# What is "administration"?



## steadfast7 (Jan 12, 2012)

Some questions:

1. In the language of covenant theology what _exactly_ is meant by "administration of the Covenant of Grace"?

2. What are those specific events, procedures, rites, or tangible elements that give us that concept? Does every administration have a common element?

3. What is involved in the administration of the New Covenant?

4. Is this concept common to all Reformed, including baptists?

thank you.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 12, 2012)

I'll try and answer your question simply, Dennis. But, there's no guarantee that simple answers will give you all your looking for.

*1. In the language of covenant theology what exactly is meant by "administration of the Covenant of Grace"?*
To think through "administration," first you should think of the idea of government. For instance, in the USA, we are presently under the BHO "administration." Prior to that, we were under the GWB "administration." The idea in this country is that government changes hands, passing from one set of "ministers" or "administrators" to another, relatively seamlessly.

We can compare USA governmental shifts (regular, orderly) to "changes of administration" in a place like Lybia recently. One can argue that there was "significant discontinuity" in the latter, while the former typically enjoys far less jarring and painful discontinuities. But clearly, there are discontinuities in USA administrations, sometimes even radical ones, marked changes that are reflected in policy, orientation, and even structure.

What stays the same in the USA is its Constitution.Of course, we have to deal with people and administrations who ignore the Constitution, consider it outdated, etc. Others pay lip service to it, while attempting various "revolutions within the form," which is simply devious and hateful. Why? because such corruption mocks the ordinary reader of the Constitution and subject of it's law. Manipulators of the agreed "form of words" are reprehensible, in that they elevate themselves over the Constitutional law, rather than respecting the much harder process of Constitutional change and revision. There is much parallel here to theological radicals. But I digress....​The overarching continuity of the Constitution in the USA means that this country has had one, basic government since 1787. This, despite various deviations, interruptions, sly revolutions, and any other criticisms that may legitimately be leveled at this too-human institution. One great law, one covenant.

So then, the connection between this example and the Covenant of Grace is the analogy of constitution. Within the constitutional frame of the Covenant of Grace that governs God's relations to man, there are various administrations of it. If you will, the great "discontinuity" in human history is the break between the Covenant of Works in the Garden, and the Covenant of Grace subsequent to the Fall. Since the Fall, God has dealt progressively with man under a constitution that refers all demands to the Surety, rather than exacting the demands of the first constitution from those who were engaged in it (but have since switched allegiance). In Christ, the Mediator (King/Priest/Prophet) of the Covenant, this latter constitution receives its best expression. 

*2. What are those specific events, procedures, rites, or tangible elements that give us that concept? Does every administration have a common element?*
Every government needs minsters / administrators. Men on earth do not have easy and free converse with God, since the Fall. And even since Christ came--and left--who was "in the flesh," he had/has "locality," that is to say that men cannot be everywhere at once _as men._ So they share the role of government. Kings use ministers of his will. And we see God using ministers of various kinds in both OT and NT.

*3. What is involved in the administration of the New Covenant?*
The New Covenant (in my view) requires ministers in this age, as in the former ages. They serve Christ and his people as he did, a true Servant ("I am among you as one that ministers"). This includes administration of rule, and the Word and Sacraments, all which are quasi-mediatorial (king/prophet/priest) but of Christ in a symbolic, not intrinsic, manner. Always, his ministers during any administration had the same symbolic role. None have ever been Mediators _in themselves._

*4. Is this concept common to all Reformed, including baptists?*
I think you will find there are agreements here, but also disagreements. I have not quite found a Baptist willing to agree with me that the NC has much the same sort of earthly administration as existed under the previous ages of administration. The Baptist typically makes much of "the priesthood of all believers," for example (does he forget/ignore/discount the fact that this is an OT concept, with Peter referencing from the Law to make his point?). The congregational system often makes the whole gathering of the saints the final authority of rule (kingly aspect). The teaching office (prophetic aspect) is often similarly democratized. There is more of the "leveling" conception in the Baptist ideal.

Whereas in Presbyterianism, one clearly sees a doctrine of ministerial office (thus separating clergy/ministers from laity), not divorced from lay-eldership who share in the ruling function with ministers (as seen in the Mosaic era). I do not say that Ref.Bapt. churches fail to have elder-rule, but how often do we hear of the "reintroduction" of elders in Baptist churches? There is a rational reason for such a disappearance, if ultimate rule in a congregation is voting by the congregation. The pastor is entrusted with day-to-day functions, possibly even control of the money, etc. He's treated as an "administrator" of the church by the congregation, but not (I say) as administering New Covenant.

Many (most?) Baptists do not like even the language of "sacraments" or "means of grace," again because it implies that something or someone is responsible for "mediating" Christ and his benefits to the believer. There is an evident preference for "immediate" encounters. The Baptist pastor may at times be viewed as occupying something of an elevated "prophetic" office, but even here I think in many cases the popular perception of the preacher's role is that he's simply the most talented of all the potential speakers. He's more edifying than most, he's gotten him some training, so he's offered the job.

I do think that many Ref.Bapt. do see elements of the Presbyterian/Reformed system as desirable, and others as undesirable. And they do incorporate such as they approve. But I see a degree of conflict within the Baptist-side of the Christian community, as "logical entailments" are battled out between various factions. I happen to think that there is a logic to Congregationalism that ultimately works toward (for example) the elimination of lay-elders. We see it in the Congregationalists (denominationally) as well as the Baptists. Unless a vigorous rationale is mounted to retain elders, the logic of formally resting the "rule" of the congregation in the "body" works against them. Because, ultimately its an "office" they hold in the "government" of Christ, separate and above the whole; and this "principle" is antagonistic to the radical leveling effect of removing all vestiges of "human mediators" between Christians and Christ.


I hope this begins to answer the questions.


