# Scott Clark and Infant Baptism



## StephenMartyr

I read some, probably not all, of his Part 1 and Part 2 of a series called: "Some Practical Consequences Of Reformed Covenant Theology". I just read his 3rd installment and it was about infant baptism. This place seems to be swamped with questions about IB as of late but I hope everyone here can put up with one more question. As for myself, I'm leaning more towards it. 

I would appreciate if you have a few minutes to read this link first: https://www.agradio.org/some-practical-consequences-of-reformed-covenant-theology-3.html

My question is this:

Notice that Baptist guy said, "It seems that people were surprised to learn, in an article I wrote last week, that I presume my children to be unsaved. The article, What’s Dead Looks Dead, expressed my belief that my children (ages 6, 3, and 3 months) are, at this time, likely unsaved and are thus spiritually dead."

I'm not wanting to get into the whole "New Calvinism" thing as that perhaps is a whole other can of worms!

But reading what he said, and looking at my upbringing, that's the view I've held! That one always considers all children unsaved, until proven regenerate. We can easily say things like, "We / You were born in sin. We were born separated from God. There's nothing good in us because from our very birth into this world we have an inbred enmity against God. Through hearing God's Word and a working of the Holy Spirit one then becomes born again."

(Yes there is faith and repentance, but I wrote that quick to prove a point.)

So notice the whole "born in sin" and "born separated from God". Is this my Baptist background talking or is that Biblical through and through. I consider verses like:

Eph 2:4 "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5 Even *when we were dead in sins*, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; )…" (spaced because triggers winky face)

Rom 3:9 "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that* they are all under sin*;
Rom 3:10 As it is written, *There is none righteous, no, not one*:..."

Emphasis mine. 

So I've taken the position / stance of people, all people are born sinners. Now can God work in an infant? Sure He can! God worked in John the Baptist's life while he was still in the womb! But isn't that an exception to the rule?

If not all people born are not sinners, how does one interpret Romans 3:9-20?

I really enjoyed that article! And I don't believe in Baptismal Regeneration just so you know.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

We don't baptize anyone but sinners. Everyone is a sinner, gone astray from the womb, an enemy by birth (according to nature, but not for the covenant).

Your question seems to presume that the Reformed/Presbyterian baptizes the "saved" or those we think are saved. That is not the basis for a Reformed/Presbyterian baptism. In the case of an adult, the profession of personal faith _by the baptized_ is one necessary condition for the application of baptism. In the case of an infant (or minor child) the profession of faith of the parent bringing the child is the comparable necessary condition. It still isn't the _basis, _but these are required conditions.

Baptism does not regenerate, it does not expunge sin or guilt. It _signifies, _it points to the cleansing Jesus does for sinners--like this adult or this baby--who believes in what baptism _signifies. _Baptism, in the Reformed/Presbyterian view is primarily something that _God_ says about what he does; it is not the statement by the baptized or referring to the baptized person concerning what he is doing or ought to do.

God works by_ means, _especially his Word and sacraments, to grow Christians. The former creates faith, the latter strengthens it. In a good Reformed/Presbyterian church, we presume neither the spiritual deadness of our children, nor their spiritual life--if to "presume" is defined as ungrounded ideas used as the basis for regard or treatment. The Reformed/Presbyterian expects that the means of grace will have the effect that God sovereignly appointed for them: convincing, converting, transforming and strengthening sinners, who are also saints.

God instructs his people to believe his Word, to believe what he has said will come to pass. No one should believe that children will develop and exhibit faith that is not taught them, but should believe that children as well as (and often better than) adults will absorb the dutifully employed means, and show the fruits of faith that begins in planting that took place (for some) in infancy.

The life of faith is one of perseverance. It is not a "moment" of salvation, but a "way" of salvation. The Reformed/Presbyterian parent or pastor isn't studying the youth to discover the moment when they clearly affirm the faith being taught them, or are ready to "make a decision." But all the people, old and young, Christian a short or long time, are commanded every week to believe the gospel and live for Jesus.

When is the hour I first believed? I really don't know, but God made a claim on me when I was very young; and as I grew in age and faith, I embraced the implications of that claim. I am not saved because I _first _believed, but because I _still _believe. I believe that to which baptism bears witness: Jesus died so sinners like me might be cleansed.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## alexandermsmith

From what I can tell of the Scottish tradition, and my own church's practice, we would hope that our children born into the church and baptised would become disciples indeed of Christ. However we do not assume they are saved or indeed will be saved "at some point". We look for all to make an accredited profession of faith before being admitted to the Lord's table. Until such a profession is made, the default is to view any adherent- adult or child- as unsaved.

Clark quotes the Synod Utrecht: "that according to the Confession of our churches the seed o the covenant, by virtue of the promise of God, must be held to be regenerated and sanctified in Christ, until upon growing up they should manifest the contrary in their way of life or doctrine." This is not the Scottish view. We would look for signs of conversion as an essential element to a credible profession.

There will always be those who are saved but have not made a profession of saving faith (often because they have never been give the assurance to make such a profession) and are often viewed by others as being saved. However we would normally judge a person by his profession (if accepted as credible) or lack thereof and therefore those who have not professed would be viewed, at least ecclesiastically, as unsaved.


----------



## Scott Bushey

alexandermsmith said:


> Until such a profession is made, the default is to view an adherent as unsaved.



I prefer in thinking of them as covenant members.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## alexandermsmith

Scott Bushey said:


> I prefer in thinking of them as covenant members.



Indeed. They are disciples of Christ, members of the covenant community which is why they are baptised. That doesn't mean they are regenerated (or presumed to be). This is the difference between the Prebyterian and the antipaedobaptist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

alexandermsmith said:


> Indeed. They are disciples of Christ, members of the covenant community which is why they are baptised. That doesn't mean they are regenerated (or presumed to be). This is the difference between the Prebyterian and the antipaedobaptist.



Agreed. But in my opinion, focusing on their position in the Lord and not their covenantal status is antipaedobaptist. We should be telling our children that they are 'in-covenant' and to make their election 'sure'; as well as to improve upon their baptism as God has placed His mark upon them and their lives.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## alexandermsmith

Scott Bushey said:


> Agreed. But in my opinion, focusing on their position in the Lord and not their covenantal status is antipaedobaptist. We should be telling our children that they are 'in-covenant' and to make their election 'sure'; as well as to improve upon their baptism as God has placed His mark upon them and their lives.



Well I suppose we would need to determine what is meant by "focusing on". It's certainly not the case that we go around saying to individuals "you're saved" or "you're not saved". The distinction is important if talking about presumptive regeneration, which we reject. But in the ordinary course of things we're not going around singling people out as one or the other. Our preaching would follow, loosely, the "categorical" approach of addressing the believer and the unbeliever distinctly. And during the administration of the Lord's Supper the distinction is made explicit by a) the division during the administration itself and b) the ministers who address both the professing and unprofessing in different ways. However it is made explicit in a corporate sense (those who go forward to the table, those who don't).

Our ministers would urge people to make their _calling_ and election sure. One must make the former sure before he can make the latter sure. Our preaching would acknowledge that all who are baptised adherents are members of the covenant community but it would also emphasise that that membership cannot be rested in as proof of one's election.


----------



## alexandermsmith

Just to clarify: when I say "saved" above I mean regenerate/believing. I wasn't thinking in terms of elect and reprobate, which is how Clark uses the term in his article. He's probably right and I was being too vague.


----------



## De Jager

StephenMartyr said:


> I read some, probably not all, of his Part 1 and Part 2 of a series called: "Some Practical Consequences Of Reformed Covenant Theology". I just read his 3rd installment and it was about infant baptism. This place seems to be swamped with questions about IB as of late but I hope everyone here can put up with one more question. As for myself, I'm leaning more towards it.
> 
> I would appreciate if you have a few minutes to read this link first: https://www.agradio.org/some-practical-consequences-of-reformed-covenant-theology-3.html
> 
> My question is this:
> 
> Notice that Baptist guy said, "It seems that people were surprised to learn, in an article I wrote last week, that I presume my children to be unsaved. The article, What’s Dead Looks Dead, expressed my belief that my children (ages 6, 3, and 3 months) are, at this time, likely unsaved and are thus spiritually dead."
> 
> I'm not wanting to get into the whole "New Calvinism" thing as that perhaps is a whole other can of worms!
> 
> But reading what he said, and looking at my upbringing, that's the view I've held! That one always considers all children unsaved, until proven regenerate. We can easily say things like, "We / You were born in sin. We were born separated from God. There's nothing good in us because from our very birth into this world we have an inbred enmity against God. Through hearing God's Word and a working of the Holy Spirit one then becomes born again."
> 
> (Yes there is faith and repentance, but I wrote that quick to prove a point.)
> 
> So notice the whole "born in sin" and "born separated from God". Is this my Baptist background talking or is that Biblical through and through. I consider verses like:
> 
> Eph 2:4 "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
> Eph 2:5 Even *when we were dead in sins*, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; )…" (spaced because triggers winky face)
> 
> Rom 3:9 "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that* they are all under sin*;
> Rom 3:10 As it is written, *There is none righteous, no, not one*:..."
> 
> Emphasis mine.
> 
> So I've taken the position / stance of people, all people are born sinners. Now can God work in an infant? Sure He can! God worked in John the Baptist's life while he was still in the womb! But isn't that an exception to the rule?
> 
> If not all people born are not sinners, how does one interpret Romans 3:9-20?
> 
> I really enjoyed that article! And I don't believe in Baptismal Regeneration just so you know.



All orthodox wings of Christianity believe that children are born in sin, under the condemnation of Adam. All orthodox wings of Christianity also believe that children, no matter who they are, need to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus in order to be saved. By baptizing a child, no orthodox reformed believer is saying "this child is now saved" - rather they are saying "this child belongs to God and as the child of a believer, should be given the sign of the covenant" - as was done by the apostles when they baptized whole households upon the profession of faith of the head, and as was practiced in pre-Christ dispensation when whole households were circumcised.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that the baptist tradition really tries to pinpoint regeneration, and it is simply not that easy to figure out. There are literally countless people who have grown up in a Christian household who never remember "not believing", there is no clear demarcation of when that person "came to faith", rather there is only indications of a growing and deepening faith. This is why you have people of baptist persuasion getting baptized multiple times because when they hit a lightbulb moment, the perceive it to be conversion, and thus their previous baptism (by their theology) is invalid.

If the assumptions of the baptist you mentioned are correct, how can he possible account for passages like "Have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise?'"

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser

alexandermsmith said:


> Indeed. They are disciples of Christ, members of the covenant community which is why they are baptised. That doesn't mean they are regenerated (or presumed to be). This is the difference between the Prebyterian and the antipaedobaptist.


Disciples of Christ refer to those who have been 
saved into His Kingdom though, correct?


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> All orthodox wings of Christianity believe that children are born in sin, under the condemnation of Adam. All orthodox wings of Christianity also believe that children, no matter who they are, need to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus in order to be saved. By baptizing a child, no orthodox reformed believer is saying "this child is now saved" - rather they are saying "this child belongs to God and as the child of a believer, should be given the sign of the covenant" - as was done by the apostles when they baptized whole households upon the profession of faith of the head, and as was practiced in pre-Christ dispensation when whole households were circumcised.
> 
> Furthermore, I would like to point out that the baptist tradition really tries to pinpoint regeneration, and it is simply not that easy to figure out. There are literally countless people who have grown up in a Christian household who never remember "not believing", there is no clear demarcation of when that person "came to faith", rather there is only indications of a growing and deepening faith. This is why you have people of baptist persuasion getting baptized multiple times because when they hit a lightbulb moment, the perceive it to be conversion, and thus their previous baptism (by their theology) is invalid.
> 
> If the assumptions of the baptist you mentioned are correct, how can he possible account for passages like "Have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise?'"


None though belong to God unless their sins have been cleansed by rebirth in Christ, have to be saved!


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> None though belong to God unless their sins have been cleansed by rebirth in Christ, have to be saved!



It's not as simple as you make it.

You are speaking of ultimate salvation. But the Bible pretty clearly teaches that the children of believers really and truly belong to God in a special way, different than all the pagan children of the world. That is why Paul calls them "holy" in 1 Cor. 7, and in Ezekiel 16 why God chastises the people for the horrible abomination of sacrificing "my children" to Molech.

When a believer has a child, that child belongs to God. God claims that child as "mine", and that child has special privileges (hearing the word of God) and obligations (trust and obedience).


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> Disciples of Christ refer to those who have been
> saved into His Kingdom though, correct?



No, that is not how the Bible defines disciple. A disciple means a "learner". We read of the disciples of John the baptist - that doesn't imply they were regenerate. We also learn in John 6 that some of Jesus' disciples left him (which is impossible if disciple means what you suggest that it means). A disciple is simply one that sits under the tutelage of a teacher. Therefore even Judas was a true disciple - but not a true believer. There is a difference.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> It's not as simple as you make it.
> 
> You are speaking of ultimate salvation. But the Bible pretty clearly teaches that the children of believers really and truly belong to God in a special way, different than all the pagan children of the world. That is why Paul calls them "holy" in 1 Cor. 7, and in Ezekiel 16 why God chastises the people for the horrible abomination of sacrificing "my children" to Molech.
> 
> When a believer has a child, that child belongs to God. God claims that child as "mine", and that child has special privileges (hearing the word of God) and obligations (trust and obedience).


The children born to saved parents have the scriptures taught and lived to them, have church community, but God is not their Heavenly Father until and if reborn from above!


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> No, that is not how the Bible defines disciple. A disciple means a "learner". We read of the disciples of John the baptist - that doesn't imply they were regenerate. We also learn in John 6 that some of Jesus' disciples left him (which is impossible if disciple means what you suggest that it means). A disciple is simply one that sits under the tutelage of a teacher. Therefore even Judas was a true disciple - but not a true believer. There is a difference.


Are not disciples of Jesus believer's who are now maturing in their walk with Him?


----------



## Scott Bushey

David,
Here is the distinction:


18 And Abraham said unto God, *O that Ishmael might live before thee*! 19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name *Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant*, _and_ with his seed after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. 21 *But my covenant will I establish with Isaac*, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. 22 And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham. 

_The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873), Ge 17:18–22.

Both of the brothers were in covenant. One internally and the other externally. None the less, God acknowledges his covenant and promises. Princes came from the loins of Ishmael, via blessing. Granted, these are superficial in eternal senses, but again...


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Are not disciples of Jesus believer's who are now maturing in their walk with Him?



Disciples and regeneration are not synonymous. Judas (as prev mentioned), Demas, Ananias and Saphira, Simon Magus are good examples.


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> The children born to saved parents have the scriptures taught and lived to them, have church community, but God is not their Heavenly Father until and if reborn from above!



I am not denying that all people everywhere must personally repent and believe the gospel.

Children born to Christian parents are holy and are called to respond in faith to the promises made at their baptism. We also affirm that this faith is a gift of God; nevertheless we call these children to faith in Christ, trusting that the Holy Spirit will save those whom God has elected unto all eternity.

There are many children who are born in the covenant that never have saving faith, just as Paul writes "not all Israel is Israel".


----------



## lynnie

I think it would really help you to read this. Poythress attends a Presbyterian church, and is a prof at Westminster TS. 

https://frame-poythress.org/indifferentism-and-rigorism/


----------



## Dachaser

lynnie said:


> I think it would really help you to read this. Poythress attends a Presbyterian church, and is a prof at Westminster TS.
> 
> https://frame-poythress.org/indifferentism-and-rigorism/


As a Baptist, I found myself agreeing with that he write, and wonder what be harder between the 2 sides here on water Baptism. Namely, me to allow for small children, while others might have to cease infant baptism pretty much?


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> I am not denying that all people everywhere must personally repent and believe the gospel.
> 
> Children born to Christian parents are holy and are called to respond in faith to the promises made at their baptism. We also affirm that this faith is a gift of God; nevertheless we call these children to faith in Christ, trusting that the Holy Spirit will save those whom God has elected unto all eternity.
> 
> There are many children who are born in the covenant that never have saving faith, just as Paul writes "not all Israel is Israel".


