# Essential presupposition of covenant theology?



## steadfast7

I'm looking for THE essential presupposition that undergirds covenant theology from both the Reformed and Covenant baptist perspective.

NO lengthy tombes, arguments or discourses please! I do not intend for this to be a debate, unless you disagree with someone of your own same confession. * What is the fundamental assumption that you bring to your understanding of covenant theology?* Presuppositions are basically unproven axioms, so no point trying.

From what I understand from the Reformed position: there has always been ONE way in which God has viewed and dealt with his people and has not changed in all generations.

Covenantal Baptist: The cross of Christ (New Covenant) brings out a fundamental change in the way God views those whom he calls his.

Is this essentially correct? I think this needs more tweaking and boiling down, but I'm looking for the basic of the basic.


----------



## Peairtach

The Bible is the Book of the Covenant which started with the 10C and has grown ever since.

There is _one_ promise with _a number_ of covenantal administrations, the essence of the covenantal promise being, "I will be your God and you will be my people."



> remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.(Eph 2:12, ESV)



"the covenants of promise" - notice "covenants" plural, "promise" singular.

This is expressed theologically by the one Covenant of Grace under different religious administrations.

There are basically three administrations
(a) Patriarchal -Adam to Moses.
(b) Mosaic -Moses to Christ.
(c) Christian - Christ to the Eschaton. 

The fundamental teaching of the Bible re covenant theology is that the way of salvation is the same for everyone - faith in Christ - thus the post - Edenic covenants are essentially one.



> Covenantal Baptist: The cross of Christ (New Covenant) brings out a fundamental change in the way God views those whom he calls his.



The fundamental change for the Baptist - or one of the changes - is that with Christ's death and resurrection adults who profess are included in the administration of the New Covenant but their children are excluded. In fact Baptists would say that even adults that are wrongly baptised aren't in the New Covenant in any sense.

Which is a bit strange. Why would God introduce such a change of this sort in the covenant administration at this stage when we are still in this world with families and children?


----------



## steadfast7

Richard Tallach said:


> This is expressed theologically by the one Covenant of Grace under different religious administrations.
> 
> There are basically three administrations
> (a) Patriarchal -Adam to Moses.
> (b) Mosaic -Moses to Christ.
> (c) Christian - Christ to the Eschaton.
> 
> The fundamental teaching of the Bible re covenant theology is that the way of salvation is the same for everyone - faith in Christ - thus the post - Edenic covenants are essentially one.



Richard, according to this scheme, would you say that Pre-fall Adam and the Christian are ontologically the same?


----------



## jwithnell

My presupposition: God's word is true. All of it is infused with covenant.

The historic reformed position starts with the covenant of works. In the last 100 years or so (time?) the covenant of redemption idea has taken hold and includes the time before creation when God chooses a people to glorify His Son forever. (I still feel like there are a lot of assumptions in this position). The covenant is further revealed to Noah, Abraham, Moses and David and reaches its full fruition in Christ.


----------



## torstar

God laid down the Law.

You can attain salvation by living it perfectly, and if that is not going to be possible, God provides another way.


----------



## Peairtach

> Richard, according to this scheme, would you say that Pre-fall Adam and the Christian are ontologically the same?



I'm taking about _post-Fall Adam_ here in this quote below - and the protoevangelium as the first revelation of the CoG - as I'm talking about the three religious administrations or dispensations of the one CoG.


> (a) Patriarchal -Adam to Moses.



Maybe my philosophical language is erroneous but wouldn't it be more correct to say that pre-fall and post-fall Adam were in ethically and spiritually different states/positions rather than ontologically different states/positions? I may be wrong as "ontological" isn't a word I use often.


----------



## nwink

I think one of the important presuppositional differences between the Covenant Theologian and non-CT Baptist is their different hermeneutical approach to the Bible. While the NT _is_ the fulfillment of the OT, and while the NT writers revealed inspired truths about the OT's fulfillment in Christ...the Covenant Theologian, I think, would argue that the Baptist wouldn't be understanding the Old Testament (the "foundation") right in the first place on certain issues and therefore misunderstands the New Testament (the "building") on certain issues. 

An example of what I mean is when the Baptist reads about the New Covenant in Hebrews and argues doctrines on the basis of the small section that Hebrews quotes of Ezekiel. In reality, the author of Hebrews wasn't pulling the Ezekiel passage out of its context but fully knew the context and was just quoting a section to make some points. Another example is that of Isaac, circumcision and other "types" or "shadows." The Baptist may read how Christ is the true seed of Abraham and thereby discount anything actually involving Isaac as not having any substance/reality since they were "types"...whereas the Covenant Theologian would argue that there was reality for Isaac in that time in circumcision and covenant inclusion, and that these things shouldn't be discounted because who he was foreshadowed Someone much greater (basically arguing that the Baptist needs to first get a good understanding of the Old Testament). Also, the Covenant Theologian would argue that the OT types _did_ have much reality (even though they were shadows) as the types themselves were modeled after heavenly things (consider what the author of Hebrews says in reference to Melchizedek). Furthermore, some Baptists look only to the New Testament to derive the doctrines applicable to the Christian. On the other hand, the Covenant Theologian says that we should start in Genesis (where God starts His revelation) and if a command He gives is not (specifically or by good and necessary inference) changed or commanded against in the NT, then we should still obey it. To say it another way, some Baptists would think, "Am I commanded by Christ to do this in the NT?"...whereas the CT would say, "If God says something once and doesn't change it in the NT, than I should still obey it. God doesn't need to say something twice (in both OT and NT) for me to obey it." I mean, it makes sense to me. Why would God need to reveal the Law again as He did on Mt Sinai? Why would He need to give creation mandates again? Why would He need to command the Sabbath again or say that He will be a God to His people and to their children?

On a different note, I also think the widespread use of "I will be a God to them and to their children" all throughout the OT, and then in Revelation is a good indication of the continuity of God's covenant through Scripture. 

These issues were what caused me to change some of my presuppositions to go from being a Baptist to being of a Covenant Theology persuasion. I would recommend that anyone interested to learn more on this presuppositional change read Dr McMahon's retractions of the Baptist position on A Puritans Mind dot com, as I found these to be very helpful.


----------



## Douglas P.

steadfast7 said:


> What is the fundamental assumption that you bring to your understanding of covenant theology?



The creator/creature distinction.


----------



## JP Wallace

*In answer to your question here's my answer*
The essential presupposition of Covenant Theology is that God has made a promise and is bound by his own being to keep that promise - the promise is that he will overcome sin and its consequences and glorify himself through saving people from their sin and its consequences through His Son - the Promised Seed.

Galatians 3:16-18 16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. 

Thus for me the essence of Covenant Theology may be summarised in the words 'I will' (I do not suggest this as a theological framework but just a useful emphasis and distinctive):

Genesis 3:15-16 15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel." 16 To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you." 

Genesis 17:7 7 "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. 

Genesis 6:18 18 "But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall go into the ark -- you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you. 

Hebrews 8:10-12 10 "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 "None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." 

*Now to the rest of your post:*
You state your understanding of the difference between the Reformed and the Covenantal Baptist - while I know what you're getting at I must say that I believe you present a slightly false dichotomy. I guess the Covenantal Baptist position you state is correct (though simplistic), but the Reformed summary you provide in my opinion is not nuanced enough and in truth is one I as a Reformed Baptist could agree with.

'From what I understand from the Reformed position: there has always been ONE way in which God has viewed and dealt with his people and has not changed in all generations.'

As a Reformed/Covenantal Baptist that is also my position and is the position of the 1689 Confession of Faith - that is if you take 'dealt with' in terms of how he rescues/saves them from their sins. Any alternative position is not in any historical sense covenantal at all, but more akin to Dispensationalism. I believe that salvation has always been through faith alone by grace alone in [the] Christ alone - it was so for Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, John the Baptist, and me. Thus in that sense God has indeed always viewed and dealt with his people in one way...and only one....in other words all the historic covenants are administrations of the one Covenant of Grace - 

BCF - 7:3
3. This Covenant is revealed in the Gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of Salvation by the 122seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, untill the full 123discovery thereof was compleated in the new Testament; and it is founded in that 124Eternal Covenant transaction, that was between the Father and the Son, about the Redemption of the Elect; and it is alone by the Grace of this Covenant, that all of the posterity of fallen Adam, that ever were 125saved, did obtain life and a blessed immortality; Man being now utterly uncapable of acceptance with God upon those terms, on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.


----------



## torstar

OP asked: NO lengthy tombes, arguments or discourses please.

That really did stand a snowball's chance didn't it...


----------



## Peairtach

Ontology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adam before the Fall had a body and soul with will, affections and intellect. The same was true after the Fall. He was ontologically the same but ethically and spiritually radically different in that he was in enmity towards God, he had lost his original righteousness, and God had withdrawn His presence.


----------



## CharlieJ

Why do you think that there is necessarily one presupposition? There may be, but few systems of thought can actually be extrapolated from a single principle, nor can differences between systems usually be expressed in a single proposition. Now, in the 19th century, liberal Protestant historians tried that approach, attempting to discern the _centraldogma_ of each significant theologian. That approach has been abandoned, though, because it's not accurate to the way humans actually form beliefs. Belief formation is more like spinning a web connecting several distinct anchor points.


----------



## JP Wallace

torstar said:


> OP asked: NO lengthy tombes, arguments or discourses please.



Kent if that's a reference to my post may I also point out that he proposed a comparative statement of the Reformed and Covenantal Baptist schemes and then asked "Is this essentially right, most of what I wrote is a response to that part, and if quoting Scripture is an unacceptable 'tombe' apologies. The substantial answer was 5 lines long.

---------- Post added at 11:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:53 PM ----------

PS....that wasn't *meant* to sound snarky and it might do!.....just defending a little more length that perhaps asked for


----------



## Contra_Mundum

In response, first to Paul's comment that a problem with the division between RCT and CBT as stated is he basically agrees with the OP's definition for the "Reformed" position:1) I agree that the dichotomy presented is not symmetrical, however
2) it does highlight the fact that CBT differs from RCT primarily in a _positive_ fashion, that is by addition of elements, rather than subtraction of elements.

Often, we focus on the baptismal question, and observe that the CBT seems to _subtract_ from RCT by _eliminating_ an external administration of the Covenant of Grace in the New Covenant era. True, so far as it goes. But given the fact that Paul can state his agreement with the essential contours of RCT, it seems clear that the difference has to be sought in whatever direction CBT has _positively_ "moved beyond" certain RCT basics. I say the difference needs to be analyzed in those terms.

As it has been suggested by some (elsewhere) that infant-baptism is a leftover "unreformed" element of Patristic or Medieval piety, since it evidently aligns with RCT, that implies a theological _lacuna_ in RCT, which must be remedied *positively* by CBT.​_____________________________

In response, secondly to Daniel's OP,1) As Charlie said, it's no simple task to reduce CT to one, unargued premise, an ideal starting point from which is deduced the "system."
2) What's been suggested above, including the "single redemption plan" motif, may well provide the best answer.
3) My contribution (below) does not claim to be adequate to the OP request, but it does present an important CT premise.
4) Here it is: *The Bible as divine revelation has always been intended for reading as a whole (however whole it was), and from front to back, respecting its basic order.*

No saint (of any era) had to be concerned that he could not understand any portion of previous revelation because it belonged to conditions too far outside his own experience. God so governed Scripture's formation that, minor details aside, we would experience the same faith as Abraham or David, because one day we are all going to stand together, singing the same song.​What this perspective does is this: it allows, encourages, and legitimates (unique to the Bible!) our reading of Abraham as a Christian, of Noah as a Christian, of Samuel or Isaiah as Christians. We acknowledge the uniqueness of their historico-redemptive setting, allowing them their dispensation-specific requirements and expectations. But we refuse to grant that we have a new faith or doctrine, any more than that we have a different God.

We thus read the OT characters as our true fathers and mothers. We experience their lives through the record, and live and walk with them through the triumphs and failures of faith, and hope alongside them in Christ, not fearing in the least thing that we may be "importing too much" of our present faith-content into the vicarious moment. And the more we see them as one with us, and one of us, the more inclined we are to minimize our differences. It's why CT insists so strongly on demonstrated theological _necessity_ (compelled by Scripture witness) for changes, even to externals. Because the greater the changes and differences, the harder it is to identify with our predecessors.


----------



## steadfast7

thanks for the replies ... let's work through it.
my thoughts:

1. finding an essential assumption that is responsible for a worldview is helpful in discovering a system's basic foundation. for example, the atheists would posit that the only reality is that which can be confirmed by evidence. Reducing their assumption down to this allows us to judge it according to its merits.

2. RCT views Pre-fall Adam and the Christian being ontologically the same creature. In other words, had Adam fully obeyed God, he would have eternal life like that of the elect Christian. I need to do more reading, but my knee jerk reaction is that the Christian stands on a better platform than pre-fall Adam. _Being united to Christ by grace is infinitely greater than being sinless in Eden. _ I think this is why the Christ event, in our minds, brings out a fundamental change in the covenantal landscape that Baptists seek to protect and hold on to - the stress that the New Covenant is far superior and distinct, built on better promises, etc. Do any other Baptists agree with me on this? 

3. Rev. B., I understand what you mean by reading scripture front to back. My question: wouldn't the Baptist hermeneutic of placing emphasis on the New Covenant and reading the Old in light of the New be more adept at viewing Abraham and the OT Saints as _Christians_? If we take the presupposition: *the new is in the old concealed; the old is in the new revealed, * only then would we be able to see that Noah, Abraham and the rest were trusting Christ. But if we read "front to back" they would not be Christians as much as we would be Jews, it seems to me.

That would lead to another presuppositional distinction: is it that we are Jews, or are that the Old Testament believers were Christians? or thirdly, they were Jews, we are Christians?

---------- Post added at 12:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 PM ----------

how's this for an illustration of the differences:

RCT: a single flowing river moving steadily across a flat plain. Drink anywhere along the river, cause it's all the same.
CBT: murky waters being purified as it passes through layers of rock until pure water emerges from the end. Drink at the end, cause that's where real, pure water can be found.


----------



## Douglas P.

steadfast7 said:


> 1. finding an essential assumption that is responsible for a worldview is helpful in discovering a system's basic foundation. for example, the atheists would posit that the only reality is that which can be confirmed by evidence. Reducing their assumption down to this allows us to judge it according to its merits.



Despite arguments from others (who are far more intelligent than I) I still would argue that if you hold to the WCF than the answer to the question is the creator/creature distinction (c.f. Gen 1:1; WCF 7.1).



steadfast7 said:


> 2. RCT views Pre-fall Adam and the Christian being ontologically the same creature. In other words, had Adam fully obeyed God, he would have eternal life like that of the elect Christian. I need to do more reading, but my knee jerk reaction is that the Christian stands on a better platform than pre-fall Adam. Being united to Christ by grace is infinitely greater than being sinless in Eden. I think this is why the Christ event, in our minds, brings out a fundamental change in the covenantal landscape that Baptists seek to protect and hold on to - the stress that the New Covenant is far superior and distinct, built on better promises, etc. Do any other Baptists agree with me on this?




No RCT should deny that “Being united to Christ by grace is infinitely greater than being sinless in Eden”. Read Vos or Kline on this, they both do a great job in showing the eschatological nature of the covenant of Works. 

The problem with saying that we are ontologically different is that you’re saying our actual being has changed, that in some sense we’re no longer human beings as we once were (made in the image of God). You’re bound to end up with some Roman Catholic/Greek scale of being understanding of redemption. 

Nevertheless, this does raise some very interesting questions as to the nature of glorification!


----------



## steadfast7

Douglas Padgett said:


> Despite arguments from others (who are far more intelligent than I) I still would argue that if you hold to the WCF than the answer to the question is the creator/creature distinction (c.f. Gen 1:1; WCF 7.1).


 But this isn't something that LBCF'ers would deny or differ from in any degree that gives rise to differences in their reading of covenant theology. I'm looking for the assumptions that are "farther up the tree" as it were, where we can a clear fork of division.



> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. RCT views Pre-fall Adam and the Christian being ontologically the same creature. In other words, had Adam fully obeyed God, he would have eternal life like that of the elect Christian. I need to do more reading, but my knee jerk reaction is that the Christian stands on a better platform than pre-fall Adam. Being united to Christ by grace is infinitely greater than being sinless in Eden. I think this is why the Christ event, in our minds, brings out a fundamental change in the covenantal landscape that Baptists seek to protect and hold on to - the stress that the New Covenant is far superior and distinct, built on better promises, etc. Do any other Baptists agree with me on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No RCT should deny that “Being united to Christ by grace is infinitely greater than being sinless in Eden”. Read Vos or Kline on this, they both do a great job in showing the eschatological nature of the covenant of Works.
> 
> The problem with saying that we are ontologically different is that you’re saying our actual being has changed, that in some sense we’re no longer human beings as we once were (made in the image of God). You’re bound to end up with some Roman Catholic/Greek scale of being understanding of redemption.
> 
> Nevertheless, this does raise some very interesting questions as to the nature of glorification!
Click to expand...

 
Adam before the fall was not united with Christ, seated with him in heavenly places, and merited with Christ's active obedience. Though it doesn't change his substance compared with us, there is a marked difference in status. I'm wondering if any baptists would view pre-fall Adam and Christians as the same creature (?).


----------



## kceaster

I agree with Mr. Padgett.

LBCF 7.1: The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to Him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

WCF 7.1: The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.

I see these as starting at the same point even though their wording is slightly different. As long as the two can agree that fruition of blessedness and reward equals the reward of life, then they are both starting with God's voluntary condescension to man by way of a covenant made by Himself, with Himself.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Douglas P.

kceaster said:


> I see these as starting at the same point even though their wording is slightly different. As long as the two can agree that fruition of blessedness and reward equals the reward of life, then they are both starting with God's voluntary condescension to man by way of a covenant made by Himself, with Himself.



I'm scratching my head a little on this one... 

When the LBCF says "yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God's part" does it mean that some sort of Grace (redemptive grace) was necessary for Adam to fulfill the Covenant of Works prior to the fall? Or is it saying that without God's special revelation in the Covenant of Works they could not have attained the reward of life?

Maybe it's because I hold to the WCF, but their wording seems much more clear.


----------



## nwink

steadfast7 said:


> Rev. B., I understand what you mean by reading scripture front to back. My question: wouldn't the Baptist hermeneutic of placing emphasis on the New Covenant and reading the Old in light of the New be more adept at viewing Abraham and the OT Saints as Christians?



Dennis, I think the Covenant Theologian would argue that the apostles did not speak in a vacuum but in a specific context of a well-versed OT background. Some evangelicals these days come to the Bible with very little OT understanding, basing everything they believe on their misunderstanding of some elements of the NT because of their misunderstanding of the OT in the first place. I've heard it said before that the NT is like inspired commentary on the OT in light of Christ's coming, and I think that's a fair analogy for the discussion in this thread. Anyways, this is relevant for such questions as "What does a covenant look like?", "Are children still included in the covenant?", "Is baptism completely new, or does it have a foundation in the OT?" Based on the different approach that Baptists and Presbyterians take to Scripture, this is one reason why different doctrines can be believed.


----------



## steadfast7

Douglas Padgett said:


> When the LBCF says "yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God's part" does it mean that some sort of Grace (redemptive grace) was necessary for Adam to fulfill the Covenant of Works prior to the fall? Or is it saying that without God's special revelation in the Covenant of Works they could not have attained the reward of life?
> 
> Maybe it's because I hold to the WCF, but their wording seems much more clear.



