# Baptism & New Covenant



## HisRobes4Mine

I’m having a conversation with someone regarding baptism & the NC. They have told me their argument for credobaptism as listed below. I find errors in the logic of the argument but would like to hear your thoughts as to the relationship of baptism & the New Covenant. 

1. Election is completely unconditional. Even believing parents does not make you more likely to be elect.

2. There is no category of in the new covenant but not in Christ. 

3. Baptism is given to those who are part of the new covenant. 

Therefore we should baptize only those who have given evidence of being elect.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie

HisRobes4Mine said:


> I’m having a conversation with someone regarding baptism & the NC. They have told me their argument for credobaptism as listed below. I find errors in the logic of the argument but would like to hear your thoughts as to the relationship of baptism & the New Covenant.
> 
> 1. Election is completely unconditional. Even believing parents does not make you more likely to be elect.
> 
> 2. There is no category of in the new covenant but not in Christ.
> 
> 3. Baptism is given to those who are part of the new covenant.
> 
> Therefore we should baptize only those who have given evidence of being elect.



1. I am pretty sure everyone agrees on this.

2. I would point to Hebrews 6 and 10 which clearly show the distinction between visible and invisible church. (unless your CanRC lol)

3. Right. And children are part of the New Covenant so they should be baptized.

The only problem I really see is that his view of the New Covenant does not recognize the external and internal distinction.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

HisRobes4Mine said:


> I’m having a conversation with someone regarding baptism & the NC. They have told me their argument for credobaptism as listed below. I find errors in the logic of the argument but would like to hear your thoughts as to the relationship of baptism & the New Covenant.
> 
> 1. Election is completely unconditional. Even believing parents does not make you more likely to be elect.
> 
> 2. There is no category of in the new covenant but not in Christ.
> 
> 3. Baptism is given to those who are part of the new covenant.
> 
> Therefore we should baptize only those who have given evidence of being elect.


There is a lot that is left undefined. I would begin by asking your friend what the New Covenant is, exactly. I wouldn't know how to answer him without knowing what he understands the New Covenant to be.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I'll push back on #1. Saying that having "believing parents does not make you more likely to be elect," more or less turns every child's providential birth and rearing into a fundamentally random act, or at least little more than the necessary physical outcome of historical determinism.

It turns appointed means for the appointed end of election into rituals--things like Bible-reading, praying with and for children, encouraging them in knowledge of spiritual reality, taking them to church--all these things are rendered nothing but a bare sign, human acts of duty which actually have no promise of effect.

No one excuses 1) casual or superficial reliance on "church" to bring about salvation for those elect children; or either 2) the sort of input-output expectation of the use of means. But saying that the elect are not found preponderantly among those who possess the means and the promises associated with those means is patent nonsense.

Just consider OT Israel. Was a person just as likely to be providentially appointed to election from the Americas (whatever those continents were called in that age) or from India or China, as they were from the children of Israel? That alone should demonstrate that location and parentage was in OT times a significant providential means-factor of nurturing faith.

What has changed since OT times? The internationalization of the church? How is it the case that believers should not expect their children to_ follow their parents in the faith_ as it is taught, modeled, urged, etc. to some significant statistical percentage* greater than* the pagan parents next door? Does this man (or anyone) really believe that there is no spiritual connection between our faith and its results?

Basically random distribution of election is not what the words "unconditional election" refer to. Nor is it the case that Reformed and Presbyterian parents think to themselves: "my child is elect BECAUSE I'm a Christian, or raising my child as a Christian." If those are their thoughts, they are often also the thoughts of Baptists (reformed and non-reformed), and lots of other denominations; but not so often tied to the official theology of that church.

Abraham, being the key example, demonstrates this reality. He has two (chief) sons, and additional sons; God tells him he knows he will teach his children well (see Gen.18:19), and he will be God to him and to his children after him (Gen.17:7). But Abraham is to allow for God declining to accept a son of his, without rendering the promise moot, Gen.17:18-19. Abraham is not to act like he has no religious duties of training toward his children, because God has elected him and many of his children.

Still, it is undeniable that God chose Abraham and his family to love them, and did not choose countless other men and their families, Dt.7:7ff. It seems to me just as undeniable, and in accord with the reality we observe each and every week in our churches, that the elect of one generation are privileged to see their children demonstrate the general truth encouraged by the divine promises--that God loves not merely individuals, but often generational lines of demonstrated grace, and always of grace undeserved.

Reactions: Like 6 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## sc_q_jayce

HisRobes4Mine said:


> 1. Election is completely unconditional. Even believing parents does not make you more likely to be elect.



This is interesting and I think it's a statement that may seem agreeable but should be pushed back against.

1. If you had 100 random people who lived and died without ever hearing the gospel in any form or manner, what would be the chances that someone among them is of the elect and saved?
2. If you had 100 random people who lived and died hearing the gospel once a day, what would be the chances that someone among them is of the elect and saved?

If the chances for 1 (only zero) and the chances for 2 (zero to 100%) have the potential to be different, then the first premise is incorrect.


----------



## Dachaser

HisRobes4Mine said:


> I’m having a conversation with someone regarding baptism & the NC. They have told me their argument for credobaptism as listed below. I find errors in the logic of the argument but would like to hear your thoughts as to the relationship of baptism & the New Covenant.
> 
> 1. Election is completely unconditional. Even believing parents does not make you more likely to be elect.
> 
> 2. There is no category of in the new covenant but not in Christ.
> 
> 3. Baptism is given to those who are part of the new covenant.
> 
> Therefore we should baptize only those who have given evidence of being elect.


All 3 points would be true.


----------



## hammondjones

sc_q_jayce said:


> If you had 100 random people who lived and died without ever hearing the gospel in any form or manner, what would be the chances that someone among them is of the elect and saved?
> 
> (only zero)



I don't believe you can say with certainty "only zero" if only for miscarriages/abortions, which are people who lived and died.


I'd agree with #3 only.


----------



## sc_q_jayce

hammondjones said:


> I don't believe you can say with certainty "only zero" if only for miscarriages/abortions, which are people who lived and died.
> 
> 
> I'd agree with #3 only.


In the scenario I described, your considerations are not a factor. I should have been more specific about these people being born and having lived a nominal number of years, but these assumptions weren't spoken out loud. Nonetheless, the situation I describe should still stand.


----------



## Dachaser

sc_q_jayce said:


> This is interesting and I think it's a statement that may seem agreeable but should be pushed back against.
> 
> 1. If you had 100 random people who lived and died without ever hearing the gospel in any form or manner, what would be the chances that someone among them is of the elect and saved?
> 2. If you had 100 random people who lived and died hearing the gospel once a day, what would be the chances that someone among them is of the elect and saved?
> 
> If the chances for 1 (only zero) and the chances for 2 (zero to 100%) have the potential to be different, then the first premise is incorrect.


Does God stills ave His own elect if they never had the chance to hear the message of Jesus?
Primitive Baptists and others would still say yes...


----------



## sc_q_jayce

Dachaser said:


> Does God stills ave His own elect if they never had the chance to hear the message of Jesus?
> Primitive Baptists and others would still say yes...



I'm not sure why primitive baptists should be brought into this. I'll be even more specific: I'm talking about people who do not fall under WCF 10.3.


----------



## deleteduser99

HisRobes4Mine said:


> I’m having a conversation with someone regarding baptism & the NC. They have told me their argument for credobaptism as listed below. I find errors in the logic of the argument but would like to hear your thoughts as to the relationship of baptism & the New Covenant.
> 
> 1. Election is completely unconditional. Even believing parents does not make you more likely to be elect.
> 
> 2. There is no category of in the new covenant but not in Christ.
> 
> 3. Baptism is given to those who are part of the new covenant.
> 
> Therefore we should baptize only those who have given evidence of being elect.



Pr. Bruce answered #1 wonderfully. I only add that promises to the children are most certainly included in the New Covenant administration (Deut 30:6, Isaiah 44:3-4, 59:21, 61:8-9, Jer 32:37-41), and their conversion is not only probable, but to generally be *expected*. Being born to Christian parents doesn’t make one elect, but God certainly places His elect in their homes.

For #2, even if you want to say that the New Covenant is exclusively the regenerate, still the principle of church membership is in the Abrahamic Covenant, which is most certainly not abrogated. The argument is that the Old Covenant is done away with according to Hebrews 8, but the covenant made when Israel left Egypt is not the Abrahamic—only the Mosaic. A cursory reading of Galatians and Hebrews will show that although the Mosaic has passed way, the Abrahamic Covenant has never been so important, so relevant, and its continuance more essential to the Christian’s hope. Really, the New Covenant is the magnanimous pouring out of God’s promises to Abraham. The passages cited in my response to #1 all assume the membership structure continues, and the NC comes upon those in the membership. Even Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8 assumes it when it says, “The house of Israel and the house of Judah.”

As for #3, they say that only those who are members of the NC—that is, in their book those who are truly regenerated—should be baptized, but in reality they can only baptize those with a profession of faith, which falls short of being sure the person baptized is regenerate. Some dubious professions turn out genuine, other impressive ones turn out false.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Harley said:


> Pr. Bruce answered #1 wonderfully. I only add that promises to the children are most certainly included in the New Covenant administration (Deut 30:6, Isaiah 44:3-4, 59:21, 61:8-9, Jer 32:37-41), and their conversion is not only probable, but to generally be *expected*. Being born to Christian parents doesn’t make one elect, but God certainly places His elect in their homes.
> 
> For #2, even if you want to say that the New Covenant is exclusively the regenerate, still the principle of church membership is in the Abrahamic Covenant, which is most certainly not abrogated. The argument is that the Old Covenant is done away with according to Hebrews 8, but the covenant made when Israel left Egypt is not the Abrahamic—only the Mosaic. A cursory reading of Galatians and Hebrews will show that although the Mosaic has passed way, the Abrahamic Covenant has never been so important, so relevant, and its continuance more essential to the Christian’s hope. Really, the New Covenant is the magnanimous pouring out of God’s promises to Abraham. The passages cited in my response to #1 all assume the membership structure continues, and the NC comes upon those in the membership. Even Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8 assumes it when it says, “The house of Israel and the house of Judah.”
> 
> As for #3, they say that only those who are members of the NC—that is, in their book those who are truly regenerated—should be baptized, but in reality they can only baptize those with a profession of faith, which falls short of being sure the person baptized is regenerate. Some dubious professions turn out genuine, other impressive ones turn out false.


What do you think then of the LBCF 1689 take on this issue?


----------



## deleteduser99

Dachaser said:


> What do you think then of the LBCF 1689 take on this issue?



I’m a member of a Reformed Presbyterian Church now after being an LBC subscriber for 8 years, if that answers the question.

Which part are you wondering about my take?


----------



## Dachaser

Harley said:


> I’m a member of a Reformed Presbyterian Church now after being an LBC subscriber for 8 years, if that answers the question.
> 
> Which part are you wondering about my take?


Guess would be what was the main issue that moved you from the Baptist to the Presbyterian position regarding this issue of the Church/water Baptism/ and the NC?


----------



## deleteduser99

Dachaser said:


> Guess would be what was the main issue that moved you from the Baptist to the Presbyterian position regarding this issue of the Church/water Baptism/ and the NC?



That might be better covered in a private message brother, so I’ll write to you there, so this thread can continue underailed. A general answer, I think even the nature of the NC demands that it’s the rich pouring out of blessings promised in the AC, and continues from it, and therefore the membership structure (believers and their children) continues.


----------



## Dachaser

Harley said:


> That might be better covered in a private message brother, so I’ll write to you there, so this thread can continue underailed. A general answer, I think even the nature of the NC demands that it’s the rich pouring out of blessings promised in the AC, and continues from it, and therefore the membership structure (believers and their children) continues.


The spiritual blessings would be just to those who are in the faith of Abraham line though, just those who have trusted Jesus to save them.


----------



## De Jager

HisRobes4Mine said:


> I’m having a conversation with someone regarding baptism & the NC. They have told me their argument for credobaptism as listed below. I find errors in the logic of the argument but would like to hear your thoughts as to the relationship of baptism & the New Covenant.
> 
> 1. Election is completely unconditional. Even believing parents does not make you more likely to be elect.
> 
> 2. There is no category of in the new covenant but not in Christ.
> 
> 3. Baptism is given to those who are part of the new covenant.
> 
> Therefore we should baptize only those who have given evidence of being elect.



Jesus told us to go into all nations, making disciples and baptizing them.

A child who grows up in a Christian household is a disciple from the moment of his/her first breath. Therefore, I believe that child should be baptized.

Baptists will come back with something to the effect of: only truly regenerate people are 'disciples'; this is not true. In John 6, John clearly tells us that some of Jesus' disciples left him and walked with him no more.

'Disciple' does not equal 'regenerate'. A disciple is simply someone who sits under someone's teaching.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> The spiritual blessings would be just to those who are in the faith of Abraham line though, just those who have trusted Jesus to save them.



Yes, and the covenant sign of circumcision (which signifies spiritual blessings as proven in Romans 4) was given by Abraham to all the males in his household, even to the babies. The criteria was not personal faith - the criteria was belonging to the household of one who had faith.


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> Yes, and the covenant sign of circumcision (which signifies spiritual blessings as proven in Romans 4) was given by Abraham to all the males in his household, even to the babies. The criteria was not personal faith - the criteria was belonging to the household of one who had faith.


What passage in the NT though would indicate that those who have not received Jesus as their Lord are now included under it, as all who put on Christ and have the Holy Spirit only seemed to be now included?


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> What passage in the NT though would indicate that those who have not received Jesus as their Lord are now included under it, as all who put on Christ and have the Holy Spirit only seemed to be now included?



The burden is on you to demonstrate a covenantal system has been dissolved and that the signs and seals would apply to less people and not more, from Old to New.


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> The burden is on you to demonstrate a covenantal system has been dissolved and that the signs and seals would apply to less people and not more, from Old to New.


I think that was one of the purposes of the 1689 LBCF document, to demonstrate known differences between how the Presbyterians and Baptists viewed the NC and whose included under it now.


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> What passage in the NT though would indicate that those who have not received Jesus as their Lord are now included under it, as all who put on Christ and have the Holy Spirit only seemed to be now included?


I would ask a different question. For 2,000 years, the sign of the covenant had been given to the children in the believing community. Why would it stop? There is no command to stop. The NT makes mention of household baptisms in light of this historical precedent. 

Sent from my STH100-1 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> I think that was one of the purposes of the 1689 LBCF document, to demonstrate known differences between how the Presbyterians and Baptists viewed the NC and whose included under it now.



Fair enough, but you asked for a "magic bullet" verse from the NT to settle the matter. I assert there are precious few "magic bullet" verses for precious few doctrines; most doctrines have to be developed, not through atomism, but through careful and comprehensive systematics. The burden is still on you to demonstrate the covenantal structure has been dismantled......


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> Fair enough, but you asked for a "magic bullet" verse from the NT to settle the matter. I assert there are precious few "magic bullet" verses for precious few doctrines; most doctrines have to be developed, not through atomism, but through careful and comprehensive systematics. The burden is still on you to demonstrate the covenantal structure has been dismantled......


Not demolished, but the inference from the scriptures seems to be that there is a really New Covenant that came ushered in, so more of discontinuity than Presbyterians brethren would allow for, but not nearly as much as Dispensational would see as happening.


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> I would ask a different question. For 2,000 years, the sign of the covenant had been given to the children in the believing community. Why would it stop? There is no command to stop. The NT makes mention of household baptisms in light of this historical precedent.
> 
> Sent from my STH100-1 using Tapatalk


The NT scriptures seem to indicate though to us that only those actually are in a relationship with Jesus and have been reborn again though are seen as being in the NC, as the Holy Spirit Himself Baptized them into Jesus, the Body, and the NC.


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> The NT scriptures seem to indicate though to us that only those actually are in a relationship with Jesus and have been reborn again though are seen as being in the NC, as the Holy Spirit Himself Baptized them into Jesus, the Body, and the NC.


The pattern has always been that children of believing parents are considered part of the external, visible covenant community. In the OT these children had a place in the community of believers because they were under the care and direction of their parents. Whether those children believed is another matter altogether. The point is that they were under the external administration of the covenant of grace and hence they received the sign. The sign is effective in and of itself, regardless of the spiritual state of the individual receiving the sign. This does not mean that the sign should be administered indiscriminately, but only in the way that God has permitted.The sign is supposed to point to God, not to man. Peter tells us that the promise is to "you and to your children" which is covenantal language. So the pattern remains unbroken in my opinion. The mention of household baptisms just adds further weight to the argument.

I believe Baptism is a sign for those in the external church. God appointed the sign of baptism for those entering this external church. Since we cannot determine anyone's true spiritual state, we cannot be expected to give a sign to only those who are "regenerate" . This is one of the problems I have with the baptist view. 

With that being said, you are my brother in Christ along with all other baptists who are united to Christ by faith. 

Sent from my STH100-1 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> The pattern has always been that children of believing parents are considered part of the external, visible covenant community. In the OT these children had a place in the community of believers because they were under the care and direction of their parents. Whether those children believed is another matter altogether. The point is that they were under the external administration of the covenant of grace and hence they received the sign. The sign is effective in and of itself, regardless of the spiritual state of the individual receiving the sign. This does not mean that the sign should be administered indiscriminately, but only in the way that God has permitted.The sign is supposed to point to God, not to man. Peter tells us that the promise is to "you and to your children" which is covenantal language. So the pattern remains unbroken in my opinion. The mention of household baptisms just adds further weight to the argument.
> 
> I believe Baptism is a sign for those in the external church. God appointed the sign of baptism for those entering this external church. Since we cannot determine anyone's true spiritual state, we cannot be expected to give a sign to only those who are "regenerate" . This is one of the problems I have with the baptist view.
> 
> With that being said, you are my brother in Christ along with all other baptists who are united to Christ by faith.
> 
> Sent from my STH100-1 using Tapatalk


The Children of redeemed reformed Baptists would still be under the external manifestation of the NC even if not baptized as infants though, as Paul stated that the saved parents would themselves place them under that. correct?


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> The Children of redeemed reformed Baptists would still be under the external manifestation of the NC even if not baptized as infants though, as Paul stated that the saved parents would themselves place them under that. correct?



You may want to check with your confessional Baptist brothers on this......


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> You may want to check with your confessional Baptist brothers on this......


What do you mean by the external manifestation though, as I would see that as the child being under the saved parents umbrella, and also under the church teaching and tutelage, until they made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ.


----------



## deleteduser99

Dachaser said:


> What do you mean by the external manifestation though, as I would see that as the child being under the saved parents umbrella, *and also under the church teaching and tutelage*, until they made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ.



That’s not too far from our own position. We believe that God providentially puts them under the means of grace, the big difference being that we include the means of grace called church membership, and their baptism is simply logical if you count them as members.

If you read what you just wrote, you gave the children the benefits of pastoral shepherding without calling them church members. To which the only question remains, if you give them the benefits of church membership, why not officially make them members?


----------



## Dachaser

Harley said:


> That’s not too far from our own position. We believe that God providentially puts them under the means of grace, the big difference being that we include the means of grace called church membership, and their baptism is simply logical if you count them as members.
> 
> If you read what you just wrote, you gave the children the benefits of pastoral shepherding without calling them church members. To which the only question remains, if you give them the benefits of church membership, why not officially make them members?


They would be members when they professed saving faith in Jesus, and then water baptized as a sign to what God has done for them.


----------



## deleteduser99

Dachaser said:


> They would be members when they professed saving faith in Jesus, and then water baptized as a sign to what God has done for them.