Baptist parents raise our kids in the scriptures and partake of church activities, do where is that real difference regardless views on water Baptism?

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> David,
> Here is the distinction:
> 
> 
> 18 And Abraham said unto God, *O that Ishmael might live before thee*! 19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name *Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant*, _and_ with his seed after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. 21 *But my covenant will I establish with Isaac*, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. 22 And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.
> 
> _The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873), Ge 17:18–22.
> 
> Both of the brothers were in covenant. One internally and the other externally. None the less, God acknowledges his covenant and promises. Princes came from the loins of Ishmael, via blessing. Granted, these are superficial in eternal senses, but again...


We see children as able to participate in the church, as in its outward administration, but reserve baptism to those part of the spiritual aspect of the body of Christ.


----------



## Scott Bushey



Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner

@Dachaser David, per the rules of the board please use correct spelling and don’t hit “post” until your sentences make more sense grammatically. Please also be sure your follow up questions are moving the conversation forward rather than simply restating previous questions and statements of the obvious.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Scott Bushey said:


>


How is the headache now?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Andrew35

De Jager said:


> All orthodox wings of Christianity believe that children are born in sin, under the condemnation of Adam. All orthodox wings of Christianity also believe that children, no matter who they are, need to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus in order to be saved. By baptizing a child, no orthodox reformed believer is saying "this child is now saved" - rather they are saying "this child belongs to God and as the child of a believer, should be given the sign of the covenant" - as was done by the apostles when they baptized whole households upon the profession of faith of the head, and as was practiced in pre-Christ dispensation when whole households were circumcised.
> 
> *Furthermore, I would like to point out that the baptist tradition really tries to pinpoint regeneration, and it is simply not that easy to figure out. There are literally countless people who have grown up in a Christian household who never remember "not believing", there is no clear demarcation of when that person "came to faith", rather there is only indications of a growing and deepening faith. * This is why you have people of baptist persuasion getting baptized multiple times because when they hit a lightbulb moment, the perceive it to be conversion, and thus their previous baptism (by their theology) is invalid.
> 
> If the assumptions of the baptist you mentioned are correct, how can he possible account for passages like "Have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise?'"



This is the practical difficulty that launched me on the path toward the paedobaptist position.

Confronted with the question of whether my baptism as a young boy was really valid, I began to search my past and try to figure out at what point my regeneration truly occurred.

It sat ill with me, though, that in this instance in my Christian life I was in some sense turning inward to my memory for security and answers rather than upward to Christ. So I began, for the first time, to seriously study out the issue.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## De Jager

Andrew35 said:


> This is the practical difficulty that launched me on the path toward the paedobaptist position.
> 
> Confronted with the question of whether my baptism as a young boy was really valid, I began to search my past and try to figure out at what point my regeneration truly occurred.
> 
> It sat ill with me, though, that in this instance in my Christian life I was in some sense turning inward to my memory for security and answers rather than upward to Christ. So I began, for the first time, to seriously study out the issue.



The sad irony of all of that is that baptism was twisted from being a gracious source of comfort (wherein God's promises are made visible) to a point of anxiety and fear.

I remember myself, coming to some realizations around the age 24 (when I was a baptist) that perhaps at age 14 (when I was baptized) I wasn't saved. I didn't know for sure...but I doubted it. So I remember pondering whether I should get baptized again. Thankfully my dad (who is a baptist) advised against it.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> The sad irony of all of that is that baptism was twisted from being a gracious source of comfort (wherein God's promises are made visible) to a point of anxiety and fear.
> 
> I remember myself, coming to some realizations around the age 24 (when I was a baptist) that perhaps at age 14 (when I was baptized) I wasn't saved. I didn't know for sure...but I doubted it. So I remember pondering whether I should get baptized again. Thankfully my dad (who is a baptist) advised against it.


There is no certain age, but the one bring baptized should know what it represents to them when done to them.


----------



## deleteduser99

Andrew35 said:


> This is the practical difficulty that launched me on the path toward the paedobaptist position.
> 
> Confronted with the question of whether my baptism as a young boy was really valid, I began to search my past and try to figure out at what point my regeneration truly occurred.
> 
> It sat ill with me, though, that in this instance in my Christian life I was in some sense turning inward to my memory for security and answers rather than upward to Christ. So I began, for the first time, to seriously study out the issue.



My baptism was never a comfort to me nor blessed to me in my Baptist days, even after having done it three times, and quite sure that I was converted prior to the third time. Assurance still wasn't the best. Glad for no repeats on the horizon. Ordinance means far, far more to me now than ever it did.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> There is no certain age, but the one bring baptized should know what it represents to them when done to them.



And what of the deaf, dumb and imbecile?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Scott Bushey said:


> And what of the deaf and dumb, imbecile?



Maybe you meant, "And what of the deaf, dumb, and imbecile," unless you intended to call David an imbecile.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2 | Funny 5


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> And what of the deaf, dumb and imbecile?


Baptism itself does not save us, so they would fall under the grace provision of God the Cross afforded them if elect in Christ Jesus.


----------



## Dachaser

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Maybe you meant, "And what of the deaf, dumb, and imbecile," unless you intended to call David an imbecile.[/QUOT
> Hey, I have been called lot worse!


----------



## De Jager

Scott Bushey said:


> And what of the deaf, dumb and imbecile?



There's a nice elaborate system of doctrine that many hold to that guarantees heaven for anyone who is mentally handicapped and for all babies who die.

I for one, do not find that in the bible, at all.


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> Baptism itself does not save us, so they would fall under the grace provision of God the Cross afforded them if elect in Christ Jesus.



Yeah, but they never exercised personal faith - so therefore they cannot be saved, right? Are you saying God can look with favour on someone who has not exercised personal faith??? That sounds very un-baptist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> Yeah, but they never exercised personal faith - so therefore they cannot be saved, right? Are you saying God can look with favour on someone who has not exercised personal faith??? That sounds very un-baptist.


I am saying that God can choose to apply Grace towards them if elect even if they have those challenges.


----------



## Scott Bushey

De Jager said:


> There's a nice elaborate system of doctrine that many hold to that guarantees heaven for anyone who is mentally handicapped and for all babies who die.
> 
> I for one, do not find that in the bible, at all.



One way men are saved and that being by the gospel message; this does not mean that Christ Himself doesn't go to these individuals and disseminate his plan via that same message of grace.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> I am saying that God can choose to apply Grace towards them if elect even if they have those challenges.



See my previous note above, David.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> Baptism itself does not save us,



That is not scriptural. There is no Salvation outside of the Church. I truly believe this. Yes I believe this Universal and local.


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> That is not scriptural. There is no Salvation outside of the Church. I truly believe this. Yes I believe this Universal and local.


One does not become born again by water Baptism though!


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> One way men are saved and that being by the gospel message; this does not mean that Christ Himself doesn't go to these individuals and disseminate his plan via that same message of grace.


King David knew his son Would be with God, did that new born exercise saving faith?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> King David knew his son Would be with God, did that new born exercise saving faith?



In fact, yes he did; No one is saved without 'exercising' faith.


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> Yeah, but they never exercised personal faith - so therefore they cannot be saved, right? Are you saying God can look with favour on someone who has not exercised personal faith??? That sounds very un-baptist.


God said that He had compassion on many children in Ninevah, correct?


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> In fact, yes he did; No one is saved without 'exercising' faith.


how can a new born baby do that though?Bible seems to show that God has elected those in that state to eternal life in Christ.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> how can a new born baby do that though?



Whats not possible with men is possible with God. Unless u are prepared to declare that elect infants dying in infancy are saved another way than everybody else, i.e. two ways to be saved, you have to reconcile that issue.



> Bible seems to show that God has elected those in that state to eternal life in Christ.



Yes, by the gospel. Let me ask u another way: if infants cannot comprehend, that they have no intellect, that the Spirit of God transcends, do they enter glory with any theology at all or is their ignorance, perfected upon entering glory? Heaven is perfect and it's people perfect. Are infants made perfect?


----------



## Dachaser

I agree with this summary on this topic by one of the greatest Christian preachers who ever lived!
https://www.metropolitantabernacle....on-Charles-Spurgeon/Sword-and-Trowel-Magazine


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> I agree with this summary on this topic by one of the greatest Christian preachers who ever lived!
> https://www.metropolitantabernacle....on-Charles-Spurgeon/Sword-and-Trowel-Magazine



Spurgeon agrees with me:

"If infants are to be saved, it is not because of any _natural _innocence. *They must enter Heaven by the very same way that we do*; they must be received in the name of Christ, 'For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid.' There is no different foundation for the infant than that which is laid for the adult."


----------



## Ben Zartman

There are some very muddied waters here, but I will say to the OP (with apologies for joining so late--I don't have the luxury of perpetual internet access), that what is most objectionable in the Clark article is the notion, that I've seen elsewhere, that because Baptists won't baptize infants, they somehow deny them the blessings of being taught about God. Regarding them as not yet members of the covenant does not mean we do not instruct our children about Christ; lead them to Christ; place them under the preaching of the Word; cathechize, etc. Nobody stiff-arms a child who would sing Psalms and say: sorry, you're not a Christian so you may not sing that! Sorry, no sense in memorizing Scripture verses if you're not saved! It is an absurd caricature, but it keeps cropping up.
The only thing we deny them is receiving the sign of the New Covenant, which according to Baptist ecclesiology is to be applied only to born-again believers upon the answer of a good confession. I won't take this any further here--you can search past threads on this topic in which this gets discussed at length, or start another about it if you wish. they always generate a whirlwind of people coming around in a circle asking for the same thing to be explained yet again, then talking right on past.
Another objectionable thing about the article is his notion that "baby dedications" are somehow a feeble step in the right direction, as though some faint glimmer of light was beginning to shine on our benighted ecclesiology. Without being rude to Mr Clark, that is an imbecile notion. Baby dedications are not commanded, therefore are forbidden by the Regulative Principle. taking time out of God's worship to "dedicate babies" (what does that do, anyway?) is just as bad as bringing mime or interpretive dance or golden calves or any other uncommanded thing into it.
Finally, to those who say that baptizing infants seals to them the promise of salvation if they will believe: Does God not promise salvation in Christ to EVERYONE who believes? That's the promise of the gospel--whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. If I had baptized my children, what good would it do to say: "your baptism guarantees that you will be saved if you repent and believe." Mine at least would answer: "You know Dad, God saves unbaptized people too. His electing purposes cannot by frustrated by the failure of men to apply a sign."

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## De Jager

Ben Zartman said:


> Finally, to those who say that baptizing infants seals to them the promise of salvation if they will believe: Does God not promise salvation in Christ to EVERYONE who believes? That's the promise of the gospel--whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. If I had baptized my children, *what good would it do to say: "your baptism guarantees that you will be saved if you repent and believe."* Mine at least would answer: "You know Dad, God saves unbaptized people too. *His electing purposes cannot by frustrated by the failure of men to apply a sign."*



Don't try to be smarter than God. He gave us sacraments for a reason - because we are weak people whose faith needs strengthening, and so he gave us visible signs. I could use the same logic to dismiss the Lord's supper as unnecessary. After all, God saves people whether they partake in the supper or not. You could also use your logic to argue against the circumcision of children in the OT time. Why do they need to be circumcised? God's grace works independent of the sign, doesn't it? Yet he commanded them upon penalty of excommunication to give the sign of the covenant to their children. The fact is God commands us to use these signs to seal promises unto us. The real question is not whether you think something is beneficial or expedient, but whether God has commanded it. If he has commanded it, explicitly or implicitly, then you can be sure he has a good reason for it.

Finally, we both rejoice in the fact that God guarantees salvation to all who believe. But who is it who receives the promise of the covenant? Who is it who is told "I will be your God, and you will be my people"? Is it not believers and their children? Surely you cannot go to a random pagan in the street and say "God promises to be God to you and your children" - that would be extreme presumption. But what we can be sure is that God promises to all believers and their children - to be God to them. What if some do not believe? Does that nullify God's faithfulness? No. No it does not.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## deleteduser99

@Ben Zartman

Then what is the point of the Israelites receiving circumcision, a sign and seal of the righteousness that is by faith if the Gospel is promised to everyone? What is the value of circumcision, and what did a little cut in the skin add to anyone? After all, salvation was open to all whether inside or outside of Israel even before Christ came as evidence by Ruth, Uriah, the Ninevites, and OT exhortations such as Ps 117 to the Gentiles to praise Him.

Before saying that it was a national and ethnic mark for temporary promises, I'll bring up now that this is the New Testament interpretation of circumcision in Romans 4:11, of which Christ was minister (Romans 15:8-9), and meant to preach the very same promises of salvation to them. So the spiritual significance was not confined to be applied to Abraham alone.

The Rom 4 interpretation does not convey circumcision as foreshadowing a time of salvation or future realities in relation to Abraham, but sealing a real, present extant salvation available to Abraham in that time and place and to all who believe whether OT or NT--the same salvation we have now.

One can try to argue that we no longer apply the sign, but no one can argue that it is per se pointless. Otherwise God did something useless in the OT, and yet at that time it was a non-negotiable for discipleship.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## B.L.

De Jager said:


> Furthermore, I would like to point out that the baptist tradition really tries to pinpoint regeneration, and it is simply not that easy to figure out. There are literally countless people who have grown up in a Christian household who never remember "not believing", there is no clear demarcation of when that person "came to faith", rather there is only indications of a growing and deepening faith. *This is why you have people of baptist persuasion getting baptized multiple times because when they hit a lightbulb moment, the perceive it to be conversion, and thus their previous baptism (by their theology) is invalid.*





Harley said:


> *My baptism was never a comfort to me nor blessed to me in my Baptist days*, *even after having done it three times*, and quite sure that I was converted prior to the third time. Assurance still wasn't the best. Glad for no repeats on the horizon.





De Jager said:


> *The sad irony of all of that is that baptism was twisted from being a gracious source of comfort (wherein God's promises are made visible) to a point of anxiety and fear.*
> 
> *I remember myself, coming to some realizations around the age 24 (when I was a baptist) that perhaps at age 14 (when I was baptized) I wasn't saved. I didn't know for sure...but I doubted it. So I remember pondering whether I should get baptized again.* Thankfully my dad (who is a baptist) advised against it.





Andrew35 said:


> *Confronted with the question of whether my baptism as a young boy was really valid*, I began to search my past and try to figure out at what point my regeneration truly occurred.



Just curious...were any of these instances of repeated baptisms and doubts about whether your baptism was valid experienced while in a confessionally Reformed Baptist church? 

Doubts about one's assurance and questions about whether one is truly "saved" is something Christians of all stripes have historically wrestled with. Were it not, the Westminster Confession wouldn't need to include Chapter 17 "_Of the perseverance of the Saints_" or Chapter 18 "_Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation._" I'm thankful our forefathers in the faith included them in your standards (WCF) and in mine (LBCF). These truths, which are grounded in scripture, do provide much comfort when faithfully taught and learned.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> Don't try to be smarter than God. He gave us sacraments for a reason - because we are weak people whose faith needs strengthening, and so he gave us visible signs. I could use the same logic to dismiss the Lord's supper as unnecessary. After all, God saves people whether they partake in the supper or not. You could also use your logic to argue against the circumcision of children in the OT time. Why do they need to be circumcised? God's grace works independent of the sign, doesn't it? Yet he commanded them upon penalty of excommunication to give the sign of the covenant to their children. The fact is God commands us to use these signs to seal promises unto us. The real question is not whether you think something is beneficial or expedient, but whether God has commanded it. If he has commanded it, explicitly or implicitly, then you can be sure he has a good reason for it.
> 
> Finally, we both rejoice in the fact that God guarantees salvation to all who believe. But who is it who receives the promise of the covenant? Who is it who is told "I will be your God, and you will be my people"? Is it not believers and their children? Surely you cannot go to a random pagan in the street and say "God promises to be God to you and your children" - that would be extreme presumption. But what we can be sure is that God promises to all believers and their children - to be God to them. What if some do not believe? Does that nullify God's faithfulness? No. No it does not.


