# Is the New Covenant new or renewed?



## Pergamum

Is the New Covenant new or renewed?

I had a baptist tell me that no Presbyterian can really believe in a "new" covenant but only a renewed one.


----------



## Herald

Perg, absolutely new. In my humble opinion this is the dividing line between Baptist and Presbyterian.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum

Can I believe it is absolutely new and still believe that the OT covenants were all administrations of the Cov of Grace?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG

Here's what Presbyterians believe: What is "new" is the _administration_. John tells us he is giving us a "new" command. But later we realize that actually, the command to love isn't quite necessarily actually new _per se_. In one sense it is, in another it's not. We use the same language all the time. Did you ever see one of the first Apple computers? Like from the stone age. You call the ones today for good reason new and improved. You could justifiably say that the ones we have today are "not like" the ones they first put out (IE, Jer.31). But they are still Apples.

Same with the new covenant. If the Covenant of Grace was a plant, the OT manifestations of the Covenant of Grace were the seed. Well, now the seed has broken through the husk and is a beautiful flower. The differences for Presbyterians and all those who adhere to the WCF between the old and new covenants all has to do with what we call "_administration_". The old covenant was administered differently than the new, but they are both in substance and essence the Covenant of Grace. In these ways in particular: 

1) *EMPHASIS/PACKAGING*. The OT manifestations of the Covenant of Grace were packaged with the external husk (eternal promises that were clothed with the temporal); now in the new covenant the husk is gone and we have the kernel. 
2) *CLARITY*. The OT manifestations were part of the Covenant of Grace, but in the OT those gospel promises were less clear; Calvin likens it to the light of dawn compared with the noon-day clarity of the new covenant. 
3) *CONSUMMATION*. The OT manifestations of the Covenant of Grace were like the shadow or a picture of a gushing fountain as opposed to the actual gushing fountain (for really thirsty people); or like the sign of an ice-cream shop for your son as opposed to actually having the mint chocolate chip in his hand; or like the picture of your fiancee' compared to actually getting to be with her face to face. 
4) *ABROGATION*. The OT manifestations of the Covenant of Grace contained the OT ceremonial laws, which now have been abolished in the new covenant; much like the external fuel tank of a space shuttle is disconnected from the vessel and falls back to earth once the shuttle reaches space--it's whole point was to get the shuttle to space, now it's served its purpose and isn't needed any more. 
5) *FREEDOM*. Which relates and expands on _Abrogation_. Under the OT Covenant of Grace, the ceremonial laws were gracious on the one hand, because this was their gospel (in pictures); that is, they were saved by looking to Christ as revealed in the sacrifices, etc; but also these things were burdensome; in the new covenant we are set free from them. Think of the Jews in hiding during Hitler's reign. They were thankful, I would think, for the safe place behind the bookcase, as this is what protected them; but once the country was liberated, they no longer had to stay confined in that single cell dark room. 
6) *EFFECT*. This is the way that makes most sense to me to interpret Jeremiah 31. In what sense is it a new covenant with the NT church? Did God not also write His laws on the hearts of His OT people? I believe He did. How then can the Lord say that what will be new about the new covenant is that He will write His Laws on our hearts? Because though He did this in the OT, the overall proportion/effect was much less. The message was exactly the same--it was the gospel revealed at Sinai and every other OT manifestation of the Covenant of Grace--but the effect was very different. On the whole, the few believed in Christ in the old covenant (just read Deuteronomy, Isaiah or Jeremiah); whereas on the whole the great majority will believe in the NT. Notice here, Jeremiah notes in 31:29-30 that there would also be those who die for their sin mixed in with the new covenant. He's not saying "every single person." He's saying, though on the whole the majority rejected the Covenant of Grace in the OT, the vast majority will embrace it from the heart in the new. 
7) *COMPARISON*. This is a summary of everything that has gone before; it's what Paul is speaking of in the latter part of 2 Corinthians 3. There was glory in the OT, but in light of all these things, how can we compare the glory of the old with the glory of the new? The glory of the husk with the glory of the kernel? The glory of the light of dawn with the glory of the noon-day? The glory of seeing a picture of my fiancee' with the glory of getting to be with her face to face? The glory of being locked up in a safe house behind a bookcase with the glory of having full freedom to wander the streets? The glory of a remnant that embraced the covenant from the heart by faith with the glory of an overwhelming majority in the church doing so?

If the new covenant is "absolutely new", are you saying that it is NOT the same in _substance_/_essence _as the OT manifestations of the Covenant of Grace? If so, the analogy isn't a stone-age Mac and a new one, but rather a Mac and a pair of shoes; or a Mac and a fish. That's what you're saying if you're saying the two aren't the same _substance_/_essence_. If the OT covenants were part of the Covenant of Grace, and the new covenant is the fulfillment of the Covenant of Grace, how can you/why would you want to say that they aren't the same in _substance_/_essence_? The difference is the OT was salvation promised, the NT salvation performed. It's a difference in _administration_, not one of _substance_/_essence_. I see the OT/NT difference much like that of an old/new mac. I don't get how you can see it as the difference between a Mac and a goat or boat or table or garage, which is what it is if you say it's different in _substance_/_essence_.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Steve Curtis

JTB.SDG said:


> Here's what Presbyterians believe: What is "new" is the administration. John tells us he is giving us a "new" command. But later we realize that actually, the command to love isn't quite necessarily actually new per se. In one sense it is, in another it's not. We use the same language all the time. Did you ever see one of the first Apple computers? Like from the stone age. You call the ones today for good reason new and improved. You could justifiably say that the ones we have today are "not like" the ones they first put out. But they are still Apples.
> 
> Same with the new covenant. If the Covenant of Grace was a plant, the OT manifestations of the Covenant of Grace were the seed. Well, now the seed has broken through the husk and is a beautiful flower. The differences for Presbyterians and all those who adhere to the WCF between the old and new covenants all has to do with what we call "administration". The old covenant was administered differently than the new, but they are both in substance and essence the Covenant of Grace. In these ways in particular: 1) EMPHASIS/PACKAGING. The OT manifestations of the Covenant of Grace were packaged with the external husk (eternal promises that were clothed with the temporal); now in the new covenant the husk is gone and we have the kernel. 2) CLARITY. The OT manifestations were part of the Covenant of Grace, but in the OT those gospel promises were less clear; Calvin likens it to the light of dawn compared with the noon-day clarity of the new covenant. 3) CONSUMMATION. The OT manifestations of the Covenant of Grace were like the shadow or a picture of a gushing fountain as opposed to the actual gushing fountain (for really thirsty people); or like the sign of an ice-cream shop for your son as opposed to actually having the mint chocolate chip in his hand; or like the picture of your fiancee' compared to actually getting to be with her face to face. 4) ABROGATION. The OT manifestations of the Covenant of Grace contained the OT ceremonial laws, which now have been abolished in the new covenant; much like the external fuel tank of a space shuttle is disconnected from the vessel and falls back to earth once the shuttle reaches space--it's whole point was to get the shuttle to space, now it's served its purpose and isn't needed any more. 5) FREEDOM. Which relates and expands on Abrogation. Under the OT Covenant of Grace, the ceremonial laws were gracious on the one hand, because this was their gospel (in pictures); that is, they were saved by looking to Christ as revealed in the sacrifices, etc; but also these things were burdensome; in the new covenant we are set free from them. Think of the Jews in hiding during Hitler's reign. They were thankful, I would think, for the safe place behind the bookcase, as this is what protected them; but once the country was liberated, they no longer had to stay confined in that single cell dark room. 6) EFFECT. This is the way that makes most sense to me to interpret Jeremiah 31. In what sense is it a new covenant with the NT church? Did God not also write His laws on the hearts of His OT people? I believe He did. How then can the Lord say that what will be new about the new covenant is that He will write His Laws on our hearts? Because though He did this in the OT, the overall proportion/effect was much less. The message was exactly the same--it was the gospel revealed at Sinai and every other OT manifestation of the Covenant of Grace--but the effect was very different. On the whole, the few believed in Christ in the old covenant (just read Deuteronomy, Isaiah or Jeremiah); whereas on the whole the great majority will believe in the NT. Notice here, Jeremiah notes in 31:29-30 that there would also be those who die for their sin mixed in with the new covenant. He's not saying "every single person." He's saying, though on the whole the majority rejected the Covenant of Grace in the OT, the vast majority will embrace it from the heart in the new. 7) COMPARISON. This is a summary of everything that has gone before; it's what Paul is speaking of in the latter part of 2 Corinthians 3. There was glory in the OT, but in light of all these things, how can we compare the glory of the old with the glory of the new? The glory of the husk with the glory of the kernel? The glory of the light of dawn with the glory of the noon-day? The glory of seeing a picture of my fiancee' with the glory of getting to be with her face to face? The glory of being locked up in a safe house behind a bookcase with the glory of having full freedom to wander the streets? The glory of a remnant that embraced the covenant from the heart by faith with the glory of an overwhelming majority in the church doing so?
> 
> If the new covenant is "absolutely new", are you saying that it is NOT the same in substance/essence as the OT manifestations of the Covenant of Grace? If so, the analogy isn't a stone-age Mac and a new one, but rather a Mac and a pair of shoes; or a Mac and a fish. That's what you're saying if you're saying the two aren't the same substance/essence. If the OT covenants were part of the Covenant of Grace, and the new covenant is the fulfillment of the Covenant of Grace, how can you/why would you want to say that they aren't the same in substance/essence? The difference is the OT was salvation promised, the NT salvation performed. It's a difference in administration, not one of substance/essence. I see the OT/NT difference much more like an old/new mac. I don't get how you can see it as the difference between a Mac and a goat or boat or table or garage.



Very nicely put, Jon.


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> Can I believe it is absolutely new and still believe that the OT covenants were all administrations of the Cov of Grace?


Sure. That is the predominant RB position. That 1689 Federalism is being debated does not negate that. Even if 1689 Federalism is what our Particular Baptist forefathers believed, it does not affect their view of the newness of the New Covenant.


----------



## BG

Pergamum said:


> Can I believe it is absolutely new and still believe that the OT covenants were all administrations of the Cov of Grace?


 Only if you believe that there is more than one covenant of grace. This is a good example of a place where you need discontinuity rather than continuity, you need for there to be two different covenant of grace in order to maintain a consistent position as a Baptist but that puts you squarely in the camp of dispensationalism. I am not saying that you are dispensational by the way, just the position.


----------



## BG

If there is one covenant of grace then it is a renewed Covenant, if there are two covenants of grace then it can be brand new.


----------



## greenbaggins

I think part of the problem here, as Jon put it SO well, is that Baptists do not distinguish between the substance and the administration of the covenant of grace. Therefore, newness has to be absolute. Presbyterians, on the other hand, because they distinguish between substance and adminstration, can say that the NC is new in administration, but not in substance. I agree with BG when he says that if the NC is absolutely new, then there has to be more than one covenant of grace. Jon also put this point very well. As I look at things, the only real way to have a single Covenant of Grace, different in its administrations, and remain a RB, is to posit a New Testament command that says we may no longer give the covenant sign to our children. This would thus be a change in administration from all the OT iterations of the covenant. I do not see any such negative command in the NT. 

The main reason, I feel, why the RB's want to say that the NC is absolutely new, is because they want to avoid the implication of the position of children vis-a-vis the covenant that comes when the substance is admitted to be the same. Of course, they believe they have biblical warrant for that (I'm not implying any sort of invidiousness here!) in the baptisms of Acts. However, the understanding of household would mitigate against that (and no, my argument does not depend on imaginary children. That is a common caricature of the Presbyterian position. The argument is more nuanced than that: if there were children in the household, they were baptized).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> Sure. That is the predominant RB position. That 1689 Federalism is being debated does not negate that. Even if 1689 Federalism is what our Particular Baptist forefathers believed, it does not affect their view of the newness of the New Covenant.


This viewpoint then would make the CoG to be the NC itself, correct?


