baptism as a seal of the New Covenant.


First, you have been warned for the last time about the rules of this thread. You are being churlish in this thread.
Second, my objection clearly notes that your initial argument was invalid where I asked for a connection between elect and disciples (P1 connecting to P2) AND I asked for a connection between P2 and the Conclusion.
Thirdly, Premise 1 is a clear summary of what the 1689 LBCF teaches (see LBCF Chapter 7). I have not imported *any* view into your argument and this thread has demonstrated my care in not importing a non-LBCF view of terms into the discussion. As for your syllogism, you have already admitted your argument is invalid by ignoring P1. You may either try to logically connect P1 and P2 or you do not need to participate.


Nova said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, your desire to avoid lengthy commentary is being challenged. How about this:
> 1. True baptism is a baptism into Christ
> 2. Water baptism is a picture of true baptism
> 3. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, I missed this one.
> 
> 1. Provide the Biblical references.
> 2. You haven't shown a logical connection between 3 and the conclusion. You also haven't shown a connection between P1 and 2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> P1 is agreed on by both sides of the debate. The connection between P1 and P2 is plain from the word "baptism".
> 
> 
> 
> Luk 3:16 John answered them all, saying, "I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call--
> Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it's clear from this that baptism (the spiritual essence) and the figure are pictured as sacramentally united. When the spiritual essence was referred to, the believers would have been reminded of their own baptism - and this was probably the whole point of the sacrament.
> 
> So, from P3 to the conclusion: Those who are in Christ ought to receive baptism, for that is what the picture represents. Who are they who are in Christ? The elect, the regenerate, the believers, the faithful, etc. Obviously, only God knows infallibly the identity of the elect, what then should be the practice of the church who baptizes? It is reasonable that the church should attempt to match the sign with the thing ones signified by the best possible means.
Click to expand...

 
No, the connection between P1 and P2 is *not* plain by the word baptism. You need to make plain what you're assuming everyone infers.


----------



## VictorBravo

Semper Fidelis said:


> VictorBravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, I don't like the starting point (what a surprise  )
> 
> But I'll try to play by the rules--here is a sloppy and too wordy version:
> 
> P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
> P2: No Church can definitively judge who are among the Elect.
> P3: A given local Church that faithfully worships and preaches the Gospel must be obedient to the commands of Christ, including the method of administration of sacraments.
> P4: Baptism is the only sign allowed by which a Church may acknowledge that a potential member appears to be in the New Covenant.
> P4: Baptism is required by the commands of Christ to be administered to those who appear to be in the New Covenant and who are Elect.
> P5: Because no Church can judge who are among the Elect, it is called to make its determination upon appearances.
> P6: The only means the Church has to determine if a potential member appears to be in the New Covenant is by hearing from him a credible profession of faith.
> Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> Vic,
> 
> What is the necessary connection between P1 and P2? You jump from elect to "no Church can definitively judge who are among the Elect." Also, I'd like some Scriptural references for the remaining premises.
> 
> By the way, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on why you don't like the starting point. Do you disagree with it as a true premise confessionally?
Click to expand...



Rich, there is no connection between P1 and P2. I tried to incorporate P1 into the string through the two P4s (I meant P41 and P42 but in my haste didn’t note them very well).

I don’t like the starting point for the very reason that your exercise demonstrates: The connection between God’s knowledge and our ability to discern the members of the new covenant will never be bridged. So I wouldn’t start with “The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone” as a premise. It seems more like an inferential conclusion after a lot of other arguments.

Starting with the nature of the new covenant has always appeared to be a false start to me, precisely because I believe that the new covenant is essentially the same as the "old" covenant. As I understand it, the signs of the covenant are what has changed, and that is because of their temporal relation to Christ.

In other words, in your exercise, I am reluctant to start the argument from the nature of the New Covenant because it implies a dispensational view of the covenant itself.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

VictorBravo said:


> Rich, there is no connection between P1 and P2. I tried to incorporate P1 into the string through the two P4s (I meant P41 and P42 but in my haste didn’t note them very well).
> 
> I don’t like the starting point for the very reason that your exercise demonstrates: The connection between God’s knowledge and our ability to discern the members of the new covenant will never be bridged.


 
Thank you Vic. You have detected the reason for the exercise to begin with. I quite agree with you.

Why, if this is the case, do you believe Baptists, in debate, focus all their energy establishing Premise 1? I've been told by some Baptists that, once P1 is settled,, that the Conclusion is obvious. You concede this is not the case. I remember the very first time I asked a pillar in Reformed Baptist theology why he was not Paedo and he pointed me to a sermon series that established Premise 1. Nearly every debate I've ever listened to spends 90% of it's time on Premise 1 and that doesn't logically settle anything regarding subjects for baptism.

Again, this is not to debate Baptism per se but to clearly establish "boundaries" within Baptist theology so I'm asking this question: What _does_ the knowledge that the NC is with the elect allow a Baptist to conclude? That is to say, where can logical inference stop and a conclusion be drawn about what benefits the elect enjoy. Where would a new argument logically begin to reach the conclusion that I presented in this exercise?


----------



## VictorBravo

Rich, I've seen plenty of arguments from the Baptist side that cause me to go "Huh?"

But I admit that I also say "Huh?" when I try to closely follow the Paedobaptist arguments too.

I can't speak to why some of us would argue in the way you mentioned. There may be hidden premises or assumptions that seem obvious to the arguer but not to you or me. That's why I thought your exercise was useful for clarifying how not to argue, or, at the very least, what is required to make the argument.

Edited to add: As for your last paragraph. I imagine I may have to take a day or two to come up with even the start of an answer.


----------



## louis_jp

moral necessity said:


> Perhaps this might work:
> 
> 1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone.
> 2. The sign of the New Covenant is baptism.
> 3. Therefore, baptism is for the elect alone.
> 4. Only those who give a credible confession are recognized as elect.
> 5. Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.
> 
> I'll think on the references.



Rich, can you clarify what the problem is with this argument? How is there a missing premise between 2 and 3?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

VictorBravo said:


> Rich, I've seen plenty of arguments from the Baptist side that cause me to go "Huh?"
> 
> But I admit that I also say "Huh?" when I try to closely follow the Paedobaptist arguments too.
> 
> I can't speak to why some of us would argue in the way you mentioned. There may be hidden premises or assumptions that seem obvious to the arguer but not to you or me. That's why I thought your exercise was useful for clarifying how not to argue, or, at the very least, what is required to make the argument.
> 
> Edited to add: As for your last paragraph. I imagine I may have to take a day or two to come up with even the start of an answer.