I know that's your position, but would you agree that pastors shepherding them in addition to prayers, Sunday schools, catechisms, participation in church life, etc., would be the same as treating them like members?

I'm thinking the only one thing you haven't done is officially recognize them as members and give them baptism.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser

Harley said:


> I know that's your position, but would you agree that pastors shepherding them in addition to prayers, Sunday schools, catechisms, participation in church life, etc., would be the same as treating them like members?
> 
> I'm thinking the only one thing you haven't done is officially recognize them as members and give them baptism.


That would be due to them not as of yet making a profession of faith into/unto Jesus, as batism would be reserved foe one who has been born again.
It does seem that there is not as much of a real difference between us in regards to how we view children. at least not in the practical sense.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> as batism would be reserved foe one who has been born again.



Not really. Baptism is for confessors of the faith, just like in the OT. Some baptizees are not regenerate as our evidence is solely based on confession and not flawless.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Not really. Baptism is for confessors of the faith, just like in the OT. Some baptizees are not regenerate as our evidence is solely based on confession and not flawless.


It is the outward sign of the internal work already done by God.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> It is the outward sign of the internal work already done by God.



David,
It can only be this if you own the infamous regeneration goggles. Baptists (and Presbyterians in the case of adult confessors) alike take "a credible (or good) profession". "Credible profession" admits that we don't have God's knowledge.....


----------



## deleteduser99

Dachaser said:


> That would be due to them not as of yet making a profession of faith into/unto Jesus, as batism would be reserved foe one who has been born again.
> It does seem that there is not as much of a real difference between us in regards to how we view children. at least not in the practical sense.



The only real difference is that you don't officially regard them as members of the church (ie. disciples), though you are effectively discipling them. We think the discipleship qualifies them for baptism (Matthew 28:19).

Do you think that a Baptist church who is faithful to the children in the congregation to shepherd them is effectively discipling them?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> It is the outward sign of the internal work already done by God.



The sign and thing signified are not one and the same.


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> David,
> It can only be this if you own the infamous regeneration goggles. Baptists (and Presbyterians in the case of adult confessors) alike take "a credible (or good) profession". "Credible profession" admits that we don't have God's knowledge.....


The water baptism is the physical rite that mirrors the spiritual baptism the Holy Spirit has done to place us in the body of Jesus.


----------



## Dachaser

Harley said:


> The only real difference is that you don't officially regard them as members of the church (ie. disciples), though you are effectively discipling them. We think the discipleship qualifies them for baptism (Matthew 28:19).
> 
> Do you think that a Baptist church who is faithful to the children in the congregation to shepherd them is effectively discipling them?


You have made me think here on your points, and would say that I would have no time age for children to be baptized, as believe the Lord can and has saved them young, but they did assent to Jesus as being their savior.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> The sign and thing signified are not one and the same.


True, in the sense of only God and the person being baptized knows if really are converted, but one professing that Jesus is Lord would be evidence of such.
I would also add that there is a time of discussion with any applicant to be baptized, as either one of the pastors/Elders would speak and see if they felt that person understood what was going on in the ordinace being done to them.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> one professing that Jesus is Lord would be evidence of such.



I could name a number of disciples of Christ who held to this claim and ultimately, were not. Judas, Demas, Ananaias and his wife, Simon Magus.



Dachaser said:


> also add that there is a time of discussion with any applicant to be baptized, as either one of the pastors/Elders would speak and see if they felt that person understood what was going on in the ordinace being done to them.



One is not saved by what they know...gnosticism. The church goes on confession. It is not flawless. We 'presume'.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> The water baptism is the physical rite that mirrors the spiritual baptism the Holy Spirit has done to place us in the body of Jesus.



My question is this: who knows this information? Pastors? Elders? The mail man? No, church officers make their "best quess" on a "credible profession". Since circumcision was the sign of the OC, and baptism in the NC (undisputed), was a child circumcised on the 8th day necessarily "born again" on or before the 8th day?

I'm not trying to start a battle between the Baptists and Reformed, David, but rather point out that sometimes you sound like a Baptist, sometimes Reformed, sometimes like an Evangelical, and sometimes a mixture of more than one of these. It is hard enough to craft a defense for one person, but against three or more, it is nearly impossible..........


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Scott Bushey said:


> I could name a number of disciples of Christ who held to this claim and ultimately, were not. Judas, Demas, Ananaias and his wife, Simon Magus.


I have been amused with the title of Fred Malone's book "The Baptism of Disciples Alone". In reality he baptises professing believers!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Dachaser said:


> would be reserved foe one


Are you a foe of a particular type of Baptism?


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> The Children of redeemed reformed Baptists would still be under the external manifestation of the NC even if not baptized as infants though, as Paul stated that the saved parents would themselves place them under that. correct?



Yes, I believe that the children who are under the authority of the church are under the external manifestation of the NC. This applies to baptist children and reformed children. 

And furthermore, I would argue that baptism is a sign for those under the external manifestation of the NC. No one knows who is regenerate. Jesus teaches us that the church is filled with both wheat and tares. I do not believe that God expects us to administer a sign if we cannot even determine who should receive it.

Jesus teaches us that the sign of baptism is to be given to 'disciples'. I think that is the key in this whole debate. I do not believe that the word 'disciple' necessarily implies 'regenerate' or 'saved' or 'redeemed'. I think this word simply implies someone who is under the authority of someone's teaching. After all, as I have already pointed out, in John 6, some of Jesus' 'disciples' left him after they could not stomach his teaching. Were these people 'true' disciples? Yes, they were - they sat under the authority of his teaching. Were these people believers? No, because if they were, they would have continued with him (1 John).

A child born to believing parents (who are faithfully teaching their child and are members of a church) is sitting under the teaching of the Lord Jesus from day 1. Therefore, why not give them the sign? After all, the pattern for 2,000 years was to give the sign of God's covenant to the children of the covenant people.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C.

HisRobes4Mine said:


> 1. Election is completely unconditional. Even believing parents does not make you more likely to be elect.



I’m not sure how this is an argument against paedo-Baptism. 



HisRobes4Mine said:


> 2. There is no category of in the new covenant but not in Christ.



Hebrews 10 is the most explicit on this (in my opinion):

“26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance _belongeth_ unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 _It is_ a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”



HisRobes4Mine said:


> 3. Baptism is given to those who are part of the new covenant.



Yes. We agree with this statement if it’s taken alone. Yet, I assume this is said with baptistic presuppositions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C.

This might be helpful to the discussion:

https://renopres.com/2017/03/27/james-bannerman-the-efficacy-of-infant-baptism/


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> My question is this: who knows this information? Pastors? Elders? The mail man? No, church officers make their "best quess" on a "credible profession". Since circumcision was the sign of the OC, and baptism in the NC (undisputed), was a child circumcised on the 8th day necessarily "born again" on or before the 8th day?
> 
> I'm not trying to start a battle between the Baptists and Reformed, David, but rather point out that sometimes you sound like a Baptist, sometimes Reformed, sometimes like an Evangelical, and sometimes a mixture of more than one of these. It is hard enough to craft a defense for one person, but against three or more, it is nearly impossible..........


Calvinistic Baptist, who would hold to Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology in regards to Sotierology, ordinances, and how the local church is to be governed.


----------



## Dachaser

Stephen L Smith said:


> Are you a foe of a particular type of Baptism?


No, prefer to see it done to professing believers, but do not see Infant Baptism as something to fight over.


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> Yes, I believe that the children who are under the authority of the church are under the external manifestation of the NC. This applies to baptist children and reformed children.
> 
> And furthermore, I would argue that baptism is a sign for those under the external manifestation of the NC. No one knows who is regenerate. Jesus teaches us that the church is filled with both wheat and tares. I do not believe that God expects us to administer a sign if we cannot even determine who should receive it.
> 
> Jesus teaches us that the sign of baptism is to be given to 'disciples'. I think that is the key in this whole debate. I do not believe that the word 'disciple' necessarily implies 'regenerate' or 'saved' or 'redeemed'. I think this word simply implies someone who is under the authority of someone's teaching. After all, as I have already pointed out, in John 6, some of Jesus' 'disciples' left him after they could not stomach his teaching. Were these people 'true' disciples? Yes, they were - they sat under the authority of his teaching. Were these people believers? No, because if they were, they would have continued with him (1 John).
> 
> A child born to believing parents (who are faithfully teaching their child and are members of a church) is sitting under the teaching of the Lord Jesus from day 1. Therefore, why not give them the sign? After all, the pattern for 2,000 years was to give the sign of God's covenant to the children of the covenant people.


I understand what you are articulating here, as your reply is well thought out, and my reply would be that under the NT/NC, to me it still seems that the scriptures teach to us that the sign of the water baptism is to externally indicate to us what God has already done if the life of that person, in that they are saved and now part of the true community of faith/the church of Christ/the Body of Christ.


----------



## Dachaser

Andrew P.C. said:


> I’m not sure how this is an argument against paedo-Baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> Hebrews 10 is the most explicit on this (in my opinion):
> 
> “26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance _belongeth_ unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 _It is_ a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. We agree with this statement if it’s taken alone. Yet, I assume this is said with baptistic presuppositions.


Do Baptists and Presbyterians regard each other baptism as being valid though?
If an adult attending a your church , who was never baptized, but become a Christian as an adult, would they be water baptized at that time then?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> Do Baptists and Presbyterians regard each other baptism as being valid though?


No. In the Presbyterian view, the Baptist effectively _unchurches_ the Presbyterian baptized as an infant who presents himself for membership. Accordingly, baptism would be required once again. 



Dachaser said:


> If an adult attending a your church , who was never baptized, but become*s* a Christian as an adult, would they be water baptized at that time then?


Presbyterians and Baptists alike would baptize this candidate for membership.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> No. In the Presbyterian view, the Baptist effectively _unchurches_ the Presbyterian baptized as an infant who presents himself for membership. Accordingly, baptism would be required once again.
> 
> Presbyterians and Baptists alike would baptize this candidate for membership.


So both groups would require the converted adult to be baptized correct? And would that be immersion for both groups if an adult?


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> So both groups would require the converted adult to be baptized correct? And would that be immersion for both groups if an adult?



Yes, reformed churches require converted adults to be baptized if they have not already been baptized.

As for the mode, the position of many reformed churches is that the mode is not essential to baptism; therefore, immersion, sprinkling, our pouring is acceptable.


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> Yes, reformed churches require converted adults to be baptized if they have not already been baptized.
> 
> As for the mode, the position of many reformed churches is that the mode is not essential to baptism; therefore, immersion, sprinkling, our pouring is acceptable.


So infants can be baptized in any of those modes, and would you see the Adult baptism in same way that the infant one? Both now part of the NC, or is it different as the adult now has made a profession of their faith in Jesus now?


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> So infants can be baptized in any of those modes, and would you see the Adult baptism in same way that the infant one? Both now part of the NC, or is it different as the adult now has made a profession of their faith in Jesus now?



I would understand the difference between the baptized child and the baptized adult like the difference between Abraham and Isaac when they received the sign of circumcision. Abraham received it after he believed God and was credited with righteousness, but Isaac received it before. Ishmael also received it, and never believed.

When Abraham received the sign, he was clearly _already a believer._ When Isaac received it, it was unclear as to whether he would follow in the footsteps of faith of his father. This did not affect the application of the sign. The sign was to set apart members of the believing community; children were included in this community until they proved by unbelief that they did not belong. The application of the sign was independent of God's sovereign elective purposes.

It must also be noted that not only was the sign of circumcision a sign of promised blessings, but it was also a call to a holy life. Recall how the Lord urged his people to be 'circumcised in heart'; that is, to truly live as you have been called.

I see baptism in much the same way. While there are no explicit mentions of infant baptism in the NT, the lack of a prohibition and the similarities between baptism and circumcision (both are signs and seals which point to Christ's work, one looks forward, the other backward) leads me to believe that it is acceptable to baptize infants as long as one parent is a believer. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.

The sign of baptism recognizes what the Lord has done. In the case of the newly converted adult, it recognizes the fact that God has already washed them clean of sin, grafted them into his family, set them apart, and given them his Holy Spirit. For the covenant child, I see at as also a recognition of what God has done - he has placed that child into a believing household (independent of the child's choice) which should ensure that the child has the opportunity to hear the gospel and respond in faith. The baptism of a child is also a call on that child to live a holy life and respond in personal faith to the gospel offer, which is signified in their baptism.

As for their part in the NC, I will respond to that later.

Best regards,

Izaak


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> I would understand the difference between the baptized child and the baptized adult like the difference between Abraham and Isaac when they received the sign of circumcision. Abraham received it after he believed God and was credited with righteousness, but Isaac received it before. Ishmael also received it, and never believed.
> 
> When Abraham received the sign, he was clearly _already a believer._ When Isaac received it, it was unclear as to whether he would follow in the footsteps of faith of his father. This did not affect the application of the sign. The sign was to set apart members of the believing community; children were included in this community until they proved by unbelief that they did not belong. The application of the sign was independent of God's sovereign elective purposes.
> 
> It must also be noted that not only was the sign of circumcision a sign of promised blessings, but it was also a call to a holy life. Recall how the Lord urged his people to be 'circumcised in heart'; that is, to truly live as you have been called.
> 
> I see baptism in much the same way. While there are no explicit mentions of infant baptism in the NT, the lack of a prohibition and the similarities between baptism and circumcision (both are signs and seals which point to Christ's work, one looks forward, the other backward) leads me to believe that it is acceptable to baptize infants as long as one parent is a believer. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.
> 
> The sign of baptism recognizes what the Lord has done. In the case of the newly converted adult, it recognizes the fact that God has already washed them clean of sin, grafted them into his family, set them apart, and given them his Holy Spirit. For the covenant child, I see at as also a recognition of what God has done - he has placed that child into a believing household (independent of the child's choice) which should ensure that the child has the opportunity to hear the gospel and respond in faith. The baptism of a child is also a call on that child to live a holy life and respond in personal faith to the gospel offer, which is signified in their baptism.
> 
> As for their part in the NC, I will respond to that later.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Izaak


Thanks, as I am still having a hard time seeing any real difference between how you view children under the external manifestation of the NC, and How we would do so, as both of us do agree to raise the children under the teachings of the scriptures and the assembled church.


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> Thanks, as I am still having a hard time seeing any real difference between how you view children under the external manifestation of the NC, and How we would do so, as both of us do agree to raise the children under the teachings of the scriptures and the assembled church.



I don't think we view the treatment of children differently.

We view the sign of baptism differently. You see it as applicable only to those who have professed faith and are assumed to be truly partakers of the new covenant; that is, for the elect/regenerate only. I see it as a sign for those who are 'disciples'; and my understanding that the children of church members qualify as 'disciples'; hence, the sign can be applied to them.


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> I don't think we view the treatment of children differently.
> 
> We view the sign of baptism differently. You see it as applicable only to those who have professed faith and are assumed to be truly partakers of the new covenant; that is, for the elect/regenerate only. I see it as a sign for those who are 'disciples'; and my understanding that the children of church members qualify as 'disciples'; hence, the sign can be applied to them.


Being a sign of the NW to them, there would be no real value to them until/unless they receive Jesus as Lord and are saved then, correct?


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> Being a sign of the NW to them, there would be no real value to them until/unless they receive Jesus as Lord and are saved then, correct?



It is of value, but not of saving value. A baptized person can look back on their baptism, and the baptism of others as a visible evidence of God's work through Jesus Christ. Their confidence/faith can thus be strengthened, which is a work of God's grace. 

Of course if the baptized person doesn't exercise personal faith, then all they ever received was the sign, and not the thing signified. This would be like standing at a road sign outside a town which said "Smithville 20 Miles Ahead", and acting like you were actually in Smithville.

Being circumcised never saved any OT saint, and being baptized never has saved any NT saint, or for that matter contributed to their justification at all, since that was accomplished by Christ's death and resurrection, alone.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> It is of value, but not of saving value. A baptized person can look back on their baptism, and the baptism of others as a visible evidence of God's work through Jesus Christ. Their confidence/faith can thus be strengthened, which is a work of God's grace.
> 
> Of course if the baptized person doesn't exercise personal faith, then all they ever received was the sign, and not the thing signified. This would be like standing at a road sign outside a town which said "Smithville 20 Miles Ahead", and acting like you were actually in Smithville.
> 
> Being circumcised never saved any OT saint, and being baptized never has saved any NT saint, or for that matter contributed to their justification at all, since that was accomplished by Christ's death and resurrection, alone.


I still do not see why this would seem to be such a large disagreement among Presbyterian and Baptists then, as both sides do not see the rite granting saving grace, and both see only saved as being really in the New Covenant now.


----------



## deleteduser99

Dachaser said:


> I still do not see why this would seem to be such a large disagreement among Presbyterian and Baptists then, as both sides do not see the rite granting saving grace, and both see only saved as being really in the New Covenant now.



I think the main disagreement is, who is a disciple in Matthew 28:19?

Baptists say, only the regenerate.

Presbyterians say, professing believers and their children.

The question comes down to, on a practical level, by not granting our children church membership, are we robbing them of a means of grace that God has appointed for them? If they have faith, church membership will be used to encourage and preserve them as it does adult believers. If they are not converted, the use of the means of membership may bring them to it.

But if church membership is not important in the case of children who cannot make a profession, or not old enough to make a credible one, then agreed--baptism does no good.


----------



## Dachaser

Harley said:


> I think the main disagreement is, who is a disciple in Matthew 28:19?
> 
> Baptists say, only the regenerate.
> 
> Presbyterians say, professing believers and their children.
> 
> The question comes down to, on a practical level, by not granting our children church membership, are we robbing them of a means of grace that God has appointed for them? If they have faith, church membership will be used to encourage and preserve them as it does adult believers. If they are not converted, the use of the means of membership may bring them to it.
> 
> But if church membership is not important in the case of children who cannot make a profession, or not old enough to make a credible one, then agreed--baptism does no good.


That last part still seems to be saying to me that we are not really that far apart in a practical sense of how one views children in the Church.


----------



## deleteduser99

Dachaser said:


> That last part still seems to be saying to me that we are not really that far apart in a practical sense of how one views children in the Church.



The last part is actually a very big practical difference, and it concerns how you view the church.

The church has the keys to the kingdom, and what the church binds on earth is bound in heaven, and what the church looses on earth is loosed in heaven; and in the ordinary course those who are part of the church are in the kingdom, and those on the outside are not. John Owen in one single work on baptism notes that in the ordinary course, those who are baptized are members of Christ's body, and those who are not are excluded (which isn't the same as saying everyone baptized is saved, and everyone not baptized is condemned), and that was one of John Owen's arguments in favor of infant baptism. Excluding a child from membership, therefore, has no small ramifications for what you are saying about their standing in the kingdom, ie. they have no part nor lot in the matter, and I think too it's why Jesus was angry when the children were shooed away from him.

To keep them out of the church is to deny a means of grace which no believer can ordinarily be expected to persevere without.

So, what we preach to the world about the church, children, and what we preach to ourselves and to our own children, hinges very much on this matter of whether or not they are to be baptized.

This is probably one of the strongest practical reasons that caused me to change my view.