----------



## KingofBashan (Jan 12, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I do not say that Ref.Bapt. churches fail to have elder-rule, but how often do we hear of the "reintroduction" of elders in Baptist churches? There is a rational reason for such a disappearance, if ultimate rule in a congregation is voting by the congregation. The pastor is entrusted with day-to-day functions, possibly even control of the money, etc. He's treated as an "administrator" of the church by the congregation, but not (I say) as administering New Covenant.
> Many (most?) Baptists do not like even the language of "sacraments" or "means of grace," again because it implies that something or someone is responsible for "mediating" Christ and his benefits to the believer. There is an evident preference for "immediate" encounters. The Baptist pastor may at times be viewed as occupying something of an elevated "prophetic" office, but even here I think in many cases the popular perception of the preacher's role is that he's simply the most talented of all the potential speakers. He's more edifying than most, he's gotten him some training, so he's offered the job.
> I do think that many Ref.Bapt. do see elements of the Presbyterian/Reformed system as desirable, and others as undesirable. And they do incorporate such as they approve. But I see a degree of conflict within the Baptist-side of the Christian community, as "logical entailments" are battled out between various factions. I happen to think that there is a logic to Congregationalism that ultimately works toward (for example) the elimination of lay-elders. We see it in the Congregationalists (denominationally) as well as the Baptists. Unless a vigorous rationale is mounted to retain elders, the logic of formally resting the "rule" of the congregation in the "body" works against them. Because, ultimately its an "office" they hold in the "government" of Christ, separate and above the whole; and this "principle" is antagonistic to the radical leveling effect of removing all vestiges of "human mediators" between Christians and Christ.



I would like to briefly address some of these comments on behalf of Reformed Baptists (as distinct from other Baptists, or even "Calvinistic" Baptists).

- A reformed baptist believes in plurality of the eldership, ie, having more than one pastor in a congregation. (implied in LBCF chapter 26, paragraph 9)
- A reformed baptist believes work of pastors to be, taken from the LBCF chapter 25, paragraph 10:



> The work of pastors being constantly to attend the service of Christ, in his churches, in the ministry of the word and prayer, with watching for their souls, as they that must give an account to Him...



This same paragraph mentions the congregation's duty to provide pastors financial support.

- A reformed baptist believes that although the pastor has a duty to preach, other gifted men "may and ought" to be given opportunity to preach. (LBCF 26, paragraph 11)
- A reformed baptist believes in the means of grace. (LBCF 14, parapgraph 1)

For more information on a Reformed Baptist view of the means of grace listen to Dr. Jim Renihan's talk here and a brief overview of the same here.

On the issue of authority.

Again, let me mention I am only speaking for Reformed Baptists proper. I am aware baptists span a broad range from very liberal-pelagian to conservative-calvinistic. But I am defending "reformed baptists", those churches that hold to the LBCF 1689. 

- Instead of quoting the confession verbatim I am going to present its logic.

1. Christ is the head of the church, appointed by the Father, with all supreme and sovereign authority over her government (LBCF 26:4). 
2. He executes this authority and calls those who are given to him by the Father out of the world through the ministry of the word and by his Spirit (LBCF 26:5). 
3. Those he calls in this way he also commands to walk together in "particular societies" or churches (LBCF 26:5).
4. The members of these churches are saints by calling and willingly consent to walk together according to Christ's instructions (LBCF 26:6).
5. The members willingly consent to give themselves up to the Lord and to one another, by the will of God, in professed subjection to the ordinances of the gospel (LBCF 26:6).
6. To each of these churches Christ has given the power and authority needful for carrying out worship and discipline, with commands for carrying out this authority. (LBCF 26:7).
7. The rest of the chapter essentially deals with what "carrying out this authority" means. Namely, appointment of church officers, support of elders, member submission to church government, and the formation of assoications among churches.

- In my understanding, passages in Timothy, Hebrews and Peter (that I know of) instruct lay members to submit to their elders for the sake of Christ. This is how I have been taught in my church.

Final remark.

I hope this is a faithful representation of the Reformed Baptist perspective. I hope it proves that we do not see our elders as "administrators", we embrace the teaching of the "means of grace", our pastors are not "elevated speakers" but appointed by Jesus Christ to shepherd the flock and to attend to the ministry of prayer and preaching, and that they are to be obeyed so they can do their jobs cheerfully (Hebrews 13:17).


----------



## steadfast7 (Jan 12, 2012)

Thanks for the responses! I really had no idea that authority and government fared so strongly in the concept of an administration of the covenant. I thought administration meant those rites and rituals that makes one a member. Looking back at the Noahic and Abrahamic, in what sense did God set up government in their respective covenants?

If administration is governmental, then it does explain how it's so collectivist and inclusive. Makes sense for the paedobaptist scheme.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 12, 2012)

> If administration is governmental, then it does explain how it's so collectivist and inclusive. Makes sense for the paedobaptist scheme.



Are children of those who profess to be Christians brought up in a covenantal administration?


----------



## steadfast7 (Jan 12, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> > If administration is governmental, then it does explain how it's so collectivist and inclusive. Makes sense for the paedobaptist scheme.
> 
> 
> 
> Are children of those who profess to be Christians brought up in a covenantal administration?



From Price's helpful post above, it seems the Reformed Baptist concept of administration is similar, ie. the church, under the sacraments. That church membership comprises those who are of faith and willingly give themselves to the Lord, his Church, and submit to those sacraments. Are children in the church privileged? yes. Are they set apart? yes. It's not that the church _excludes_ them, but that the covenant includes according to a specific criteria. Rather than the negative (who is excluded), the Baptist would want to accentuate the positive (to whom does the promise belong?).

To answer your question, and I invite correction from my RB brethren, I would say "no." There is no reason to deem people as having covenanted with God who have not identified with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (figured in the sacraments) by faith.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 13, 2012)

Price (King...)
I hope you understand that I did try (in a very limited space) to distinguish an LBC-man from the "broad-brush" I had to paint with.

But I do think that as a good Confessionalist, you really do have to contend with many folks from the far side of you, opposite me, who are going to tell you that they are simply more consistent with the principles of Independency.

Now, I have on this board had fairly clear interactions, without rancor, in which my Confessionalist-Baptist friends do oppose the idea that the church _administers_ the NC on earth. The NC is wholly *perfect*, according to the Baptist schema, and this world is imperfect. Ergo, logically whatever happens down here, it is not "administration" in the classic sense of the word.