 

Yeah, I'm not trying to impugn all Baptists the quality of individual arguments. I cringe at who represents the paedo view quite often (perhaps people cringe at my own defenses).

I've just been at this discussion for 5 years now and it is where nearly all the energy is spent. It's been repeated so many times, I suppose, that many don't seem to even question whether P1 logically undergirds the conclusion in any way.

I'd be interested in your thoughts about my other questions.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

louis_jp said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this might work:
> 
> 1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone.
> 2. The sign of the New Covenant is baptism.
> 3. Therefore, baptism is for the elect alone.
> 4. Only those who give a credible confession are recognized as elect.
> 5. Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.
> 
> I'll think on the references.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, can you clarify what the problem is with this argument? How is there a missing premise between 2 and 3?
Click to expand...

 
Louis,

I looked back and actually noted a problem between 2 and 3.

I've had limited time to deal with every syllogism. For one thing, it would help if folks had actually provided the Scirpture references as requested. That said, I should have noted the problem between 3 and 4 more specifically. As Vic has noted, there is not an identical relationship between "recognized as elect" and "elect alone". 3 actually contradicts the conclusion because if "baptism is for the elect alone" and some are baptized that are "recognized as elect" that are not elect then baptism is not for the elect alone.


----------



## Hilasmos

P1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone
P2. The elect are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)
P3. The sons of Abraham are those of faith (Gal. 3:7)
P4. Those of faith give expression to their son-hood through baptism (Col. 2:11-12; Rom 6) 

Conclusion: Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, your desire to avoid lengthy commentary is being challenged. How about this:
> 1. True baptism is a baptism into Christ
> 2. Water baptism is a picture of true baptism
> 3. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oops, I missed this one.
> 
> 1. Provide the Biblical references.
> 2. You haven't shown a logical connection between 3 and the conclusion. You also haven't shown a connection between P1 and 2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> P1 is agreed on by both sides of the debate. The connection between P1 and P2 is plain from the word "baptism".
> 
> 
> 
> Luk 3:16 John answered them all, saying, "I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call--
> Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think it's clear from this that baptism (the spiritual essence) and the figure are pictured as sacramentally united. When the spiritual essence was referred to, the believers would have been reminded of their own baptism - and this was probably the whole point of the sacrament.
> 
> So, from P3 to the conclusion: Those who are in Christ ought to receive baptism, for that is what the picture represents. Who are they who are in Christ? The elect, the regenerate, the believers, the faithful, etc. Obviously, only God knows infallibly the identity of the elect, what then should be the practice of the church who baptizes? It is reasonable that the church should attempt to match the sign with the thing ones signified by the best possible means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the connection between P1 and P2 is *not* plain by the word baptism. You need to make plain what you're assuming everyone infers.
Click to expand...

In the syllogism: 
1. All have sinned
2. I am part of the all
3. I have sinned
The connection between P1 and P2 is made plain by the term "all." In the syllogism,
1. True baptism is baptism into Christ
2. Water baptism (as practiced by the apostles, if it's more clear) is a picture of true baptism
3. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.
The connection between P1 and P2 is made plain by the term "baptism." Granted, the baptism performed by the Spirit and the baptism performed by man is not identical, but there is ample evidence in scripture of their sacramental unity.


> Act 10:47 [Peter says] "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
> Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.


Is it not plain here that water baptism is the picture of their having received the Spirit? And is this theme not picked up on by Paul:


> 1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and _all were made to drink of one Spirit_.





> Gal 3:27 For as many of you _as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ._





> Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- Eph 4:5 _one Lord, one faith, one baptism_,


 Paul does *not* say there are _two distinct baptisms_; rather, one is the sign, and one is the referrent. All I'm arguing in these verses is for the unity of symbolism between water baptism and baptism into Christ. There is one baptism in Christ, that accomplishes one thing, and this is pictured in water baptism. The overlap between the physical sign and the spiritual reality cannot be denied. For you to see the disconnect between P1 and P2 suggests that you see two independent uses of the word "baptism" that do not overlap. Looking forward to your thoughts.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Hilasmos said:


> P1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone
> P2. The elect are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)
> P3. The sons of Abraham are those of faith (Gal. 3:7)
> P4. Those of faith give expression to their son-hood through baptism (Col. 2:11-12; Rom 6)
> 
> Conclusion: Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.


What is the connection of P4 to the conclusion? Connect "give expression" to "those who give a credible confession" please.


Nova said:


> Paul does *not* say there are _two distinct baptisms_; rather, one is the sign, and one is the referrent. All I'm arguing in these verses is for the unity of symbolism between water baptism and baptism into Christ. There is one baptism in Christ, that accomplishes one thing, and this is pictured in water baptism. The overlap between the physical sign and the spiritual reality cannot be denied. For you to see the disconnect between P1 and P2 suggests that you see two independent uses of the word "baptism" that do not overlap. Looking forward to your thoughts.


My thought is that you're ignoring P1 and jumping into your own premises. You're also stating things in your explanation that you could make explicit in your premises rather than long explanations in paragraph form.


----------



## steadfast7

The paragraphs highlight the scripture prooftexts that you so long to see. It seems my inexperience with logical syllogisms is getting the best of me. I simply do not see the trouble you're having making the connection. if anyone else (paedo or credo) would care to PM me, I'd appreciate getting help exposing my fallacy. Thanks.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

In Suk,

P1 in this discussion is not: "True baptism is a baptism into Christ"

You're ignoring the exercise. Here is how your syllogism looks:

P1:The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2. True baptism is a baptism into Christ
P3. Water baptism is a picture of true baptism
P4. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.

Between P1 and P2 you could include a sentence about how the Elect are baptized into Christ.
Between P4 and the Conclusion, you need to connect Water Baptism to "...those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ."


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> In Suk,
> 
> P1 in this discussion is not: "True baptism is a baptism into Christ"
> 
> You're ignoring the exercise. Here is how your syllogism looks:
> 
> P1:The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
> P2. True baptism is a baptism into Christ
> P3. Water baptism is a picture of true baptism
> P4. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.
> Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.
> 
> Between P1 and P2 you could include a sentence about how the Elect are baptized into Christ.
> Between P4 and the Conclusion, you need to connect Water Baptism to "...those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ."


 
Ah, I understand..
ok, how's this:
P1:The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2. The elect are baptised into Christ
P3. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.
P4. As far as can be recognized by the Church, they are in Christ who make a credible profession of faith
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

What book would be simple and easy for me to learn it. I have tried reading books on logic and still have a connection problem. 

