# Is the New Covenant "unbreakable"



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

We often hear from credo-baptists that the New Covenant is unbreakable. When they try to prove this they point out that famous passage in Jeremiah:



> Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD, Jer. 31:31,32.


They infer that the New Covenant is unbreakable because the Mosaic Covenant was broken, and this New Covenant is "not according" to that older Covenant. But, is such an inference legitimate? To make such an inference from Scripture without further proof is rather shakey theology. Are there other passages in Scripture that speak more clearly about the New Covenant being unbreakable? It seems to me that the Covenant of Grace/Redemption is unbreakable since it is made between the Economic Trinity on the behalf of the Elect.

Another inference they make is that Paedobaptism is out of the New Covenant because this New Covenant is unbreakable. They reference Paul's use of Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 8. However, when Paul starts applying the principles of Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews chapter 9 the idea of baptism is strangely missing. If Paul was a credo-baptist, then would this not be the perfect time for him to point out that baptism is now only for believing members of the Church? Yet, despite all the attempts of credo-baptists to exclude Paedobaptism in Hebrews 8-9, such is sadly lacking.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## elnwood

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> We often hear from credo-baptists that the New Covenant is unbreakable. When they try to prove this they point out that famous passage in Jeremiah:
> 
> 
> They infer that the New Covenant is unbreakable because the Mosaic Covenant was broken, and this New Covenant is "not according" to that older Covenant. But, is such an inference legitimate? To make such an inference from Scripture without further proof is rather shakey theology. Are there other passages in Scripture that speak more clearly about the New Covenant being unbreakable? It seems to me that the Covenant of Grace/Redemption is unbreakable since it is made between the Economic Trinity on the behalf of the Elect.



I think Scripture only needs to teach something once in order for it to be legitimate. The discussion should revolve around correct interpretation of this passage. There is such a strong attestation of permanence in the passage (writing laws into hearts and minds, etc.) that the passage should be able to stand on its own.



CalvinandHodges said:


> Another inference they make is that Paedobaptism is out of the New Covenant because this New Covenant is unbreakable. They reference Paul's use of Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 8. However, when Paul starts applying the principles of Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews chapter 9 the idea of baptism is strangely missing. If Paul was a credo-baptist, then would this not be the perfect time for him to point out that baptism is now only for believing members of the Church? Yet, despite all the attempts of credo-baptists to exclude Paedobaptism in Hebrews 8-9, such is sadly lacking.



If the New Covenant is unbreakable, and baptism is specifically a New Covenant ordinance given to symbolize New Covenant membership, then credo-baptism is the consequence.

You are making an argument from silence in saying that the passage would mention credobaptism if that was the belief. Both sides, in fact, makes arguments from silence. The credobaptist argues that if children were to be baptized into the New Covenant, the NT would mention it. The paedobaptist argue that if children were no longer part of the covenant, it would be stated.

The difference lies in whether the new covenant is actually "new," or whether it is simply a continuation of an older covenant. I would argue that the new covenant is actually new -- in addition to the Jeremiah passage, Christ institutes the Lord's Supper by saying the cup is the "new covenant."

The New Covenant is given new signs (baptism and the Lord's supper), so I don't think we can take for granted that the recipients will be the same as well. Some paedos argue that we would need an explicit statement to say children were removed from the covenant, but if the covenant is in fact new, then no "removal" is necessary. They were never in the New Covenant to begin with, so they don't need to be removed.


----------



## elnwood

I flipped through Richard Phillip's commentary on Hebrews, and he actually look the Baptistic interpretation -- that what was spoken of in Hebrews 8 was in fact regeneration and thus unbreakable.

Why he doesn't follow through and become a Baptist, I don't know.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

elnwood said:


> I think Scripture only needs to teach something once in order for it to be legitimate. The discussion should revolve around correct interpretation of this passage. There is such a strong attestation of permanence in the passage (writing laws into hearts and minds, etc.) that the passage should be able to stand on its own.
> 
> 
> 
> If the New Covenant is unbreakable, and baptism is specifically a New Covenant ordinance given to symbolize New Covenant membership, then credo-baptism is the consequence.
> 
> You are making an argument from silence in saying that the passage would mention credobaptism if that was the belief. Both sides, in fact, makes arguments from silence. The credobaptist argues that if children were to be baptized into the New Covenant, the NT would mention it. The paedobaptist argue that if children were no longer part of the covenant, it would be stated.
> 
> The difference lies in whether the new covenant is actually "new," or whether it is simply a continuation of an older covenant. I would argue that the new covenant is actually new -- in addition to the Jeremiah passage, Christ institutes the Lord's Supper by saying the cup is the "new covenant."
> 
> The New Covenant is given new signs (baptism and the Lord's supper), so I don't think we can take for granted that the recipients will be the same as well. Some paedos argue that we would need an explicit statement to say children were removed from the covenant, but if the covenant is in fact new, then no "removal" is necessary. They were never in the New Covenant to begin with, so they don't need to be removed.



OK - but does the Lord's Supper have no parallel in the Old Testament? Or, in other words, is there such a distinction between the Old and New Testaments that the "shadows" have no meaning whatsoever? If so, then why even read the Old Testament? The Passover meal is a "shadow" of the Lord's Supper is it not?

Every single doctrine of the New Covenant can be found "shadowed" in the Old Testament: We have the Faith of Abraham, Rom. 4:3; The Trinity can be derived from the Names of God: Elohim and Yahweh. Where, then, is Believer's Baptism shadowed?

Paul the Apostle points out that all the people of Israel were "baptized" when they made the Red Sea Crossing. That they all ate the same spiritual meat and drank all the same spiritual drink that New Testament believers do:



> Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual mean; and did all drink the same same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ, 1 Cor. 10:1ff


This is an example of Paedobaptism in the New Testament for it is obvious that the Exodus included the children of Israel. And Paul is writing for the benefit of New Covenant believers.

I don't think I am arguing from silence when I mentioned Hebrews 9 as Paul's application of Jer. 31. The Baptist argues that Jer. 31's view of the "unbreakable" Covenant excludes the children of believers. You wrote:



> If the New Covenant is unbreakable, and baptism is specifically a New Covenant ordinance given to symbolize New Covenant membership, then credo-baptism is the consequence.


That is a really big "if." Do you know any doctrine of Scripture that is established by an appeal to infer a matter *from only one verse in Scripture?* That the very interpretation which Paul places on Jeremiah 31 does not substantiate the credo-baptist position?

If you want to call the Covenant of Grace/Redemption "the New Covenant" then I would agree with you, but there are three sound reasons why this is not the case:

1) You have no Scripture warrent for it.

2) You would then be forced to baptize only the Elect.

3) Simon the Sorceror was baptized into the New Covenant, yet, he broke it.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## CalvinandHodges

elnwood said:


> I flipped through Richard Phillip's commentary on Hebrews, and he actually look the Baptistic interpretation -- that what was spoken of in Hebrews 8 was in fact regeneration and thus unbreakable.
> 
> Why he doesn't follow through and become a Baptist, I don't know.



Maybe you should read what he says in chapter 9?


----------



## Herald

This subject was discussed at length *HERE.*


----------



## elnwood

CalvinandHodges said:


> OK - but does the Lord's Supper have no parallel in the Old Testament? Or, in other words, is there such a distinction between the Old and New Testaments that the "shadows" have no meaning whatsoever? If so, then why even read the Old Testament? The Passover meal is a "shadow" of the Lord's Supper is it not?



It is not quite proper to say that Passover is a shadow of the Lord's Supper. It is more proper to say that Passover is a foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice given to us, and the Lord's Supper is a commemoration of the same sacrifice. There's not a one to one correlation either. The giving of manna as food is also a foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice given to us.



CalvinandHodges said:


> Every single doctrine of the New Covenant can be found "shadowed" in the Old Testament: We have the Faith of Abraham, Rom. 4:3; The Trinity can be derived from the Names of God: Elohim and Yahweh. Where, then, is Believer's Baptism shadowed?
> 
> Paul the Apostle points out that all the people of Israel were "baptized" when they made the Red Sea Crossing. That they all ate the same spiritual meat and drank all the same spiritual drink that New Testament believers do:
> 
> 
> This is an example of Paedobaptism in the New Testament for it is obvious that the Exodus included the children of Israel. And Paul is writing for the benefit of New Covenant believers.



The recipients of the shadows of the OT need not parallel the recipients of the shadows of the NT. If you argue so, you probably ought to practice paedocommunion because the children of Israel participated in Passover and eating manna.



CalvinandHodges said:


> I don't think I am arguing from silence when I mentioned Hebrews 9 as Paul's application of Jer. 31. The Baptist argues that Jer. 31's view of the "unbreakable" Covenant excludes the children of believers. You wrote:
> 
> 
> That is a really big "if." Do you know any doctrine of Scripture that is established by an appeal to infer a matter *from only one verse in Scripture?* That the very interpretation which Paul places on Jeremiah 31 does not substantiate the credo-baptist position?
> 
> If you want to call the Covenant of Grace/Redemption "the New Covenant" then I would agree with you, but there are three sound reasons why this is not the case:
> 
> 1) You have no Scripture warrent for it.
> 
> 2) You would then be forced to baptize only the Elect.
> 
> 3) Simon the Sorceror was baptized into the New Covenant, yet, he broke it.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH



1) You previously wrote "from one verse of Scripture" (and actually it's two, Jeremiah and Hebrews), and now you say NO Scripture warrant?

2 and 3) You're assuming that baptism actually brings someone into the New Covenant, which is a paedobaptist/OT idea, not a credobaptist view.

Regeneration by the Holy Spirit is what brings someone into the New Covenant. That is why the Spirit is referred to as a "seal" (2 Cor. 1:22, Eph. 1:13, Eph. 4:30). Whereas in the OT circumcision is called both a sign and a seal, and thus actually brings someone into the Old Covenant, in the NT the Spirit is the seal that actually puts someone into the New Covenant. Baptism is the sign, but not the seal. Baptism is never referred to as a seal.

Here's a question for you: Hebrews 12:24 says that Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant. Thus, those in the new covenant have Jesus as a mediator.

1) Can an unregenerate person have Jesus as a mediator?
2) Can a person who has Jesus as a mediator lose Jesus as a mediator? (Perseverance of the saints)

I would hope that you would answer no to both questions. If Jesus is the mediator for those in the New Covenant, wouldn't you conclude that the New Covenant is unbreakable?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

elnwood said:


> It is not quite proper to say that Passover is a shadow of the Lord's Supper. It is more proper to say that Passover is a foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice given to us, and the Lord's Supper is a commemoration of the same sacrifice. There's not a one to one correlation either. The giving of manna as food is also a foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice given to us.
> 
> 
> 
> The recipients of the shadows of the OT need not parallel the recipients of the shadows of the NT. If you argue so, you probably ought to practice paedocommunion because the children of Israel participated in Passover and eating manna.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) You previously wrote "from one verse of Scripture" (and actually it's two, Jeremiah and Hebrews), and now you say NO Scripture warrant?
> 
> 2 and 3) You're assuming that baptism actually brings someone into the New Covenant, which is a paedobaptist/OT idea, not a credobaptist view.
> 
> Regeneration by the Holy Spirit is what brings someone into the New Covenant. That is why the Spirit is referred to as a "seal" (2 Cor. 1:22, Eph. 1:13, Eph. 4:30). Whereas in the OT circumcision is called both a sign and a seal, and thus actually brings someone into the Old Covenant, in the NT the Spirit is the seal that actually puts someone into the New Covenant. Baptism is the sign, but not the seal. Baptism is never referred to as a seal.
> 
> Here's a question for you: Hebrews 12:24 says that Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant. Thus, those in the new covenant have Jesus as a mediator.
> 
> 1) Can an unregenerate person have Jesus as a mediator?
> 2) Can a person who has Jesus as a mediator lose Jesus as a mediator? (Perseverance of the saints)
> 
> I would hope that you would answer no to both questions. If Jesus is the mediator for those in the New Covenant, wouldn't you conclude that the New Covenant is unbreakable?



Greetings:

Well, the Lord's Supper was first performed during the Passover meal. Both the Passover and the Lord's Supper signify the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross - we can both agree on that. As far as the one-to-one differences are concerned we have New Testament warrant to forbid certain people from the table, 1 Cor. 11:27-32. Where is the clear New Testament Scripture warrant that fences children out of Baptism?