I think they are saying the same thing, and the LBC, written later with the WCF as template, was trying to be more clear than the WCF  I have to defer to someone more well versed to comment.


----------



## kceaster

The emphasis of the WCF in 7.1, I think, properly addresses the creator/creature distinction by acknowledging that man, as he was created, could never have known his purpose for being created without God condescending to reveal Himself, and that, by way of covenant. Some would argue that this is gracious, but then you would have to qualify if it is mere common grace, or if it was saving grace. For me, it is hard to think of how God's steadfast love, or covenant love, or covenant faithfulness isn't revealed even in His condescension. But here is where I would personally differentiate between love and grace. 

For instance, Paul ends his second letter to the Corinthians with, "The *grace* of the Lord Jesus Christ and the *love* of God and the *fellowship* of the Holy Spirit be with you all." He didn't put these things together just because they sounded good, but because there is a difference between them. Also, in his first letter to Timothy he says, "and the *grace* of our Lord overflowed for me with the *faith* and *love* that are in Christ Jesus." Again, I don't think he separated these out because it seemed right, but because there is an obvious difference between grace and love.

So the condescension in which God revealed Himself to us, I would associate with His covenant love, not with grace. And obviously, the reward of life and the blessedness that comes with that when spoken of in relation to the first covenant, would not have been gracious, because there was no need of grace where there is no sin. But that is the real difference between the covenant of life and the covenant of grace, isn't it?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Contra_Mundum

steadfast7 said:


> 1. finding an essential assumption that is responsible for a worldview is helpful in discovering a system's basic foundation. for example, the atheists would posit that the only reality is that which can be confirmed by evidence. Reducing their assumption down to this allows us to judge it according to its merits.


But the same "approach" does not work for every question. There is not one, unique or best way to approach solutions. The method is subject-dependent. What seems to work best in sociology is the wrong approach for the engineer, and his best tack is inadequate for the chemist. Theoretical disciplines are not only distinguishable between each other, as to the best methodology, but even within a discipline like philosophy there are some issues that are irreducible to one basic axiom.



steadfast7 said:


> 2. RCT views Pre-fall Adam and the Christian being ontologically the same creature. In other words, had Adam fully obeyed God, he would have eternal life like that of the elect Christian. I need to do more reading, but my knee jerk reaction is that the Christian stands on a better platform than pre-fall Adam. _Being united to Christ by grace is infinitely greater than being sinless in Eden. _ I think this is why the Christ event, in our minds, brings out a fundamental change in the covenantal landscape that Baptists seek to protect and hold on to - the stress that the New Covenant is far superior and distinct, built on better promises, etc. Do any other Baptists agree with me on this?


I'm not sure this question has begun in the proper category. We typically speak of the 4-fold state, non pecare posse pecare, non posse non pecare, posse non pecare, and non posse pecare. So, speaking of our present condition as ontologically identical to Adam's (pre-fall) strikes me as erroneous.

Relevant differences include: 1) we are neither conceived nor born of the unfallen Adam's substance; 2) as one federally above us all, Adam's position was unique, relative to the rest of his natural progeny; we can't be _restored_ to an equality we never could have enjoyed; 3) assuming Adam was saved "in Christ," since we also are saved "in Christ," and have a new federal head, Adam would be the first of us to recover "ontological equality" to the pre-fall Adam--this is not a biblical picture of post-fall, post-conversion reality; 4) the ontological unity of the race is oriented to progress in the age to come; we believe in Adam's pre-fall "probation," after which he hopes for the better non posse pecare estate. Likewise, after the fall and conversion, we all hope for the same estate.

In any case, I'm not prepared to concede that posse non pecare (where we are now) is *better* in se than Adam *non pecare* posse pecare, when it is clearly not better in every sense conceivable. In Christ now, we have a foretaste of the non posse pecare estate of glory; but we have not attained to it yet. Frankly, I think heaven will be _better_ for us as redeemed sinners than it would have been (_excellent_) if Adam and his posterity had attained it by passing probation. Better to be "in Christ in heaven" than "in Adam in heaven." 



steadfast7 said:


> 3. Rev. B., I understand what you mean by reading scripture front to back. My question: wouldn't the Baptist hermeneutic of placing emphasis on the New Covenant and reading the Old in light of the New be more adept at viewing Abraham and the OT Saints as _Christians_? If we take the presupposition: *the new is in the old concealed; the old is in the new revealed, * only then would we be able to see that Noah, Abraham and the rest were trusting Christ. But if we read "front to back" they would not be Christians as much as we would be Jews, it seems to me.


Dennis,
I would just say that your perception of the issue is illustrative of the *significant* difference in the way our two sides read Scripture. There's just no way of getting around it--the different approaches lead to different conclusions; the proof is in the pudding. Since Abraham is a "Christian," and he places the sign of the covenant on the individuals God tells him to, then it seems to me the "Christian" thing to do in our day is to place the sign of the covenant (as best we can) on the same individuals as originally prescribed, in the absence of any revised instructions.

Before we even get to the question of the New Covenant, we have to deal with the matter of Moses and Israel, and the progress of revelation. The earliest written revelation we are in possession of is Moses' account. So, right from the beginning of Scripture as we have it we have the very same issue. Is the faith of Moses and Israel the same as Abraham's? And is Abraham's the same as Noah's? And is Noah's the same as Seth's? It is abundantly obvious that the manner of religion instituted for the people of Israel is vastly different from the manner of religion of the Patriarchs. So, is it fair to say that Abraham is an "Israelite"? How about Noah? How about Seth?

On the same principle that I am asserting, each of them is not only a "Christian" to me, but the Israelites properly regard previous saints as "Israelites," even though they have no Tabernacle/Temple, no Levitical priesthood, no feasts (e.g. Passover), etc. See, it is not only an issue that arises with the entrance of the Christ. Revelation is _constantly_ advancing throughout history.

We also do not have any access to the _unwritten_ revelations of the prophets, so it is impossible for us to state with absolute certainty what things were NOT revealed, when ALL revelation was not preserved. We occasionally find tantalizing hints as to what they taught in later inspired records, such as Jude 1:14, who tells us that "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied... '_the Lord comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds...against Him'_." Questions of apocryphal literature aside, Jude tells us this much: that the ante-deluvian saint taught some sort of second-coming doctrine of divine judgment. But this is not explicit in Genesis. Nevertheless, it must be true! Those people, prior to the flood, possessed a doctrine of a spatio-temporal "coming" of the Lord in judgment, and accompanied by the faithful ones.

So, in many cases we simply don't know exactly what or how much they did know, though we are convinced they did not possess the truth as clearly and fully as in later epochs. The truth is being added to, and clarified all the time. Not only this, but things that are known or believed are usually common-property some time before they are codified in writing. The exception to this rule is when the first-momentary event of revelation is part of the record. So, for example when Jacob prophesies that _the Ruler's staff will not depart from Judah until Shiloh comes_, we can be reasonably certain that this prophecy is first revealed about the time of Jacob's death, and not before.

The fact is, that New Testament doctrine IS present in the OT, though it is more concealed there than revealed. It is appreciated best in the light of the New Covenant revelation; but so too was Moses appreciated better in the light of the latter prophets' declarations and writings.

(gotta go...)


----------



## CharlieJ

Bruce, I agree with what you're saying, but I don't think you're defining ontology correctly here. The four-fold state isn't ontological, defining _what_ man is, but ethical/moral, defining _how_ man is in relationship to God. The only ontological change is mortal vs. immortal, and that's debatable, depending on whether you see Adam as created immortal but losing it, or created mortal but receiving immortality upon completion of the probation. I tend to favor the latter, in keeping with Irenaeus.

Reformed soteriology shies away from the ontological language in Roman and Eastern Christianity.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Thank you for the definitions, Charlie. I hope I may still have addressed the issue at hand, using the wrong terminology, but on topic.


----------



## Peairtach

*Dennis*


> Adam before the fall was not united with Christ, seated with him in heavenly places, and merited with Christ's active obedience. Though it doesn't change his substance compared with us, there is a marked difference in status. I'm wondering if any baptists would view pre-fall Adam and Christians as the same creature (?).



I'm no philosopher, Dennis, but I think that Adam, post-Fall Adam, unbelievers and believers are the same creature, namely Mankind. To speak any other way is just confusing.

E.g. The Scriptures speak of Man post-Fall as being made in God's Image (Genesis 9)

The changes that happened with regards to Adam were in the ethical and - following from that - the epistemological fields.

Even if we look at the subject of the Curse, Adam was the same man but with the seeds of death in his body.

God in Christ is in the process of redeeming _humanity_. It sort of defeats the purpose if Christians are _different creatures_ to Adam.

Christ in Heaven - as to His humanity - is the same creature that He was on Earth i.e. a man. He is a glorified and exalted man, but He is still a man; the Man.

Maybe I'm just not getting what you're trying to say.

---------- Post added at 12:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 AM ----------




Douglas Padgett said:


> kceaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see these as starting at the same point even though their wording is slightly different. As long as the two can agree that fruition of blessedness and reward equals the reward of life, then they are both starting with God's voluntary condescension to man by way of a covenant made by Himself, with Himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm scratching my head a little on this one...
> 
> When the LBCF says "yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God's part" does it mean that some sort of Grace (redemptive grace) was necessary for Adam to fulfill the Covenant of Works prior to the fall? Or is it saying that without God's special revelation in the Covenant of Works they could not have attained the reward of life?
> 
> Maybe it's because I hold to the WCF, but their wording seems much more clear.
Click to expand...


This thread is turning into a bit of a dog's breakfast - if an interesting dog's breakfast.

Having made Man God would treat him righteously, God being a righteous God. 

But the CoW goes beyond God's righteousness in offering man a very easy way in which he and his offspring can become established in original righteousness and impeccable (incapable of sin).

Some theologians like to call this "grace", but this leads to confusion with the redemptive grace of the CoG. I prefer reserving the word "grace" for God's merciful dealings with sinful, demeriting, Man.

We could call it God's "bountiful goodness" to Adam. 

Adam before he fell hadn't demerited anything and he could expect God to deal with him according to righteousness. But the terms of the CoW were unmerited.

Also the condition of the CoW - to not eat of the Tree - involved Adam in doing precisely nothing apart from what he already owed his Creator, which was to just keep on living the holy way he had been made until the end of the probation.

The reward for this was way beyond what God "owed" Adam in strict righteousness; or rather what God owed to His own righteousness in His dealings with the innocent Adam.


----------



## steadfast7

I wonder whether it was God's intention for us to be anything but in Christ and receiving grace upon grace ... It's true that if Adam is saved, it can only be by Christ, but _before his fall_ he was impeccable and immortal. However, was his impeccability of the same sort as Christ's? If I understand RCT rightly, then fulfillment of the CoW is the same as salvation. 

I really hope a LBCF'er who's well versed in its theology can jump in and comment on whether Pre-fall Adam = saved Christian? But to me anyway, being in Christ is far better and was God's better, more loving and more gracious plan for us. This would be one way in which the New Covenant is seen as the climax of the covenants and thus the controlling hermeneutical lens in viewing what came before it. 

so, as we narrow down the essential difference in our hermeneutic, RCT seems views the covenants and conditions as equal and level; while CBT sees it as rising toward an apex or climax, which, once reached, changes everything.

I think Rev B has been right along: which part of the Bible sets the tone for how the whole is read? - the beginning or the end?

---------- Post added at 01:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 PM ----------

another simple schematic to illustrate the difference:

RCT: C C C C C

CBT: c c c c C!


----------



## CharlieJ

Adam was not impeccable before the fall, and it is not clear that he was immortal. Impeccable means unable to sin. But, he sinned, therefore he was not impeccable. He was righteous. Also, some theologians believe that man was made mortal, but immortality would be bestowed on him by successfully completing the probation. This corresponds to Jesus earning immortality for his people by fulfilling all righteousness. It also fits with being in Christ as better than being in Eden.

On CT versus Baptist CT, I think it's largely a difference of opinion about what is essential versus accidental in the covenant of grace. CT'ers see "to you and your seed" as an essential part of the gospel promise, as the way God always works with his people. Baptist CT'ers view the inclusion of children in the covenant as typological, indicating the line through which Messiah would come. So, once Messiah has come, there is no longer any need for the type. Therefore, baptism actually signifies less than circumcision did, since baptism symbolizes purely spiritual realities, whereas circumcision had ethnic and social meanings that are no longer applicable. This is the basic argument of Paul Jewett's _Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace_.


----------



## kceaster

steadfast7 said:


> I think Rev B has been right along: which part of the Bible sets the tone for how the whole is read? - the beginning or the end?



Ask this question, without the completion of the New Testament, how would the believers have understood their salvation? Jesus said, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." This was no doubt repeated to all the believers until the first book of the NT was widely disseminated. So, when did the new covenant commence? Only when the NT was canonized and could completely explain the OT? Sure, it benefits us. But Paul was using only the OT when he understood everything he wrote in his letters. So, his presupposition is not the NT first, but the OT.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Contra_Mundum

steadfast7 said:


> another simple schematic to illustrate the difference:
> 
> RCT: C C C C C
> 
> CBT: c c c c C!



I would make a slight adjustment here.

RCT: I would use O Palmer Roberstson's conical expansion-schematic, where the limits flare wider along the axis of temporal movement.

CBT: I don't know if your schematic could be improved (by your own intention) with an exponential curve, rising from the baseline.
However, your intention might be to show little eternal "progress" occurs along the graph, and then rises dramatically and off the chart at the institution of the NC.

The question we might ask is: where does _glorification_ fit in each model? If the NC entirely-spiritual-administration is basically identical to the final state (ala CBT), the work of Christ basically took covenant-administration to infinity immediately on the completion of the cross-work. Those on this side sometimes refer to that view as an "overrealized eschatology."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

CharlieJ said:


> On CT versus Baptist CT, I think it's largely a difference of opinion about what is essential versus accidental in the covenant of grace. CT'ers see "to you and your seed" as an essential part of the gospel promise, as the way God always works with his people. Baptist CT'ers view the inclusion of children in the covenant as typological, indicating the line through which Messiah would come. So, once Messiah has come, there is no longer any need for the type. Therefore, baptism actually signifies less than circumcision did, since baptism symbolizes purely spiritual realities, whereas circumcision had ethnic and social meanings that are no longer applicable. This is the basic argument of Paul Jewett's Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace.





This is the heart of the issue. In both schemas, the Covenant of Grace is in Christ. Nobody ever has nor ever will be saved by the Covenant of Grace who is not united to Christ by faith. This is what Paul labors about Abraham in Romans 4. It's also what the author of Hebrews notes in Hebrews 11. The essential character of the Covenant is faith that God's promises are "Yes" and "Amen". He has promised to save men by grace. Men who trust the Promises of God are truly in Covenant with Him by His electing grace. The Advent of Christ changes not the fundamental character but is the _final revelation_ of that Covenant and also the _full guarantee_ of it. Former administrations were instructional in the sense that they were instituted for the purpose that they might be replaced by the antitype that they typified. The author of Hebrews labors this point at length that God instituted an imperfect system that it might be fulfilled in Christ and that those who approached God by those OT sacrifices ultimately did so because of the reality that they signified.

Christ's coming then is not the advent of a new God and a new way of salvation but the full revelation thereof. The Son of God comes to be a Servant Who perfectly does the Father's will and fulfills every stipulation of Covenant obedience. He is the perfect Messiah because He came to obey and obeyed perfectly. He is the perfect Priest, which the imperfect Aaronic priesthood typified, and His sacrifice is perfect and once-for-all.

That all said, then, as Charlie notes, the real question is whether the Covenant signs of the OT served merely as some sort of biological or national purpose disconnected from the essential character of the Covenant of Grace. Baptists tend to see the sign of circumcision as a national sign that biologically ensures Christ will come but not really connected to the Covenant of Grace in an essential fashion.

Because the Covenant of Grace has always and now consists of the elect alone, the Baptist insists that anything that participates in that perfect Covenant has to, itself, be perfect. An elect person who was circumcised participated in the covenant but so did a reprobate person who was circumcised. Thus, they conclude that because circumcision was applied indiscriminately of whether or not the person was elect, the perfect nature of the CoG excludes any notion that circumcision could be somehow essentially tied to the CoG. The fact that Abraham has Ishmael circumcised provides the appropriate out in this case. Because Abraham is given a land and physical promise, circumcision sort of becomes tied more to a physical and national aspect of a promise made to Abraham that does not require that it be thought of any way of entrance into the perfect CoG that a reprobate Jew might defile by his reprobate-ness. The Old Covenant as well, under Moses, is seen to have this character by the Baptist because the whole nation, elect or reprobate, participates in the "covenant life" of its administration. The perfect Covenant of Grace, then, cannot be seen as being coextensive with the Old Covenant because, again, there is this "defilement" by reprobate Jews who are never really united to Christ by faith.

When the New Covenant comes, then, the Baptist sees Jer 31 and Heb 8 as the idea that God is going to no longer have a visible Covenant on earth. The New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace in Christ. It is with the elect of Christ alone. There is no longer any visible Covenant, per se, in Baptist theology. Why? Because of the admission that, even with the best professors and lives that indicate, there may be false brethren in the Churches. Thus, the thread continues where an elect person who is baptized participates in the New Covenant but a reprobate person who is baptized does not. New Covenant = Covenant of Grace = perfect. The reprobate person cannot in any way participate because that would make an imperfection in the NC. Hence, baptism itself (like circumcision) is not of the essence of the CoG. Where circumcision was not of the essence of the CoG, it did serve (by Baptist thinking) to make one a member of the OC but, again, that was not coextensive with the CoG. Now baptism is not of the essence of the CoG and does not make one a member of the NC but does make one a member of the local Church. 

I'm getting an Excedrin Headache trying to get to my point.

At the end of the day, the Baptist treats the CoG as so ideal and perfect as to leave it out of the reach of any historical administration. Its composition is and always has been in the mind of God alone. He knows His elect and saves them but neither circumcision nor baptism has ever been a means by which a man could positively state - "I am in the Coveant of Grace". In the OC, circumcision served to let a man know he was in the OC but not necessarily in the CoG. In the NC, baptism serves as a testimony that a man claims to believe but it serves no function to assure anyone that he is truly in the NC.

The Reformed position does not deny the inscrutable character of God with respect to His knowledge of the Elect of God but sees God's redemptive signs as methods of divine condescension. God does not leave knowledge of the elect beyond history but is pleased to give Sacraments to His Church by means of which men can participate in historical acts and, by the eyes of faith, be drawn to spiritual realities that exist beyond history.

That's the simplest way I can explain it at the moment.


----------



## steadfast7

CharlieJ said:


> Adam was not impeccable before the fall, and it is not clear that he was immortal. Impeccable means unable to sin. But, he sinned, therefore he was not impeccable. He was righteous.



Thanks Charlie for clarifying this term for me 


CharlieJ said:


> Baptist CT'ers view the inclusion of children in the covenant as typological, indicating the line through which Messiah would come. So, once Messiah has come, there is no longer any need for the type. Therefore, baptism actually signifies less than circumcision did, since baptism symbolizes purely spiritual realities, whereas circumcision had ethnic and social meanings that are no longer applicable. This is the basic argument of Paul Jewett's Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace.



Thanks for this as well. Helps me to understand my own position.


kceaster said:


> So, when did the new covenant commence? Only when the NT was canonized and could completely explain the OT? Sure, it benefits us. But Paul was using only the OT when he understood everything he wrote in his letters. So, his presupposition is not the NT first, but the OT.