I would personally run something along the lines that would be covenantal. 

It would look like this. 

P1. The Covenants are progressive in nature.
P2. The Covenants become more revealing and more narrowly defined as they historically proceed. 
P3. The Covenant made with Abraham as head included both elect and non elect as covenant children.
P4. The Covenants proceeding reveal the Messiah more distinctly.
P5. The New Covenant has only one Federal Head, Christ our Father
P6. The New Covenant has only the elect as Covenant Children who are in Christ. 

Conclusion: The term Covenant Children has been narrowed and defined between Abraham's Covenant Children and the Covenant Children of Christ as our New Covenant Federal Head. 

If I am not mistaken one must proceed from one syllogism to the next to build arguments. One syllogism doesn't complete the process of argumentation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> Ah, I understand..
> ok, how's this:
> P1:The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
> P2. The elect are baptised into Christ
> P3. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.
> P4. As far as can be recognized by the Church, they are in Christ who make a credible profession of faith
> Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.


 
In Suk,

I don't know if you're reading the rest of this thread or just my response to your thread but you're repeating the same problem identified earlier.

"As far as can be recognized" already admits there is not an identical relationship between the elect and those who make a credible confession of faith.

As I noted earlier, I'm perfectly content with the answer that Baptists don't baptize on the _basis_ of P1.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> What book would be simple and easy for me to learn it. I have tried reading books on logic and still have a connection problem.
> 
> I would personally run something along the lines that would be covenantal.
> 
> It would look like this.
> 
> P1. The Covenants are progressive in nature.
> P2. The Covenants become more revealing and more narrowly defined as they historically proceed.
> P3. The Covenant made with Abraham as head included both elect and non elect as covenant children.
> P4. The Covenants proceeding reveal the Messiah more distinctly.
> P5. The New Covenant has only one Federal Head, Christ our Father
> P6. The New Covenant has only the elect as Covenant Children who are in Christ.
> 
> Conclusion: The term Covenant Children has been narrowed and defined between Abraham's Covenant Children and the Covenant Children of Christ as our New Covenant Federal Head.
> 
> If I am not mistaken one must proceed from one syllogism to the next to build arguments. One syllogism doesn't complete the process of argumentation.


 
Randy,

I'm not sure what relationship this has to the thread as the first premise and the Conclusion have been totally changed. You actually moved my P1 to your P6 and then left the Conclusion at the point of the idea that Covenant Children are Elect.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

My point... I don't understand syllogism. I have read books that use it. I need to read something that helps me learn it. Does premise one need to be the exact same? I was trying to progress from point 1 to reveal the progressive nature and how that progressive nature narrows the definition of the term Covenant Children. After that we can proceed to the next syllogism on the nature of the Church. When I have read syllogisms before people use them progressively and in order to prove their points. They use more than one to proceed and build upon to sharpen argumentation.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Should I have made the point in premise one that in Covenant nomenclature terms and definitions concerning Covenant Children have been progressively sharpened?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Randy,

Sorry my time is short today and I'm kind of swooping in and out. The problem is that you actually create a syllogism that _arrives_ at my first premise. I wanted you to move from MY first premise to the Conclusion that I bolded above.

In other words, you have argued for a NC that consists of the Elect alone (I'm not going to argue for or against its validity or truth). Proceed, now from my P1, and get to my C.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

That is my problem with your first premise. It needs something before it to prove it as a conclusion first in my estimation. It is like you are jumping into the middle of the stream before you enter from the shore. It is like you are starting in the middle of the book without understanding its Genesis. As I noted above, when I have read other books that use syllogism they build from one to the next syllogism. 

Does anyone know of a simple book I can read on syllogism?


----------



## SolaScriptura

Ok, I'm not a Baptist. I've long ago come to see what I perceive to be inconsistencies in the LBCFs view of the covenants, etc.

But I have to confess (Rich, sorry to appear to be bushwhacking you) that I find Rich's P1 troublesome, and recalling back to when I was a credobaptist, it certainly doesn't reflect what I believed, and I think it is important to frame P1 as accurately as possible if it indeed is to be the fount from which all subsequent points flow.

Rich has P1 as "The New Covenant is made with the elect alone."

Actually, the NC is "just" an administration of the Covenant of Grace, and WLC 31 says that the Covenant of Grace was made _with Christ _as the second Adam, and in Him all the elect as His seed. Even 2LBC 7.3 grounds the gospel in the covenant between the Father and the Son.

So who is the one really saying that the NC was made with the elect (that is, man)? I think a better - meaning more representative of the best possible Baptist thought - P1 would reflect an awareness that the covenant is with Christ and those in Him. (Perhaps developing the argument along the lines of how one relates to Christ, the differences in external administration between Israel and the Church, etc.)

I don't know, I'm just trying to make sense of madness.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Hey, this is a credo only area Ben. But I agree with you.... Thanks for trying to help clear up a muddy mess.


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I understand..
> ok, how's this:
> P1:The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
> P2. The elect are baptised into Christ
> P3. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.
> P4. As far as can be recognized by the Church, they are in Christ who make a credible profession of faith
> Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Suk,
> 
> I don't know if you're reading the rest of this thread or just my response to your thread but you're repeating the same problem identified earlier.
> 
> "As far as can be recognized" already admits there is not an identical relationship between the elect and those who make a credible confession of faith.
> 
> As I noted earlier, I'm perfectly content with the answer that Baptists don't baptize on the _basis_ of P1.
Click to expand...


I see what's happening Rich. You're trying to force a one-to-one identification between God's action of baptizing the elect into Christ and the Church's action of attempting that same thing. Obviously, this cannot be done so any attempt on the Baptist's part seems flawed. The exercise is unfair, and is doomed to fail. There is a massive gult between what God knows and what he performs and what the Church knows and what she can perform, however she is obligated to follow God's pattern as closely as possible. As I have tried to show, the union between the two realities is made sacramentally. Hence, the divine and physical realities come together mysteriously through this ordinance. 