Yes, I say that there is no Scripture warrant for credo-baptism, because the Baptists abuse Jer. 31:31ff. The reasons are as follows:

1) They claim the New Covenant is "unbreakable," but that is an inference from the phrase, "which covenant they broke." This does not mean that the New Covenant is "unbreakable." The reference to the covenant that they broke was the Mosaic covenant:



> Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, Jer. 31:32a[


When the Apostle Paul comments about Jer. 31, in Hebrews chapters 8 and 9, he points out that the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ puts an end to the Mosaic Ceremonial laws:



> But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us, Heb. 9:11,12.


The giving of the Law at Sinai was the Covenant of Works, and it was that covenant that they broke, Ex. 32:19,20; Gal. 4:24ff. Jeremiah contrasts this Covenant of Works with the Covenant of Redemption/Grace. The nature of this New Covenant is expounded by Baptist theologian John Gill at Jeremiah 31:



> by this covenant is meant the covenant of grace; called new, not because newly made, for it was made with the elect in Christ from everlasting; so early was Christ set up as the Mediator of it; and so early were promises made, and blessings given, to them in him: nor because newly revealed; for it was made known to all the saints, more or less, under the former dispensation, particularly to David, to Abraham, yea, to our first parents immediately after the fall, though more clearly manifested under the Gospel dispensation; but because of its new mode of exhibition; not by types, and shadow, and sacrifices, as formerly; but by the ministry of the word, and the administration of Gospel ordinances; and in distinction from the former covenant, which is done away, as to the mode of it; and because it is a famous covenant, an excellent one, a better covenant, best of all; better than the covenant of works, and even better than the covenant of grace, under the former administration; in the clear manifestation and extensive application of it; and in the ratification of it by the blood of Christ; because it provides and promises new things, as a new heart, and a new spirit; to which may be added, that it may be called new, because it is always new; it continues, it stands firm, as Kimchi observes, and shall not be made void; it will never be succeeded nor antiquated by any other covenant, or any other mode of administration of it, Commentaries, vol 5, pg. 578.


The Old Testament Covenants were breakable insofar as they represented the Covenant of Works. For all, Elect and non-Elect alike, break this Covenant. That was the lesson Israel learned at Sinai. Insofar as the New Covenant contains both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Redemption it is therefore breakable in the same fashion that the Old Testament covenants were breakable.

We have warrant to believe this from the New Testament:

The Apostle Paul seems to think that there is a work of the Spirit of God in the heart of man that is not unto Salvation, but makes him taste of it:



> For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift; and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost. And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come. If they shall fall away, to renew them again into repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame, Hebrews 6:4-6.


We have examples of such men throughout all of Scripture: Saul the King, Judas the Betrayer, Simon the Sorcerer, and Demas. Paul, in the very context of the New Covenant, in Hebrews 10 also relates:



> For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses. 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? Hebrews 10:26-29.


Not only does the Bible relate persons who have so broken the New Covenant, but Baptist John Bunyan also relates, in the Pilgrim's Progress, the true story of the man in the Iron Cage. Here is the editor's note:



> There is great reason to suppose that the man in the iron cage, at the Interpreter's house, alludes to an apostate, one John Child. He had been a Baptist minister, and was born at Bedford in 1638 ... From a dread of persecution he conformed to the Church of England, and he may be the person referred to in Bunyan's 'Defense of Justification,' who said, "If the devil should preach, I would hear him, before I would suffer persecution." Works of John Bunyan, Banner of Truth Trust, 1991, vol. 3, pg. 72,73.


Thus, for the credo-baptists to say that the New Covenant is unbreakable is not an accurate understanding of the New Testament. A person can be baptized into the New Covenant, "taste the goodness of the Lord," made "partakers of the Holy Spirit," and "receive the knowledge of the truth," yet, "count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing," and be forever damned in hell. God allowing such non-Elect people into the New Covenant for the eternal praise of His glory.

2) The second problem with the credo-baptist intepretation of Jeremiah is found here:



> No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest" (v. 34a);


Is this a manifestation of the New Covenant? Why then would Paul write this:



> And he gave some, apostles, and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers, Eph. 4:11


If in the New Covenant we are no longer going to teach our brothers or neighbors about the Lord, then where is Evangelism? Why have Pastors and Teachers? Attendance at church should only be for fellowship, and not for the preaching and hearing of God's Word, because _they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest._ The credo-baptist view leads to hyper-calvinism not Reformed Orthodoxy.

3) Credo-baptists do not use "two verses" because Hebrews 8 is simply a restating of Jeremiah 31. They truly only have one verse that proves this point of theirs. Given the context of Hebrews 8 and 9 their interpretation of it fails.

Finally, the strength of the credo-baptist argument falls on their statements that since the "New Covenant" is a far more glorious manifestation of the Covenant of Redemption, it therefore follows that we should baptize believers only, because all of the Elect are believers. Children of believers, because they have not professed faith in Christ, are not to be baptized because they are incapable of faith.

The argument against this is manifold:

1) The argument is based on an inference from theology, and not on any clear Scriptural warrant.

2) Children of believers are considered members of the New Covenant because their believing parent(s) represent them as such before the Throne of Grace. This is Federal Theology at work. We have clear Scripture warrant to believe this:

A) The Pauline interpretation of the 5th Commandment clearly states it, Eph. 6:1-4, i.e. "the nurture and admonition of the Lord."

B) The Bible clearly states that the believing parent(s) imparts "holiness" to their children, 1 Cor. 7:14. Nor is this abrogated because an "unbelieving spouse" is also "sanctified." Paul's argument is that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified, not for his/her sake, but for the sake of the child:



> For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife sanctified by the husband: otherwise were your children unclean; but now they are holy.


The child, then, is considered "holy" not because he/she believes, but because their parent(s) believe. If they are considered "holy," then how can one refuse baptism?

C) The Bible clearly tells us that the promises of the New Covenant are for believers, and their children:



> 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, Acts 2:39.


Since the "many as the Lord our God shall call" includes "You" it then must include "Your children" and "all that are afar off" as well. Otherwise Peter would not be making sense. Peter had just preached a sermon calling all within his voice to "Repent and be Baptized." Peter's words and actions are inconsistent with credo-baptism.

D) In three distinct passages of the Bible we are told that the children of believers are members of the Kingdom of Heaven, Matt. 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16. Though Jesus may be using these children as an example of the type of person who is a member of the Kingdom of Heaven, there are four points which suggest that he means more:

First, he lays his hands on them. Though this is not baptism it is clear that He means more here concerning the children of believers than a bare example.

Second, his words are a comfort to the godly parents who brought their children to him to be blessed.

Third, The implication is that children are capable of believing in Jesus Christ. If the Second Person of the Trinity - the Son of God Himself - can become incarnate in an infant, then why cannot we suppose our children capable of faith in Christ? There is nothing in the passages that would rule out a more literal interpretation.

Fourth, Since Jesus is referring to the children of believers as members of the Kingdom of Heaven, then what would prevent them from being baptized? Which is greater Heaven or Earth?

Therefore, since believers and their chidren were circumcised in the Old Testament, there is no bar to baptizing believers and their children. There are continunities and discontinunites between the Old and New Covenants. The baptism of children is not a discontinunity.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## CDM

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> Well, the Lord's Supper was first performed during the Passover meal. Both the Passover and the Lord's Supper signify the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross - we can both agree on that. As far as the one-to-one differences are concerned we have New Testament warrant to forbid certain people from the table, 1 Cor. 11:27-32. Where is the clear New Testament Scripture warrant that fences children out of Baptism?
> 
> Yes, I say that there is no Scripture warrant for credo-baptism, because the Baptists abuse Jer. 31:31ff. The reasons are as follows:
> 
> 1) They claim the New Covenant is "unbreakable," but that is an inference from the phrase, "which covenant they broke." This does not mean that the New Covenant is "unbreakable." The reference to the covenant that they broke was the Mosaic covenant:
> 
> 
> When the Apostle Paul comments about Jer. 31, in Hebrews chapters 8 and 9, he points out that the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ puts an end to the Mosaic Ceremonial laws:
> 
> 
> The giving of the Law at Sinai was the Covenant of Works, and it was that covenant that they broke, Ex. 32:19,20; Gal. 4:24ff. Jeremiah contrasts this Covenant of Works with the Covenant of Redemption/Grace. The nature of this New Covenant is expounded by Baptist theologian John Gill at Jeremiah 31:
> 
> 
> The Old Testament Covenants were breakable insofar as they represented the Covenant of Works. For all, Elect and non-Elect alike, break this Covenant. That was the lesson Israel learned at Sinai. Insofar as the New Covenant contains both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Redemption it is therefore breakable in the same fashion that the Old Testament covenants were breakable.
> 
> We have warrant to believe this from the New Testament:
> 
> The Apostle Paul seems to think that there is a work of the Spirit of God in the heart of man that is not unto Salvation, but makes him taste of it:
> 
> 
> We have examples of such men throughout all of Scripture: Saul the King, Judas the Betrayer, Simon the Sorcerer, and Demas. Paul, in the very context of the New Covenant, in Hebrews 10 also relates:
> 
> 
> Not only does the Bible relate persons who have so broken the New Covenant, but Baptist John Bunyan also relates, in the Pilgrim's Progress, the true story of the man in the Iron Cage. Here is the editor's note:
> 
> 
> Thus, for the credo-baptists to say that the New Covenant is unbreakable is not an accurate understanding of the New Testament. A person can be baptized into the New Covenant, "taste the goodness of the Lord," made "partakers of the Holy Spirit," and "receive the knowledge of the truth," yet, "count the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing," and be forever damned in hell. God allowing such non-Elect people into the New Covenant for the eternal praise of His glory.
> 
> 2) The second problem with the credo-baptist intepretation of Jeremiah is found here:
> 
> 
> Is this a manifestation of the New Covenant? Why then would Paul write this:
> 
> 
> If in the New Covenant we are no longer going to teach our brothers or neighbors about the Lord, then where is Evangelism? Why have Pastors and Teachers? Attendance at church should only be for fellowship, and not for the preaching and hearing of God's Word, because _they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest._ The credo-baptist view leads to hyper-calvinism not Reformed Orthodoxy.
> 
> 3) Credo-baptists do not use "two verses" because Hebrews 8 is simply a restating of Jeremiah 31. They truly only have one verse that proves this point of theirs. Given the context of Hebrews 8 and 9 their interpretation of it fails.
> 
> Finally, the strength of the credo-baptist argument falls on their statements that since the "New Covenant" is a far more glorious manifestation of the Covenant of Redemption, it therefore follows that we should baptize believers only, because all of the Elect are believers. Children of believers, because they have not professed faith in Christ, are not to be baptized because they are incapable of faith.
> 
> The argument against this is manifold:
> 
> 1) The argument is based on an inference from theology, and not on any clear Scriptural warrant.
> 
> 2) Children of believers are considered members of the New Covenant because their believing parent(s) represent them as such before the Throne of Grace. This is Federal Theology at work. We have clear Scripture warrant to believe this:
> 
> A) The Pauline interpretation of the 5th Commandment clearly states it, Eph. 6:1-4, i.e. "the nurture and admonition of the Lord."
> 
> B) The Bible clearly states that the believing parent(s) imparts "holiness" to their children, 1 Cor. 7:14. Nor is this abrogated because an "unbelieving spouse" is also "sanctified." Paul's argument is that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified, not for his/her sake, but for the sake of the child:
> 
> 
> The child, then, is considered "holy" not because he/she believes, but because their parent(s) believe. If they are considered "holy," then how can one refuse baptism?
> 
> C) The Bible clearly tells us that the promises of the New Covenant are for believers, and their children:
> 
> 
> Since the "many as the Lord our God shall call" includes "You" it then must include "Your children" and "all that are afar off" as well. Otherwise Peter would not be making sense. Peter had just preached a sermon calling all within his voice to "Repent and be Baptized." Peter's words and actions are inconsistent with credo-baptism.
> 
> D) In three distinct passages of the Bible we are told that the children of believers are members of the Kingdom of Heaven, Matt. 19:14, Mark 10:14, Luke 18:16. Though Jesus may be using these children as an example of the type of person who is a member of the Kingdom of Heaven, there are four points which suggest that he means more:
> 
> First, he lays his hands on them. Though this is not baptism it is clear that He means more here concerning the children of believers than a bare example.
> 
> Second, his words are a comfort to the godly parents who brought their children to him to be blessed.
> 
> Third, The implication is that children are capable of believing in Jesus Christ. If the Second Person of the Trinity - the Son of God Himself - can become incarnate in an infant, then why cannot we suppose our children capable of faith in Christ? There is nothing in the passages that would rule out a more literal interpretation.
> 
> Fourth, Since Jesus is referring to the children of believers as members of the Kingdom of Heaven, then what would prevent them from being baptized? Which is greater Heaven or Earth?
> 
> Therefore, since believers and their chidren were circumcised in the Old Testament, there is no bar to baptizing believers and their children. There are continunities and discontinunites between the Old and New Covenants. The baptism of children is not a discontinunity.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> -CH



Excellent, brother.  Quite succinct.