The Gospel is commanded to be given to all children though, not just to those born to saved parents.


----------



## Dachaser

Harley said:


> @Ben Zartman
> 
> Then what is the point of the Israelites receiving circumcision, a sign and seal of the righteousness that is by faith if the Gospel is promised to everyone? What is the value of circumcision, and what did a little cut in the skin add to anyone? After all, salvation was open to all whether inside or outside of Israel even before Christ came as evidence by Ruth, Uriah, the Ninevites, and OT exhortations such as Ps 117 to the Gentiles to praise Him.
> 
> Before saying that it was a national and ethnic mark for temporary promises, I'll bring up now that this is the New Testament interpretation of circumcision in Romans 4:11, of which Christ was minister (Romans 15:8-9), and meant to preach the very same promises of salvation to them. So the spiritual significance was not confined to be applied to Abraham alone.
> 
> The Rom 4 interpretation does not convey circumcision as foreshadowing a time of salvation or future realities in relation to Abraham, but sealing a real, present extant salvation available to Abraham in that time and place and to all who believe whether OT or NT--the same salvation we have now.
> 
> One can try to argue that we no longer apply the sign, but no one can argue that it is per se pointless. Otherwise God did something useless in the OT, and yet at that time it was a non-negotiable for discipleship.


The NC is New and better One, and those under it are united to Jesus through faith by the Holy Spirit before water Baptism.


----------



## Dachaser

B.L. McDonald said:


> Just curious...were any of these instances of repeated baptisms and doubts about whether your baptism was valid experienced while in a confessionally Reformed Baptist church?
> 
> Doubts about one's assurance and questions about whether one is truly "saved" is something Christians of all stripes have historically wrestled with. Were it not, the Westminster Confession wouldn't need to include Chapter 17 "_Of the perseverance of the Saints_" or Chapter 18 "_Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation._" I'm thankful our forefathers in the faith included them in your standards (WCF) and in mine (LBCF). These truths, which are grounded in scripture, do provide much comfort when faithfully taught and learned.


Baptist churches should have confirmed what one thinks of Jesus and salvation before water was applied.


----------



## Dachaser

Harley said:


> @Ben Zartman
> 
> Then what is the point of the Israelites receiving circumcision, a sign and seal of the righteousness that is by faith if the Gospel is promised to everyone? What is the value of circumcision, and what did a little cut in the skin add to anyone? After all, salvation was open to all whether inside or outside of Israel even before Christ came as evidence by Ruth, Uriah, the Ninevites, and OT exhortations such as Ps 117 to the Gentiles to praise Him.
> 
> Before saying that it was a national and ethnic mark for temporary promises, I'll bring up now that this is the New Testament interpretation of circumcision in Romans 4:11, of which Christ was minister (Romans 15:8-9), and meant to preach the very same promises of salvation to them. So the spiritual significance was not confined to be applied to Abraham alone.
> 
> The Rom 4 interpretation does not convey circumcision as foreshadowing a time of salvation or future realities in relation to Abraham, but sealing a real, present extant salvation available to Abraham in that time and place and to all who believe whether OT or NT--the same salvation we have now.
> 
> One can try to argue that we no longer apply the sign, but no one can argue that it is per se pointless. Otherwise God did something useless in the OT, and yet at that time it was a non-negotiable for discipleship.


The sign to infants applied in OC, but changed under new and better Covenant.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Spurgeon agrees with me:
> 
> "If infants are to be saved, it is not because of any _natural _innocence. *They must enter Heaven by the very same way that we do*; they must be received in the name of Christ, 'For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid.' There is no different foundation for the infant than that which is laid for the adult."


His point was that they are saved same means as we are, but God did not require them to exercise faith as he does adults!


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> His point was that they are saved same means as we are, but God did not require them to exercise faith as he does adults!



So then there are two ways men are saved?


----------



## Scott Bushey

I asked earlier, to which u again, didn't interact with:



> Let me ask u another way: if infants cannot comprehend, that they have no intellect, that the Spirit of God transcends, do they enter glory with any theology at all or is their ignorance, perfected upon entering glory? Heaven is perfect and it's people perfect. Are infants made perfect?


----------



## De Jager

B.L. McDonald said:


> *Just curious...were any of these instances of repeated baptisms and doubts about whether your baptism was valid experienced while in a confessionally Reformed Baptist church? *
> 
> Doubts about one's assurance and questions about whether one is truly "saved" is something Christians of all stripes have historically wrestled with. Were it not, the Westminster Confession wouldn't need to include Chapter 17 "_Of the perseverance of the Saints_" or Chapter 18 "_Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation._" I'm thankful our forefathers in the faith included them in your standards (WCF) and in mine (LBCF). These truths, which are grounded in scripture, do provide much comfort when faithfully taught and learned.



No. My baptism was done in a church that embraced decision-ism. Perhaps the situation would have been different if I was in a solid RB Church. That however was not the Lord's will for my life.


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> The sign to infants applied in OC, but changed under new and better Covenant.



I will be frank. In so many of your posts you don't even interact with the others, you just throw in a one-liner of your own position. Please brother, interact with our posts. We all know you are a baptist. We all know that I am reformed.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## deleteduser99

B.L. McDonald said:


> Just curious...were any of these instances of repeated baptisms and doubts about whether your baptism was valid experienced while in a confessionally Reformed Baptist church?
> 
> Doubts about one's assurance and questions about whether one is truly "saved" is something Christians of all stripes have historically wrestled with. Were it not, the Westminster Confession wouldn't need to include Chapter 17 "_Of the perseverance of the Saints_" or Chapter 18 "_Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation._" I'm thankful our forefathers in the faith included them in your standards (WCF) and in mine (LBCF). These truths, which are grounded in scripture, do provide much comfort when faithfully taught and learned.



I have gotten great comfort from the Standards lately. Marvelous gifts to the church!

My first was in a Pentecostal church. Surely was not saved at the time though I don't recall any administrative defects (ie. It was likely Trinitarian since my church wasn't modalist). Baptized a second time by one not appointed to it, and I did this because I thought I was recently converted for real. Third time was in an RB church after what I am certain was a real profession , and I did it at the advice of my elders. But my assurance not being the best I just wondered if I would have to do it again.

Not all RB churches believe in rebaptism. A number of them do. It's a problem though to make covenant signs about your profession above and over God's promises signified and sealed in them. Then you just end up wondering if you "got wet" and that is it. But baptism is the preaching of the Gospel by Christ's justifying blood and the Spirit's sanctifying cleansing, and the reality of the message does not depend on the state of the one receiving it. The message doesn't change.

So as circumcision signified Christ's righteousness regardless whether given to Isaac or Ishmael, so we say baptism too. It will preach participation in Christ's death and resurrection either way, and it's a Gospel message to the witnesses who observe it, and to the recipient all throughout his life.



Dachaser said:


> The NC is New and better One, and those under it are united to Jesus through faith by the Holy Spirit before water Baptism.



Brother,

It might help the discussion if you format things like so:

- The point you disagree with
- Why my interpretation of the text is wrong
- What the correct interpretation is
- Why yours is correct

I'm happy to dialogue, but you just keep stating the Baptist position without showing just why our statements are wrong.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> So then there are two ways men are saved?


Saved on Same basis, the Cross of Christ, but God does not require infants to exercise faith, as they have none!


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> I will be frank. In so many of your posts you don't even interact with the others, you just throw in a one-liner of your own position. Please brother, interact with our posts. We all know you are a baptist. We all know that I am reformed.


I am trying to interact, but feel like at times hard to express myself in a fashion understandable here!


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> I asked earlier, to which u again, didn't interact with:


See posting 56


----------



## Dachaser

Harley said:


> I have gotten great comfort from the Standards lately. Marvelous gifts to the church!
> 
> My first was in a Pentecostal church. Surely was not saved at the time though I don't recall any administrative defects (ie. It was likely Trinitarian since my church wasn't modalist). Baptized a second tume by onenot appointed to it, and I did this because I thought I was recently converted for real. Third time was in an RB church after what I am certain was a real profession , and I did it at the advice of my elders. But my assurance not being the best I just wondered if I would have to do it again.
> 
> Not all RB churches believein rebaptism. A number of them do. It's a problem though to make covenant signs about your profession above and over God's promises signified and sealed in them. Then you just end up wondering if you "got wet" and that is it. But baptism is the preaching of the Gospel by Christ's justifying blood and the Spirit's sanctifying cleansing, and the reality of the message does not depend on the state of the one receiving it. The message doesn't change.
> 
> So as circumcision signified Christ's righteousness regardless whether given to Isaac or Ishmael, so we say baptism too. It will preach participation in Christ's death and resurrection either way, and it's a Gospel message to the witnesses who observe it, and to the recipient all throughout his life.
> 
> 
> 
> Brother,
> 
> It might help the discussion if you format things like so:
> 
> - The point you disagrew with
> - Why my interpretation of the text is wrong
> - What the correct interpretation is
> - Why your's is correct
> 
> I'm happy to dialogue, but you just keep stating the Baptist position withoug showing just why our statements are wrong.


I do not see this as wrong or right, more as differences on understanding what the Bible teaches on this,!


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Saved o. Same basis, the Cross of Christ, but God does not require infants to exercise faith, as they have none!



How do u know that they have no faith? 

U still refuse to answer my previous question. Why is that? Please answer the question, please?

'Let me ask u another way: if infants cannot comprehend, that they have no intellect, that the Spirit of God transcends, do they enter glory with any theology at all or is their ignorance, perfected upon entering glory? Heaven is perfect and it's people perfect. Are infants made perfect?'


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> How do u know that they have no faith?
> 
> U still refuse to answer my previous question. Why is that? Please answer the question, please?
> 
> 'Let me ask u another way: if infants cannot comprehend, that they have no intellect, that the Spirit of God transcends, do they enter glory with any theology at all or is their ignorance, perfected upon entering glory? Heaven is perfect and it's people perfect. Are infants made perfect?'


They are given perfect resurrected bodies 
At the time of the Second Coming.I do not see them as babies forever.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> They are given perfect resurrected bodies
> At the time of the Second Coming.I do not see them as babies forever.



U again fail to address the issue; Did I ask anything about their bodies?


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> U again fail to address the issue; Did I ask anything about their bodies?


They will arrive in heaven in the same state adult saved will be in, whatever that is!


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Dachaser said:


> They will arrive in heaven in the same state adult saved will be in, whatever that is!



Brother, please heed the words that have been offered to you so many times. Take the time to edit your posts to ensure they are coherent. If you are unsure of your theology, sit the discussion out. Take the time to wrestle with some systematics slowly and prayerfully. Please know I say this out of love.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Dachaser

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Brother, please heed the words that have been offered to you so many times. Take the time to edit your posts to ensure they are coherent. If you are unsure of your theology, sit the discussion out. Take the time to wrestle with some systematics slowly and prayerfully. Please know I say this out of love.


I have read do far Hodgh


Reformed Bookworm said:


> Brother, please heed the words that have been offered to you so many times. Take the time to edit your posts to ensure they are coherent. If you are unsure of your theology, sit the discussion out. Take the time to wrestle with some systematics slowly and prayerfully. Please know I say this out of love.


I appreciate all of your here, and would say that I have read the ST of Hodge, Berkof, Erickson, Grudem, Boice, Calvin, Strong, and currently wading through the Puritan Theology for life book. I am still convinced and persuaded by the scriptures that the Baptist view on this issue is the correct one, but also do not view as something to divide over. I read that link to what the Westminster Professor wrote on infant and adult baptism views within the Church, and think that he has a really good position that we can build upon now! Both sides I think need to realize that we just might have to rethink some of our beliefs in regards to this issue to some degree.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Dachaser said:


> I have read do far Hodgh



It is sentences like this that warrant our frustration. Slow down and proofread your posts before submitting them.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser

Reformed Bookworm said:


> It is sentences like this that warrant our frustration. Slow down and proofread your posts before submitting them.


Corrected, as from now on will stick to computer keyboard, as its my phone small keys causing me trouble!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think it is hard for many to understand the difference between what Calvin would call the Spiritual Kingdom of Christ as distinguished between the visible Kingdom. Some have made a good case that the "Two Kingdom" view of Calvin is between this Spiritual Kingdom and its Visible Administration. He even included the role of Magistrates as an "estate" within the visible Kingdom with the Church herself as another estate in this visible Kingdom. We are not accustomed to thinking in this way because we assume that the Church herself is the Spiritual Kingdom.

In brief, this Spiritual Kingdom are those who belong to Christ - who have been regenerated, believe, justified, and are being sanctified by Christ. The Church does not *make* men, women, boys, and girls to be members of the invisible Kingdom but is given a crucial role in the administration of Word and Sacrament which are attended by the Spirit toward the end that these people become partakers of the Spiritual Kingdom. We can use the term Invisible as well to note that it is something happening by the power of the Spirit and not always discernible to the naked eye.

The minister of Christ has the sacred duty of preaching the Word which, through the power of the Spirit, accomplishes the ends of bringing people from Adam to Christ. 

As a visible administration of this Spiritual Kingdom, the Church binds and looses by the Word of God. It establishes a historical and visible boundary of those who are in this visible Kingdom, which is under the Mediatorial Headship of Christ. Baptism, as administered, is Promissary but does not confer the grace that it signifies. The Spirit alone seals the Promise to those Who He soverignly chooses. It is not given to the Church to baptize on the basis of whom it believes the Spirit will or has chosen but though those whom it has been commanded to baptize.

A profession of faith is not the bais by which a person is chosen. It is not for the Church the means by which it determines who has been chosen but it is the grounds by which it baptizes an adult convert to the faith. The convert is not one who has been identified, by the Church, as elect but as one whom Christ has commanded us to baptize into the visible Kingdom and disciple them. As a disciple, they are then members of the Church and subject to the means of grace by which the Spirit works. A disciple may long be a member of a visible congregation until the Spirit converts or they may be false professors who never press in and are judged for their lack of obedience to the Gospel of Christ. Today is the day of salvation for all who are in the Church and neither their profession nor their baptism confers union with Christ and its benefits. We treat each other as fellow heirs with a judgment of charity. We reprove and exhort one another to press in and not shrink back. We pray for one another but we are not in the business of determining who is *really* a member of the invisible Kingdom.

With this understanding of Christ's Spiritual and Visible Kingdom, we can better understand the status of our covenant children They are heirs to the Promise and are members, by birth, of the visible Kingdom. They are baptized because Christ has commanded their baptism. They are discipled because Christ has commanded that they be discipled. They are, as with any adult professor, enjoined to press into the Kingdom. We don't wait to baptize them until we are certain they are "real" disciples but we baptize them because they are disciples just like the rest of us who do not presume upon the fact that we are baptized but press in because we are disciples.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Ben Zartman

De Jager said:


> Don't try to be smarter than God. He gave us sacraments for a reason - because we are weak people whose faith needs strengthening, and so he gave us visible signs. I could use the same logic to dismiss the Lord's supper as unnecessary. After all, God saves people whether they partake in the supper or not. You could also use your logic to argue against the circumcision of children in the OT time. Why do they need to be circumcised? God's grace works independent of the sign, doesn't it? Yet he commanded them upon penalty of excommunication to give the sign of the covenant to their children. The fact is God commands us to use these signs to seal promises unto us. The real question is not whether you think something is beneficial or expedient, but whether God has commanded it. If he has commanded it, explicitly or implicitly, then you can be sure he has a good reason for it.
> 
> Finally, we both rejoice in the fact that God guarantees salvation to all who believe. But who is it who receives the promise of the covenant? Who is it who is told "I will be your God, and you will be my people"? Is it not believers and their children? Surely you cannot go to a random pagan in the street and say "God promises to be God to you and your children" - that would be extreme presumption. But what we can be sure is that God promises to all believers and their children - to be God to them. What if some do not believe? Does that nullify God's faithfulness? No. No it does not.