Perhaps a better way of showing this is not through syllogism, but chiasm.
P1:God establishes the New Covenant with the Elect Alone.
P2: God baptizes the elect into Christ
*P3: Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.*
P2': The Church baptizes those who exhibit a credible profession of faith
P1': The Church recognizes New Covenant membership to those who exhibit a credible profession of faith

This framework is fair and recognizes the differences between God and the church, while allowing for union and overlap through the sacrament.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

SolaScriptura said:


> Ok, I'm not a Baptist. I've long ago come to see what I perceive to be inconsistencies in the LBCFs view of the covenants, etc.
> 
> But I have to confess (Rich, sorry to appear to be bushwhacking you) that I find Rich's P1 troublesome, and recalling back to when I was a credobaptist, it certainly doesn't reflect what I believed, and I think it is important to frame P1 as accurately as possible if it indeed is to be the fount from which all subsequent points flow.
> 
> Rich has P1 as "The New Covenant is made with the elect alone."
> 
> Actually, the NC is "just" an administration of the Covenant of Grace, and WLC 31 says that the Covenant of Grace was made _with Christ _as the second Adam, and in Him all the elect as His seed. Even 2LBC 7.3 grounds the gospel in the covenant between the Father and the Son.
> 
> So who is the one really saying that the NC was made with the elect (that is, man)? I think a better - meaning more representative of the best possible Baptist thought - P1 would reflect an awareness that the covenant is with Christ and those in Him. (Perhaps developing the argument along the lines of how one relates to Christ, the differences in external administration between Israel and the Church, etc.)
> 
> I don't know, I'm just trying to make sense of madness.


Ben,

I'm fine with restating P1 but it needs to be in a sentence. Either way, it doesn't solve the problem that Vic has noted. Any way you state P1, the elect's composition is going to be hidden in the mind of God.

P1: The New Covenant is made with Christ and, in Him, all of the elect.


Nova said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I understand..
> ok, how's this:
> P1:The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
> P2. The elect are baptised into Christ
> P3. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.
> P4. As far as can be recognized by the Church, they are in Christ who make a credible profession of faith
> Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In Suk,
> 
> I don't know if you're reading the rest of this thread or just my response to your thread but you're repeating the same problem identified earlier.
> 
> "As far as can be recognized" already admits there is not an identical relationship between the elect and those who make a credible confession of faith.
> 
> As I noted earlier, I'm perfectly content with the answer that Baptists don't baptize on the _basis_ of P1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see what's happening Rich. You're trying to force a one-to-one identification between God's action of baptizing the elect into Christ and the Church's action of attempting that same thing. Obviously, this cannot be done so any attempt on the Baptist's part seems flawed. The exercise is unfair, and is doomed to fail. There is a massive gult between what God knows and what he performs and what the Church knows and what she can perform, however she is obligated to follow God's pattern as closely as possible. As I have tried to show, the union between the two realities is made sacramentally. Hence, the divine and physical realities come together mysteriously through this ordinance.
> 
> Perhaps a better way of showing this is not through syllogism, but chiasm.
> P1:God establishes the New Covenant with the Elect Alone.
> P2: God baptizes the elect into Christ
> *P3: Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.*
> P2': The Church baptizes those who exhibit a credible profession of faith
> P1': The Church recognizes New Covenant membership to those who exhibit a credible profession of faith
> 
> This framework is fair and recognizes the differences between God and the church, while allowing for union and overlap through the sacrament.
Click to expand...

 
Are you only reading my responses to you or are you actually reading my interactions with others? I've already noted with Vic what this exercise is meant to demonstrate. The point is to _attempt_ to create a valid syllogism from P1 to C. If it cannot be done then that is fine. It simply demonstrates that one cannot begin with P1 and get to C. It doesn't invalidate C, per se, but simply acknowledges that you cannot use P1 as an argument for C.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> That is my problem with your first premise. It needs something before it to prove it as a conclusion first in my estimation. It is like you are jumping into the middle of the stream before you enter from the shore. It is like you are starting in the middle of the book without understanding its Genesis. As I noted above, when I have read other books that use syllogism they build from one to the next syllogism.
> 
> Does anyone know of a simple book I can read on syllogism?


 
Randy, seriously, I let you get to your point more quickly. Why does it matter if we got to a point directly? My point is not to dispute it but to ask what more can be logically inferred _from_ that point. Can it or can it not be used to logically require the baptism of those who make a valid confession of faith? That's the question. I don't think you need a book on syllogisms. How does one even begin to build a case of something unless we're able to connect the dots? You did fine to get to my P1 and just keep moving from there.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I am sorry Rich. As I stated above, I am not sure how the rules of syllogism work. I do believe that ground work needs to be done before we can get to your first premise. I believe that is true in light of understanding progressive revelation. 

I will bow out since I am not sure how syllogism works.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Let me take another stab at it. 

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2: Evidence of election is repentance, confession, and calling upon the name of the Lord which result from belief.
P3: The NewTestament only records the instances of those who believe in Christ as those being baptized.
P4: The scriptures of the New Testament reference baptism with a profession (confession of faith) and repentance in conjunction with baptism.
P5: The scriptures of the New Testament reference baptism with those who are in union with Christ.
P6: If a person can not or does not give a profession of faith he should not be considered to be in union with Christ. 

Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.


I tried it again Rich... Thanks for your patience. I can add scripture to it if it looks okay to you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Board Owner Hat ON. I control the horizontal and the vertical. Please abide by the thread rules. There are plenty of places to hash out other ways of arguing the point.

1. I have never stated that P1 is the _basis_ for constructing a valid argument _to_ the Conclusion.
2. I have accepted replies that note the same.
3. I have extended the courtesy to credo-Baptists to extend what may be gleaned, by argument, from P1.
4. I have allowed for P1 to be modified to more precisely state the point.

If it is the consensus of Baptist respondents that P1 cannot lead logically to C then I'm fine with that. I'm still seeing arguments presented and shored up. I even have people telling me they only need P1 in order to conclude C.

I have even agreed with some Baptists, via PM, that P1 is not the way that the case for C can be made Confessionally.

The point of this is to put to rest the fact that P1 (or its variants that begin with the hidden counsel of God) can and never has been the basis upon which a valid argument can be sustained for the baptism based on credible confession.

Those who do not think this is necessary can choose to start threads that deal with the issue but P1 comes up again and again as a _positive_ argument for the baptism of credible professors and deserves its own treatement to see if it is sustainable.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Let me take another stab at it.
> 
> P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
> P2: Evidence of election is repentance, confession, and calling upon the name of the Lord which result from belief.
> P3: The NewTestament only records the instances of those who believe in Christ as those being baptized.
> P4: The scriptures of the New Testament reference baptism with a profession (confession of faith) and repentance in conjunction with baptism.
> P5: The scriptures of the New Testament reference baptism with those who are in union with Christ.
> P6: If a person can not or does not give a profession of faith he should not be considered to be in union with Christ.
> 
> Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.
> 
> 
> I tried it again Rich... Thanks for your patience. I can add scripture to it if it looks okay to you.



Is P3 true? Are there no instances where people have left the faith?