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> Only if you believe that there is more than one covenant of grace. This is a good example of a place where you need discontinuity rather than continuity, you need for there to be two different covenant of grace in order to maintain a consistent position as a Baptist but that puts you squarely in the camp of dispensationalidsm. I am not saying that you are dispensational by the way, just the position.


God was saving lost sinners always by the same way in either OC/NC, as the basis for that was the death of Jesus for their sins, but the NC and church themselves had to wait until Jesus was born, and died and was raised up again.
One can hold to the NC as a Reformed baptist would, and not be a holder of dispensationalidsm.


----------



## BGF

Dachaser said:


> This viewpoint then would make the CoG to be the NC itself, correct?


I've seen you posit this question in another thread. It was answered in the negative and fully explained. It is even carefully explained here. You can't equate absolutely the CoG with the NC. The NC is as _administration _of the CoG. Your mistake is similar to equating a species with a genus. All house cats are in the genus felis, but that does not mean felis is equal to house cat.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BG

Dachaser said:


> God was saving lost sinners always by the same way in either OC/NC, as the basis for that was the death of Jesus for their sins, but the NC and church themselves had to wait until Jesus was born, and died and was raised up again.
> One can hold to the NC as a Reformed baptist would, and not be a holder of dispensationalidsm.



When you say "the same way" what do you mean?


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> When you say "the same way" what do you mean?


The basis of any salvation would be that the Death of Jesus provided the atonement for sins for that sinner who was saved, and that faith was the means to access that grace.


----------



## Dachaser

BGF said:


> I've seen you posit this question in another thread. It was answered in the negative and fully explained. It is even carefully explained here. You can't equate absolutely the CoG with the NC. The NC is as _administration _of the CoG. Your mistake is similar to equating a species with a genus. All house cats are in the genus felis, but that does not mean felis is equal to house cat.


I believe that some reformed baptists would see them as being the same though.


----------



## BGF

Dachaser said:


> I believe that some reformed baptists would see them as being the same though.


Which brings us back to this: If the CoG is the NC then the OC is either not an administration of the CoG or a separate CoG. Either way it's hard to not see discontinuity rather than continuity.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

BGF said:


> Which brings us back to this: If the CoG is the NC then the OC is either not an administration of the CoG or a separate CoG. Either way it's hard to not see discontinuity rather than continuity.


Many Reformed Baptists, as well as non confessional Baptists, do tend to see much more of a discontinuity between the 2 Covenants.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> Many Reformed Baptists, as well as non confessional Baptists, do tend to see much more of a discontinuity between the 2 Covenants.



David,
What people are getting at here is this: at some point, you're going to have to choose what you believe. In one sentence, you argue for the NC being an "administration" of the CoG, in another, you deny it. I think the 'boys have argued well the differences in the views. If the CoG under the OC and the CoG are the same in substance, you will likely cease to be Baptist. If you see the them as different in substance, you will not likely end up in a Reformed church. 
Even the prohibitions in the OT, for example, have a gracious and salvific nature to them; to protect the people of God. I think the problem posed by Bill G, then Lane is valid and needs to be considered carefully.........

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman

But I assert as an RB that there is greater continuity than discontinuity (we are, after all, the Israel of God), yet understand that in the massive overhaul when types and shadows were fulfilled and all sorts of ceremonies abrogated and several new ones instituted, that circumcision was one of the ones abrogated; in its place, baptism, the fulfillment of the type: when you are born for reals--born again--the sign is applied. In the OT, you were born into a physical people--that birth served as a type and shadow of the New Birth, wherein people from every kindred, tribe, and tongue are born into the family of God, and only then do they receive the sign of the covenant.
This seems childishly obvious. Is it really that obscure?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum

greenbaggins said:


> I think part of the problem here, as Jon put it SO well, is that Baptists do not distinguish between the substance and the administration of the covenant of grace. Therefore, newness has to be absolute. Presbyterians, on the other hand, because they distinguish between substance and adminstration, can say that the NC is new in administration, but not in substance. I agree with BG when he says that if the NC is absolutely new, then there has to be more than one covenant of grace. Jon also put this point very well. As I look at things, the only real way to have a single Covenant of Grace, different in its administrations, and remain a RB, is to posit a New Testament command that says we may no longer give the covenant sign to our children. This would thus be a change in administration from all the OT iterations of the covenant. I do not see any such negative command in the NT.
> 
> The main reason, I feel, why the RB's want to say that the NC is absolutely new, is because they want to avoid the implication of the position of children vis-a-vis the covenant that comes when the substance is admitted to be the same. Of course, they believe they have biblical warrant for that (I'm not implying any sort of invidiousness here!) in the baptisms of Acts. However, the understanding of household would mitigate against that (and no, my argument does not depend on imaginary children. That is a common caricature of the Presbyterian position. The argument is more nuanced than that: if there were children in the household, they were baptized).



Lane,
You said, "Baptists do not distinguish between the substance and the administration of the covenant of grace."

That is a very short summary of something very major. Can you unpack that a little more so I can understand it more fully. This seems huge.


----------



## greenbaggins

Ben Zartman said:


> But I assert as an RB that there is greater continuity than discontinuity (we are, after all, the Israel of God), yet understand that in the massive overhaul when types and shadows were fulfilled and all sorts of ceremonies abrogated and several new ones instituted, that circumcision was one of the ones abrogated; in its place, baptism, the fulfillment of the type: when you are born for reals--born again--the sign is applied. In the OT, you were born into a physical people--that birth served as a type and shadow of the New Birth, wherein people from every kindred, tribe, and tongue are born into the family of God, and only then do they receive the sign of the covenant.
> This seems childishly obvious. Is it really that obscure?



Ben, you need to be very careful here. The vast majority of church history is against you on the question of infant baptism. If it was childishly obvious, I do not think that would be the case. I used to fall into this trap myself, using words like "obviously" and "clearly" on the side of paedobaptism. You need to avoid those words studiously in debates like this, Ben. It makes you sound like you are insulting the intelligence of all the paedos around here. I would sincerely hope that was not your intent. 

In the OT, people were born into the family of God, yes, but that physical family also had a spiritual component (see Romans 9:6, which you need to do a bit of exegesis on, I think). You are making the same mistake so many Baptists make of practically denying spiritual components in the OT; the spiritual components of the Abrahamic covenant, of circumcision, and of covenant membership. Circumcision's ultimate meaning was circumcision of the heart. The other mistake you are making here is in seeing no continuity between type and antitype with regard to circumcision and baptism. Type has a closer connection to antitype than you are here positing. See 1 Corinthians 10 and 1 Peter 3 for examples. 

And there is NO text that says that the sign must be applied only after they are born again spiritually. So no, NOT childishly obvious. 



Pergamum said:


> Lane,
> You said, "Baptists do not distinguish between the substance and the administration of the covenant of grace."
> 
> That is a very short summary of something very major. Can you unpack that a little more so I can understand it more fully. This seems huge.



Sure, Perg. Baptists usually posit that there is only one way of relating to the covenant of grace, and that is being in it (roughly equivalent to what Presbyterians would call "belonging to the substance of the covenant of grace"). Baptists will usually deny that there is any other way of being related to the covenant of grace. Presbyterians say that there are two ways of relating to the covenant of grace. The substance of the covenant of grace is salvation in Christ, with all the benefits that implies. The administration is the outward structure by which those benefits are offered. This would be the means of grace offered: word and sacrament. Relating to the covenant in an administrative way is the privilege of all those who have the substance of the covenant of grace, and it is _also_ the privilege of all those who are under the covenantal headship of those who profess faith. So, those who only possess the administrative benefits of the CoG would be elect who have not yet come to faith, and the non-elect who will eventually fall away. This dual way of relating to the CoG is how we explain the apostasy passages like Hebrews 6: such people possessed the tremendously huge privileges of sitting under the means of grace, which are called the powers of the age to come, they are so huge, and yet they fall away. They were never elect, they were never saved, but they did fall away. The Presbyterian position is FAR superior at explaining the phenomenon of apostasy than the Baptist position is, because the Baptists have no way of explaining what it is, in fact, that these non-elect people actually had that they lost. 

Another way of thinking about the two aspects of covenantal relation is that they correspond to the visible/invisible church distinction. The visible church corresponds to the administration of the covenant, and the invisible corresponds to the substance of the CoG. Hope this helps.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Herald

greenbaggins said:


> The main reason, I feel, why the RB's want to say that the NC is absolutely new, is because they want to avoid the implication of the position of children vis-a-vis the covenant that comes when the substance is admitted to be the same. Of course, they believe they have biblical warrant for ...



Lane, really? So, modern RB's, and our Particular Baptist forefathers did not arrive at their view of the newness of the New Covenant honestly, and only tacked on "biblical warrant" on the backside? Please tell me I am reading you wrong.


----------



## greenbaggins

Herald said:


> Lane, really? So, modern RB's, and our Particular Baptist forefathers did not arrive at their view of the newness of the New Covenant honestly, and only tacked on "biblical warrant" on the backside? Please tell me I am reading you wrong.



I am not implying any dishonesty whatsoever in how Baptists came by their views. I do think that one reason why is what I explained. That may or may not have influenced them to read biblical passages in a certain way. Or, conversely, they may have read passages in a certain way, and then came to their conclusion. It might be a chicken/egg question. I really do not know what the relationship would be between the two reasons for coming to their conclusion. But I certainly do not mean to imply any dishonesty.


----------



## Pergamum

Baptists regularly seem to say that Presbyterians formed their version of covenant theology in order to defend paedobaptism (i.e. a desire to baptize babies drove their covenant theology instead of vice versa). We read this in Denault, for instance. So I suppose Presbyterians can also charge the baptists similarly.


----------



## Herald

greenbaggins said:


> I am not implying any dishonesty whatsoever in how Baptists came by their views. I do think that one reason why is what I explained. That may or may not have influenced them to read biblical passages in a certain way. Or, conversely, they may have read passages in a certain way, and then came to their conclusion. It might be a chicken/egg question. I really do not know what the relationship would be between the two reasons for coming to their conclusion. But I certainly do not mean to imply any dishonesty.


Lane, thank you. I extend the same charity to my Presbyterian brethren on how they came to their own conclusion on the NC. That said, I agree that some (on both sides) probably have put the cart before the horse so-to-speak. I am sensitive on the issue if for no other reason than I struggled mightily with my own baptism position.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## greenbaggins

The fact of the matter is that just about everyone forms their theology at least partly in reaction to some other form of theology they see as aberrant. Witness Turretin's Elenctic Theology, ENTIRELY formed in reaction to errors.


----------



## Pergamum

greenbaggins said:


> Ben, you need to be very careful here. The vast majority of church history is against you on the question of infant baptism. If it was childishly obvious, I do not think that would be the case. I used to fall into this trap myself, using words like "obviously" and "clearly" on the side of paedobaptism. You need to avoid those words studiously in debates like this, Ben. It makes you sound like you are insulting the intelligence of all the paedos around here. I would sincerely hope that was not your intent.
> 
> In the OT, people were born into the family of God, yes, but that physical family also had a spiritual component (see Romans 9:6, which you need to do a bit of exegesis on, I think). You are making the same mistake so many Baptists make of practically denying spiritual components in the OT; the spiritual components of the Abrahamic covenant, of circumcision, and of covenant membership. Circumcision's ultimate meaning was circumcision of the heart. The other mistake you are making here is in seeing no continuity between type and antitype with regard to circumcision and baptism. Type has a closer connection to antitype than you are here positing. See 1 Corinthians 10 and 1 Peter 3 for examples.
> 
> And there is NO text that says that the sign must be applied only after they are born again spiritually. So no, NOT childishly obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, Perg. Baptists usually posit that there is only one way of relating to the covenant of grace, and that is being in it (roughly equivalent to what Presbyterians would call "belonging to the substance of the covenant of grace"). Baptists will usually deny that there is any other way of being related to the covenant of grace. Presbyterians say that there are two ways of relating to the covenant of grace. The substance of the covenant of grace is salvation in Christ, with all the benefits that implies. The administration is the outward structure by which those benefits are offered. This would be the means of grace offered: word and sacrament. Relating to the covenant in an administrative way is the privilege of all those who have the substance of the covenant of grace, and it is _also_ the privilege of all those who are under the covenantal headship of those who profess faith. So, those who only possess the administrative benefits of the CoG would be elect who have not yet come to faith, and the non-elect who will eventually fall away. This dual way of relating to the CoG is how we explain the apostasy passages like Hebrews 6: such people possessed the tremendously huge privileges of sitting under the means of grace, which are called the powers of the age to come, they are so huge, and yet they fall away. They were never elect, they were never saved, but they did fall away. The Presbyterian position is FAR superior at explaining the phenomenon of apostasy than the Baptist position is, because the Baptists have no way of explaining what it is, in fact, that these non-elect people actually had that they lost.
> 
> Another way of thinking about the two aspects of covenantal relation is that they correspond to the visible/invisible church distinction. The visible church corresponds to the administration of the covenant, and the invisible corresponds to the substance of the CoG. Hope this helps.