If you admit the membership is subject to an "imperfect" administration in the nature of the case (or that the visible church is the kingdom of Christ in the world), this seriously impairs a major objection Baptists have generally to the Presbyterian contention that the earthly, imperfect administration of the NC is symmetrical with previous imperfect administrations.
_____________________________________________

I'll add here one of the convenient comparatives that often help in these situations. The issue is emphasis, and where one locates "perfection."
Presb.--admits of a "perfect" (heavenly) church institution, comprised of "imperfect" (earthly) people.
Bapt.--admits of an "imperfect" (earthly) church institution, comprised of "perfect" (elect) people.

Under the first schema, the perfect ideal is invisible, but is made visible in the (imperfect) world by the institution, its government (and practice). The membership is entirely "imperfect," just a bunch of sinners (and their children).

Under the second schema, the Kingdom is not only invisible, it is wholly out of this world. The church institution is "mixed" (imperfect) because it is entirely earthly in its conception. The invisible company of "perfected" elect people is rendered "visible" in the gathering of professors.

Where is the emphasis in each of these? In the first, it is in a proper "government," a proper administration. In the second, it is in a proper "membership," the right sort of people.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 13, 2012)

*Dennis*


> To answer your question, and I invite correction from my RB brethren, I would say "no." There is no reason to deem people as having covenanted with God who have not identified with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (figured in the sacraments) by faith.



They may not have responded to God's covenant overtures, but in His providence God has placed them in His covenant administration, and has covenanted to save them - if they have faith. Whether they are Reformed Baptist or Presbyterian children - like the Old Testament Israelites - they are brought up, in God's covenant providence, under the sound and authority of the Book of the Covenant, the Bible.



> Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.(Rom 3:1-4,ESV)



Being placed in God's providence in a covenant family - RB or Presbyterian - is a great grace from God. The fact that many neglect or despise such grace doesn't nullify it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 13, 2012)

I want to add a point, just so I'm not mistaken for claiming something I'm not.

_I do not believe that Government IS (existentially) the church-constituted._ The RC view is that the institute IS the church. The people who identify with the RCC are not, strictly speaking, its citizens. That privilege is reserved for "the Religious," that is, those in "holy orders." People swing in and out of "the church" in order to partake of such gifts as they are offered there, either freely, or (as we sadly know) to buy "wares" for a price. Baptized into the RCC (even as an adult) means nothing more than perpetual infancy; confirmation means little more than perpetual childhood. The vast majority of the RCC members do not "grow in grace;" that is, experience progress toward spiritual maturity--which is the norm Jesus and his Apostles taught. They simply conduct maintenance on their slight religious endowment, while accumulating their years to be spent in purgatory.

The loss of discipline is, again, something that the centuries and the events have revealed more and more clearly. The laity in RCism has become less and less subject to any form of real "discipline," other than the need for baptism (indispensable), and an occasional mass, confession, or various other rites. And why not, if they are barely considered "part" of the church? Then (perversely) those who are "more holy," that is more Religious, and further in the organization, are also assumed to be in fact more perfected. Now, how can an "infallible" church truly clean-house, by strict forms of discipline, without calling into question the very power they claim to embody--which is to make those who rise in the hierarchy better and better? Hence, the paralysis of that communion regarding the moral (and doctrinal) malfeasance of their officials.

Instead, the RCC has replaced the 24/7 discipline of Christ through his Govt.--for all his people, in or out of his Govt.--with lots of LAWS, lots of stuff to do, many which are offered as options for the laity, but forms of which are expected of "the Religious" in order to fulfill their vows. This form of discipline is largely external and impositional. They minimize the WORD ministry, in favor of (multiplied) sacraments and related duties.

This is quite the opposite of a WORD-emphasis church, a gospel-church, in which the preaching of the Word is the primary means of discipline--for all the sinners gathered there; because the Spirit is promised in that Word to use that Word to reach the heart, and discipline the faithful from within. It isn't getting that "grace" inside the body by means of the "wafer" that effects change in the soul; or any other habit that imposes controls on behavior. But those are the very things, "dispensed" or approved by the RCC, that they expect to sustain "the faithful." RCC-goers are expected to "believe the church" for their salvation, because IN that church (in its Govt. and systems) is the ongoing work of salvation.



I should hope it was plain that what I mean by a critical emphasis on "administration" is very far removed from the RC view of the institutional church.


----------



## steadfast7 (Jan 13, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'll add here one of the convenient comparatives that often help in these situations. The issue is emphasis, and where one locates "perfection."
> Presb.--admits of a "perfect" (heavenly) church institution, comprised of "imperfect" (earthly) people.
> Bapt.--admits of an "imperfect" (earthly) church institution, comprised of "perfect" (elect) people.
> 
> ...



thanks for this, Rev. B; a helpful breakdown. Perhaps another illustration would be that of an umbrella: the Presbyterian model emphasizes the umbrella, the overarching structure that is over the people (focusing on those objective things, the sacraments, the God-appointed ministers of the church, etc); the Baptist model emphasizes the individuals under the umbrella who receive its benefits, thereby screening its people rigorously and admitting only a regenerate membership.


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 13, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> > If administration is governmental, then it does explain how it's so collectivist and inclusive. Makes sense for the paedobaptist scheme.
> 
> 
> 
> Are children of those who profess to be Christians brought up in a covenantal administration?



Would the best phrasing be "in" the covenant administration, or "under" the external administration of the covenant? There seem to be many under the covenant who are not truly "in" Christ. What is the best phrasing to acknowledge that all who are in the earthly church are not part of the heavenly Church?


----------



## KingofBashan (Jan 15, 2012)

Thank you for the clarification Bruce. I feel the reformed baptist perspective is misunderstood by most paedobaptists and I like to do what I can when I can to help defend our position. I appreciate your graciousness, brother.