Friend, this isn't about being "smarter than God;" it's not about omitting things that we don't see as beneficial or expedient. If we were convinced that God had commanded that infants of believers be baptized, we would do it. However, it is Baptist boilerplate that He has commanded no such thing. There is no shifty logic at play here--we are obeying God's commands in good conscience.
As for who receives the promise of the Covenant--well, all who are elect, and no one else. In the times of types and shadows there was an external administration, which did not guarantee life, and an internal, which did. This external administration was painting a picture (a type, the Bible calls it), of spiritual realities that were not yet as clearly seen as when Christ came. Once Christ came and instituted the New Covenant, the administration of the covenant changed. No longer was it limited in scope to a physical nation, and no longer was it possible to be in covenant with God while remaining unregenerate. This is why the new administration is better than the old: all who are in covenant with God know Him--know Him savingly.
The promise to Abraham about his children and about a piece of Palestine were great and gracious promises, but their fulfillment pointed to a better thing: innumerable spiritual descendants for Abraham, and a city not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. So we see that even back then circumcision in the flesh meant nothing if it was not accompanied by circumcision in the heart, and having Abraham for your physical father only did not make you a real Jew until you were a Jew inwardly.
Now in our times, the birth that matters is not the physical birth from earthly parents, however regenerate they may be: the birth that matters is the New Birth, which uniting us to Christ makes us spiritual descendants of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful. And the sign is to be placed on those not who have been merely born, for the time of shadows is past, but on those who have been born again.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ben Zartman said:


> This is why the new administration is better than the old: all who are in covenant with God know Him--know Him savingly.



How is this different from OT times? I mean, really? Unless u have a regenerate geiger counter that identifies the elect, regenerates and converted, u are practicing along the same presumption as our OT saints.

Ben,
Is Esau a nation or a person?


----------



## Ben Zartman

Harley said:


> @Ben Zartman
> 
> Then what is the point of the Israelites receiving circumcision, a sign and seal of the righteousness that is by faith if the Gospel is promised to everyone? What is the value of circumcision, and what did a little cut in the skin add to anyone? After all, salvation was open to all whether inside or outside of Israel even before Christ came as evidence by Ruth, Uriah, the Ninevites, and OT exhortations such as Ps 117 to the Gentiles to praise Him.
> 
> Before saying that it was a national and ethnic mark for temporary promises, I'll bring up now that this is the New Testament interpretation of circumcision in Romans 4:11, of which Christ was minister (Romans 15:8-9), and meant to preach the very same promises of salvation to them. So the spiritual significance was not confined to be applied to Abraham alone.
> 
> The Rom 4 interpretation does not convey circumcision as foreshadowing a time of salvation or future realities in relation to Abraham, but sealing a real, present extant salvation available to Abraham in that time and place and to all who believe whether OT or NT--the same salvation we have now.
> 
> One can try to argue that we no longer apply the sign, but no one can argue that it is per se pointless. Otherwise God did something useless in the OT, and yet at that time it was a non-negotiable for discipleship.


Jake, you have quite an army of straw men here. No baptist claims that anything God did in the OT was useless. Circumcision visibly set one apart from other nations--it identified him with God's peculiar people. Nowadays we are set apart not by a mark in the flesh but by behaving differently than the unconverted. Can you not see the parallel?
Also, can you explain how Romans 4:11 applies to your argument? It seems to be saying that Abraham was circumcised AFTER he believed--he had been justified already! Salvation was not "available" to him, he had it before ever he was circumcised.
But perhaps I'd better begin by asking what you all mean by "seal." you keep using that as though it clinched all your claims: it seals the promise! Sure, it's there, but what do you take "seal" to mean?


----------



## Ben Zartman

Scott Bushey said:


> How is this different from OT times? I mean, really? Unless u have a regenerate geiger counter that identifies the elect, regenerates and converted, u are practicing along the same presumption as our OT saints.
> 
> Ben,
> Is Esau a nation or a person?


It's a different presumption, in that we're requiring the answer of a good confession, as Peter commands. Do we sometimes judge wrongly? of course. Peter did too, in that Simon Magus and Ananias were members of his congregation, but mistaken application doesn't negate the sign: this person bears witness by his life and word that he has been born again. But false professors, be baptized or not, are not in covenant with God.

Esau? who cares? I believe his name is used sometimes for his own self, and sometimes for him and his descendants as well. But I fail to see why he's brought up here.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ben Zartman said:


> It's a different presumption, in that we're requiring the answer of a good confession, as Peter commands.



but, u agree that it is a 'presumption' as u posit above? U previously said:



> all who are in covenant with God know Him--know Him savingly.



So, u agree then that u can't really know, who knows God 'savingly'?



> Do we sometimes judge wrongly? of course. Peter did too, in that Simon Magus and Ananias were members of his congregation, but mistaken application doesn't negate the sign



So then, u apply signage based solely on presumption. It is here that your point stumbles.



> this person bears witness by his life and word that he has been born again. But false professors, be baptized or not, are not in covenant with God.



My point, Ben, is that you are essentially doing the same thing all presbyterians do. We place the sign, based on command; we believing that the command is to our children even, 'discipling them'; and u to those who make confessions. However, none of us know that persons place in God's actual economy.



> Esau? who cares? I believe his name is used sometimes for his own self, and sometimes for him and his descendants as well. But I fail to see why he's brought up here.



I make mention of Esau in that most credo's find it quite convenient to try and substantiate their credo doctrine by saying that the covenant sign was simply a national idea and that the nation does not cross over into the NT economy; Considering Rom 9 and Esau says much as I don't see many credo's arguing on that point in Rom 9 that Esau is a nation and not a person (much like the Arminians try and press). In other words, I see many people doing this in one essence so as their doctrine filters out correctly and in the other instance, abandoning it, when it suits them, i.e. Circumcision was a sign only for the nation of Israel of the OT; the sign does not carry over for the NT as the people of God are not a physical nation anymore, but a spiritual one only, i.e. 'all will know him'.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Reformed Bookworm said:


> It is sentences like this that warrant our frustration. Slow down and proofread your posts before submitting them.



Chill out, brother. The posts are not likely to be published by RHB anytime soon ... unless you are keeping something from us.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## deleteduser99

Ben Zartman said:


> Jake, you have quite an army of straw men here. No baptist claims that anything God did in the OT was useless. Circumcision visibly set one apart from other nations--it identified him with God's peculiar people. Nowadays we are set apart not by a mark in the flesh but by behaving differently than the unconverted. Can you not see the parallel?
> Also, can you explain how Romans 4:11 applies to your argument? It seems to be saying that Abraham was circumcised AFTER he believed--he had been justified already! Salvation was not "available" to him, he had it before ever he was circumcised.
> But perhaps I'd better begin by asking what you all mean by "seal." you keep using that as though it clinched all your claims: it seals the promise! Sure, it's there, but what do you take "seal" to mean?



I'm not sure how quoting the rest of Romans 4 helps your case. You just proved that Abraham received believer's circumcision in the same way that New Testament adults coming in from the outside receive believer's baptism. Yet one more way in which the New Covenant administration works like the Abrahamic.

Apart from Abraham's faith, Romans 4:11 is relevant because the New Testament meaning of circumcision is the righteousness of Christ by faith, ie. Sign pointing to it. Had Abraham received circumcision first, it would have pointed to the righteousness of Christ by faith all the same. When it went to Isaac and Ishmael, it preached righteousness by faith in Christ. Every child whoever received it had the Gospel of righteousness by faith in Christ preached to them, and so did every church member who witnessed it. Circumcision is an ecclesiastical ordinance.

That's what I mean by sign--a road sign pointing to Christ for righteousness through faith, and therefore instructing you to go to Christ to get that righteousness.

My copy-and-paste isn't working, but you responded to the sealing nature of baptism by saying that the same Gospel is promised to everyone. You asked what good it does to give baptism to a child to guarantee that he will be saved if he believes when that's the same thing that unbelievers are told. Yet nonetheless, God gives a spiritual sign to the children of Israel anyway expressing this very promise. God's Word was enough, yet because of our weakness God confirms it with an oath (Hebrews 6) so that by two things in which God cannot lie we would be all the more confident about our hope--a seal. The oath didn't make it more certain, yet it made the promise more real to Abraham. Sealing. Wasn't God's word enough without splitting apart a bull and walking through it? Yes, yet God goes a step beyond anyway--the bull was a seal. So isn't the promise sure even without giving the sign of baptism? Yes, yet God gives it anyway. Isn't a man's commitment to marry a woman enough without giving a ring? Yes if he's godly and honest, yet that ring has a world of meaning anyway--that ring is a seal to a promise she already believes to be true and sincere.

So does it mean something when God preaches the Gospel to a child in a near and dear way by applying the sign of participation with Christ to their body? It absolutely means something. Christ just preached the Gospel to that child in a much more intimate manner than he has for those on the outside of the church.

Coming to the part which you say is a straw man, it wasn't an assertion that you see circumcision as useless. I mean this (though I wasn't clear): if baptizing an infant is useless because baptism is spiritual in nature and we do not have any evidence that the child believes or repents, then so was administrating circumcision to children who did not yet profess faith and repentance.


----------



## StephenMartyr

De Jager said:


> All orthodox wings of Christianity believe that children are born in sin, under the condemnation of Adam. All orthodox wings of Christianity also believe that children, no matter who they are, need to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus in order to be saved. By baptizing a child, no orthodox reformed believer is saying "this child is now saved" - rather they are saying "this child belongs to God and as the child of a believer, should be given the sign of the covenant" - as was done by the apostles when they baptized whole households upon the profession of faith of the head, and as was practiced in pre-Christ dispensation when whole households were circumcised.
> 
> Furthermore, I would like to point out that the baptist tradition really tries to pinpoint regeneration, and it is simply not that easy to figure out. There are literally countless people who have grown up in a Christian household who never remember "not believing", there is no clear demarcation of when that person "came to faith", rather there is only indications of a growing and deepening faith. This is why you have people of baptist persuasion getting baptized multiple times because when they hit a lightbulb moment, the perceive it to be conversion, and thus their previous baptism (by their theology) is invalid.
> 
> If the assumptions of the baptist you mentioned are correct, how can he possible account for passages like "Have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise?'"



Thanks for your post. That was pretty clear. I'd like to keep learning more about this. As for your question, I have no idea.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Scott Bushey said:


> but, u agree that it is a 'presumption' as u posit above? U previously said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, u agree then that u can't really know, who knows God 'savingly'?
> 
> 
> 
> So then, u apply signage based solely on presumption. It is here that your point stumbles.
> 
> 
> 
> My point, Ben, is that you are essentially doing the same thing all presbyterians do. We place the sign, based on command; we believing that the command is to our children even, 'discipling them'; and u to those who make confessions. However, none of us know that persons place in God's actual economy.
> 
> 
> 
> I make mention of Esau in that most credo's find it quite convenient to try and substantiate their credo doctrine by saying that the covenant sign was simply a national idea and that the nation does not cross over into the NT economy; Considering Rom 9 and Esau says much as I don't see many credo's arguing on that point in Rom 9 that Esau is a nation and not a person (much like the Arminians try and press). In other words, I see many people doing this in one essence so as their doctrine filters out correctly and in the other instance, abandoning it, when it suits them, i.e. Circumcision was a sign only for the nation of Israel of the OT; the sign does not carry over for the NT as the people of God are not a physical nation anymore, but a spiritual one only, i.e. 'all will know him'.


I wish I knew how to interleave snippets of your posts with answers like you do, but I failed nerd school. I'll just address them less elegantly, though I hope clearly.

First, of course we apply the sign presumptuously--only God truly knows what's in man's heart. We are not claiming infallibility. But we do require to be ourselves reasonably sure, although often erring on charity's side, that that person has been justified. So the point stumbles not at all.
Second, we see a difference between the physical birth and new birth. I've stated this a number of times, but here it is again: during the old administration, you entered the covenant by virtue of being born, but there were unregenerates in covenant with God. During the new covenant, you enter ONLY by new birth, regardless of parentage, and thus can only be regarded as being in covenant with God when you can give credible testimony to that.

Lastly, I have seen the Esau straw man demolished before, but it has very little relation to this topic. It may be you have been speaking to credos who don't have their ducks in a row.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Harley said:


> I'm not sure how quoting the rest of Romans 4 helps your case. You just proved that Abraham received believer's circumcision in the same way that New Testament adults coming in from the outside receive believer's baptism. Yet one more way in which the New Covenant administration works like the Abrahamic.
> 
> Apart from Abraham's faith, Romans 4:11 is relevant because the New Testament meaning of circumcision is the righteousness of Christ by faith, ie. Sign pointing to it. Had Abraham received circumcision first, it would have pointed to the righteousness of Christ by faith all the same. When it went to Isaac and Ishmael, it preached righteousness by faith in Christ. Every child whoever received it had the Gospel of righteousness by faith in Christ preached to them, and so did every church member who witnessed it. Circumcision is an ecclesiastical ordinance.
> 
> That's what I mean by sign--a road sign pointing to Christ for righteousness through faith, and therefore instructing you to go to Christ to get that righteousness.
> 
> My copy-and-paste isn't working, but you responded to the sealing nature of baptism by saying that the same Gospel is promised to everyone. You asked what good it does to give baptism to a child to guarantee that he will be saved if he believes when that's the same thing that unbelievers are told. Yet nonetheless, God gives a spiritual sign to the children of Israel anyway expressing this very promise. God's Word was enough, yet because of our weakness God confirms it with an oath (Hebrews 6) so that by two things in which God cannot lie we would be all the more confident about our hope--a seal. The oath didn't make it more certain, yet it made the promise more real to Abraham. Sealing. Wasn't God's word enough without splitting apart a bull and walking through it? Yes, yet God goes a step beyond anyway--the bull was a seal. So isn't the promise sure even without giving the sign of baptism? Yes, yet God gives it anyway. Isn't a man's commitment to marry a woman enough without giving a ring? Yes if he's godly and honest, yet that ring has a world of meaning anyway--that ring is a seal to a promise she already believes to be true and sincere.
> 
> So does it mean something when God preaches the Gospel to a child in a near and dear way by applying the sign of participation with Christ to their body? It absolutely means something. Christ just preached the Gospel to that child in a much more intimate manner than he has for those on the outside of the church.
> 
> Coming to the part which you say is a straw man, it wasn't an assertion that you see circumcision as useless. I mean this (though I wasn't clear): if baptizing an infant is useless because baptism is spiritual in nature and we do not have any evidence that the child believes or repents, then so was administrating circumcision to children who did not yet profess faith and repentance.


Jake,
In the interests of time, I will address only the most troubling paragraph: you said that when an infant is baptized, Christ had preached the Gospel to them in a more intimate manner than for those outside. Are you ascribing some sort of mystical efficacy to the act of baptism? The child has no idea what's going on, and will have to be told, years later, that he/she was baptized. If you claim that something changes for that child the instant they are baptized, you're ascribing some superstitious potency to the water, or the minister, or the ceremony.
The only efficacy of circumcision was a reminder, to themselves and others, that they were a called-out people. The called-out people of the new covenant are the spiritual descendants of Abraham--those who have been justified by faith, not merely those who have been born physically. But this is where Presbyterian's and Baptists will always divide: Baptists see no warrant to include unbelievers in the New Covenant, Presbyterian's think they do. We could go a few more rounds for nothing before putting it down, or we can leave it here, but we're never going to see eye to eye.
I am, however, interested in your answer to my first paragraph.


----------



## Kinghezy

Ben Zartman said:


> wish I knew how to interleave snippets of your posts with answers like you do



See attached. Selecting text and then hitting that reply throws that selected quote down to the reply. Quote saves the snippet so you can add later.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ben Zartman said:


> during the old administration, you entered the covenant by virtue of being born, but there were unregenerates in covenant with God. During the new covenant, you enter ONLY by new birth, regardless of parentage, and thus can only be regarded as being in covenant with God when you can give credible testimony to that.



and hence, the inconsistencies.....On one hand u say:



> only God truly knows what's in man's heart. We are not claiming infallibility.



and on the other:



> During the new covenant, you enter ONLY by new birth



Again, how is this different from the OT time? Men have only entered into the invisible distinction, by the new birth.