P4 moves from status as elect -> fruits which are discernible but then P5 takes a step "backward" and denotes spiritual things.


----------



## Grimmson

Let me explain what a syllogism is, because I think that may be helpful for those that participates. It is a deductive inference of reason/logic which is composed of two premises and a conclusion. It begins with a major term or premise, moves to a middle term or premise, and then moves to a particular conclusion that in called a minor term. The conclusion is made up of part of the major term and middle term under a subject predicate formulation. Here is basic example:

1) If A then B
2) If B then C
3) So if A then C

The reason I am not participating in this exercise is because realistically in my opinion you need a series of syllogisms to make your way to Proposition 1 of “The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone” to the desired conclusion on Baptism for it to be done properly. We can see this by the use of five propositions by some for this conclusion, which makes it an improper syllogism. We are not like Calvin that can get away with not including the middle term.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Grimmson said:


> Let me explain what a syllogism is, because I think that may be helpful for those that participates. It is a deductive inference of reason/logic which is composed of two premises and a conclusion. It begins with a major term or premise, moves to a middle term or premise, and then moves to a particular conclusion that in called a minor term. The conclusion is made up of part of the major term and middle term under a subject predicate formulation. Here is basic example:
> 
> 1) If A then B
> 2) If B then C
> 3) So if A then C
> 
> The reason I am not participating in this exercise is because realistically in my opinion you need a series of syllogisms to make your way to Proposition 1 of “The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone” to the desired conclusion on Baptism for it to be done properly. We can see this by the use of five propositions by some for this conclusion, which makes it an improper syllogism. We are not like Calvin that can get away with not including the middle term.


 
A polysyllogism is a type of syllogism. You can use a sorite, climax, multi-premise, or gradatio if you like. I asked for valid arguments from the premise to the conclusion. You choose the form.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me take another stab at it.
> 
> P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
> P2: Evidence of election is repentance, confession, and calling upon the name of the Lord which result from belief.
> P3: The NewTestament only records the instances of those who believe in Christ as those being baptized.
> P4: The scriptures of the New Testament reference baptism with a profession (confession of faith) and repentance in conjunction with baptism.
> P5: The scriptures of the New Testament reference baptism with those who are in union with Christ.
> P6: If a person can not or does not give a profession of faith he should not be considered to be in union with Christ.
> 
> Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.
> 
> 
> I tried it again Rich... Thanks for your patience. I can add scripture to it if it looks okay to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is P3 true? Are there no instances where people have left the faith?
> 
> P4 moves from status as elect -> fruits which are discernible but then P5 takes a step "backward" and denotes spiritual things.
Click to expand...

 
As I noted I don't understand syllogism and really find them hard to do. 
Maybe I would start with a different P1. 

I am not so sure you can come to your conclusion based upon P. 1. In syllogism does your P. 1. have to definitively and logically lead right away to the conclusion? 
I would also say only the Elect are members in the Covenant of Grace.

I do believe P1. is a correct statement. I can't say it conclusively leads to the conclusion. 

Concerning P. 3. Simon the sorcerer made a profession was baptized but later found to be outside. He had some sort of temporary belief as the Confession of Faith makes mention of concerning those who have temporary faith. (see LBCF 10:4, 14:3, and 18:1.)

Concerning your statement on P. 5. Maybe I should have tied that in earlier? 

That is why I mentioned Covenant Heads in my first response. 

As for scripture.... I do believe the Church has to start with looking at the outward fruit. Acts 2:38,39... Romans 10:9,10. 

I hope I am not confusing others. I find syllogism hard as a statement because to me it doesn't have any for or aft. I don't believe it always works. I saw a semi-pelagian use it against Calvinism once. He tore Calvinism up. Then I saw a Calvinist use it against Arminians. The Arminians arguments were destroyed. 

I guess that I can't use your single P1. to lead to the conclusion. Sorry Rich. Rich, I guess for me it would be like taking P. 1. and also saying it leads to a conclusion pertaining to the Lord's Supper. It is fenced also.


----------



## timmopussycat

PuritanCovenanter said:


> My point... I don't understand syllogism. I have read books that use it. I need to read something that helps me learn it. Does premise one need to be the exact same? I was trying to progress from point 1 to reveal the progressive nature and how that progressive nature narrows the definition of the term Covenant Children. After that we can proceed to the next syllogism on the nature of the Church. When I have read syllogisms before people use them progressively and in order to prove their points. They use more than one to proceed and build upon to sharpen argumentation.


 
Hi Randy

You may find the following book helpful as you attempt to understand syllogisms.
a a luce - logic - AbeBooks

---------- Post added at 03:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 PM ----------



Grimmson said:


> The reason I am not participating in this exercise is because realistically in my opinion you need a series of syllogisms to make your way to Proposition 1 of “The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone” to the desired conclusion on Baptism for it to be done properly. We can see this by the use of five propositions by some for this conclusion, which makes it an improper syllogism. We are not like Calvin that can get away with not including the middle term.


 
I am puzzled as to why you think that you must arrive at P1 by a series of syllogisms. I think that Heb 8:10 and 11 teach P1 directly when the passage affirms that all of those with whom the new covenant is made will know the Lord, have his law written on their minds and their sins remembered no more.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Grimmson said:


> Let me explain what a syllogism is, because I think that may be helpful for those that participates. It is a deductive inference of reason/logic which is composed of two premises and a conclusion. It begins with a major term or premise, moves to a middle term or premise, and then moves to a particular conclusion that in called a minor term. The conclusion is made up of part of the major term and middle term under a subject predicate formulation. Here is basic example:
> 
> 1) If A then B
> 2) If B then C
> 3) So if A then C
> 
> The reason I am not participating in this exercise is because realistically in my opinion you need a series of syllogisms to make your way to Proposition 1 of “The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone” to the desired conclusion on Baptism for it to be done properly. We can see this by the use of five propositions by some for this conclusion, which makes it an improper syllogism. We are not like Calvin that can get away with not including the middle term.



I knew the first part but don't like it because it leaves too much unsaid. I most whole heartily agree that a series of syllogisms is needed as I stated above.

Thanks David.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

timmopussycat said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I am not participating in this exercise is because realistically in my opinion you need a series of syllogisms to make your way to Proposition 1 of “The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone” to the desired conclusion on Baptism for it to be done properly. We can see this by the use of five propositions by some for this conclusion, which makes it an improper syllogism. We are not like Calvin that can get away with not including the middle term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am puzzled as to why you think that you must arrive at P1 by a series of syllogisms. I think that Heb 8:10 and 11 teach P1 directly when the passage affirms that all of those with whom the new covenant is made will know the Lord, have his law written on their minds and their sins remembered no more.
Click to expand...