Quite right. It benefits us, on this side of canonization. Paul does depend on the OT, but not without a measure of tweaking on his part as well. Recall that Paul in Gal 3:15ff reinterprets (if that's the right word) plural "offspring" to singular "offspring," namely Christ. This seems to suggest that while he is only using the OT, the Christ event changes things to a significant extent. He goes on to say that now Christ has come, the guardian is no longer necessary and those who are in Christ are the offspring of Abraham. This would not have been (and apparently was not) obvious to Jews.


Contra_Mundum said:


> CBT: I don't know if your schematic could be improved (by your own intention) with an exponential curve, rising from the baseline.
> However, your intention might be to show little eternal "progress" occurs along the graph, and then rises dramatically and off the chart at the institution of the NC.



Good point. There is a sense in which there's a curve, but also a sense in which the line starts on a graph, on a new page. C. Matthew McMahon comments that in looking back over his many years as a Reformed Baptist there was no escaping a form of dispensationalism, however subtle it might have been. There is a recognition of discontinuity, but dispensationalism is not the right charge, in my opinion.


Semper Fidelis said:


> Because the Covenant of Grace has always and now consists of the elect alone, the Baptist insists that anything that participates in that perfect Covenant has to, itself, be perfect.
> ....
> At the end of the day, the Baptist treats the CoG as so ideal and perfect as to leave it out of the reach of any historical administration.



I believe RCT'ers also believe that the CoG is ultimately with the elect alone, if I'm not wrong, and in a perfect world, we would aim for exact congruence between sign and signified. I guess we can say that for the Baptist, the historical (this-worldly) administration does occur, but happens incidentally, by virtue of not knowing those who are elect. Thus, we recognize that the churches will be a mixed group. In RCT, the historical administration is built into the fabric of the system, and mandated by it.

---------- Post added at 11:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 PM ----------

btw, are any of my credo brethren planning on jumping in to contribute here?? I'm on the verge of changing my position!


----------



## Peairtach

*Dennis*


> I guess we can say that for the Baptist, the historical (this-worldly) administration does occur, but happens incidentally, by virtue of not knowing those who are elect. Thus, we recognize that the churches will be a mixed group.



This isn't incidental. God intends that Kirk Sessions and other ecclesiastical organisations will not be able to _infallibly_ tell who the regenerate elect are, otherwise He would have given them that ability.

Therefore Baptist churches don't baptise the regenerate elect but those who make a credible profession of faith. Presbyterian churches baptise those who make a credible profession of faith and their children.



> But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. (Mark 10:14, ESV)


----------



## Douglas P.

steadfast7 said:


> I'm on the verge of changing my position!



If there is anything that i can do to help, please let me know!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Dennis,
I would begin by asking you NOT to be _quickly_ moved from a standpoint of true conviction. I say this, not because I don't want people to come to agreement with me, but because it's too easy for people who pull-up stakes to end up casting their certainties away wholesale, once they have begun "digging up their garden." That would be unprofitable for you. Please surround yourself with good, local, godly counselors. And this may be hard to do in a foreign land. So much is going on around you, you might be more easily moved--and moved too far--in a situation that is not-so-stable.



steadfast7 said:


> Paul in Gal 3:15ff reinterprets (if that's the right word) plural "offspring" to singular "offspring," namely Christ.


No, Paul specifically references Gen.22:18, which is best understood as the singular reference, rather than the plural that dominates v17; because the climatic verse puts the attention back on Isaac, and especially the One whom Isaac typifies.



steadfast7 said:


> This would not have been (and apparently was not) obvious to Jews.


This is a problem for the mostly apostate Jewish exegetes of the day, and not a problem for those inclined to a Messianic-interpretive focus. One of the issues we are dealing with is whether Jesus made a _change_ by teaching his disciples to interpret the Scriptures through his Person as Messiah, or whether there was tug-of-war all along between Israelites who interpreted the Bible (OT) messianicly, however imperfectly; and those who interpreted it through the lens of the law. The latter was so dominant by the time Jesus comes into his ministry, that even those true believers who are inclined to a messianic-hope-interpretation (exemplified by the Disciples) are deeply confused by Jesus' reorientation of their thinking.

Paul is by no means describing a new theology when he *denies* flatly that Jews-in-general (after the flesh) are Abraham's true offspring. He undercuts the argument by appealing to the Scriptures in Rom.9. Remember, Jesus *rebuked* Nicodemus for being "the teacher of Israel!" and not knowing the things that Jesus spoke to him concerning the necessity of a NEW BIRTH, not merely resting in one's original heritage.



steadfast7 said:


> the historical (this-worldly) administration does occur, but happens incidentally, by virtue of not knowing those who are elect.


This statement is incoherent, although I agree wholly with the last:


steadfast7 said:


> In RCT, the historical administration is built into the fabric of the system, and mandated by it.


. I think most RBs would recognize the first statement as an illegitimate borrowing of our terminology. It is absolutely critical to CBT (as well as baptist-system in general) that the New Covenant is NOT _administered_ in this world, in the sense that such a word is ordinarily understood.

The fully "immediate" (non-mediated) nature of the NC is absolutely fundamental to the baptist-system. Its reflected all over the system: from individual water-baptism being primarily a statement from the individual; to "flattened" church-organization (congregational)--Even one _necessary_ "layer" of institutional unity is fraught with the peril of imperfection, as professors who join the church may prove false.  If you don't really "know" persons outside your local body, you cannot "judge" their profession, and you certainly don't want them making decisions that might affect your locally "pure" body. The introduction of further "layers" of unity (i.e. a Presbytery or Synod) is consistent only within a system where church-government is synonymous with external-covenant administration.​The closest the baptist-system comes to recognizing "administration" of the CoG/NC (in the common sense RCT typically means by it) is in Word-ministry. But even there, the "flattening" of the whole tends to minimize the distinction between a Minister bringing the Word, and anyone else' bringing the Word. In much baptist-ecclesiology, the preacher fills a unique role by virtue of his gifts, in the pulpit or in personal counseling; but outside those referential categories he is no more or less engaged in "the ministry" than all other Christians. I would call this an _overapplication_ of the (legitimate) principle of universal-priesthood.


----------



## steadfast7

Richard Tallach said:


> This isn't incidental. God intends that Kirk Sessions and other ecclesiastical organisations will not be able to infallibly tell who the regenerate elect are, otherwise He would have given them that ability.



What I mean is that the Baptist cannot be rightly charged for not having _any_ kind of this-worldly administration, or for being infinitely idealistic and spiritual as to leave no room for a mixed church. These are a part of Baptist ecclesiology, not by intentionality, but by virtue of human error of not knowing the elect. The Presbyterian argument is that God's covenant-administrating ways are more inclusive and lenient in this regard - and I can appreciate this reasoning too.


----------



## kceaster

steadfast7 said:


> Quite right. It benefits us, on this side of canonization. Paul does depend on the OT, but not without a measure of tweaking on his part as well. Recall that Paul in Gal 3:15ff reinterprets (if that's the right word) plural "offspring" to singular "offspring," namely Christ. This seems to suggest that while he is only using the OT, the Christ event changes things to a significant extent. He goes on to say that now Christ has come, the guardian is no longer necessary and those who are in Christ are the offspring of Abraham. This would not have been (and apparently was not) obvious to Jews.



Yet, we must not make a leap that Christ has changed something already in the mind of God. In other words,, Paul didn't reinterpret offspring to mean something different to NT readers than it did to OT readers. The rendering of Gen 12:7 is not a plural offspring, so Paul is not changing the number here. What may have been otherwise understood, though, is that one wouldn't think of Christ as being given the land, if indeed, He is the seed spoken of; hence, there would be many seeds of Abraham. However, Paul is redirecting us to see that the promise and covenant God is here swearing to uphold by Himself, is not so much a covenant of land, as a covenant of people. Abraham was promised a seed first, at least that is what he should have heard, not yet having any offspring and being the age he was. The land was incidental, because he already had a place to live. Abraham would have heard the promise of a seed, and a people to grow from that seed. His children, especially in Jesus' day, might well have focused on the aspect of the land because they are inheritors of it. But through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, this is how we are to interpret Abraham's seed. Abraham's seed (singular) is the hope of his old age, even Jesus Christ, and that is the Christian's hope as well. Paul didn't change the person to Whom the Holy Spirit was referring to in Gen 12. Otherwise, we cannot allow Scripture to interpret Scripture.

And don't forget, Jesus is the seed (singular) which should bruise the serpent's head.

Also, there is one olive tree in which there are natural branches and wild branches grafted in.

We also have to realize that the NT writers were confounding the modern interpretations. That does not mean that the OT meant something different. The writers of the NT and even Jesus are not contradicting the OT, but correcting the wrong interpretation of it.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

steadfast7 said:


> Covenantal Baptist: The cross of Christ (New Covenant) brings out a fundamental change in the way God views those whom he calls his.



I don't like the above assessment and believe it is unbiblical. 

There is only one Covenant of Grace established in promise to from Genesis 3:15 for all who are redeemed by Christ. Even though one might be a beneficiary of the covenants of promise which were administered by the Covenant of Grace it didn't necessarily mean they were members in the Covenant of Grace. (ie. Ishmael, Esau) Not all of Israel was Israel as it says in Romans. The Children of Abraham where those who had faith.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

steadfast7 said:


> Pre-fall Adam = saved Christian?



I will have to find it. But the answer is no. Adam and Christ are different. The glory of Christ is by far more weightier than that of Adam but Christ was fully man. Christ was fully God and man. Adam was not. To be found in Adam can not be the same as being found in Christ.


----------



## steadfast7

Contra_Mundum said:


> I would begin by asking you NOT to be quickly moved from a standpoint of true conviction. I say this, not because I don't want people to come to agreement with me, but because it's too easy for people who pull-up stakes to end up casting their certainties away wholesale, once they have begun "digging up their garden."



Thanks for the encouragement. It's all been the result of recently being a part of a Presbyterian church and its mission here in India. I will soon be forced to ask myself if I want to be a member of this church and fully celebrate and participate in all its church life and sacraments. I happen to hold the presupposition that unity, solidarity and membership are just as important to me here as personal conviction is to those in the west - but this is a cultural thing. It certainly would be a nice bonus, however, to be fully convinced of its theology as well!



> No, Paul specifically references Gen.22:18, which is best understood as the singular reference, rather than the plural that dominates v17; because the climatic verse puts the attention back on Isaac, and especially the One whom Isaac typifies.


It seems to me that this would provide evidence of an even greater weightage on Christ as the entire point of the covenant promise and less weightage to the necessity of including one's natural offspring within the covenant.



Contra_Mundum said:


> I think most RBs would recognize the first statement as an illegitimate borrowing of our terminology. It is absolutely critical to CBT (as well as baptist-system in general) that the New Covenant is NOT administered in this world, in the sense that such a word is ordinarily understood.


The terminology of administration may be confusing. But Baptists do view baptism as an entrance into a this-worldly church membership - a church which is mixed. There is an honest recognition of the differences in God's part and ours in naming covenant members.

btw, very interesting insight on how the CBT plays out in ecclesiology!

---------- Post added at 01:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:13 AM ----------




PuritanCovenanter said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Covenantal Baptist: The cross of Christ (New Covenant) brings out a fundamental change in the way God views those whom he calls his.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like the above assessment and believe it is unbiblical.
> 
> There is only one Covenant of Grace established in promise to from Genesis 3:15 for all who are redeemed by Christ. Even though one might be a beneficiary of the covenants of promise which were administered by the Covenant of Grace it didn't necessarily mean they were members in the Covenant of Grace. (ie. Ishmael, Esau) Not all of Israel was Israel as it says in Romans. The Children of Abraham where those who had faith.
Click to expand...

 
You're right. My wording was bad. I only meant to convey that the New Covenant hermeneutic is definitive in how the rest of the covenants are seen. Now that Christ has come and established the NC, all our covenantal eggs, and what they were pointing to, need to go in the New Covenant basket. Hope that sounds ok. Glad you're here Randy.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

kceaster said:


> So, when did the new covenant commence? Only when the NT was canonized and could completely explain the OT? Sure, it benefits us. But Paul was using only the OT when he understood everything he wrote in his letters. So, his presupposition is not the NT first, but the OT.



Kevin, When did Paul have a correct presupposition and clear understanding of the New Covenant? It was first revealed to him by Christ. He didn't come to a correct view by his presuppositions from the Old necessarily till he came to understand the promise of a New Covenant that was to come in Christ. God revealed the mystery of the New Covenant which was not like the Old (per Jer. 31) that was hidden in prophecy such as in Isaiah and Jeremiah 31. As it is said. The New in the Old is concealed. The Old in the New is revealed. The type is not the antitype. Methinks John Owen did a good job on this. But better minds than mine have done a far superior job in this than I have. 

I am not sure I am really understanding your term presupposition here though.


----------



## steadfast7

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am not sure I am really understanding your term presupposition here though.



A presupposition is an assumption about a subject upon which he builds knowledge and forms concepts. It's axiomatic and is the foundation of their thinking along a particular subject line, but is itself difficult to prove or disprove. For example, secular psychologists say that all mental problems are biological and/or psychiatric, not the result of supernatural activity. Using this assumption, their treatments naturally do not include prayers or chants.

Each discipline and concept has its set of presuppositions which allows it to function. I think one of RCT's presuppositions is the undisturbed continuity of the covenants between old and new, while CBT may assert there is a significant degree of discontinuity. Another one of RCT's: that which comes before takes priority; CBT: that which comes after takes priority.

It's very difficult to argue against a presupposition, because you need a standard that resides outside of the field discipline in question. Whether we like to admit it, we often choose a position on subjective or personal grounds rather than through argument. So, since it seems like the fool proof argument is hard if not impossible to arrive at, I'm looking for the most basic presupposition that governs each position and seeing how it interacts with my subjective feelings! Hey, it's worth a try...


----------



## kceaster

What I'm saying, brother Randy, is that if you came up to Paul on the street and told him you'd been reading the OT about the salvation of the Lord, he wouldn't have told you to start with his letters first because they explain the OT. Just like Philip and the eunuch. Philip didn't tell him to put that away, but rather began to explain the history of redemption to him. Jesus did the same with the two on the road to Emmaeus. The NCT folks came out a few years back and said that you must begin with the NT because it is logically prior. While one may think that, it is rather impossible.

That's what I mean by a presupposition. It may be simply stated as the beginning of Hebrews: "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world." What a connection of redemptive history!

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Semper Fidelis

steadfast7 said:


> I believe RCT'ers also believe that the CoG is ultimately with the elect alone, if I'm not wrong, and in a perfect world, we would aim for exact congruence between sign and signified.



Reformed theology holds that the Covenant of Grace is made with Christ and its saving benefits belong to the Elect alone but I would not agree that "in a perfect world" we would aim for exact congruence between sign and thing signified. This is not to be pejorative but this is Baptist thinking and not the way the Scriptures reveal how the world is (created by a Perfect God). The hidden assumption in Baptist theology is, because the New Covenant is ideal, that the Church is given an implicit command to apply the sign to those they most probably believe are elect. There is no such commandment in Scripture.

In the world that God created, He knows the hidden things and the creature lives by faith according to the revealed things. Nowhere does God tell us to live by the things hidden from us but, on the contrary, commands against this and commands us to live by the things He has revealed (Deut 29:29). In the Covenant, God plans in eternity those Whom He will redeem, reveals how He plans to redeem them in His Word, and leaves His Church visiible signs of His Covenant to accommodate Himself to our creatureliness.

There is a real danger in idealizing the New Covenant because men begin to speculate from the fact that God saves the elect to assuming that, because God can save, that He does so apart from any means or connection from history. God, as He is in Himself, is inscrutable, and we must rely upon what He has revealed and proceed no further. His Word tells us that He attends His saving work in conversion by the preaching of His Word. It's called the foolishness of preaching, in part, because it seems quite odd to our speculation that God would attend His infinite power to such seemingly inadequate means. He also condescends, in ways that seem foolish to men's thinking, by promising that something as simply as water can direct our senses and our minds to the historical fact that He has saving intentions toward us. 

Without these seemingly foolish ways of the Creator condescending to our creatureliness we would be left with bare speculation. The creature would have no way of knowing the hidden things of God. It is for this reason that I believe that the Baptist view of baptism severely weakens the ministerial testimony of God's Covenant to men that He intends by such means. Instead of letting Baptism become God's way of speaking to us by the ministry of the Church, it becomes the person speaking to God and guts the grace manifest in the Sacrament.


----------



## Pilgrim

Richard Tallach said:


> This thread is turning into a bit of a dog's breakfast - if an interesting dog's breakfast.



Indeed.

---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------




Contra_Mundum said:


> Dennis, I would begin by asking you NOT to be quickly moved from a standpoint of true conviction. I say this, not because I don't want people to come to agreement with me, but because it's too easy for people who pull-up stakes to end up casting their certainties away wholesale, once they have begun "digging up their garden." That would be unprofitable for you. Please surround yourself with good, local, godly counselors. And this may be hard to do in a foreign land. So much is going on around you, you might be more easily moved--and moved too far--in a situation that is not-so-stable.



Dennis,

This is sound advice. As someone who was baptistic once, then Presbyterian and now Baptist again, I can identify with your plight, especially given the recent fellowship you've shared with Presbyterians. If you're looking for a reason to be convinced of Presbyterianism, you'll find it and vice versa. That was basically what happened with me, largely because I didn't feel I could identify with any of the Baptist churches in my area. I grasped the presuppositions of the Reformed pedobaptist argument and within a few months made the switch. But I was in a position of instability, as Bruce alludes to, even though for about a year or two I seemed to be planted firmly in that soil. Like me at that time, you seem to be looking for a quick resolution of the issue. But such quick resolutions are likely to result in having to reexamine the question more thoroughly at some point further down the road or else perhaps suppressing lingering doubts for the sake of fellowship. I can appreciate the differences in culture between East and West, but ultimately our consciences should be bound to scripture, not to culture. 

Ultimately I don't think you're going to be completely satisfied with the results you get from this board if this is going to be your main resource in resolving this issue. It's a helpful resource (you can review old baptism debate threads if you have hours to spare) but I wouldn't make a major change based solely on any discourse here. Also, the continued banter about impeccability and the pre-fall state of Adam in this thread shows that more basic study is needed than on the one issue of WCF vs LBCF covenant theology, unless it was simply a confusion of terminology. (The continued references to that question leads me to believe that it was not simply a confusion over terminology.) There is no disagreement between Baptists and Presbyterians on that issue. 

Were you ever connected with a Baptist church? If so, it would be a good idea to raise these questions with them as well. If you don't have any solid Baptist ministries with which you are personally acquainted, there are tons of resources you can get elsewhere, whether in book form or online. Randy, myself and others can help you in that regard if you like. The historic confessions are more statements of belief than they are apologetics or arguments for that belief.


----------



## JP Wallace

Semper Fidelis said:


> It is for this reason that I believe that the Baptist view of baptism severely weakens the ministerial testimony of God's Covenant to men that He intends by such means. Instead of letting Baptism become God's way of speaking to us by the ministry of the Church, it becomes the person speaking to God and guts the grace manifest in the Sacrament.



Rich sadly I believe your criticism is frequently correct, however it ought not to be, because so far as our definition of what baptism is there should be no fundamental disagreement between the PB and CB positions. You correctly hightlight that baptism is God speaking to us, but that is just what the Baptist Confession says in very similar terms to the WCF, thus while I think your criticiism of much baptist 'practice' is accurate, that point of criticism should not be if Reformed Baptists at least were holding to their confession, and practising baptism in accordance with their confession...I quote both confessions to prove my point,

This is WCF28:1

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] *but also to be unto him a sign* and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]

And for comparison BCF 29:1

1. Baptism is an Ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, *to be unto the party Baptized, a sign* of his fellowship with him, in his death, 457and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of 458remission of sins; and of his 459giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of Life.