> during the old administration, you entered the covenant by virtue of being born



False dichotomy. See my previous statement.



> credible testimony



A testimony proves nothing. It is simple presumption at best; time would be a better thermometer.

I disagree that the Esau issue is a 'straw man'. U demonstrate it by your 'testimony' statement alone; Implying that the OT saints that were justified by faith alone didn't testify of said faith.

Since there is only one gospel, the same one that was preached to Abraham, Rom 10 is as pertinent to the OT time period as the NT one.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ben Zartman said:


> The called-out people of the new covenant are the spiritual descendants of Abraham--those who have been justified by faith, not merely those who have been born physically.



U mean like Isaac, Jacob, et. al.?


----------



## deleteduser99

Ben Zartman said:


> Jake,
> In the interests of time, I will address only the most troubling paragraph: you said that when an infant is baptized, Christ had preached the Gospel to them in a more intimate manner than for those outside. Are you ascribing some sort of mystical efficacy to the act of baptism? The child has no idea what's going on, and will have to be told, years later, that he/she was baptized. If you claim that something changes for that child the instant they are baptized, you're ascribing some superstitious potency to the water, or the minister, or the ceremony.
> The only efficacy of circumcision was a reminder, to themselves and others, that they were a called-out people. The called-out people of the new covenant are the spiritual descendants of Abraham--those who have been justified by faith, not merely those who have been born physically. But this is where Presbyterian's and Baptists will always divide: Baptists see no warrant to include unbelievers in the New Covenant, Presbyterian's think they do. We could go a few more rounds for nothing before putting it down, or we can leave it here, but we're never going to see eye to eye.
> I am, however, interested in your answer to my first paragraph.



I'm pressed for time too, so the most I said is that the Gospel is preached to them by a sign that demonstrates the sincerity and goodwill of God to deliver what He promises, like an engagement ring--the sealing. I said nothing about its efficacy, so my view on baptism cannot be charged as including ex opere operato, or some kind of auto-efficacy or baptismal regeneration. Such a view has absolutely no welcome place in my theology anywhere. It is utterly repulsive, anti-Gospel, nullifies the free grace of God.

No matter the child doesn't remember--it did happen. God gave it to them, that's all that needs to be known to benefit.

As for the idea that circumcision is only a reminder, I think it waters down what Romans 4 says about it. But then again, there's other business for the day, and I've written on it here and copiously in other places in recent threads, so I'll stop there. I for one see that the warrant to baptize households as clear, and the spirituality of baptism and the profession of adults preceding baptism hold no weight against it per what I've written here and elsewhere.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Harley said:


> No matter the child doesn't remember--it did happen. God gave it to them, that's all that needs to be known.


Yes! It is a powerful thing to remind your grown children, who don’t show evidence of having been circumcised in heart, that as children born to believing parents, God himself caused this sign of belonging and claim to be placed on them; they were initiated into the visible administration of the new covenant and into membership of it, into the commonwealth of the Church, and partook of its many outward blessings. (Oh the solemn and weighty truth about God and the visible church conveyed by this...!)


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> Yes! It is a powerful thing to remind your grown children, who don’t show evidence of having been circumcised in heart, that as children born to believing parents, God himself caused this sign of belonging and claim to be placed on them; they were initiated into the visible administration of the new covenant and into membership of it, into the commonwealth of the Church, and partook of its many outward blessings. (Oh the solemn and weighty truth about God and the visible church conveyed by this...!)


Unless they receive Jesus as Lord though, in the end they are still unsaved persons outside of the NC with God!


----------



## Ben Zartman

Kinghezy said:


> See attached. Selecting text and then hitting that reply throws that selected quote down to the reply. Quote saves the snippet so you can add later.


Thanks! Still looks intimidating, but I'll try and work up to trying it.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Scott Bushey said:


> and hence, the inconsistencies.....On one hand u say:
> 
> 
> 
> and on the other:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, how is this different from the OT time? Men have only entered into the invisible distinction, by the new birth.
> 
> 
> 
> False dichotomy. See my previous statement.
> 
> 
> 
> A testimony proves nothing. It is simple presumption at best; time would be a better thermometer.
> 
> I disagree that the Esau issue is a 'straw man'. U demonstrate it by your 'testimony' statement alone; Implying that the OT saints that were justified by faith alone didn't testify of said faith.
> 
> Since there is only one gospel, the same one that was preached to Abraham, Rom 10 is as pertinent to the OT time period as the NT one.


I think I see the problem here. You want the sign to be the actual thing that it signifies--the entrance into the New Covenant. But the sign of baptism doesn't bring you in-it is merely an external witness to one's credible claim to have been placed into covenant by God's working. It testifies to the reality that you were born again into God's family. In the OT, the sign of circumcision testified to the fact that you had been born into Abraham's family. How much more blessed is the sign of the New Covenant! Applied properly, it testifies that you have actually been given eternal life! Circumcision signalled only the promise of life to those who would believe--and a glorious thing surely it was--but baptism testifies that redemption has been applied. Not just the potential, but the surety.
That the sign is often misapplied by fallible men does not negate what it means for those to whom it is applied correctly.
I'm not sure about your Esau paragraph. Can you explain what you mean by: "Implying that the OT saints that were justified by faith alone didn't testify of said faith"?
Thanks.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Harley said:


> I'm pressed for time too, so the most I said is that the Gospel is preached to them by a sign that demonstrates the sincerity and goodwill of God to deliver what He promises, like an engagement ring--the sealing. I said nothing about its efficacy, so my view on baptism cannot be charged as including ex opere operato, or some kind of auto-efficacy or baptismal regeneration. Such a view has absolutely no welcome place in my theology anywhere. It is utterly repulsive, anti-Gospel, nullifies the free grace of God.
> 
> No matter the child doesn't remember--it did happen. God gave it to them, that's all that needs to be known to benefit.
> 
> As for the idea that circumcision is only a reminder, I think it waters down what Romans 4 says about it. But then again, there's other business for the day, and I've written on it here and copiously in other places in recent threads, so I'll stop there. I for one see that the warrant to baptize households as clear, and the spirituality of baptism and the profession of adults preceding baptism hold no weight against it per what I've written here and elsewhere.


So, when does the child begin to benefit from having the Gospel preached to them in a sign they don't remember? When they are later told and can understand that they were baptized? Not trying to be sarcastic here, though it might read that way. Just trying to understand.

As for household baptisms, why did you drag those into this? You know how those discussions go between baptists and Presbyterians:
Presbyterian: Household baptism!
Baptist: Prove from the Scriptures that there were infants in those households
Presbyterians: (silence)
The household baptism schtick goes nowhere--you're better off trying to show that the Old Covenant is exactly the same in every way as the New so that the sign should mean the exact same thing and be applied in exactly the same way. Which is also doomed to failure, but is a lot more entertaining.
Grace and peace to you, brother. I hope none of this sounds mean--I'm simply at a loss how to communicate better.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ben Zartman said:


> Applied properly, it testifies that you have actually been given eternal life!





Ben Zartman said:


> but baptism testifies that redemption has been applied. Not just the potential, but the surety.



You keep saying this and then contradicting yourself. I cited your previous statements, if u look back at our dialog i.e. presumption. 



> That the sign is often misapplied by fallible men does not negate what it means for those to whom it is applied correctly.



....and hence, circumcision or infants. It is not any different in either epoch and u prove this by your own words here.


----------



## deleteduser99

Ben Zartman said:


> So, when does the child begin to benefit from having the Gospel preached to them in a sign they don't remember? When they are later told and can understand that they were baptized? Not trying to be sarcastic here, though it might read that way. Just trying to understand.
> 
> As for household baptisms, why did you drag those into this? You know how those discussions go between baptists and Presbyterians:
> Presbyterian: Household baptism!
> Baptist: Prove from the Scriptures that there were infants in those households
> Presbyterians: (silence)
> The household baptism schtick goes nowhere--you're better off trying to show that the Old Covenant is exactly the same in every way as the New so that the sign should mean the exact same thing and be applied in exactly the same way. Which is also doomed to failure, but is a lot more entertaining.
> Grace and peace to you, brother. I hope none of this sounds mean--I'm simply at a loss how to communicate better.



No defect in your communication brother. I don't think I misunderstand your position at all, as two years ago I was a well-convinced Baptist for all the reasons you cited before, even thinking that the paedo view necessitates some kind of automatic efficacy in the subject which I hold as anti-Gospel. Your arguments for your position and against mine are clear and familiar to me, though I disagree that the Scriptures necessitate them. Your skit doesn't strike me as accurate, but I believe your representation of yourself that you intend no bullying. I trust that I can say the same, even if I write strongly too.

As for efficacy, it's almost like asking when I expect the Spirit of the wind to blow. He does that on His own, making the ordinances efficacious as a means to implant or confirm faith at the time He chooses, but never as obligated to because the sacrament was given. In the normal course, it will be efficacious as the child comes to understand what baptism means, and in the prayers and discipleship of the congregation as they grasp its significance and apply it accordingly.

"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Does faith always come when the Word is preached? Not always. When it comes, is it always in the moment when the Word is preached? By experience, no.

Classic example: John Flavel preaches a sermon in Europe, a young man hears the preaching. 80 years later in America, reflecting on the sermon, that man is converted. I oftentimes benefit from a sermon _after_ I've heard it, sometimes getting more out of the reflection than I do the listening (not unusual with small children). Some old sermons which I've heard previously still bear fruit even now. During Communion Season some of the greatest benefits have come before and after the worship service, and not during the partaking itself (though sometimes yes, during the partaking). January 14, 1855 on another continent, Spurgeon preaches on the hideousness of unbelief, and it convicts me 160 years later. Gerald Bilkes preaches in the Puritan Seminary chapel about Paul's undauntedness and composure in shaking the snake from his hand, I hear about it from a student and not firsthand, I still seek to apply that principle. I'm likely benefiting from sermons that I've forgotten have been preached.

Yet the reason that baptism may continue to be an efficacious means of grace is because it is a sign: it points to Christ, tells us to put faith in Him, thus it is a Gospel messenger. It is a seal because it authenticates the promise, and assures that God fully means to stand by His promise to deliver righteousness upon believing, like the bull in Genesis 15, like the Lord's Supper sealing the promise of life in His body and blood, like the ring sealing a man's promise to marry and confirming the woman's faith in his word. So long as baptism is a sign and seal of Christ's righteousness, life, death, it will preach to all who witness it, and most dearly and personally to the one to whom God directly gives it. For that reason, its efficacy _cannot_ be tied to one time and place, and _cannot_ be tied to the recipient's memory.

Back to the original comment that sparked this: did God promise salvation by faith to all who believe, whether inside or outside the church? Yes. Does he preach the Gospel and confirm the same promise of salvation by faith in Christ to the baptized in a way beyond the way he has preached it to the unbaptized? Absolutely yes. That's true whether the sign is given to infants or not.

HH baptisms got brought in for your comment that we think we have warrant to bring in unbelievers (big time straw man). So let's be fair that I'm not the first to introduce side topics in our dialogue. To be clear: we don't g0 searching the Scriptures in hopes of finding a way to admit people into the church who we know to be unbelievers--we go to the New Testament, find out who is baptized, and build our doctrine accordingly. We see households baptized, therefore we baptize households whether or not that household has any infants on it. And as a matter of due diligence we search out the immediate context and the whole Biblical context to confirm we have understood the nature and recipients correctly. There's only so much ado about infants because the main difference between us is that the Baptist position necessitates an intelligent profession in the case of absolutely everyone who is baptized, and thus infants are by default at the center of controversy. We simply disagree--those under care of a household head are to be baptized. Even the term "paedobaptist" is a straw man that's gotten grandfathered into our theological vocabulary on both sides. Per Romans 4, the spiritual nature of baptism and the intelligent profession of adults mentioned in the New Testament is no reason to preclude the infant members of households than the spiritual nature of circumcision and the profession of faith by Abraham was warrant to preclude infant males.

But then again, we've come full circle because that's where we disagree. And I've written copiously already on circumcision, Abraham's profession, so this'll get redundant. I speak strongly I know, but I trust that's more out of earnest and not out of any felt antagonism. God bless you too.


----------



## De Jager

One thing I've ran into a lot in discussions with baptists is this idea that in the OT, you were "born into" the covenant physically, but in the NT you only become part of the covenant when you are "born again". This is not an accurate distinction. The condition of real covenant membership has always been _faith_. Without faith, those people were simply external members of God's people, just like any unconverted churchgoer is today. God always has called people to a real faith and trust in him. That is why the people of Israel are exhorted to "circumcise their hearts" - because this sign pointed to a spiritual thing. This is also why in the NT Paul says that one is true Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart. And in Ephesians 3:3 he says:

_"For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh"_

In essence he is saying - don't get fooled by these Judaizers - they say you cannot be saved without circumcision, but they don't even understand the sign. The sign doesn't save you, but it points toward a sovereign work of God wherein he removes our sins from us, and we then put all confidence in God and none in our own works. We are the ones who are truly circumcised. We have the spiritual circumcision - they just have the outward sign.


----------



## Scott Bushey

De Jager said:


> We have the spiritual circumcision - they just have the outward sign.



and this hasn't changed since Gen 3. Same in both epochs.


----------



## B.L.

I'm loving the exchange between you two brothers (@Harley, @Ben Zartman).

_[Edit: The question below is open to all to respond to; not just Harley and Ben.]_

As I continue to try and discern the mind of God on the issue of Christian baptism one area of the covenantal infant baptism position I struggle to understand (_my own shortcomings to be sure_) is why, taking the Presbyterian view, Jesus would institute the sacrament and command Christians to give their children the sign and seal of the new covenant when according to God's eternal decree there will be _some _children of believers who before the creation of the world were foreordained to everlasting death. The number of the elect is so certain and definite that it cannot be increased or diminished. In recognizing the truths of this high mystery and handling it with special prudence and care, why would God command this sign and seal be given to those who are not counted among the elect? This question is narrowly focused on the mind of God alone.

I fear I have a blind spot or two and would appreciate some clarity to help my understanding. Thank you in advance.

Have a joyful day in the Lord everyone!


----------



## Scott Bushey

B.L. McDonald said:


> why would God command this sign and seal be given to those who are not counted among the elect?



Hi B.L.,
I pray, since u have addressed 'Harley' and 'Ben', that u would allow me a question to you in response: Why would God command the sign of circumcision to those 'not counted among the elect'?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## deleteduser99

B.L. McDonald said:


> I'm loving the exchange between you two brothers (@Harley, @Ben Zartman).
> 
> As I continue to try and discern the mind of God on the issue of Christian baptism one area of the covenantal infant baptism position I struggle to understand (_my own shortcomings to be sure_) is why, taking the Presbyterian view, Jesus would institute the sacrament and command Christians to give their children the sign and seal of the new covenant when according to God's eternal decree there will be _some _children of believers who before the creation of the world were foreordained to everlasting death. The number of the elect is so certain and definite that it cannot be increased or diminished. In recognizing the truths of this high mystery and handling it with special prudence and care, why would God command this sign and seal be given to those who are not counted among the elect? This question is narrowly focused on the mind of God alone.
> 
> I fear I have a blind spot or two and would appreciate some clarity to help my understanding. Thank you in advance.
> 
> Have a joyful day in the Lord everyone!



Thank you brother. I'm short on time, but give Romans 4:11 some thought and you'll see the position that puzzles you has been done 1500 years before the NT church.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> and this hasn't changed since Gen 3. Same in both epochs.


Those who are spiritually circumcized are those who have received Jesus as Lord under the NC.


----------



## Dachaser

Harley said:


> Thank you brother. I'm short on time, but give Romans 4:11 some thought and you'll see the position that puzzles you has been done 1500 years before the NT church.