----------



## Dachaser

Harley said:


> The last part is actually a very big practical difference, and it concerns how you view the church.
> 
> The church has the keys to the kingdom, and what the church binds on earth is bound in heaven, and what the church looses on earth is loosed in heaven; and in the ordinary course those who are part of the church are in the kingdom, and those on the outside are not. John Owen in one single work on baptism notes that in the ordinary course, those who are baptized are members of Christ's body, and those who are not are excluded (which isn't the same as saying everyone baptized is saved, and everyone not baptized is condemned), and that was one of John Owen's arguments in favor of infant baptism. Excluding a child from membership, therefore, has no small ramifications for what you are saying about their standing in the kingdom, ie. they have no part nor lot in the matter, and I think too it's why Jesus was angry when the children were shooed away from him.
> 
> To keep them out of the church is to deny a means of grace which no believer can ordinarily be expected to persevere without.
> 
> So, what we preach to the world about the church, children, and what we preach to ourselves and to our own children, hinges very much on this matter of whether or not they are to be baptized.
> 
> This is probably one of the strongest practical reasons that caused me to change my view.


The external Church is made up of both saved and lost though, and those who would be seen as actually in the the true Church would be just the redeemed. All who have received Jesus as Lord are redeemed, but not all who have been water baptized will be redeemed.


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> I still do not see why this would seem to be such a large disagreement among Presbyterian and Baptists then, as both sides do not see the rite granting saving grace, and both see only saved as being really in the New Covenant now.



There is a lot of misinformation out there on both sides. I am in the process of trying to wade through all that.

I think that many 'reformed' people don't even know why they baptize their children. If you asked them, they might say something like 'the covenant'. This would be more common in less, shall we say, 'strict' denominations like the CRC or the RCA (this is an assumption I am making).

When you apply infant baptism without having the people well-grounded in the _reasons_ for what they are doing, and without having them understand both the blessings and _obligations_ of the sign, and sometimes, when even the parents don't have faith, and to top it all off, you have churches that shy away from the true gospel and call to repentance and holiness, you end up with churches full of baptized people who don't really look any different than the world. I think we can both agree that this is unacceptable.

Where the issue comes in, is that when some Christians see this, they think the issue is Paedobaptism itself. They might think something like this: "these reformed folk baptize their kids and their kids don't look anything like a Christian is supposed to look like...they don't seem interested in the things of the faith, and they act very worldly...they think that all you have to do is baptize a kid then that kid is good to go!"

I believe this type of thinking is flawed although I can understand where it comes from. I believe the issue is the misunderstanding of baptism among reformed people and a lack of true gospel preaching in mainline reformed churches, which leads some reformed folk to think that baptism has some kind of magical power that gives their child an 'in' with God. I don't see it that way. Rather, I see it that this child is _already_ greatly advantaged when compared to the children growing up in pagan cultures outside the church (See Romans 3:1-4), and baptism is simply a recognition of that reality!

The baptist position, as I see it, is a reaction against 'dead' Christianity that I described above. This splits the church and tends to lump in faithful reformed people (who both baptize their children and take their raising seriously and understand what true conversion is) in with the mainline, liberal 'reformed' people (who really are reformed in name only). Hence we have current Christianity splint into two distinct groups, although with the resurgence in 'reformed theology', we are seeing closer and closer union between the more conservative, faithful wings of each group (take for example Ligonier ministries, a reformed ministry which is happy to use the teaching skills and expertise of baptists like Al Mohler and John MacArthur).

Best regards,

Izaak


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> The external Church is made up of both saved and lost though, and those who would be seen as actually in the the true Church would be just the redeemed. All who have received Jesus as Lord are redeemed, but not all who have been water baptized will be redeemed.



Correct. The difference between us is simply this: you believe that baptism is a symbol for the redeemed only (those who we think are in the 'true church') while Paedobaptists view baptism as for those in the external church who are 'disciples', regardless of God's mysterious, elective purposes.


----------



## deleteduser99

Dachaser said:


> The external Church is made up of both saved and lost though, and those who would be seen as actually in the the true Church would be just the redeemed. All who have received Jesus as Lord are redeemed, but not all who have been water baptized will be redeemed.



No disagreement here. Would you agree though that outside the church, there is no ordinary possibility of salvation?


----------



## deleteduser99

De Jager said:


> There is a lot of misinformation out there on both sides. I am in the process of trying to wade through all that.
> 
> I think that many 'reformed' people don't even know why they baptize their children. If you asked them, they might say something like 'the covenant'. This would be more common in less, shall we say, 'strict' denominations like the CRC or the RCA (this is an assumption I am making).
> 
> When you apply infant baptism without having the people well-grounded in the _reasons_ for what they are doing, and without having them understand both the blessings and _obligations_ of the sign, and sometimes, when even the parents don't have faith, and to top it all off, you have churches that shy away from the true gospel and call to repentance and holiness, you end up with churches full of baptized people who don't really look any different than the world. I think we can both agree that this is unacceptable.
> 
> Where the issue comes in, is that when some Christians see this, they think the issue is Paedobaptism itself. They might think something like this: "these reformed folk baptize their kids and their kids don't look anything like a Christian is supposed to look like...they don't seem interested in the things of the faith, and they act very worldly...they think that all you have to do is baptize a kid then that kid is good to go!"
> 
> I believe this type of thinking is flawed although I can understand where it comes from. I believe the issue is the misunderstanding of baptism among reformed people and a lack of true gospel preaching in mainline reformed churches, which leads some reformed folk to think that baptism has some kind of magical power that gives their child an 'in' with God. I don't see it that way. Rather, I see it that this child is _already_ greatly advantaged when compared to the children growing up in pagan cultures outside the church (See Romans 3:1-4), and baptism is simply a recognition of that reality!
> 
> The baptist position, as I see it, is a reaction against 'dead' Christianity that I described above. This splits the church and tends to lump in faithful reformed people (who both baptize their children and take their raising seriously and understand what true conversion is) in with the mainline, liberal 'reformed' people (who really are reformed in name only). Hence we have current Christianity splint into two distinct groups, although with the resurgence in 'reformed theology', we are seeing closer and closer union between the more conservative, faithful wings of each group (take for example Ligonier ministries, a reformed ministry which is happy to use the teaching skills and expertise of baptists like Al Mohler and John MacArthur).
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Izaak



I met someone like this last week. She grew up Reformed, baptized as a baby, and recently became a Baptist after hearing some Baptist friends make their case. However, she was persuaded to hear out the paedobaptist side before committing to the Baptist position (which would mean rebaptism), because she did not understand the paedo position at all. There's been a number of cases in our area like that.


----------



## EvanVK

Harley said:


> The last part is actually a very big practical difference, and it concerns how you view the church.
> 
> The church has the keys to the kingdom, and what the church binds on earth is bound in heaven, and what the church looses on earth is loosed in heaven; and in the ordinary course those who are part of the church are in the kingdom, and those on the outside are not. John Owen in one single work on baptism notes that in the ordinary course, those who are baptized are members of Christ's body, and those who are not are excluded (which isn't the same as saying everyone baptized is saved, and everyone not baptized is condemned), and that was one of John Owen's arguments in favor of infant baptism. Excluding a child from membership, therefore, has no small ramifications for what you are saying about their standing in the kingdom, ie. they have no part nor lot in the matter, and I think too it's why Jesus was angry when the children were shooed away from him.
> 
> To keep them out of the church is to deny a means of grace which no believer can ordinarily be expected to persevere without.
> 
> So, what we preach to the world about the church, children, and what we preach to ourselves and to our own children, hinges very much on this matter of whether or not they are to be baptized.
> 
> This is probably one of the strongest practical reasons that caused me to change my view.



I appreciate this explanation, this was very well said.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Harley said:


> No disagreement here. Would you agree though that outside the church, there is no ordinary possibility of salvation?


Yes, if the term church actually refers to the true church, the bride and body of Jesus, and not the local church building itself.


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> Correct. The difference between us is simply this: you believe that baptism is a symbol for the redeemed only (those who we think are in the 'true church') while Paedobaptists view baptism as for those in the external church who are 'disciples', regardless of God's mysterious, elective purposes.


Would say that Baptists view the water baptism for those who are now included as part of the Universal church of Christ, just the redeemed now of the Lord.


----------



## Dachaser

Harley said:


> The last part is actually a very big practical difference, and it concerns how you view the church.
> 
> The church has the keys to the kingdom, and what the church binds on earth is bound in heaven, and what the church looses on earth is loosed in heaven; and in the ordinary course those who are part of the church are in the kingdom, and those on the outside are not. John Owen in one single work on baptism notes that in the ordinary course, those who are baptized are members of Christ's body, and those who are not are excluded (which isn't the same as saying everyone baptized is saved, and everyone not baptized is condemned), and that was one of John Owen's arguments in favor of infant baptism. Excluding a child from membership, therefore, has no small ramifications for what you are saying about their standing in the kingdom, ie. they have no part nor lot in the matter, and I think too it's why Jesus was angry when the children were shooed away from him.
> 
> To keep them out of the church is to deny a means of grace which no believer can ordinarily be expected to persevere without.
> 
> So, what we preach to the world about the church, children, and what we preach to ourselves and to our own children, hinges very much on this matter of whether or not they are to be baptized.
> 
> This is probably one of the strongest practical reasons that caused me to change my view.


The Church though Jesus referred to being built is not the local assembly, but the Church as a whole, the body of Christ, all of the saved within her.


----------



## deleteduser99

Dachaser said:


> Yes, if the term church actually refers to the true church, the bride and body of Jesus, and not the local church building itself.



What about membership in a constituted body, where individuals consent to be under the oversight of pastors and elders, and to hold accountable/be held to account by others in the assembly? This is the means that Christ uses to visibly govern His people on earth. Can one ordinarily be saved if they do not submit to the visible church?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> The Church though Jesus referred to being built is not the local assembly, but the Church as a whole, the body of Christ, all of the saved within her.



But remember that Jesus did not say "go into the world and baptize members of the true church"

He said to baptize _disciples._

In my mind, the basic question is this: _who is considered to be a disciple? _If by 'disciple', Jesus means _truly converted_, then in my mind it is illogical for him to command his apostles to baptize these people, because then he would be telling them to do something that they could not even properly do, since they would not know who would truly be a 'disciple'.

And keep in mind, that Jesus also did _not_ say baptize 'professing disciples' either. He said baptize 'disciples'. When he gave the command, it seems clear that he did not intend for us to try to pry too deeply into someone's soul to try and definitively determine their actual spiritual state. Rather this is to be an external sign to mark disciples of Christ from the rest of the world.

At the end, the wheat and the tares will be made manifest, and God will show who was simply baptized externally, but not 'baptized in the heart'.

Regards,

Izaak 
_
_

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser

Harley said:


> What about membership in a constituted body, where individuals consent to be under the oversight of pastors and elders, and to hold accountable/be held to account by others in the assembly? This is the means that Christ uses to visibly govern His people on earth. Can one ordinarily be saved if they do not submit to the visible church?


Yes, they can be saved, but they also would be in disobedience, for God warns us against forsaking the assembly of the brethren.


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> But remember that Jesus did not say "go into the world and baptize members of the true church"
> 
> He said to baptize _disciples._
> 
> In my mind, the basic question is this: _who is considered to be a disciple? _If by 'disciple', Jesus means _truly converted_, then in my mind it is illogical for him to command his apostles to baptize these people, because then he would be telling them to do something that they could not even properly do, since they would not know who would truly be a 'disciple'.
> 
> And keep in mind, that Jesus also did _not_ say baptize 'professing disciples' either. He said baptize 'disciples'. When he gave the command, it seems clear that he did not intend for us to try to pry too deeply into someone's soul to try and definitively determine their actual spiritual state. Rather this is to be an external sign to mark disciples of Christ from the rest of the world.
> 
> At the end, the wheat and the tares will be made manifest, and God will show who was simply baptized externally, but not 'baptized in the heart'.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Izaak


I do indeed see children able to be disciples, but do not see babies as being able to be doing that requirement though.


----------



## deleteduser99

Dachaser said:


> Yes, they can be saved, but they also would be in disobedience, for God warns us against forsaking the assembly of the brethren.



Ordinarily, can they be?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> but do not see babies as being able to be doing that requirement though.



David,
In the past, you have agreed that some babies, if not all, are elect and if they die as infants, are heaven bound. Hence, your own acknowledgement shows that infants can be 'disciples'.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Harley said:


> Ordinarily, can they be?


I do not understand your question my brother.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> David,
> In the past, you have agreed that some babies, if not all, are elect and if they die as infants, are heaven bound. Hence, your own acknowledgement shows that infants can be 'disciples'.


My understanding would be that all infants {mod addition: _who die in infancy_} are elected by God unto salvation into Christ, but the sign of the water would be to show the outward indication of the inner work already done by the Lord Himself. Honestly, my hope is that all infants {mod addition: _who die in infancy_} will be saved, but have no concrete evidence, but do have that solid foundation for believers baptism.


----------



## deleteduser99

Dachaser said:


> I do not understand your question my brother.



Can you ordinarily go on without being a member of a church and expect to be saved? Barring extraordinary circumstances.


----------



## Dachaser

Harley said:


> Can you ordinarily go on without being a member of a church and expect to be saved? Barring extraordinary circumstances.


what saves us is being a member of the one true Universal Church of Christ, but we also should be engaged in being active members of a bible believing local assembly.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> what saves us is being a member of the one true Universal Church of Christ, but we also should be engaged in being active members of a bible believing local assembly.



David,
I think this view of the church (which is the popular evangelical view) is far too low a view of the church. It is in the church where the offices have their expression, where the sacraments are administered and the preaching of the word takes place.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Post 82



Dachaser said:


> My understanding would be that all infants {mod addition: _who die in infancy_} are elected by God unto salvation into Christ, but the sign of the water would be to show the outward indication of the inner work already done by the Lord Himself. Honestly, my hope is that all infants {mod addition: _who die in infancy_} will be saved, but have no concrete evidence, but do have that solid foundation for believers baptism.



David,
Please don't misunderstand me here, but many of your posts lose sight of what you previously were responding to. I don't say this as an slight to you but to remind you to try and keep on track with what you are responding to. For example, your statement above that I have cited:

You were responding to a charge by De Jager in which he said to you:



> But remember that Jesus did not say "go into the world and baptize members of the true church"
> 
> He said to baptize _disciples._



So, your response had a direct relationship to infants and their ability to be disciples, which u said in response:



> I do indeed see children able to be disciples, but do not see babies as being able to be doing that requirement though.



Children vs babies....children being able and infants, not. *If I have understood you correctly.

My response was this:



> David,
> In the past, you have agreed that some babies, if not all, are elect and if they die as infants, are heaven bound. Hence, your own acknowledgement shows that infants can be 'disciples'.



Post 82 evades what we have been talking about, which is discipleship and Christ's command in the GC.

The point that is being pressed is that Christ told us to 'make disciples' and 'baptize' them. He doesn't tell us to only baptize those who have an outward confession, nor does he tell us to not place the sign as He was very familiar with. An infant can be saved and glorified, hence they can be 'disciples' of Christ and should have the sign placed on them. No person in heaven was without discipleship.


13 • All your children _shall_ _be_ p taught by the Lord ,
3605 859 1121 3928 3068
And q great _shall_ _be_ the peace of your children .
7227 7965 859 1121
_The New King James Version_ (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Is 54:13.


45 It is written in the prophets , m _‘_ _And_ _they_ _shall_ _all_ _be_ _taught_ _by_ 
2076 1125 1722 3588 4396 2532 3956 2071 1318 
_God_
3588 2316
_The New King James Version_ (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Jn 6:45.


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> David,
> I think this view of the church (which is the popular evangelical view) is far too low a view of the church. It is in the church where the offices have their expression, where the sacraments are administered and the preaching of the word takes place.


I agree with you that the local church would be where the Lord has given the ordinances to His people to partake of, and also to gather to worship, praise, and to be instructed by the preaching of the scriptures. The true one church though that Jesus died for, and he established, would be the Universal church itself. God does not see us as being Baptist, Reformed, Methodist, Lutheran et all, but as members of the one true Church of Christ.


----------



## Pilgrim

Dachaser said:


> *I still do not see why this would seem to be such a large disagreement among Presbyterian and Baptists then*, as both sides do not see the rite granting saving grace, and both see only saved as being really in the New Covenant now.



Something that seems to be left by the wayside today is the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) and related issues when it comes to this question. Maybe this is because you are in the North and these kinds of things (insistence on immersion, restricted communion, etc.) have persisted as emphases among Baptists in the South moreso than in the North, from what I understand. Also, maybe it is less prominent today now that so many Presbyterians have abandoned aspects of the RPW as well, with widespread acceptance of things like "pictures of Christ" among them. 

Traditionally, Baptists have seen baptism as immersion, period, especially in the USA. (This one argument may have convinced more people to join Baptist churches in the 19th Century and afterward than any other.) So as AMR said, they effectively unchurch all paedobaptist churches, particularly those Baptist churches who have maintained close communion, which would bar all unimmersed persons from the table, no matter how godly and renowned. If baptism is considered a mark of the church, then I don't see how the Baptist can affirm pedobaptist churches as true churches. (There are some in the Dutch tradition, such as some in the URC that I am aware of, who do not consider Baptist churches to be true churches. But I've rarely if ever seen that alleged by Presbyterians.) 

Also, infant baptism is viewed by traditional Baptists (including 1689ers) as a violation of the RPW, an example of "will-worship", something that cannot be demonstrated in the NT by command, example or (legitimate) inference. Representative of this argument is a work by John Gill entitled "Infant Baptism: A Part and Pillar of Popery." (If it's not in the NT, and Rome does it, then....)

Obviously these points are debated by our Presbyterian friends. In other words, this is as serious an issue for Baptists (or it should be) as "pictures of Christ" is for those holding to the traditional Reformed view of the 2nd Commandment or singing uninspired hymns is for the Exclusive Psalmodist.

That you would ask why it is such a big deal after being on this board so long is baffling, frankly. Maybe part of that is because these debates on the PB used to generate a lot more heat 10-15 years ago. There also seem to have been more Baptists here back then. 

I think a few decades ago if you asked a Baptist (Calvinist or not) why he is a Baptist, he'd have said "Baptism is immersion" and "Infant baptism isn't in the NT" and generally not felt that a whole lot of argument beyond that was necessary. Also, perhaps before the revival of Calvinistic soteriology in the 2nd half of the 20th Century, there was somewhat less of a felt need among Baptists to be accepted as "Reformed" (or respectable?) by Presbyterians. At the risk of coming across as anti-intellectual, it seems to me that now we are getting all of these Baptist arguments about the NC that are almost as complicated as the Presbyterian arguments, if not moreso.

One book that came out a few years ago that is basically "1689 Federalist" almost "represbyterianized" me with several of its arguments! You end up with over-arguments that to varying degrees can be proved to be false, such as "Circumcision had no spiritual import whatsoever and was only a national symbol" and "Israel only existed to pave the way for Christ" and "Everyone in Israel was unregenerate except for a few prophets and others." Some seem to want to make everything in the OT into a type. 