As an aside I am not sure if I agree with your breakdown:



> Presb.--admits of a "perfect" (heavenly) church institution, comprised of "imperfect" (earthly) people.
> Bapt.--admits of an "imperfect" (earthly) church institution, comprised of "perfect" (elect) people.



I will admit I am not sure if I speak for Reformed Baptist, or if I am speaking a private opinion. Reformed Baptist seem to acknowledge both an "imperfect" church and people. 

Our confession says this:



> 26:3.	The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.



26:1 establishes that there is an invisible, catholic church comprised only of the elect. 26:2 establishes that only those with a credible proffession of faith may join congregations:



> 26:2 All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.



So Baptist seem to admit that the earthly people are not "perfect" (ie only the elect).

I am afraid though that I may be way off topic at this point. Thank you again Bruce for your comments.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 15, 2012)

> Would the best phrasing be "in" the covenant administration, or "under" the external administration of the covenant?



Either would do. There are different ways of expressing this as Berkhof shows in his _Systematic Theology_ under the _Duality of the Covenant_. But it is important to emphasise that there is a relationship with God, for the unregenerate in or under the external administration of the covenant short of salvation, because God in His providence has put them under the sound of His covenantal Word.



> There seem to be many under the covenant who are not truly "in" Christ. What is the best phrasing to acknowledge that all who are in the earthly church are not part of the heavenly Church?



Paedobaptists like Reformed Baptists talk about the visible and invisible aspects of the Church. But for paedobaptists the visible Church largely corresponds, or should largely correspond, to the visible, legal, outward administration of the covenant by the covenant signs of baptism and the Lord's Supper properly administered.

Do Reformed Baptists believe in an outward, legal, visible administration of the covenant in the New Testament? Presumably not if you only believe the elect are in any sense in the covenant, and only the regenerate elect are in any sense properly baptised?

Paedos believe all those who make a credible profession and their children are properly baptised, whether elect or regenerate elect or not. The Lord will deal with such in His historical and temporary Covenant of Grace administration.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 15, 2012)

Price,
I think the misunderstanding goes both ways. And I would like to think I've moved a good ways toward understanding your convictions in the last 8-years of interaction on this board, especially. I know I have tried.

My proposal in that little comparison I offered is actually one developed in our context here (not without other influence). It's always good to settle on language that the sides can agree on. It helps when someone of another persuasion can present his oppenent's side in a way that does not make a cartoon of it, and that he can even acknowledge.

So, I'd only ask that you give that breakdown some thought; reflect on it, and see if you can follow what it's trying to describe--not whether it reductionistically captures the nuances of either side in a complete fashion.

For instance, in _neither_ case can the adjective "perfect" be referencing anything that is present in the world *to our human perceptions*.

But think about this fact: As a Presbyterian, I believe that an unregenerate person can be a disciple, and thus be baptized--my exhibit A = Judas Iscariot. Do I think he was false? Absolutely, but his falseness didn't mean that he was not the thing he was denominated, namely one of the Twelve.

I'm not yet aware of any of my Baptist friends who would be willing to accept the idea that something other than an internal conversion makes a person a disciple. A mere outward commitment--personally or by the will of another's lawful authority--does not a disciple make. Only a TRUE disciple may be baptized, i.e. someone who is presently savingly converted. And if one was not so converted when he was baptized, what then? Why, he has yet to be baptized!

But what is my position? This: that even a FALSE disciple and unconverted, if he has been baptized, is already baptized. If he is converted later, wonderful. He was already a baptized disciple, however.

*****************************************************

This is the kind of insight that stands behind my comparison. Baptist do, generally, understand the church's composition exclusively _in terms of its elect, regenerated, and converted_ membership. These are the "perfect," the terminological point being, that both sides can actually agree that these alone are the *ideal members* of Christ's Body. But it is the distinctive mark of Baptist ecclesiology that these _alone_ have participation in the Church's rites. An "unregenerate" baptism has done _nothing at all_. If the person later becomes converted, he must *then* pass through the waters of baptism; no blessing to him is associated with the original rite.

Everyone in this conversation believes in church-discipline. No side will properly retain a disciple in its membership who defies instruction, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. The real dispute between the sides is whether said disciples are being viewed _first_ as "ideal" (a true or perfect membership); or _first_ as those whose weaknesses and remaining corruption are so great (the different levels of felt-assurance to self or others notwithstanding), that only perseverance through faith will reveal the "ideal" set of disciples in glory.

My side views the church (collective) _first_ from the standpoint of that eschatological gathering. It's an "ideal" institution, before it has an earthly analogue. Worship is basically an invitation to "come up here," to the real get-together (heaven). Only the true and faithful can do that. But everyone present (all these sinners) is always being urged to "press in," "to make calling and election sure," etc. The assumption is not that they unquestioningly have their ticket to the feast--but that none of those present have arrived at all, and will never arrive without perseverance. Worship is a foretaste of heaven.

So, this view of the church stands behind my statement that the church is the "perfect" institution. It is "imperfectly" administered down here, mainly because its members and even its governors are all sinners, and imperfect. The locus of perfection is not in the membership, therefore, but in the eschatological Body, which is perfect. Since the member-disciples are not finally perfect (and some might fall away anyway) our interest is not _primarily_ in screening them; but in the imposition of discipline--a full time, 24/7 shepherding job for every single one

The Baptist principal view of the earthly church is that of an inevitable mixed group, because no screening here is faultless. This means that the church _cannot_ conduct New Covenant administration, because the New Covenant (in Baptist thought) has NO connection with imperfection. The perennial question is "Who may join?" How then to engage in the corporate blessing-activity of the church is the _second_ question, after the first question regarding who are the ideal participants, and using the best available means (in their judgment) to achieve a close-correspondence to the Lamb's Book of Life on the rolls here below. And there's less concern for the "need" of church-mediation of divine blessings. Membership (New Covenant) is defined by a new (grant of) worthiness--so, there's no need to imagine an "imperfect" or "this-worldly" administration of that covenant

The point is not to say that either side in this debate does not share in some way the "eschatological" viewpoint of the other. The issue is *priority*. Because the first-step is where one emphasizes "perfection," and the second step must _inevitably_ emphasize the opposite, namely "imperfection." If membership-perfection has priority, then the business of worship has to take into account the reality of worldly imperfection. If worship has priority, and our vital task is to represent heavenly perfection as far as we can, then the business of membership and all other administration of the church has to take into account the reality of worldly imperfection.