I believe that some can be under the external administration of the Covenant (sitting under preaching and the church ordinances) but not really IN the covenant. For to be IN the Covenant is to be IN Christ. We cannot know who is truly saved after all, so while baptists make much of 'regenerate church membership" it will always fail. This seems to be one of the worst baptist arguments, by the way, that "only the saved should be baptized."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## BG

When I was a baptist Romans ch 11 was a real puzzle to me, how can you be grafted into Christ and then be CUT OFF ( ot language for excommunication)?


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> I believe that some can be under the external administration of the Covenant (sitting under preaching and the church ordinances) but not really IN the covenant. For to be IN the Covenant is to be IN Christ. We cannot know who is truly saved after all, so while baptists make much of 'regenerate church membership" it will always fail. This seems to be one of the worst baptist arguments, by the way, that "only the saved should be baptized."


You do understand what is meant by a regenerate church membership, right (see chapter 26 of our confession)? Baptists do not consider unconverted persons to be members of the body of Christ. Baptists do not deny that false professors are in the church (Jude), but they are not members of the invisible church (1689 LBC 26.1).


----------



## Pergamum

Herald said:


> You do understand what is meant by a regenerate church membership, right (see chapter 26 of our confession)? Baptists do not consider unconverted persons to be members of the body of Christ. Baptists do not deny that false professors are in the church (Jude), but they are not members of the invisible church (1689 LBC 26.1).


Many baptists argue poorly at this point, however, and insist that only the saved should be admitted into church membership.


----------



## BG

Herald said:


> You do understand what is meant by a regenerate church membership, right (see chapter 26 of our confession)? Baptists do not consider unconverted persons to be members of the body of Christ. Baptists do not deny that false professors are in the church (Jude), but they are not members of the invisible church (1689 LBC 26.1).



Can a non member baptize people in a baptist church?

Can a non member ordain men for ministry?


----------



## Herald

BG said:


> Can a non member baptize people in a baptist church?
> 
> Can a non member ordain men for ministry?



Since Baptist churches are independent no one can answer what another church can/can not do. Should they? No. The local church has care for its local members. Does it happen in some Baptist churches? I am sure it does.


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> Many baptists argue poorly at this point, however, and insist that only the saved should be admitted into church membership.



Do you believe that a person who does not profess faith in Jesus Christ should be admitted into church membership? Do you take exception to the Confession on this point? 

1689 LBC 26.2 All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.


----------



## BG

Bill, I don't mean to put you on the spot here but you're not answering the question of legitimacy. Is a man legitimately baptized or ordained to ministry if the person doing the baptism and the ordination is apostate?
If your answer is no then I feel you are being consistent,if your answer is yes would you mind showing your theological ground for such a position?


----------



## Ben Zartman

greenbaggins said:


> Ben, you need to be very careful here. The vast majority of church history is against you on the question of infant baptism. If it was childishly obvious, I do not think that would be the case. I used to fall into this trap myself, using words like "obviously" and "clearly" on the side of paedobaptism. You need to avoid those words studiously in debates like this, Ben. It makes you sound like you are insulting the intelligence of all the paedos around here. I would sincerely hope that was not your intent.



My dear brother, apologies if I sounded insulting--it was not my intent. I said 'childish,' and we are discussing the baptism of children  
But don't think I'm not aware of the majority position of the church through the ages--no doubt Martin Luther was as well, though there's very little else in common between us. My point is: while we can certainly take comfort in a multitude of counsellors, there have been times when the vast majority of everyone must be disagreed with, based on what we see in the Law and in the Testimony.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ben Zartman said:


> based on what we see in the Law and in the Testimony.



...or by what you fail to see, i.e. covenant consistency and the lack of any examples in the NT where we see the sign being placed on children becasue they already had the sign on them. It always struck me as a bit peculiar that we never see any children in the NT writings, where a child comes to faith-pick an age, there are none. Surely this is not an oddity in the church. All of us have witnessed children coming to faith. Why do we see no instances, ever in the NT writings? Is it that only adults came to faith?


----------



## greenbaggins

Pergamum said:


> I believe that some can be under the external administration of the Covenant (sitting under preaching and the church ordinances) but not really IN the covenant. For to be IN the Covenant is to be IN Christ. We cannot know who is truly saved after all, so while baptists make much of 'regenerate church membership" it will always fail. This seems to be one of the worst baptist arguments, by the way, that "only the saved should be baptized."



Pergie, you are very close indeed to the Presbyterian position, for I have never heard a Baptist argue like this. Only a few things remain. First, should the sign of baptism be attached to the external administration or the substance of the CoG, and should the sign's efficacy be tied to the moment of its administration, or can it have a "delayed reaction?" Here the analogy of circumcision works much more closely than Baptists would say it does. Both circumcision and baptism are physical signs that point to spiritual realities. Both are signs that the person so marked belong to the people of God. But in this way, the sacraments work the same way as the Word (though, instead of coming in through ear, the sacraments work through the other senses; but both preach the gospel, and that is what Presbyterians mean by sacramental efficacy: the sacraments have the same kind of efficacy that the Word of God does, though the grace offered is not a converting grace but a strengthening, confirming grace, and is only received by faith). Therefore, since the Word is attached to the external administration of the CoG, so should baptism. You have actually already pointed in this direction with your rejection of the argument that "only the saved should be baptized." If children can have the substance of the CoG (for of such belongs the kingdom of God, Jesus Himself says), then by what right should we refuse them the sign of the CoG? If families still work covenantally (and, contrary to Ben's assertion, they still do, as 1 Corinthians 7 proves), then there remain no more objections to paedo-baptism.

Children can be regenerated from the womb, as John the Baptist proves. David said that he trusted in the Lord even from the time he was nursing. We do not presume that they are regenerated, but the possibility is definitely there. The key, then, is that baptism does not mark the time of regeneration, but the time of joining the external administration of the church. You have basically already gone there, Pergie, by saying that it is false that only the saved should be baptized. If you connect this point in your mind with the covenantal structure of the family, then paedobaptism will emerge in your thinking as the logical thing.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## JTB.SDG

Pergamum said:


> I believe that some can be under the external administration of the Covenant (sitting under preaching and the church ordinances) but not really IN the covenant. For to be IN the Covenant is to be IN Christ. We cannot know who is truly saved after all, so while baptists make much of 'regenerate church membership" it will always fail. This seems to be one of the worst baptist arguments, by the way, that "only the saved should be baptized."



You can put it this way: There is a difference between being IN the Covenant and OF the Covenant. Presbyterians have always held tightly to the importance of this distinction.


----------



## JTB.SDG

Herald said:


> You do understand what is meant by a regenerate church membership, right (see chapter 26 of our confession)? Baptists do not consider unconverted persons to be members of the body of Christ. Baptists do not deny that false professors are in the church (Jude), but they are not members of the invisible church (1689 LBC 26.1).



We (Presbyterians) would disagree with the first statement but agree with the second. We *do* consider unbelieving members of the church as part of the church (corporate, external, visible body), just as many of those during Moses' day in the OT wilderness never had saving faith but were nevertheless considered the "congregation (ekklesia) in the wilderness." However, we do not claim that false professors are members of the invisible church; only the elect are members of the invisible church; nevertheless, false professors are members of the visible church (for the reason above). (Not saying that you were saying otherwise brother, just wanting to help clarify).


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> You do understand what is meant by a regenerate church membership, right (see chapter 26 of our confession)? Baptists do not consider unconverted persons to be members of the body of Christ. Baptists do not deny that false professors are in the church (Jude), but they are not members of the invisible church (1689 LBC 26.1).


The implication of what we as Baptists tend to believe on this issue of the NC/Church would to me seem to be that only those who are actually saved and in the NC would be under the CoG now, unlike in the OC, where again to me it seems that one would be part of say the Mosaic Covenant due to birthright, and still nor even be really saved. There does seem to be now under the NC only saved as for sure now part of it.


----------



## Dachaser

JTB.SDG said:


> We (Presbyterians) would disagree with the first statement but agree with the second. We *do* consider unbelieving members of the church as part of the church (corporate, external, visible body), just as many of those during Moses' day in the OT wilderness never had saving faith but were nevertheless considered the "congregation (ekklesia) in the wilderness." However, we do not claim that false professors are members of the invisible church; only the elect are members of the invisible church; nevertheless, false professors are members of the visible church (for the reason above). (Not saying that you were saying otherwise brother, just wanting to help clarify).


This distinction seems to be where the division is happening, as how can there be the CoG in full under the OC, where many under it were not even saved?


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> David,
> What people are getting at here is this: at some point, you're going to have to choose what you believe. In one sentence, you argue for the NC being an "administration" of the CoG, in another, you deny it. I think the 'boys have argued well the differences in the views. If the CoG under the OC and the CoG are the same in substance, you will likely cease to be Baptist. If you see the them as different in substance, you will not likely end up in a Reformed church.
> Even the prohibitions in the OT, for example, have a gracious and salvific nature to them; to protect the people of God. I think the problem posed by Bill G, then Lane is valid and needs to be considered carefully.........


The OC had elements of the CoG within it, as God always was saving the same way, by the Death of Jesus as the basis to atone for sinners saved, but there was something new and different in some fashion under the NC Church, as all now under the NC are saved, while both saved and lost were under the OC, such as in the Mosaic aspect of it.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> The OC had elements of the CoG within it, as God always was saving the same way, by the Death of Jesus as the basis to atone for sinners saved, but there was something new and different in some fashion under the NC Church, as all now under the NC are saved, while both saved and lost were under the OC, such as in the Mosaic aspect of it.



David,
I'm trying NOT to be argumentative here, but back to my point: you are going to have to settle on a theology. You are creating various, strange hybrids of both the Baptist or Presbyterian views. What does "The OC had elements of the CoG within it" mean?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> David,
> I'm trying to be argumentative here, but back to my point: you are going to have to settle on a theology. You are creating various, strange hybrids of both the Baptist or Presbyterian views. What does "The OC had elements of the CoG within it" mean?


The Cross of Christ as the basis to save a sinner was present under the OC, but the NC was when the CoG was fully here now in place.


----------



## Gforce9

So are you admitting continuity between the Old and New under the CoG? This is the issue I'm getting at: from post to post, I don't know what you are advocating.....


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> So are you admitting continuity between the Old and New under the CoG? This is the issue I'm getting at: from post to post, I don't know what you are advocating.....


I am just saying that the NC is some fashion and way a distinctive new relationship established between God and mankind. This is what makes the Church in the NT a new entity.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> The Cross of Christ as the basis to save a sinner was present under the OC, but the NC was when the CoG *was fully here now* in place.





Dachaser said:


> I am just saying that the NC is *some fashion and way a distinctive new relationship* established between God and mankind. This is what makes the Church in the NT a new entity.



So which is it, David? Both statements still imply a connection to the previous.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> Is the New Covenant new or renewed?
> 
> I had a baptist tell me that no Presbyterian can really believe in a "new" covenant but only a renewed one.