Another factor is the legitimacy of the Presbyterian "two stage" membership with non-communicant covenant children who aren't admitted to the Lord's Supper until roughly the point that the Baptist would baptize them and (more or less) simultaneously admit them into full membership. (Thus, Presbyterians and others who charge Baptists with "withholding the privileges of church membership" to their children are open to the charge that they withhold full privileges themselves. David's "What's the difference" question may have some applicability here.) I think the Presbyterian would say this is necessary via "good and necessary consequence" and cite 1 Cor 11 and maybe a few other texts on proper preparation for the Lord's Supper. The Baptist of course sees this as another example of an unbiblical practice but is thankful that at least most Presbyterians don't practice infant communion along with infant baptism.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Post 82
> 
> 
> 
> David,
> Please don't misunderstand me here, but many of your posts lose sight of what you previously were responding to. I don't say this as an slight to you but to remind you to try and keep on track with what you are responding to. For example, your statement above that I have cited:
> 
> You were responding to a charge by De Jager in which he said to you:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your response had a direct relationship to infants and their ability to be disciples, which u said in response:
> 
> 
> 
> Children vs babies....children being able and infants, not. *If I have understood you correctly.
> 
> My response was this:
> 
> 
> 
> Post 82 evades what we have been talking about, which is discipleship and Christ's command in the GC.
> 
> The point that is being pressed is that Christ told us to 'make disciples' and 'baptize' them. He doesn't tell us to only baptize those who have an outward confession, nor does he tell us to not place the sign as He was very familiar with. An infant can be saved and glorified, hence they can be 'disciples' of Christ and should have the sign placed on them. No person in heaven was without discipleship.
> 
> 
> 13 • All your children _shall_ _be_ p taught by the Lord ,
> 3605 859 1121 3928 3068
> And q great _shall_ _be_ the peace of your children .
> 7227 7965 859 1121
> _The New King James Version_ (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Is 54:13.
> 
> 
> 45 It is written in the prophets , m _‘_ _And_ _they_ _shall_ _all_ _be_ _taught_ _by_
> 2076 1125 1722 3588 4396 2532 3956 2071 1318
> _God_
> 3588 2316
> _The New King James Version_ (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Jn 6:45.


What amount of discipleship though did the Thief on the Cross receive?
I think that the main difference here still seems to revolve around what does the water baptism signify? One actually being part now of the NC with God, or one anticipating they might be included within that relationship with God in the future?


----------



## Dachaser

Pilgrim said:


> Something that seems to be left by the wayside today is the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) and related issues when it comes to this question. Maybe this is because you are in the North and these kinds of things (insistence on immersion, restricted communion, etc.) have persisted as emphases among Baptists in the South moreso than in the North, from what I understand. Also, maybe it is less prominent today now that so many Presbyterians have abandoned aspects of the RPW as well, with widespread acceptance of things like "pictures of Christ" among them.
> 
> Traditionally, Baptists have seen baptism as immersion, period, especially in the USA. (This one argument may have convinced more people to join Baptist churches in the 19th Century and afterward than any other.) So as AMR said, they effectively unchurch all paedobaptist churches, particularly those Baptist churches who have maintained close communion, which would bar all unimmersed persons from the table, no matter how godly and renowned. If baptism is considered a mark of the church, then I don't see how the Baptist can affirm pedobaptist churches as true churches. (There are some in the Dutch tradition, such as some in the URC that I am aware of, who do not consider Baptist churches to be true churches. But I've rarely if ever seen that alleged by Presbyterians.)
> 
> Also, infant baptism is viewed by traditional Baptists (including 1689ers) as a violation of the RPW, an example of "will-worship", something that cannot be demonstrated in the NT by command, example or (legitimate) inference. Representative of this argument is a work by John Gill entitled "Infant Baptism: A Part and Pillar of Popery." (If it's not in the NT, and Rome does it, then....)
> 
> Obviously these points are debated by our Presbyterian friends. In other words, this is as serious an issue for Baptists (or it should be) as "pictures of Christ" is for those holding to the traditional Reformed view of the 2nd Commandment or singing uninspired hymns is for the Exclusive Psalmodist.
> 
> That you would ask why it is such a big deal after being on this board so long is baffling, frankly. Maybe part of that is because these debates on the PB used to generate a lot more heat 10-15 years ago. There also seem to have been more Baptists here back then.
> 
> I think a few decades ago if you asked a Baptist (Calvinist or not) why he is a Baptist, he'd have said "Baptism is immersion" and "Infant baptism isn't in the NT" and generally not felt that a whole lot of argument beyond that was necessary. Also, perhaps before the revival of Calvinistic soteriology in the 2nd half of the 20th Century, there was somewhat less of a felt need among Baptists to be accepted as "Reformed" (or respectable?) by Presbyterians. At the risk of coming across as anti-intellectual, it seems to me that now we are getting all of these Baptist arguments about the NC that are almost as complicated as the Presbyterian arguments, if not moreso.
> 
> One book that came out a few years ago that is basically "1689 Federalist" almost "represbyterianized" me with several of its arguments! You end up with over-arguments that to varying degrees can be proved to be false, such as "Circumcision had no spiritual import whatsoever and was only a national symbol" and "Israel only existed to pave the way for Christ" and "Everyone in Israel was unregenerate except for a few prophets and others." Some seem to want to make everything in the OT into a type.
> 
> Another factor is the legitimacy of the Presbyterian "two stage" membership with non-communicant covenant children who aren't admitted to the Lord's Supper until roughly the point that the Baptist would baptize them and (more or less) simultaneously admit them into full membership. (Thus, Presbyterians and others who charge Baptists with "withholding the privileges of church membership" to their children are open to the charge that they withhold full privileges themselves. David's "What's the difference" question may have some applicability here.) I think the Presbyterian would say this is necessary via "good and necessary consequence" and cite 1 Cor 11 and maybe a few other texts on proper preparation for the Lord's Supper. The Baptist of course sees this as another example of an unbiblical practice but is thankful that at least most Presbyterians don't practice infant communion along with infant baptism.


I think one of the reasons might not be able to see just how large a difference there appears to be between Baptists and Presbyterians on some of this issues would be that I came in as a Pentecostal, to a free will Baptist, to Dispensational, to now into the Calvinistic/reformed understanding of theology. This broad exposure has allowed me to see the Church as beijg broader then what sometimes it seems that we want it to be,and to appreciate the differing nuances of doctrine understanding among various Christian churches and groups.
I know many Baptists who would deny the legitimacy of the reformed infant baptism, or the Reformed view on Sacraments, or use on Confessions, but I do not see that being inferior, but merely a different way to see and view what the scriptures teach to us.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> What amount of discipleship though did the Thief on the Cross receive?



Since these crucifixions were being meted out by Rome on the Jews part, there is much to say that this thief was a jew, circumcised on the 8th day and tutored in the things of God by his family. He knew well of Messiah:

"40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, *Dost not thou fear God*, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 *And we indeed justly*; for we *receive the due reward of our deeds*: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto *Jesus, Lord*, remember me *when thou comest into thy kingdom*."

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Lk 23:40–43.

There is a lot said in these statements, by this thief....



> I think that the main difference here still seems to revolve around what does the water baptism signify?



Nope. U evade and create a rabbit trail. Stick to the conversation! Discipleship is not equated with regeneration & conversion, but a student. An infant, since he can be elect and saved, dying in the womb, has the capacity to receive, accept, acknowledge Christ's kingship, hence they all have to have the ability for discipleship (see my previous post) or else all infants perish. Which one is it?

The great commission tells us to:

17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, _even_ unto the end of the world.

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Mt 28:17–20.


Please show me here where Christ commands to wait to place the sign on infants?


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> I agree with you that the local church would be where the Lord has given the ordinances to His people to partake of, and also to gather to worship, praise, and to be instructed by the preaching of the scriptures. The true one church though that Jesus died for, and he established, would be the Universal church itself. God does not see us as being Baptist, Reformed, Methodist, Lutheran et all, but as members of the one true Church of Christ.



A distinction between the visible and invisible church is required. A divorce (the Evangelical and as some of your posts seem to espouse) or a conflation (Roman Catholic view) are equal perversions. The visible church is not chopped liver.....


----------



## Pilgrim

Dachaser said:


> I think one of the reasons might not be able to see just how large a difference there appears to be between Baptists and Presbyterians on some of this issues would be that I came in as a Pentecostal, to a free will Baptist, to Dispensational, to now into the Calvinistic/reformed understanding of theology. This broad exposure has allowed me to see the Church as beijg broader then what sometimes it seems that we want it to be,and to appreciate the differing nuances of doctrine understanding among various Christian churches and groups.
> I know many Baptists who would deny the legitimacy of the reformed infant baptism, or the Reformed view on Sacraments, or use on Confessions, but I do not see that being inferior, but merely a different way to see and view what the scriptures teach to us.



As is sometimes the case, your wording here is not clear to me. But if you see infant baptism or sprinkling as being legitimate baptism (although perhaps irregular) then you ain't a "real Baptist" according to a lot of people's thinking. 

Either immersion is the only legitimate mode or all modes are legitimate. It's one or the other. Either infant baptism is a biblical practice or it is not. To say that it really doesn't matter is to embrace indifferentism. And many who have drifted into indifferentism on the sacraments or ordinances have done so on others issues as well.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Since these crucifixions were being meted out by Rome on the Jews part, there is much to say that this thief was a jew, circumcised on the 8th day and tutored in the things of God by his family. He knew well of Messiah:
> 
> "40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, *Dost not thou fear God*, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 *And we indeed justly*; for we *receive the due reward of our deeds*: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto *Jesus, Lord*, remember me *when thou comest into thy kingdom*."
> 
> _The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Lk 23:40–43.
> 
> There is a lot said in these statements, by this thief....
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. U evade and create a rabbit trail. Stick to the conversation! Discipleship is not equated with regeneration & conversion, but a student. An infant, since he can be elect and saved, dying in the womb, has the capacity to receive, accept, acknowledge Christ's kingship, hence they all have to have the ability for discipleship (see my previous post) or else all infants perish. Which one is it?
> 
> The great commission tells us to:
> 
> 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, _even_ unto the end of the world.
> 
> _The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Mt 28:17–20.
> 
> 
> Please show me here where Christ commands to wait to place the sign on infants?


God saving infants who die in their infacy would be due to God choosing to redeem them by applying the death of Christ as payment for their sin debt, and not due to them being disciplined, in the sense of receiving doctrines and full understanding of who Jesus was and did for them. My definition of one being a disciple of Jesus involves the person able to grasp and understand doctrines, something infants cannot do.


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> A distinction between the visible and invisible church is required. A divorce (the Evangelical and as some of your posts seem to espouse) or a conflation (Roman Catholic view) are equal perversions. The visible church is not chopped liver.....


The one true Church of Christ have in it only the redeemed, as they are under the NC. Within each local body though would be wheat and tares.


----------



## Dachaser

Pilgrim said:


> As is sometimes the case, your wording here is not clear to me. But if you see infant baptism or sprinkling as being legitimate baptism (although perhaps irregular) then you ain't a "real Baptist" according to a lot of people's thinking.
> 
> Either immersion is the only legitimate mode or all modes are legitimate. It's one or the other. Either infant baptism is a biblical practice or it is not. To say that it really doesn't matter is to embrace indifferentism. And many who have drifted into indifferentism on the sacraments or ordinances have done so on others issues as well.


Immersion in water baptism is the most biblical mode to be administered, but would also allow for other modes such as sprinkling/dipping, as long as what was meant by that would line up with the scriptures. I am not saying the is no difference between the modes, but that I would not go so far as to invalidate say a Reformed baptism, as long as the person had make a profession in receiving Jesus Christ.I also would hold to open communion of the ordinance, as my requirement are saved and not involved in willful sinning, without confession/repentance.
And yes, those beliefs would take me out of some Baptist views.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> God saving infants who die in their infacy would be due to God choosing to redeem them by applying the death of Christ as payment for their sin debt, and not due to them being disciplined, in the sense of receiving doctrines and full understanding of who Jesus was and did for them. My definition of one being a disciple of Jesus involves the person able to grasp and understand doctrines, something infants cannot do.



David,
if is a bit frustrating trying to extrapolate biblical facts to you, especially using your previous comments. This will be my last attempt at doing so:

As I have said previously, 1) u have already agreed that some, if not all infants are received into glory. This is akin to them being a disciple of Christ. 2) No one goes to glory unless they are a disciple. 3) Discipleship is not necessarily equated with conversion and regeneration. 4) The commission of Christ tells us disciple and baptize individuals-nowhere does it tell us to wait until they confess. 5) not all disciples, since they can be disciples apart from regeneration and conversion, i.e. Judas, Demas, Ananias and his wife, Simon Magus, do not understand anything as only the spiritual can understand spiritual.



> My definition of one being a disciple of Jesus involves the person able to grasp and understand doctrines, something infants cannot do.



If an infant cannot understand 'doctrines', then all infants perish....


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> David,
> if is a bit frustrating trying to extrapolate biblical facts to you, especially using your previous comments. This will be my last attempt at doing so:
> 
> As I have said previously, 1) u have already agreed that some, if not all infants are received into glory. This is akin to them being a disciple of Christ. 2) No one goes to glory unless they are a disciple. 3) Discipleship is not necessarily equated with conversion and regeneration. 4) The commission of Christ tells us disciple and baptize individuals-nowhere does it tell us to wait until they confess. 5) not all disciples, since they can be disciples apart from regeneration and conversion, i.e. Judas, Demas, Ananias and his wife, Simon Magus, do not understand anything as only the spiritual can understand spiritual.
> 
> 
> 
> If an infant cannot understand 'doctrines', then all infants perish....


No, as it would be that God does a supernatural work to apply the effectual Grace of Jesus death towards them, as He does for them what they cannot do for themselves.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> No, as it would be that God does a supernatural work to apply the effectual Grace of Jesus death towards them, as He does for them what they cannot do for themselves.



So, there are two ways of salvation then? Thats what u posit! God saves in two different fashions. Adults and the cognizant one way and the infant and imbecile, another.

Rom 10:


8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, _even_ in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ro 10:8–14.



The above shows that 1) all men, of whatever age, must confess with their mouths; in this confession is assented facts of God's truth and word. 2) all men, if they receive these truths, 'will be saved'. 3) all men must believe in their hearts 'that God hath raised him from the dead' to be saved. 4) 'For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.'

To say an infant cannot do this is to advocate for two types of salvation. Is that what u are doing?


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> So, there are two ways of salvation then? Thats what u posit! God saves in two different fashions. Adults and the cognizant one way and the infant and imbecile, another.
> 
> Rom 10:
> 
> 
> 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, _even_ in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
> 
> _The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ro 10:8–14.
> 
> 
> 
> The above shows that 1) all men, of whatever age, must confess with their mouths; in this confession is assented facts of God's truth and word. 2) all men, if they receive these truths, 'will be saved'. 3) all men must believe in their hearts 'that God hath raised him from the dead' to be saved. 4) 'For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.'
> 
> To say an infant cannot do this is to advocate for two types of salvation. Is that what u are doing?


I am saying that God can freely choose to do a supernatural work in them to allow them to come to faith in Jesus, as God Himself has chosen them to receive eternal life in Christ.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> I am saying that God can freely choose to do a supernatural work in them to allow them to come to faith in Jesus, as God Himself has chosen them to receive eternal life in Christ.



How is that practically accomplished, sir?


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> The one true Church of Christ have in it only the redeemed, as they are under the NC. Within each local body though would be wheat and tares.



You side-stepped _*entirely*_ the assertion. Please see Scott's posts where he points out the same.


----------



## deleteduser99

Dachaser said:


> what saves us is being a member of the one true Universal Church of Christ, but we also should be engaged in being active members of a bible believing local assembly.



Brother, straight out, it is not the normal case of someone outside the church to be saved. There may be exceptions, but they are exceptions. This is why I believe that Christ places children in the visible membership—otherwise there’d be little reason to hope for those under 12 who cannot profess, articulate it well, or most visibly show evidences.

But if a person may be ordinarily saved who does not join with the visible church, then there is no point to church membership. Thus, it does no good for infants and children, but it does no good for anyone else either. The oversight of pastors, the mutual accountability, the public preaching, baptism and the Lord’s Table lose their benefit. So then, it doesn’t matter whether or not they are observed. Then, just like my Baptist brothers will say about infant membership, visible church membership is altogether an empty status, and speaks very meanly of Christ using the church and ordinances to rule His people.

Not a person here misconstrues the invisible with the visible. The difference is clear to all here. The question is, is the visible means by which Christ governs is necessary and indispensable as a means to save and cause us to persevere, or does it make no difference?

Biblically, you can’t escape these conclusions. I do encourage you brother, don’t side step the question or the ramifications of such a position. Wherever you ultimately land on baptism, this is vitally important to understand about the church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

I realized out of the blue,and almost with shock, one day that Paul spoke to the children of the church in Ephesus (every one of them; he didn't single out "those of you who have made professions of faith") as disciples. He told them to obey their parents in the Lord, for this was the first command with a promise. The letter was being read aloud and it was addressed to the church and the children were included. As I grasped this the light came flooding in and I finally understood there was this profound seamlessness of the covenant of grace.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

A question for @Dachaser (and any others): if 2 faithful parents in a church have a child who is profoundly disabled and is infantile in his/her mind- in your thinking, should baptism be withheld from that child (which would be due to a presumption of his being unregenerate) and the child allowed to die at, say, 20 or 30, unbaptized? 

I’m reminded that many believe that all children dying in infancy are by God’s mercy elect, and the same for those who are profoundly mentally retarded. 

So why would you withhold baptism from someone like that? 

I haven’t followed out this line of thinking to its ultimate logical end but it seems of interest to explore.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> How is that practically accomplished, sir?


By God doing a supernatural work inside of the infants, and somehow grant to them to means to receive and applying saving Grace/faith towards Jesus Christ. That would be a divine mystery to me.


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> You side-stepped _*entirely*_ the assertion. Please see Scott's posts where he points out the same.


I do not equate the local churches though as being the real NT Church of Christ, as that would be the Universal Church, whose members are all included under the NC/COG.
There would of course also be the local churches, whose mandate would be to disciple, baptize, worship, pray, and do basically all of the God assigned/ordained functions.


----------



## Dachaser

Harley said:


> Brother, straight out, it is not the normal case of someone outside the church to be saved. There may be exceptions, but they are exceptions. This is why I believe that Christ places children in the visible membership—otherwise there’d be little reason to hope for those under 12 who cannot profess, articulate it well, or most visibly show evidences.
> 
> But if a person may be ordinarily saved who does not join with the visible church, then there is no point to church membership. Thus, it does no good for infants and children, but it does no good for anyone else either. The oversight of pastors, the mutual accountability, the public preaching, baptism and the Lord’s Table lose their benefit. So then, it doesn’t matter whether or not they are observed. Then, just like my Baptist brothers will say about infant membership, visible church membership is altogether an empty status, and speaks very meanly of Christ using the church and ordinances to rule His people.
> 
> Not a person here misconstrues the invisible with the visible. The difference is clear to all here. The question is, is the visible means by which Christ governs is necessary and indispensable as a means to save and cause us to persevere, or does it make no difference?
> 
> Biblically, you can’t escape these conclusions. I do encourage you brother, don’t side step the question or the ramifications of such a position. Wherever you ultimately land on baptism, this is vitally important to understand about the church.


Can a sinner become a Christian apart from the local church and its functions? yes, but if they are saved by the Lord, then the command to them would be to join the regular assembly of the local brethren, as that is the place God has given to us to receive the ordinances, to praise and worship, and to be taught up in the things of the Faith.
God actually seems to do most of the saving aspect outside of the church building, and to bring into the local church those now saved to benefit from all of the various functions he has placed to be observed within the local assembly of the saints.


----------



## Dachaser

Jeri Tanner said:


> A question for @Dachaser (and any others): if 2 faithful parents in a church have a child who is profoundly disabled and is infantile in his/her mind- in your thinking, should baptism be withheld from that child (which would be due to a presumption of his being unregenerate) and the child allowed to die at, say, 20 or 30, unbaptized?
> 
> I’m reminded that many believe that all children dying in infancy are by God’s mercy elect, and the same for those who are profoundly mentally retarded.
> 
> So why would you withhold baptism from someone like that?
> 
> I haven’t followed out this line of thinking to its ultimate logical end but it seems of interest to explore.