Per Paul, who are those saved in Christ? Those who received Jesus through faith, and now have the Holy Spirit in them!


----------



## Dachaser

B.L. McDonald said:


> I'm loving the exchange between you two brothers (@Harley, @Ben Zartman).
> 
> As I continue to try and discern the mind of God on the issue of Christian baptism one area of the covenantal infant baptism position I struggle to understand (_my own shortcomings to be sure_) is why, taking the Presbyterian view, Jesus would institute the sacrament and command Christians to give their children the sign and seal of the new covenant when according to God's eternal decree there will be _some _children of believers who before the creation of the world were foreordained to everlasting death. The number of the elect is so certain and definite that it cannot be increased or diminished. In recognizing the truths of this high mystery and handling it with special prudence and care, why would God command this sign and seal be given to those who are not counted among the elect? This question is narrowly focused on the mind of God alone.
> 
> I fear I have a blind spot or two and would appreciate some clarity to help my understanding. Thank you in advance.
> 
> Have a joyful day in the Lord everyone!


All those found in and under the NC are saved by faith in Christ and already have received the Holy Spirit, as water Baptism sign of that having happened!


----------



## Ben Zartman

Scott Bushey said:


> You keep saying this and then contradicting yourself. I cited your previous statements, if u look back at our dialog i.e. presumption.
> 
> 
> 
> ....and hence, circumcision or infants. It is not any different in either epoch and u prove this by your own words here.


I will ascribe your inability to understand to my own failure in communication rather than to the obduracy that it appears you are displaying. I don't believe I can explain it any more clearly--if you still see inconsistencies in my gleaming, seamless arguments, I will say with the prophet: "Alas! I have spent my strength in vain and for nought." I suppose it would be a lot to suppose that we together could mend a five-century-old rift.
In my defence, I say only that it's usually pretty hard to figure out exactly what your point is, and addressing what I think you're saying, you say you're saying something else. It's been fun, but I'll leave it here between us, and no doubt see you here and there about the forum.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Harley said:


> No defect in your communication brother. I don't think I misunderstand your position at all, as two years ago I was a well-convinced Baptist for all the reasons you cited before, even thinking that the paedo view necessitates some kind of automatic efficacy in the subject which I hold as anti-Gospel. Your arguments for your position and against mine are clear and familiar to me, though I disagree that the Scriptures necessitate them. Your skit doesn't strike me as accurate, but I believe your representation of yourself that you intend no bullying. I trust that I can say the same, even if I write strongly too.
> 
> As for efficacy, it's almost like asking when I expect the Spirit of the wind to blow. He does that on His own, making the ordinances efficacious as a means to implant or confirm faith at the time He chooses, but never as obligated to because the sacrament was given. In the normal course, it will be efficacious as the child comes to understand what baptism means, and in the prayers and discipleship of the congregation as they grasp its significance and apply it accordingly.
> 
> "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Does faith always come when the Word is preached? Not always. When it comes, is it always in the moment when the Word is preached? By experience, no.
> 
> Classic example: John Flavel preaches a sermon in Europe, a young man hears the preaching. 80 years later in America, reflecting on the sermon, that man is converted. I oftentimes benefit from a sermon _after_ I've heard it, sometimes getting more out of the reflection than I do the listening (not unusual with small children). Some old sermons which I've heard previously still bear fruit even now. During Communion Season some of the greatest benefits have come before and after the worship service, and not during the partaking itself (though sometimes yes, during the partaking). January 14, 1855 on another continent, Spurgeon preaches on the hideousness of unbelief, and it convicts me 160 years later. Gerald Bilkes preaches in the Puritan Seminary chapel about Paul's undauntedness and composure in shaking the snake from his hand, I hear about it from a student and not firsthand, I still seek to apply that principle. I'm likely benefiting from sermons that I've forgotten have been preached.
> 
> Yet the reason that baptism may continue to be an efficacious means of grace is because it is a sign: it points to Christ, tells us to put faith in Him, thus it is a Gospel messenger. It is a seal because it authenticates the promise, and assures that God fully means to stand by His promise to deliver righteousness upon believing, like the bull in Genesis 15, like the Lord's Supper sealing the promise of life in His body and blood, like the ring sealing a man's promise to marry and confirming the woman's faith in his word. So long as baptism is a sign and seal of Christ's righteousness, life, death, it will preach to all who witness it, and most dearly and personally to the one to whom God directly gives it. For that reason, its efficacy _cannot_ be tied to one time and place, and _cannot_ be tied to the recipient's memory.
> 
> Back to the original comment that sparked this: did God promise salvation by faith to all who believe, whether inside or outside the church? Yes. Does he preach the Gospel and confirm the same promise of salvation by faith in Christ to the baptized in a way beyond the way he has preached it to the unbaptized? Absolutely yes. That's true whether the sign is given to infants or not.
> 
> HH baptisms got brought in for your comment that we think we have warrant to bring in unbelievers (big time straw man). So let's be fair that I'm not the first to introduce side topics in our dialogue. To be clear: we don't g0 searching the Scriptures in hopes of finding a way to admit people into the church who we know to be unbelievers--we go to the New Testament, find out who is baptized, and build our doctrine accordingly. We see households baptized, therefore we baptize households whether or not that household has any infants on it. And as a matter of due diligence we search out the immediate context and the whole Biblical context to confirm we have understood the nature and recipients correctly. There's only so much ado about infants because the main difference between us is that the Baptist position necessitates an intelligent profession in the case of absolutely everyone who is baptized, and thus infants are by default at the center of controversy. We simply disagree--those under care of a household head are to be baptized. Even the term "paedobaptist" is a straw man that's gotten grandfathered into our theological vocabulary on both sides. Per Romans 4, the spiritual nature of baptism and the intelligent profession of adults mentioned in the New Testament is no reason to preclude the infant members of households than the spiritual nature of circumcision and the profession of faith by Abraham was warrant to preclude infant males.
> 
> But then again, we've come full circle because that's where we disagree. And I've written copiously already on circumcision, Abraham's profession, so this'll get redundant. I speak strongly I know, but I trust that's more out of earnest and not out of any felt antagonism. God bless you too.


Beautifully put, even if we continue to disagree. At least our positions are clear. Thanks for the discussion, although the OP's head might be spinning, wondering where his thread went.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Those who are spiritually circumcized are those who have received Jesus as Lord under the NC.



Which is the same under the OT economy.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Per Paul, who are those saved in Christ? Those who received Jesus through faith, and now have the Holy Spirit in them!



The OT saints had the same indwelling of the HS.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> All those found in and under the NC are saved by faith in Christ and already have received the Holy Spirit, as water Baptism sign of that having happened!



U continue to kick against the harmony of biblical theology; Dispensationalizing God's word. There is only one gospel. All believers, no matter the time frame, are saved by faith.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ben Zartman said:


> I will ascribe your inability to understand to my own failure in communication rather than to the obduracy that it appears you are displaying. I don't believe I can explain it any more clearly--if you still see inconsistencies in my gleaming, seamless arguments, I will say with the prophet: "Alas! I have spent my strength in vain and for nought." I suppose it would be a lot to suppose that we together could mend a five-century-old rift.
> In my defence, I say only that it's usually pretty hard to figure out exactly what your point is, and addressing what I think you're saying, you say you're saying something else. It's been fun, but I'll leave it here between us, and no doubt see you here and there about the forum.



Ben, if u like, I can show u the contradictions in what u have said. if not, thats fine also. Love u, none the less.


----------



## Ben Zartman

B.L. McDonald said:


> I'm loving the exchange between you two brothers (@Harley, @Ben Zartman).
> 
> As I continue to try and discern the mind of God on the issue of Christian baptism one area of the covenantal infant baptism position I struggle to understand (_my own shortcomings to be sure_) is why, taking the Presbyterian view, Jesus would institute the sacrament and command Christians to give their children the sign and seal of the new covenant when according to God's eternal decree there will be _some _children of believers who before the creation of the world were foreordained to everlasting death. The number of the elect is so certain and definite that it cannot be increased or diminished. In recognizing the truths of this high mystery and handling it with special prudence and care, why would God command this sign and seal be given to those who are not counted among the elect? This question is narrowly focused on the mind of God alone.
> 
> I fear I have a blind spot or two and would appreciate some clarity to help my understanding. Thank you in advance.
> 
> Have a joyful day in the Lord everyone!


It's never safe to ask "Why would God?" as it seeks to bring human logic into the secret things of God. We must ask: "What has God said?" In this case, the baptists and paedos disagree on the answer to the latter question. Baptists believe that circumcision was a sign of the old administration, it was administered in the era of shadows, and is among those rudiments that were abrogated when Christ instituted the New Covenant. The New Covenant has different features (Hebrews calls them "better," though our Presbyterian friends have a different idea of what better means than we do), it has different ordinances. All those things in the OT--the tabernacle, the sacrifices, the feasts, circumcision, etc--have real parallels in the NT administration. They were all pointing to a reality that was to come. Of course there was justification by faith, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and communion with God--but with the coming of Messiah all of the shadows that pointed to Him were no longer required; all the physical pictures that pointed to spiritual realities were done away with, because the substance had arrived.
We have remaining only two pictures that the church paints: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Both have shadows in the OT, both point not to future realities, but to present blessings.
If you remember that presbyterians have a more complicated ecclesiology in which (because this was true in the OT), you can be in covenant with God without actually being regenerated, then you understand why they baptize infants. They are not testifying that the child is elect: they are bringing it into the covenant in hopes that it will prove to have been. Baptists believe that the New Covenant is made up only of those who have been justified, and thus adopted into God's family. So we apply the sign of the covenant only to those who can credibly claim to have been saved. The sign does not fetch you into covenant--God has already done that in regeneration. It is the visible church acknowledging your confession.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Scott Bushey said:


> Ben, if u like, I can show u the contradictions in what u have said. if not, thats fine also. Love u, none the less.


I'd love to see the contradictions, if you can explain them as you would to a child.


----------



## deleteduser99

Ben Zartman said:


> Beautifully put, even if we continue to disagree. At least our positions are clear. Thanks for the discussion, although the OP's head might be spinning, wondering where his thread went.



Now this is a Christian conclusion  much thanks to you too.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> The OT saints had the same indwelling of the HS.


Not all who were cimcusized under the OC were saved, but all who have received Jesus and have the Holy Spirit in them are, in order to have water Baptism given to them!


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> It's never safe to ask "Why would God?" as it seeks to bring human logic into the secret things of God. We must ask: "What has God said?" In this case, the baptists and paedos disagree on the answer to the latter question. Baptists believe that circumcision was a sign of the old administration, it was administered in the era of shadows, and is among those rudiments that were abrogated when Christ instituted the New Covenant. The New Covenant has different features (Hebrews calls them "better," though our Presbyterian friends have a different idea of what better means than we do), it has different ordinances. All those things in the OT--the tabernacle, the sacrifices, the feasts, circumcision, etc--have real parallels in the NT administration. They were all pointing to a reality that was to come. Of course there was justification by faith, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and communion with God--but with the coming of Messiah all of the shadows that pointed to Him were no longer required; all the physical pictures that pointed to spiritual realities were done away with, because the substance had arrived.
> We have remaining only two pictures that the church paints: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Both have shadows in the OT, both point not to future realities, but to present blessings.
> If you remember that presbyterians have a more complicated ecclesiology in which (because this was true in the OT), you can be in covenant with God without actually being regenerated, then you understand why they baptize infants. They are not testifying that the child is elect: they are bringing it into the covenant in hopes that it will prove to have been. Baptists believe that the New Covenant is made up only of those who have been justified, and thus adopted into God's family. So we apply the sign of the covenant only to those who can credibly claim to have been saved. The sign does not fetch you into covenant--God has already done that in regeneration. It is the visible church acknowledging your confession.


This discussion seems to hinge on just how new the NC really is!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Let me make this simple:
U previously said:
"but baptism testifies that redemption has been applied. Not just the potential, but the surety."

"Applied properly, it testifies that you have actually been given eternal life!"

and then, 

"Do we sometimes judge wrongly? of course. Peter did too, in that Simon Magus and Ananias were members of his congregation, but mistaken application doesn't negate the sign".


This is only a few of the tensions I have read in your posts. 

Again, how is the above any different in practical application from the OT sign? 
For example, the sign is placed on us and our children. We look for confession and place the sign. This is the same for the OT saint; Are they saved; Only God knows. None of us can say w/ surety that any of us are, in reality, saved. We presume they are, at best. 

My whole point is showing that the distinctions u make, i.e. circumcision was primarily a national designation (in the way u are using it), is no different from the NT sign, i.e. the Israel of God; which has always been the same gospel, no matter the timeframe.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Not all who were cimcusized under the OC were saved



The above is no different in the NT economy w/ water baptism.



> but all who have received Jesus and have the Holy Spirit in them are, in order to have water Baptism given to them!



How does anyone know who the HS is indwelling? Please Sir, tell me how?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Dachaser said:


> Not all who were cimcusized under the OC were saved, but all who have received Jesus and have the Holy Spirit in them are, in order to have water Baptism given to them!


I'm curious to know how you determine in whom the Holy Spirit dwells.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## De Jager

Ok, let's get one thing straight, when the NT speaks of the "old covenant", it is speaking of the covenant made at Mount Sinai, that is the Mosaic covenant. It is not speaking of the one made 430 years earlier with Abraham. Circumcision was given as a sign of the eternal covenant that God revealed with Abraham.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager

Tom Hart said:


> I'm curious to know how you determine in whom the Holy Spirit dwells.



Confessional baptists baptize on credible profession of faith, therefore they must concede that they do not know the true spiritual state.


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> Not all who were cimcusized under the OC were saved, but all who have received Jesus and have the Holy Spirit in them are, in order to have water Baptism given to them!



There has always been an external community of professing believers and an internal community of true believers. That is why Jesus teaches us about wheat and tares, and those at the final judgment who will be cast out. In that sense, nothing has changed between the pre and post Christ dispensations. In Hebrews we read that they could not possess the land because of _unbelief. _The promises always required faith, not just belonging to some ethnicity.


----------



## Scott Bushey

De Jager said:


> not just belonging to some ethnicity.



Exactly. It is the same, spiritually speaking.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Scott Bushey said:


> You keep saying this and then contradicting yourself. I cited your previous statements, if u look back at our dialog i.e. presumption.
> 
> 
> 
> ....and hence, circumcision or infants. It is not any different in either epoch and u prove this by your own words here.


I see no contradiction. No infant has ever claimed to be saved. At the time infants are normally baptized, they're barely self-aware. They cannot make a profession. Simon Magus and Ananias were adults who told the apostles that they had believed, and after that they were baptized (and after that proved to be false professors, but at least they had made a profession before baptism. An infant cannot do so). Surely you can see the difference between an infant who cannot speak, reason, or do nearly anything by it's own volition and a person who can?


----------



## Ben Zartman

De Jager said:


> Ok, let's get one thing straight, when the NT speaks of the "old covenant", it is speaking of the covenant made at Mount Sinai, that is the Mosaic covenant. It is not speaking of the one made 430 years earlier with Abraham. Circumcision was given as a sign of the eternal covenant that God revealed with Abraham.


When Jesus said "This is the New Covenant in my blood" do you think He meant: "This is the covenant that I made with Abraham ages ago and there is absolutely no difference in substance or administration or sign?" Because that's what it sounds like.


----------



## De Jager

Ben Zartman said:


> When Jesus said "This is the New Covenant in my blood" do you think He meant: "This is the covenant that I made with Abraham ages ago and there is absolutely no difference in substance or administration or sign?" Because that's what it sounds like.



I never said there was no difference in those things. There obviously is a difference in sign. I think most reformed theologians would speak of the NC being an administration of the covenant of grace.