Just responding to the OP but it seems like you hear from a lot of Baptists who misrepresent Presbyterian theology. We were just interacting on the idea that "...for the paedobaptist the AC is the CoG."

This sort of reminds me of those who do word studies to determine what the meaning of a word is and then expect that to be the basis for how they're going to understand an author's use in a specific context. Lexicons are fine but you still have to look at how the word is used.

It seems there is (to some) a sort of polemic value to how "New" something is as the basis of whether or not something is New. I evaluate what you believe is New about the Covenant and I say: "Yes but that's not as New as my view therefore your view is not New enough."

The nature of the New Covenant is well understood. It's New with respect to the Old. It's participants are not all "brand new" but expanded. It's Offices are no longer filled by types and shadows but fulfilled by Christ, the perfect Mediator. These previous dispensations are not the fullness of what was promised and so something New had to be inaugurated not only for those who called upon the Name of the Lord but for those who were far off.

We could discuss other ways in which the NC is New but simply because some decide that it's not really New by their understanding of New doesn't persuade me they are handling the Scriptures properly and they can say anything they want in theological and Biblical ignorance about my position they want. They can call it Replacement theology or claim that we only believe in a Renewed Covenant but, as my 7th Grade teacher used to say and laugh: Some people think ignorance is a virtue.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Gforce9

Edit: In my post #43, the original wording states I was "trying to be argumentative...", but, alas, meant "trying NOT to be argumentative". David, in particular, please accept my apology for this faux poop. I should leave typing on a phone to the youngsters.... Carry on........

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> So which is it, David? Both statements still imply a connection to the previous.


That is the very Question that I am still working towards, as trying to figure out just what the major difference is between the CoG and the NC, if any.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dachaser said:


> That is the very Question that I am still working towards, as trying to figure out just what the major difference is between the CoG and the NC, if any.


The "major" difference is one of historical enactment. The Covenant of Grace is operative after the Fall. If one insists on teasing apart the Covenant of Redemption within the Trinity to save the elect then the Covenant of Grace is the Covenant made between God and Christ and, in Him, all the elect. No man can or courld be saved apart from the One Mediator so the Covenant of Grace has to be operative throughout human history after the Fall but it is only partially revealed through various epochs of redemptive history. Various historical covenants that God enacts have differing sacraments or offices that serve as types and shadows or copies of the heavenly sanctuary but they could only ever serve as types and not the fulfillment. When Christ comes, that which is prefigured becomes historical reality and it is further enacted by the death of the Testator and, as Christ in His flesh, provides a way through His flesh for us to have access to that heavenly reality. Thus, in Mediator and worship, the NC corresponds to the CoG in its Mediator and worship but it can't be said properly that the NC _is_ the COG because it is historically realized. You can, in a sense, overlay the NC with the COG and find correspondence in every respect but it's still the case that you can find a "starting point" to the NC that makes it a distinct, full expression of the COG. If you go back to a period of time before Christ you can find the CoG in operation even before the NC itself is actually inaugurated.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Herald

JTB.SDG said:


> We (Presbyterians) would disagree with the first statement but agree with the second. We *do* consider unbelieving members of the church as part of the church (corporate, external, visible body), just as many of those during Moses' day in the OT wilderness never had saving faith but were nevertheless considered the "congregation (ekklesia) in the wilderness." However, we do not claim that false professors are members of the invisible church; only the elect are members of the invisible church; nevertheless, false professors are members of the visible church (for the reason above). (Not saying that you were saying otherwise brother, just wanting to help clarify).


I do understand that Presbyterians disagree with the first part of my statement. That was one of the points I was trying to make.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Herald said:


> I do understand that Presbyterians disagree with the first part of my statement. That was one of the points I was trying to make.


I would qualify the statement by noting that Presbyterians don't pretend to be able to "name" those who are "unregenerate Church members". We leave the issue of who is elect to God alone. No Church can actually operate on the illusory objective that its members are regenerate. It is our duty to proclaim Christ and to accept into membership those who make a credible profession of faith (and their children) and submit to the discipline of the Church. If they are found to be disobedient and unrepentant in their duties then we excommunicate them. As far as those who never publicly express their lack of belief or unwillingness to be obedient (externally) we don't make judgments about whether or not they are regenerate. In fact, my experience is that I've known several men who many would have assumed were regenerate but later turned their back on the faith. They were put out not because we knew they were unregenerate but because they refused discipline. As far as their status in the kingdom what is now bound on earth is bound in heaven and they have no reason to expect to be numbered as one of God's people. Nevertheless, the point is that discipleship is fundamentally viewed differently by Presbyterians. It's not that we openly "accept" Joe Smith or Jamie Smith (his son) as "unregenerate Church members", it's more appropriate to say that we leave the secret things to God and act as ministers of Word and Sacrament and not as the Judge of who really possesses saving faith.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Herald

BG said:


> Bill, I don't mean to put you on the spot here but you're not answering the question of legitimacy. Is a man legitimately baptized or ordained to ministry if the person doing the baptism and the ordination is apostate?
> If your answer is no then I feel you are being consistent,if your answer is yes would you mind showing your theological ground for such a position?



29.3 of the 1689 LBC states, “wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” While being baptized by an apostate is highly irregular, the recipient of baptism is being baptized in the name of the Godhead. They are also being baptized on a profession of their faith, not the faith of the one doing the baptizing. Again, while irregular, the matter should end there. I am not sure what this has to do with the subject of the newness of the New Covenant.


----------



## Herald

Semper Fidelis said:


> I would qualify the statement by noting that Presbyterians don't pretend to be able to "name" those who are "unregenerate Church members". We leave the issue of who is elect to God alone. No Church can actually operate on the illusory objective that its members are regenerate. It is our duty to proclaim Christ and to accept into membership those who make a credible profession of faith (and their children) and submit to the discipline of the Church. If they are found to be disobedient and unrepentant in their duties then we excommunicate them. As far as those who never publicly express their lack of belief or unwillingness to be obedient (externally) we don't make judgments about whether or not they are regenerate. In fact, my experience is I've known several men who many would have assumed were regenerate but later turned their back on the faith. They were put out not because we knew they were unregenerate but because they refused discipline. As far as their status in the kingdom what is now bound on earth is bound in heaven and they have no reason to expect to be numbered as one of God's people. Nevertheless, the point is that discipleship is fundamentally viewed differently by Presbyterians. It's not that we openly "accept" Joe Smith or Jamie Smith (his son) as "unregenerate Church members", it's more appropriate to say that we leave the secret things to God and act as ministers of Word and Sacrament and not as the Judge of who really possesses saving faith.


Rich, this not far removed from RB practice. Obviously, we only baptize those who profess faith in Christ. Like Presbyterians, we lack perfect knowledge. We cannot look into the soul and know for certain that anyone is saved. Besides a credible profession, we are looking for the evidence of faith in the life of a professed Christian. Things become a bit murkier with children that are raised in the church. Most confessional RB churches are different than the fundamentalist Baptist strain. There is a strong emphasis on a conversion experience in the fundamentalist camp (the camp I came out of). In many of the RB churches I am acquainted with there is more of an emphasis on confessing the truth as opposed to a moment-in-time conversion. For instance, a child grows up in an RB family and is exposed to the Gospel at home and church. Since RB churches are less likely to push for a decision, there may come an unrecognized time when the child comes to faith in Christ. The child grows up believing the Gospel and displays evidence of faith in their life. While no conversion experience can be pointed to, the child readily confesses the Christian faith and lives according to it. This becomes clearer when the professed believer submits to the waters of baptism. At that time they are publicly confessing their faith in Christ.


----------



## JTB.SDG

Dachaser said:


> This distinction seems to be where the division is happening, as how can there be the CoG in full under the OC, where many under it were not even saved?



We would say it correlates exactly to the NT Cov of Grace. There can be the CoG "in full" in the OT in exactly the same way there is the CoG "in full" in the NT. As it was then, so it is now. Scripture calls it the church in the wilderness. Nevertheless, some (in their case, many) weren't truly saved. Well, we've got the same thing today. Christ calls us His church, though He himself concedes that there are tares mixed in with the wheat, which He will sort out in the last day. We don't close our eyes and pretend everyone is saved in the NT. We know better. But Christ still calls us His church. Paul knew there were unbelievers mixed in with those he was writing his epistles to, but since he is addressing the corporate body, he rightly calls them "Saints". The true invisible church in the OT correlates exactly with the true invisible church in the NT. Those who were truly saved then were the only true members of the invisible church, just as today those only who are truly saved within the larger corporate body are true members of the invisible church. Nevertheless, just as Scripture calls that whole OT body God's people/the church, even though there were unbelievers mixed in, so God calls His NT church His people/the church, even though there are still unbelievers mixed in. Hence our distinction between the church external and the church internal; the church visible and the church invisible; being IN the Covenant and truly being OF the Covenant.

Can I turn your question around and ask: How could God call OT Israel His people (over and over again) if many among them weren't saved?


----------



## Pergamum

greenbaggins said:


> Pergie, you are very close indeed to the Presbyterian position, for I have never heard a Baptist argue like this. Only a few things remain. First, should the sign of baptism be attached to the external administration or the substance of the CoG, and should the sign's efficacy be tied to the moment of its administration, or can it have a "delayed reaction?" Here the analogy of circumcision works much more closely than Baptists would say it does. Both circumcision and baptism are physical signs that point to spiritual realities. Both are signs that the person so marked belong to the people of God. But in this way, the sacraments work the same way as the Word (though, instead of coming in through ear, the sacraments work through the other senses; but both preach the gospel, and that is what Presbyterians mean by sacramental efficacy: the sacraments have the same kind of efficacy that the Word of God does, though the grace offered is not a converting grace but a strengthening, confirming grace, and is only received by faith). Therefore, since the Word is attached to the external administration of the CoG, so should baptism. You have actually already pointed in this direction with your rejection of the argument that "only the saved should be baptized." If children can have the substance of the CoG (for of such belongs the kingdom of God, Jesus Himself says), then by what right should we refuse them the sign of the CoG? If families still work covenantally (and, contrary to Ben's assertion, they still do, as 1 Corinthians 7 proves), then there remain no more objections to paedo-baptism.
> 
> Children can be regenerated from the womb, as John the Baptist proves. David said that he trusted in the Lord even from the time he was nursing. We do not presume that they are regenerated, but the possibility is definitely there. The key, then, is that baptism does not mark the time of regeneration, but the time of joining the external administration of the church. You have basically already gone there, Pergie, by saying that it is false that only the saved should be baptized. If you connect this point in your mind with the covenantal structure of the family, then paedobaptism will emerge in your thinking as the logical thing.



Lane,

Thank you for your interactions with me. I suppose I may be close, but I am still not comfortable giving the covenant-sign based on mere birth and not also discernible profession/fruit. Though I do acknowledge the general promises given to children of believers. I see the logic of paedobaptism, however. I just want more NT examples...even one example would be nice. The household baptisms seemed to entail believers as well. I also acknowledge that paedobaptism was the majority view throughout church history. But many tied paedobaptism to the false belief in baptismal regeneration.


----------



## Branson

Pergamum said:


> Lane,
> 
> Thank you for your interactions with me. I suppose I may be close, but I am still not comfortable giving the covenant-sign based on mere birth and not also discernible profession/fruit. Though I do acknowledge the general promises given to children of believers. I see the logic of paedobaptism, however. *I just want more NT examples...even one example would be nice. The household baptisms seemed to entail believers as well*. I also acknowledge that paedobaptism was the majority view throughout church history. But many tied paedobaptism to the false belief in baptismal regeneration.



I read this by Ligon Duncan at the time I was pondering over the issue myself. It was one of the points that stuck out to me.