Tim,

Read the first Original Post. 

There were guidelines laid out for this thread. 

I don't think you can arrive at Rich's conclusion based upon P. 1.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Moderator NOTE. Please READ the original Post before you reply. I didn't do that and was found guilty of getting off track and not replying correctly.


----------



## Hilasmos

Semper Fidelis said:


> Hilasmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> P1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone
> P2. The elect are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)
> P3. The sons of Abraham are those of faith (Gal. 3:7)
> P4. Those of faith give expression to their son-hood through baptism (Col. 2:11-12; Rom 6)
> 
> Conclusion: Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the connection of P4 to the conclusion? Connect "give expression" to "those who give a credible confession" please.
Click to expand...


P1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone
P2. The elect are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)
P3. The sons of Abraham are those of faith (Gal. 3:7)
P4. Those of faith are commanded to be baptized (Mark 16:16; Matt 28:16-20)
P5. Baptism is the believer’s appeal to God for a good conscience (1 Pet. 3:21) 
P6. To appeal for a good conscience, through baptism, would require and consist of making a confession of faith

Conclusion: Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.

Even if the above were valid, not sure that I like it much.


----------



## timmopussycat

Hunn said:


> This isn't necessarily a string of biblical arguments, but it makes sense to me and I look forward to having it torn to pieces. I'm still new to covenant theology so I'm here to learn!


 
Let me try to develop Hunn's original argument and provide Scripture for it

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone. (Heb 8:10,11)
P2: We have no way to infallibly know who is among the elect. (Acts 8:20-24, 20:25 Gal. 2:4 etc.)
P3: Baptism is the sign of the new covenant. (Matt. 28:19)
Tim's P3 a: The sign of the new covenant is to be adminstered to disciples. (Matt. 28:19)
Tim's P3 b: The elect will not only have faith in Christ but will also will profess it. (Rom. 10:9)
Hunn's P4: We should seek to avoid giving the New Covenant sign to those who are not elect. slightly modified to 
Tim's P4: Only those who profess faith in Christ have the right to be recognized by the church as being potentially children of God, children of Abraham and members of the new covenant. (John 1:12, Gal 3:7)
Conclusion: *Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church*


----------



## Grimmson

Semper Fidelis said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me explain what a syllogism is, because I think that may be helpful for those that participates. It is a deductive inference of reason/logic which is composed of two premises and a conclusion. It begins with a major term or premise, moves to a middle term or premise, and then moves to a particular conclusion that in called a minor term. The conclusion is made up of part of the major term and middle term under a subject predicate formulation. Here is basic example:
> 
> 1) If A then B
> 2) If B then C
> 3) So if A then C
> 
> The reason I am not participating in this exercise is because realistically in my opinion you need a series of syllogisms to make your way to Proposition 1 of “The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone” to the desired conclusion on Baptism for it to be done properly. We can see this by the use of five propositions by some for this conclusion, which makes it an improper syllogism. We are not like Calvin that can get away with not including the middle term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A polysyllogism is a type of syllogism. You can use a sorite, climax, multi-premise, or gradatio if you like. I asked for valid arguments from the premise to the conclusion. You choose the form.
Click to expand...

 
I do not consider polysyllogism or a multi-premise syllogism to be the same as a syllogism proper. Before people learn how to run they need to learn how to crawl first, which means they need to learn what and how a syllogism works and the types there of. You based your example on a syllogism proper model and not a polysyllogism model. Here is an example of one for people that wish to continue your exercise: 

All Pumas are wild large cats.
All large wild cats hunt for meat
All (creatures) that hunt for meat are carnivorous predators.
Pumas, therefore, are carnivorous predators.

Notice how each proposition depends on the next, which is what needs to be done before reaching the conclusion. The conclusion must includes your first proposition and the last one. 

And more more thing as helpful advice think of each proposition in relation to a cause and effect. That way you can string along a series of causes to reach a conclusive effect.


----------



## timmopussycat

Hilasmos said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hilasmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> P1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone
> P2. The elect are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)
> P3. The sons of Abraham are those of faith (Gal. 3:7)
> P4. Those of faith give expression to their son-hood through baptism (Col. 2:11-12; Rom 6)
> 
> Conclusion: Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the connection of P4 to the conclusion? Connect "give expression" to "those who give a credible confession" please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone
> P2. The elect are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)
> P3. The sons of Abraham are those of faith (Gal. 3:7)
> P4. Those of faith are commanded to be baptized (Mark 16:16; Matt 28:16-20)
> P5. Baptism is the believer’s appeal to God for a good conscience (1 Pet. 3:21)
> P6. To appeal for a good conscience, through baptism, would require and consist of making a confession of faith
> 
> Conclusion: Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.
> 
> Even if the above were valid, not sure that I like it much.
Click to expand...


Thank you for further establishing the relationship of the sons of Abraham to faith within the New Covenant


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Hilasmos said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hilasmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> P1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone
> P2. The elect are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)
> P3. The sons of Abraham are those of faith (Gal. 3:7)
> P4. Those of faith give expression to their son-hood through baptism (Col. 2:11-12; Rom 6)
> 
> Conclusion: Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the connection of P4 to the conclusion? Connect "give expression" to "those who give a credible confession" please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone
> P2. The elect are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)
> P3. The sons of Abraham are those of faith (Gal. 3:7)
> P4. Those of faith are commanded to be baptized (Mark 16:16; Matt 28:16-20)
> P5. Baptism is the believer’s appeal to God for a good conscience (1 Pet. 3:21)
> P6. To appeal for a good conscience, through baptism, would require and consist of making a confession of faith
> 
> Conclusion: Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.
> 
> Even if the above were valid, not sure that I like it much.
Click to expand...

Somewhere between P6 and C you need to deal with those who make a credible confession who are not of faith. the _only_ in the conclusion necessitates that the only people being baptized in P6 would be actually elect in your syllogism.




timmopussycat said:


> Hunn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't necessarily a string of biblical arguments, but it makes sense to me and I look forward to having it torn to pieces. I'm still new to covenant theology so I'm here to learn!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me try to develop Hunn's original argument and provide Scripture for it
> 
> P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone. (Heb 8:10,11)
> P2: Baptism is the sign of the new covenant. (Matt. 28:19)
> P3: We have no way to infallibly know who is among the elect. (Acts 8:20-24, 20:25 Gal. 2:4 etc.)
> Hunn's P4: We should seek to avoid giving the New Covenant sign to those who are not elect. slightly modified to
> Tim's P4: We have only the right recognize those who confess belief in Christ as being potentially among the elect. (John 1:12, Gal 3:7)
> Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.
Click to expand...