Now yes there are some changes, and I wouldn't want to ignore them, but with all the changes, the vital content is very similar...the nature of the sacrament is a sign to the party being baptized.....of the various listed things; union with Christ, remission of sins.....in other words the Baptist Confession defines baptism as being a sign of what God has done, and IS NOT defined as being a public profession of faith in Christ, though as you know it more often than not is practiced in that way.

My point is that chiefly for the Reformed and Confessional Baptist - baptism* is* about God speaking and *is not* about us speaking to God.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Paul,
There are still major differences, and they start with that first sentence the BCF omits. That's the place where we understand the "divine speech" begins, namely in objective statements, rather than in subjective ones. We both agree, it's true, that baptism is a *sign*,_ unto faith,_ of all the things mentioned. But the "administrative" stuff is just the pieces not present in the BCF. Since an unconverted man isn't actually baptized at the event (on the baptist-scheme), then literally no statement by God is being made on that occasion. But under our scheme, He is still speaking, objectively.


----------



## steadfast7

Pilgrim said:


> Were you ever connected with a Baptist church? If so, it would be a good idea to raise these questions with them as well. If you don't have any solid Baptist ministries with which you are personally acquainted, there are tons of resources you can get elsewhere, whether in book form or online. Randy, myself and others can help you in that regard if you like. The historic confessions are more statements of belief than they are apologetics or arguments for that belief.



Thanks for your advice and perspective, Chris. You've had quite a journey yourself. Myself, unfortunately, no, I haven't been a part of an RB church and side with them on the confession alone. My church experiences in the past have either been liberal Presbyterian, charismatic or non-denominational. It's now that I'm settling in India (hopefully long term) that I'm finally having the opportunity to worship with authentically Reformed Presbyterian brethren. In terms of culture and conscience, it's true that we should be captivated by scripture and conscience, but our culture is a powerful element in both our understanding of scripture and the operation of our conscience, and difficult to separate. I'm realizing more that baptism is a churchly sacrament, so it's valid to submit to the policies of the church, if I'm unable to come to a complete conclusion myself.

I'm also realizing how inadequate it is to say, "scripture is so clear," because there are plenty of very intelligent and godly thinkers who simply differ on this point, and it implies that the other is foolish - which I don't think is the way of love. I'd like to even move this thread in the direction of subjective reasons to believe in credo vs. paedobaptism. As I mentioned before, intellectual arguments are helpful, but subjective personal reasons are very compelling as well. I hear glimmers of it coming through at times, eg. paedo: a desire to consider one's baby a Christian, a member of the covenant; credo: a desire to mimic Jesus in his adult baptism. These are deep-rooted associations in our hearts that we _want_ to be so and act as presuppositions which control our thinking as well. 

would anyone admit to any subjective, or emotive reasons for their position?


----------



## kceaster

JP Wallace said:


> Now yes there are some changes, and I wouldn't want to ignore them, but with all the changes, the vital content is very similar...the nature of the sacrament is a sign to the party being baptized.....of the various listed things; union with Christ, remission of sins.....in other words the Baptist Confession defines baptism as being a sign of what God has done, and IS NOT defined as being a public profession of faith in Christ, though as you know it more often than not is practiced in that way.



So, the operative term you are using is, "what God has done." The Reformed understanding of baptism is that it MAY be a sign of what God has done, but more precisely, it is resting on the promise of what God says He will do. In the end, both the Baptistic and the Reformed will agree that it is all predicated on the promise. But the reality is the old paradigm of already/not yet as regards our salvation. We all look forward to our own salvation, fully and finally. We look in hope for each other. We look in hope for our children. Our hope is in the LORD; the only One who can save us.

However and whomever we baptize, it should be our solemn realization that this baptism is the signpost, not the destination. The destination, the celestial city, we may only reach if God is gracious. That is our hope of things not yet seen. And that is a hope we can have for the old and for the young. That is the hope of Abraham. That is the hope of the covenant of grace.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

steadfast7 said:


> credo: a desire to mimic Jesus in his adult baptism.



This is a misconception also. We desire to follow Christ and see the eschatological in baptism. Baptism is also our entrance into the Church. It is a sign of a present reality of our union with Christ. It isn't a desire to follow Christ in His adult baptism. I think His baptism in no way represents ours. His was done to fulfill righteousness. Ours is done to show our union with him because of his propitiating work.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

steadfast7 said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were you ever connected with a Baptist church? If so, it would be a good idea to raise these questions with them as well. If you don't have any solid Baptist ministries with which you are personally acquainted, there are tons of resources you can get elsewhere, whether in book form or online. Randy, myself and others can help you in that regard if you like. The historic confessions are more statements of belief than they are apologetics or arguments for that belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your advice and perspective, Chris. You've had quite a journey yourself. Myself, unfortunately, no, I haven't been a part of an RB church and side with them on the confession alone. My church experiences in the past have either been liberal Presbyterian, charismatic or non-denominational. It's now that I'm settling in India (hopefully long term) that I'm finally having the opportunity to worship with authentically Reformed Presbyterian brethren. In terms of culture and conscience, it's true that we should be captivated by scripture and conscience, but our culture is a powerful element in both our understanding of scripture and the operation of our conscience, and difficult to separate. I'm realizing more that baptism is a churchly sacrament, so it's valid to submit to the policies of the church, if I'm unable to come to a complete conclusion myself.
> 
> I'm also realizing how inadequate it is to say, "scripture is so clear," because there are plenty of very intelligent and godly thinkers who simply differ on this point, and it implies that the other is foolish - which I don't think is the way of love. I'd like to even move this thread in the direction of subjective reasons to believe in credo vs. paedobaptism. As I mentioned before, intellectual arguments are helpful, but subjective personal reasons are very compelling as well. I hear glimmers of it coming through at times, eg. paedo: a desire to consider one's baby a Christian, a member of the covenant; credo: a desire to mimic Jesus in his adult baptism. These are deep-rooted associations in our hearts that we _want_ to be so and act as presuppositions which control our thinking as well.
> 
> would anyone admit to any subjective, or emotive reasons for their position?
Click to expand...

 
There might have been a point at which I had an emotional reason (with kids) to desire paedobaptism but the more I learn about the Scriptures, the more fear and trembling I have about the responsibilities they have to the things they've tasted and seen. I think it would be subjectively easier for me to think: "Nah! The threats of Hebrews don't apply to my kids because they're not Christians yet and under no real obligation...."

I don't agree that we should just conclude that the Scriptures are not clear because intelligent and decent men disagree. Some don't see clarity in the Trinity either. I don't know if you meant to write it the way you did but you placed the lack of clarity on the Scriptures (as if they could be taken either way) as opposed to the error of those who receive the Scriptures. I am willing to grant that sin disposes me to misinterpreting the Scriptures but I will not grant that the Scriptures do not present a clear, consistent picture. I believe giving in to the "good men disagree" is a capitulation to the idea that men have a right to misinterpret the Word of God. I have no such right.

This brings me to another fundamental disagreement about the Covenant and that is the nature of disciple. In the Biblical (read Reformed) sense, a disciple is one who is baptized and _then_ taught to observe everything that Christ has commanded (Matt 28:18-20). In the Baptist schema, often disciple is viewed as one who has already been taught and has a mature understanding of all things and is so baptized. In the examples of baptisms of adults in Acts, nearly every example of adult baptism is one who is baptized immediately after hearing the most rudimentary things about Christ, receives it, and submits himself in baptism _in order to be discipled_. In fact, Simon is an example of one who submits himself to be baptized, is discipled for a season, and then shows evidences that he may not have ever been converted. There is no evidence that any Apostle or Evangelist was looking for sure evidence of regeneration in order to baptize - rather, the accent is upon the recipient being willing to submit oneself to the visible Kingdom of God. Profession, in one sense, is like a person swearing allegiance to a new King. Baptism is the ceremony by which one is made a member of the visible Kingdom. Instruction is the means by which the citizens grow in their understanding of what it means to be a citizen of the kingdom. Again, in the Baptist schema, many are looking for that mature and sure person that looks and acts like a full-fledged citizen and then they will receive citizenship. In some particular Baptist congregations of the past, people would be expected to wait years for sure evidence of fruits prior to baptism. This is what the understanding of the Covenant leads to that is discordant with the Scriptural picture.

Likewise, then, with children. Children are baptized not _because_ they know everything and act in every way like a mature citizen of the visible Kingdom but _in order to_ begin the period of instruction toward that end. Remarkably Paul and the other Apostles (and even Christ Himself) addresses children as those who are to be trained in and belong to the Kingdom of God but presuppositions present a huge blindspot for many that the light of nature makes plain even if Scripture weren't itself so plain. Does anybody really think that any child who is raised in a Christian home will ever escape the condemnation of "shrinking back" from the heavenly gifts they taste of week in and week out as they hear the Word of God preached and the Word calls them to faith and repentance. They are baptized because it is recognized that they are on the interior of the Kingdom. The King expects those inside the walls of His Kingdom to heed His commands. Now the Gospel is surely sweet in that it grants what it commands. It regenerates according to the King's sovereign pleasure. Yet, for those that willingly rebel and shrink back and trample underfoot the Son of God that they've heard proclaimed so sweetly, how can they escape the consuming fire of God's wrath? This is true of child or adult. Christ has given us baptism, in part, to mark out those from the world who belong to the visible Kingdom of God. He does wonderful things through His Word for His citizens but He also threatens, in no uncertain terms, those who shrink back.

And so, I ask you: Would you _want_ to think of your beloved children as under the wrath of God should they shrink back? I soberly consider what responsibility is upon my children given the privilege of being born into a Christian household. I pray with them every night that God would cause them to repent of their sins and convert them to the Gospel. It's according to God's sovereign pleasure so to do but it is yet their responsibility before His face to hear His voice and not shrink back. It is my responsibility, before God, to train them in the fear and admonition of the Lord.


----------



## Scott1

steadfast7 said:


> that unity, solidarity and membership are just as important to me here as personal conviction is to those in the west - but this is a cultural thing.



Not trying to change your position by this point, and would underscore *Contra Mundum*, not to make large changes in theology lightly, but consider this basic tenet of reformed theology:

The unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement.

This is not "cultural" nor "Western," it is biblical.

A corollary to that might be, "True unity of the church cannot be grounded on superficial compromise or avoidance of major doctrinal difference because the church confesses what the Scriptures say."

This is why reformed churches are confessional, as well, another basic tenet of reformed theology.

Add to that the doctrine of perspicuity- the whole of Scripture speaks clearly one coherent message, that is intended, even commanded, to be understood by all God's creatures.

When we're speaking of whether infants and children are in the covenant, it's major doctrine.

One can, and must, love and recognize believers with wrong doctrine, but at the same time, not join in confessing substantial misrepresentation of God's will (doctrine) in this world.

We learn to subsume "preferences" for the love of the Body, learn by God's grace to love people we would not otherwise love, maybe even subsume minor doctrinal differences- and that is necessary for unity, but not "principles."

The churches confession is the substantial statement of those "principles."


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't agree that we should just conclude that the Scriptures are not clear because intelligent and decent men disagree. Some don't see clarity in the Trinity either. I don't know if you meant to write it the way you did but you placed the lack of clarity on the Scriptures (as if they could be taken either way) as opposed to the error of those who receive the Scriptures. I am willing to grant that sin disposes me to misinterpreting the Scriptures but I will not grant that the Scriptures do not present a clear, consistent picture.



You're right. It is the noetic effects of sin, without a doubt, that create unclarity and misinterpretation. But we also need to recognize that the most sanctified of our forebears and teachers will disagree vehemently with one another. This is not to cast doubt on the clarity of scripture, but my hope is that we can expose the deep subjective presuppositions and recognize how powerful they are in forming our beliefs. In re-reading Calvin on infant baptism, I can't help but notice his pastoral heart coming through and his concern that anabaptism was causing such strife and division in the church and the reformation movement. While not his main reason for opposing anabaptism, I'm sure it was influential.



Semper Fidelis said:


> There is no evidence that any Apostle or Evangelist was looking for sure evidence of regeneration in order to baptize - rather, the accent is upon the recipient being willing to submit oneself to the visible Kingdom of God. Profession, in one sense, is like a person swearing allegiance to a new King.


 I think this ends up looking about the same in both baptist and presbyterian approaches. The baptist is looking for allegiance and willingness to submit to the church; likewise, the Presbyterian is looking for some credible signs (not necessarily sure signs) of authentic faith. As Calvin says, "


> We strenuously insist that such men are not to be baptised unless their conversion and faith are discerned, at least in as far as human judgment can ascertain it. Inst. 4.23.





Scott1 said:


> The unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement.
> 
> This is not "cultural" nor "Western," it is biblical.



I agree with you Scott. I was actually commenting on my personal cultural situation, ethnically Korean and serving in India. You can immediately recognize the Eastern collectivist culture that is inevitable. While changing or retaining one's position on account of personal conviction is seen as noble in Western culture, here in the east, community solidarity and living for the larger whole is more preferred. Thus, for that reason alone, an eastern Christian might justifiably change their position.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Baptism is also our entrance into the Church. It is a sign of a present reality of our union with Christ. It isn't a desire to follow Christ in His adult baptism. I think His baptism in no way represents ours. His was done to fulfill righteousness. Ours is done to show our union with him because of his propitiating work.


 Amen brother. I still see it like this...


----------



## JP Wallace

kceaster said:


> So, the operative term you are using is, "what God has done." The Reformed understanding of baptism is that it MAY be a sign of what God has done, but more precisely, it is resting on the promise of what God says He will do.



Kevin I'm not sure if you think I'm in disagreement with your point or not (I think I agree) but just for clarity when I speak of what God has done, I am speaking from the perspective of a true believer, and the confession does speak in terms of present possession , it is a 'sign [and or seal!] of his engrafting into Christ etc....

Of course as I stated in my very first post on this thread God's promise is indeed the crux of covenant theology (of any sort  )

'Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him *a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life*.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]'

---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 PM ----------

And I also agree with Puritan Covenanter on the connection (or lack thereof) with Jesus' baptism.


----------



## steadfast7

Just for clarification, I wasn't arguing that Baptists would be correct in mimicking Jesus' adult baptism or thinking that they could mimic it; only that it _may be_ one of those emotive subjective desires that a baptist secretly has in choosing adult baptism over paedo.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

steadfast7 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence that any Apostle or Evangelist was looking for sure evidence of regeneration in order to baptize - rather, the accent is upon the recipient being willing to submit oneself to the visible Kingdom of God. Profession, in one sense, is like a person swearing allegiance to a new King.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this ends up looking about the same in both baptist and presbyterian approaches. The baptist is looking for allegiance and willingness to submit to the church; likewise, the Presbyterian is looking for some credible signs (not necessarily sure signs) of authentic faith. As Calvin says, "
> 
> 
> 
> We strenuously insist that such men are not to be baptised unless their conversion and faith are discerned, at least in as far as human judgment can ascertain it. Inst. 4.23.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Here is the full quote from Calvin:


> 23. They now come down to the custom and practice of the apostolic age, alleging that there is no instance of any one having been admitted to baptism without a previous profession of faith and repentance. For when Peter is asked by his hearers, who were pricked in their heart, “What shall we do?” his advice is, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins,” (Acts 2:37, 38.) In like manner, when Philip was asked by the eunuch to baptize him, he answered, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” Hence they think they can make out that baptism cannot be lawfully given to any one without previous faith and repentance. If we yield to this argument, the former passage, in which there is no mention of faith, will prove that repentance alone is sufficient, and the latter, which makes no requirement of repentance, that there is need only of faith. They will object, I presume, that the one passage helps the other, and that both, therefore, are to be connected. I, in my turn, maintain that these two must be compared with other passages which contribute somewhat to the solution of this difficulty. There are many passages of Scripture whose meaning depends on their peculiar position. Of this we have an example in the present instance. Those to whom these things are said by Peter and Philip are of an age fit to aim at repentance, and receive faith. We strenuously insist that such men are not to be baptized unless their conversion and faith are discerned, at least in as far as human judgment can ascertain it. But it is perfectly clear that infants must be placed in a different class. For when any one formerly joined the religious communion of Israel, he behoved to be taught the covenant, and instructed in the law of the Lord, before he received circumcision, because he was of a different nation; in other words, an alien from the people of Israel, with whom the covenant, which circumcision sanctioned, had been made.
> 
> Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. (2010). Vol. 3: Institutes of the Christian religion (372–373). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.



The actual location is Book IV, Chapter 16, Section 23.

Notice that Calvin notes the same thing I did by the analogy of the person switching allegiances. The child, being a member of the Kingdom by birth, does not switch visible allegiance because he is born into the visible Kingdom (whether or not he is truly in Christ).

The distinction I would make is whether or not the party baptized, in the Baptist schema, is really made a member of the visible Kingdom of God. There is a reason why re-baptism is not considered "re-baptism" in the Baptist schema and that is the reasons I enumerated before. It is not enough for the Baptist to see Baptism once administered upon a person's initial profession of repentance and faith to be sufficient. Why? Because the individual may decide or discover later that his repentance and faith was not genuine.

Thus, baptism is not seen as a sufficient visible sign to mark one out in the visible Kingdom of God to mark one out as a disciple who is then trained in the more mature things of God. Rather, if the fruits of conversion are not yet mature enough and the person is seen to have "fallen away" and comes back his initial baptism into discipleship may be seen as no baptism at all and the individual never really had a status as a disciple. Disciple, in a real sense, is tied to the ideal nature of the NC for the Baptist where the only One who truly knows whether a man is a disciple or not is the Lord Himself.

The Biblically Reformed view sees baptism as the beginning of discipleship and there is but one baptism because the person is marked out from the world by an objective ministerial declaration commissioned by God. Whether the man (or child) is elect or not does not change the objective fact that he has been separated from the world with all the external privileges and responsibilities that it entails. If the person is removed visibly from that Kingdom by discipline then the person is seen by the Church to be outside the Kingdom of God but, should he return and repent, it is not seen as if he was never a disciple but, rather, a citizen (or wandering sheep if you like) that has been restored.


----------



## Scott1

steadfast7 said:


> While changing or retaining one's position on account of personal conviction is seen as noble in Western culture, here in the east, community solidarity and living for the larger whole is more preferred. Thus, for that reason alone, an eastern Christian might justifiably change their position.



I understand what you are saying.

We might add, though, it is very difficult, and there are consequences to holding an opinion to "do the right" in "Western" culture. Sometimes, big consequences and big pressure is applied. Doing the right thing can be lonely and humiliating.

It is however, a necessary biblical, Christlike attribute- mortification of the flesh, a willingness to suffer.

Our Lord certainly did, and it was His example.

Subsuming truth to the collective opinion of man, at a given point of time, is, as a principle, idolatry, and must be confronted as such, trusting God, and leaving the results to Him.

This is perhaps one, only one though, way in which God changes people, and culture, for His Honor and His Glory.


----------



## steadfast7

Rich, what's the definition of "objective"? What about in the case of excommunication from the church? Is it not the case that that person has been removed from the visible kingdom? If I'm not wrong, Presbyterians believe that it is not one's baptism per se that marks him out as belonging to the covenant community, but his continued membership in the local church and the common confession of faith. That covenant status, by implication, is only objective at the time that the conditions are being met. However, it can be rendered undone through unfaithfulness within one's lifetime, as was the case with circumcision.