Excellant question, and to be consistent with how I view water baptism, would say that the person that you are describing here would indeed be inluded by God into the NC, and that would be due to God Himself supplying the application of the effectual grace of Calvary unto that person. There would be no water baptism at that time required, but if someone was troubled and persuaded that the person should be water baptized, i would allow for that to happen.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> I do not equate the local churches though as being the real NT Church of Christ, as that would be the Universal Church, whose members are all included under the NC/COG.
> There would of course also be the local churches, whose mandate would be to disciple, baptize, worship, pray, and do basically all of the God assigned/ordained functions.



I would contend then, and by your own admission, that your low view of the visible church puts you squarely in the Evangelical camp.


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> I would contend then, and by your own admission, that your low view of the visible church puts you squarely in the Evangelical camp.


My understanding of how the Universal, local church, and the New Covenant is seen in the scripture themselves. The indications seems to be all in the NC are part of the Universal true Church of Jesus, and that God also has given to us to be assembled together locally. When we gather together in the local assembly, is where we are to be taught/instructed of the Bible, to praise and worship Him, and to have the ordinances applied towards us now.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> I do not know if that is where i would ebst be labled as being, but the scripture themselves so seem to support that all in the NC are part of the Universal true Church of Jesus, and that God also has given to us to be assembled together locally, as in that gathering together is where we are to be taught/instructed of the Bible, to praise and worship Him, and to have the ordinances applied towards us now.



David,
You continue to undermine the visible church all while ignoring the clear establishment of it in the Scripture you state you believe. As well, you continue to avoid the questions posed to you and, for whatever reason, answer your own questions. This isn't dialog, its monologue. If you were distinguishing between the two, I would have no qualms, bit you are treating the visible church as chopped liver and I urge you to cease and desist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> I do not equate the local churches though as being the real NT Church of Christ, as that would be the Universal Church, whose members are all included under the NC/COG.
> There would of course also be the local churches, whose mandate would be to disciple, baptize, worship, pray, and do basically all of the God assigned/ordained functions.





Dachaser said:


> I do not know if that is where I would best be labled as being, but the scripture themselves so seem to support that all in the NC are part of the Universal true Church of Jesus, and that God also has given to us to be assembled together locally, as in that gathering together is where we are to be taught/instructed of the Bible, to praise and worship Him, and to have the ordinances applied towards us now.


David,

So the local churches, visible vestiges of Our Lord's Bride, are not real New Testament churches? For that matter, were there any churches in the Old Testament?

Please take the time to carefully explain your naked assertions with some support from Scripture. Just saying "_the scripture themselves_" does not bolster your statements, nor does it edify anyone until you actually supply said Scripture in support of your views. 

Most of your posts are along the same lines as above. If you want to edify when you often make doctrinal pronouncements, we would all appreciate your at least occasionally making an attempt to share with us your explanations of explicit Scripture passages in detail, versus just appealing to the noun, _Scripture_.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Dachaser said:


> My understanding of how the Universal, local church, and the New Covenant is seen in the scripture themselves. The indications seems to be all in the NC are part of the Universal true Church of Jesus, and that God also has given to us to be assembled together locally. When we gather together in the local assembly, is where we are to be taught/instructed of the Bible, to praise and worship Him, and to have the ordinances applied towards us now.


Edited now in order to enable better understanding.


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> David,
> You continue to undermine the visible church all while ignoring the clear establishment of it in the Scripture you state you believe. As well, you continue to avoid the questions posed to you and, for whatever reason, answer your own questions. This isn't dialog, its monologue. If you were distinguishing between the two, I would have no qualms, bit you are treating the visible church as chopped liver and I urge you to cease and desist.


The local church is the very place that God has ordained that we are to meet together, and to partake of the ordinances of God, to be taught and instructed from the scriptures, and to praise and worship Him. How would that be a low view of the church? it is the very, and only place, where God has duly authorized for us to receive means of Grace, and to do all of those functions that He ascribed to be done by His corporate body.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> So the local churches, visible vestiges of Our Lord's Bride, are not real New Testament churches? For that matter, were there any churches in the Old Testament?
> 
> Please take the time to carefully explain your naked assertions with some support from Scripture. Just saying "_the scripture themselves_" does not bolster your statements, nor does it edify anyone until you actually supply said Scripture in support of your views.
> 
> Most of your posts are along the same lines as above. If you want to edify when you often make doctrinal pronouncements, we would all appreciate your at least occasionally making an attempt to share with us your explanations of explicit Scripture passages in detail, versus just appealing to the noun, _Scripture_.


1 Corinthians 12:13 tells us that we were all baptized by the same Holy Spirit into the one true Church of Christ, the Church Universal. We also have the passage of Romans 6 that describe to us how we are identified in/with Jesus when were were water Baptized. this is my understanding from the Bible of the one true Church, and how that functions also as local assemblies of the believers in Christ.
Not either/or, but we are placed into the Body of Christ by the Holy spirit, and then water baptized into the local church .


----------



## Scott Bushey

David,
I must tell you; I wonder why you are here @ PB? You do not seem to have a teachable spirit. Many people here, some faithful leaders in the church have attempted to correct you and guide you biblically, to which, you reject and never with any scriptural validation, just your opinion. It makes for a difficult and frustrating conversation; sadly, myself, I will not belabor the point again in an attempt to help as you are obviously, settled on all matters.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> David,
> I must tell u; I wonder why u are here @ PB? You do not seem to have a teachable spirit. Many people here, some faithful leaders in the church have attempted to correct you and guide u biblically, to which, you reject and never with any scriptural validation, just your opinion. It makes for a difficult and frustrating conversation; sadly, myself, I will not belabor the point in again attempting to help as u are obviously, settled on all matters.


I can see why you feel that way towards my positions, and would like to have a real dialog between the two of us here on this important topic. Please give me the single biggest point that was made that you see as being wrong in this OP that I have posted?
I do have a teachable spirit, but sometimes do have a hard time grasping what the objections seem to be on certain areas of doctrine that we are discussing.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> I can see why you feel that way towards my positions, and would like to have a real dialog between the two of us here on this important topic. Please give me the single biggest point that was made that you see as being wrong in this OP that I have posted?
> I do have a teachable spirit, but sometimes do have a hard time grasping what the objections seem to be on certain areas of doctrine that we are discussing.



I will not do that. There is nothing more to be said-it's been said-a number of times. 

Pray over this thread, take some real time in reading over it and the arguments made, search the scriptures (not your presuppositions) and digest it. Get back to me in a week.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> Please give me the single biggest point that was made that you see as being wrong in this OP that I have posted?


OP = _opening post, the first post in a thread_

You are referring to exactly which post of yours, not the OP, which is not yours. Please learn to use the link function to refer to your specific posts. Here is a simple and quick way to do this:

1. Go to any post you have made.
2. Look at the above right for the post number.
3. Right click that number
4. In the popup that appears, select "Copy link address"
5. Paste that into your new posts when referring to that previous post. That way we call be directed to exactly what post you are referring to in a new post.

If you want to be even more advanced in using the link function. You can follow steps 1-4 above, then

1. In a sentence in your post where you state something like "As I noted earlier", click on "earlier"
2. In the post editing window, select the link button (looks like a _link _in a chain)
3. In the popup now paste what you copied from step 4 above.
4. The result will be nicely formatted and not cluttered up with a long url. For example, "your previous post".
5. Note that the word "post" is now a hyperlink without actually showing the full link in a sentence.


----------



## De Jager

Jesus clearly taught that there is both a 'visible' and 'invisible' church. The visible would include both wheat and tares. This represents all professing Christians everywhere. He also taught us that the truly redeemed 'wheat' is a subset of the 'invisible church'.

The whole point of using the symbols of wheat and tares is that you really cannot tell the difference of them until harvest time. They look very, very similar. At the end of the age, the differences will be made manifest.

At that time, some will say 'Lord Lord', and he will say "I never knew you". Still others will receive the commendation 'well done, good and faithful servant'. These people will all come from the same pool of individuals, which can be described as the Church.

In the NT epistles, Does Paul ever really address different subsets of people within the churches (i.e. saved vs. unsaved?). He preaches to the church, period. He preaches to all professing believers. Why? Because even Paul himself does not have the spiritual sight to tell the difference in every case.

In the end, when Jesus comes back, we will see the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31 NC promises; at that time, they all will know me; that is, the invisible church will directly correspond to the visible church; there will be no tares; the church will be pure and spotless. Until then, we live in the _reality_ that the church is a mixed bag. We do not celebrate the fact that there are tares but simply acknowledge it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Cymro

It must be obvious that circumcision is in nature part of the covenant of grace, and therefore a constituent element of the NC. For the NC is an augmenting, an amplifying, a developing of what already existed in the covenant of grace. And we are taught by the Apostle Paul that circumcision is the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, which was to be applied to all children even at 8 days old. Servants and strangers within the gates were also included. They were not asked or reasoned with(the children were unable to have dialogue)!
Circumcision contains the covenant promise for the parents and the recipient, and is an ordinance ordained of God. It is not a national emblem, a mark that signifies one is a Jew. Paul dismisses this in His Roman epistle. Other nations also had a similar rite
Why then has this embracing of children within the covenant of grace ceased? Why deny to the NT child what the OT child was freely and lovingly given in compliance to the Lord’s command? Does not the denial make a dichotomy within the covenant of grace?
I would also argue that Presbyterianism should not practice immersion. Contrary to an earlier post which submitted that immersion was the only mode, it is rather sprinkling and pouring were the modes both in Old and New Testament times.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> OP = _opening post, the first post in a thread_
> 
> You are referring to exactly which post of yours, not the OP, which is not yours. Please learn to use the link function to refer to your specific posts. Here is a simple and quick way to do this:
> 
> 1. Go to any post you have made.
> 2. Look at the above right for the post number.
> 3. Right click that number
> 4. In the popup that appears, select "Copy link address"
> 5. Paste that into your new posts when referring to that previous post. That way we call be directed to exactly what post you are referring to in a new post.
> 
> If you want to be even more advanced in using the link function. You can follow steps 1-4 above, then
> 
> 1. In a sentence in your post where you state something like "As I noted earlier", click on "earlier"
> 2. In the post editing window, select the link button (looks like a _link _in a chain)
> 3. In the popup now paste what you copied from step 4 above.
> 4. The result will be nicely formatted and not cluttered up with a long url. For example, "your previous post".
> 5. Note that the word "post" is now a hyperlink without actually showing the full link in a sentence.


Thanks, I will be attempting to apply this going forward.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Cymro said:


> It must be obvious that circumcision is in nature part of the covenant of grace, and therefore a constituent element of the NC. For the NC is an augmenting, an amplifying, a developing of what already existed in the covenant of grace. And we are taught by the Apostle Paul that circumcision is the sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, which was to be applied to all children even at 8 days old. Servants and strangers within the gates were also included. They were not asked or reasoned with(the children were unable to have dialogue)!
> Circumcision contains the covenant promise for the parents and the recipient, and is an ordinance ordained of God. It is not a national emblem, a mark that signifies one is a Jew. Paul dismisses this in His Roman epistle. Other nations also had a similar rite
> Why then has this embracing of children within the covenant of grace ceased? Why deny to the NT child what the OT child was freely and lovingly given in compliance to the Lord’s command? Does not the denial make a dichotomy within the covenant of grace?
> I would also argue that Presbyterianism should not practice immersion. Contrary to an earlier post which submitted that immersion was the only mode, it is rather sprinkling and pouring were the modes both in Old and New Testament times.


Children are all under the external manifestation of the New Covenant, in the sense that they are to be raised up in the teaching of the scriptures by both saved parents and pastors, but the sign of one being actually in the NC would be to have the Holy Spirit of promise Himself as that sign and seal.
Children are aprt of the visible church, but the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is that sign of now being part of the invisible Church, and those are the ones water baptism is reserved for now.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> Thanks, I will be attempting to apply this going forward.


While you are at it, David, please obtain this useful reference:

https://www.puritanboard.com/resources/abridgement-of-christian-divinitie-j-wollebius.36/

See Chapters XXV and XXVI in Book One.


----------



## Cymro

According to your response, David, why were the children of the OT not delayed in having the rite of circumcision applied until they give evidence of having the “indwelling of the Spirit”?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Cymro said:


> According to your response, David, why were the children of the OT not delayed in having the rite of circumcision applied until they give evidence of having the “indwelling of the Spirit”?


They were not under the manifestation as of yet of the New Covenant, as that full manifestation of the CoG required the Messiah to be born, die, and to be raised up again.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> They were not under the manifestation as of yet of the New Covenant, as that full manifestation of the CoG required the Messiah to be born, die, and to be raised up again.



You did not answer Jeff's question, but answered your own again. Do you read others posts at all?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> but the sign of one being actually in the NC would be to have the Holy Spirit of promise Himself as that sign and seal.
> Children are aprt of the visible church, but the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is that sign of now being part of the invisible Church, and those are the ones water baptism is reserved for now.



Signs can precede the reality, otherwise they wouldn't be signs.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Signs can precede the reality, otherwise they wouldn't be signs.


They can, but the purpose of the sign is this case would be the declaration that one has now received the Promised Holy Spirit, and is now under the New Covenant relationship with God.


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> You did not answer Jeff's question, but answered your own again. Do you read others posts at all?


Yes, every one of them, and just stating that I do not see water baptism of the NC as being Circumcision being carried directly over now!


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> They can, but the purpose of the sign is this case would be the declaration that one has now received the Promised Holy Spirit, and is now under the New Covenant relationship with God.



Right. Which is what I just said. A sign points to that reality. It is not that reality (unless you are Roman Catholic).


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> Yes, every one of them, and just stating that I do not see water baptism of the NC as being Circumcision being carried directly over now!



David,
Sincerely, I don't wish to pick on you or discourage you. I mean the following as a brotherly rebuke.
If want people to interact with you, you need to interact with what others are saying. In all honesty, your responses look to many of us, like you don't read or absorb the posts _*at all*_. It seems you answer the questions you wish to answer and not what was asked or said by the person you quote. Then it takes 56 posts and counter-posts to try to decipher 1) what you meant in what you said (because you are not clear, quite often), 2)how what you said relates in _any_ way to the previous posts and OP, and 3) what brand of theology is behind what you said. Do you realize this makes folks want to pull their hair out?

In your post above that I've quoted, this pattern of yours is most evident. I really am not trying to beat you up, but it really is a part-time job (with no pay) to figure out what is going on in your posts.......

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> They can, but the purpose of the sign is this case would be the declaration that one has now received the Promised Holy Spirit, and is now under the New Covenant relationship with God.


Correction: it would at best be a declaration that they have allegedly received the Holy Spirit.

In no baptism ever, has it ever been declared with certainty that the person is truly saved.

Which raises the question: is that even the point of this sacrament? Is this sacrament really a "outward picture of an internal reality" . Any baptist would have to concede that at most, it is an outward picture of an alleged internal reality.

I was raised in an evangelical church with man centred theology and classic arminian "decisionism" . I was baptized at age 15. I struglled with assurance of salvation all through my teenage years and into my 20s. Through this time I had several religious experiences. What if I wasn't saved when I was baptized? Should I be baptized again? How am I to determine the point of my regeneration? If I wasn't saved when I was baptized as a teenager is God angry with me? What if I am just not sure? Should I get baptized again? What if 2 yrs from now I struggle with assurance and I look back and say that I wasn't saved when I was baptized the second time? Should I be baptizes a third? Maybe then God will be happy with me?


Sent from my STH100-1 using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Right. Which is what I just said. A sign points to that reality. It is not that reality (unless you are Roman Catholic).


The sign of the water baptism though is to point towards the reality of that person now being saved in Christ.


----------



## Dachaser

Cymro said:


> According to your response, David, why were the children of the OT not delayed in having the rite of circumcision applied until they give evidence of having the “indwelling of the Spirit”?


The difference would be that the rite towards the children was given by God under the OC to testify that they were part of the Covenant relationship with God as in Corporate Israel, but the NT sign identities that one has individual relationship basis now with God. OT sign was potential, NT one is actual.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> OT sign was potential, NT one is actual.



Potential what?


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> Correction: it would at best be a declaration that they have allegedly received the Holy Spirit.
> 
> In no baptism ever, has it ever been declared with certainty that the person is truly saved.
> 
> Which raises the question: is that even the point of this sacrament? Is this sacrament really a "outward picture of an internal reality" . Any baptist would have to concede that at most, it is an outward picture of an alleged internal reality.
> 
> I was raised in an evangelical church with man centred theology and classic arminian "decisionism" . I was baptized at age 15. I struglled with assurance of salvation all through my teenage years and into my 20s. Through this time I had several religious experiences. What if I wasn't saved when I was baptized? Should I be baptized again? How am I to determine the point of my regeneration? If I wasn't saved when I was baptized as a teenager is God angry with me? What if I am just not sure? Should I get baptized again? What if 2 yrs from now I struggle with assurance and I look back and say that I wasn't saved when I was baptized the second time? Should I be baptizes a third? Maybe then God will be happy with me?
> 
> 
> Sent from my STH100-1 using Tapatalk


The water baptism is undertaking upon the profession of one knowing that they have received Jesus as their Lord/Messiah, and so while cannot be declared to be all of the time administered to saved persons, the churches holding to believers bapstisam do due diligence to try to make sure one has actually been converted.


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> Potential what?


The potential that the infant that was seen included among Israel would one day be redeemed by the Lord Yahweh.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> The potential that the infant that was seen included among Israel would one day be redeemed by the Lord Yahweh.



So I ask again as did @Scott Bushey and @Ask Mr. Religion : the visible church is chopped liver?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> The sign of the water baptism though is to point towards the reality of that person now being saved in Christ.



Is every baptized person saved?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Is every baptized person saved?


I have never stated that they were, but that the ones to be water baptized would be those who have made a sincere profession that Jesus has saved them from their sins now.


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> So I ask again as did @Scott Bushey and @Ask Mr. Religion : the visible church is chopped liver?


No, the local assembly would be the ordained meeting place where God has to give us the teachings of the scriptures, the worshipping and praising of Him, and when the ordinances of Grace are to be applied. Why would that be seen as being :Chop liver?"
I just see the Universal Church of Christ as the One where all saved in each local church would be in now.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> No, the local assembly would be the ordian meeting place where God has to give us the teachings of the scriptures, the worshipping and praising of Him, and when the ordinances of Grace are to be applied. Why would that be seen as being :Chop liver?"
> I just see the Universal Church of Christ as the One where all saved in each local church would be in now.



I believe you have gone past distinction between the visible and invisible church and have filed for and executed a divorce. Please see Patrick's post on the 4th page about the visible church

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I have never stated that they were, but that the ones to be water baptized would be those who have made a sincere profession that Jesus has saved them from their sins now.



That's not what you said in post #135 where you stated:

The sign of the water baptism though is to point *towards the reality of that person now being saved in Christ*.


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> *The difference would be that the rite towards the children was given by God under the OC to testify that they were part of the Covenant relationship with God as in Corporate Israel*, but the NT sign identities that one has individual relationship basis now with God. OT sign was potential, NT one is actual.



The sign of circumcision was initiated under the Abrahamic covenant, before Israel was a nation. It always pointed to spiritual blessings beyond physical ones. That is why Moses told the people to 'circumcise their hearts'. That is also why Paul teaches that it is a sign and a seal of the righteousness received by faith (Romans 4). This whole notion that circumcision was simply a 'Jewish' thing is not true. Circumcision was a 'believing' thing. When God instituted the sign of circumcision, it was given to the household because _Abraham believed_, not because Abraham was a Jew. This is why even the foreigners in his household were circumcised, and why there are specific provisions given in Exodus for a situation wherein a foreigner wanted to join the covenant people - and to do so he had to be circumcised.