In one of the past threads about Jer 31, someone (a Baptist) was arguing that Hebrews 10(esp. 26-31), and related passages, were all hypothetical threats from God. 

Is there a difference between hypothetical threats and empty threats?


----------



## Calvibaptist

CalvinandHodges said:


> 1) They claim the New Covenant is "unbreakable," but that is an inference from the phrase, "which covenant they broke." This does not mean that the New Covenant is "unbreakable." The reference to the covenant that they broke was the Mosaic covenant:



WRONG! The claim that the New Covenant is unbreakable is not just based on that phrase in Jeremiah. Although you would think that would be enough. Follow the logic of the verse. The New Covenant that God will make is not like the covenant God made with their fathers. How is it not like that covenant? Jeremiah gives a few ways:

1) It is made with the house of Judah and the house of Israel
2) It will take place "after those days," which is after the remnant returns.
3) They broke the original covenant, though God was a husband to them.
4) The New Covenant will consist of God putting the Law in their minds, rather than on tablets of stone
5) The New Covenant will consist of God writing the Law in their hearts, rather than on tablets of stone
6) He will be their God and they will be their people
7) Everyone will know God from the least to the greatest
8) God will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more

Now, rather than jump into dispensationalism, like a lot of people, let's keep the NT view of this. The remnant of the house of Judah and Israel (which according to Paul is only the elect Jew and Gentile) are brought into covenant with God under the New Covenant. It seems pretty clear from these descriptions that this covenant has no "if" clauses attached like the Mosaic Covenant or the original Covenant of Works with Adam.

So, the claim is also based on Covenant Theology and the types of covenants. The Noahic, Adamic, Davidic, and New Covenant are all grant covenants. They are covenants made by God, with God as the surety of keeping it.

There are two (at least) theological reasons from the New Testament that the New Covenant is unbreakable:

1) It is the blood of Jesus that is shed as a ratification of the New Covenant. Since His blood only need be shed once, and it perfectly satisfies God, there is no possibility that another sacrifice would be needed because of a broken covenant.

In discussing the difference between the New Covenant and the Old in Hebrews 9, the writer says:

Hebrews 9:9-12 - It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience -- 10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. 11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

Keep in mind that the writer to the Hebrews relates the New Covenant to Redemption! This is not something Baptists have made up. Hebrews says the New Covenant involves the forgiveness of sins (just like Jeremiah did).

Hebrews 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 

2) It is the righteousness of Christ that is the basis for our participation in the New Covenant. No matter what we do, we are considered righteous because of Christ, who became our Law-Keeper. He kept all the stipulations of the New Covenant, so we can't possibly break it.

Hebrews 7:28 - 8:2 or the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever. 8:1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.


----------



## 5solasmom

Calvibaptist said:


> 1) It is made with the house of Judah and the house of Israel



Just one comment on this.

The house of Israel (used throughout the OT) refers to the _whole covenant people of God_, including children and infants.


----------



## Calvibaptist

5solasmom said:


> Just one comment on this.
> 
> The house of Israel (used throughout the OT) refers to the _whole covenant people of God_, including children and infants.



Agreed. Normally. But in the context of Jeremiah, the point is that the promise was to both kingdoms, both parts of Israel, the Northern (Israel) kingdom and the Southern (Judah) kingdom. In a round-a-bout way, it is the same thing as what you are saying, but God, through Jeremiah, uses both terms to encompass what is normally just called house of Israel.

As far as it including infants and children, I agree that under the Mosaic Covenant, that term included both. But the New Covenant is different in that it includes only those who have been born again (which would be spiritual infants and children). The New Covenant is primarily internal with some external applications while the Old (Mosaic) Covenant was primarily external (for the nation) with internal applications as well. In fact, the New Covenant term includes Gentiles (spiritual descendants of Abraham) as well as Israelites (physical descendants of Abraham). This is another area where the term is re-defined slightly under the New Covenant.

The continuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is not that children are automatically included. The continuity, according to Romans 11, is that Gentiles are grafted in to the Abrahamic promise. Why are they grafted in? Because they are physically born into a family with believing parents? NO. Because they are of the faith of Abraham. Because they are spiritually born into a family, the family of God.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Calvibaptist said:


> WRONG! The claim that the New Covenant is unbreakable is not just based on that phrase in Jeremiah. Although you would think that would be enough. Follow the logic of the verse. The New Covenant that God will make is not like the covenant God made with their fathers. How is it not like that covenant? Jeremiah gives a few ways:
> 
> 1) It is made with the house of Judah and the house of Israel
> 2) It will take place "after those days," which is after the remnant returns.
> 3) They broke the original covenant, though God was a husband to them.
> 4) The New Covenant will consist of God putting the Law in their minds, rather than on tablets of stone
> 5) The New Covenant will consist of God writing the Law in their hearts, rather than on tablets of stone
> 6) He will be their God and they will be their people
> 7) Everyone will know God from the least to the greatest
> 8) God will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more
> 
> Now, rather than jump into dispensationalism, like a lot of people, let's keep the NT view of this. The remnant of the house of Judah and Israel (which according to Paul is only the elect Jew and Gentile) are brought into covenant with God under the New Covenant. It seems pretty clear from these descriptions that this covenant has no "if" clauses attached like the Mosaic Covenant or the original Covenant of Works with Adam.
> 
> So, the claim is also based on Covenant Theology and the types of covenants. The Noahic, Adamic, Davidic, and New Covenant are all grant covenants. They are covenants made by God, with God as the surety of keeping it.
> 
> There are two (at least) theological reasons from the New Testament that the New Covenant is unbreakable:
> 
> 1) It is the blood of Jesus that is shed as a ratification of the New Covenant. Since His blood only need be shed once, and it perfectly satisfies God, there is no possibility that another sacrifice would be needed because of a broken covenant.
> 
> In discussing the difference between the New Covenant and the Old in Hebrews 9, the writer says:
> 
> Hebrews 9:9-12 - It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience -- 10 concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. 11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
> 
> Keep in mind that the writer to the Hebrews relates the New Covenant to Redemption! This is not something Baptists have made up. Hebrews says the New Covenant involves the forgiveness of sins (just like Jeremiah did).
> 
> Hebrews 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
> 
> 2) It is the righteousness of Christ that is the basis for our participation in the New Covenant. No matter what we do, we are considered righteous because of Christ, who became our Law-Keeper. He kept all the stipulations of the New Covenant, so we can't possibly break it.
> 
> Hebrews 7:28 - 8:2 or the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever. 8:1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.



Greetings:

We see in Calvibaptists reply more argument from theology rather than from Scripture. He claims that the New Covenant is unbreakable, yet, it was clearly pointed out that there were people in the New Covenant who broke it:



> The Apostle Paul seems to think that there is a work of the Spirit of God in the heart of man that is not unto Salvation, but makes him taste of it:
> 
> For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift; and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost. And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come. If they shall fall away, to renew them again into repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame, Hebrews 6:4-6.
> 
> We have examples of such men throughout all of Scripture: Saul the King, Judas the Betrayer, Simon the Sorcerer, and Demas. Paul, in the very context of the New Covenant, in Hebrews 10 also relates:
> 
> For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses. 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? Hebrews 10:26-29.
> 
> Not only does the Bible relate persons who have so broken the New Covenant, but Baptist John Bunyan also relates, in the Pilgrim's Progress, the true story of the man in the Iron Cage. Here is the editor's note:
> 
> There is great reason to suppose that the man in the iron cage, at the Interpreter's house, alludes to an apostate, one John Child. He had been a Baptist minister, and was born at Bedford in 1638 ... From a dread of persecution he conformed to the Church of England, and he may be the person referred to in Bunyan's 'Defense of Justification,' who said, "If the devil should preach, I would hear him, before I would suffer persecution." Works of John Bunyan, Banner of Truth Trust, 1991, vol. 3, pg. 72,73.


This here exposes the innaccuracy of the credo-baptist thought. For there are members of the New Covenant who have "tasted the good word of God," they have "the knowledge of the truth," and they have "counted the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing." What "blood of the Covenant" is Paul talking about but the New Covenant - the blood of Jesus Christ?

Calvibaptist's views are Dispensational in nature - despite his attempts to wrap it up in Covenant (Federal) theological language. The differences between the Old and the New are such that there can be no similarities. Notice his point here:



> Keep in mind that the writer to the Hebrews relates the New Covenant to Redemption! This is not something Baptists have made up. Hebrews says the New Covenant involves the forgiveness of sins (just like Jeremiah did).


The problem with this is that Redemption is implied in every covenant that God makes with man:

In Adam: the protoevangelism in Gen. 3:15, and the coats of skins as a type of the sacrifice of Jesus, Gen. 3:21.

Noah: the Ark and the Covenant of Preservation. The Covenant God makes with Noah and every living thing is called "the everlasting Covenant," Gen. 9:16. God redeemed Noah and the animals from the Flood, Hebrews 11:7; 2 Peter 2:5 - just as Jesus redeems His people.

Abraham: His faith was wellpleasing to God, Gen. 15. That the token of this "everlasing covenant," Gen. 17:7, is circumcision, vs. 10.

Moses: What we are discussing: The Ceremonial laws were done away with by the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Redemption was prefigured in the Ceremonial law - that is what Jeremiah and Paul are saying.

David: Great David's greater Son - Jesus Christ: the slayer of Goliath.

A more in-depth analysis of this can be found in O. Palmer Robertson's book, The Christ of the Covenants.

The "everlasting covenant" (the Covenant of Redemption) has always been unbreakable. The New Covenant, even though it is a greater manifestation of the everlasting covenant, is still breakable as noted in Heb. 6 and 10 passages above.

The credo-baptist argument is based on a false (Dispensational) view of the Covenants. It is not surprising that since Dispensationalism erupted in the mid 19th Century that credo-baptism became more popular.

Grace,

-CH


----------



## CalvinandHodges

mangum said:


> Excellent, brother.  Quite succinct.
> 
> In one of the past threads about Jer 31, someone (a Baptist) was arguing that Hebrews 10(esp. 26-31), and related passages, were all hypothetical threats from God.
> 
> Is there a difference between hypothetical threats and empty threats?



Greetings:

Praise God! I agree with you that there is no difference between a hypothetical and an empty threat, and I certainly do not believe that God makes empty threats. Yet, to hold to the credo-baptist position one would have to believe that such is the case.

Blessings brother!

-CH


----------



## Calvibaptist

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> We see in Calvibaptists reply more argument from theology rather than from Scripture.



Robert (CH),

I appreciate your interaction on this. I am a recovering dispensationalist, but no longer claim to be in that camp. But, my points that I made were mostly argument from each individual phrase in Jeremiah 31. As you can see, I gave 8 points that were almost a direct quote of the verses involved that absolutely show the covenant is unbreakable. Only after that did I reference any theological evidence.



> He claims that the New Covenant is unbreakable, yet, it was clearly pointed out that there were people in the New Covenant who broke it:



As for the people you mentioned, here is my reply:

Saul the King - under the Old Covenant (Moses) and was never saved or even possibly under the New Covenant since it had not yet been innaugerated.

Judas the Betrayer - how could you possibly assume that he was under the New Covenant? He was also under the Old Covenant (Mosaic). But Christ had not yet been crucified, which is the requirement (death of the testator - Hebrews 9:16) for the covenant to begin.