I would also ask of the scriptures, whether it sees baptism in this 'ideal' sense. In most cases that I can think of, the mention of baptism is coupled inseparably from their status as united with Christ and saved. One can cite Simon the sorcerer who was baptized but doubtfully converted, (although he might have been, we don't know). One thing is for certain, he was immature and was disciplined. If unconverted, Scripture would say of Simon, "they went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." (1 Jn 2:19). This sounds a lot like what you think Baptists would say. But interestingly, in Simon's case, it is still affirmed by Luke that "Simon himself believed and was baptized" (Ac 8:13). Thus his baptism was still justifiable because he believed. 

I'm not sure how baptists treat a backslider or one who is excommunicated, who comes back , but I imagine it's similar to how a Presbyterian church would treat him. A second baptism is not necessary.


----------



## Scott1

> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter XXVIII
> Of Baptism
> 
> I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]
> 
> ....
> 
> IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]
> 
> V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]
> 
> VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]
> 
> VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]


.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

steadfast7 said:


> Rich, what's the definition of "objective"?


Jumpin' in...

"Objective" here means "not subjective," that is, baptism-in-fact not based on the truth/factuality of a personal-subjective state of affairs, but on objective and public criteria.

Baptism, as we we it, is first of all a _gospel-witness_ to the objective/historic facts of the Christian faith, and their official interpretation by God through his Apostles.

Second, it is a _gospel-declaration_: that objectively/factually, whosoever believes in Christ-so-witnessed will certainly be saved.

Thirdly, it is an individually directed instance of the same objective declaration concerning the person present or presented for baptism. It is a call to one named individual, a personalized sermon, to believe (yes, even to the infant--the gospel call to faith never "starts" to be relevant sometime later in his life, even as it never "ceases" to be relevant to the day of his death).

Fourthly, it is a subjective testament--not just on the day of the event, but lifelong--from the person baptized, that he believes in what baptism seals and signifies. If he tells you "I'm baptized," you want to ask him what he means by that. Objectively, it might be fairly easy to observe a record of the fact, a document, witnesses. Subjectively, its his assertion, his claim--to belong to the church, to belong to Christ, to eternal life.

Its that last element, the subjective, that is "falsifiable." None of the other statements is false. The facts of Christ's work are not in doubt (related in the Bible, therefore God's self-witness). The fact that the gospel is declared is part-and-parcel of a baptism (the church's witness). The fact that a certain individual was baptized is historical record (individual witness). These are public, objective witnesses tied to baptism.

The subjective statement: "I believe in that which baptism signifies and seals," cannot be verified. It may be true, but it cannot be infallibly evaluated by men. Therefore, at best it is an ancillary support or basis for baptism. Depending on the person, *profession* may be a necessary, _objective criteria_ met, in order for baptism, but it is utterly inadequate as the basis, or even as a substantial element of the basis for baptism.
Salvation as a whole is completely outside of us, it is God work, and totally objective.
I am a participant in that salvation by faith, but my subjective involvement forms NO basis of my salvation.
The same is true of my "witness" to my personal salvation in baptism.
What *I* say about it has no connection to its foundation.​______________________________

Reference Simon the Sorcerer: Scripture also tells us that post-baptism, he is "in the gall of bitterness." Peter therein witnesses to Simon's unconverted state. The simple statement in Scripture, "he {or they, etc.} believed," alone tells us nothing of the value of any expression of faith. False faith as well as true is so represented--just look at the Gospels as they record the multitudes who "believed" on Jesus, but who rejected him. Simon's baptism was valid regardless, to a Presbyterian, because he met the criteria of a person in his condition for reception of the rite, and it was done in a church-orderly way.

If Simon was unconverted, then a Baptist does not acknowledge his baptism as valid to begin with. Furthermore, how does one distinguish between "backsliding" and non-conversion to begin with? Ultimately, whose decision is it to put a man back under-water? Is it the officers of the church? Or must they pretty much take the returning man's subjective evaluation of his own former profession as their best guide? If he says he believes he was "wishfully" converted before, but not really, how can the church argue with him? The church is forced into re-baptizing, even if they simply invalidate the first, and call the new baptism the "first."

In this scheme, the question of whether or not he was baptized is not principally a "church-answered" question, but a subjectively, personally and individually answered question. Baptism isn't half as "passive" an event (happening TO a man) in the Baptist-order; it is "active" on the part of the subject, because the truth or falsity of his own faith forms part of the basis for validating the event. His activity "counts" for rendering it real.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

steadfast7 said:


> Rich, what's the definition of "objective"? What about in the case of excommunication from the church? Is it not the case that that person has been removed from the visible kingdom? If I'm not wrong, Presbyterians believe that it is not one's baptism per se that marks him out as belonging to the covenant community, but his continued membership in the local church and the common confession of faith. That covenant status, by implication, is only objective at the time that the conditions are being met. However, it can be rendered undone through unfaithfulness within one's lifetime, as was the case with circumcision.


One does not have to wonder whether or not he is baptized. That is what I mean by objective. Visibly, the person is made a member of the Kingdom of God. Yes, he may rebel and shrink back but there is no presumption that no membership or responsibility to continue belonged to the individual. 

It is objective in contra-distinction from a subjective apprehension of Baptist theology: "Did I have real faith when I was baptized? Golly, I don't know. When I was baptized as an adult I held to an Arminian soteriology. Maybe I was never really baptized." or even "I know I believed the right things when I was baptized but this heinous sin I've committed leads me to doubt whether or not I had real faith when I was baptized. Maybe I was never really baptized." Ultimately, the tenor on the _reality_ of baptism in Baptist CT rests on the subjective experience of the individual.



> I would also ask of the scriptures, whether it sees baptism in this 'ideal' sense. In most cases that I can think of, the mention of baptism is coupled inseparably from their status as united with Christ and saved. One can cite Simon the sorcerer who was baptized but doubtfully converted, (although he might have been, we don't know). One thing is for certain, he was immature and was disciplined. If unconverted, Scripture would say of Simon, "they went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." (1 Jn 2:19). This sounds a lot like what you think Baptists would say. But interestingly, in Simon's case, it is still affirmed by Luke that "Simon himself believed and was baptized" (Ac 8:13). Thus his baptism was still justifiable because he believed.


No, not every time that Baptism is spoken of it necessarily speaks of union with Christ. The Romans 6 sense of the term certainly does to the point where the baptism being spoken of is a spiritual identification with Christ in His death and resurrection. Paul there speaks about baptism in a way distinct from the actual _administration_ of physical baptism. In other parts, baptism is spoken of in its external administration - men rejoice at the news (and by all external indicators believe and repent) and they are baptized. Yet, it is abundantly clear as well from other portions that even men that Paul _labored in the ministry with_ fell away.

Clearly, then, there is a connection between the sign of baptism and the thing signified but it cannot be said that because a person receives the sign that he necessarily possesses the reality. You can find in Scott's post that connection. Physical baptism is sacramentally related to spiritual baptism in that God has instituted it and promises that He attends to the Promises announced in it. The Holy Spirit gives the graces it signifies to the elect and this is why the timing of baptism and its reality does not depend upon the subjective experience of the recipient. Again, it is God's speech and not ours.

In Simon's case we cannot fully conclude that simply because the text states that he believed that it is speaking of true faith and repentance. There are several examples of "judgments of charity" in the Scriptures where people are assumed to be Christians on the basis of their profession. It's the way the Church must operate. One does not have to infer that Luke was given special revelation concerning the true nature of Simon's faith. Imagine what the Church would be like if we all walked around saying to one another: "You say you believe the Gospel but I have no way of knowing that infallibly so I won't ever say 'Dennis believes the Gospel'".



> I'm not sure how baptists treat a backslider or one who is excommunicated, who comes back , but I imagine it's similar to how a Presbyterian church would treat him. A second baptism is not necessary.


Again, that depends. If his initial conversion is not seen as genuine (or the person himself comes to that conclusion) then baptism is not seen as having occured and, in Baptist thinking, no "re-baptism" occurred because the person was never baptized.


----------



## Pilgrim

*The factor of subjectivity and emotions*



steadfast7 said:


> I'm also realizing how inadequate it is to say, "scripture is so clear," because there are plenty of very intelligent and godly thinkers who simply differ on this point, and it implies that the other is foolish - which I don't think is the way of love. I'd like to even move this thread in the direction of subjective reasons to believe in credo vs. paedobaptism. As I mentioned before, intellectual arguments are helpful, but subjective personal reasons are very compelling as well. I hear glimmers of it coming through at times, eg. paedo: a desire to consider one's baby a Christian, a member of the covenant; credo: a desire to mimic Jesus in his adult baptism. These are deep-rooted associations in our hearts that we want to be so and act as presuppositions which control our thinking as well. would anyone admit to any subjective, or emotive reasons for their position?



No doubt these motives play a big role in some cases, even if it goes unrecognized on a conscious level. 

There's a former member of this board who used to have Baptist views but within the past year or so has adopted Presbyterian views. His simply not liking the Baptists in his area and a disdain for Bible Belt "Baptist culture" in general played a big role, as he admits. When you ask him why he switched about all he can say beyond his distaste for Baptists is that he agrees with the WCF. 

As I noted earlier, in retrospect, subjective reasons played a large role in my adopting paedobaptist views. At that time, I was so immature (even though I was in my early 30's!) that unless a church had all the I's dotted and T's crossed and strictly followed what they professed to believe, I couldn't (or wouldn't) join. The Orthodox Presbyterian congregation in my area met that description, whereas the Baptist churches tended to use revivalist and pragmatic techniques and usually held dispensational views. The more Calvinistic Baptist churches were marked by division and infighting that lasted for many years or else had serious problems with their ecclesiology and other areas of theology. Even then I "halted between two opinions" for a year or two because I wouldn't join a Presbyterian church until I was convinced of paedobaptism. That seems to be your dilemma as well, especially if you are engaged in mission work alongside this Presbyterian church.

Some might say that emotions played a role when I switched back because it happened soon after sitting in on a Presbytery meeting that was a fiasco, in my view (as well as in the view of some of the presbyters.) I think it's fair to say that it played a role in my reexamining my views at that time. But after much reflection, I don't think it was determinative, especially since there were compelling reasons to stay, including a possibility of being nominated for office and thus having the opportunity to change things over time. A few weeks ago I saw that Presbyterian pastor. He said "All that over a Presbytery meeting" and we had a good laugh about it. But since that time I've arguably seen worse things in some baptistic churches and haven't switched back despite the fact that I'm generally more comfortable with Presbyterian worship. 

In many cases, making these kinds of doctrinal shifts results in heartache and losing fellowship and ministry opportunities. I think Randy (puritancovenanter) would probably agree that things would be simpler for him if he were to be convinced of paedobaptism. He's been in Presbyterian churches for many years although he is a convinced credobaptist. It's the same with me as well as many others who do not have a Baptist work in their area that is sound in faith and practice. 

Many Baptists in the past suffered persecution for opposing paedobaptism. Likewise, many Presbyterians, especially the Covenanters, suffered persecution because they would not submit to the worship and government of the Church of England. Today, many Calvinistic Baptists (especially those who are covenantal and who hold to some semblance of the Regulative Principle of Worship) find that they are quite limited when it comes to ministry opportunities. 

Making these kinds of decisions can often lead to division and hard feelings with parents and friends. Those who have become convinced of paedobaptist views no doubt can cite lost ministry opportunities and perhaps even intolerance on the part of family members and friends as well. (See the recent "Former Arminian coming out as Calvinist" thread for examples.) In these cases, in which some kind of hardship is the result of making a doctrinal shift, often subjective feelings have little or nothing to do with it since, aside from doctrinal conviction, there are often compelling reasons to remain in one's current church or denomination. 

There are certainly differences between Western (perhaps most especially, Anglo/American) and East Asian culture, with the latter tending to be more communal as you note. But I hope the above examples illustrate that there is nonetheless often a lot on the line in Western society when contemplating this kind of change.


----------



## steadfast7

Thanks for the weighty responses Brothers, and thanks Chris for your honesty and real-ness in sharing your own and others' experiences. 

Some thoughts. 
1. in response to the definitions of "objective", I sense the reluctance to assign baptism to say something of the person baptized, and in its place, it is emphasized that baptism is essentially a witness to The Faith, a gospel proclamation, and a call to repentance and genuine faith. Question: why would these things be applied to certain individuals, and not everyone? We all agree that the gospel is rightly proclaimed to all and is urged upon all - why limit the application of the sign to some? Surely, it must be admitted that there is some degree of congruency between the sign and its rightful host. The argument from circumcision is replete with this language:


> Why does the sacrament come after faith in Abraham, and precede all intelligence in his son Isaac? It is right that he who, in adult age, is admitted to the fellowship of a covenant by one from whom he had hitherto been alienated, should previously learn its conditions; but it is not so with the infant born to him. *He, according to the terms of the promise, is included in the promise by hereditary right from his mother's womb. Or, to state the matter more briefly and more clearly, If the children of believers, without the help of understanding, are partakers of the covenant, there is no reason why they should be denied the sign, because they are unable to swear to its stipulations*. Inst. 4.16.23


 Yes, it's true that the gospel figured in the sign is objective, but when deciding who the sign should be given to, how is subjectivity avoidable? It seems clear that there must be some _reason_ why the sign is applied to certain ones, and that reason, says something about their identity.

2. I agree that the decision to be baptized is ultimately subjective - for the one baptized and the church. However, I think it's a bit of a misunderstanding (perhaps caricature?) that Baptist's seek signs of election and despairs at the fact of not being infallibly sure. I'd like to know what method the Presbyterian undertakes to ensure that an adult is ready for baptism. It'd be interesting to see if there are any _significant_ differences? 

3. Simon's case, even if certain that he was reprobate, in interesting in Luke's comment that "he himself believed and was baptized" - don't you think? The story seems very embarrassing for the apostles, regardless of baptismal position, because here's a guy who was welcomed into fellowship after a successful response to the preaching of the gospel, gets baptized, and ends up reprobate a few short sentences later. Why mention that he believed and was baptized when the outcome is so counterintuitive? It's as if Luke is not so much bothered with the ultimate outcome, but is simply eager to highlight the correlation that's in line with his theme throughout Acts: people are believing the gospel and being baptized. This is instructional in our current discussion. We don't need to fret about not knowing people's hearts infallibly; signs of faith are sufficient.

4. on subjective reasons: I'll tell you what makes RCT so appealing to me right now. Its elegance. I see in it a seamless thread, moving through the Old and New Testaments, and through the witness of church tradition, this hermeneutical stance that there is undisturbed continuity in all God's dealings with man. As for the Baptist position: I was baptized on confession of faith and still remember it vividly. Blessed day. Couldn't imagine denying that experience to anyone.


----------



## Peairtach

*OP by Dennis*


> Essential presupposition of covenant theology?
> 
> I'm looking for THE essential presupposition that undergirds covenant theology from both the Reformed and Covenant baptist perspective.



*Quote from Dennis*


> I'm also realizing how inadequate it is to say, "scripture is so clear," because there are plenty of very intelligent and godly thinkers who simply differ on this point, and it implies that the other is foolish - which I don't think is the way of love. I'd like to even move this thread in the direction of subjective reasons to believe in credo vs. paedobaptism. As I mentioned before, intellectual arguments are helpful, but subjective personal reasons are very compelling as well. I hear glimmers of it coming through at times, eg. paedo: a desire to consider one's baby a Christian, a member of the covenant; credo: a desire to mimic Jesus in his adult baptism. These are deep-rooted associations in our hearts that we want to be so and act as presuppositions which control our thinking as well. would anyone admit to any subjective, or emotive reasons for their position?



I think the OP is essentially wrong-headed. This is essentially a matter of biblical interpretation - not unargued presuppostions - like all Covenant Theology. 

People have to just decide which hermeneutic and exegesis is sound, or more sound.

The Presbyterian teaching that the covenant is united in including children in its administration as we move from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, is argued from Scripture like anything else, and isn't a presupposition in that sense. In particular we believe that although we have left the Old Covenant behind, we haven't left the Abrahamic Covenant behind, the New Covenant being a phase or administration of the Abrahamic Covenant.

I believe there are nuances among Reformed Baptists - as among Presbyterians. E.g. I heard that John Gill did believe that children of believers were in a sense in the covenant, but didn't believe in their baptism on the basis of the Regulative Principle of Worship.


----------



## steadfast7

Richard Tallach said:


> I think the OP is essentially wrong-headed. This is essentially a matter of biblical interpretation - not unargued presuppostions - like all Covenant Theology.
> People have to just decide which hermeneutic and exegesis is sound, or more sound.



True, this is ideal. But consider that many (including myself) are not adequately well versed in the intricacies of the doctrine to be able to weigh each argument fairly (though threads like this are very helpful to that end!). However, this doesn't keep most unlearned people from having very strong convictions about either position, and those reasons would have to come from something more primal and subjective. My suspicion is that it's present is almost all cases - deep down, more than we'd like to admit. Although it's not ideal, it's reality. If it were out in the open, at least we can be honest about it and deal with its merits.



Richard Tallach said:


> I believe there are nuances among Reformed Baptists - as among Presbyterians. E.g. I heard that John Gill did believe that children of believers were in a sense in the covenant, but didn't believe in their baptism on the basis of the Regulative Principle of Worship.


 I'm very much in this camp, although I don't know enough about the RPW to make it the basis for the omission. I'm convinced of the special place that covenant children, as well as covenant spouses have in God's eyes.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

steadfast7 said:


> 1. in response to the definitions of "objective", I sense the reluctance to assign baptism to say something of the person baptized, and in its place, it is emphasized that baptism is essentially a witness to The Faith, a gospel proclamation, and a call to repentance and genuine faith. Question: why would these things be applied to certain individuals, and not everyone? We all agree that the gospel is rightly proclaimed to all and is urged upon all - why limit the application of the sign to some? Surely, it must be admitted that there is some degree of congruency between the sign and its rightful host.


Baptism is administered to those adults who profess faith and repentance and to the children of believing parents. The "degree of congruency" is that God has commanded that such be baptize. That's all the creature can ever possibly act upon. As for its "congruency" between sign and thing signified:


> 2. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.
> 
> 3. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorising the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.



Any attempt to draw a line from "genuine faith" (known by God alone) and the administration of baptism is a violation of the Word of God that command we do not do this. 



steadfast7 said:


> 2. I agree that the decision to be baptized is ultimately subjective - for the one baptized and the church. However, I think it's a bit of a misunderstanding (perhaps caricature?) that Baptist's seek signs of election and despairs at the fact of not being infallibly sure. I'd like to know what method the Presbyterian undertakes to ensure that an adult is ready for baptism. It'd be interesting to see if there are any significant differences?


I don't know who you believed made a caricature of the Baptist position but I have seen quotes from particular Baptists of the past that do insist on signs of election. Nobody has stated that they "despair" of being infallibly sure. The point is that the significance of baptism for a Baptist is always tentative because, if the person discovers later he didn't believe what he ought, the validity of the initial baptism may be called into question because ultimate validity rests on whether or not the person had genuine faith at the time of baptism. It is a fact, and not a fabrication, that the re-administration of baptism is part and parcel of Baptist practice if it is is the judgment of the local congregation and/or the individual that he was never "really" baptized to begin with.

You completely miss the point when you ask how a Presbyterian Church would decide to baptize. It might look precisely the same and the method for examination may be identical. The _point_ is that an adult would only be baptize ONCE in a Presbyterian Church even if that individual concluded that his profession was false when he was baptized. The WCF states:


> 6. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinancy the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.