"Are the children of believing parents in the covenant, speaking of the Covenant of Grace here, under the New Covenant, like we know that they were under the old? And again, we can point to several lines of evidence. The apostolic preaching of Peter in Acts 2:39, “The promise is to you and to your children.” The same language as in Genesis 17. We can point to the pattern of water baptism in the book of Acts and in Corinthians. There are at least four or five examples of household baptism given us in the book of Acts, and in I Corinthians; out of seven baptisms described, perhaps five of them are household baptisms. Now what am I arguing is this: it doesn’t matter whether there were infants in those households, although it would be exceedingly unlikely that there would not be young children. What matters is, is that the Old Covenant pattern of family solidarity in this great time of evangelistic revival is still obtained. Cornelius believes, and his whole household is baptized. The Philippian jailer believes, and his whole household is baptized. And Luke goes out of his way in Acts 16 to make it clear that it is the Philippian jailer who believes and the household is baptized. And then again, Lydia believes and her household is baptized. So we see this pattern of household baptisms. 
What does this pattern of household baptisms mean? It simply means that God is using the same pattern of dealing in families in the New Covenant as He did under the Old. Does it mean that everybody in every family where the head made a profession of faith is ultimately going to be saved? No. It never meant that in the Old Covenant. Think of Esau and Ishmael."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Steve Curtis

Herald said:


> There is a strong emphasis on a conversion experience in the fundamentalist camp (the camp I came out of).



Me, too. We would sing - all 7 stanzas - of "It was on a ___day (Monday, Tueday,...), Somebody saved me!" and everyone would stand up as the day they were "saved" was sung.


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> Rich, this not far removed from RB practice. Obviously, we only baptize those who profess faith in Christ. Like Presbyterians, we lack perfect knowledge. We cannot look into the soul and know for certain that anyone is saved. Besides a credible profession, we are looking for the evidence of faith in the life of a professed Christian. Things become a bit murkier with children that are raised in the church. Most confessional RB churches are different than the fundamentalist Baptist strain. There is a strong emphasis on a conversion experience in the fundamentalist camp (the camp I came out of). In many of the RB churches I am acquainted with there is more of an emphasis on confessing the truth as opposed to a moment-in-time conversion. For instance, a child grows up in an RB family and is exposed to the Gospel at home and church. Since RB churches are less likely to push for a decision, there may come an unrecognized time when the child comes to faith in Christ. The child grows up believing the Gospel and displays evidence of faith in their life. While no conversion experience can be pointed to, the child readily confesses the Christian faith and lives according to it. This becomes clearer when the professed believer submits to the waters of baptism. At that time they are publicly confessing their faith in Christ.


There is usually, at least among the Baptist churches that I have been part of, the time when the person receiving the baptism makes a public declaration to all present that they now have been saved by Jesus, and by professing salvation in Him, now as being obedient to the scriptures, are now being water baptized.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Herald said:


> Rich, this not far removed from RB practice. Obviously, we only baptize those who profess faith in Christ. Like Presbyterians, we lack perfect knowledge. We cannot look into the soul and know for certain that anyone is saved. Besides a credible profession, we are looking for the evidence of faith in the life of a professed Christian. Things become a bit murkier with children that are raised in the church. Most confessional RB churches are different than the fundamentalist Baptist strain. There is a strong emphasis on a conversion experience in the fundamentalist camp (the camp I came out of). In many of the RB churches I am acquainted with there is more of an emphasis on confessing the truth as opposed to a moment-in-time conversion. For instance, a child grows up in an RB family and is exposed to the Gospel at home and church. Since RB churches are less likely to push for a decision, there may come an unrecognized time when the child comes to faith in Christ. The child grows up believing the Gospel and displays evidence of faith in their life. While no conversion experience can be pointed to, the child readily confesses the Christian faith and lives according to it. This becomes clearer when the professed believer submits to the waters of baptism. At that time they are publicly confessing their faith in Christ.


Thanks Bill.

From my vantage the whole discussion about what the real supposition of Reformed Baptists (or Particular Baptists) is often obscured about points of disagreement where the RB is really trying to emphasize something about the Abrahamic or the Mosaic that they can point to in order to tie the circumcision of children to a historical imperfect dispensation of the Covenant of Grace. If you're a "1689 Federalist" you come at it a different way by really trying to say that all these other Covenants are not administrations of the Covenant of Grace but, again, the real aiming point against PB's is to say: "Look, there were Promises and such such that the elect were saved by the CoG in Christ but there's all this other historical stuff that is passing way. Notably, we have this circumcision thing that includes children but that's most formally about making sure that Jesus comes to earth historically in a people preserved from mixture."

Naturally, I'm summarizing it in a broad brush fashion but it's all aiming at the same thing: The NC is not like these old dispensations where you had imperfect and provisional things that loosely signified Christ. All we have now is the perfection of the NC with a perfect Mediator and ordinances that are no longer shadows but part of a fulfilled worship that brings us into the heavenly sanctuary.

OK, things aren't completely off the rails at this point. There's some truth to with Presbyterians could provisionally agree but RB's take this a step further and try to argue that the perfection of the NC somehow demands some sort of historical administration where God has somehow commanded the Church: "Look folks, I was OK with unbelievers being in my Covenant people in the OC because, hey, it was passing away. Times have changed now and part of your mission is to reduce the footprint, as much as is in you, to make sure that you never apply the sign of the NC to someone who just might turn out to be regenerate. Oh, and by the way, what better way to start than with your own children because you can't know for sure if they're regenerate and so you better not baptize them with a sign of regeneration until you have the maximal confidence of that reality. I know you're finite and so here's the best you can do: A mature profession of faith. I know you'll make some mistakes but I'm counting on you to at least make sure that everyone, even the children of believers, crosses this threshold of maturity so that you let in a few people as possible into membership into the local Church because I do not want my perfect NC to be visibly populated with people who might be unregenerate. Don't forget - children of believers are a sure way to reduce that population of the 'might be unregenerate.'"

I'm being a bit dramatic here and I hope it doesn't seem like I'm mocking. I'm trying to honestly express the logic of the matter. At the end of the day, the whole discussion about the nature of the NC brings you no closer than the Presbyterian on whom to baptize. We believe that the CoG was made with Christ and, in Him, all the elect. We believe that baptism does not convey the graces signified but is only sealed by the sovereign work of the Spirit. We believe the NC is the fulness of the CoG and that prior dispensations had types and shadows.

What puzzles me is how RB's can make the logical leap from the nature of the NC to the idea that, in the NC, God has commanded the Church to aim for a regenerate Church membership with profession as the goal. We can't find any verses that establish this and I've never really seen a GNC argument presented. I also question whether RB's really think that God was ever "OK" with unbelief at any time in history of Israel if it served some temporal purpose that Jesus would end up coming by a clear ethnic line. Last time I checked there were a lot of ways a person could be cut off and God did cut off people.

At the end of the day, the nature of the NC gets RB's no closer to excluding children from baptism. They regularly convince themselves of that fact but do not regularly defend the "OK, now what?" connection between what they think about the NC and baptizing their children.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

Semper Fidelis said:


> Thanks Bill.
> 
> From my vantage the whole discussion about what the real supposition of Reformed Baptists (or Particular Baptists) is often obscured about points of disagreement where the RB is really trying to emphasize something about the Abrahamic or the Mosaic that they can point to in order to tie the circumcision of children to a historical imperfect dispensation of the Covenant of Grace. If you're a "1689 Federalist" you come at it a different way by really trying to say that all these other Covenants are not administrations of the Covenant of Grace but, again, the real aiming point against PB's is to say: "Look, there were Promises and such such that the elect were saved by the CoG in Christ but there's all this other historical stuff that is passing way. Notably, we have this circumcision thing that includes children but that's most formally about making sure that Jesus comes to earth historically in a people preserved from mixture."
> 
> Naturally, I'm summarizing it in a broad brush fashion but it's all aiming at the same thing: The NC is not like these old dispensations where you had imperfect and provisional things that loosely signified Christ. All we have now is the perfection of the NC with a perfect Mediator and ordinances that are no longer shadows but part of a fulfilled worship that brings us into the heavenly sanctuary.
> 
> OK, things aren't completely off the rails at this point. There's some truth to with Presbyterians could provisionally agree but RB's take this a step further and try to argue that the perfection of the NC somehow demands some sort of historical administration where God has somehow commanded the Church: "Look folks, I was OK with unbelievers being in my Covenant people in the OC because, hey, it was passing away. Times have changed now and part of your mission is to reduce the footprint, as much as is in you, to make sure that you never apply the sign of the NC to someone who just might turn out to be regenerate. Oh, and by the way, what better way to start than with your own children because you can't know for sure if they're regenerate and so you better not baptize them with a sign of regeneration until you have the maximal confidence of that reality. I know you're finite and so here's the best you can do: A mature profession of faith. I know you'll make some mistakes but I'm counting on you to at least make sure that everyone, even the children of believers, crosses this threshold of maturity so that you let in a few people as possible into membership into the local Church because I do not want my perfect NC to be visibly populated with people who might be unregenerate. Don't forget - children of believers are a sure way to reduce that population of the 'might be unregenerate.'"
> 
> I'm being a bit dramatic here and I hope it doesn't seem like I'm mocking. I'm trying to honestly express the logic of the matter. At the end of the day, the whole discussion about the nature of the NC brings you no closer than the Presbyterian on whom to baptize. We believe that the CoG was made with Christ and, in Him, all the elect. We believe that baptism does not convey the graces signified but is only sealed by the sovereign work of the Spirit. We believe the NC is the fulness of the CoG and that prior dispensations had types and shadows.
> 
> What puzzles me is how RB's can make the logical leap from the nature of the NC to the idea that, in the NC, God has commanded the Church to aim for a regenerate Church membership with profession as the goal. We can't find any verses that establish this and I've never really seen a GNC argument presented. I also question whether RB's really think that God was ever "OK" with unbelief at any time in history of Israel if it served some temporal purpose that Jesus would end up coming by a clear ethnic line. Last time I checked there were a lot of ways a person could be cut off and God did cut off people.
> 
> At the end of the day, the nature of the NC gets RB's no closer to excluding children from baptism. They regularly convince themselves of that fact but do not regularly defend the "OK, now what?" connection between what they think about the NC and baptizing their children.


Only those who have been saved are under the NC now, but both the lost and saved fit under the Old One. as much of that was related to temporal and physical blessings.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dachaser said:


> Only those who have been saved are under the NC now, but both the lost and saved fit under the Old One. as much of that was related to temporal and physical blessings.


I don't know if you were intending to quote me and present that as a response to what I wrote but it widely misses the mark of the point I'm making.


----------



## Dachaser

You were addressing how Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists view those distinctions though, correct?


----------



## Ben Zartman

Semper Fidelis said:


> What puzzles me is how RB's can make the logical leap from the nature of the NC to the idea that, in the NC, God has commanded the Church to aim for a regenerate Church membership with profession as the goal. We can't find any verses that establish this and I've never really seen a GNC argument presented. I also question whether RB's really think that God was ever "OK" with unbelief at any time in history of Israel if it served some temporal purpose that Jesus would end up coming by a clear ethnic line. Last time I checked there were a lot of ways a person could be cut off and God did cut off people.



We get the notion of a regenerate church membership from God's statement through Jeremiah, "They shall all know me."
We take that to mean a saving knowledge, otherwise the New Covenant isn't very new at all. We get it from seeing written: "He that believeth and is baptized..." not "he that believeth having been baptized as a sign and seal that the covenant might be actually applied sometime in future." We see it in Phillip's answer to the eunuch: "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest (be baptized)" I've pointed out previously (in this thread or another of the many on this topic) that physical birth into the Old Covenant people served as a type of being born (Born Again) into God's true covenant people, the Israel of God. The sign of being born physically into the old covenant was abrogated at the start of the new, since the sign of being born of the Spirit is now in play. We arrive there by good and necessary consequence, just as Presbyterians, lacking an explicit command to baptize infants, see their view as good and necessary consequence.
I hope this helps further your understanding of the RB perspective.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ben Zartman said:


> We get the notion of a regenerate church membership from God's statement through Jeremiah, "They shall all know me."