Simon the Sorcerer - false pretender to the covenant.

Demas - false pretender to the covenant.

You assume that because these people associated themselves with the covenant people like Paul the Apostle and took the sign of the covenant (like Baptism) that they were automatically in the covenant.

Read again what the covenant promises are in Jeremiah 31. This is the way in which the Abrahamic Covenant finds it's fulfillment.

The two sections you mention from Hebrews 6 and Hebrews 10 refer not to people who are believers and in the covenant, but unbelievers who pretend to be in the covenant.

The problem here is obviously the question of who is in the covenant. I believe because of the descriptions in Jeremiah 31, the explanation in Hebrews 9-10, and the Supper described in Matthew 26 (with the shed blood for remission of sins) that only those who are believers are in the New Covenant. (Notice that this is based on biblical passages, not dispensational theological arguments) You believe that anyone who is baptized is in the New Covenant.

Again I must ask, what makes a person become part of the New Covenant?




> This here exposes the innaccuracy of the credo-baptist thought. For there are members of the New Covenant who have "tasted the good word of God," they have "the knowledge of the truth," and they have "counted the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing." What "blood of the Covenant" is Paul talking about but the New Covenant - the blood of Jesus Christ?



A believer does not count "the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing." Only an unbeliever does that. An unbeliever is not in the covenant because they have not been born again, nor exercised repentance and faith. In this way, they count the blood of the Covenant as an unholy thing. And, yes, the blood is the blood of Jesus Christ.



> Calvibaptist's views are Dispensational in nature - despite his attempts to wrap it up in Covenant (Federal) theological language. The differences between the Old and the New are such that there can be no similarities. Notice his point here:
> 
> The problem with this is that Redemption is implied in every covenant that God makes with man:
> 
> In Adam: the protoevangelism in Gen. 3:15, and the coats of skins as a type of the sacrifice of Jesus, Gen. 3:21.
> 
> Noah: the Ark and the Covenant of Preservation. The Covenant God makes with Noah and every living thing is called "the everlasting Covenant," Gen. 9:16. God redeemed Noah and the animals from the Flood, Hebrews 11:7; 2 Peter 2:5 - just as Jesus redeems His people.
> 
> Abraham: His faith was wellpleasing to God, Gen. 15. That the token of this "everlasing covenant," Gen. 17:7, is circumcision, vs. 10.
> 
> Moses: What we are discussing: The Ceremonial laws were done away with by the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Redemption was prefigured in the Ceremonial law - that is what Jeremiah and Paul are saying.
> 
> David: Great David's greater Son - Jesus Christ: the slayer of Goliath.
> 
> A more in-depth analysis of this can be found in O. Palmer Robertson's book, The Christ of the Covenants.



Of course there is redemption in every covenant. Every covenant you mention takes place in history *after* the Covenant of Redemption has been agreed upon in eternity by the Trinity. So, every covenant involves some form of redemption. Except for the Covenant of Works.



> The "everlasting covenant" (the Covenant of Redemption) has always been unbreakable. The New Covenant, even though it is a greater manifestation of the everlasting covenant, is still breakable as noted in Heb. 6 and 10 passages above.
> 
> The credo-baptist argument is based on a false (Dispensational) view of the Covenants. It is not surprising that since Dispensationalism erupted in the mid 19th Century that credo-baptism became more popular.



Let's see, Baptists came around in the 1600's. Dispensationalism developed within the Brethren movement and was popularize by a Presbyterian in the 1800's. Your argument doesn't hold water historically. The credo-baptist argument is based on a different understanding of who is in the New Covenant based on biblical descriptions of that covenant. It has absolutely nothing to do with Dispensationalism (thankfully).

Grace,

-CH[/QUOTE]


----------



## elnwood

CH,

You still haven't answered my question. Here it is again:

Here's a question for you: Hebrews 12:24 says that Jesus is the mediator of a new covenant. Thus, those in the new covenant have Jesus as a mediator.

1) Can an unregenerate person have Jesus as a mediator?
2) Can a person who has Jesus as a mediator lose Jesus as a mediator? (Perseverance of the saints)

I would hope that you would answer no to both questions. If Jesus is the mediator for those in the New Covenant, wouldn't you conclude that the New Covenant is unbreakable?


----------



## elnwood

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> Praise God! I agree with you that there is no difference between a hypothetical and an empty threat, and I certainly do not believe that God makes empty threats. Yet, to hold to the credo-baptist position one would have to believe that such is the case.
> 
> Blessings brother!
> 
> -CH



CH -- those warnings are directed to the local church, which we would both agree consists of elect and non-elect. Thus the warnings are given to the elect also, and yet the elect cannot fall away. The elect are told to persevere, and warned against falling away, yet we hold to perseverance of the saints. So is God making "empty" threats? Of course not. Warnings and pleas to persevere are the means by which God preserves his elect.

Your argument proves too much. This is exactly what Arminians argue. If you argue that God does not make empty threats, you end up denying perseverance of the saints and you start down the road to Arminianism.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

Calvibaptist:

Saul the King: 1 Sam. 11:16 tells us that the Spirit of God came upon Saul. 1 Sam. 16:14 tells us that the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul and an evil spirit troubled him. Clearly, Saul was worked upon in a temporary nature by the Spirit of God.

Judas the Betrayer: Was one of the 12 disciples of Jesus. Matthew 10:1 tells us that all of the disciples were given the power to cast out demons, heal the sick, etc. Judas was no different. To substantiate this even more we have the words of Jesus:



> Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done may wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity, Matt. 7:22,23.



Simon the Sorceror: Was a false professor indeed, but he apparently was worked upon by the Spirit in order to make a profession at the start:



> Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost, 1Co 12:3.


The same appears to be the case for Demas as well. It is true that Simon and Demas were false professors, but that is not the whole of it. One cannot profess Christ as Lord unless worked upon by the Holy Spirit.

I know you did present quite a few quotes from Jer. 31ff to indicate the "unbreakable" nature of the New Covenant. Nevertheless, it is clear from Heb. 6:6 and 10:26 that one can receive all of these blessings and still not be Elect. Such men break the New Covenant.

The Letter to the Hebrews was a general letter distributed to all of the churches. No where in the text does it hint that this letter was written for only one particular church.

In no way can this temporary work of the Spirit of God be applied to the Elect. As the passages note - it does bring them into the New Covenant blessings - and they enjoy much light and blessings from it - even to the point of working miracles. The danger of turning into an Arminian in the consideration of this is slight. Calvin comments:



> When, therefore, he speaks of those who have lapsed after they have been made sharers in the Holy Spirit, and also hve tasted God's good Word and the powers of the age to come [Heb. 6:4-5], it must be understood that they who choke the light of the Spirit with deliberate impiety, and spew out the taste of the heavenly gift, will cut themselves off from the sanctification of the Spirit, and trample upon God's Word and the powers of the age to come. And the better to express an impiety deliberately intended, in another passage he afterward expressly adds the word "willfully." For when he says that they who, willing, sin after having received knowledge of the truth have no sacrifice left from them [Heb. 10:26], he does not deny that Christ is a continual sacrifice to atone for the iniquities of the saints. Almust the whole letter eloquently proclaims this, in explaining Christ's priesthood. But he says that no other sacrifice remains when His has been rejected. Moreover, it is rejected when the truth of the gospel is expressly denied, Institutes, 3:3:23 McNeill edition.



elnwood:

I have answered your question in the previous posts and above. If someone:

1) "can crucify the Son of God afresh," Heb. 6:6.
2) "...hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing?" Heb. 10:29.

is Elect, then you and I are reading different Bibles. You have to realize that the New Covenant *is not *the Covenant of Redemption. That is the Baptist error, and all for what? To deny the children of believers Baptism? On the face of it it seems rather cruel - especially when we have good warrant from Scripture to continue the practice of children as members of the covenant.

So, I will leave you with your conscience. You are free to disagree, but your disagreement is more of a prejudice rather than a matter of Scriptural warrant.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## elnwood

CalvinandHodges said:


> elnwood:
> 
> I have answered your question in the previous posts and above. If someone:
> 
> 1) "can crucify the Son of God afresh," Heb. 6:6.
> 2) "...hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing?" Heb. 10:29.
> 
> is Elect, then you and I are reading different Bibles. You have to realize that the New Covenant *is not *the Covenant of Redemption. That is the Baptist error, and all for what? To deny the children of believers Baptism? On the face of it it seems rather cruel - especially when we have good warrant from Scripture to continue the practice of children as members of the covenant.
> 
> So, I will leave you with your conscience. You are free to disagree, but your disagreement is more of a prejudice rather than a matter of Scriptural warrant.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH



CH,

Are you arguing that a non-elect can be sanctified by Christ's blood of the covenant? That Christ's blood can be shed for the non-elect and yet that person will not have their sins paid for? How is that not a denial of Limited Atonement? Must you go so far as to deny a tenet of Calvinism in order to defend paedobaptism?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

elnwood said:


> CH,
> 
> Are you arguing that a non-elect can be sanctified by Christ's blood of the covenant? That Christ's blood can be shed for the non-elect and yet that person will not have their sins paid for? How is that not a denial of Limited Atonement? Must you go so far as to deny a tenet of Calvinism in order to defend paedobaptism?



Greetings:

No. What I am saying, and I have said it several times now, is that there is a temporary work of the Spirit of God in which the non-Elect can receive the blessings of the New Covenant *without being saved*.

Baptist John Gill agrees with me:



> There are two sorts of enlightened persons, some who are savingly enlightened by the Spirit of God, to see their lost state and condition, their need of salvation by Christ, and their interest in it, who shall never perish; others are enlightened only into the doctrines of the Gospel, and some to such a degree as to be able to preach them unto others, and yet entirely be destitute of the grace of God; and when such fall away, they are no proofs nor instances of the apostacy of real saints, The Cause of God and Truth, pg. 56.



In other words: One can be in the New Covenant, but not in the Covenant of Redemption.

Grace,

-CH


----------



## elnwood

CalvinandHodges said:


> Baptist John Gill agrees with me:
> 
> In other words: One can be in the New Covenant, but not in the Covenant of Redemption.



I don't really have much to add. John Gill, though he believed that non-believers can partake of benefit from being in the church, did NOT believe that they were therefore in the New Covenant. I think you're taking John Gill's view and then taking it in a direction that Gill would not agree with, and thus misrepresenting him.


----------



## Calvibaptist

CalvinandHodges said:


> Simon the Sorceror: Was a false professor indeed, but he apparently was worked upon by the Spirit in order to make a profession at the start:
> 
> The same appears to be the case for Demas as well. It is true that Simon and Demas were false professors, but that is not the whole of it. One cannot profess Christ as Lord unless worked upon by the Holy Spirit.
> 
> I know you did present quite a few quotes from Jer. 31ff to indicate the "unbreakable" nature of the New Covenant. Nevertheless, it is clear from Heb. 6:6 and 10:26 that one can receive all of these blessings and still not be Elect. Such men break the New Covenant.



No one (including me) ever suggested that these people were not worked upon by the Holy Spirit in some way. What I did say is that the promises in Jeremiah 31 are not what happened to any of these people. Nor are they what happens to the people mentioned in Hebrews 6:6 and 10:26.

It is important to note that one of the promises in Jeremiah 31 is the forgiveness of sins for all those in the covenant. This can only be for the elect. The Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. But he doesn't effect the forgiveness of sins. This is reserved for those who, according to Jeremiah 31, are in the New Covenant.

All those in Hebrews 6:6 and 10:26 that you refer to have the benefits of being under the influence of the Holy Spirit because of their association with the Covenant people. They hear the Word of God preached. They even claim to be believers. But the fact that they fall away and are under the fearful expectation of judgment proves that they are unbelievers and thus not under the covenant referred to by Jeremiah as the New Covenant.



> The Letter to the Hebrews was a general letter distributed to all of the churches. No where in the text does it hint that this letter was written for only one particular church.



Agreed. But what does this matter? Whether it is written to a particular church or to a group of churches that were primarily Jewish in nature, the fact of the matter is, there would have been true believers and false professors among them.