----------



## steadfast7 (Jan 15, 2012)

Rev Bruce, would you say that the practice of infant baptism flows is a pure expression of the _baptism-of-disciples_ principle, or does is it an exceptional case, dependent on another principle/framework?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 15, 2012)

I would relate "baptism of infants" to "baptism of disciples" the way I might relate "baptism of infants" to the fact that the children of believers are identified as "holy" in Scripture.

I think that the children of believers are, naturally, disciples; and the proper subjects of life-long Christian instruction. He is a disciple because his parent is a disciple and has a duty to the child before God. The parent sits his child beside him and tells him to heed and believe, just as the parent heeds and believes. I think such a relation is fundamental to created humanity. I don't think there are additional "steps" required to constitute such a person a disciple. Providence has made them a disciple.

I think the OT as much as the NT puts the children of believers in the context of the promises of the New Covenant, without the least indication that the nature of their connection to their parents' faith faces a basic alteration. Children were expected to be taught the faith then; they are expected to be taught the faith now.


I would say the practice of infant-baptism is fundamentally an expression of obedience to God: that we must have the sign of his covenant applied to us (believers), and to all the other image-bearers who belong to us; stipulations that were very clearly spelled out in Gen.17.

I'd say that the covenant sign marks one out as a disciple, it is (in an outward, formal, ceremonial sense) the beginning of discipleship. Like a marriage ceremony is the beginning of a marriage. Is there a sense in which the day she said, "yes" you began to be "married-in-mind." Your vows on the wedding-day were expressions of what was already vowed-in-the-heart. But still, the ceremony marks an official start. Its the beginning of the marriage. Baptism, like circumcision before it, is the beginning of discipleship.


----------



## steadfast7 (Jan 16, 2012)

Your points on discipleship do make sense, Rev. B. 
Now if baptism was the pure carry-over of circumcision, wouldn't we have expected them NOT to practice adult baptism? The first Christians were circumcised Jews and had been circumcised in heart when they accepted Christ. Apart from the baptism of women, so as to include them in the covenant sign, wouldn't we have expected them to simply wait until their progeny of Christians were born and then practice infant baptism (except in the case of converts), as Jews had always done? There is something to be said, in my mind, about the example given that Jesus and his disciples were baptized as adults. This may have been to "reset" the covenant sign with a new federal head, or, an indicator of the newness of the covenant, or both.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 18, 2012)

Dennis,
I guess I just don't follow the logic of your argument, possibly because I don't begin with the same opening premises you do. Maybe the largest looming facts to me have to do with the function of history (time and place) in relation or connection to the coming of the kingdom.

When the King arrival is imminent, at a time and place announced, and there is an implied summons for his people (they're already his people to one degree or another) to receive him and acclaim him. If John (the Baptist) is heralding the arrival, and calling even the loyalists to an open testimony and reconsecration of allegiance to *this king*, I fail to see how this call stands in any sort of conflict with any previous testimony to allegiance of a more general nature--that is, to "*whichever king*" will come.

More to the point, I'm satisfied that John's baptism was as inclusive of entire families as the baptism of Ex.24:8 (cf.Heb.9:10, 19-20). I certainly see nothing contrary to the historic manners of the church, that would lead me to believe small children were _not_ included, see Dt.30:2. Such a moment would also affect women, who endured more ceremonial exclusions and restrictions under the former (Mosaic) administration.

Bottom line, I don't think that the examples cited are any more indicative of _a new exclusion_ of the children of believers than Abraham's and Ishmael's (and many other's) adult-circumcision. Or that the wholesale adult-circumcision of Jsh.5, upon the "great transition" of entering the Land, signaled a new habit for Israel. There are quite a few parallels one can make between the new-kingdom situation at the first, and the New Kingdom situation at the last. I think the Gilgal event (even the place at the Jordan correlates with John's activity) would meet, in one sense or another, practically any such criteria you might propose for a "new-order" of business re. application of the covenant sign--except it did not. It was not a "new precedent" for adult circumcision.


----------



## steadfast7 (Jan 25, 2012)

I guess what I'm getting is that the vast majority of early converts to Christianity were Jews, who had all experienced circumcision as infants. If they were convinced that the administration of the covenant was new but retained the pattern of Abrahamic entry rites, we would not have seen the emphasis on adult baptism that we see in the New Testament. Rather, the first generation would have considered themselves in the covenant by virtue of their faith and then _begin _ the application of the covenantal sign with their infants in the next generation.

Consider the following simple schematic (C=infant circumcision; B=infant baptism, A=adult baptism). The pattern with the covenant community had always been: C, C, C ... We would expect the pattern of Jewish entry in the new administration (New Covenant) to be: C, C, C, B, B, B - all applied to infants uniformly. But rather, we see C, C, C, A, A, B, B, B (depending on how early one thinks that infant baptism began in the church).

It seems significant and surprising to me that the new administration of the covenant (for Jewish believers) began with adult baptism. The Jews had not known of an entry into the covenant that didn't happen in their infancy, but here is something very new about their entry into the New Covenant. The only person in their line who had experienced the covenantal sign placed on them as an adult was their father Abraham, and here it is happening to them. How novel! What would have given rise to adult baptism among the first generation of Jewish converts, unless it was significant that _adults_ be baptized, in the pattern of Jesus, who is the promised Seed of Abraham, who had originally received the sign as an adult?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 26, 2012)

What about all the people who entered into the Old Covenant by conversion?

What about the Jews whose ceremonial entrance into the Old Covenant by circumcision was delayed for some reason? (ala Moses' son, or the Wilderness generation)

Your assertion that the Jews as a "class" are somehow clueless as to adults making commitments to covenants seems to glide over various counter-examples that add complication to your simplistic analytic scheme.