Besides this all my point still stands: when the NT compares the old with the new, it is comparing between the new and the mosaic covenant, period. It is in no way abrogating the eternal covenant of grace, revealed to Abraham. In fact, Paul goes to great lengths to teach us that it is those who are of faith that are the true members of the covenant, true Jews that is, and that it has always been that way. The point that the writers are making is that the old (mosaic) covenant of types of shadows and law could never and did never save anyone, but the covenant of grace (the promises) do save. And since the Messiah has come who has fully kept that old covenant, the types and shadows of that OC are now passing away. Circumcision however, was instituted long before Moses and the OC, and it has to do with the eternal covenant echoed throughout scripture, summarized in the phrase "I will be your God and you will be my people" - see Genesis, Jeremiah, Revelation.


----------



## Ben Zartman

De Jager said:


> There has always been an external community of professing believers and an internal community of true believers. That is why Jesus teaches us about wheat and tares, and those at the final judgment who will be cast out. In that sense, nothing has changed between the pre and post Christ dispensations. In Hebrews we read that they could not possess the land because of _unbelief. _The promises always required faith, not just belonging to some ethnicity.


I will as you a very simple multiple-choice question regarding the wheat and the tares.
When Christ explained the parable later on to his disciples, did He say:
A: "The field is the visible church"
or
B: "The field is the world"

We will carry on from whatever answer you choose.


----------



## Ben Zartman

De Jager said:


> I never said there was no difference in those things. There obviously is a difference in sign. I think most reformed theologians would speak of the NC being an administration of the covenant of grace.
> 
> Besides this all my point still stands: when the NT compares the old with the new, it is comparing between the new and the mosaic covenant, period. It is in no way abrogating the eternal covenant of grace, revealed to Abraham. In fact, Paul goes to great lengths to teach us that it is those who are of faith that are the true members of the covenant, true Jews that is, and that it has always been that way. The point that the writers are making is that the old (mosaic) covenant of types of shadows and law could never and did never save anyone, but the covenant of grace (the promises) do save. And since the Messiah has come who has fully kept that old covenant, the types and shadows of that OC are now passing away. Circumcision however, was instituted long before Moses and the OC, and it has to do with the eternal covenant echoed throughout scripture, summarized in the phrase "I will be your God and you will be my people" - see Genesis, Jeremiah, Revelation.


Are you of the opinion that the CoG was first revealed to Abraham?


----------



## De Jager

Ben Zartman said:


> I will as you a very simple multiple-choice question regarding the wheat and the tares.
> When Christ explained the parable later on to his disciples, did He say:
> A: "The field is the visible church"
> or
> B: "The field is the world"
> 
> We will carry on from whatever answer you choose.



Well, since we read that the Enemy sows the tares "amongst the wheat", it appears as though we have a mixture of believers and unbelievers in the same group.

Edit: it appears as though I am wrong! The field is the world, as Christ teaches later in the chapter. So my analogy of wheat and tares is not correct.

Regardless, there is still obviously a mixture of true and false believers in the visible church throughout the ages. The inauguration of the NC doesn't change that. The true, invisible, elect of God have always been in and amongst this larger group of professing believers.


----------



## De Jager

Ben Zartman said:


> Are you of the opinion that the CoG was first revealed to Abraham?



No, Adam and Eve.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ben Zartman said:


> I see no contradiction. No infant has ever claimed to be saved. At the time infants are normally baptized, they're barely self-aware. They cannot make a profession. Simon Magus and Ananias were adults who told the apostles that they had believed, and after that they were baptized (and after that proved to be false professors, but at least they had made a profession before baptism. An infant cannot do so). Surely you can see the difference between an infant who cannot speak, reason, or do nearly anything by it's own volition and a person who can?



Ben,
Obviously we are not dialoging. Whether it be talking past each other or whatever.

Thanks for your interactions. Be well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

De Jager said:


> No, Adam and Eve.


Good. So we're actually in agreement about quite a lot here. The very day that man sinned, God promised to send a Savior, one who would save all his elect in all ages by uniting them to himself. Then this promise was typified in various ways, and people were saved by faith, until Messiah came. Where we split ways is simply in what aspects of pre-Messiah rudiments are still in force. I believe that the Abrahamic covenant was attended by certain types and shadows that have been abrogated, or that looking back we see that their physical fulfilment was only pointing to a better spiritual reality (land promises, for example). The inclusion of physical children is one of those shadows, since in the current administration of the CoG, only those who have been born again are God's chosen people. I have gone on about this at length in the past, and could discourse on it till we both puke, but there the division is, and as Scott and Jake have both noted, it is a rift that will only be mended in Glory (where everyone is a Baptist at Last ).
So I suggest we stack arms and turn to more profitable uses of our time.
The Lord bless you and keep you.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> The above is no different in the NT economy w/ water baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> How does anyone know who the HS is indwelling? Please Sir, tell me how?


The person themself is able to confirm that, by the Holy Spirit Himself bearing that witness!


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> When Jesus said "This is the New Covenant in my blood" do you think He meant: "This is the covenant that I made with Abraham ages ago and there is absolutely no difference in substance or administration or sign?" Because that's what it sounds like.


It is a brand new and a better Covenant, per author of Hebrews!


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Let me make this simple:
> U previously said:
> "but baptism testifies that redemption has been applied. Not just the potential, but the surety."
> 
> "Applied properly, it testifies that you have actually been given eternal life!"
> 
> and then,
> 
> "Do we sometimes judge wrongly? of course. Peter did too, in that Simon Magus and Ananias were members of his congregation, but mistaken application doesn't negate the sign".
> 
> 
> This is only a few of the tensions I have read in your posts.
> 
> Again, how is the above any different in practical application from the OT sign?
> For example, the sign is placed on us and our children. We look for confession and place the sign. This is the same for the OT saint; Are they saved; Only God knows. None of us can say w/ surety that any of us are, in reality, saved. We presume they are, at best.
> 
> My whole point is showing that the distinctions u make, i.e. circumcision was primarily a national designation (in the way u are using it), is no different from the NT sign, i.e. the Israel of God; which has always been the same gospel, no matter the timeframe.


The New Covenant sign of now being in the community of faith would be having now the promised Holy Spirit, and that would be given external witness by water baptism.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> The New Covenant sign of now being in the community of faith would be having now the promised Holy Spirit, and that would be given external witness by water baptism.



So, is the sign baptism or the Holy Spirit? They aren't the same thing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

The inward sealing of the Holy Spirit, as testified to by the sign of being now water baptized.


----------



## Goodcheer68

Ben Zartman said:


> The inclusion of physical children is one of those shadows, since in the current administration of the CoG, only those who have been born again are God's chosen people.


 You are conflating being in Covenant with Election- two different things. And, if physical children being in the outward administration of the COG are abrogated, why did Peter even allude to the Abrahamic Covenant in Acts without qualifications- knowing full well what the Israelites believed for nearly two thousands years? Should at least make one stop and ponder.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## B.L.

Ben Zartman said:


> If you remember that presbyterians have a more complicated ecclesiology in which (because this was true in the OT), you can be in covenant with God without actually being regenerated, then you understand why they baptize infants. They are not testifying that the child is elect: they are bringing it into the covenant in hopes that it will prove to have been.



A couple follow-up questions based on the above, but available to all to respond to:

1. Are the children of Presbyterians who receive infant baptism considered breakers of the new covenant if they grow up and reject the faith of their parents? 

2. If these children grow up and show themselves to be without saving faith does there come a time when they are removed from the visible church? Is there an excommunication process for this sort of thing? Is there a Presbyterian age of accountability that is practiced?

3. For those who were foreordained to everlasting death and separated from God for eternity in hell, what benefit or value did infant baptism serve them?

Thanks for the discussions everyone. Have a joyful evening!


----------



## Scott Bushey

B.L. McDonald said:


> A couple follow-up questions based on the above, but available to all to respond to:
> 
> 1. Are the children of Presbyterians who receive infant baptism considered breakers of the new covenant if they grow up and reject the faith of their parents?



Yes, they are. 



> 2. If these children grow up and show themselves to be without saving faith does there come a time when they are removed from the visible church? Is there an excommunication process for this sort of thing?



That depends. say the person fails to come to church any longer; This would be considered self excommunication, i.e. the person fails to attend to their baptism, pursuing improving upon it, and returns to the world. Most times, they are removed from the church roles, unless of course a sin is identified, warranting a judiciary and trial. If no repentance, a physical excommunication. 



> 3. For those who were foreordained to everlasting death and separated from God for eternity in hell, what benefit or value did infant baptism serve them?
> 
> Thanks for the discussions everyone. Have a joyful evening!



Well, look at Ishmael as an example:

18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! 19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, _and_ with his seed after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. 21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. 22 And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham. 

_The Cambridge Paragraph Bible: Of the Authorized English Version_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1873), Ge 17:18–22.

There are blessings and condemnation attached to being in the covenant. The reprobate that attends to the means of grace and God's people, in many ways, is better off than those that do not. They hear the word, they enjoy the people of God, many sit at the table erroneously. In Ishmael's case, practically, in this life, there were blessings to him; princes would come from his loins; yet, in the afterlife....

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## B.L.

Thank you Scott for taking the time to address my questions! You've given me much to mull over and for that I'm grateful. 

I think I'll drink deeply from Jeremiah 31 this week!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy

B.L. McDonald said:


> 1. Are the children of Presbyterians who receive infant baptism considered breakers of the new covenant if they grow up and reject the faith of their parents?



I also think the Hebrews 6 apostasy section fits well how children are considered from a Reformed/Presbyterian perspective. Who else is more "highly privileged" then children raised within the church? 

https://www.monergism.com/apostasy-and-hebrews-64-6
It speaks of a class of persons who had been highly privileged, who had been singularly favored, but who, so far from having improved their opportunities, had wretchedly perverted them; who had brought shame and reproach on the cause of Christ; and who were in such a hopeless condition that it was “impossible to renew them again unto repentance.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## deleteduser99

B.L. McDonald said:


> A couple follow-up questions based on the above, but available to all to respond to:
> 
> 1. Are the children of Presbyterians who receive infant baptism considered breakers of the new covenant if they grow up and reject the faith of their parents?
> 
> 2. If these children grow up and show themselves to be without saving faith does there come a time when they are removed from the visible church? Is there an excommunication process for this sort of thing? Is there a Presbyterian age of accountability that is practiced?
> 
> 3. For those who were foreordained to everlasting death and separated from God for eternity in hell, what benefit or value did infant baptism serve them?
> 
> Thanks for the discussions everyone. Have a joyful evening!



For the third question, what happens when a sermon and Gospel call is rejected, so with baptism. In this case, a sign and seal meant to incite us to faith is more light rejected, thus incurs a greater condemnation. It's a serious thing to reject the Gospel, and all the worse the more aids God gives you to faith. In the case of the sermon it doesn't nullify the sermon or mean it was pointless because there was no benefit to the reprobate. Isaiah would see disappointingly little--sometimes none--fruit in his ministry per Isaiah 6, yet still Christ speaks through the sermon and His purposes are advanced.

So in baptism.

Yet nonetheless, the sign-and-seal nature of baptism that Ben and I debated is there even for the reprobate. Even if it bears no fruit, it is a benefit, as God did give them a holy ordinance. Any time that God condescends to us and gives us the Word and ordinances, or church membership, God is doing something utterly astounding in letting sinners come so close to Himself. In this case, preaching Christ to them in baptism. Such a reprobate has been shown astounding kindness because he has begun much nearer the kingdom than others. To be in the visible church is to draw near, as you are coming near among the people of God who have gathered to worship. In baptism, they are brought all the nearer. That's greater kindness, and increases the accountability.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Goodcheer68 said:


> You are conflating being in Covenant with Election- two different things. And, if physical children being in the outward administration of the COG are abrogated, why did Peter even allude to the Abrahamic Covenant in Acts without qualifications- knowing full well what the Israelites believed for nearly two thousands years? Should at least make one stop and ponder.


Ahhh, not so! One of the glories of the new covenant is that only the elect are in it--I'm glad someone sees the baptist position here, even if you disagree with it...baby steps. Peter alluded to the Abrahamic covenant because here was the real fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham: that his descendants would be as the sand of the sea. Not his physical descendants, though their great number was a type of the real thing, but _spiritual _descendants. The multitude in Acts finally understood--the promises to Abraham weren't about Palestinian real estate, or innumerable physical descendants, but about spiritual seed. It's kind of sad that presbyterians want to return to the physical aspect of Abraham's promise when it was something so different.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ben Zartman said:


> One of the glories of the new covenant is that only the elect are in it



Again, how is this different? This speaks of the universal church. It has always been that the elect are the only ones in it.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Goodcheer68

Ben Zartman said:


> Ahhh, not so! One of the glories of the new covenant is that only the elect are in it--I'm glad someone sees the baptist position here, even if you disagree with it...baby steps. Peter alluded to the Abrahamic covenant because here was the real fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham: that his descendants would be as the sand of the sea. Not his physical descendants, though their great number was a type of the real thing, but _spiritual _descendants. The multitude in Acts finally understood--the promises to Abraham weren't about Palestinian real estate, or innumerable physical descendants, but about spiritual seed. It's kind of sad that presbyterians want to return to the physical aspect of Abraham's promise when it was something so different.



If that is the case then where are Peter's qualifications so that his hearers would understand that??? The way he stated it is in line with the outward administration still in effect.


----------



## StephenMartyr

This thread has been a big learning curve for me. I've enjoyed it. Sometimes pretty deep.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Scott Bushey said:


> Again, how is this different? This speaks of the universal church. It has always been that the elect are the only ones in it.


Looks like we agree at last!


----------



## Ben Zartman

Goodcheer68 said:


> If that is the case then where are Peter's qualifications so that his hearers would understand that??? The way he stated it is in line with the outward administration still in effect.


Peter didn't need to qualify--it was, and is abundantly clear to those who do not have the blinders of a preconceived notion on.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ben Zartman said:


> Looks like we agree at last!



looks are deceiving.....u are still not following me. I asked a question in post #143, to which u haven't answered. Other than the obvious factors, how is the NC different (really)? 

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2017/04/turretin-on-the-new-covenant-and-covenant-of-grace/


----------



## Tom Hart

Ben Zartman said:


> it was, and is abundantly clear to those who do not have the blinders of a preconceived notion on.


Neither a winsome reply nor a helpful one.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

StephenMartyr said:


> I read some, probably not all, of his Part 1 and Part 2 of a series called: "Some Practical Consequences Of Reformed Covenant Theology". I just read his 3rd installment and it was about infant baptism. This place seems to be swamped with questions about IB as of late but I hope everyone here can put up with one more question. As for myself, I'm leaning more towards it.
> 
> I would appreciate if you have a few minutes to read this link first: https://www.agradio.org/some-practical-consequences-of-reformed-covenant-theology-3.html
> 
> My question is this:
> 
> Notice that Baptist guy said, "It seems that people were surprised to learn, in an article I wrote last week, that I presume my children to be unsaved. The article, What’s Dead Looks Dead, expressed my belief that my children (ages 6, 3, and 3 months) are, at this time, likely unsaved and are thus spiritually dead."
> 
> I'm not wanting to get into the whole "New Calvinism" thing as that perhaps is a whole other can of worms!
> 
> But reading what he said, and looking at my upbringing, that's the view I've held! That one always considers all children unsaved, until proven regenerate. We can easily say things like, "We / You were born in sin. We were born separated from God. There's nothing good in us because from our very birth into this world we have an inbred enmity against God. Through hearing God's Word and a working of the Holy Spirit one then becomes born again."
> 
> (Yes there is faith and repentance, but I wrote that quick to prove a point.)
> 
> So notice the whole "born in sin" and "born separated from God". Is this my Baptist background talking or is that Biblical through and through. I consider verses like:
> 
> Eph 2:4 "But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
> Eph 2:5 Even *when we were dead in sins*, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; )…" (spaced because triggers winky face)
> 
> Rom 3:9 "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that* they are all under sin*;
> Rom 3:10 As it is written, *There is none righteous, no, not one*:..."
> 
> Emphasis mine.
> 
> So I've taken the position / stance of people, all people are born sinners. Now can God work in an infant? Sure He can! God worked in John the Baptist's life while he was still in the womb! But isn't that an exception to the rule?
> 
> If not all people born are not sinners, how does one interpret Romans 3:9-20?
> 
> I really enjoyed that article! And I don't believe in Baptismal Regeneration just so you know.