There is no such statement in the LBCF because it is against Baptist theology on this point.



steadfast7 said:


> 3. Simon's case, even if certain that he was reprobate, in interesting in Luke's comment that "he himself believed and was baptized" - don't you think? The story seems very embarrassing for the apostles, regardless of baptismal position, because here's a guy who was welcomed into fellowship after a successful response to the preaching of the gospel, gets baptized, and ends up reprobate a few short sentences later. Why mention that he believed and was baptized when the outcome is so counterintuitive? It's as if Luke is not so much bothered with the ultimate outcome, but is simply eager to highlight the correlation that's in line with his theme throughout Acts: people are believing the gospel and being baptized. This is instructional in our current discussion. We don't need to fret about not knowing people's hearts infallibly; signs of faith are sufficient.



First, I didn't state he was reprobate. I merely pointed out that we don't know. I think it would only be "embarrassing" for the Apostles if they believed they ought to only baptize those they believe are elect and certainly regenerate. The Apostles had special revelation when their office demanded it but know the inscrutable things of God was not granted to them. This is why I pointed out that Paul labored with ministers of the Gospel who later turned from the faith. Nowhere do we see a preoccupation with certainty regarding the elect status of the visible Church in the NT. The hidden things belong to the Lord. My point all along has been that a judgment of charity is sufficient and a profession of faith and evidence of belief is sufficient.


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> The point is that the significance of baptism for a Baptist is always tentative because, if the person discovers later he didn't believe what he ought, the validity of the initial baptism may be called into question because ultimate validity rests on whether or not the person had genuine faith at the time of baptism. It is a fact, and not a fabrication, that the re-administration of baptism is part and parcel of Baptist practice if it is is the judgment of the local congregation and/or the individual that he was never "really" baptized to begin with.
> ...
> The point is that an adult would only be baptize ONCE in a Presbyterian Church even if that individual concluded that his profession was false when he was baptized.



Hmm. If this is true that time is a factor and a second (or third, fourth...) baptism is actually practiced in Baptist churches, then I find this problematic. Any Baptists care to comment from experience?


----------



## Pilgrim

steadfast7 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that the significance of baptism for a Baptist is always tentative because, if the person discovers later he didn't believe what he ought, the validity of the initial baptism may be called into question because ultimate validity rests on whether or not the person had genuine faith at the time of baptism. It is a fact, and not a fabrication, that the re-administration of baptism is part and parcel of Baptist practice if it is is the judgment of the local congregation and/or the individual that he was never "really" baptized to begin with.
> ...
> The point is that an adult would only be baptize ONCE in a Presbyterian Church even if that individual concluded that his profession was false when he was baptized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. If this is true that time is a factor and a second (or third, fourth...) baptism is actually practiced in Baptist churches, then I find this problematic. Any Baptists care to comment from experience?
Click to expand...


When this is the case, it's usually because the candidate for baptism was not properly examined in the first place. This especially the case with young children. Some children will want to be baptized because one or more of their friends are being baptized. Others will get caught up in the enthusiasm of things like Vacation Bible School, where ignorant but usually well-meaning teachers and leaders will encourage them to be baptized on the slightest evidence of any spiritual interest even though they have little knowledge of sin, etc. Some may be encouraged or pressured by their parents and will want to please them. This kind of situation with what is basically a late stage paedobaptism accounts for a very large percentage of rebaptisms in Baptist churches. 

The kinds of churches I'm writing about here are not Reformed or Calvinistic Baptist churches but are Arminian or even semi-Pelagian in many cases. There are a lot of unorthodox and sub-biblical Presbyterian and Reformed churches too, but they are often in different denominations because of their connectional polity. 

Part of the problem is the "altar call" system that many non-Reformed churches use. If someone comes forward and prays the "sinners prayer" or whatever, in a lot of churches (again, non-Calvinistic churches) a lot if pressure is going to be brought on the pastor to baptize within a few weeks. Unfortunately, some pastors are basically hirelings or weaklings who are unable or unwilling to stand up to those elements in the congregation in those cases. 

If someone has been baptized multiple times, my guess is that in most cases it has been in several different congregations where the pastor(s) may not know that much about the candidate's background and may be remiss in probing further. The candidate may not always be forthcoming with how many times he's gone under. Most Baptist pastors I know, even those who would not be considered that sound by PB standards, will know something is wrong if someone has been baptized 3 or 4 times and will attempt to ascertain if it was a case of backsliding, etc. 

The examination of baptismal candidates in Baptist churches should have little or no difference with the examination of "covenant children" in Pres/Reformed churches for partaking in the Lord's Supper or of adult baptismal/church membership candidates in those churches. Some Presbyterians favor letting young children come to the table via an "age appropriate" profession, whereas many will want to wait until the child is in his teens. You have the same issue in Baptist churches with regard to how long to wait for baptism. Historically baptism tended to be delayed until the mid-teens. 

Many Presbyterian churches, especially those who are of a more liberal persuasion, are not properly ordered either. On the other hand some that are otherwise conservative practice paedocommunion (or would like to if it was allowed by their denomination) but I don't think that's the case with anyone here on the board, at least not within the past 5-7 years or so in the wake of the Federal Vision controversy. 

The danger in Baptist (or baptistic, even if Baptist isn't in the name) churches that are in decline from a doctrinal standpoint is for people to assume they are saved because they were baptized, prayed a prayer, walked the aisle or whatever. The danger for Presbyterian and Reformed churches who are in doctrinal downgrade is to assume that those who are baptized are saved. I've known people who grew up in those kinds of churches who were converted in their teens or 20's but were told by their liberal pastor that they were already saved, etc. You will not find these issues with people on the PB generally, but it can happen in the more "mainline" congregations of either persuasion.


----------



## Pilgrim

steadfast7 said:


> I'm very much in this camp, although I don't know enough about the RPW to make it the basis for the omission. I'm convinced of the special place that covenant children, as well as covenant spouses have in God's eyes.



The argument from the RPW is basically that there is no explicit warrant for infant baptism in the NT. Earlier Baptists tended to strongly stress the no explicit warrant argument. Now, more often you will see emphasis on the nature of the New Covenant, that it is differently administered than the Old. 

This view (no explicit warrant) is really not that different from those who argue for a cappella exclusive psalmody because they can't find instruments or uninspired songs in the NT. Those who are going to argue thusly ought to be Baptists too.  (That's a little off-topic, but a worthy topic for consideration at a different time.) Singing was a big issue early on in the modern Baptist movement as well. 

I know very little about Gill so I can't comment about Richard's report about his view. But if you are convinced of a special place for "covenant children" then you are not far from being a paedobaptist. My knowledge is by no means exhaustive, but I've never known anyone who held to such a view who didn't either abandon it later or else eventually become a paedobaptist. 

Baptists believe that children in Christian homes have great privileges in growing up in a Christian home and in sitting under the ministry of the word. Such privileges carry a lot of responsibility compared with those who have not been as exposed to the truth. But the idea that children of believers are included in an outward administration of the covenant of grace is foreign to Baptist thought. That's the Reformed paedobaptist view. There may be some Baptists today who will say something like that, but to my knowledge that view has little or no attestation in Baptist history. 

There aren't many consistent Baptists on the board anymore, or at least not many who are inclined to devote a lot of time to dig in and post about it here. I think you'd benefit from reading some Reformed and Historic Baptist writings on this issue so that you can have a clearer picture about what Baptists believe. I may post some links for you a little later.


----------



## Pilgrim

*Interpretation is the key*



Richard Tallach said:


> I think the OP is essentially wrong-headed. This is essentially a matter of biblical interpretation - not unargued presuppostions - like all Covenant Theology. People have to just decide which hermeneutic and exegesis is sound, or more sound.



I agree with this. While many good points have been made, I think the thread may have become more complicated than it needed to be and some of the posts have put the cart before the horse. 


The Reformed paedobaptist view was stated succinctly by B.B. Warfield in The Polemics of Infant Baptism
The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children.
​Note that Warfield states that children of church members are entitled to its ordinance_*s*_. But he like all sound Presbyterians don't admit unprofessing covenant children to the Lord's Supper. (There are only two ordinances.) in my opinion this is inconsistent and the very wording of that sentence is _prima facie_ evidence of it. But we Baptists say that it is a happy inconsistency compared to the practice of paedocommunion, which was widely practiced in the early church and continues to be the practice of the Eastern Orthodox churches to this day. 


The following is not succinct, (it's so long it would probably be easier to print it) but since I was reading it the other day, I thought I'd post the following from C.H. Spurgeon. Since Dennis has been asking for Baptist input, I feel somewhat justified in dumping all of this from Spurgeon into this post. 

Spurgeon's interlocutor is the Puritan worthy Thomas Watson and his _Body of Divinity, _which Spurgeon valued very highly and republished. These are excerpts from an appendix on baptism that Spurgeon put into his edition of Watson's book.:*
We maintain that the only proper subjects of Christian baptism are believers in Christ, those proselyted to Christ, disciples of Christ; or, since we have not, and are not required to have access to the heart, those who make a credible profession of faith in Christ. *This we believe to be taught in the divine precept, "Go ye therefore, and teach [_make disciples of_] all nations, baptizing them in [_into_] the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you;" and to be confirmed by the record, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."​*In understanding this passage, if we follow order, where above all places the most precise order might be expected, we must understand Christ's will to be, that we first make disciples, then baptize, etc. That order is not here to be regarded it devolves on the opponents of order to prove.* *In making disciples, the communication and the acceptance of truth, the teaching and the receiving of the good news, are requisite. After this and baptism, teaching is not to cease, "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Nor is there anything in the passage demanding another interpretation.*

We admit that in accordance with human phraseology, the word "disciples" is used in Scripture in application not only to those who were really, but also to those who were professedly disciples. Yet assuredly the Saviour did not wish his apostles, nor does he wish us, to make hypocrites; although not having access to the heart, we may sometimes baptize the unworthy, as Philip baptized Simon. This inevitable fallibility we deem no more condemnable in ourselves than in the evangelist. From this necessary weakness of humanity, we may not only sometimes receive the unworthy to baptism and the Lord's Supper, but may also induct such into the highest office in the church of Christ. We are not justified for this reason in altering the import of a disciple of Christ, solemnly and explicitly given by the Saviour himself.

The tendency of paedobaptism, as we could clearly show, is to pervert the import of a disciple of Christ, by teaching that an unconscious babe, that a child who can answer certain questions, yea, that a man or woman known to be ungodly, may, by baptism, become a disciple of Christ! Thus while certain conformists, [i.e. Church of England--CP] maintaining justification by faith, are inconsistently teaching that baptism regenerates and converts into a child of God, certain nonconformists, [i.e. the Reformed--CP] maintaining the divine truth of salvation by grace through faith, teach that baptism disciples to Christ! A correct interpretation of _discipling_ excludes infants from the commission.

*According to this natural import of Christ's words, namely, that we are to disciple to him, to baptize into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and to teach obedience in all things to Christ's commands, we further conceive the apostles must have understood Christ, on account of the baptism they had already witnessed and practised.* They knew not, so far as we are aware, any other baptism than John's, and that of Jesus through themselves. Were we to bind with the Bible all the Rabbinical lumber and all the condemned (or approved) Jewish traditions that the world contains, we should, while dishonouring the sufficiency of inspired writ, be in the same destitution of evidence that the apostles knew of any other baptisms than those recorded in the oracles of God. John "baptized with the baptism _of repentance_, saying unto the people, that they should_ believe on him who should come after him_, that is, on Christ Jesus, (Acts xix. 4.) They "were baptized of him in Jordan, _confessing their sins_." (Mark i. 5.) It was a baptism "into repentance," as this was the state professed by them while confessing their sins and being baptized. 

Until our Lord's commission, the Scriptures speak of no baptism from heaven in addition to John's, except that of Christ by means of his disciples. Concerning this the inspired record is, first, that "He baptized" (John iii. 22), and secondly, that "He made and baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples." (John iv. 1, 2.) He baptized _disciples_. He _made_ AND baptized them. The instruction from this baptism can only be in favour of first making disciples, and then baptizing them. The whole of divine revelation respecting every baptism from heaven which the apostles had previously witnessed or practised, confirms our belief that they would certainly understand Christ's words according to their natural import already indicated.

We finally maintain that our view of the commission is correct, because the apostles so understood it, as their subsequent conduct and writings abundantly evidence. Peter on the day of Pentecost first preached the gospel of Christ, and then taught the anxiously enquiring to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. They must change their minds, having been unbelieving in regard to Jesus as the Messiah and Saviour, and on this faith in Christ, to which God's Spirit was drawing and helping them, be baptized, thus in obedience to Christ, avowing their belief in him as the Messiah and their Saviour. And after further exhortation and instruction from Peter, "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

The next record of baptism thus reads: "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."​The next recorded baptism is that of the praying "brother Saul," whom the Lord had met on his way to Damascus. The next recorded baptism is that of Cornelius and "his kinsmen and near friends," of whose baptism Peter judged all would approve, since while hearing Peter's words of divine instruction the Lord had baptized them with the Holy Ghost, and they were heard to "speak with tongues, and magnify God."

The next baptisms on record are those at Philippi and Corinth, adduced by Mr. Watson as proving that the apostles, in baptizing "whole families," baptized "little children" and "servants" (p. 381). We admit that, in Lydia's case, we have the record that "she was baptized, and her household," and the previous record respecting her, "whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul," while nothing is said respecting the character of "her household." This proves not that Lydia had either husband or child. The household of this "seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira," might consist wholly of servants. Silence here neither proves nor confirms anything in favour of paedobaptism. Having no record respecting the character of this household, we are bound to believe that apostolic practice here accorded with previous and subsequent apostolic practice.

The next baptism, that of the jailor "and all his," is one from which infants are clearly excluded. Paul and Silas "spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house;" and after baptism, "he set meat before them and rejoiced, believing (having believed) in God with all his house." The next record is equally explicit, and opposed to the baptism of infants or unbelievers. "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord, with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized." The baptism of "certain disciples" at Ephesus, of whom we read, "And all the men were about twelve," equally refuses its aid to the baptism of infants; while "the household of Stephanas," of whom Paul says, "They have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints," cannot be brought to the rescue of our opponents.​But to another refuge the advocates of paedobaptism usually resort. Hence, in answer to the question,​"How does it appear that children have a right to baptism?" we read, "Children are parties to the covenant of grace. The covenant was made with them. 'I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.' Gen. xvii. 7. 'The promise is to you and to your children.' The covenant of grace may be considered either, 1. More strictly, as an absolute promise to give saving grace; and so none but the elect are in covenant with God. Or (2.) More largely, as a covenant containing in it many outward glorious privileges, in which respects the children of believers do belong to the covenant of grace," and "cannot justly be denied baptism, which is its seal. It is certain the children of believers were once visibly in covenant with God, and received the seal of their admission into the church. Where now do we find this covenant interest, or church membership of infants, repealed or made void? Certainly Jesus Christ did not come to put believers in a worse condition than they were in before. If the children of believers should not be baptized, they are in worse condition now than they were in before Christ's coming"​In this extract from Watson, God's gracious covenant with Abraham, or one of God's covenants with him, is styled "the covenant of grace." *But the covenant of grace commenced with Adam, whether we restrict it to "the elect," those chosen to salvation, or regard it "more largely" as referring to "outward glorious privileges." Again, God's covenant with Abraham was not a covenant with the elect of mankind, nor with the whole race, nor with Abraham and the elect descending from him, nor with Abraham and exclusively the children of believers, nor with any children for the sake of their parents, excepting Abraham's own children.

Nor can the Pentecostal promise of Peter be proved to have any connection with, or reference to, the Abrahamic covenant*, admitting that, as some promises resemble others, this and the immediately following may remind us of the predictions that in Abraham and his seed all the nations and all the families of the earth shall be blessed. That all Abraham's descendents were elected to salvation no one believes; nor is it less apparent that the children of wicked parents received the token of the covenant, as well as the children of believing parents; and in every instance beyond that of Abraham's children, not from filial relationship, but from relationship to Abraham.

"The sons of David," as says Dr. Halley, [a congregationalist paedobaptist contemporary of Spurgeon's--CP] "were circumcised according to the same law, and therefore, for the same reason as the sons of that worshipper of Baal, Ahab, and of that wicked woman, Jezebel." *Nor was the covenant of God with Abraham and his seed a covenant with his seed as infants, but with his descendants. If the token of the covenant had been disobediently neglected, it might at any age, and irrespective of character in its recipient or the parent, be performed from relationship to Abraham. Not one of Abraham's natural seed is another Abraham, nor is one believer. But all believers may be spoken of as the (believing) children of faithful Abraham. That God graciously entered into covenant with all Abraham's descendants for his sake, and instituted a sign to be fixed on every male, is no evidence that God has entered into covenant with the natural children of every believer, and with each child for the parent's sake, and that the baptism of male and female infants of believers is the appointed sign of this covenant. Where is such a law but in the writings of Paedobaptists?*

*The "covenant interest" of "the children of believers" as such, or of "infants" of believers, or the "church membership of infants," and "the seal of their admission into the church," giving to the word "church" any idea resembling its New Testament use in application to the church, or a church of Christ, needed not to be "repealed or made void," because they had never existed. If God's covenanting with Abraham and his seed, and instituting the sign of circumcision in males, proves the church membership of the seed of Abraham, it proves an Ishmaelitish as well as an Israelitish church of God, and a church to which ungodly adults, equally with the infants of believers, belonged. If circumcision is the seal of admission into the church, there has been not only a Jewish church, but an Edomite, a Moabite, an Ammonite church. Did Episcopalians and all others who believe a church of Christ to be "a congregation of faithful men," always speak consistently with this, we should hear less of any nation at any period, or of any building in any place, as a church. Why should we not, except where the idea of assembly exists, after the manner of inspired writers, speak of those who anciently enjoyed the divine favour, as saints, as the people of God, as those that feared the Lord, as the righteous, etc., instead of confoundingly speaking of the church before the flood, the patriarchal, the Abrahamic, the Mosaic, the Jewish (etc.) church?

The children of believers, if not baptized, are not in "a worse condition" than were the circumcised children of believers before the Christian dispensation.* Grace is not, and never was, hereditary. The "sons of God" have ever been those "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." In every age have men become "the children of God by faith." This faith has been stronger, and has shone more conspicuously and gloriously, in some than in others; but "without faith it is impossible to please" God, and it ever has been (Heb. xi., 6, etc.). The application of this to those only who are capable of believing, none can doubt. It is equally clear that the faith of some must have had reference to a Messiah to come, and of others to a Messiah who had appeared. *We doubt not that the children of believers, they and their parents being spared, have had, and to the end of prevailing and parental ungodliness will have, advantages not possessed by the children of unbelievers. Parental piety superadded to parental affection necessitates this. Nor can there be hindrance--we shall not now speak of the encouragement and help--from him who has left it on record, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."*

We believe that the circumcision, not only of male adults, but of male _infants_, was divinely enjoined, and that the unconsciousness of the latter constituted no hindrance to an accomplishment of the design of this institution; and we doubt not God's right, if he had seen it good, to institute a rite under the Christian dispensation that should embrace the unconscious, both males and females; but we deny the shadow of evidence that he has so enacted. The existence of circumcision from Abraham proves it not.