What about the fact that OT Jews had a number of very public, annual covenant-renewal rites? For example: Passover, or Yom Kippur. What sort of lesson would these repeated events be teaching covenant members, if not at the very least: initial membership (of whatever age) required subsequent acts of covenant-commitment, so as not to invalidate the first act through disobedience, see Num.9:13.

Does the explanation I gave you in the earlier post add anything to incorporate in your thought process? You make zero reference to it, don't interact with it at all. I conclude you either didn't read it, or we're just so completely coming at the question from diametrically opposed directions, that what I have to say doesn't even register in your consciousness when you do read it: _"What on earth does what he just wrote have to do with anything!?"_


Bottom line, Dennis, you have some pretty well-defined presuppositions, and they color your whole approach to the situations you raise. I tried to explain to you why the objection you raise makes absolutely ZERO impact on anyone in this camp, because it comes at the mound of data from a direction that is counterintuitive to those of us accustomed to the measured steps that mark our ascent to a conclusion.

Note how you begin. You _assert_ that the NT "emphasizes" adult baptism. Really? In what way? The facts read quite different to me. But because you just accept your notion as a "given," this axiom becomes crucial for how you look at the rest of your scenario.

Here are some facts. 1) The total number of specific baptismal occasions of persons referred to in the NT you can count on two hands. A number of these are so general in nature, that no one could tell from the bare textual evidence just what ages were of ALL persons who could have been involved. 2) Approximately 1/3 of the total are "household" baptisms, which can only be said to _exclude_ certain ordinary household members (infants) by a theological presupposition. 3) This leaves barely a *handful* of instances in which particular adults, and only those adults, surely were baptized. The historic fact of adult baptism can tell us virtually nothing about the criteria for anyone's baptism, let alone whether there could or couldn't be different expectations for differently aged people.

Is a profoundly retarded person, age 2 or 22, or any age, a proper candidate for baptism? He can't talk, he can't feed himself, he wears a diaper. At our church, he's a member. He can't partake the Lord's Supper because he's not capable of self-examination; but he's still capable of receiving baptism and the church's official recognition of him as ONE OF OURS. "Hands off, world! This one is Christ's." You might call him a lot of things, but you can't call him a member of your church, or of Christ's church. He's in a pathetic limbo; you don't dare name him ONE OF US, because he just might not be. You're standard for baptism is: "one size fits all, and if it doesn't fit, it doesn't happen."


I understand how you get to your understanding of baptism, and why you maintain that stance. You read the biblical data a certain way. I don't agree with it, but I respect that you mean well, and try to be consistent. What I don't understand is, why you have such a problem just accepting the fact that others look at the same data (and I suspect more data overall), and come to different conclusions. You create a scenario, run it through your own reconstructed grid of what you think the other side thinks, and then pronounce that view inconsistent. When I point out some factors you've actually ignored by your simplistic grid superimposed on this side, you just persist in restating your initial objection, as if I offered nothing in reply. You think I failed to understand your original, oh-so-obvious objection.

No, I understood it quite clear enough. And I showed why, with the inclusion of other factors, your original objection disappears like the mirage it is.


----------



## steadfast7 (Jan 26, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> What about all the people who entered into the Old Covenant by conversion?
> What about the Jews whose ceremonial entrance into the Old Covenant by circumcision was delayed for some reason? (ala Moses' son, or the Wilderness generation)
> Your assertion that the Jews as a "class" are somehow clueless as to adults making commitments to covenants seems to glide over various counter-examples that add complication to your simplistic analytic scheme.



Rev. B, thanks for your expressive response. I think you would agree that Gentile conversion, the desert wanderings, and Moses' son do not represent the normal means of covenant entry that were instituted to be a pattern for Israel through the generations. And that's all I'm interested in at this moment. I think you also read too much into my words concluding that the Jews are "somehow clueless" to covenant commitment. Also, I'm not speaking of any old commitments or re-commitments to the covenant (eg. passover), but once for all entry into the external administration, and that, by circumcision. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> Note how you begin. You assert that the NT "emphasizes" adult baptism. Really? In what way? The facts read quite different to me. But because you just accept your notion as a "given," this axiom becomes crucial for how you look at the rest of your scenario.
> 
> Here are some facts. 1) The total number of specific baptismal occasions of persons referred to in the NT you can count on two hands. A number of these are so general in nature, that no one could tell from the bare textual evidence just what ages were of ALL persons who could have been involved. 2) Approximately 1/3 of the total are "household" baptisms, which can only be said to exclude certain ordinary household members (infants) by a theological presupposition. 3) This leaves barely a handful of instances in which particular adults, and only those adults, surely were baptized. The historic fact of adult baptism can tell us virtually nothing about the criteria for anyone's baptism, let alone whether there could or couldn't be different expectations for differently aged people.



I don't think it's at all disingenuous that I assert that the NT "emphasizes" adult baptism - those are the only explicit examples, not least in the baptism of our Lord himself! In response: 1) Although you could count the number of specific baptisms in the NT on two hands, it's better than the zero infant baptisms described or prescribed. The NT is not about to give specific details of every baptism in the early church, but it does (according to our confession) give us sufficiently enough for all faith and practice. It doesn't make sense to sideline adult baptism just because the descriptions are few or vague. Only one description is necessary to make a strong case if you think about it. 2) The household baptisms, if including infants, also employs a large degree of presupposition (linguistic and theological) as well. 3) I agree it doesn't tell much about the criteria, but it does tell _something_, namely, that adults are most certainly worthy recipients. And this is significant if you allow my assumption that most Jews thought of covenant entry generationally.

I agree, I would need to assume many things to build an argument, but isn't that true of any argument. To restate my observations, it seems to me that the normal way a Jew in the first century would have thought about covenant membership was through his circumcision as an infant. That the NT only _specifically_ describes adult respondents coming forward and being washed with water suggests, in my mind, that a clear break in pattern is occurring in terms of their view of covenant entry. It seems as though they are "resetting" the sign with a new federal head, or that baptism is being tied inextricably to faith, or some other reason.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 27, 2012)

Dennis,
Did the Israelites at the foot of Mt. Sinai have to participate in the covenant-making ceremony? On the logic you present as "consistent", they shouldn't have had to do so, because their circumcision should have been sufficient, right? They are already in covenant?