Circumcision pointed ultimately to spiritual blessings fulfilled in Christ's work (Col 2:11) - this is _beyond dispute.
_

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Cymro

David, were believers in the OT saved through the covenant of grace? Were they saved through the effectual substitutionary, sacrificial, atoning work of Christ who had not yet been born? If we looking back to the actual redemptive act of Christ, and they looked forward to the same so great salvation event, is there a difference of consequence? Did they exercise the same faith as we do now? Did not they make “a sincere confession”? For what reason were they circumcised in your view, if Paul states that it was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith?


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> I believe you have gone past distinction between the visible and invisible church and have filed for and executed a divorce. Please see Patrick's post on the 4th page about the visible church


I hold with what the scriptures teach to us what the local assembly represents, and what God has installed in thereto benefit His people. All who are part of the Universal Church are saved, but not all who are part of the Local one will be.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's not what you said in post #135 where you stated:
> 
> The sign of the water baptism though is to point *towards the reality of that person now being saved in Christ*.


Yes, that is what the NT states would be the purpose of being water baptized, as we now are publicly acknowledging to all that we have died in Jesus, been raised with Him , and now are those who are justified and having eternal life in Him.


----------



## Dachaser

Cymro said:


> David, were believers in the OT saved through the covenant of grace? Were they saved through the effectual substitutionary, sacrificial, atoning work of Christ who had not yet been born? If we looking back to the actual redemptive act of Christ, and they looked forward to the same so great salvation event, is there a difference of consequence? Did they exercise the same faith as we do now? Did not they make “a sincere confession”? For what reason were they circumcised in your view, if Paul states that it was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith?


The OT saints were all saved in the same way that we now are, by the death of Jesus as atonement for their sins, and by them being freely justified by God through that act. Saved by Grace alone , through faith alone. 
The sign of the NC is to us now the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in His own, sealed unto salvation in Christ Jesus.
There are differences in how we view water baptism, and just how much continuity there is between the OC/NC. but we still agree fully on a majority of Christian things.


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> The sign of circumcision was initiated under the Abrahamic covenant, before Israel was a nation. It always pointed to spiritual blessings beyond physical ones. That is why Moses told the people to 'circumcise their hearts'. That is also why Paul teaches that it is a sign and a seal of the righteousness received by faith (Romans 4). This whole notion that circumcision was simply a 'Jewish' thing is not true. Circumcision was a 'believing' thing. When God instituted the sign of circumcision, it was given to the household because _Abraham believed_, not because Abraham was a Jew. This is why even the foreigners in his household were circumcised, and why there are specific provisions given in Exodus for a situation wherein a foreigner wanted to join the covenant people - and to do so he had to be circumcised.
> 
> Circumcision pointed ultimately to spiritual blessings fulfilled in Christ's work (Col 2:11) - this is _beyond dispute._


Yes, but the sign of the NC would be the indwelling and sealing of the Holy Spirit in the people of God, and shown in symbolic fashion by water baptism.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> Yes, but the sign of the NC would be the indwelling and sealing of the Holy Spirit in the people of God, and shown in symbolic fashion by water baptism.



Patently false. The "sign" and seal of this covenant is baptism, not "indwelling".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> to all that we have died in Jesus, been raised with Him , and now are those who are justified and having eternal life in Him



So everyone in the Baptist church who has been baptized has died to Christ and is elect?


----------



## Cymro

David, you major on the evidence of the indwelling Spirit under the NC, and state this is the difference between the OT saints and us. So then the OT saint did not have the Holy Spirit?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> So everyone in the Baptist church who has been baptized has died to Christ and is elect?


No, but the orediance of the water baptism would be now reserved under the NC to those who have made a profession of now being saved by Jesus Christ. Romans 6 describes the process, so how would that be babies/infants in mind there?


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> Patently false. The "sign" and seal of this covenant is baptism, not "indwelling".


The two Baptisms are interlinked though, as first the person is saved and been baptized in to the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, and then the person takes the water baptism. The NT witness would be the sign of now being identified and saved by the person and work of Christ.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> No, but the orediance of the water baptism would be now reserved under the NC to those who have made a profession of now being saved by Jesus Christ. Romans 6 describes the process, so how would that be babies/infants in mind there?



Romans 6 says nothing about one's confession, just that they have been baptized. Infants can receive the sign.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> The NT witness would be the sign of now being identified and saved by the person and work of Christ.



You say this as if it is authoritative. Baptism is nothing more than a presumption...as mentioned ad nauseum, Demas, Annanias and his wife, Simon Magus were all baptized.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Cymro said:


> David, you major on the evidence of the indwelling Spirit under the NC, and state this is the difference between the OT saints and us. So then the OT saint did not have the Holy Spirit?


I know that all of the OT saints were saved on the same basis as all of us, but I honestly do not know if the Lord had them all indwelt as he has all of us now under the NC, as the Holy Spirit seemed to jsut come upn those in specific roles/positions and assigned tasks for Him. he might have overlooked and remitted their sins, but not indwelt all of them as he does us now.
I see the Holy Spirit as regenerating them, but not indwelling them, as that would require the future NC to come, as prophesied by Jeremiah, when the reality of the Law would then be written upon our hearts, and no longer just external.
I have read some material that have said that some reformed see Him as indwelling them all in the OT, others that He regenerated but not indwelt, still others that He remitted sins, but did not do any further activity at that time.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Romans 6 says nothing about one's confession, just that they have been baptized. Infants can receive the sign.


the person being water baptized is said to going down into the water, immersed, and to be identified as now being saved by/in Christ, as we now partake of the Holy Spirit.
The terminology used by Paul to me would indicate He is addressing adults, or at least older children being part of the water baptism rite.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> You say this as if it is authoritative. Baptism is nothing more than a presumption...as mentioned ad nauseum, Demas, Annanias and his wife, Simon Magus were all baptized.


I am just suggesting that both of us have theological implications that cause us to view water baptism in differing ways in some regards. Nothing wrong with that, as there are issues where those who are the redeemed of the Lord will continue to iron out between each other.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> The two Baptisms are interlinked though, as first the person is saved and been baptized in to the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, and then the person takes the water baptism. The NT witness would be the sign of now being identified and saved by the person and work of Christ.



First, David, you've avoided the question again as has been pointed out ad nauseam. This is why it is frustrating to attempt dialog with you....the target is ever moving. It is absolutely irrelevant (red herring fallacy) to drag in a relationship between baptism and the indwelling Spirit in a debate of "what is the sign of the NC?". Absolutely irrelevant and this gets us one step closer to the 56 posts/counter-posts to get at what position you are lobbying for. Secondly, you continue to state your position as though that ends the argument. I am convinced of Reformed, covenantal theology. I was once a baptistic evangelical and have become convinced of covenant theology. Your stating, over and over your evangelical position as though it is the judges gavel that ends the matter is wholly incapable of convincing me or of the convinced Reformed here. Thirdly, I want the regeneration goggles after you are through with them, for I, too, would like to gaze into the deep soul of man to see his condition before God. Personally, I would jettison totally the pop-E language of "saved" since, as it turns out, the regeneration goggles are only Ray Ban filtered knock offs......

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> First, David, you've avoided the question again as has been pointed out ad nauseam. This is why it is frustrating to attempt dialog with you....the target is ever moving. It is absolutely irrelevant (red herring fallacy) to drag in a relationship between baptism and the indwelling Spirit in a debate of "what is the sign of the NC?". Absolutely irrelevant and this gets us one step closer to the 56 posts/counter-posts to get at what position you are lobbying for. Secondly, you continue to state your position as though that ends the argument. I am convinced of Reformed, covenantal theology. I was once a baptistic evangelical and have become convinced of covenant theology. Your stating, over and over your evangelical position as though it is the judges gavel that ends the matter is wholly incapable of convincing me or of the convinced Reformed here. Thirdly, I want the regeneration goggles after you are through with them, for I, too, would like to gaze into the deep soul of man to see his condition before God. Personally, I would jettison totally the pop-E language of "saved" since, as it turns out, the regeneration goggles are only Ray Ban filtered knock offs......


Please help me to betetr articulate this, as I am just saying that to me as a Baptist who fully agrees with Covenant Sotierology theology, do still see water baptism as being the sign of one having already received Jesus as their Lord and Savior. The aspect of bringing into this discussion the Person of the Holy spirit was to just underline what to me enables the person to now being able to receive the water baptism at the local church, as they have already been Spirit Baptized into the Universal church.
I have no intentions of changing any Reformed Presbyterian Brethren on this issue, but do sometimes feel like there has to be a better way to have us discuss these issues without either of us getting heated .


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Please help me to betetr articulate this, as I am just saying that to me as a Baptist who fully agrees with Covenant Sotierology theology, do still see water baptism as being the sign of one having already received Jesus as their Lord and Savior. The aspect of bringing into this discussion the Person of the Holy spirit was to just underline what to me enables the person to now being able to receive the water baptism at the local church, as they have already been Spirit Baptized into the Universal church.
> I have no intentions of changing any Reformed Presbyterian Brethren on this issue, but do sometimes feel like there has to be a better way to have us discuss these issues without either of us getting heated .



Was water baptism a sign of Simon Magus's being regenerated and elect?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> No, but the orediance of the water baptism would be now reserved under the NC to those who have made a profession of now being saved by Jesus Christ. Romans 6 describes the process, so how would that be babies/infants in mind there?



Romans 6 is the classic passage that baptists seem to go to. I will admit that it does fit fairly well with the whole 'immersion' idea. However, this is not the only verses about baptism in the NT, so we cannot limit our understanding of baptism to what we see there.

It seems to me like in Romans 6 Paul is talking about the spiritual baptism that all believers went through when they were united to Christ as he died and was raised. I don't think it is talking about the physical rite. And I don't think it is correct to base our view of the physical rite only on this passage, as their are other passages that indicate to us that baptism does not have such a precise, technical meaning as the baptists tend to want to indicate. For example, Jesus speaks of being baptized by the Holy Spirit - and we know that the Holy Spirit was poured out, believers were not immersed into the Holy Spirit.

I don't think Romans 6 is the passage to go to when trying to determine who should receive the sign of baptism. I do think that Romans 6 helps us understand what baptism signifies - but I think it signifies _more_ than just what is mentioned in Romans 6 - it also signifies the receipt of the Holy Spirit and also the washing by the blood of Christ.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> the person being water baptized is said to going down into the water, immersed, and to be identified as now being saved by/in Christ, as we now partake of the Holy Spirit.
> The terminology used by Paul to me would indicate He is addressing adults, or at least older children being part of the water baptism rite.



Please show me how u have come to the conclusion that this passage has an age limitation. If u will...


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Was water baptism a sign of Simon Magus's being regenerated and elect?


The water baptism should reflect to the Church that one has been saved and reborn from above now.


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> Romans 6 is the classic passage that baptists seem to go to. I will admit that it does fit fairly well with the whole 'immersion' idea. However, this is not the only verses about baptism in the NT, so we cannot limit our understanding of baptism to what we see there.
> 
> It seems to me like in Romans 6 Paul is talking about the spiritual baptism that all believers went through when they were united to Christ as he died and was raised. I don't think it is talking about the physical rite. And I don't think it is correct to base our view of the physical rite only on this passage, as their are other passages that indicate to us that baptism does not have such a precise, technical meaning as the baptists tend to want to indicate. For example, Jesus speaks of being baptized by the Holy Spirit - and we know that the Holy Spirit was poured out, believers were not immersed into the Holy Spirit.
> 
> I don't think Romans 6 is the passage to go to when trying to determine who should receive the sign of baptism. I do think that Romans 6 helps us understand what baptism signifies - but I think it signifies _more_ than just what is mentioned in Romans 6 - it also signifies the receipt of the Holy Spirit and also the washing by the blood of Christ.


What is interesting is that Most Baptists that I hacve spoken with concerning Romans 6 are conviced that it refers to water baptism, and I once held it to be as your see it here, but their persuasion won me over to their position.


----------



## Cymro

No man can call Jesus Lord but by the Spirit. This they did in OT. Can you explain to me in what condition was the man who was born blind, who said, “Lord I believe, and he worshipped Him.” Christ had not died or risen again, yet he was converted. Neither had Pentecost arrived, yet he worshipped.(adoration, prostration). Was he indwelt by the Spirit?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Please show me how u have come to the conclusion that this passage has an age limitation. If u will...


The NC promised to us by Jeremiah Himself states that the Law of God will be upon our hearts, so how could infants have that done to them then?


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> The NC promised to us by Jeremiah Himself states that the Law of God will be upon our hearts, so how could infants have that done to them then?



The new covenant promise does indeed state that they will "all know me", and that the law will be written on their hearts.

I don't believe we are at that point yet. I don't think that will be fully realized until Jesus comes back and separates the wheat from the tares. There are still aspects of the NC that have not been fully realized yet. 

The question is: who is 'all'? All of whom?

I believe that these promises refer to a future time in which the visible church and invisible church will exactly correspond - head for head. We are not at that point yet. In fact, the church of the NT testament is like the church of the OT insofar as there are those who are merely professors, as well as those who are truly 'circumcised of heart'.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> The NC promised to us by Jeremiah Himself states that the Law of God will be upon our hearts, so how could infants have that done to them then?



Speaking of Jeremiah, Jeremiah, Samson, John the Baptist and Isaiah were separated from the womb......That still has no relationship to Rom's 6 and Paul's words. You are pressing a pressuposition into the verses. Eisegesis.

Again I say to you, to say infants cannot have these characteristics, is to say all infants perish because no one gets into heaven without a changed heart.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Speaking of Jeremiah, Jeremiah, Samson, John the Baptist and Isaiah were separated from the womb......That still has no relationship to Rom's 6 and Paul's words. You are pressing a pressuposition into the verses. Eisegesis.
> 
> Again I say to you, to say infants cannot have these characteristics, is to say all infants perish because no one gets into heaven without a changed heart.


God is able to do a miracle in them to have them regenerated and saved. Just would be done apart from the Infant baptism.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> The NC promised to us by Jeremiah Himself states that the Law of God will be upon our hearts, so how could infants have that done to them then?





Dachaser said:


> God is able to do a miracle in them to have them regenerated and saved. Just would be done apart from the Infant baptism.



Do u see the contradiction? On one hand u say, 'how could infants have that done to them' and on the other, "God is able to do a miracle in them to have them regenerated and saved"

So, does the Jeremiah passage exclude infants? Does Paul, knowing what Jeremiah said?


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> The new covenant promise does indeed state that they will "all know me", and that the law will be written on their hearts.
> 
> I don't believe we are at that point yet. I don't think that will be fully realized until Jesus comes back and separates the wheat from the tares. There are still aspects of the NC that have not been fully realized yet.
> 
> The question is: who is 'all'? All of whom?
> 
> I believe that these promises refer to a future time in which the visible church and invisible church will exactly correspond - head for head. We are not at that point yet. In fact, the church of the NT testament is like the church of the OT insofar as there are those who are merely professors, as well as those who are truly 'circumcised of heart'.


Jeremiah was speaking of the NC itself, so seems that we would now be in that state with God.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Do u see the contradiction? On one hand u say, 'how could infants have that done to them' and on the other, "God is able to do a miracle in them to have them regenerated and saved"
> 
> So, does the Jeremiah passage exclude infants? Does Paul, knowing what Jeremiah said?


God can save Infants in infancy due to His grace, but that is a separate issue on whether we baptize them or not.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> God can save Infants in infancy due to His grace, but that is a separate issue on whether we baptize them or not.



Do u see the contradiction in your statements?

For 4 thousand years, Christ commanded that the sign be placed on disciples!
In the great commission, to which u run and hide behind some proverbial hedge that is so much lower than u think (I can see u peeking over it), Christ himself said:

'Make disciples and baptise them'! He did not say, 'wait until they have a profession of faith before u baptize them!'

What u say is in direct opposite of what Christ tells us:



> but the orediance of the water baptism would be now reserved under the NC to those who have made a profession of now being saved by Jesus Christ



I have shown u that there were a number of examples in the NT where people were baptized and yet, did not show any fruit of their faith. You say:



> Yes, but the sign of the NC would be the indwelling and sealing of the Holy Spirit in the people of God



Christ does not tell us that in every baptism, the recipients would be indwelt. Some would be-the elect.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Do u see the contradiction in your statements?
> 
> For 4 thousand years, Christ commanded that the sign be placed on disciples!
> In the great commission, to which u run and hide behind some proverbial hedge that is so much lower than u think (I can see u peeking over it), Christ himself said:
> 
> 'Make disciples and baptise them'! He did not say, 'wait until they have a profession of faith before u baptize them!'
> 
> What u say is in direct opposite of what Christ tells us:
> 
> 
> 
> I have shown u that there were a number of examples in the NT where people were baptized and yet, did not show any fruit of their faith. You say:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ does not tell us that in every baptism, the recipients would be indwelt. Some would be-the elect.


Every time that water baptism is mention din the NT though, it appears to be describing given to those who believe in Jesus as Lord. One can make inference that some places means all in family, be that would be reading ones presumptions into the text itself.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> The water baptism should reflect to the Church that one has been saved and reborn from above now.



Was Simon Magus regenerated and born from above?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Was Simon Magus regenerated and born from above?


Not from the scripture evidence.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Dachaser said:


> God is able to do a miracle in them to have them regenerated and saved. Just would be done apart from the Infant baptism.


David, I am not sure if you have reflected on the full nature of covenant theology from both a Reformed Paedobaptist and a Reformed Baptist perspective. You might find both these fairly brief books helpful "Covenants Made Simple: Understanding God's Unfolding Promises to His People" [Paedobaptist] and "Covenant Theology: A Reformed Baptist Perspective" [Baptist]


----------



## Dachaser

Stephen L Smith said:


> David, I am not sure if you have reflected on the full nature of covenant theology from both a Reformed Paedobaptist and a Reformed Baptist perspective. You might find both these fairly brief books helpful "Covenants Made Simple: Understanding God's Unfolding Promises to His People" [Paedobaptist] and "Covenant Theology: A Reformed Baptist Perspective" [Baptist]


Thank you, as what I have read from a RB position was Parts of John Gil, and most of AH Strong so far.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Every time that water baptism is mention din the NT though, it appears to be describing given to those who believe in Jesus as Lord. One can make inference that some places means all in family, be that would be reading ones presumptions into the text itself.



You are guilty of a few things here:
1) eisegesis
2) presuppositional thinking
3) Dispensationalizing the way God has always worked in regard to salvation and specifically families.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Scott Bushey said:


> Dispensationalizing the way God has always worked


Scott, I have come to see there are problems with the Reformed Baptist argument, especially in relation to the New Covenant. But I don't think the 'dispensational' argument is a good argument:

The 1689 Baptist Confession is about 150 years older than when dispensationalism first started. So its theology predates dispensationalism by over a centuary.
Ch 7:1 of both the WCF and the 1689 Confession is the same. Thus both confessions highlight the importance of covenant theology.
The rest of ch 7 in the 1689 Confession does emphasise the *one* plan of salvation and the historic redemptive outworking of that plan. This is the very opposite of dispensationalism which emphasises God has *different* plans for Israel and the Church.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Stephen,
In use the term loosely. (d)ispensational. Not, (D)ispensational.


Stephen L Smith said:


> Scott, I have come to see there are problems with the Reformed Baptist argument, especially in relation to the New Covenant. But I don't think the 'dispensational' argument is a good argument:
> 
> The 1689 Baptist Confession is about 150 years older than when dispensationalism first started. So its theology predates dispensationalism by over a centuary.



As a system....it's been around for a lot longer than that. There are some writings from the 1st century that were premill.