That was a good article. I loved this section and think it’s the crux of the matter:

“In the Reformed Churches we practice Abrahamic baptism and nurture of the children of believers. We treat them as heirs of the promises and members of the visible church. We put the sign upon them of inclusion into the visible church and we include them in our worship services. We pray with and for them. We instruct them and as important as anything else we never, ever announce to the entire English-speaking world that we think that they are unregenerate, especially before they have been baptized, nurtured, instructed, and given opportunity to make a credible profession of faith.

“Should the child of a believer refuse to make profession of faith or should he, in some other way, give clear evidence of unbelief, only then do we begin to regard him as alienated from Christ and proceed accordingly.”

This was the apostle Paul’s position, as he addressed the children of the church as members who are counseled as believers to obey their parents in the Lord. 

A lot of heat and not light has been distributed in this thread, and I suggest that such argumentation cease, as logical discourse has broken down into near name-calling at last. If anyone has anything truly new and edifying to add, or a sincere question, feel free, but otherwise I think future non-constructive comments should probably be deleted by moderators.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Ben Zartman said:


> Ahhh, not so! One of the glories of the new covenant is that only the elect are in it--I'm glad someone sees the baptist position here, even if you disagree with it...baby steps. Peter alluded to the Abrahamic covenant because here was the real fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham: that his descendants would be as the sand of the sea. Not his physical descendants, though their great number was a type of the real thing, but _spiritual _descendants. The multitude in Acts finally understood--the promises to Abraham weren't about Palestinian real estate, or innumerable physical descendants, but about spiritual seed. It's kind of sad that presbyterians want to return to the physical aspect of Abraham's promise when it was something so different.


@Ben Zartman - Can you give me the name of one person in your local congregation whom you know is a member of the New Covenant? The first name will suffice so as not to give away the identity. After you've provided the name, can you tell me the basis of your knowledge that this person is in the New Covenant?

Reactions: Like 5 | Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser

Semper Fidelis said:


> @Ben Zartman - Can you give me the name of one person in your local congregation whom you know is a member of the New Covenant? The first name will suffice so as not to give away the identity. After you've provided the name, can you tell me the basis of your knowledge that this person is in the New Covenant?


Are you saying here that one cannot know that their have been saved? As the scriptures indicate that the Holy Spirit Himself bears witness to us that we now are the child of God!


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Are you saying here that one cannot know that their have been saved? As the scriptures indicate that the Holy Spirit Himself bears witness to us that we now are the child of God!



As many have already said, a number of times, anyones estimation of another member is no less than presumption at best.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Goodcheer68

Ben Zartman said:


> Peter didn't need to qualify--it was, and is abundantly clear to those who do not have the blinders of a preconceived notion on.



No blinders it’s just a preconceived notion based on Scriptural data on what God had previously promised. And unless the new data shows otherwise we continue to hold to the notion the previous data led to. And based on that it seems clear Peter was making a deliberate connection to the previous promise given to Abraham. Otherwise if it changed he would have qualified his statement as not to cause confusion.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Semper Fidelis said:


> @Ben Zartman - Can you give me the name of one person in your local congregation whom you know is a member of the New Covenant? The first name will suffice so as not to give away the identity. After you've provided the name, can you tell me the basis of your knowledge that this person is in the New Covenant?


I know of one, for absolute certain. His name is Ben. As for others, I am as certain as I dare to be in this life that they are regenerate. Still, they could surprise one in the end, and sometimes do. But what of that? The New Covenant is the application of grace by God in the heart--the external administration of it, being judged by fallible men (even Peter and the apostles were duped at times), matters less. I don't deny the necessity of the local church or it's administration, but sometimes they judge wrongly of a person. And so we judge charitably, regard each other as brethren when a credible profession has been made, and apply the sign upon the answer of a good conscience. We just don't see the command or necessary consequence to apply the sign to infants, given the differences between the New Covenant and the Abrahamic.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Tom Hart said:


> Neither a winsome reply nor a helpful one.


Tom,
I have tried to be both winsome and helpful--I have stated several times that we ought to let the subject rest. I joined this thread to answer the question asked by the OP (who is a baptist), about an article, and have been answering assaults against the confessional Baptist position since then. Every time I have brought the discussion to a decent resting place someone else has chimed in with a question that it would have been rude not to engage with. Even though their purpose was not to learn but to try to poke holes in my replies to others, I did my utmost to clarify to them my position. If my method has offended you I am sorry, but I'm beginning to run a little short on winsome. There is never an "I see now what you believe, even though we disagree" but always another "you're dead wrong, and here's why."
If emphatic statements can be made by presbyterians, can they not by Baptists? I realize this is a presbyterian forum, and holding a baptist position here is an uphill battle, but you should judge your own camp by the same standard to which you wish to hold me.
No hard feelings, friend. No doubt I'll have some more winsome in the morning. Good night to you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## StephenMartyr

Ben Zartman said:


> Tom,
> I have tried to be both winsome and helpful--I have stated several times that we ought to let the subject rest. I joined this thread to answer the question asked by the OP (who is a baptist)...



I'm a Baptist?

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## Kinghezy

StephenMartyr said:


> I'm a Baptist?


Your profile lists the denomination as "Baptist"


----------



## Ben Zartman

StephenMartyr said:


> I'm a Baptist?


Well, you should be

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Tom Hart said:


> It's not poking holes if the holes are already there.
> 
> Not offended. Just as I said: saying someone has "blinders of preconceived notions on" is unhelpful. (Remember, too, that many here were formerly credobaptists.) Meanwhile, you're not about to earn any sympathy from your opponents.


Well now. Talk about un-winsome comments. I get that the winky-face emoji is supposed to make it tongue in cheek, but still--I think you're doing the very thing you wanted to scold me for.
But never mind that. I stand by my statement about the blinders of preconceived notions. There is no other way to fetch infant baptism into the New Covenant administration than if you already really, really want it to be there.
Is it strange that I should say that? That has been the position of confessional baptists since Day One. Is it unwise for me to state that on a heavily paedobaptistic forum? Probably. But there's the nub of the issue, and as I've stated before, there's little hope of that rift being mended this side of glory.
Brethren, I have a great respect for all you, and I love you as fellow pilgrims on this road to the Celestial City. I will leave this discussion now, but know that my failure to reply to further posts is not rudeness but charity.


----------



## Tom Hart

Ben Zartman said:


> Well now. Talk about un-winsome comments. I get that the winky-face emoji is supposed to make it tongue in cheek, but still--I think you're doing the very thing you wanted to scold me for.


My words were meant jokingly, but I have to agree that it is substantially similar to the one I had earlier criticized. My apologies. I have deleted my comment.


----------



## deleteduser99

Ben Zartman said:


> Well now. Talk about un-winsome comments. I get that the winky-face emoji is supposed to make it tongue in cheek, but still--I think you're doing the very thing you wanted to scold me for.
> But never mind that. I stand by my statement about the blinders of preconceived notions. There is no other way to fetch infant baptism into the New Covenant administration than if you already really, really want it to be there.
> Is it strange that I should say that? That has been the position of confessional baptists since Day One. Is it unwise for me to state that on a heavily paedobaptistic forum? Probably. But there's the nub of the issue, and as I've stated before, there's little hope of that rift being mended this side of glory.
> Brethren, I have a great respect for all you, and I love you as fellow pilgrims on this road to the Celestial City. I will leave this discussion now, but know that my failure to reply to further posts is not rudeness but charity.



I know you're trying to exit, but can I detain you just a post longer?

From one who has attempted to end the discussion charitably and which I hope is plain from my final posts here; I understand you are angry and frustrated, and I sympathize that these discussions push us to our limit, and I've had to think doubly hard about my own tone when posting here in this discussion, and I sure hope I managed well as a redeemed sinner can--and in fairness to you, you were answering replies to two men at once from the outshoot, so maybe I'm a contributor--; but can I persuade you to rethink this sentiment?

I come into this with an assumption about all my Baptist brethren--they are honest and godly men, they know the Scriptures, and are convinced from Scripture of their position (though I disagree with their conclusion). I'll always believe that unless it stretches charity. To me the paedo position is plain from the Scripture, and seeing as our inward dispositions have been implicated I will say that God is witness that I believe the paedo position from the Scripture, and I came to it from a sincere desire to know and practice the truth, and certainly _not_ an utter desperation for it to be right; yet being that persuaded I've got no rights to judge in another the things that no man can see.

I consider you a brother, and I think well of you. For fruitful discussion, we need you do the same for us.

So if I can at least win you over on this, I consider the discussion a success, even if we never meet eyes on the baptism issue, and we can share the blessing of Psalm 133. Hopefully, we can all think closely about this whatever side we are on.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Ben Zartman said:


> I know of one, for absolute certain. His name is Ben. As for others, I am as certain as I dare to be in this life that they are regenerate. Still, they could surprise one in the end, and sometimes do. But what of that? The New Covenant is the application of grace by God in the heart--the external administration of it, being judged by fallible men (even Peter and the apostles were duped at times), matters less. I don't deny the necessity of the local church or it's administration, but sometimes they judge wrongly of a person. And so we judge charitably, regard each other as brethren when a credible profession has been made, and apply the sign upon the answer of a good conscience. We just don't see the command or necessary consequence to apply the sign to infants, given the differences between the New Covenant and the Abrahamic.


So even though you baptize on the basis that the NC is not like the OC, the only person you know for certain is in the NC is you? Does baptism confer membership in the NC?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Semper Fidelis said:


> So even though you baptize on the basis that the NC is not like the OC, the only person you know for certain is in the NC is you? Does baptism confer membership in the NC?


No, as it is the outward sign that one has already became part of the NC with God.It normally confers that one is now member of the local assembly itself.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Semper Fidelis said:


> So even though you baptize on the basis that the NC is not like the OC, the only person you know for certain is in the NC is you? Does baptism confer membership in the NC?


No. Actually, exactly what David said above.
But I'm not here anymore, remember?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Ben Zartman said:


> No. Actually, exactly what David said above.
> But I'm not here anymore, remember?


So baptism is an outward sign that one is a member of the NC but you don't know that anyone in the Church besides you is in the NC? To whom does it signify that the person is in the NC? Just the individual?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## StephenMartyr

Kinghezy said:


> Your profile lists the denomination as "Baptist"



Thanks! I'll change it.


----------



## Dachaser

Semper Fidelis said:


> So baptism is an outward sign that one is a member of the NC but you don't know that anyone in the Church besides you is in the NC? To whom does it signify that the person is in the NC? Just the individual?


The person receiving water Baptism is testifying in a public display that they have already passed over from death to life. When infants are water baptized, not all if them are actually in the NC , correct? As the Spirit does not regenerate and indwell the baby at that time?


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Dachaser said:


> The person receiving water Baptism is testifying in a public display that they have already passed over from death to life. When infants are water baptized, not all if them are actually in the NC , correct? As the Spirit does not regenerate and indwell the baby at that time?


To your first sentence: An adult receiving water baptism will be doing so following a profession of faith, but we don’t believe that the baptism is the testimony of the one being baptized. Rather it is God who is testifying; he is the one acting and saying something in baptism. That’s why infants of believing, professing parents are baptized; it is God doing the speaking and acting, not the recipients.

To your second sentence: Not all professing adults are spiritually members of the new covenant, either. But both baptized adults and babies are now under, at the least, the outward administration of the new covenant- i.e., they are now members of the visible church- and recipients of much blessing as well as being accountable to God as such.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> To your first sentence: An adult receiving water baptism will be doing so following a profession of faith, but we don’t believe that the baptism is the testimony of the one being baptized. Rather it is God who is testifying; he is the one acting and saying something in baptism. That’s why infants of believing, professing parents are baptized; it is God doing the speaking and acting, not the recipients.
> 
> To your second sentence: Not all professing adults are spiritually members of the new covenant, either. But both baptized adults and babies are now under, at the least, the outward administration of the new covenant- i.e., they are now members of the visible church- and recipients of much blessing as well as being accountable to God as such.


Paul seems to state though that the person receiving water baptism has now already been sealed by the Holy Spirit and have received Jesus as Lord, hence the so called believers baptism .


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Dachaser said:


> Paul seems to state though that the person receiving water baptism has now already been sealed by the Holy Spirit and have received Jesus as Lord, hence the so called believers baptism .


Could you provide your texts for this? Then they can be discussed.


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> Could you provide your texts for this? Then they can be discussed.


The primary verses used by the Apostle Paul would be:
Rom 6:3-4, 1Cor 12:13, Gal 3:27, Eph 4:5, and Col 2:12
All seem to affirm the work of the Holy Spirit in indwelling and having now saved us!


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Dachaser said:


> The primary verses used by the Apostle Paul would be:
> Rom 6:3-4, 1Cor 12:13, Gal 3:27, Eph 4:5, and Col 2:12
> All seem to affirm the work of the Holy Spirit in indwelling and having now saved us!


Paul knew that not everyone who had been baptized or would be baptized was truly a Christian, or ever became one. He is affirming what is true for those who go on to remain in Christ. In other words, Paul is not affirming that "the person receiving water baptism has now already been sealed by the Spirit".

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tom Hart

Dachaser said:


> Paul seems to state though that the person receiving water baptism has now already been sealed by the Holy Spirit and have received Jesus as Lord, hence the so called believers baptism .


Are those baptised sealed by the Holy Spirit or are they not? It seems to me you're not being consistent.


----------



## Dachaser

Tom Hart said:


> Are those baptised sealed by the Holy Spirit or are they not? It seems to me you're not being consistent.


Those who gave been saved were sealed by the Holy Spirit when converted, not at time if water Baptism.


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> Paul knew that not everyone who had been baptized or would be baptized was truly a Christian, or ever became one. He is affirming what is true for those who go on to remain in Christ. In other words, Paul is not affirming that "the person receiving water baptism has now already been sealed by the Spirit".


Paul seemed to be saying that those already baptism by the Spirit are then water baptized!


----------



## Tom Hart

Dachaser said:


> Those who gave been saved were sealed by the Holy Spirit when converted, not at time if water Baptism.





Dachaser said:


> Paul seemed to be saying that those already baptism by the Spirit are then water baptized!


You say that Paul says recipient of baptism is first baptised by the Spirit.

The question that has been already advanced countless times is this:

How does one determine the authenticity of the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Tom Hart said:


> You say that Paul says recipient of baptism is first baptised by the Spirit.
> 
> The question that has been already advanced countless times is this:
> 
> How does one determine the authenticity of the baptism of the Holy Spirit?


By being a fruit inspector, does the person exhibit any signs of the rebirth, such as desire to pray, read bible, attend assembly etc?


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Dachaser said:


> By being a fruit inspector, does the person exhibit any signs of the rebirth, such as desire to pray, read bible, attend assembly etc?


Fruit inspector? Is that an ordained position or can anyone sign up?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart

Dachaser said:


> By being a fruit inspector, does the person exhibit any signs of the rebirth, such as desire to pray, read bible, attend assembly etc?


Is there any possibility that a "fruit inspector" would err? Might baptism be administered to an unregenerate person?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Did Demas or Simon Magus fool the apostles or whoever was being a fruit inspector? Adults were baptized upon profession of faith.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## StephenMartyr

What was my original question again? 

But seriously, I've been enjoying this thread and have gotten lots of information from it. Great posts all!


----------



## Dachaser

Tom Hart said:


> Is there any possibility that a "fruit inspector" would err? Might baptism be administered to an unregenerate person?


Yes, but there is still the 
Mandate to confirm one has a confession of faith.


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> Did Demas or Simon Magus fool the apostles or whoever was being a fruit inspector? Adults were baptized upon profession of faith.


All were baptized based upon their faith profession in Jesus as Lord.


----------



## Kinghezy

Maybe this thread could take a sabbath rest?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

I think so!

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2 | Rejoicing 1


----------