Those were _different_ covenants, Abraham's and Moses', and yet all those already-circumcised people were baptized right there (according to Heb.9); or you can come up with some other expression for their covenant-initiation rite--but it wasn't a circumcision! Shouldn't this have set a new pattern for joining the Mosaic covenant, for later generations? Shouldn't they have to ritually mimic their fathers in this more recent institution, and especially all those verbal promises? If not, why not? If you come up with an answer to this line of questioning, see if it has any relevance to the questions you are proposing relative to the most recent covenant-transition, Mosaic to Christic.
_______________________

I think your comment about "normal means of covenant entry" is simply prejudicial. The different categories of people fall into different standards for "normal." I suppose you mean to say that you think the _majority_ of covenant-entries down through the centuries was by circumcising the male-offspring of covenant-members. Of course, that only accounts for about half (the boys) of that figure, how ever much it happens to be (the girls were surely born within the covenant as well). But its prejudicial to the other entrants, whose entries weren't "abnormal" by any fair use of the term.

At Sinai, the Israelites get a new federal head, Moses; with their mouths they profess a verbal "commitment," a promise of obedience (and arguably explicit faith along with it); they experience a ceremonial cleansing. Sure sounds to me like your stated criteria are all met there. So where's the subsequent change in practice-for-infant-entry? Not there? Well, in the present hour, you're just CLAIMING that there IS some significant change because of the present transition, and your "evidence" is these criteria. But this is a case of pure _special-pleading_. This claim to change is the very thing that I deny is TRUE! You're not allowed to postulate your view, and then claim that interpretation as evidence for its accuracy.

Wit regard to your convictions, you see those NT Jews "resetting" the sign, because it suits your reasonable desire for consistency within your set of principles to do so. From where I stand, I can think of no reason whatsoever for the Jews to think or do so.
_______________________

You say the infant-baptisms aren't there. I say they are. The data is exactly the same for both of us. The whole question is one of hermeneutics, and how to read the Bible for all its worth. Same old contentions; I'm tired of them. I point to A,B,C, you wave the wand and presto they're gone (as far as you are concerned). Yawn. We aren't pursuing understanding here.

For you, the examples are the thing, the trump, the base on which all subsequent practice rests. *I think that reasoning is completely-flip-turned-upside-down*. I say a man should have a theology of baptism, followed by instructions for administration, followed by examples (where you can get them) that validate what has been defined. We are at 180 degrees contrast here. What common ground we have is nice, but we get to that platform from opposite directions.

If my interest in Christianity started with Matthew, then I might agree with you that whatever happened to Jesus of Nazareth was of immense and illimitable imitative force. Indeed, WWJD? Oh, but my interest in Christianity starts where Christianity begins... in Genesis. In the first century AD, the Judaizers (following the "parent" religion whose main spokesmen were the Pharisees) taught that the Faith began at Sinai, and everything in Scripture (even new revelation) should be read through the grid of preunderstanding that began the hermeneutical task _de novo_ at Exodus 19. Paul corrected them by beginning at Genesis 12. I think the same thing applies here. The Faith begins in Genesis.



Unless you have some actual questions, I think this is all I have energy to respond to this thread for now. I don't mind the pursuit of understanding--getting it for myself, or trying to provide it. But arguing the topic is more a source of frustration and futility for me. Teachers (like myself) provide data and interpretations. I will try to avoid attempting _to persuade_ you (or anyone else) that you are wrong.


----------



## steadfast7 (Jan 28, 2012)

Thanks Rev B. for the patient interaction. Ok, a question: if the sign of covenant entry changes with each administration in progressive revelation, then isn't the most recent one the one that is used until it the next covenant sign is introduced and replaces it? Therefore, baptism ought not replace circumcision but passover. But why do presbyterians continue to prioritize Abrahamic circumcision? thanks.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 28, 2012)

Dennis,
I'm not sure if you are looking for parallels for anything and everything, one covenant to another. I don't know if you are expecting that a formality in one circumstance compels us to look for an equally formal arrangement in another. Parallels cannot be forced. Abraham is given a covenant and a sacramental sign; and he has a meal with the Lord, but we do not find a regular sacramental meal until the nation is born.

The principle of biblical theology we identify as "organic development" is the idea that revelation progresses from seed to maturity. When we look to Adam in Eden, there we find two trees, accompanied by some very basic instruction. When we look back on Eden from the vantage of later revelation, we recognize very rudimentary covenant-expressions, ways of comprehending spiritual things onto which we can map factors relevant in the present day. We might say it's like an adult looking at a barely recognizable, undeveloped human embryo, and realizing that at the level of DNA, the mature human is identifiable with that undeveloped package.

After the fall, men start bringing sacrifices. Eventually, they will need priests to do this properly. But at first, each one brings an individual offering. We read something of the introduction of "formal worship" (post-fall) in Gen.4:26, some form of corporate prayer. But still, sacrifice is the only thing we know of that has any sort of sacramental function in those circumstances. And yet, something sacramental is waiting to be revealed, something for which there were even hints back in the Garden, before the fall, before it was covered over, waiting for a new revelation.



See now, I've not claimed that "sign of covenant entry" changes with each administration, perhaps according to something like a "rollover process." The Israelites were commanded by Moses to continue circumcising their sons, an act that tied them and the new administration directly to Abraham's covenant.

And yet, Abraham was "initiated" to his covenant in that same manner, whilst Israel (which already was in possession of circumcision) was "initiated" to their covenant in a ceremony that included a corporate confession and a ritual cleansing/consecrating act, described in Ex.24 and rehearsed in Heb.9. It is significant that the previous connection to the Abrahamic Faith was retained--this retention underscored the fact that though the exhibitions were greatly transformed in the succeeding age, the deepest realities remained unchanged. The Promise to Abraham held, and faith in the Promise by the children of Israel was marked by the same sign once given.