P3 is where the identity of the elect is compromised in the syllogism. P4 simply extends a compromise on this identity


----------



## SolaScriptura

Hilasmos said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hilasmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> P1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone
> P2. The elect are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)
> P3. The sons of Abraham are those of faith (Gal. 3:7)
> P4. Those of faith give expression to their son-hood through baptism (Col. 2:11-12; Rom 6)
> 
> Conclusion: Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the connection of P4 to the conclusion? Connect "give expression" to "those who give a credible confession" please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone
> P2. The elect are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)
> P3. The sons of Abraham are those of faith (Gal. 3:7)
> P4. Those of faith are commanded to be baptized (Mark 16:16; Matt 28:16-20)
> P5. Baptism is the believer’s appeal to God for a good conscience (1 Pet. 3:21)
> P6. To appeal for a good conscience, through baptism, would require and consist of making a confession of faith
> 
> Conclusion: Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.
> 
> Even if the above were valid, not sure that I like it much.
Click to expand...

 
Will - thank you, in my opinion you've done as good a job as can be done within the perimeters. I think you go awry at a few points, but still an admirable job.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Grimmson said:


> I do not consider polysyllogism or a multi-premise syllogism to be the same as a syllogism proper. Before people learn how to run they need to learn how to crawl first, which means they need to learn what and how a syllogism works and the types there of. You based your example on a syllogism proper model and not a polysyllogism model. Here is an example of one for people that wish to continue your exercise:
> 
> All Pumas are wild large cats.
> All large wild cats hunt for meat
> All (creatures) that hunt for meat are carnivorous predators.
> Pumas, therefore, are carnivorous predators.
> 
> Notice how each proposition depends on the next, which is what needs to be done before reaching the conclusion. The conclusion must includes your first proposition and the last one.
> 
> And more more thing as helpful advice think of each proposition in relation to a cause and effect. That way you can string along a series of causes to reach a conclusive effect.


 
An example of a polysyllogism. Which is what everyone has been trying to put together.

No more distractions.


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hunn said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't necessarily a string of biblical arguments, but it makes sense to me and I look forward to having it torn to pieces. I'm still new to covenant theology so I'm here to learn!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone. (Heb 8:10,11)
> P2: Baptism is the sign of the new covenant. (Matt. 28:19)
> P3: We have no way to infallibly know who is among the elect. (Acts 8:20-24, 20:25 Gal. 2:4 etc.)
> Hunn's P4: We should seek to avoid giving the New Covenant sign to those who are not elect. slightly modified to
> Tim's P4: We have only the right recognize those who confess belief in Christ as being potentially among the elect. (John 1:12, Gal 3:7)
> Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> P3 is where the identity of the elect is compromised in the syllogism. P4 simply extends a compromise on this identity
Click to expand...

 
How about this then? 

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone. (Heb 8:10,11)
P2: We have no way to infallibly know who is among the elect. (Acts 8:20-24, 20:25 Gal. 2:4 etc.)
P3: The elect will not only have faith in Christ but will also will profess it. (Rom. 10:9)
P4: Only those who profess faith in Christ have the right to be recognized by the church as being potentially children of God, children of Abraham and and elect members of the new covenant. (John 1:12, Gal 3:7)
Tim's P5: Baptism is the sign of entry into the New Covenant (Matt. 28:9)
Conclusion: *Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church*


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Tim,

It falls apart at P2 now.


----------



## timmopussycat

What about this? 

P1: *The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.* (Heb 8:10,11)
P2: The Elect will not only have faith in Christ but will also will profess it. (Rom. 10:9)
P3: Only those who profess faith in Christ have the right to be recognized by the church as being (potentially) children of God, children of Abraham and and elect members of the new covenant. (John 1:12, Gal 3:7)
Tim's P4: Baptism is the sign of entry into the New Covenant (Matt. 28:9)
Conclusion: *Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church. *

Footnote on "potentially" in P3: The church experiences false professors from time to time and we have no way to infallibly know who is truly among the elect. (Acts 8:20-24, 20:25 Gal. 2:4 etc.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

It doesn't Tim. P3 compromises on the identity of the elect. You then Make Baptism the sign of entry into the New Covenant (which consists of the elect alone) and conclude that confession of faith in Christ (potentially elect) is grounds for baptism (which is a sign of entry for the elect).


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> It doesn't Tim. P3 compromises on the identity of the elect. You then Make Baptism the sign of entry into the New Covenant (which consists of the elect alone) and conclude that confession of faith in Christ (potentially elect) is grounds for baptism (which is a sign of entry for the elect).


 
Rich, P3 does not compromise on the identity of the elect as all the elect are included among those who profess faith and will be included in the group eligable to be recognized as such.

The following might be valid.

P1: *The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.* (Heb 8:10,11)
P2: The Elect will not only have faith in Christ but will also profess it (Rom. 10:9)
P3: Only those who profess faith in Christ have the right to be recognized by the church as being children of God, children of Abraham and and elect members of the new covenant. (John 1:12, Gal 3:7)* 
P4: Baptism is the sign symbolizing, for the Elect, entry into their new status of covenant membership. (Col. 2:12 - 14)
Conclusion: *Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church. *

Footnote *: In addition to the elect, false professors shall arise from time to time and give evey humanly visible sign of faith and election. Because the church has no infallible method of telling true from false professors we baptise all professors in charity and hope (Acts 8:20-24, 20:25 Gal. 2:4 etc.) and reject none until they go out from us. (1 John 2:19)


----------



## MW

> P1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone
> P2. The elect are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)
> P3. The sons of Abraham are those of faith (Gal. 3:7)
> P4. Those of faith are commanded to be baptized (Mark 16:16; Matt 28:16-20)
> P5. Baptism is the believer’s appeal to God for a good conscience (1 Pet. 3:21)
> P6. To appeal for a good conscience, through baptism, would require and consist of making a confession of faith
> 
> Conclusion: Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.


 
Excellent work! You can account for the exclusive conclusion by adding a premise which appeals to the regulative principle.


----------



## Iconoclast

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone. (Heb 8:10,11) Heb.10:10-18
p2:The elect when quickened by The Holy Spirit are brought from death to life, are able to believe the word of God and the gospel promises,Spirit Baptism having already united them savingly and eternally with their Lord and His blood bought body the church.
p3: Believing the word of God ,as *Believers* they seek to publicly identify with the Lord and His church by *believers baptism* as commanded in the NT.
p4: false professors in the strength of their own flesh sometimes attempt to mimic true believers. they make a false profession,and request baptism.This however is in reality *unbelievers baptism* they being devoid of the Spirit,and the promises, have never entered into the New Covenant.
p5:therefore


> believers baptism


is truly for the elect alone.