But they all don't know Him. Ask any credo and they will bear witness to the fact that they know of members who have given witness, been baptized, only to fall away later. As well, this passage in Jeremiah , in the absolute sense, refers to the gloried church. We still need teachers.



> We get it from seeing written: "He that believeth and is baptized..."



This refers to those that truly believe and are baptized....it is not an absolute that all those that are baptized are true believers. 



> We see it in Phillip's answer to the eunuch: "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest (be baptized)"



Yes, it's based on confession. Baptism cannot be validated on Earth-all of us place the sign upon presumption.



> I've pointed out previously (in this thread or another of the many on this topic) that physical birth into the Old Covenant people served as a type of being born (Born Again)



Not true. 



> into God's true covenant people, the Israel of God.



The Israel of God are the elect...



> The sign of being born physically into the old covenant was abrogated at the start of the new, since the sign of being born of the Spirit is now in play.



The OT saints were born of the same spirit as the NT saint.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Ben Zartman said:


> We get the notion of a regenerate church membership from God's statement through Jeremiah, "They shall all know me.


I think we would all agree that God is speaking here of his elect; but it doesn't follow that the passage is speaking of regenerate church membership, as Baptists view it. The emphasis seems to be on the fact that the need for the types and shadows (the Levitical priesthood and the sacrificial system) will be no more needed in order to mediate between God and man. In other words, all the elect will know God in a new and living way. Hebrews 8:12, 13: "And they shall not teach every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old..." 

Then Hebrews 10:17-20: "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin ["their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more"]. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh..."

So doesn't the newness of the covenant Jeremiah 31 is speaking of have to do with the better things that will come upon the full accomplishment of Christ, and his sending the Spirit? The elect may now know the Lord in a better way, his laws in their hearts and written on their minds (filled with the Spirit, the word of Christ dwelling richly).

The NT also seems to affirm this in 1 John 2:18-28, in relation to needing no man to teach saying "know the Lord": "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it...the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you..."




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Jeri Tanner said:


> I think we would all agree that God is speaking here of his elect; but it doesn't follow that the passage is speaking of regenerate church membership, as Baptists view it. The emphasis seems to be on the fact that the need for the types and shadows (the Levitical priesthood and the sacrificial system) will be no more needed in order to mediate between God and man. In other words, all the elect will know God in a new and living way. Hebrews 8:12, 13: "And they shall not teach every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old..."
> 
> Then Hebrews 10:17-20: "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin ["their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more"]. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh..."
> 
> So doesn't the newness of the covenant Jeremiah 31 is speaking of have to do with the better things that will come upon the full accomplishment of Christ, and his sending the Spirit? The elect may now know the Lord in a better way, his laws in their hearts and written on their minds (filled with the Spirit, the word of Christ dwelling richly).
> 
> The NT also seems to affirm this in 1 John 2:18-28, in relation to needing no man to teach saying "know the Lord": "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it...the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Jeri, we contend that it does speak of regenerate church membership. The Hebrews passage you quoted sheds more light: speaking of all who know Him, he says: "Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." God only puts away the sins and iniquities of the regenerate. So, we Baptists believe that while false professors may slip in here and there, the ideal is that there would be no one counted as a member (given the sign and allowed at the table), who has not had their sins remitted.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Scott Bushey said:


> But they all don't know Him. Ask any credo and they will bear witness to the fact that they know of members who have given witness, been baptized, only to fall away later. As well, this passage in Jeremiah , in the absolute sense, refers to the gloried church. We still need teachers.



Again, unbelievers may deceive the elders and be admitted into visible membership, but they are not in the New Covenant: they are deceivers. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to fence the sacraments against the unregenerate.



Scott Bushey said:


> This refers to those that truly believe and are baptized....it is not an absolute that all those that are baptized are true believers.


But it is absolute that only those who are believers SHOULD be baptized. That is the Baptist position.



Scott Bushey said:


> Not true.


Actually I did point that out. Perhaps you disagree with what I said, but this sounds as though you're denying that I made the point.


----------



## BG

The problem with the passage in Jeremiah is that it is hyperbole and we have certain rules for interpreting scripture that we cannot simply set aside just to fit our presuppositions.

It cannot mean they will all know me from the least to the greatest without exception.

Jer: 6:13 8:10 31:34 42:1 42:8 44:12
jonah: 3:5

If we say that the 31:34 passage is not hyperbole then we must say that about all the other passages which would lead us to conclude that not only are all of the prophets liars but Jeremiah himself is also.


When a phrase or term is used in a single book and five out of the six times it is used it is hyperbole a pretty good rule of thumb is that the sixth time it's hyperbole also.

Unfortunately there's a lot of confusion about this verse in both camps, if an arminian were trying to argue this way with an inconsistent hermeneutic both sides would jump all over him and demand that he remain consistent in his hermeneutic.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ben Zartman said:


> But it is absolute that only those who are believers SHOULD be baptized. That is the Baptist position.



Make the distinction between those that make a confession and true belief-no one knows this...



> I've pointed out previously (in this thread or another of the many on this topic) that physical birth into the Old Covenant people served as a type of being born (Born Again)



Have I misunderstood what u wrote? Please clarify.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG

Edited my post


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Ben Zartman said:


> Jeri, we contend that it does speak of regenerate church membership. The Hebrews passage you quoted sheds more light: speaking of all who know Him, he says: "Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." God only puts away the sins and iniquities of the regenerate.


Hi Ben, yes, I agreed that this biblical statement is speaking of the regenerate. I was suggesting that God's "remembering their sins and iniquities no more" has to do with the fact that no longer must sacrifices of atonement be made before him year after year, a reminder of their sin since the final "remission of sins" (Hebrews 10:18) had not yet been accomplished. There were the regenerate in the OT, yet a continual reminder of their sin came up before God through the Levitical sacrificial system. "But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins year after year." (Hebrews 10:3)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman

Scott Bushey said:


> Have I misunderstood what u wrote? Please clarify.


Not sure if I can make it clearer, but here goes: OT Israel was God's covenant people, but in a time before the Messiah had come, in whom all the promises are bound up. So they, their lives, and their experiences served as physical pictures of spiritual realities (the Exodus, crossing the Jordan, occupying the land, etc.). Inclusion in that old covenant was by birth, but that birth and inclusion served merely as a type--a picture--of the coming time when a better covenant would be established, and all the types and shadows fulfilled. In the new and better covenant, inclusion is not by physical birth but by spiritual birth (of which physical birth was a type in OT times). Everyone is born under the curse of the law, and must be Born Again to see the Kingdom of God. Sure, OT saints were born of the spirit (or Jesus' discourse to Nocodemus would make no sense), but RB's see that one of the better features of the NC is that everyone who is in Covenant with God is regenerate. There is no-one in that covenant who is not born again, though they may be mistakenly counted members of a visible congregation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Jeri Tanner said:


> Hi Ben, yes, I agreed that this biblical statement is speaking of the regenerate. I was suggesting that God's "remembering their sins and iniquities no more" has to do with the fact that no longer must sacrifices of atonement be made before him year after year, a reminder of their sin since the final "remission of sins" (Hebrews 10:18) had not yet been accomplished. There were the regenerate in the OT, yet a continual reminder of their sin came up before God through the Levitical sacrificial system. "But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins year after year." (Hebrews 10:3)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Jeri, that's an interesting way to see it--as of remembrance being made to God of sins. I always looked at it as reminding the people of their sins, since they had to offer year by year, whereas now, we don't remember our sins yearly--they're gone once for all when we repent and believe. I may have to look further into that--thanks for the food for thought.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

Semper Fidelis said:


> Thanks Bill.
> 
> From my vantage the whole discussion about what the real supposition of Reformed Baptists (or Particular Baptists) is often obscured about points of disagreement where the RB is really trying to emphasize something about the Abrahamic or the Mosaic that they can point to in order to tie the circumcision of children to a historical imperfect dispensation of the Covenant of Grace. If you're a "1689 Federalist" you come at it a different way by really trying to say that all these other Covenants are not administrations of the Covenant of Grace but, again, the real aiming point against PB's is to say: "Look, there were Promises and such such that the elect were saved by the CoG in Christ but there's all this other historical stuff that is passing way. Notably, we have this circumcision thing that includes children but that's most formally about making sure that Jesus comes to earth historically in a people preserved from mixture."
> 
> Naturally, I'm summarizing it in a broad brush fashion but it's all aiming at the same thing: The NC is not like these old dispensations where you had imperfect and provisional things that loosely signified Christ. All we have now is the perfection of the NC with a perfect Mediator and ordinances that are no longer shadows but part of a fulfilled worship that brings us into the heavenly sanctuary.
> 
> OK, things aren't completely off the rails at this point. There's some truth to with Presbyterians could provisionally agree but RB's take this a step further and try to argue that the perfection of the NC somehow demands some sort of historical administration where God has somehow commanded the Church: "Look folks, I was OK with unbelievers being in my Covenant people in the OC because, hey, it was passing away. Times have changed now and part of your mission is to reduce the footprint, as much as is in you, to make sure that you never apply the sign of the NC to someone who just might turn out to be regenerate. Oh, and by the way, what better way to start than with your own children because you can't know for sure if they're regenerate and so you better not baptize them with a sign of regeneration until you have the maximal confidence of that reality. I know you're finite and so here's the best you can do: A mature profession of faith. I know you'll make some mistakes but I'm counting on you to at least make sure that everyone, even the children of believers, crosses this threshold of maturity so that you let in a few people as possible into membership into the local Church because I do not want my perfect NC to be visibly populated with people who might be unregenerate. Don't forget - children of believers are a sure way to reduce that population of the 'might be unregenerate.'"
> 
> I'm being a bit dramatic here and I hope it doesn't seem like I'm mocking. I'm trying to honestly express the logic of the matter. At the end of the day, the whole discussion about the nature of the NC brings you no closer than the Presbyterian on whom to baptize. We believe that the CoG was made with Christ and, in Him, all the elect. We believe that baptism does not convey the graces signified but is only sealed by the sovereign work of the Spirit. We believe the NC is the fulness of the CoG and that prior dispensations had types and shadows.
> 
> What puzzles me is how RB's can make the logical leap from the nature of the NC to the idea that, in the NC, God has commanded the Church to aim for a regenerate Church membership with profession as the goal. We can't find any verses that establish this and I've never really seen a GNC argument presented. I also question whether RB's really think that God was ever "OK" with unbelief at any time in history of Israel if it served some temporal purpose that Jesus would end up coming by a clear ethnic line. Last time I checked there were a lot of ways a person could be cut off and God did cut off people.
> 
> At the end of the day, the nature of the NC gets RB's no closer to excluding children from baptism. They regularly convince themselves of that fact but do not regularly defend the "OK, now what?" connection between what they think about the NC and baptizing their children.



Rich, thank you for your gracious response, and no, I did not think you were mocking. 

You wrote, "_We believe that the CoG was made with Christ and, in Him, all the elect._" 1689 Federalists agree with that. 1689 Federalists also believe that the CoG was concluded in the NC. As has been stated more than a few times in the various 1689 Federalism threads, the CoG was promised in the OT, and not concluded until the NC was revealed. That is the 1689 Federalist position, a position I have not yet adopted (even though I am attracted by many of its arguments). Since the CoG was made with Christ, and in Him, all the elect; 1689 Federalists take the position that the only valid recipients of baptism are the believing elect. At this point, I realize the argument is repeating itself. 1689 Federalists do not feel the need to argue about baptism because they believe that issue is settled by the nature of the NC. The NC/CoG (one in the same) is made with Christ and His elect; not sinful elect members who have yet to come to faith, but only with the believing elect. The 1689 Federalist position disqualifies natural birth as a means of coming under the auspices of the CoG.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Herald said:


> Rich, thank you for your gracious response, and no, I did not think you were mocking.
> 
> You wrote, "_We believe that the CoG was made with Christ and, in Him, all the elect._" 1689 Federalists agree with that. 1689 Federalists also believe that the CoG was concluded in the NC. As has been stated more than a few times in the various 1689 Federalism threads, the CoG was promised in the OT, and not concluded until the NC was revealed. That is the 1689 Federalist position, a position I have not yet adopted (even though I am attracted by many of its arguments). Since the CoG was made with Christ, and in Him, all the elect; 1689 Federalists take the position that the only valid recipients of baptism are the believing elect. At this point, I realize the argument is repeating itself. 1689 Federalists do not feel the need to argue about baptism because they believe that issue is settled by the nature of the NC. The NC/CoG (one in the same) is made with Christ and His elect; not sinful elect members who have yet to come to faith, but only with the believing elect. The 1689 Federalist position disqualifies natural birth as a means of coming under the auspices of the CoG.