I'm not sure why you suggest that properly, "baptism ought to replace Passover," on the views I've articulated. Do you think Passover is the sign of the Mosaic covenant? I've heard some say they think the Sabbath was the sign (maybe on the basis of Ex.31:16?) of the Siniatic covenant (often as their method of ditching their duty to observe the 4th Commandment), but not sure I've heard of picking out this one OT feast as the sign. But it certainly was the _first_, and not too far removed from the events of Sinai. Perhaps you can explain your reasoning here?

Allowing that Passover could conceivably be such a sign, if such a position is held and defended there's still the fact that circumcision is retained and accepted as an initiation rite even into the Mosaic covenant, as it stands upon the Abrahamic foundation. As for Passover, please note that this feast (if no other) served as a "point of entry" into full-fledged *adult* (vested) membership in the national life of Israel. If we take Jesus of Nazareth as our example, we see him examined by the elders at the age of 12, at the time of Passover, whereupon he becomes a _confessing_ and _obligated_ participant in the Passover and all other ceremonial rites of the nation, in accordance with the dictates of the Law, Ex.23:17; Dt.16:16.

In other words, it looks to me like before we get to Christ, Cross, Resurrection, Pentecost, and all NT rites and practices, OT religion into which Jesus is born contains a sign of assimilation into Abraham/Moses (circumcision); and a more particular sign of willful commitment to the covenant-life of the people (obligation to Passover/all feasts). It seems to me, the NT dictates whatever correspondences exist between initiation rites and renewal rites, from age to age.



When it comes to explaining why a Presbyterian prioritizes Abraham and his covenant (and the sign of it), I can only appeal to how it appears to me that the NT demands it. Moses' covenant cannot supercede Abraham's, but it must accommodate it, and incorporate it, and build upon it. And eventually, Moses' covenant must be superseded, being inferior to the foundation on which it was erected. Sinai is ultimately shown to be a chrysalis that must be dismantled, so that true beauty may be revealed.

The Law cannot present a replacement sign for circumcision, because the Law cannot replace the Promise; it cannot even invest the "old" sign with new and better content (same sign, different meaning). So, the people continue under Moses, but in solidarity with their father Abraham.

Paul teaches that NT conditions are in every way superior to Mosaic; and he bases his contention on the superiority of the Abrahamic covenant to the Mosaic. The relation of the OT to the NT is the relation of Promise Made, Promise Kept. Paul calls the NT church, "children of Abraham" and "the Israel of God," as over against being beholden to Moses. The NC thrusts aside Moses, but it does not thrust aside Abraham. As with Moses, the NC rises upon Abraham's covenant, growing out from it, in a way that actually answers to the Promise (instead of simply enlarging on the hopes). The difference between Moses and Christ is the difference between playing house, and getting married. The NC is superior to Abraham's is this way: as fulfillment is superior to expectation.

It is Paul who draws an explicit parallel between the OT covenant-sign of circumcision, and the NT covenant-sign of baptism (here's my comparative outline, http://www.puritanboard.com/content/circumcision-baptism-compared-60/ ). So, if I (as a Presbyterian) wish an answer to the question, "who shall receive this sign?" I am going to look first to the criteria spelled out to Abraham to define covenant/church membership (and "classes" of membership), and then look to see if changes were ever instituted, relative to any later administration, including the present one.

I have found virtually no changes made for membership when Moses' covenant was introduced. Further, I have found no changes made for membership when Christ's covenant was introduced, though I do find the elimination of at least one "class division," along with a change in the manner of designation. The sign itself has been transformed, as one suited to an age of (partial) fulfillment rather than anticipation. And approximately twice as many people are granted the privilege of receiving the new sign, since females are not biologically excluded.

Most importantly, I find that the essential meaning of the two signs is one and the same; the differences are incidental to the two ages in which they function.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 29, 2012)

I think it ought to be noted that there is a fundamental error if one looks merely at the Covenant of Grace from the vantage point of this world and doesn't see it in term of an unchanging heavenly reality. Hebrews sort of unpacks the reality of heavenly worship of which all earthly administrations are types and shadows. Rather than merely seeing God's covenant dealings as a progression of revelation, one must also see that each administration is a partial disclosure of the heavenly reality. There are themes that can be seen then (such as the tree of life, the sanctuary looking like a heavenly place, etc) not only in terms of progressive movement toward consummation but also as copies of the heavenly sanctuary where God dwells and Christ provides access unto through His sacrifice. He is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world and not merely One who succeeds Abraham, Moses, and David. The Immanuel (or God with us) principle is seen in language to Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and fully in Christ. Each administration is not to be merely seen as growing toward a successive administration that replaces it but a heavenly reality that exists unchanged for that reality is the very presence of God.

One sees this expressed in the Confession where the decree of God demonstrates His purpose to glorify Himself in the elect by His mercy and a single Covenant of Grace in Christ whereby He secures the benefits to His elect that the Godhead has decreed from all eternity.

Too often, the administrations of the CoG are seen in much too carnal of terms so that land or kingdom promises are not seen in the light of this heavenly reality but are looked at merely in terms of this world. When Paul then applies these as partial disclosures of the heavenly reality (as he does in Eph 6 to children and the 5th commandment), many are unable to see the true intent of what they view in purely carnal terms and God intended as disclosures of a reality that only those with eyes to see can discern.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 30, 2012)

> I have found virtually no changes made for membership when Moses' covenant was introduced. Further, I have found no changes made for membership when Christ's covenant was introduced, though I do find the elimination of at least one "class division," along with a change in the manner of designation. The sign itself has been transformed, as one suited to an age of (partial) fulfillment rather than anticipation. And approximately twice as many people are granted the privilege of receiving the new sign, since females are not biologically excluded.



Under the Baptist schema the _sign_ of the covenant (baptism) is, with the advent of the New Covenant, on the one hand, extended to adult females but anomalously, on the other hand, withdrawn from little boys. 

Any _covenant status_ is also withdrawn from both little boys and little girls.


----------