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> p3: Believing the word of God ,as *Believers* they seek to publicly identify with the Lord and His church by *believers baptism* as commanded in the NT.
> p4: false professors in the strength of their own flesh sometimes attempt to mimic true believers. they make a false profession,and request baptism.This however is in reality *unbelievers baptism* they being devoid of the Spirit,and the promises, have never entered into the New Covenant.


 
Does believers' baptism have any relation to the new covenant? If so, these premises contradict each other. If not, they are irrelevant to the argument.


----------



## Iconoclast

armourbearer said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> p3: Believing the word of God ,as *Believers* they seek to publicly identify with the Lord and His church by *believers baptism* as commanded in the NT.
> p4: false professors in the strength of their own flesh sometimes attempt to mimic true believers. they make a false profession,and request baptism.This however is in reality *unbelievers baptism* they being devoid of the Spirit,and the promises, have never entered into the New Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does believers' baptism have any relation to the new covenant? If so, these premises contradict each other. If not, they are irrelevant to the argument.
Click to expand...

 
Good point,let me add to it.
p3:Having already been placed in the New Covenant by Spirit Baptism and now having the Spirit[ROM:8:9][jn3:3-5] Believing the word of God ,as *Believers* they seek to publicly identify with the Lord and His church by *believers baptism* as commanded in the NT.
acts8:36
See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 

37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 

38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.


----------



## MW

Anthony, I still see no relation of baptism to the new covenant. If there is no relation, what is the relevance to the first premise? If there is a relation, then the person baptised is related in some way to the new covenant whether he is a believer or unbeliever.


----------



## Iconoclast

armourbearer said:


> Anthony, I still see no relation of baptism to the new covenant. If there is no relation, what is the relevance to the first premise? If there is a relation, then the person baptised is related in some way to the new covenant whether he is a believer or unbeliever.


 
Hello Matthew,
Yes ...I think that is because you are looking for water baptism first as an entrance point to the NC. A credo see's Spirit Baptism coming first,not water baptism. There can be no believers baptism,without a born from above believer having already been translated from darkness to light. This work of God being unseen...sign gifts having now ceased...the God ordained ordinance is Believers baptism where a believer desires to obey the command to believe and be baptized. This identification with the Lord and His corporate body declares that God has already done a saving work internally placing the elect sheep in the invisible church Heb12:22-24, and in obediance the believer now joins a local expression of the body. In my original post in this thread I spoke of the elect sheep being one with the elect servant.


> If there is a relation, then the person baptised is related in some way to the new covenant whether he is a believer or unbeliever.


 
[/QUOTE]
well yes....either as an obedient believer, or an unbeliever taking God's name in vain by his false/profession,false baptism


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> well yes....either as an obedient believer, or an unbeliever taking God's name in vain by his false/profession,false baptism


 
Thanks Anthony; this is helpful. To take God's name in vain with respect to the new covenant must mean that they bear God's name in a covenant relation, yes?


----------



## Iconoclast

armourbearer said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> well yes....either as an obedient believer, or an unbeliever taking God's name in vain by his false/profession,false baptism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Anthony; this is helpful. To take God's name in vain with respect to the new covenant must mean that they bear God's name in a covenant relation, yes?
Click to expand...

 
In your view this would be the essence of being a covenant breaker.If as you believe a person can be said to be in covenant with God....but not necessarily savingly so,ie, they may or may not be.
If in the new covenant it is unbreakable in that God himself who begins the good work will perform it [phil1:6] then the one trying to identify with the covenant keeping God by fleshly means and motives and not by new birth, proves to be a thief and a robber trying to come in another way. His profession is a lie,his baptism false. That he attempts to identify with God's name and people will be manifest sooner or later.


> 24Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.
> 
> 25Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid


If I believed they were in some external way in the covenant, but not savingly[having been placed there by God]???? I would have to be Padeo and take the warning passages to mean they as the OT covenant breaker came short of God's rest.Heb3=4.
Believing they are false professors, i can look to the OT apostate as the Nt.says, as examples 1 Cor10 of what not to do.
Instead of a physical sign cominfg first,{water Baptism} I see Spirit baptism coming first, then an outward physical sign or representation of the reality.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Thanks to all participants. I'm going to bow out of trying to eval arguments as I have a lot to do. I appreciate the input. It may yet be possible to form the argument. I've been skeptical but some have gotten close. This would then form the basis to evaluate the individual premises but that's not the purpose of the exercise as much as the formation of the argument is.


----------



## captivewill

How about this from Matthew 28...Jesus said All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me..Therefore go and make disciples in all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit AND teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you...

Isn't it self evident that disciples will be made of those who hear and receive and obey the gospel, and that these are the ones who are to be baptized, and furthermore these dfisciples are the same who are to be taught to obey the things that Jesus commanded His first disciples.

Authority trumps logic every time.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

captivewill said:


> How about this from Matthew 28...Jesus said All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me..Therefore go and make disciples in all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit AND teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you...
> 
> Isn't it self evident that disciples will be made of those who hear and receive and obey the gospel, and that these are the ones who are to be baptized, and furthermore these dfisciples are the same who are to be taught to obey the things that Jesus commanded His first disciples.
> 
> Authority trumps logic every time.


 
I'm sorry but I could not resist answering. Are you asking me if it is _evident_ logically or illogically?


----------



## captivewill

Semper Fidelis said:


> captivewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this from Matthew 28...Jesus said All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me..Therefore go and make disciples in all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit AND teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you...
> 
> Isn't it self evident that disciples will be made of those who hear and receive and obey the gospel, and that these are the ones who are to be baptized, and furthermore these dfisciples are the same who are to be taught to obey the things that Jesus commanded His first disciples.
> 
> Authority trumps logic every time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but I could not resist answering. Are you asking me if it is _evident_ logically or illogically?
Click to expand...


Touche'...you are right of course..it is evident logically and a syllogism can be thus constructed..YET authority does trump the process of discovering logic for its own sake.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Austin

I had a Baptist uncle who was a drunk. (Among other things.) He was baptized again and again each time he made a credible profession of faith & resolved never to wake up w/ a hangover again.. (Just injecting some tongue-in-cheek ad hominem argumentation into a fascinating discussion... .)


----------