> [*]Ch 7:1 of both the WCF and the 1689 Confession is the same. Thus both confessions highlight the importance of covenant theology.



Not the same way....


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Scott Bushey said:


> As a system....it's been around for a lot longer than that. There are some writings from the 1st century that were premill.


You mean Historic Premill. Not the same as dispensationalism. You are comparing apples and oranges.



Scott Bushey said:


> Not the same way....




Well actually yes. 7:1 in both the WCF and the 1689 both affirm the importance of covenant theology itself. That is sufficient proof to show the 1689 is not dispensational.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Yes. True. My bad. Thanks for the correction.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Stephen L Smith said:


> Scott, I have come to see there are problems with the Reformed Baptist argument, especially in relation to the New Covenant. But I don't think the 'dispensational' argument is a good argument:
> 
> The 1689 Baptist Confession is about 150 years older than when dispensationalism first started. So its theology predates dispensationalism by over a centuary.
> Ch 7:1 of both the WCF and the 1689 Confession is the same. Thus both confessions highlight the importance of covenant theology.
> The rest of ch 7 in the 1689 Confession does emphasise the *one* plan of salvation and the historic redemptive outworking of that plan. This is the very opposite of dispensationalism which emphasises God has *different* plans for Israel and the Church.


Dispensationalism , at least the classic version as made famous by Scofield, would hold that God saved under the law in the OT, and under Grace in the NT. Israel and the Church are always seen to be 2 separate parts of the salvation plans of God.
I think the confusion come be due to Reformed baptist would hold to the NC being more new than Presbyterians, who seem to hold with it being a full completion/extension of the OC/COG. Also, the question of water baptism and when the Church actually was founded comes into play here.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Stephen,
> In use the term loosely. (d)ispensational. Not, (D)ispensational.
> 
> 
> As a system....it's been around for a lot longer than that. There are some writings from the 1st century that were premill.
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same way....


One of the main positions of the ECF would be what would be called later on Historical premil. Just curious as to what you meant "Not the same way>"


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> One of the main positions of the ECF would be what would be called later on Historical premil. Just curious as to what you meant "Not the same way>"



That's not completely accurate. Premil was only one option among any. It was not the positoin of the ECF. Further, the earliest premil document, the Didache, is actually pre-wrath, not historical premil. Finally, they would have been historicist per their hermeneutics, not futurist.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's not completely accurate. Premil was only one option among any. It was not the positoin of the ECF. Further, the earliest premil document, the Didache, is actually pre-wrath, not historical premil. Finally, they would have been historicist per their hermeneutics, not futurist.


Many of the ECF did hold a premil version of the Second Coming though, as they looked the Kingdom to come upon the earth at that time it seems.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Many of the ECF did hold a premil version of the Second Coming though, as they looked the Kingdom to come upon the earth at that time it seems.



*Some* did, but even those who did, like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, clearly admit it wasn't the only position.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian

Dachaser said:


> What passage in the NT though would indicate that those who have not received Jesus as their Lord are now included under it, as all who put on Christ and have the Holy Spirit only seemed to be now included?



How about Acts 2:39 - "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian

Dachaser said:


> The difference would be that *the rite towards the children was given by God under the OC to testify that they were part of the Covenant relationship with God as in Corporate Israel*, but the NT sign identities that one has individual relationship basis now with God. OT sign was potential, NT one is actual.



As I understand it (correct me if I misunderstood), you seem to be saying that circumcision was a sign of being within the National Covenant of God with Israel. But Romans 4:11 says that the sign of circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brendanchatt

HisRobes4Mine said:


> 1. Election is completely unconditional. Even believing parents does not make you more likely to be elect.





Contra_Mundum said:


> I'll push back on #1.





De Jager said:


> Rather, I see it that this child is _already_ greatly advantaged when compared to the children growing up in pagan cultures outside the church (See Romans 3:1-4)



Romans 3 is where I go. Of course election is unconditional, but believing parents are an advantage in “much every way”. 

Romans 3:1-2 
What advantage then hath the Jew? Or what profit is there in curcumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.


Moreover, as Luke shows there is greater judgment for greater knowledge, Luke 12:47, we see culpability as the result of a great intellectual advantage, the knowledge of God’s will (and the guilt attributed to wasting it).


----------



## De Jager

brendanchatt said:


> Romans 3 is where I go. Of course election is unconditional, but believing parents are an advantage in “much every way”.
> 
> Romans 3:1-2
> What advantage then hath the Jew? Or what profit is there in curcumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
> 
> 
> Moreover, as Luke shows there is greater judgment for greater knowledge, Luke 12:47, we see culpability as the result of a great intellectual advantage, the knowledge of God’s will (and the guilt attributed to wasting it).



I remember discussing this kind of thing with a baptist (and 4 point calvinist - he didn't like the 'L') pastor, and he could not square the covenantal view with the typical strong Calvinism of reformed people.

I can sympathize with his view. After all, (his reasoning) if God elects people sovereignly and unconditionally, what does it even matter if someone is 'advantaged' in terms of hearing the gospel? 

I think this is where we need to emphasize both God's sovereignty and human responsibility as the Bible does. As Jesus says, no one knows the father except the one to whom the Son reveals him, but then immediately afterwards says "come to me all you who are weary". He emphasizes both God's sovereignty and human responsibility. It is clear that the Bible teaches both. It teaches that a) no one comes to the son unless he is given to him by the father, but also teaches b) that the one who grows up in a covenant home is greatly advantaged and will receive stricter judgment for rejecting the gospel.

Also, we need to remind people that God uses certain means to accomplish his elective purposes. The primary means of bringing people to faith is via their membership in the local church, where they hear the word, and we know the Holy Spirit works there, bringing about Spiritual life.

Thanks for your post.


----------



## Dachaser

ScottishPresbyterian said:


> How about Acts 2:39 - "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."


good question, and my answers would be that Peter was addressing Jews who would have tied that into what they knew of the OC, was during the transition time between OC/NC, and that children does not have to refer to babies.


----------



## Dachaser

ScottishPresbyterian said:


> As I understand it (correct me if I misunderstood), you seem to be saying that circumcision was a sign of being within the National Covenant of God with Israel. But Romans 4:11 says that the sign of circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith.


Yes, a sign of His own personal faith towards God and His promises, but not directly tied into infants from just that passage by itself.


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> I remember discussing this kind of thing with a baptist (and 4 point calvinist - he didn't like the 'L') pastor, and he could not square the covenantal view with the typical strong Calvinism of reformed people.
> 
> I can sympathize with his view. After all, (his reasoning) if God elects people sovereignly and unconditionally, what does it even matter if someone is 'advantaged' in terms of hearing the gospel?
> 
> I think this is where we need to emphasize both God's sovereignty and human responsibility as the Bible does. As Jesus says, no one knows the father except the one to whom the Son reveals him, but then immediately afterwards says "come to me all you who are weary". He emphasizes both God's sovereignty and human responsibility. It is clear that the Bible teaches both. It teaches that a) no one comes to the son unless he is given to him by the father, but also teaches b) that the one who grows up in a covenant home is greatly advantaged and will receive stricter judgment for rejecting the gospel.
> 
> Also, we need to remind people that God uses certain means to accomplish his elective purposes. The primary means of bringing people to faith is via their membership in the local church, where they hear the word, and we know the Holy Spirit works there, bringing about Spiritual life.
> 
> Thanks for your post.


I always though thtat the advanatge for the children being raised up inside a Christian home would be exposure to the Gospel, and also being raised up in the church setting.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> and that children does not have to refer to babies



In the Greek '*τέκνον'. *It is the same word used in Matt 2:16


16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Beth-lehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Mt 2:16.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Yes, a sign of His own personal faith towards God and His promises, but not directly tied into infants from just that passage by itself.



Then why did God have the whole household circumcised?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Gforce9

Stephen L Smith said:


> Scott, I have come to see there are problems with the Reformed Baptist argument, especially in relation to the New Covenant. But I don't think the 'dispensational' argument is a good argument:
> 
> The 1689 Baptist Confession is about 150 years older than when dispensationalism first started. So its theology predates dispensationalism by over a centuary.
> Ch 7:1 of both the WCF and the 1689 Confession is the same. Thus both confessions highlight the importance of covenant theology.
> The rest of ch 7 in the 1689 Confession does emphasise the *one* plan of salvation and the historic redemptive outworking of that plan. This is the very opposite of dispensationalism which emphasises God has *different* plans for Israel and the Church.





Scott Bushey said:


> You are guilty of a few things here:
> 1) eisegesis
> 2) presuppositional thinking
> 3) Dispensationalizing the way God has always worked in regard to salvation and specifically families.



If memory serves me correctly, about 2 years ago, Rev. Winzer made an interesting case, one in which I hadn't previously thought about: that any system and/or hermeneutic that isn't covenantal and Reformed, is by definition, dispensational. He is no longer here to defend his position (maybe someone can come up with the thread with his case), but, in part, I think he was getting at something recently debated: if the visible church is no longer covenantal (in the sense it is not for believers _*and*_ their children), how can it be deemed covenantal? That is a legitimate question to ask and wrestle with

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> In the Greek '*τέκνον'. *It is the same word used in Matt 2:16
> 
> 
> 16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Beth-lehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.
> 
> _The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Mt 2:16.


It seems that the grek term has a wide variety of meanings though, and some of them seem to be describing one older than an infant.
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/teknon


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> If memory serves me correctly, about 2 years ago, Rev. Winzer made an interesting case, one in which I hadn't previously thought about: that any system and/or hermeneutic that isn't covenantal and Reformed, is by definition, dispensational. He is no longer here to defend his position (maybe someone can come up with the thread with his case), but, in part, I think he was getting at something recently debated: if the visible church is no longer covenantal (in the sense it is not for believers _*and*_ their children), how can it be deemed covenantal? That is a legitimate question to ask and wrestle with


I think the basic problem here would be that the historical way that reformed theology was determined to be ion the be at time of the Reformation was indeed the Covenant viewpoint of Presbyterians, but the Baptists who also took on Covenant theology as expressed in the 1689 Confession would to same theology, save for baptism and certain other Baptist views.
The question to me would be just what must be held to/with in order to be seen as being really Reformed?


----------



## Dachaser

Where did He command that in the NT?


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> I think the basic problem here would be that the historical way that reformed theology was determined to be ion the be at time of the Reformation was indeed the Covenant viewpoint of Presbyterians, but the Baptists who also took on Covenant theology as expressed in the 1689 Confession would to same theology, save for baptism and certain other Baptist views.
> The question to me would be just what must be held to/with in order to be seen as being really Reformed?



I don't wish to speak authoritatively on behalf of Rev. Winzer, but I think the thrust of his message was something like "Regardless of what one 'says', if what is affirmed on one hand (covenantalism), is removed with the other (children removed from it), this is non-covenantalism. Rather than being more inclusive (giving the sign and seal to girls who were formerly excluded), now it is less so (removing boys from applied sign and seal) in that scheme".

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey

Gforce9 said:


> I don't wish to speak authoritatively on behalf of Rev. Winzer, but I think the thrust of his message was something like "Regardless of what one 'says', if what is affirmed on one hand (covenantalism), is removed with the other (children removed from it), this is non-covenantalism. Rather than being more inclusive (giving the sign and seal to girls who were formerly excluded), now it is less so (removing boys from applied sign and seal) in that scheme".



This is exactly what I was referring to (not his post on the matter, but the principle itself). It is a form of hyper-dispensationalizing God's covenant and things inherent with said _covenant_.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Gforce9 said:


> If memory serves me correctly, about 2 years ago, Rev. Winzer made an interesting case, one in which I hadn't previously thought about: that any system and/or hermeneutic that isn't covenantal and Reformed, is by definition, dispensational.





Scott Bushey said:


> This is exactly what I was referring to (not his post on the matter, but the principle itself). It is a form of hyper-dispensationalizing God's covenant and things inherent with said _covenant_.


As I said I do have problems with Reformed Baptist theology, but I think there is a problem using the word dispensational in this way. As I said dispensationalism as a theological system did not exist prior to the 19 century. It simply did not (the 1689 Baptist confession is a 17 century document). The concept of the covenant itself is defended in the WCF 7:1, and this is the same in the 1689 confession. Further the 1689 confession develops the pactum salutis, the historia salutis and the ordo salutis in 7:2 and 7:3. These are distinct Reformed terms. One may or may not like the way the way the 1689 confession structures its cvenantal framework but this is not the same as calling it dispensational.


----------



## hammondjones

Gforce9 said:


> He is no longer here to defend his position (maybe someone can come up with the thread with his case), but, in part, I think he was getting at something recently debated: if the visible church is no longer covenantal (in the sense it is not for believers _*and*_ their children), how can it be deemed covenantal?



Was it this?
https://puritanboard.com/threads/are-reformed-baptists-dispensational.92917/#post-1133221

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Brandon,
As u posted, I was just pulling it up myself.



Stephen L Smith said:


> As I said I do have problems with Reformed Baptist theology, but I think there is a problem using the word dispensational in this way.



Stephen,
I will refer you to your previous interaction on the matter-specifically what Bruce B. intended for clarity-to which, he has said better than I and to which, I agree.

You may want to read through that thread again as I am not arguing any differently than what BB and MW said (even though my extrapolation lacked).

https://puritanboard.com/threads/are-reformed-baptists-dispensational.92917/#post-1133221

For example:



> Not all dispensational approaches are dispensationalist in the historical meaning of the term, but they are by definition "dispensational" in contrast to being "covenantal."


~MW

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Stephen L Smith said:


> As I said I do have problems with Reformed Baptist theology, but I think there is a problem using the word dispensational in this way. As I said dispensationalism as a theological system did not exist prior to the 19 century. It simply did not (the 1689 Baptist confession is a 17 century document). The concept of the covenant itself is defended in the WCF 7:1, and this is the same in the 1689 confession. Further the 1689 confession develops the pactum salutis, the historia salutis and the ordo salutis in 7:2 and 7:3. These are distinct Reformed terms. One may or may not like the way the way the 1689 confession structures its cvenantal framework but this is not the same as calling it dispensational.


I have found it interesting that some seem to identify and hold CT exclusive to the view held by the Reformers, ie infant baptism, and yet did not the CT Baptists agree to pretty much all items save for that thing though?
Holding to the One people of God, one saved out Body , based upon the election of God will be more the heart of CT it seems to me.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Scott Bushey said:


> Stephen,
> I will refer you to your previous interaction on the matter-specifically what Bruce B. intended for clarity-to which, he has said better than I and to which, I agree.
> 
> You may want to read through that thread again as I am not arguing any differently than what BB and MW said (even though my extrapolation lacked).
> 
> https://puritanboard.com/threads/are-reformed-baptists-dispensational.92917/#post-1133221


I have read it twice. In fact I interacted with paedobaptists on this post. I actually agree with the criticisms of the 1689 Federalism, but it does not change my argument itself in my above post. As I said one may disagree with how the 1689 Confession formulates its view of the covenant but this is not the same as calling it dispensational in any sense.


----------



## Gforce9

Stephen L Smith said:


> As I said I do have problems with Reformed Baptist theology, but I think there is a problem using the word dispensational in this way. As I said dispensationalism as a theological system did not exist prior to the 19 century. It simply did not (the 1689 Baptist confession is a 17 century document). The concept of the covenant itself is defended in the WCF 7:1, and this is the same in the 1689 confession. Further the 1689 confession develops the pactum salutis, the historia salutis and the ordo salutis in 7:2 and 7:3. These are distinct Reformed terms. One may or may not like the way the way the 1689 confession structures its cvenantal framework but this is not the same as calling it dispensational.



Stephen,
You are more capable than am I in defending the confessional Baptist position and I truly do trust you to do so fairly, though often, with humor added! I believe Rev. Winzer's point was to say that any system that "carves up" the people of God, is dispensational, not necessarily that confessional Baptists held to Dispensational teaching on a particular point. Maybe to state it another way, "carving up" or disinclusion is by definition, dispensational.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9

hammondjones said:


> Was it this?
> https://puritanboard.com/threads/are-reformed-baptists-dispensational.92917/#post-1133221



Brandon,
Thanks for finding this. This isn't the interaction I had in mind, I believe this is the second or third go around for this topic. Rev. Winzer does reiterate, however, from what I recall, the substance of what he started earlier...thanks again!


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Gforce9 said:


> I believe Rev. Winzer's point was to say that any system that "carves up" the people of God, is dispensational,


As I said the 1689 confession develops the pactum salutis, the historia salutis and the ordo salutis. Therefore it does not "carve up the people of God".


Gforce9 said:


> with humor added


You said humor. The Queens English is humour. Are you trying to "carve up" the Queens English. Sorry dear brother I could not resist


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> I have found it interesting that some seem to identify and hold CT exclusive to the view held by the Reformers, ie infant baptism, and yet did not the CT Baptists agree to pretty much all items save for that thing though?
> Holding to the One people of God, one saved out Body , based upon the election of God will be more the heart of CT it seems to me.



David,
If I may: you stated that "...yet did not the CT Baptists agree to pretty much all items save for that thing though" (baptism of covenant children, I presume). The issue is not one of baptism. That is only a "symptom", if I may use the phrase. The real issue is the "covenantal-ness" of our differing theololgies. In other words, our (confessionally Reformed) baptism is "driven" by our covenantal theology. Baptism is not really a stand-alone issue to be argued. One must argue the "system" that undergirds the baptism.......

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9

Stephen L Smith said:


> As I said the 1689 confession develops the pactum salutis, the historia salutis and the ordo salutis. Therefore it does not "carve up the people of God".
> 
> You said humor. The Queens English is humour. Are you trying to "carve up" the Queens English. Sorry dear brother I could not resist



Humor is irresistible to you. Now I know your Achilles heel.....watch out.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Stephen L Smith said:


> I have read it twice. In fact I interacted with paedobaptists on this post. I actually agree with the criticisms of the 1689 Federalism, but it does not change my argument itself in my above post. As I said one may disagree with how the 1689 Confession formulates its view of the covenant but this is not the same as calling it dispensational in any sense.



I believe it is safe to say that all of us agree that there are varying degrees of what dispensationalism is. In my opinion, all of us agree that God has dispensations. The covenanters understand covenant in a different fashion than what the credo schema is; it is here that we apply the term dispensational to their thinking. Just because they say they appreciate the covenant in the same way via the 1689, does not make it so, else they would all be Paedobaptists. So for the sake of argument, I never meant to imply that they were a Darby type of (D)ispensationalist, but a type of hyper (d)ispensationalism when compared to those that hold to the WCF as they add dispensations that we would reject.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Gforce9 said:


> Now I know your Achilles heel.....watch out.


I see your Avatar is Gforce. Is this a warning you may apply a scientific G force to me?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Scott Bushey said:


> Just because they say they appreciate the covenant in the same way via the 1689, does not make it so, else they would all be Paedobaptists. So for the sake of argument, I never meant to imply that they were a Darby type of (D)ispensationalist, but a type of hyper (d)ispensationalism when compared to those that hold to the WCF as they add dispensations that we would reject.


As I said the 1689 confession develops the pactum salutis, the historia salutis and the ordo salutis so it has a definite Reformed construct. And it agrees with the WCF 7:1. Thus I am arguing the word dispensational is misleading and unhelpful. Perhaps the theological spectrum continuity vs discontinuity is more appropriate.

See also https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/is-1689-federalism-dispensational/. As I have said I find 1689 Federalism unconvincing, but the basic argument is helpful. I beieve the article is correct to conclude "On each of these _essential_ points, 1689 Federalism is not merely contrary to Dispensationalism; it is _contradictory_ to Dispensationalism. Its Christological (“spiritualizing”) hermeneutic “is indicative of a nondispensational approach” resulting in a typological view of Israel that fails “the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist.”