> In no way can this temporary work of the Spirit of God be applied to the Elect. As the passages note - it does bring them into the New Covenant blessings - and they enjoy much light and blessings from it - even to the point of working miracles. The danger of turning into an Arminian in the consideration of this is slight. Calvin comments:



Calvin is saying the same thing I am. They are unbelievers. You have already provided examples from the Old Testament where unbelievers had interaction with the Holy Spirit and these definitely weren't part of the New Covenant since Christ hadn't been crucified yet. So, it's not hard to recognize that these people described in Hebrews 6 and 10 could have interaction with the Spirit, be unbelievers, and not be part of the covenant as well. Again, you have to ask if they fit the description of the people involved in the covenant in Jeremiah 31. That is the passage where we find the terms of the covenant (much like Genesis 12 and 15 for the Abrahamic).


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hey:

Calvibaptist wrote:



> Calvin is saying the same thing I am. They are unbelievers. You have already provided examples from the Old Testament where unbelievers had interaction with the Holy Spirit and these definitely weren't part of the New Covenant since Christ hadn't been crucified yet. So, it's not hard to recognize that these people described in Hebrews 6 and 10 could have interaction with the Spirit, be unbelievers, and not be part of the covenant as well. Again, you have to ask if they fit the description of the people involved in the covenant in Jeremiah 31. That is the passage where we find the terms of the covenant (much like Genesis 12 and 15 for the Abrahamic).


In the New covenant the promises are applied to all who are in the New Covenant. They are effective only for the Elect. Thus, one can be in the New Covenant and have the promises of Jer. 31 applied to him/her, yet, be an unbeliever and break the New Covenant.

There were unbelievers in the Old Testament covenants as well, and these unbelievers broke those covenants. The New Covenant is no different in that respect. When we baptize children and infants we are applying the New Covenant promises to them:

"For the *promise* is to you and your children..."

Yes, the ones Paul is talking about in Heb. 6 and 10 are unbelievers, but that is just the point. They had the promises of Jer. 31 applied to them, but they considered the blood of the covenant unholy. The Baptist/Dispensational mindset says "they are unbelievers they are not in the New Covenant." I believe the language of Paul in Heb. 6 and 10 is unavoidable on this account: that they were in the New Covenant, but, *because* they are unbelievers, they broke it.

The correct mindset is: "They are unbelievers they are not in the Covenant of Redemption." It is a subtle change in language, but a profound change in theology. The New Covenant cannot be equated one-for-one with the Covenant of Redemption. If such is the case, then the warnings of Paul in Heb. 6 and 10 are hypothetical and not real.

elnwood:

I would like to see your citations of John Gill that prove your point. The problem that will arise is that this argument by credo-baptists (that the New Covenant is unbreakable) is brand new, and was never argued by men like John Gill and C.H. Spurgeon. There was a greater understanding of Covenant Theology back during their times than there is today.

In Jesus,

-CH


----------



## Calvibaptist

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hey:
> 
> In the New covenant the promises are applied to all who are in the New Covenant. They are effective only for the Elect. Thus, one can be in the New Covenant and have the promises of Jer. 31 applied to him/her, yet, be an unbeliever and break the New Covenant.
> 
> There were unbelievers in the Old Testament covenants as well, and these unbelievers broke those covenants. The New Covenant is no different in that respect. When we baptize children and infants we are applying the New Covenant promises to them:
> 
> "For the *promise* is to you and your children..."
> 
> Yes, the ones Paul is talking about in Heb. 6 and 10 are unbelievers, but that is just the point. They had the promises of Jer. 31 applied to them, but they considered the blood of the covenant unholy. The Baptist/Dispensational mindset says "they are unbelievers they are not in the New Covenant." I believe the language of Paul in Heb. 6 and 10 is unavoidable on this account: that they were in the New Covenant, but, *because* they are unbelievers, they broke it.



You keep ignoring exactly what the promises are in Jeremiah 31. How can an unbeliever ever to be said to have God's law written in his heart? How can an unbeliever ever be said to have his sins forgiven? How can an unbeliever ever be said to have God as their God and for them to be His people (keeping in mind that they have Satan as their father)? How can an unbeliever ever have it said of them that they "know the Lord?"

These are not descriptions of unbelievers that happen to be in a covenant with God! These are descriptions of believers. That is the advance of the New Covenant over the Old Covenant - it is made between God and the remnant (elect). That is the major point of my (and other Baptist) arguments that you keep missing.



> The correct mindset is: "They are unbelievers they are not in the Covenant of Redemption." It is a subtle change in language, but a profound change in theology. The New Covenant cannot be equated one-for-one with the Covenant of Redemption. If such is the case, then the warnings of Paul in Heb. 6 and 10 are hypothetical and not real.



I never said the New Covenant was equated one-for-one with the Covenant of Redemption. It is the current (and final) administration of the Covenant of Redemption.


----------



## elnwood

CalvinandHodges said:


> elnwood:
> 
> I would like to see your citations of John Gill that prove your point. The problem that will arise is that this argument by credo-baptists (that the New Covenant is unbreakable) is brand new, and was never argued by men like John Gill and C.H. Spurgeon. There was a greater understanding of Covenant Theology back during their times than there is today.
> 
> In Jesus,
> 
> -CH



CH,

I don't know why I need to find citations to prove my point since you were the one who first asserted that Gill thought the New Covenant was breakable. The assumption should be the opposite since he was a Baptist.

But anyway, I did some research, and here's what I found:

Gill's commentary on Hebrews 8:10:


> And I will be to them a God; *not in such sense as he is the God of all mankind, or as he was the God of Israel in a distinguishing manner, but as he is the God of Christ, and of all the elect in him*; and he is their God, not merely as the God of nature and providence, but as the God of all grace; he is so *in a covenant way, and as in Christ, and by virtue of electing grace*, and which is made manifest in the effectual calling; and as such, he has set his heart on them, and set them apart for himself; he saves them by his Son, adopts and regenerates them, justifies and sanctifies them, provides for them, protects and preserves them; and happy are they that are interested in this blessing of the covenant, which is preferable to everything else; they have everything, and can want no good thing; they need fear no enemy; all things work together for their good; and God continues to be their God in life and in death; so that they may depend on his love, be secure of his power, expect every needful supply of grace, and to be carried through every duty and trial, and to share in the first resurrection, and to enjoy eternal happiness:
> 
> and they shall be to me a people; *not in such sense as all mankind are, or the Jews were in a more peculiar respect, but as all God's elect are*, whether Jews or Gentiles; and who are such whom God has loved with a special love, has chose in Christ, and given to him, and with whom he has made a covenant in him; whom Christ saves from their sins by his blood, and calls them by his grace and Spirit, and who give up themselves to him; these are a distinct and peculiar people, a people near unto the Lord, and who are all righteous in Christ, and are made willing in the day of his power on their souls.



Gill is absolutely clear that this covenant is NOT the same sense of the covenant that God had for the Jews in the Old Covenant, as you are saying, but a covenant with the elect.


----------



## elnwood

CH, Spurgeon also spoke of the New Covenant being one of regeneration.

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/2506.htm

An excerpt:


> The fact is, that the covenant of works, if it be looked upon as a way of safety, is a total failure. No man ever persevered in it unto the end, and no man ever attained unto life by keeping it. Nor can we, now that we are fallen, ever hope to be better than our unfallen covenant-head, Adam; nor may we, who are already lost and condemned by our sinful works, dream for a moment that we shall be able to save ourselves by our works. You see, dear friends, the first covenant was in these terms,—"You do right, and God will reward you for it. If you deserve life, God will give it to you." Now, as you all know right well, that covenant was broken all to pieces; it was unable to stand by reason of the weakness of our flesh and the corruptness of our nature. So God set aside that first covenant, he put it away as an outworn and useless thing; and he brought in a new covenant,—the covenant of grace; and in our text we see what is the tenor of it: "I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts." This is one of the most glorious promises that ever fell from the lips of infinite love. God said not, "I will come again, as I came on Sinai, and thunder at them." No, but, "I will come in gentleness and mercy, and find a way into their hearts." He said not, "I will take two great tables of stone, and with my finger write out my law before their eyes." No, but, "I will put my finger upon their hearts, and there will I write my law." He said not, "I will give promises and threatenings that shall be the safeguard of this new covenant;" but, "I will with my Spirit graciously operate upon their minds and their hearts, and so I will sweetly influence them to serve me,—not for reward, nor from any servile motive, but because they know me, and they love me, and they feel it to be their delight to walk in the way of my commandments." O dear sirs may you all be shares in the blessings of that new covenant! May God say this of you, and do this to you; and if so, we shall meet in the glory-land, to sing unto the grace of that eternal God who has wrought so wondrously with us, and in us, and for us!



Spurgeon clearly denies that there will be covenant curses in the new covenant and connects the new covenant with salvation.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

Elnwood:

We could argue until doomsday what John Gill and C.H. Spurgeon wrote in their commentaries and sermons, but it will be of no avail. You must answer the Scriptural argument. If Gill is saying what you are saying, then he is confused about the New Covenant. However, I do not believe that he is teaching that the New Covenant is equated exactly with the Covenant of Redemption. I have quoted him before:



> by this covenant is meant the covenant of grace; called new, not because newly made, for it was made with the elect in Christ from everlasting; so early was Christ set up as the Mediator of it; and so early were promises made, and blessings given, to them in him: nor because newly revealed; for it was made known to all the saints, more or less, under the former dispensation, particularly to David, to Abraham, yea, to our first parents immediately after the fall, though more clearly manifested under the Gospel dispensation; but because of its new mode of exhibition; not by types, and shadow, and sacrifices, as formerly; but by the ministry of the word, and the administration of Gospel ordinances; and in distinction from the former covenant, which is done away, as to the mode of it; and because it is a famous covenant, an excellent one, a better covenant, best of all; better than the covenant of works, and even better than the covenant of grace, under the former administration; in the clear manifestation and extensive application of it; and in the ratification of it by the blood of Christ; because it provides and promises new things, as a new heart, and a new spirit; to which may be added, that it may be called new, because it is always new; it continues, it stands firm, as Kimchi observes, and shall not be made void; it will never be succeeded nor antiquated by any other covenant, or any other mode of administration of it, Commentaries, vol 5, pg. 578.


As I have been mentioning through this thread: The Promises of the New Covenant are given to all who hear the Gospel call found in the preaching of the Word of God. These promises are only effectual to the Elect. Gill agrees with me when he says, in your quotation of him:



> ...and which is made manifest in the effectual calling...


Generally, the effectual calling of God (regeneration) follows the Free Offer of the Gospel. The Promises of the New Covenant are given to all who hear the Free Offer. Some will respond to it positively, and others will not. Of those who respond positively many of them will be Elect (not all). Some will fall away, like Simon the Sorceror, these were never Elect, but they are of such that Paul talks about in Hebrews 6 and 10:



> For they have counted the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing.


What "blood of the Covenant" is he talking about but the New Covenant? They tasted the "good Word of God," they were given the "knowledge of the truth," they had "the powers of the world to come," yet, they were never effectually called. They were called into the New Covenant. They enjoyed its blessings, but they never had true faith in Christ. They did not ignorantly, but willfully and knowingly break the New Covenant. Their damnation as such will be far greater, and more glorious to God, than the ignorant who never received these blessings.

Gill is talking about the Elect and the blessings they effectually receive from the promises of the New Covenant. That is not the dispute. What is in dispute is that whether or not those non-Elect who have "tasted" the good things of the Lord in the New Covenant have actually broken the New Covenant.

The credo-baptists says: "They were never in the New Covenant." How they can say that and claim that Paul's statements in Heb. 6 and 10 do not apply to "the blood of the Covenant" does not make sense.

The Paedobaptist says: "They were never in the Covenant of Redemption." That all the promises of the New Covenant were applied to them, and they "tasted the goodness of the Lord" in this Covenant, but never had true faith in Christ. Thus,



> 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?


Is this a vain and hypothetical threat as Gill implies? Or, does God mean what He says, and says what he means?

I will ask you to re-read those passages in Hebrews 6 and 10, and ask of the Lord which interpretation better fits: The credo-baptist, or the Paedobaptist?

I think the Paedobaptist view is far closer to the meaning of the text and displays the glory of God in the damnation of mankind in a better and fuller sense.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Calvibaptist

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> As I have been mentioning through this thread: The Promises of the New Covenant are given to all who hear the Gospel call found in the preaching of the Word of God.