Bill,

Again, it seems that there's a missing assumption that has yet to be provided by any Biblical or GNC argument:

P1: The COG is made with Christ and in Him all the elect
P2: Because the local Church is to represent the NC, the only valid recipients of baptism are the believing elect.
P3: ?
P4: ?
Conclusion: We baptize only professors because _______

I maintain that Baptists (of both varieties) assume (but never prove) that they are supposed to only baptize the elect and, therefore, they only baptize those who profess Christ.

This makes sense in an semi-Pelagian scheme but not one in which election is left to the hidden counsel of God and in light of Christ's own parable about the sower and the seeds.
In order to move, in one step, from:
1. We are to only baptize the elect
to:
2. We are to only baptize those who profess Christ

Then *elect* must be identical with *those who profess Christ*.

Since this is clearly not the case then there needs to be some additional argumentation that is not provided. It is simply _assume_ and not argued.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Herald

Semper Fidelis said:


> Bill,
> 
> Again, it seems that there's a missing assumption that has yet to be provided by any Biblical or GNC argument:
> 
> P1: The COG is made with Christ and in Him all the elect
> P2: Because the local Church is to represent the NC, the only valid recipients of baptism are the believing elect.
> P3: ?
> P4: ?
> Conclusion: We baptize only professors because _______
> 
> I maintain that Baptists (of both varieties) assume (but never prove) that they are supposed to only baptize the elect and, therefore, they only baptize those who profess Christ.
> 
> This makes sense in an semi-Pelagian scheme but not one in which election is left to the hidden counsel of God and in light of Christ's own parable about the sower and the seeds.
> In order to move, in one step, from:
> 1. We are to only baptize the elect
> to:
> 2. We are to only baptize those who profess Christ
> 
> Then *elect* must be identical with *those who profess Christ*.
> 
> Since this is clearly not the case then there needs to be some additional argumentation that is not provided. It is simply _assume_ and not argued.




Rich,

It seems as though you are requiring Baptists to have perfect knowledge in order to only baptize those who are elect. I am not aware of any Baptist who makes that argument. We baptize those who profess faith in Christ and assume their profession is true. In this, I do not think there is much difference between paedobaptists and credobaptists when it comes to baptizing upon a credible profession of faith. There is a certain amount of trust that takes place on the part of the local church. Having said that, I do not see where this negatively impacts the Baptist view of the New Covenant and Covenant of Grace.


----------



## BG

Bill said:
It seems as though you are requiring Baptists to have perfect knowledge in order to only baptize those who are elect.

Isn't that your argument against baptizing children? We can't know if they are elect because they can't make a credible profession of faith. Btw how do you really know the profession is credible?


Bill said:
We baptize those who profess faith in Christ and assume their profession is true.

We baptize children and assume that Gods promises are true. We both assume that the party baptized will prove to be elect.



Bill said:
In this, I do not think there is much difference between paedobaptists and credobaptists when it comes to baptizing upon a credible profession of faith.
There is a certain amount of trust that takes place on the part of the local church. Having said that, I do not see where this negatively impacts the Baptist view of the New Covenant and Covenant of Grace.

You are right you to say that there is not much difference between the two groups, but there is one glaring difference, we have a theological foundation for our assumptions and our trust and you don't.

In practice Baptist act like Presbyterians. On the one hand you want to say that the church is for believers only and yet on the other hand you have to recognize that there are unregenerate people in your congregations who take the Lord supper, baptize people, ordain people to the ministry and execute church disciplined all this despite the fact that they are not even church members according to your theology.
How can it be that an unregenerate man can legitimately baptize people in a Baptist church? I'm sure that you will say that as long as it is a Trinitarian baptism it doesn't depend upon the man, to which I agree, but when you say that you are borrowing from the Presbyterian position.


----------



## Pergamum

Neither side agrees with purposely baptizing those who are not the elect. But what is the more sure determination of who to mark out? There are general promises in Scripture for the chldren of believers, yes. But a conscious and intentional profession of faith seems a more sure sign than mere birth, and it is the only explicit pattern we have in the NT.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman

BG said:


> We baptize children and assume that Gods promises are true. We both assume that the party baptized will prove to be elect.


My dear Bill G,
We Reformed Baptists see nowhere in scripture that the children of believers are promised salvation by being born. If God had promised to save the children of believers, then He must be breaking His promise when one of them proves to be reprobate. Are you suggesting that God breaks His promises? I can hardly think so, though it's the logical end to your statement.
Rather than presume upon something God has not vouchsafed, we look for the answer of a good confession; for the fruit of the Spirit by which they shall be known (perfectly? of course not, but a discerning eldership can weed out a good percentage of the false professors). That the ideal is impossible to achieve does not mean we do not reach toward it and make it our standard. Should I give up on keeping the Ten Commandments because I can't achieve perfection? No, they are my ideal and it is my duty to live in their light all of my days, regardless of whether it's achievable or not.


----------



## BG

Ben Zartman said:


> My dear Bill G,
> We Reformed Baptists see nowhere in scripture that the children of believers are promised salvation by being born. If God had promised to save the children of believers, then He must be breaking His promise when one of them proves to be reprobate. Are you suggesting that God breaks His promises? I can hardly think so, though it's the logical end to your statement.
> Rather than presume upon something God has not vouchsafed, we look for the answer of a good confession; for the fruit of the Spirit by which they shall be known (perfectly? of course not, but a discerning eldership can weed out a good percentage of the false professors). That the ideal is impossible to achieve does not mean we do not reach toward it and make it our standard. Should I give up on keeping the Ten Commandments because I can't achieve perfection? No, they are my ideal and it is my duty to live in their light all of my days, regardless of whether it's achievable or not.



Your presuppositions here are wrong in the old testament the sign of imputed righteousness was given to children who were born in the household of believers only.
That's not to say that unbelievers stopped giving the sign of imputed righteousness to their children unfortunately they did it and God often punish the people because of that.
I realize that do to your presuppositions you cannot except this and that you have to view the new covenant as not just a renewed Covenant but a new religion this is where I see a lot of inconsistencies in the Baptist position. As I've said in another post Baptist regularly borrow the theological position of Presbyterians when it's convenient for their argument and then they turn right around and jump back on their Baptist platform on another issue I see this as inconsistent. Keep your Baptist footing don't borrow our foundation. You can't say that the only true members of the visible church are believers and then turn right around and say except in the case where a minister turns out to be apostate and in his case we will make a special exception he truly is a member of the church in someway and therefore his baptisms are legitimate. I understand that that is what you say and I understand that you don't see it as being inconsistent however that does not mean that you're not inconsistent.


----------



## BG

Btw The promises that God (not Bill) made to believers and their children remains the same in both administrations of the covenant of grace


----------



## Ben Zartman

BG said:


> Your presuppositions here are wrong in the old testament the sign of imputed righteousness was given to children who were born in the household of believers only.
> That's not to say that unbelievers stopped giving the sign of imputed righteousness to their children unfortunately they did it and God often punish the people because of that.
> I realize that do to your presuppositions you cannot except this and that you have to view the new covenant as not just a renewed Covenant but a new religion this is where I see a lot of inconsistencies in the Baptist position. As I've said in another post Baptist regularly borrow the theological position of Presbyterians when it's convenient for their argument and then they turn right around and jump back on their Baptist platform on another issue I see this as inconsistent. Keep your Baptist footing don't borrow our foundation. You can't say that the only true members of the visible church are believers and then turn right around and say except in the case where a minister turns out to be apostate and in his case we will make a special exception he truly is a member of the church in someway and therefore his baptisms are legitimate. I understand that that is what you say and I understand that you don't see it as being inconsistent however that does not mean that you're not inconsistent.


Ah, I think I understand you better now. Perhaps the issue lies in that you place more weight on the actions of human agents than we do. There's not a lot of skin off my nose if the ideal is breached and a false professor is allowed into the visible congregation. If the sign of covenant inclusion was administered by an apostate, it doesn't mean (to us) that the thing it signified was not real--after all, it is a physical picture of a spiritual reality. There is no saving grace conferred by the waters of baptism, so the spiritual condition of the baptizer isn't critically at play. It there's an unconverted minister in the church, there's bigger issues than whom he has baptized.
Your claim that we borrow wholesale from the Presbyterian position is uncharitable--we find these things in the Scripture as well. That there are many parallels is no surprise--we're reading the same book, believing the same God, trusting in the same Christ. Of course the charge of inconsistency goes right back at you (by that I mean Presbyterians at large) in that they demand positive warrant for ceasing paedoinclusion, but hang a lot of church polity on the fragile peg of extrapolating from example.


----------



## BG

Ben Zartman said:


> Ah, I think I understand you better now. Perhaps the issue lies in that you place more weight on the actions of human agents than we do. There's not a lot of skin off my nose if the ideal is breached and a false professor is allowed into the visible congregation. If the sign of covenant inclusion was administered by an apostate, it doesn't mean (to us) that the thing it signified was not real--after all, it is a physical picture of a spiritual reality. There is no saving grace conferred by the waters of baptism, so the spiritual condition of the baptizer isn't critically at play. It there's an unconverted minister in the church, there's bigger issues than whom he has baptized.
> Your claim that we borrow wholesale from the Presbyterian position is uncharitable--we find these things in the Scripture as well. That there are many parallels is no surprise--we're reading the same book, believing the same God, trusting in the same Christ. Of course the charge of inconsistency goes right back at you (by that I mean Presbyterians at large) in that they demand positive warrant for ceasing paedoinclusion, but hang a lot of church polity on the fragile peg of extrapolating from example.



With all due respect I don't think you understand .

You don't put a lot of weight on the actions of humans ? So, no credible profession of faith needed. You are staunchly critical about who can be baptized but not so critical about who baptizes.

You have flipped the argument upside down and once again you are embracing the Presbyterian position in order to justify your actions this is inconsistent.

The burden of proof is on you to show the theological foundation for saying that a man who is not a member of the church can legitimately be an officer of the church and administer the sacraments. It's like saying that multiplication is not a legitimate discipline and then turning right around and doing algebra if you don't believe that multiplication is a legitimate disciplined you cannot possibly do algebra. the same is true of your argument, you can't say that church membership is for believers only but officers in the church can be unbelievers.


----------



## BG

Where in scripture do you see the doctrine of the credible profession of faith? Where is this outlined? In one church a four year old can have a credible profession but in another church he can't, what about children with disabilities? When I was a Baptist I was troubled by the fact that we had a standard that fluctuated from church to church. Ultimately Baptist don't believe in the baptism of disciples alone or the doctrine of the credible profession of faith but when the pastor says so doctrine.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Pergamum said:


> Lane,
> 
> I see the logic of paedobaptism, however. I just want more NT examples...even one example would be nice.


This was one of those things that dawned on me; I realized that if I were somehow unaware of the baptism controversy and, reading through the OT, saw that the households of believers received the sign of inclusion; and then reading through the NT saw that households still received the NT sign of inclusion; my non-prejudiced self would assume that any children must have been baptized as well, since there is no direction in the Scripture given to us to think otherwise. (And from the example of Lydia and others, would see that baptism was for girls, too).  Since there is no Scripture that refutes such an assumption (claims to the contrary notwithstanding), I have to believe that our good and loving Father, who wants us to know his will on these things, would have us baptize our whole households.