*Nor are we taught that baptism is in the place of circumcision, although in some things there is a resemblance in one to the other. The antitype of circumcision, or spiritual, Christian circumcision, is the renewal of the heart. Rom. ii. 28, 29; 1 Cor. vii. 19; Gal. vi. 15; Phil. iii. 3; Col. ii. 11. The apostles and elders gathered together in Jerusalem, to consider the necessity of circumcision, which some of the baptized Jewish believers maintained, drop not a single hint to the erring, that baptism is in place of circumcision. The apostle of the Gentiles, warning the Colossian believers, and rebuking those in the churches of Galatia who held the destructive error, instead of teaching that baptism occupies the place of circumcision, teaches that Christian circumcision, the circumcision of Christ, is a circumcision "without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh." Nor is there in the fact that all children, or all the children of believers, are of "the kingdom of God," a particle of evidence that God has commanded their baptism.*

The Scriptures which speak of baptism, recording its appointment, its practice, its nature, design, or benefit, are those from which its divinely approved subjects can be learned. These speak of confession of sin, repentance, faith in Christ, discipleship, a good conscience, as characteristic of the baptized. Not a word is recorded respecting parents or others as proxies for "the child's personal engagement" (p. 381). Ourselves, our children, and all we possess, are God's property; and with all, as "his servants," God has a sovereign right to deal. The duty of baptism is not learnt from this fact, but from the revelation of God's will.

*Contra the paedobaptist assertion of federal holiness from 1 Cor. 7:*​*The apostle Paul, speaking of the marriage bond, when one partner has become a Christian, and the other remains an unbeliever, teaches a sacredness in the children and the unbelieving partner that forbids a dissolution of the connection; but, while attributing the same holiness to the children and the unbelieving partner he says not a syllable implying a "right and title to baptism" *(p. 382)*. Everything really included in parental dedication is as much the privilege of the Baptist as Paedobaptist. It is a benefit to the child when no deceptive substitute has been performed on him, preventing, or helping to prevent, his personal, conscious, voluntary, and acceptable obedience to God's command.*

The obtaining by infants, through baptism, of entrance into the church, of "a right sealed to the ordinances," that is, to the Lord's Supper, etc., and of "the tutelage of angels to be the infant's lifeguard," may be in the imagination of Paedobaptists; but these are not in the word of God, any more than that baptism is to elected infants "a 'seal of the righteousness of faith,' a layer of regeneration, and a badge of adoption" (p. 380). Not only are the Scriptures silent respecting infant baptism, but every record relating to baptism, forbids its existence in apostolic times, and its right to a subsequent existence. Nor does Irenaeus, or any of the earliest fathers, say one word favouring the supposition of its existence, notwithstanding the inference that is drawn by some of the Paedobaptists from one passage in Irenaeus. What authority has a practice that can but be proved as possibly beginning to exist at the close of the second, or in the early part of the third century? For Tertullian, dissuading from the baptism of children, may not refer to infants. The existence of infant baptism in the third century is certain. The existence in the third, and in the preceding century, of sentiments on the efficacy of baptism, and of various practices which have no foundation in Holy Writ, is easily and abundantly proved. But neither infant baptism nor any other practice could be sanctioned by evidence of existence in the age immediately succeeding the apostolic period, or existence in apostolic times, if destitute of apostolic sanction; and especially if opposed to, and destructive of, what is divinely enjoined. The fact that inspired writers, in recording baptisms, except where the baptism of parents and other members of the family take place at the same time, say nothing as to parental piety, accords with and corroborates our view of baptism as a personal and voluntary profession and engagement. Every record of baptisms in Holy Writ, and every reference to baptism, is a confirmation of believers' baptism as the "one baptism" for parents and children, for every generation, and for all alike, to the end of time.

Instead of exalting believers' baptism above measure, we say in the words of our honourable and Rev. brother Noel, "It is not separation from the church of Rome, or from the church of England, nor a scriptural organisation, nor evangelical doctrine which can alone secure our Saviour's approbation." They who speak of infant baptism as a putting of the child's name in a will by the parent, need to be reminded of God's prerogative, and of the character of his government as revealed in the words: "All souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die."* Who, believing this testimony, can also believe that unbaptized infants are "sucking pagans," while those kindly baptized through parental influence are sucking Christians?*​


----------



## steadfast7

Pilgrim said:


> The Reformed paedobaptist view was stated succinctly by B.B. Warfield in The Polemics of Infant Baptism
> 
> 
> The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children.



I think this is a good and succinct summary of the Paedobaptist position, packaged with its fundamental assumption: continuity in all dispensations. One could also note another presupposition in that the Church was established in the days of Abraham. Here's my question: was there not a covenant of Grace from the beginning, and a church in existence prior to Abraham? Is the Abrahamic considered the beginning of the covenant of grace and thus the type for all covenant administrations, and why?


----------



## Pilgrim

steadfast7 said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Reformed paedobaptist view was stated succinctly by B.B. Warfield in The Polemics of Infant Baptism
> 
> 
> The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a good and succinct summary of the Paedobaptist position, packaged with its fundamental assumption: continuity in all dispensations. One could also note another presupposition in that the Church was established in the days of Abraham. Here's my question: was there not a covenant of Grace from the beginning, and a church in existence prior to Abraham? Is the Abrahamic considered the beginning of the covenant of grace and thus the type for all covenant administrations, and why?
Click to expand...


Dennis, 

Maybe the Spurgeon quotes were a bit of an overload. You asked for some Baptist input and maybe I threw a little too much into one post. I posted a lot today, so it would be a good idea to take some time to take it all in. Some of the language from Spurgeon may be a little old, but nonetheless I think his main points are probably clear enough. If not, let me know. He also packed a lot of information into a relatively short space at times. Some of his allusions may need some unpacking or further elaboration if it's not clear with the first reading. 

With regard to the beginning of the covenant of grace (COG) Spurgeon notes that the covenant of grace began with Adam and the _protoevangelion _after the fall in Gen 3:15. I think that he makes good points about physical circumcision not being analogous to baptism, the Abrahamic covenant, the baptisms in the NT, the relationship between discipleship and baptism, federal holiness (1 Cor 7) and a number of other issues. Because he was largely responding to Watson's section on baptism in his _Body of Divinity _(which to my recollection is still an excellent presentation of the Reformed paedo view) Spurgeon's article addresses most if not all of the usual paedobaptist arguments. 

Spurgeon also notes that the Reformed paedobaptist view has some significant discontinuities from the OT practice of circumcision as well. Circumcision didn't necessarily have anything to do with the faith of the parents, for example. Every male in the nation was to be circumcised. (This was the practice in many of the state churches in the Middle Ages as well, where refusal to present one's children for baptism was considered a criminal offense.) There was certainly a call to believe, but circumcision was performed regardless. That's not the case with paedobaptists today, at least not in confessional Reformed churches where those presenting their children for baptism have to be communicant members in good standing. The Reformed paedobaptists have an argument for their practice and of course Baptists have a different opinion. It's good that we are free to disagree over this issue today and still part as friends. The principal of Spurgeon's school for preachers was a Presbyterian. 

You can follow the links I posted to see the whole articles from Warfield and Spurgeon. I found it interesting to see that Warfield argues that Baptist views are the logical conclusion of Puritanism! 

The 1689 LBCF states that the church consists of the elect in all ages. Thus, there is continuity here also with regard to the covenant of grace. The Baptist position is that there is one covenant of grace but that the outward administration of the covenant is different in the New Covenant.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

1) The CoG is as old as the proto evangelium (Gen.3:15). The church, as such, begins to take shape, Gen.4:28 (see Calvin's comment loc.cit.: "...the face of the Church began distinctly to appear, and that worship of God was set up which might continue to posterity").

2) It is quite a bit of _time,_ but not that many _chapters_ from the first pages of revelation to Abraham (Gen.12)--the first chs. being the necessary prolegomena. Genesis itself, taken as a whole, is the prolegomena to the formation of the Israelite nation in Exodus. The vital thing is the pivotal role of Abraham, as the first "main character" in the story of Israel. In this role, he is dubbed by none other than Paul as "the father of the faithful" (Rom.4:11).

The formal setting forth of the details of God's covenant awaits the entrance of Abraham. It is with him that God _ formally_ enters covenant. The whole covenant-making episode is literally stretched out over chs. 12-17 (and we could even take it down to ch.22). Inaguration (ch.12), ceremony (ch.15), sign (ch.17), fulfillment (typological) and succession (ch.22; cf.26:24). In terms of Abraham's life-experience, the whole episode (from Ur to Moriah) is probaly around 50 years; but all that is telescoped into eleven redemptively charged chapters.

But there isn't anything like this presentation anywhere prior to Abraham, and truly nothing formally comparable until the Exodus, and Sinai. After Moses, only the ministry of Christ supersedes in formal and detailed witness another covenant inauguration, etc. So, basically we say that the Bible itself draws our attention to Abraham, and explains his significance, and his relation to the after-developments.


----------



## steadfast7

Contra_Mundum said:


> The formal setting forth of the details of God's covenant awaits the entrance of Abraham. It is with him that God formally enters covenant. The whole covenant-making episode is literally stretched out over chs. 12-17 (and we could even take it down to ch.22). Inaguration (ch.12), ceremony (ch.15), sign (ch.17), fulfillment (typological) and succession (ch.22; cf.26:24). In terms of Abraham's life-experience, the whole episode (from Ur to Moriah) is probaly around 50 years; but all that is telescoped into eleven redemptively charged chapters.



If paedobaptists view the Abrahamic covenant as a kind-of finished package that forms the framework for the CoG, then it is understandable to have an 'Abrahamic hermeneutic' to Scripture's main covenantal theme. Thus, his narrative becomes the scaffolding or model for our covenanting with God in Christ: God told Abraham to include his household - therefore Christ calls us to include our household, etc. However, I see that Baptists view the Abrahamic story to be a work in progress and the covenant to be an "open system" that waits for and looks to Christ to bring about its epilogue and determine its final shape. Once reading the NT and becoming convinced that union with Christ is salvific, this becomes the scaffolding for the CoG. Thus, the CoG is with the elect.



Contra_Mundum said:


> But there isn't anything like this presentation anywhere prior to Abraham, and truly nothing formally comparable until the Exodus, and Sinai. After Moses, only the ministry of Christ supersedes in formal and detailed witness another covenant inauguration, etc. So, basically we say that the Bible itself draws our attention to Abraham, and explains his significance, and his relation to the after-developments.



More study on my part is definitely needed, but Hebrews and other NT writings names two main covenants: the old (in Moses) and the New (in Christ). Abrahamic is a main character in that he's the ancient type that points to the solution (Christ) and the means (faith), and it is essential that he precedes Moses temporally in order to knock down the works righteousness of Judaism. But I'm not convinced that he really stands out as a self-contained model that is trying to claim the spotlight and set the tone. Therein is another way the two systems differ: is Scripture drawing us toward Abraham, or away from him?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pilgrim said:


> he argument from the RPW is basically that there is no explicit warrant for infant baptism in the NT. Earlier Baptists tended to strongly stress the no explicit warrant argument. Now, more often you will see emphasis on the nature of the New Covenant, that it is differently administered than the Old.
> 
> This view (no explicit warrant) is really not that different from those who argue for a cappella exclusive psalmody because they can't find instruments or uninspired songs in the NT. Those who are going to argue thusly ought to be Baptists too. (That's a little off-topic, but a worthy topic for consideration at a different time.) Singing was a big issue early on in the modern Baptist movement as well.



Matthew 28:18-20 is an explicit command to baptize disciples. The objection assumes an un-Biblical restriction of the definition of disciple as "adult professor". Christian parents are commanded to disciple their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.


----------



## Peairtach

Abraham is the birth of the visible - set apart - Church and Nation (Israel of God, Galatians 6:16).

The period from Moses to Christ is the childhood of Israel when she needed picture books and a particular childhood discipline.

The period from Christ to the Eschaton is the adolescence, adulthood and old age of the Church/Israel as she incorporates all nations into her commonwealth.

Before Abraham the Church was there but she was in embryo.

The naming of the Church as "Israel" doesn't stop with the end of the Old Covenant period, which is further evidence of continuity.

Also - as has been pointed out - Abraham is called the father of the faithful, and the covenant is portrayed as organic rather than atomistic, with branches being engrafted into the Olive Tree, as they were from the time of Abraham onwards (Romans 11).

The Baptist view of engrafting into the covenant is that there is a sudden change, when John the Baptist comes on the scene, from familial and organic to individualistic and atomistic, but this goes against e.g. the Apostle's analogy of an Olive Tree.


----------



## Scott1

> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter VII
> Of God's Covenant with Man
> 
> I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.[1]
> 
> II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works,[2] wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity,[3] upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.[4]
> 
> III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second,[5] commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved,[6] and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.[7]
> 
> IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.[8]
> 
> V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel:[9] under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come;[10] which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,[11] by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.[12]
> 
> VI. Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance,[13] was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper:[14] which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy,[15] to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles;[16] and is called the New Testament.[17] There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.[18]



God's covenant has always been based on the substance of by grace, through faith (in Christ's righetousness alone). This was (is) true Old Testament, New Testament, Old Covenant, New Covenant.

It has always been about Christ.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

steadfast7 said:


> If paedobaptists view the Abrahamic covenant as a kind-of finished package that forms the framework for the CoG, then it is understandable to have an 'Abrahamic hermeneutic' to Scripture's main covenantal theme. Thus, his narrative becomes the scaffolding or model for our covenanting with God in Christ: God told Abraham to include his household - therefore Christ calls us to include our household, etc. However, I see that Baptists view the Abrahamic story to be a work in progress and the covenant to be an "open system" that waits for and looks to Christ to bring about its epilogue and determine its final shape. Once reading the NT and becoming convinced that union with Christ is salvific, this becomes the scaffolding for the CoG. Thus, the CoG is with the elect.


I think RCT tends to look at the various stages of development not as a "finished package," but as an "organic development." Observe the distinction in the contrasting metaphors:1) A construction metaphor: a building going up, which at different times and in different stages is more or less incomplete.
2) An organism metaphor: a tree is in a seed, sprout, sapling, fully mature trunk-and-branch. Or, a butterfly is in an egg, larva, pupa, mature wing​In (2), saying we have a "finished package" at any time prior to maturity is missing the point, if the "point" is the butterfly at the end. On the other hand, each "stage" of organic development is not like first, a hole in the ground, followed by one story that rises upon another, while gaps wait for insertion of doors and windows, etc. Organically, the OAK is in the sprout. To speak of this as "scaffolding" is trying to describe one metaphor using the language of another. These are really two _different_ developmental models.

Warfield once described the RCT view as beginning with a very dimly-lit room, but still filled with all the furniture. Living in that room under the earlier conditions requires a considerable amount of extraneous information, habits of movement, explanations for various items that must take into account a vital, missing frame-of-reference. Only when the sun comes up, and the lights and electricity are turned on does everything in and about the room show its appointment, and fitness for an age of light. The conditions are vastly different, but its still the same room.

RCT would have a hard time agreeing with the assertion that the Abrahamic or Mosaic stages are (on RCT's view) a "finished" package or system, when then-current conditions do not allow for the perfected, mature expression of the CoG in Christ. The same objection holds whether the _darkend room_ or the _organism_ is the illustration in view.

"Scaffolding" that is removed/discarded as no longer relevant may work well as illustration in the other, construction metaphor, but is not useful in the RCT scheme as I've described it. The abandonment of the chrysalis or the eggshell/seed-pod works considerably better, and also intimates a further organic association with the developmental principle. Those things are not simply props, but are an important part of the stages themselves that belong organically to the whole.



steadfast7 said:


> More study on my part is definitely needed, but Hebrews and other NT writings names two main covenants: the old (in Moses) and the New (in Christ). Abrahamic is a main character in that he's the ancient type that points to the solution (Christ) and the means (faith), and it is essential that he precedes Moses temporally in order to knock down the works righteousness of Judaism. But I'm not convinced that he really stands out as a self-contained model that is trying to claim the spotlight and set the tone. Therein is another way the two systems differ: is Scripture drawing us toward Abraham, or away from him?


The question, as has been noted many times, is to accurately describe the relationship of the "intermediate" stage of Moses--which is also the immediate preceding stage--to the stage of the New Covenant. Hence, Hebrews (following Jeremiah) calls the former "old" in relation to the "new."

It cannot be said that this description, rising out of the latter half of the OT and affirmed in the NT, precludes or subsumes the existence of all temporally-prior OT covenant-arrangements within the "Old" administration. Your above reference to *Abraham* in the context of the "Old Covenant" underscores a significant, salient difference in our apprehension of Abraham's place. Abraham, in our understanding, is NOT an "Old" (read, "Mosaic") figure, in his own right. Old-Covenant-Israel certainly "claimed" him, and viewed him as an "Israelite," just as I argued in an above post that we as Christians "claim" Abraham as a Christian.

It is in this way that Paul, especially, appeals to the example of Abraham. Not (!) as a "Mosaic" covenant adherent, but as the prototype not so much of later, intermediate stages, but more of the present stage.

The main problem in understanding Sinai (the true "old" covenant) is that it has so many elements that are fit only for its own era. It truly is exemplified by "temporary" qualifiers. However, we do not think Abraham's covenant is likewise overwhelmingly cumbered with such things. So, yes, we think that Scripture orients us toward Abraham in a way that is fundamentally distinct from how we relate to Moses.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Indeed Bruce. A careful reading of Hebrews will show the organic connection between even the Old and New Covenants. God purposefully instituted what the author of Hebrews calls an "imperfect" Covenant at Sinai with sacrifices and a priesthood that were meant to shadow a Priest who would perfect forever those who drew near. One cannot escape the admonitions in Hebrews where we are repeatedly told to see the saints in the Old Testament as example to _us_ of shrinking back in disbelief. What possible example could they serve if the organic connection did not exist? What point of contact do we have with believers in the OT if, in fact, the people of the OC were not pursuing the same manner of salvation we are pursuing? Certainly they could not be said to have looked to the blood of bulls and goats to take away their sins and cleanse their consciences. The very impermanence and imperfect nature of the OC system was meant to convey a longing when the worshiper would have access to God with a cleansed conscience.

Now, some Baptists are likely to note the impermanence spoken of the OC by the author of Hebrews but the author does not assign impermanence to the Promise made to Abraham but the priesthood, Temple, and sacrifices that served pedagogically to point to Christ. What passes away is not the Promise but types and shadows that would reveal to the people the need for Christ. When the full revelation of God came in the person of Christ, the ceremonial and sacrificial aspects were fulfilled and passed away. What did not pass away was that which cannot be shown to be attached to impermanent sacrifice and priesthood and that is that God would be God "...to you and your children...." 

Spurgeon cavils unconvincingly that Peter's words at Pentecost have no connection to an Abrahamic Promise what a people who would have fully known what his predetermined conclusions militate he dismiss out of hand. Over and again, he represents the Baptist position that is dissonant from the structure of the CoG that was wont to call all who were in the Covenant to press in with believing and contrite hearts. There's was the privilege of the Word and Sacraments of God that encouraged them with the Promise of rest. 

By impoverishing discipleship in the OT, they impoverish themselves as fully understanding the nature of dsicipleship and contemn the means of grace that God graciously gives by way of condescension to the creature.


----------



## steadfast7

Richard Tallach said:


> Abraham is the birth of the visible - set apart - Church and Nation (Israel of God, Galatians 6:16).