So, some pagan who never steps foot in a church, but hears a street preacher one day as he's on his way to work is in the New Covenant because he heard the Gospel call found in the preaching of the Word? CH, I'm just wondering where you find Scriptural support for this claim?

My reason for asking is that I have Scripture that says that the New Covenant is made "with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." (Jeremiah 31:31) Paul, in Galatians 3 says that this refers to those who are of faith and then very clearly links the promise of the Spirit (also a New Covenant promise) with this group (and this group alone).

Galatians 3:7-14 - Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith." 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them." 13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 

If the blessing of Abraham (which is extended through the New Covenant) comes upon the Gentiles *in Christ Jesus* and the purpose of the blessing according to Galatians 3:14 is "that we might receive the *promise* of the Spirit" and the receiving happens "through faith" and these are all promised blessings of the New Covenant found in Isaiah 59:21 and Ezekiel 36:27 and Jeremiah 31, then only those who have faith are in the New Covenant.


----------



## Herald

Calvibaptist said:


> So, some pagan who never steps foot in a church, but hears a street preacher one day as he's on his way to work is in the New Covenant because he heard the Gospel call found in the preaching of the Word?



Doug - let me play devils advocate. Our Presbyterian brethren are going to answer "no" to your question. Why? Because they'll deny that the pagan who was on his way to work actually heard the Gospel call. He wasn't in a church listening to an ordained minister of the Word, therefore no Gospel call. The message of the street preacher was illegitimate.


----------



## non dignus

_ " Behold then the goodness and severity of God: 
toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee,
God's goodness, if thou continue in his goodness:
* otherwise thou also shalt be cut off*."_ Ro 11:22​
What is one cut off from? 
Salvation? or COVENANT?


----------



## Calvibaptist

non dignus said:


> _ " Behold then the goodness and severity of God:
> toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee,
> God's goodness, if thou continue in his goodness:
> * otherwise thou also shalt be cut off*."_ Ro 11:22​
> What is one cut off from?
> Salvation? or COVENANT?



So, we are going to ignore the real question of who the covenant is made with according to all the passages that specifically and clearly talk about the covenant and we are going to make an assumption from a passage that a lot of people have trouble interpreting to prove our point????


----------



## non dignus

Calvibaptist said:


> So, we are going to ignore the real question of who the covenant is made with.....



The covenant is made 'to you and to your children' based upon the condition of faith. We do not have the faculty to discern between true faith and false faith. Those secret things belong to God. The revealed things belong to us and to our children. 



> .....according to all the passages that specifically and clearly talk about the covenant and we are going to make an assumption from a passage that a lot of people have trouble interpreting to prove our point????



Paul is talking exactly about the covenant and whether God is faithful to it when the covenant people are not. 'Cut-off' is covenant language and is used by no accident. It is covenant cursing. Christ says in Revelation to the churches, "unless you repent I will remove your candlestick". It is covenant cursing. 

One is warned that it is better to have never known the truth, than to have known it and fallen away. 

I think you are clinging to certain passages without a systematic approach to covenantalism.


----------



## Calvibaptist

non dignus said:


> The covenant is made 'to you and to your children' based upon the condition of faith. We do not have the faculty to discern between true faith and false faith. Those secret things belong to God. The revealed things belong to us and to our children.



"...As many as the Lord our God shall *call* unto Him." You guys always like to stop before that phrase. The promise is to you (as God calls you to Him), to your children (as God calls them to Him), and to all that are afar off (as God calls them to Him). You are surely not suggesting that Peter was saying that this covenant promise was to every single person alive who was afar off, regardless of whether God called them or not, do you?

The passage in Acts further describes "you and your children and those who are afar off" as "as many as the Lord our God shall call unto Him." It is not just a blanket "everyone," it is "everyone, as many as the Lord our God calls." You are making the same mistake Arminians make with "God so loved the world."


----------



## Calvibaptist

non dignus said:


> Paul is talking exactly about the covenant and whether God is faithful to it when the covenant people are not.



But the covenant people are described in Romans 9 not as physical descendants of anyone, but those who are of the promise, who have been already described in Romans 4 as those who are of the faith of Abraham.


----------



## non dignus

Calvibaptist said:


> "...As many as the Lord our God shall *call* unto Him." You guys always like to stop before that phrase. The promise is to you (as God calls you to Him), to your children (as God calls them to Him), and to all that are afar off (as God calls them to Him). You are surely not suggesting that Peter was saying that this covenant promise was to every single person alive who was afar off, regardless of whether God called them or not, do you?
> 
> The passage in Acts further describes "you and your children and those who are afar off" as "as many as the Lord our God shall call unto Him." It is not just a blanket "everyone," it is "everyone, as many as the Lord our God calls." You are making the same mistake Arminians make with "God so loved the world."



Thanks for a good discussion!

But notice the verb tenses. "The promise IS to you and your children...and as many as the Lord SHALL call." Israel is called. Gentiles shall be called. I see two groupings here of outward calling. The same formula is found in Gen 12, 15, and 17. 

The context, I believe, is this: 
We know that Israel HAS BEEN called because the promise cannot be annulled. But the 'blessing to all the families of the earth' is JUST NOW kicking in. It is additive, not subtractive. Where does it imply that Jewish babies are excluded? or that exclusion applies to the babies of 'all whom the Lord shall call'?

_"...for the promise is to you and your children and to those who are far off with wives and children'_ hence the word 'all' who are far off. This is a promise of descendants for Abraham afterall.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Calvibaptist said:


> So, some pagan who never steps foot in a church, but hears a street preacher one day as he's on his way to work is in the New Covenant because he heard the Gospel call found in the preaching of the Word? CH, I'm just wondering where you find Scriptural support for this claim?
> 
> My reason for asking is that I have Scripture that says that the New Covenant is made "with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." (Jeremiah 31:31) Paul, in Galatians 3 says that this refers to those who are of faith and then very clearly links the promise of the Spirit (also a New Covenant promise) with this group (and this group alone).
> 
> Galatians 3:7-14 - Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith." 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them." 13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
> 
> If the blessing of Abraham (which is extended through the New Covenant) comes upon the Gentiles *in Christ Jesus* and the purpose of the blessing according to Galatians 3:14 is "that we might receive the *promise* of the Spirit" and the receiving happens "through faith" and these are all promised blessings of the New Covenant found in Isaiah 59:21 and Ezekiel 36:27 and Jeremiah 31, then only those who have faith are in the New Covenant.



Greetings:

Calvibaptist wrote:



> So, some pagan who never steps foot in a church, but hears a street preacher one day as he's on his way to work is in the New Covenant because he heard the Gospel call found in the preaching of the Word? CH, I'm just wondering where you find Scriptural support for this claim?


I think there are two answers to this, and it is a matter of degree. When the Gospel is preached to such a pagan he is required to turn from his ways and submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Assuming that he does not do so it would follow that his refusal of the Gospel-call would bring upon him a greater damnation than if he had never heard the call at all. Certainly a person who has knowledge will be judged according to that knowledge however great or small of it he possesses:



> For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law, Rom. 2:12.


So, I would answer "yes - to a degree" the pagan heard the Gospel (if it was rightly preached) and the Free Offer was applied to him as he stood and listened. To refuse the Gospel-offer is to refuse Christ Himself. Now, he may think about it, and, eventually be converted. But that is not the type of person we are considering. We are deliberating over the inveterate, non-Elect, sinner who steadfastly refuses the Gospel up to, and including, his dying day. Whatever knowledge he has of the Gospel will turn on him in the end, and he will receive a greater damnation in Hell because of it. Westminster Larger Catechism question 150:



> Q. 150. _Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?_
> A. All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.


Second, this discussion is not generally considering the "pagan on the street," but non-Elect members of the New Covenant who have shown gifts and graces consistent with the promises given in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8. Such people are in a different position than the "pagan on the street."

Next, he wrote:



> Galatians 3:7-14 - Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith." 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them." 13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.


I believe the answer to this point is found in Hebrews 11. Since the Fall of Man faith has always been the requirement concerning the Covenants between God and man. This faith resting in the Promises of God given at each of the Covenants is the hallmark of the true Christian believer:



> These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth, Heb. 11:13.


None of the Elect have ever broken the Covenant of Redemption. What the Elect have broken is the Covenant of Works. It is the Covenant of Works that Jeremiah is referring to in 31:31ff (see Gal. 4:22-26).

Nowhere does the Bible tell us that the New Covenant is "unbreakable." The credo-baptist interpretation does not take into view the whole of what the Scriptures teach concerning the New Covenant. Paedobaptists do not deny that the Promises given in the New Covenant are effective to the Elect, and that is what Paul is saying in Galatians 3:



> Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham, vs. 6-9.


(I will only briefly mention that Paul here seems to be "Christianizing the Old Testament," as he does in other places as well.)

Paul is responding to the Judiazers who came to Galatia to argue that Christians should keep the law in order to be saved. I do not believe that this is a right use of the Word of God in our discussion. The credo-baptist keeps repeating things that Paedobaptists agree with them on.

What the credo-baptist has to prove, and not simply assert, is that there are no non-Elect members of the New Covenant. We have many passages in the Scriptures that deny their assertions:

Matthew 7:21-23.

Romans 11:21,22 - thanks non dignus for pointing it out!

Hebrews 6:4-6.

Hebrews 10:26-31.

The credo-baptist is only looking at half the picture. They take their dispensational hermeneutic of extreme differences between the Mosaic and New Covenants and apply it without discrimination.

The Paedobaptist position takes the whole of the Scriptures, and comes to a true and full sense of the New Covenant that is lacking in the credo-baptist interpretation.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

So what then is the conclusion? That the Baptist position is not Reformed to say the least. That it derives its strength from the false views of Dispensationalsim. That there are no Scriptures, either New Testament or Old, that uphold the credo-baptist view that children of believers have been excluded from the New Covenant. That it is the only "theology" that has no shadow or echo in the Old Testament. It is the only "theology" that is derived from an argument from silence: "That no infant was ever baptized in the New Testament." Well, no woman in the New Testament ever took the Lord's Supper either.

Considering all of this I lovingly call my baptist brothers to repentance on this matter.

Grace and Peace,

-Rob Wieland


----------



## Herald

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> So what then is the conclusion? That the Baptist position is not Reformed to say the least. That it derives its strength from the false views of Dispensationalsim. That there are no Scriptures, either New Testament or Old, that uphold the credo-baptist view that children of believers have been excluded from the New Covenant. That it is the only "theology" that has no shadow or echo in the Old Testament. It is the only "theology" that is derived from an argument from silence: "That no infant was ever baptized in the New Testament." Well, no woman in the New Testament ever took the Lord's Supper either.
> 
> Considering all of this I lovingly call my baptist brothers to repentance on this matter.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> -Rob Wieland



Rob - I honestly don't wish to appear disrespectful but you've arrived at a conclusion that is the end of the discussion? You're the final word on the matter? 

I'm not going to engage in a tit-for-tat with you on repenting on this subject. I find it to be a ridiculous demand. Considering the recent thread over this very issue (calling on others to repent over a doctrinal disagreement) I actually find it amusing. I can't take it seriously. I wonder if we can ask Rich to put the following statement at the end of every credo-paedo discussion: "and I call on my Presbyterian/Baptist (please circle one) brethren to repent."


----------



## Augusta

Aren't we *required *by the scriptures to call men to repent when they are in error? 

I am just sayin'.


----------



## satz

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> So what then is the conclusion? That the Baptist position is not Reformed to say the least. That it derives its strength from the false views of Dispensationalsim. That there are no Scriptures, either New Testament or Old, that uphold the credo-baptist view that children of believers have been excluded from the New Covenant. That it is the only "theology" that has no shadow or echo in the Old Testament. It is the only "theology" that is derived from an argument from silence: "That no infant was ever baptized in the New Testament." Well, no woman in the New Testament ever took the Lord's Supper either.
> 
> Considering all of this I lovingly call my baptist brothers to repentance on this matter.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> -Rob Wieland



Even if what you say is true, that there are unregenerate people in the New Covenant, and that the children of believers are in the New Covenant, does it follow that they are to be baptized?

Is not your assuming that the New Covenant sign of baptism operates in the exact same way as the Old Covenant sign of circumcision (assuming the two are even related) just as much an argument from silence?