Holding out for a specific example then seemed uncalled for; as if I was being like Thomas, 'unless I see a specific example here I won't believe,' when He had already spoken to this and and given the pattern and examples; it was settled with Abraham. It seemed to me to be one of those many cases where we are called to see the OT as exhibiting the same covenant of grace and the same golden threads running throughout as in the New.

I had a sort of paradigm shift in realizing that baptism just wasn't what I had been taught it was. My assumptions ran very deep, and I was thinking that if paedobaptism was correct, it was probably just one of those things I'd never be sure of. I really wasn't looking to be convinced of it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## BG

Jeri Tanner said:


> This was one of those things that dawned on me; I realized that if I were somehow unaware of the baptism controversy and, reading through the OT, saw that the households of believers received the sign of inclusion; and then reading through the NT saw that households still received the NT sign of inclusion; my non-prejudiced self would assume that any children must have been baptized as well, since there is no direction in the Scripture given to us to think otherwise. (And from the example of Lydia and others, would see that baptism was for girls, too).  Since there is no Scripture that refutes such an assumption (claims to the contrary notwithstanding), I have to believe that our good and loving Father, who wants us to know his will on these things, would have us baptize our whole households.
> 
> Holding out for a specific example then seemed uncalled for; as if I was being like Thomas, 'unless I see a specific example here I won't believe,' when He had already spoken to this and and given the pattern and examples; it was settled with Abraham. It seemed to me to be one of those many cases where we are called to see the OT as exhibiting the same covenant of grace and the same golden threads running throughout as in the New.
> 
> I had a sort of paradigm shift in realizing that baptism just wasn't what I had been taught it was. My assumptions ran very deep, and I was thinking that if paedobaptism was correct, it was probably just one of those things I'd never be sure of. I really wasn't looking to be convinced of it.



Jeri, you have put your finger on the heart of the issue you had the good fortune of allowing the Bible to dictate what your presuppositions would be rather than the other way around allowing your presuppositions to dictate what The Bible says.
Having a biblical understanding of Old Testament theology is foundational to understanding the New Testament message, if you don't understand the doctrine of Covenant households which is fully developed in the Old Testament and carried over into the new, then you're not going to understand the new.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> Neither side agrees with purposely baptizing those who are not the elect. But what is the more sure determination of who to mark out? There are general promises in Scripture for the chldren of believers, yes. But a conscious and intentional profession of faith seems a more sure sign than mere birth, and it is the only explicit pattern we have in the NT.


This is what I keep speaking to. These are assertions. They are not supported by GNC.

In my fake conversation, Baptists assume God has somehow said: "I want to make sure you don't baptize the reprobate because the NC is with the elect only and, after all, *what is the more sure determination of who to mark out than Profession of Faith*." This is always assumed in Baptist theology.

Now, I can accept an argument that just says: "Look, we don't know why God tells us to only baptize professors. We're just obeying the Word of God where (it seems to us) that we are to only baptize mature professions of the faith.

But the Baptist goes further - he tries to draw a straight line from the NC is with the elect to "God only wants us to baptize the elect" to "therefore the way to make sure we do that most effectively is to baptize those who maturely profess the faith."

This last progression is always ASSUMED but never proven that God has actually commanded the Church to trace election to the administration of baptism given the inability of man to know at all the hidden counsel of God.

I don't know how many different ways I can express this. I obviously understand that Baptists do not know who the elect are. I'm not creating the demand that you think in these categories. I'm arguing that you think in these categories and I'm asking for a Biblical accounting for it.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Semper Fidelis said:


> But the Baptist goes further - he tries to draw a straight line from the NC is with the elect to "God only wants us to baptize the elect" to "therefore the way to make sure we do that most effectively is to baptize those who maturely profess the faith."


I think you have missed the point Rich. Only God knows who are the elect are. Reformed Baptists baptise *professing believers* in a similar way that only Reformed Paedobaptists baptise children of *professing believers.*


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Stephen L Smith said:


> I think you have missed the point Rich. Only God knows who are the elect are. Reformed Baptists baptise *professing believers* in a similar way that only Reformed Paedobaptists baptise children of *professing believers.*


Stephen,
I'm not trying to be pugilistic but I understand your point. If the _reason_ for baptizing professing believers was restricted to God's command then (as I already noted) we might simply focus the argument upon that point. Yet Baptists claim that the nature of the New Covenant being made with the elect alone (unlike other dispensations) means that the sign should be applied to the elect and then make the further argument that the _reason_ God commands the baptism of professing believers alone is because of the nature of the NC. That is assumed in Baptist argumentation but never established. No Baptist can logically move from the _requirement_ to baptize the elect to the _reason_ to baptize professing believers.


----------



## Ben Zartman

BG said:


> With all due respect I don't think you understand .
> 
> You don't put a lot of weight on the actions of humans ? So, no credible profession of faith needed. You are staunchly critical about who can be baptized but not so critical about who baptizes.
> 
> You have flipped the argument upside down and once again you are embracing the Presbyterian position in order to justify your actions this is inconsistent.
> 
> The burden of proof is on you to show the theological foundation for saying that a man who is not a member of the church can legitimately be an officer of the church and administer the sacraments. It's like saying that multiplication is not a legitimate discipline and then turning right around and doing algebra if you don't believe that multiplication is a legitimate disciplined you cannot possibly do algebra. the same is true of your argument, you can't say that church membership is for believers only but officers in the church can be unbelievers.


But Bill, I think it is you who misunderstands me!
A credible profession is absolutely needed. But we recognize that even the Apostle Peter was duped by Simon Magus for a time. That doesn't relieve the requirement for the answer of a good confession (Peter's own words).
Also, it is highly irregular and undesirable that there should be a minister who proves to be unconverted, but that doesn't mean it may not happen sometime. If a Presbyterian minister turned out to be a reprobate and proved it by his life after excommunication, would you re-baptize all the infants he had baptized?
Again, a man who is not regenerate should not be made an officer of the church and should not partake of or administer the sacraments. But irregularities that ought not to happen need not make us strive for an ideal. I've mentioned this already, but you seem determined to be extraordinarily obdurate. I exhort you as you exercise your right to disagree to not become disagreeable. Baptists and Presbyterians have been charitably debating these very things for hundreds of years--why become uncivil about it now?


----------



## BG

Ben, i'm sorry you feel that I am being uncivil I certainly don't mean to be, however if we're going to have an honest discussion we should speak truthfully. Not to poke fun here but I have found that most people love the truth unless you're honest with them.

Most of what you said above I agree with but then again I'm a Presbyterian it's my theology we believe that the covenant of grace has both an internal and external administration, Baptist do not. 

You don't get to jump to the Presbyterian side of the aisle and say that a baptism performed by an apostate minister is legitimate because he truly is an officer in the external administration of the covenant of grace and then jump back to the Baptist side of the aisle for everything else. 


thanks for the discussion I have enjoyed it.


----------



## Pergamum

What is the answer to Ben's question?

"If a Presbyterian minister turned out to be a reprobate and proved it by his life after excommunication, would you re-baptize all the infants he had baptized?"


----------



## Pergamum

BG said:


> Ben, i'm sorry you feel that I am being uncivil I certainly don't mean to be, however if we're going to have an honest discussion we should speak truthfully. Not to poke fun here but I have found that most people love the truth unless you're honest with them.
> 
> Most of what you said above I agree with but then again I'm a Presbyterian it's my theology we believe that the covenant of grace has both an internal and external administration, Baptist do not.
> 
> You don't get to jump to the Presbyterian side of the aisle and say that a baptism performed by an apostate minister is legitimate because he truly is an officer in the external administration of the covenant of grace and then jump back to the Baptist side of the aisle for everything else.
> 
> 
> thanks for the discussion I have enjoyed it.


Can you explain this line of argumentation again? Baptism does not rely upon the faith of the administrator, right?


----------



## BG

Pergamum said:


> Can you explain this line of argumentation again? Baptism does not rely upon the faith of the administrator, right?



You are correct, that is the Presbyterian position and also the position many Baptist take, but it isn't consistent for them to do so. 

A lost presbyterian minister is a member of the church at least externally and therefore the baptisms he performs would be considered legitimate while a Roman Catholic baptism would not. 

Presbyterians do not except Roman Catholic baptism because Roman Catholics are not members of the new covenant ( Among other things). 

In the Baptist view a lost Baptist minister and the Roman catholic find themselves in the same position they are neither one believers and not therefore members of the church. In order to be consistent Baptist should declare both baptisms illegitimate but they don't, instead they take a play out of the Presbyterian playbook to deal with a difficult problem and hope no one sees the inconsistency

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

BG said:


> You are correct, that is the Presbyterian position and also the position many Baptist take, but it isn't consistent for them to do so.
> 
> A lost presbyterian minister is a member of the church at least externally and therefore the baptisms he performs would be considered legitimate while a Roman Catholic baptism would not.
> 
> Presbyterians do not except Roman Catholic baptism because Roman Catholics are not members of the new covenant ( Among other things).
> 
> In the Baptist view a lost Baptist minister and the Roman catholic find themselves in the same position they are neither one believers and not therefore members of the church. In order to be consistent Baptist should declare both baptisms illegitimate but they don't, instead they take a play out of the Presbyterian playbook to deal with a difficult problem and hope no one sees the inconsistency


No. I don't think you understand. 

While both a baptist minister and a Catholic priest can be lost when they administer the baptism, the baptist minister is acting in the name of the true church whereas the Catholic priest is acting in the name of a false church. 

The ordinances are given to the church. Therefore, the baptisms of false cults do not count. I know many Presbyterians recognize the baptisms of Catholics, but they cannot also do this consistently and declare Catholicism to also be anti-Christ. 

The validity of the baptism rests not upon the individual who administers it, but upon the church body to which the ordinance has been given.


----------



## Ben Zartman

BG said:


> Most of what you said above I agree with but then again I'm a Presbyterian it's my theology we believe that the covenant of grace has both an internal and external administration, Baptist do not.



You have hit the nail on the head here. This IS one of the big differences, and you're right that applying it consistently is a big challenge. I fear the charge of inconsistency will be laid by both sides (yes, we see a ton of inconsistencies in the Presbyterians as well) until we're all glorified together. That will be a grand day. Until then, I do appreciate your continued insights, Bill.
Peace be unto you.


----------



## Steve Curtis

BG said:


> Presbyterians do not except Roman Catholic baptism


Fodder for another thread, perhaps, but many certainly do...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

kainos01 said:


> Fodder for another thread, perhaps, but many certainly do...


Yes, but leave a link to it here.


----------



## Steve Curtis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Yes, but leave a link to it here.


"Fodder" actually meant that this _could be _another thread (because there is much debate). I don't have specific resources at hand. However, a simple search will show many such threads in PB history; most recently: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/invalidity-of-roman-catholic-baptism.91458/


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> What is the answer to Ben's question?
> 
> "If a Presbyterian minister turned out to be a reprobate and proved it by his life after excommunication, would you re-baptize all the infants he had baptized?"


Donatism has been considered a heresy since the early Church.


----------



## Pilgrim

BG said:


> Presbyterians do not except Roman Catholic baptism because Roman Catholics are not members of the new covenant ( Among other things).



I think you'll find that most Presbyterians do in fact accept RC baptism, as did the Reformers, even after Trent. If memory serves, Calvin covers this in some detail in his _Institutes_.

The main exceptions I can think of are Southern Presbyterians after the mid 19th Century and an Australian Reformed denomination whose name escapes me at the moment.


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> Donatism has been considered a heresy since the early Church.


Thanks. Yes.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pilgrim said:


> I think you'll find that most Presbyterians do in fact accept RC baptism, as did the Reformers, even after Trent. If memory serves, Calvin covers this in some detail in his _Institutes_.
> 
> The main exceptions I can think of are Southern Presbyterians after the mid 19th Century and an Australian Reformed denomination whose name escapes me at the moment.


Yup. Thornwell vigorously argued against the validity of RC baptism so the PCA (which emerged out of the PCUS) leaves it up to the Session.


----------