1689 Federalism is Anti-Dispensational (just ask a Dispensationalist)."


----------



## Gforce9

Stephen L Smith said:


> I see your Avatar is Gforce. Is this a warning you may apply a scientific G force to me?



No sir, but I might return the joke and, before you know it, North and South will be hurling jokes and insults and war may break out......


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Gforce9 said:


> before you know it, North and South will be hurling jokes and insults and war may break out


Not sure what you mean by North and South. I live in New Zealand - "down under"


----------



## Gforce9

Stephen L Smith said:


> Not sure what you mean by North and South. I live in New Zealand - "down under"



You're the South....like wayyyyyyyyy south!


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Gforce9 said:


> Brandon,
> Thanks for finding this. This isn't the interaction I had in mind, I believe this is the second or third go around for this topic. Rev. Winzer does reiterate, however, from what I recall, the substance of what he started earlier...thanks again!


Probably in this thread:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/critiques-of-pascal-denault.88262/#post-1091376


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> David,
> If I may: you stated that "...yet did not the CT Baptists agree to pretty much all items save for that thing though" (baptism of covenant children, I presume). The issue is not one of baptism. That is only a "symptom", if I may use the phrase. The real issue is the "covenantal-ness" of our differing theololgies. In other words, our (confessionally Reformed) baptism is "driven" by our covenantal theology. Baptism is not really a stand-alone issue to be argued. One must argue the "system" that undergirds the baptism.......


One can be a confessional Christian and still differ on the issues such as water baptism and church government, as still see God having but one saved body of people throughout the Bible.


----------



## Dachaser

Stephen L Smith said:


> As I said the 1689 confession develops the pactum salutis, the historia salutis and the ordo salutis. Therefore it does not "carve up the people of God".
> 
> You said humor. The Queens English is humour. Are you trying to "carve up" the Queens English. Sorry dear brother I could not resist


Reformed Confessing Baptist would agree in but one Body, Spiritual Israel, so why would RB be classified as Dispensational leaning then?


----------



## Dachaser

Stephen L Smith said:


> As I said the 1689 confession develops the pactum salutis, the historia salutis and the ordo salutis so it has a definite Reformed construct. And it agrees with the WCF 7:1. Thus I am arguing the word dispensational is misleading and unhelpful. Perhaps the theological spectrum continuity vs discontinuity is more appropriate.
> 
> See also https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/is-1689-federalism-dispensational/. As I have said I find 1689 Federalism unconvincing, but the basic argument is helpful. I beieve the article is correct to conclude "On each of these _essential_ points, 1689 Federalism is not merely contrary to Dispensationalism; it is _contradictory_ to Dispensationalism. Its Christological (“spiritualizing”) hermeneutic “is indicative of a nondispensational approach” resulting in a typological view of Israel that fails “the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist.”
> 
> 1689 Federalism is Anti-Dispensational (just ask a Dispensationalist)."


The point of just how new is the new Covenant to me seems to be where the real dividing line between us in CT seems to be.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> One can be a confessional Christian and still differ on the issues such as water baptism and church government, as still see God having but one saved body of people throughout the Bible.



David,
I'm not angry, but I took time to explain the issue isn't really baptism, but covenantalism, and you went right to baptism in your response. I agree we can disagree, but it isn't about baptism (directly), but about covenantalism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Gforce9

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Probably in this thread:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/critiques-of-pascal-denault.88262/#post-1091376



Thanks, Patrick.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> Reformed Confessing Baptist would agree in but one Body, Spiritual Israel, so why would RB be classified as Dispensational leaning then?


Just a few posts prior to your response is a pointer to a topic that may help you understand the issues, including that no one is "classifying" Reformed Baptists, but rather indicating that some aspects of their _covenantal_ hermeneutic may not escape an a relatively easy move towards what is commonly known as _dispensationalism_ today. 

Again, per my previous post, perhaps this will be useful:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/critiques-of-pascal-denault.88262/#post-1091376


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Gforce9 said:


> You're the South....like wayyyyyyyyy south!


Yes, down in Middle Earth. Pretty good here


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


> David,
> I'm not angry, but I took time to explain the issue isn't really baptism, but covenantalism, and you went right to baptism in your response. I agree we can disagree, but it isn't about baptism (directly), but about covenantalism.


Please see my post in # 227, as i think this is the core central issue concerning this topic we are now discussing.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Just a few posts prior to your response is a pointer to a topic that may help you understand the issues, including that no one is "classifying" Reformed Baptists, but rather indicating that some aspects of their _covenantal_ hermeneutic may not escape an a relatively easy move towards what is commonly known as _dispensationalism_ today.
> 
> Again, per my previous post, perhaps this will be useful:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/critiques-of-pascal-denault.88262/#post-1091376


This to me would really identify the main question that has to be answered is just how new was/is the New Covenant than itself?


----------



## Jeri Tanner

There has been some discussion on PB ON the idea of “testaments” when thinking about the one covenant of grace. If you read Hebrews in the KJV you’ll see how the translators sometimes translated the Greek word that way. If you do a PB search on “testament” and put MW in the “by member” field, some of that discussion may come up.


----------



## Cymro

I think of it after this wise. That it is not a new covenant ,for how can the covenant of grace that existed in the OT be altered for the NT? Rather it is a new administration of the same covenant of grace. As scaffolding and plastic screens shroud a building that is being refreshed and renewed, hides the building, but it is obviously by design and shape a building, -so it was, that the shadows and types that shrouded the covenant dimly indicated its existence. But when the scaffolding is taken down the building stands forth in its pristine glory. But it is the same building, the same structure, the same glorious ingenuity of the same great architect. The covenant emerges in the simplicity of the gospel. The newness is the stripping away of all the imageries, similutudes and types that were used for the church when it was in its minority, and the truth as it is in Jesus is set forth in all its glory and beauty.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Cymro said:


> That it is not a new covenant ,for how can the covenant of grace that existed in the OT be altered for the NT? Rather it is a new administration of the same covenant of grace.


A Reformed Baptist friend recently said to me that confessional Paedobaptists give the Lord's supper to believers based on the clear teaching of the New Testament 1 Cor 11:27 ff. He argued that Paedobaptists are inconsistent at this point re baptism, because the clear teaching of the New Testament is to repent and be baptised. He points out there are *more* commands to repent and be baptised than the command in 1 Cor 11:27 ff. How do you answer this specific argument re the relationship between Baptism and the Lord's supper.


----------



## Cymro

If I am understanding the question properly, then your “Reformed Baptist” is mixing up two positions that are different. The commands to repent and be baptised were directed in the preaching of the gospel to unbelieving adults.Whereas, (1Cor 11:27) is an instruction to the church in observing the ordinance of the Lord’s supper, and the necessity of examining themselves (v28) as to their spiritual state as Believers. So chalk and cheese.
It’s like saying that because the All blacks have beaten Wales so many times, then Wales should not play rugby! But we know we play it as it should be played.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Stephen L Smith said:


> A Reformed Baptist friend recently said to me that confessional Paedobaptists give the Lord's supper to believers based on the clear teaching of the New Testament 1 Cor 11:27 ff.


There's more to it than that. One verse might be enough, but the fact is that there's a whole theology of sacraments, and of the Lord's Supper in particular, that comprises "the clear teaching" of the New Testament whole Bible on the topic.

Are there* different prerequisites* for coming to the Supper, for different sorts of participants? I don't know of anyone who argues for such things, except for paedocommunion advocates. 1Cor.11:27, in the context of a teaching passage on the conduct of the Supper, is a strong argument for an unwaiverable requirement for all participants at the time it is served.



Stephen L Smith said:


> He argued that Paedobaptists are inconsistent at this point re baptism, because the clear teaching of the New Testament is to repent and be baptised. He points out there are *more* commands to repent and be baptised than the command in 1 Cor 11:27 ff. How do you answer this specific argument re the relationship between Baptism and the Lord's supper.


Assume (purely for the sake of argument) that infants should be baptized. Is it then reasonable that the NT historical books should contain one or numerous instances of evangelistic proclamation, which relate repentance/faith and baptism? What would be unreasonable about such a record?

Work out the requisite premise(s), so that the actual argument purporting to show: _infants shouldn't be baptized,_ follows from the record of evangelistic calls that include a summons to baptism.

If (for the sake of argument) infants should be baptized, still they are in no position to comprehend this call, or the summons, or bring themselves to conform to either. In which case, the prerequisites for a confessor's baptism and for an infant's baptism would have to differ. That is all that is needed to show that appeals to (several) evangelistic calls do not invalidate the PB argument.

This, by the way, does not mean that there are two (or more) baptisms, if the meaning of baptism has no difference in either case. But if a Baptist does not see how this can possibly be the case for those of the Presbyterian persuasion, then it is probably true to conclude (presuming his views are "standard") that Baptists and Presbyterians differ at least in part on their understanding of what baptism essentially is/does/means. This contrast also gets reflected in differences over ecclesiology.

To sum up, variation in the number of passages (which might contain imperatives, 1Cor.11:27 does not have; yet v28 does) to which one may appeal for support is not alone an indicator of the relative "strength" of an argument.

A simple test of some position (whether favorable or contrary) might be persuasive to someone already of a particular mind. But generally, those are some of the least compelling to those looking on from another angle.


----------



## Dachaser

Contra_Mundum said:


> There's more to it than that. One verse might be enough, but the fact is that there's a whole theology of sacraments, and of the Lord's Supper in particular, that comprises "the clear teaching of the New Testament whole Bible on the topic.
> 
> Are there* different prerequisites* for coming to the Supper, for different sorts of participants? I don't know of anyone who argues for such things, except for paedocommunion advocates. 1Cor.11:27, in the context of a teaching passage on the conduct of the Supper, is a strong argument for an unwaiverable requirement for all participants at the time it is served.
> 
> Assume (purely for the sake of argument) that infants should be baptized. Is it then reasonable that the NT historical books should contain one or numerous instances of evangelistic proclamation, which relate repentance/faith and baptism? What would be unreasonable about that?
> 
> Work out the requisite premise(s), so that the actual argument purporting to show: _infants shouldn't be baptized,_ follows from the record of evangelistic calls that include a summons to baptism.
> 
> If (for the sake of argument) infants should be baptized, still they are in no position to comprehend this call, or the summons, or bring themselves to conform to either. In which case, the prerequisites for a confessor's baptism and for an infant's baptism would have to differ. That is all that is needed to show that appeals to (several) evangelistic calls do not invalidate the PB argument.
> 
> This, by the way, does not mean that there are two (or more) baptisms, if the meaning of baptism has no difference in either case. But if a Baptist does not see how this can possibly be the case for those of the Presbyterian persuasion, then it is probably true to conclude (presuming his views are "standard") that Baptists and Presbyterians differ at least in part on their understanding of what baptism essentially is/does/means. This contrast also gets reflected in differences over ecclesiology.
> 
> To sum up, variation in the number of passages (which might contain imperatives, 1Cor.11:27 does not have one) to which one may appeal for support is not alone an indicator of the elative "strength" of an argument.
> 
> A simple test of some position (whether favorable or contrary) might be persuasive to someone already of a particular mind. But generally, those are some of the least compelling to those looking on from another angle.


Those whp would be able to partake of the Lord's Supper would be ones who have been saved, and whose lifestyle right now is not harboring unrepentant sinful practices.


----------



## Dachaser

Cymro said:


> I think of it after this wise. That it is not a new covenant ,for how can the covenant of grace that existed in the OT be altered for the NT? Rather it is a new administration of the same covenant of grace. As scaffolding and plastic screens shroud a building that is being refreshed and renewed, hides the building, but it is obviously by design and shape a building, -so it was, that the shadows and types that shrouded the covenant dimly indicated its existence. But when the scaffolding is taken down the building stands forth in its pristine glory. But it is the same building, the same structure, the same glorious ingenuity of the same great architect. The covenant emerges in the simplicity of the gospel. The newness is the stripping away of all the imageries, similutudes and types that were used for the church when it was in its minority, and the truth as it is in Jesus is set forth in all its glory and beauty.


Hebrews does lay to us though that we do a much better and much surer relationship with God now under the NC something that was not available to us until Messiah came, died, and was raised up again.


----------



## Dachaser

Cymro said:


> If I am understanding the question properly, then your “Reformed Baptist” is mixing up two positions that are different. The commands to repent and be baptised were directed in the preaching of the gospel to unbelieving adults.Whereas, (1Cor 11:27) is an instruction to the church in observing the ordinance of the Lord’s supper, and the necessity of examining themselves (v28) as to their spiritual state as Believers. So chalk and cheese.
> It’s like saying that because the All blacks have beaten Wales so many times, then Wales should not play rugby! But we know we play it as it should be played.


I think that the question was more to if we take the scripture command to have only these allowed to partake of Lord's Supper, why not be consistent and apply the commands regarding who is to be water baptized?


----------



## Cymro

How can it be a “surer relationship” when it is said of Abraham that he “staggered not at the promise of God, but was strong in faith,giving glory to God.” All the OT saints exercised faith, and we exercise the same faith. You are dichotomising the faith, the church and the covenant if you force this distinction.


----------



## Cymro

The playing of two different scenarios is a red herring. One is to the unbeliever the other is to the believer. We are to be in the right spiritual frame to partake of the elements, and to that end we must “examine”ourselves. Covenant children are restricted until they are of an age to examine themselves.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Cymro said:


> How can it be a “surer relationship” when it is said of Abraham that he “staggered not at the promise of God, but was strong in faith,giving glory to God.” All the OT saints exercised faith, and we exercise the same faith. You are dichotomising the faith, the church and the covenant if you force this distinction.


I am not forcing that distinction, as God Himself does in Hebrews 8:6.


----------



## Cymro

In order to be fair to you, read a Baptist perspective on Heb8:6, ie Dr Gill. The covenant is better as to its “manifestion which is more full and clear, and to its extent of administration.” I made that clear in an earlier post.


----------



## Dachaser

There are aspects that we now enjoy of the New Covenant, such as direct access to throne of God and the High priest interceding for us, that those under the old Covenant did not experience.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Cymro said:


> The commands to repent and be baptised were directed in the preaching of the gospel to unbelieving adults.Whereas, (1Cor 11:27) is an instruction to the church in observing the ordinance of the Lord’s supper, and the necessity of examining themselves (v28) as to their spiritual state as Believers. So chalk and cheese.


There are important similarities. Baptism is administered by an ordained minister of Word and sacrament. Also the Lord's supper is administered by an ordained minister of Word and sacrament. So it is consistent to say faith and repentance is an important prerequisite for *both* sacraments? I am still trying to think this through.



Cymro said:


> It’s like saying that because the All blacks have beaten Wales so many times, then Wales should not play rugby! But we know we play it as it should be played.


Don't you think Wales should stick to her supreme skill - i.e. singing? And let the All Blacks show the world how rugby should really be played


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Contra_Mundum said:


> There's more to it than that. One verse might be enough, but the fact is that there's a whole theology of sacraments





Contra_Mundum said:


> Assume (purely for the sake of argument) that infants should be baptized. Is it then reasonable that the NT historical books should contain one or numerous instances of evangelistic proclamation, which relate repentance/faith and baptism? What would be unreasonable about such a record?


I'm just trying to think through your argument Bruce. Baptists would argue that John the Baptist did bring in a change in redemptive history in the sense that the new covenant would be "repent and be baptized" and the new Testament would continue that theme. But the "you and your seed" provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant (in the paedobaptist view) are still in force. Feel free to expand on this. I am trying to piece the argument together.


----------



## Cymro

The position remains unchanged. The two references are to adults. If now you want to introduce children then the two ordinances require that they come to an age of being able to understand their covenant obligations and privileges. Or, to be able to examine themselves. They then also exercise faith and repentance. WCF on the Supper,” to be administered —only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.” And, “needfully discerning the Lord’s body.” Obviously their junior understanding is taken into account as compared to an adult. In baptism the WCF states, “infants descending from parents, either both or but one of them professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him are, in that respect, within the covenant, and to be baptised.” Children and adults are to “improve our baptism all our life long.”
Ah, when you watch the Welsh backline magically, entertainingly dancing through the opposition, then they are on song even when not in a choir! It’s not about forward power and “hits”, or being immersed in one objective, but in the finesse and spirit of the subject of delight.


----------



## Dachaser

Stephen L Smith said:


> I'm just trying to think through your argument Bruce. Baptists would argue that John the Baptist did bring in a change in redemptive history in the sense that the new covenant would be "repent and be baptized" and the new Testament would continue that theme. But the "you and your seed" provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant (in the paedobaptist view) are still in force. Feel free to expand on this. I am trying to piece the argument together.


Those who are part of the NC actually indeed would be just the redeemed of the Lord, as the Water baptism is the sign/symbol of what God has already done on their behalf for them.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Stephen L Smith said:


> I'm just trying to think through your argument Bruce. Baptists would argue that John the Baptist did bring in a change in redemptive history in the sense that the new covenant would be "repent and be baptized" and the new Testament would continue that theme. But the "you and your seed" provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant (in the paedobaptist view) are still in force. Feel free to expand on this. I am trying to piece the argument together.


And I'm trying to help you (and other readers) think for your own conclusion, putting together a valid argument by first spotting the disconnect between premise and conclusion in the original proposal. It could be that the conclusion is more valuable, and a better path to it found. Otherwise, it could be that the premise is sound, and a better conclusion should be reached.

Obviously, on this side we are not going to agree that the changes _announced _by JtB (he did not _bring in_ the changes of NC redemptive history, which are the exclusive prerogatives of Christ) that they were encapsulated in the expression: "repent and be baptized."

We reply: 1) repentance was integral to the Old Covenant to any and all participants, failures notwithstanding; and would be a special prior consideration for a convert.

2) Baptism has the same basic function re. the covenant administration in the new era as circumcision did in earlier ages. "Repent and be circumcised" would be appropriate phrasing for a similar call under evangelistic settings from Abraham down to the day of Christ. The expression "repent and be baptized" is not phrased as an absolute order-of-events, any more than "baptism of repentance for remission of sins" is any order-of-events.

3) Baptism is not such a "new thing" that baptism (though by Hebrew designation) is unknown prior to the NT.​
Therefore, to a paedobaptist practitioner, that which might seem to Baptist eyes to have some kind of inconsistency seems rather the opposite. JtB is saying things that aren't so radical that they should have little resonance with the church of his day.

When it comes to Pentecost, and we hear echoes of the Abrahamic promises in Peter's NT preaching (_I will be God to your children_), we recognize in the NC the same kind of faith union as was essential to what came before, though not identical in expression.

What is my goal in showing this? It is not to decide for or against the Baptist conclusion, or the Baptist premise. Theoretically, either one of them could still be accurate. It is simply to show that what may look like good reasoning to him doesn't appear so to another POV, and he might even be persuaded that it isn't either from his own POV.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Cymro said:


> The position remains unchanged. The two references are to adults. If now you want to introduce children then the two ordinances require that they come to an age of being able to understand their covenant obligations and privileges. Or, to be able to examine themselves. They then also exercise faith and repentance.





Contra_Mundum said:


> What is my goal in showing this? It is not to decide for or against the Baptist conclusion, or the Baptist premise. Theoretically, either one of them could still be accurate. It is simply to show that what may look like good reasoning to him doesn't appear so to another POV, and he might even be persuaded that it isn't either from his own POV.


Thanks Brothers for your input. I realise I have to think about this at a deeper level. I'll continue my reading of Blake's "Covenant of God".


----------