Even if we assume our children are in the New Covenant, and we assume that baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of the Covenant, it is obvious that the sign has changed. Its form has changed from surgery to something done with water. It is now applied to women as well as men. Even if children are in the Covenant why is it not possible God changed the timing of application of the sign as well?


----------



## Herald

Augusta said:


> Aren't we *required *by the scriptures to call men to repent when they are in error?
> 
> I am just sayin'.



Traci - technically, maybe. But when it comes to points of doctrine that are within the sphere of orthodoxy it starts to take on the tone of arrogance. It's also downright silly. Think about it another way. If we are to call our brother to repentance over sin, and if we consider their doctrinal view contrary to scripture, then it would be sin...right? Well then, let's call on each other to repent at the end of every post when we disagree on a point of doctrine! Is it technically right to do so? Maybe. Is it wise? I don't think so. I do believe there is a difference between a sinful act and a belief that is within the sphere of orthodoxy.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Rob - I honestly don't wish to appear disrespectful but you've arrived at a conclusion that is the end of the discussion? You're the final word on the matter?
> 
> I'm not going to engage in a tit-for-tat with you on repenting on this subject. I find it to be a ridiculous demand. Considering the recent thread over this very issue (calling on others to repent over a doctrinal disagreement) I actually find it amusing. I can't take it seriously. I wonder if we can ask Rich to put the following statement at the end of every credo-paedo discussion: "and I call on my Presbyterian/Baptist (please circle one) brethren to repent."



Greetings:

I do not find your post disrespectful at all. If you notice the time difference between my last two posts, then you will find that I gave the Baptists plenty of time to respond. Apparently, they were unable to do so. Hence, the conclusion.

Baptists may hold to some Orthodox doctrines, but so does Roman Catholicism. Just because Baptists hold to some Orthodox doctrines does not mean they are Orthodox in their religion. Nor does this mean that their views on Baptism "Falls within the sphere of Orthodoxy." Why an argument like that would place within the realm of Orthodoxy the papal doctrine of Transubstantiation!

Bill: Your credo-baptist "theology" has no grounds in the Scripture. It has no grounds in Orthodoxy. It is founded upon a Dispensationalist view of the New Covenant. In short your theology is bankrupt and devoid of Biblical warrant. You stand on the sand of mere human opinion and conjecture. Yet, you laugh when someone calls you to repentance on this matter? Your laughter is from ignorance and not knowledge. I doubt that Our Lord is pleased with such a disposition.

Satz:

You are basing your views of credo-baptism on pure suppositions. The above posts have pointed out many times the Biblical warrant to Baptize the children of believers. See, for example, Acts 2:38-41 and 1 Cor. 7:14 mentioned in the previous posts.

"Changed the timing of the application of baptism as well?" Do you have any Scriptural warrant that says we should baptise people at the age of 14, or 16, or however the artificial understanding of the "age of accountablity" is determined?

If you step back from your Baptist presuppositions for a moment, and you actually examine what you are saying in the light of Scripture and the Spirit of God, then it will become clear to you that 1) Your credo-baptist position is based on human reasoning rather than the Word of God, 1nd, 2) Consequently, it is a "theology" that needs to be repented of and renounced.

As it is a human construction without Biblical warrant credo-baptism is as odious as Transubstantiation. This does not impinge upon one's salvation, but it does interfere with their union with Christ and their sanctification.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## satz

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> Satz:
> 
> You are basing your views of credo-baptism on pure suppositions. The above posts have pointed out many times the Biblical warrant to Baptize the children of believers. See, for example, Acts 2:38-41 and 1 Cor. 7:14 mentioned in the previous posts.
> 
> "Changed the timing of the application of baptism as well?" Do you have any Scriptural warrant that says we should baptise people at the age of 14, or 16, or however the artificial understanding of the "age of accountablity" is determined?
> 
> If you step back from your Baptist presuppositions for a moment, and you actually examine what you are saying in the light of Scripture and the Spirit of God, then it will become clear to you that 1) Your credo-baptist position is based on human reasoning rather than the Word of God, 1nd, 2) Consequently, it is a "theology" that needs to be repented of and renounced.
> 
> As it is a human construction without Biblical warrant credo-baptism is as odious as Transubstantiation. This does not impinge upon one's salvation, but it does interfere with their union with Christ and their sanctification.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> -CH



Hi,

You did not quite interact with my point… 

Acts 2:38-41 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 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. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

All because the promise is to our children or our children are considered holy does not imply they are to be baptized. That is as much an assumption as you are saying the Baptists are making.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

satz said:


> Hi,
> 
> You did not quite interact with my point…
> 
> Acts 2:38-41 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 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. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
> 
> All because the promise is to our children or our children are considered holy does not imply they are to be baptized. That is as much an assumption as you are saying the Baptists are making.



Greetings:

Yes, I understand the Baptist view of Acts. However, Baptism is in view in Acts 2:38ff. Also, how can you refuse Baptism to a person of whom the Scriptures tell us that they are holy?

Holy people don't get baptized?

This has all been gone over in the posts above.

Grace,

-CH


----------



## satz

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> Yes, I understand the Baptist view of Acts. However, Baptism is in view in Acts 2:38ff. Also, how can you refuse Baptism to a person of whom the Scriptures tell us that they are holy?
> 
> Holy people don't get baptized?
> 
> This has all been gone over in the posts above.
> 
> Grace,
> 
> -CH



Greetings,

I don't believe it is obvious holy people should be baptized. The people who should be baptized are those God says should be. Could you point me to where exactly in the thread this was covered?


----------



## Herald

Robert - other credo participants in this thread made an excellent retort to the OP. You may disagree with them until you are blue in the face, but don't claim they didn't provide scriptural warrant. 

You keep bringing up dispensationalism. Huh? Calvibaptist accurately stated that Baptists came on the scene in the early 17th century, a full 200+ years before dispensationalism was concocted by Darby. Since your facts are wrong and you have made inaccurate statements about Baptists, I call on you to repent.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Augusta said:


> Aren't we *required *by the scriptures to call men to repent when they are in error?
> 
> I am just sayin'.



YES!

But if this is our duty here on the PB, and both sides believe the other is in error then the ONLY thing anyone should say the moment a thread like this is started is "Please repent of your error". One both side have said this, the thread can be locked.


----------



## ReformedWretch

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Robert - other credo participants in this thread made an excellent retort to the OP. You may disagree with them until you are blue in the face, but don't claim they didn't provide scriptural warrant.
> 
> You keep bringing up dispensationalism. Huh? Calvibaptist accurately stated that Baptists came on the scene in the early 17th century, a full 200+ years before dispensationalism was concocted by Darby. Since your facts are wrong and you have made inaccurate statements about Baptists, I call on you to repent.



I agree.

Tossing around the "dispensationalist" label is a way to try and smear the side you're debating with. This needs to stop. Debate the issue all you like, but lets stop associating it with the Dispensational theology. I don't see anyone calling your side Romanist.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

houseparent said:


> YES!
> 
> But if this is our duty here on the PB, and both sides believe the other is in error then the ONLY thing anyone should say the moment a thread like this is started is "Please repent of your error". One both side have said this, the thread can be locked.



Greetings:

That is all well and good, houseparent, but the credo-baptist has no Biblical warrant to call a person to repentance over their "theology." Calling credo-baptists to repentance on this matter is not a "duty" but a loving act from a believer in Christ.

Stripped of their facade of being "New Testament Biblical" (which strikes of Dispensationalism) they have wrongly interpreted the Bible on the matter of infant baptism. This has been *proved* in the above posts. You may not like it. You will probably get hysterical about it as you did before, but the truth of the matter is incontrovertible:

Credo-baptism is a false interpretation of the New Covenant. Consequently, it is a sin that needs to be repented of and renounced.

In the Love of Jesus Christ,

-Rob Wieland


----------



## CalvinandHodges

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Robert - other credo participants in this thread made an excellent retort to the OP. You may disagree with them until you are blue in the face, but don't claim they didn't provide scriptural warrant.
> 
> You keep bringing up dispensationalism. Huh? Calvibaptist accurately stated that Baptists came on the scene in the early 17th century, a full 200+ years before dispensationalism was concocted by Darby. Since your facts are wrong and you have made inaccurate statements about Baptists, I call on you to repent.



Hi Bill:

A retort is not an answer. Also, just because one makes a "retort" does not mean he is correct in his hypothesis. None of the credo-baptists on this thread, or others, have engaged in the passages presented that show the New Covenant is breakable. So your points fall like the sand of human opinion among the rocks, and your call to repentance is without warrant.

Dispensationalism? You mean that this was a brand new heresy introduced in the mid-1800's? Wow. I guess the Jehovah Witnesses are new as well? In, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Paul Ennis points out three church fathers which held to a Dispensationalist type hermeneutic:

Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165) 
Iranaeus (A.D. 130-200) 
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-220) 

He also points out several recent expositors of the views of Dispensationalism prior to the 1800's:

Pierre Poiret (1646-1719) 
John Edwards (1637-1716) - not Jonathan Edwards.
Isaac Watts (1674-1748) 

When you call someone to repentance you should know what you are talking about before you speak.

In Jesus,

-CH


----------



## satz

satz said:


> Greetings,
> 
> I don't believe it is obvious holy people should be baptized. The people who should be baptized are those God says should be. Could you point me to where exactly in the thread this was covered?



Robert,

I would appreciate your help on this.


----------



## turmeric

CalvinandHodges said:


> Dispensationalism? You mean that this was a brand new heresy introduced in the mid-1800's? Wow. I guess the Jehovah Witnesses are new as well?



The Irvingites, from which John Nelson Darby got his ideas, were extant in the 1820's, before the Millerites of the 1840's (where the SDA and the JW's got a lot of their end-times rhetoric). The Scofield Bible is what popularized Dispensationalism, but it was incipient at least as early as the 1820's. Credobaptism is even older than the 17th Century, if you count the anabaptists (which I know is another can of worms).

I think what you are noticing in the "return to the early church" comments is properly called restorationism, and Dispensationalists are not and were not the only folks who had such ideas.



CalvinandHodges said:


> In, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Paul Ennis points out three church fathers which held to a Dispensationalist type hermeneutic:
> 
> Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165)
> Iranaeus (A.D. 130-200)
> Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-220)
> 
> He also points out several recent expositors of the views of Dispensationalism prior to the 1800's:
> 
> Pierre Poiret (1646-1719)
> John Edwards (1637-1716) - not Jonathan Edwards.
> Isaac Watts (1674-1748)
> 
> When you call someone to repentance you should know what you are talking about before you speak.
> 
> In Jesus,
> 
> -CH



These men have not been considered dispensational by everyone, it's a matter of dispute whether one can read dispensationalism into their teachings or not. Dispensationalists like to claim them, though, to give credibility to their teachings.


----------



## ReformedWretch

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> That is all well and good, houseparent, but the credo-baptist has no Biblical warrant to call a person to repentance over their "theology." Calling credo-baptists to repentance on this matter is not a "duty" but a loving act from a believer in Christ.
> 
> Stripped of their facade of being "New Testament Biblical" (which strikes of Dispensationalism) they have wrongly interpreted the Bible on the matter of infant baptism. This has been *proved* in the above posts. You may not like it. You will probably get hysterical about it as you did before, but the truth of the matter is incontrovertible:
> 
> Credo-baptism is a false interpretation of the New Covenant. Consequently, it is a sin that needs to be repented of and renounced.
> 
> In the Love of Jesus Christ,
> 
> -Rob Wieland



So how many times do we all have to put up with your "loving" calls to repentance? 100-200-300 maybe? I mean I can't wait to find out! Maybe you could just write up a simple tag line for your signature stating something like "All Credobaptists are in sin and need to repent and embrace the paedo position in order to be fully in submission to the true gospel." Don't feel the need to sign it "So I have spoken!" We all get that much.


----------



## turmeric

John Nelson Darby was a paedobaptist.



> The question then is, are children entitled to be received? are believers? Believers, clearly, if they have not yet been; if they have, they cannot be again. But supposing they have not, they are clearly received by baptism; and, in an ordinary way, at the beginning, those in received the Holy Ghost, as said in Acts 2, and may be seen in Acts 8. Can children, or are they to be left out where Satan rules? Scripture, I believe, gives a Christian parent a title to bring them to Christ, but this can only be now scripturally by death as baptism figures it, for "that which is born of the flesh is flesh." If baptism be the reception of children where the Holy Ghost is, and where they can be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and taught to obey, which till they are Christians as to position they cannot be, the question is, Is a christian parent obliged to leave his child outside with the devil, or allowed to bring him in where the Holy Ghost and the care of God's house is? Scripture tells one that children of a christian parent are holy, have a right to be admitted, are not as children of a Jew who had married a Gentile unclean, that is, unfit to be admitted among God's people, but holy. I know it is said the husband was so too. It is not true where the sense is looked to, The Jewish husband was profaned not profane, could not be profaned if he had been: it is what is holy that is profaned, nothing else can be. Now it is grace, and the unbeliever is "sanctified," not holy; the child is "holy". The Lord Himself has said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." It is said, Why not give them the Lord's supper? Because that is the sign of the unity of the body, and it is the baptism of the Holy Ghost that forms that. Baptists always reason instead of going to scripture. I have no difficulty with Baptists who think they have never been baptised; of course they ought to be. They have never been regularly admitted among Christians on earth; they may be of the body (as Cornelius) by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, but they have never been formally admitted to the house on earth, the place where the Holy Ghost dwells.


----------



## Iconoclast

*re-read the thread?*

Before calling everyone to repent,why not read the responses once again from post 20-36. It seems as if you are not understanding the reponses that were offered, and then mis-representing the baptist position. 
No one here is dispensational that I can see. Do you think it is possible you are answering positions that no one is offering?
It looks as if you do not understand Spirit baptism,or union with Christ as you did not respond to those answers that were given.


----------



## turmeric

Anthony,
Which post are you referencing?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

tumeric:

Darby, as well as Chafer, were both Presbyterians and ordained in the Presbyterian church. You must remember, however, that Presbyterianism was the mainline denomination back in the 1800's. Chafer was influenced by Scofield who was a Congregationalist and taught at D.L. Moody's church. They both founded Dallas Theological Seminary. Though the school was deeply influenced by Presbyterianism-Chafer and Scofield were both ordained in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) as were most of the early faculty-the distinctive ideas of the Bible conference movement were not accepted by many Presbyterian leaders or by other mainline denominations as useful preparation for the ministry. They increasingly viewed the emphases as antithetical to historic Presbyterianisim. In the 1930s and 40s, Presbyterians in the North and South became openly hostile to dispensationalism. As a result, graduates of the seminary found placement in the mainline churches difficult. This hostility was rooted in the 1800's when B.B. Warfield openly criticized Chafer's theology.

The question really is this:

Does infant baptism utilize a Dispensational-like argument in order to advance its views? If it can be so proven that such is the case, then I will be the first to admit that it carries a Dispensationalist-like hermeneutic.

Iconoclast:

Why is the credo-baptist argument similar to, and relies upon, the Dispensational hermeneutic?

Dispensationalism argues an extreme dichotomy between the Old and New Testaments. The credo-baptist relies upon this dichotomy in order to put forth his views on Baptism. For the credo-baptist the Old Testament has nothing to do with New Testament Baptism. *This is the only doctrine in Scripture that they treat in such a fashion*. Even concerning the other Sacrament - the Lord's Supper - they will admit similarities between it and the Passover. Yet, they stedfastly deny any relationship between the Old and New Testaments when it comes to Baptism - even when such a relationship is Biblically shown, 1 Cor. 10:1-5.

As far as credo-baptists rely on a radical dichotomy between the Old and New Covenants (see their comments above concerning Jer. 31) the Dispensationalist label sticks.

Houseparent:

You will hear a call to repentance from me concerning this until Reformation is achieved. I can do no otherwise, Matthew 4:17.

Satz:

Holy people are not to be baptized? If the Scriptures tell us that children of believers are considered holy we should not Baptize them? The idea of holiness is far deeper than a bare profession of faith. Therefore, to deny Baptism to a "holy" child is contrary to the Will of God. It is a sin. Therefore, repentance is necessary.

Grace and Peace,

-Rob Wieland


----------



## satz

CalvinandHodges said:


> Satz:
> 
> Holy people are not to be baptized? If the Scriptures tell us that children of believers are considered holy we should not Baptize them? The idea of holiness is far deeper than a bare profession of faith. Therefore, to deny Baptism to a "holy" child is contrary to the Will of God. It is a sin. Therefore, repentance is necessary.



Rob,

All you have done is repeat again the proposition that holy people are to be baptized. How do you know this? If it is God's will that a 'holy' child is to be baptized surely it is in his word. All I haved asked for is the verses you believe prove this.


----------



## turmeric

CalvinandHodges;
I was trying to prove that credobaptists are *not* Dispensational. If the guy that invented it isn't even credo, how can people keep assuming that credobaptism is dispensational. I agree with you that it isn't.


----------



## ReformedWretch

> Houseparent:
> 
> You will hear a call to repentance from me concerning this until Reformation is achieved. I can do no otherwise, Matthew 4:17.



Then put it in your signature. The ad nauseam repetition gets old.


----------



## elnwood

CalvinandHodges said:


> Satz:
> 
> Holy people are not to be baptized? If the Scriptures tell us that children of believers are considered holy we should not Baptize them? The idea of holiness is far deeper than a bare profession of faith. Therefore, to deny Baptism to a "holy" child is contrary to the Will of God. It is a sin. Therefore, repentance is necessary.



CH,

In that same verse, the unbelieving spouses are sanctified, or "made holy," by the believing spouse. The Greek word for sanctified, _hagiazo_, comes from the same root as the word used to describe the child as holy: _hagios_.

By your logic, should not unbelieving spouses be baptized as well? Or should I call you to repentance for your assertion that any person that the bible calls holy ought to be baptized?


----------



## JM

elnwood said:


> By your logic, should not unbelieving spouses be baptized as well? Or should I call you to repentance for your assertion that any person that the bible calls holy ought to be baptized?



Good question.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Not a good question. Unless the original statement actually asserted that "all holy persons should be baptized." However, if ONE criteria for baptizing a person is that the person be designated as "holy" then one condition has been met in the case of the specified child.

The question assumes a specific, philosophical equalitarian view of persons.

Are there any differences between a holy child and a holy grown person or a spouse that would qualify (or disqualify) them from baptism? It's facile to say that a sufficient qualifying condition in one case (assuming that was in fact the case) means that the same condition must be sufficient in every case.

Example: 20/20 (or corrected eyesight) may be a qualifying condition to get a drivers license. So, if that qualifies a 16 year old, why doesn't it qualify a 6 year old? Unfair?


----------



## JM

Considering the passage referred to, it's a good question that logically follows.


----------



## elnwood

Contra_Mundum said:


> Not a good question. Unless the original statement actually asserted that "all holy persons should be baptized." However, if ONE criteria for baptizing a person is that the person be designated as "holy" then one condition has been met in the case of the specified child.



Bruce, it is my understanding that CalvinandHodges was saying that being holy IS sufficient for baptism.

I am reading CH's view based on the following statements:



CalvinandHodges said:


> Also, how can you refuse Baptism to a person of whom the Scriptures tell us that they are holy?
> 
> Holy people don't get baptized?





CalvinandHodges said:


> Holy people are not to be baptized? If the Scriptures tell us that children of believers are considered holy we should not Baptize them? The idea of holiness is far deeper than a bare profession of faith. Therefore, to deny Baptism to a "holy" child is contrary to the Will of God. It is a sin. Therefore, repentance is necessary.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

OK, Don, I think I just need to let RW defend his own statements. My point is still that what may be called a "sufficient" condition in one case, is not reason to assume is more than a "necessary" condition in another. 1 Cor. 7:14 doesn't prove infant baptism, it only proves that children of believers possess the attribute of "holy" by virtue of who they are.

Paul's use of verbs (in the case of the spouses) and the substantive (in the case of the children) also gives indication that the situations, while similar in some ways, may be disanalogous in others. The verbal usage places the emphasis on the _*relationship*_; the substantive usage places emphasis on the quality of the object. The spouses are "made holy" through the believer, showing that the "holiness" being referred to is clearly a derived attribute, contingent on the relation.

Paul could easily have stated that the children were also "made holy" in exactly the same relation, In other words,, "else your children were unclean, but as it is, they are sanctified as well." But that's not what he says; instead, bypassing overt reference to their generation or a derivation of holiness, he affirms their intrinsic "holiness" (whatever we may determine that refers to).

Note also the usage of the verb "eimi" (to be). In such a case, the copula is basically superfluous, but Paul takes the effort (and the space on the line--remember, back then, writers saved as much space as possible, so including an otherwise unnecessary verb is usually an indicator of some kind of emphasis) to put it in. Further, the use of the singular verb with plural nouns and substantives emphasizes the individuality of those included in the collectives (Wallace, pp399-400). So in essense we could write his line like this: "or else *each one* of your children _ARE_ unclean ones, but now they _ARE_ *each one* holy ones." This is an obvious emphasis on the quality or attribute of the persons themselves, and not on the relationship sustained. The relationship has merely been the precondition of the status. For instance, the parent chould die, but the child would not for that reason lose his status.

That kind of statement is NOT being made with respect to the spouse. There, the relationship is not merely the precondition of the condition, but is of the essence of the condition, and sustains the condition. If the spouse dies, or divorce intervenes, so does the relation of holiness.


----------



## elnwood

Contra_Mundum said:


> That kind of statement is NOT being made with respect to the spouse. There, the relationship is not merely the precondition of the condition, but is of the essence of the condition, and sustains the condition. If the spouse dies, or divorce intervenes, so does the relation of holiness.



Bruce, I disagree. Does not the passage teach that if the believing spouse leaves, the child would not be holy but unclean? If the children would remain holy, then why the imperative to stay with the unbeliever?

[BIBLE]1 cor. 7:13-14[/bible]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

elnwood said:


> Bruce, I disagree. Does not the passage teach that if the believing spouse leaves, the child would not be holy but unclean? If the children would remain holy, then why the imperative to stay with the unbeliever?
> 
> [BIBLE]1 cor. 7:13-14[/bible]



No, Don. It doesn't teach that. That is what Bruce was explaining to you grammatically and contextually. Regardless of whether you believe that children ought to be baptized or not, you need to understand the issue here.

1. There is the Covenantal understanding that God's people were supposed to be holy ("set apart").
2. These new converts would now be familiar with the history of their forebears in the faith: the Jews.
3. They would be familiar with the story of Esau and others who married unclean people and other stories where Levites were to put away their pagan spouses.

Thus, a natural question would arise as to what a "Royal Priesthood" would need to do now that they were in Covenant with God. This is a good example of how Covenantal continuity/discontinuity is directly addressed by an Apostle instead of leaving the issue to the imagination. He specifically explains that, although we should not seek to marry the unbeliever in the same way that God's people were never supposed to marry unbelievers, it is quite another thing when one spouse converts and the other is yet unconverted in this new epoch of Redemptive History.

If they will stay with you, Paul says, then don't leave them. You are not violating the command of God by defiling yourself and being with this unbeliever.

Now, here is where the children are brought in. In the construction of the sentence, Paul is effectively saying: As further evidence of the fact that your relationship with this person is not unholy, consider your children - you know they are holy but this could not be if you were in an unholy relationship.

Thus, in effect, the children are brought in as an added support to the fact that the unbelieving spouse does not defile the believing spouse. There is absolutely NO SENSE in the entire passage where the children are said to be defiled in themselves except for the sanctifying influence of the parent.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

I believe that Bruce and Rich have made excellent points, and a simple look at the passage will explain it well:



> For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: *otherwise* were your children unclean, but now they are holy


The unbeliever is not sanctifed for the sake of him/her self, but simply for the sake of the child. In other words: God does not consider the unbelieving spouse "holy" because of some quality in the unbeliever, but for the sake of the believing spouse and his/her child.

That God would go so far out of his way on behalf of the child of a believer is indicative of His paternal love and care for all of His people. Such a consideration is beyond the scope of the credo-baptist position. Why would Paul even write something like this if he was a credo-baptist?

Credo-baptist: I am sorry but your children are not in the New Covenant until they make a profession of faith. Consequently, we cannot consider them "holy."


Grace,

-CH


----------