 I think God had his visible people before Abraham. They were identified as those who "walked with God." Also, as Spurgeon points out above, circumcision did not only create an Israelite church, but Ishmaelite, Edomite, Moabite and Ammonite church as well. Although covenant unfaithfulness is cited as the reason where these nations went wrong, isn't it also right and more theologically accurate to say they were simply reprobated before they had done anything right or wrong? What was the distinction between Israel and the nations but election? And in Paul's argument in Rom 9, how do we distinguish the Israel within Israel except by election?



> The naming of the Church as "Israel" doesn't stop with the end of the Old Covenant period, which is further evidence of continuity.



I would ask whether the NT conception of Israel is meant to be the mixed community of faithful _and_ unfaithful, or is this Israel more idealized? Whom does Paul call the Israel of God, but those who are blessed because they "walk by this rule"?

It seems to me that Scripture itself foresees a narrowing of those who are The Circumcision, the Israel of God, and this happens by election. If there is any sense in which circumcision can become _un_circumcision (like Ishmael and Esau), then it's not absurd to think that in the unfolding of God's covenantal plan and the narrowing of his people, those who might otherwise be "entitled" to circumcision by heredity vainly receive it. 

Now, as a corrective, I am convinced that Abraham does not belong to the Old, but remains as our example. The degree to which we view him as our example is reflective of our positions. The Baptist views him as the example of faith. In his circumcision, what he _received_ subsequent to his faith is emphasized over what he _performed_ on his household. The Baptist might argue that this same priority is reflected in the NT. All mentions of Abraham in the NT concern his personal faith in God's promises with almost nothing said about his circumcising of his children. Paedobaptists take his entire life as an example - both what he did in believing God and receiving circumcision _and_ the circumcision he performed on his house. I can see the argument that can make this seem valid: the promises of God that Abraham believed concerned his offspring, thus the whole package should be received on our end. But back to the discussion above, in the fullness of revelation, who are the true descendants of Abraham and who is true Israel? - those who are in Christ (Gal 3:22, 26, 29).


----------



## Contra_Mundum

steadfast7 said:


> as Spurgeon points out above, circumcision did not only create an Israelite church, but Ishmaelite, Edomite, Moabite and Ammonite church as well.


Without speaking at all for Richard, or any point of his, the above is a preposterous statement, to say the least. Who are the covenant-mediators of the "Ishmaelite church," the "Edomite church," etc.? If the covenant mediator is only found in the household of Abraham, and his designated successor, Isaac, then there is no other authority other than his under whom circumcision (as a sign of God's unique covenant-dealings) is dispensed.

Where are these _nations_ *cited* for "covenant unfaithfulness"? And what covenant is that? What is the "reprobation" of a nation? Election of one man and one nation that springs from that man (a "corporate" election) for the purpose of bringing about a world-wide redemption plan, through the perfect Mediator--this is not _parallel_ to individual election to salvation.

Dennis, it sounds to me, in the end you've come back to this idea that it should be possible for men to identify the elect. How is it any easier to do this in the NC era that it ever was in earlier ages? How are you going to escape having a church that is a mixed community, this side of heaven? You've eliminated a class of "sign-bearers" (infants of believers) from the NC, which you claim ensures some slight % increase in overall purity (proof?). Assuming (for the sake of argument) that this goal is realized, at what price is this achieved? I'll spell out the cost: some of the elect, formerly identified with the church, are now repudiated until they offer some "proof" of their own worthiness, if they live so long.

Plainly, in days gone by it was a mark of generosity on God's part to include some reprobates marked, for the sake of the elect in the same category. And now, in the age of the Spirit, are we going to put new emphasis on subjective criteria ahead of objective, and human demonstration/achievement, and err on the side of caution? Is this not a recipe for elitism?

Humanly dispensed signs are no reliable indicator of one's elect-status. To quote Warfield again, "No rite enters into the essence of Christianity." The signs simply perform "pointing" functions in an imperfect world, for imperfect people, in an imperfect way. Observe more modest and objective purposes for such signs, and they function very well.


----------



## steadfast7

Contra_Mundum said:


> Without speaking at all for Richard, or any point of his, the above is a preposterous statement, to say the least. Who are the covenant-mediators of the "Ishmaelite church," the "Edomite church," etc.? If the covenant mediator is only found in the household of Abraham, and his designated successor, Isaac, then there is no other authority other than his under whom circumcision (as a sign of God's unique covenant-dealings) is dispensed.



I think Spurgeon was concluding what many of us conclude (perhaps by misunderstanding?), that Abrahamic circumcision was an automatic entry into the covenant. I agree there was a delineated successor, and this was determined by election.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Where are these nations cited for "covenant unfaithfulness"? And what covenant is that? What is the "reprobation" of a nation? Election of one man and one nation that springs from that man (a "corporate" election) for the purpose of bringing about a world-wide redemption plan, through the perfect Mediator--this is not parallel to individual election to salvation.



We can only really speak of the individual's reprobation, which, from past conversations seems clear that Ishmael and Esau are considered out of the covenant because of their wickedness. I'm not sure about _national_ reprobation, but if covenants (and expulsion from covenant) work federally from the parental head, it's not too much of a leap is it? If individual election and national election is made too distinct, think about the implications for Rom 9. Objectors to predestination often make the case that this is not a reference to individual election, but national.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Dennis, it sounds to me, in the end you've come back to this idea that it should be possible for men to identify the elect. How is it any easier to do this in the NC era that it ever was in earlier ages?


 I think this is a separate question which I haven't dealt with yet. It would be important to first explore what the Israel of God means in the final revelation of the New Testament (whether ideal or mixed). If a narrowing of the concept of the NC church has occurred in the NT, then that would be the place to start.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

steadfast7 said:


> We can only really speak of the individual's reprobation, which, from past conversations seems clear that Ishmael and Esau are considered out of the covenant because of their wickedness. I'm not sure about national reprobation, but if covenants (and expulsion from covenant) work federally from the parental head, it's not too much of a leap is it? If individual election and national election is made too distinct, think about the implications for Rom 9. Objectors to predestination often make the case that this is not a reference to individual election, but national.



Dennis,

This conversation is frustrating because you're all over the map. I'm not sure you've even understood the basic ideas that are driving the thinking on this. Your question stabs at the heart of a thinking that tries to extend our limited understanding of the hidden things of God and draw unwarranted conclusions from that understanding. As Bruce is noting, your thinking is fundamentally Baptist. You try to work from the things hidden instead of the things revealed. Notice how the Baptist reasons primarily in this debate by arguing for a perfect and unbreakable New Covenant and then concludes from that, not a positive warrant, but an implied warrant that people that are least likely to break the Covenant ought to be administered baptism. Thinking about the Covenants is completely driven by consideration of who is elect and who is reprobate. Discipleship is driven primarily by a concern to minimize the number of reprobate in the Church. You can see the fingerprints of this thinking throughout Spurgeon. Even while admitting he has no access to hidden things, he reasons in light of them and then makes an illogical leap that children of believers endanger the purity of the local Church, which is to reflect the perfection of the New Covenant as much as possible. The children are spoken of as "sucking pagans" because they have not yet achieved the intellectual capacity to prove to man's capacity whether or not they may infallibly judge whether he's worthy to be tentatively called a disciple.

Where does Paul or any apostle ever even approach children in such a fashion? Where do the Scriptures even approach the subject of discipleship or Church life on the basis of "discerning election" as the basis for baptism? The thing I find most fascinating about the way Baptists speak about their own children as "sucking pagans" is how dissonant that is from the NT, which is not only completely silent in ever calling the children of believers pagans but, to the contrary, commands their training in the fear of the Lord. In fact, this is an area of inconsistency for if the Baptist truly believed that their sucking pagans were like every other adult pagan then they would not train them in the things of God. By this happy inconsistency, they say the children have some sort of "privilege" as pagans born into a believing household that the spouse who belongs to that house does not (as much as they say that the child is just like the unbelieving spouse). The children are forced to go to Church and hear the sermon (why not a room to separate the known pagans from the worshippers of God). They are taught to sing (why are pagans singing Christian songs?) and to pray (why are pagans praying to a Holy God they hate?). They are brought into the interior life of the body of Christ where all other unbelievers are kept out of. In the end, the Baptist can only think in the ideal of his child as a pagan but, in practice, treats him in every way as a disciple in his training and admonition and repeated calls to repentance and faith.

Your question about election and reprobation of individuals and nations points again to a preoccupation with connecting the dots of election or reprobation for people. The fact that you seem to miss is that the hidden things belong to the Lord and the revealed things to us.

God's election is not conditional. Federal election does not mean that he looks at Rich and then decides to federally create a group of people federally united under Rich to say that everybody after him is in a special status.

The pattern in the OT is the same as it is now: "If Today, you hear His voice do not harden your hearts." Those that forsake the Lord die in the wilderness and are cut off from the rest He offers. He creates His Church by His Word and provides teachers (Levites) and priests to provide instruction and sacrament that the people of God might draw near to Him in faith. He commands parents to teach things to the children that they might draw near in faith. Nowhere does God satisfy Himself that the purposes of biology are being served but the repeated condemnation of the Lord is the adultery of leaving a tender and faithful Husband.

Now, when Esau apostatized, it's not as if everything happened in a vacuum and there was no historical Esau because He existed in the hidden counsel of God alone. No, he rebelled against the Covenant. He forsook the things of the Lord and sold his birthright. As much as Spurgeon wants to say that he had to have belonged to another people at all times, the Book of Hebrews uses him as an example for US! Certainly not for us?! How can Esau be an example? The sign in his flesh had nothing to do with a need to draw near to God in faith. Did it? After all, God knew Esau was reprobate so how could He later use him as an example of the dangers of shrinking back in disbelief? God never wanted him to believe. Baptist theology has no category for an Esau tasting of heavenly things and treating the grace of God as a thing to be despised because it reasons that we can think like God and know that Esau's reprobation means that he never really tastes of or participates in a Covenant that is meant to signify that the righteous shall live by his faith. 

This, I fear, is the most dangerous aspect of Baptistic Covenant theolgoy because it idealizes all the dangers of shrinking back in disbelief. The creature assumes he can reason like the Creator and tries to organize all His thoughts around what God decreed about him. He's either elect and immune from the threats in Hebrews or he is reprobate and he can do nothing about it. What cannot be conceived is to live in the light of the things revealed and that a visible Covenant that has imperfect men, women, and children who are blessed to be a part of a visible Kingdom that hearkens them to trust in a Redeemer King-Priest and threatens with consequences should they shrink back. What cannot be conceived is the idea of daily encouragement that people press in by faith because, after all, we no longer tell anyone in this new ideal to "know the Lord". What cannot be conceived is that God is God with sign and substance and we are the creature. We don't live by the decree, we live by things revealed.


----------



## Mushroom

Semper Fidelis said:


> We don't live by the decree, we live by things revealed.



Wise words.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

steadfast7 said:


> think Spurgeon was concluding what many of us conclude (perhaps by misunderstanding?), that Abrahamic circumcision was an automatic entry into the covenant. I agree there was a delineated successor, and this was determined by election.


I'm prepared to grant him his primary assumption, although the implications of it seem to me untenable and incongruent with many other of his own affirmations drawn from Scripture. But when his reasoning, which is predicated on his own grounds and superimposed on alternate practice, is presented as if it were a natural conclusion of the (disagreeable) theological commitments that ostensibly undergird that alternate practice, I must object.

All I'm asking is that in the present discussion, we refrain from pointing to such allegations which manifestly lack development _out of_ RCT presuppositions. Internal critiques attempt to show inconsistencies and instability arising from incompatible postulates or relations. Even before I knew Spurgeon had argued thus, I had given you (by PM) the very same explanation, in greater detail answering a different question, as I gave here by way of retort.

"You can't get there from here," is an answer to an old joke, but it has relevance to the present analysis. Spurgoen's conclusion (that we have a quagmire) may look like troubles are only a few meters to the side from where I'm going along, but you are looking at both me and them from the vantage point of the overpass, and I'm speeding along on the limited access freeway. YOU can get there, going out of your way and thankful this swamp isn't up anywhere near your lane; but the fact that I _could_ careen off MY road and end up in the swamp is no reason to presume that end as a necessary or likely scenario, given the basic engineering of my system.



steadfast7 said:


> We can only really speak of the individual's reprobation, which, from past conversations seems clear that Ishmael and Esau are considered out of the covenant because of their wickedness. I'm not sure about national reprobation, but if covenants (and expulsion from covenant) work federally from the parental head, it's not too much of a leap is it? If individual election and national election is made too distinct, think about the implications for Rom 9. Objectors to predestination often make the case that this is not a reference to individual election, but national.


My questions grew out of the terms you chose. You wrote: "these *nations* went wrong, isn't it also right ... to say *they* were simply reprobated?" Assuming you meant what you said, you might be paralleling a positive choice of the Hebrew nation with the non-selection of every other nation--and calling that reprobation.

The parallel to salvific-election breaks down quickly, because many are saved (not one person); nor are the many saved only out of the singled-out nation. Likewise, not every member even of the aforementioned "hostile" nations were individually reprobated. Caleb is my favorite (former) Edomite. So, any talk of national "election" and "reprobation" must of necessity be carefully qualified, so that only the particular illustrative or pedagogical intent (typology) of such speech is legitimized.

The issue of Rom.9 interpretation arises 1) from misunderstanding Paul's intent for developing his gospel-rehearsal along those lines, 2) from a priori resistance to the doctrine of individual-election, and 3) from conceding far too much legitimacy to the party-pride of the Jewish nation--James.2 is a much needed tonic.

Suffice to say that I think Paul's point in Rom.9 is partly to dispel the myth that Israel, the nation, was chosen _unto_ salvation-by-association. But mainly, the point is to encourage individual Christians who have doubts about the security of their salvation. I don't think its a true _Calvinistic_ interpretation of the text to understand Paul to be spending any time whatever perpetuating into the present age the idea of corporate-election. Rom.9-11 is not an _excursus_ on national Israel.



steadfast7 said:


> It would be important to first explore what the Israel of God means in the final revelation of the New Testament (whether ideal or mixed). If a narrowing of the concept of the NC church has occurred in the NT, then that would be the place to start.


I guess, my thinking is that the question isn't whether Israel-of-God is "ideal or mixed" in our present age of the New Testament (which no one who believes in the still-future Second Coming admits is the _final_ revelation, btw).

Rather, the question is whether Israel-of-God is National or International. Because whether in the present age, or any previous age, the issue of "mixed or ideal" has never been absent.

So, are we dealing in the NC with a fundamental matter of "widening" or "narrowing" of church-concepts? What trajectory does the book of Acts set? Are we dealing with expansion or contraction? Is this new wine or old?


----------



## steadfast7

I apologize for being all over the place in the posts and direction of conversion, but thanks for sticking it out. I really am learning a lot here! Perhaps a simplified summary of how things are shaping in my mind, as well as final questions are in order.

1. It's very difficult for me to square what it means to be "in Christ" with the categories within RCT. "In Christ", to me, is a full union, an unconditional election performed, a limited substitutionary atonement paid, being baptized in the Holy Spirit, etc; all objective realities fully efficacious by grace alone, which scripture generously lavishes on the believer. In RCT, however, there is this vague sense in which one unites with Christ _externally_, is brought into an _administration_ of the covenant of grace, is given promises of God being one's God, of being received by Christ, but is able to fall away finally. In my limited knowledge on the whole matter, perhaps I am reacting because it seems 'not very Calvinistic'. This idea of the new covenant as a conditional offer, rather than a completed one-sided irresistible gift, is odd to me. 

2. _Subjectively_, when speaking of and viewing children born into Christian homes, I lean away from the "sucking pagans" view. Being born into a Christian and being treated and named as such makes much more sense.

3. Yes, it is impossible to identify the elect and as noted, this poses a problem to baptist practice. But I see it as a problem for Presbyterians as well. Granted, the theology behind the practice is different, but there is still an attempt to identity gracious working in the heart of the adult professor that comes forward for baptism. They are still examined thoroughly, and this implies a search for signs of grace in that person. I really have not gotten into this topic (sorry if it seems that way) as it's not my primary concern, although I appreciate the responses..

Boiling it all down .. here's my final question:

What makes the new covenant _better_, when the way of being in covenant with God is the same as in all ages past - stipulations, conditional promises, blessings, curses?


----------



## steadfast7

wait, one last thing - which came as a surprise. Matthew McMahon's "Simple Overview of Covenantal Theology" argues that Acts 2:39 ("promise is for you and your children ...") is not meant for Gentiles, but Jews. Peter is showing how the Abrahamic covenant is being fulfilled for Jews and carries on in NT preaching. Ideas of Gentile inclusion into covenant comes later, but this is not an explicit text for it. If true, how can this be used as a proof-text for covenant theology? Doesn't this hurt the RCT argument?


----------



## Scott1

steadfast7 said:


> Boiling it all down .. here's my final question:
> 
> What makes the new covenant better, when the way of being in covenant with God is the same as in all ages past - stipulations, conditional promises, blessings, curses?


.



Scott1 said:


> Westminster Confession of Faith
> 
> Chapter VII
> Of God's Covenant with Man
> 
> ....
> 
> V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel:[9] under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come;[10] which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,[11] by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.[12]
> 
> VI. Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance,[13] was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper:[14] which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy,[15] to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles;[16] and is called the New Testament.[17] There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.[18]



The new covenant is much better, in many ways!

One is that the promises are explicitly fulfilled in our Lord. We are not under the ceremonial law nor the civil law given Israel as a standard for righteousness. God's people in the Old Testament had to keep the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the civil law given Israel- all of it, as a standard of righteousness. Think of what an impossible task that was, we are free from that now.

Plus, we have the complete revelation of God's Word to go by now... a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.

We have the full measure of the Holy Spirit indwelling us, leading us into all truth and guaranteeing, as a deposit, our salvation.

The new covenant is far, far better.

Praise God for it!

---------- Post added at 09:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:30 AM ----------



steadfast7 said:


> In RCT, however, there is this vague sense in which one unites with Christ externally, is brought into an administration of the covenant of grace, is given promises of God being one's God, of being received by Christ, but is able to fall away finally.



You'll continue to get some good, deep answers to this.

The visible church (professed believers and their children) is not quite the same as the invisible church (spiritually regenerate). As in Old Testament Israel, not all Israel was saved, so it is in the visible church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

steadfast7 said:


> 1. It's very difficult for me to square what it means to be "in Christ" with the categories within RCT. "In Christ", to me, is a full union, an unconditional election performed, a limited substitutionary atonement paid, being baptized in the Holy Spirit, etc; all objective realities fully efficacious by grace alone, which scripture generously lavishes on the believer. In RCT, however, there is this vague sense in which one unites with Christ _externally_, is brought into an _administration_ of the covenant of grace, is given promises of God being one's God, of being received by Christ, but is able to fall away finally. In my limited knowledge on the whole matter, perhaps I am reacting because it seems 'not very Calvinistic'. This idea of the new covenant as a conditional offer, rather than a completed one-sided irresistible gift, is odd to me.


You don't have to work very hard for this. In RCT, being "in Christ" is vital union with Christ. This comes by faith. Full stop. There is no special category for a person who is sort of "in Christ" in a certain sense. We do not consider visible Covenant membership as constituting a type of union with Christ. What you are confusing again, as being "Calvinistic", is the idea that we need to some how act in visible and historical situations what God knows about eternal and hidden things. Again and again and again, THE HIDDEN THINGS BELONG TO THE LORD. 

It is NOT "Calvinistic" to say: "Well, union with Christ is what Baptism signifies and so we'll baptize those that have union with Christ....."

Why?

BECAUSE THE HIDDEN THINGS BELONG TO THE LORD.

It is Calvinistic to realize that God _does_ unite to Christ by faith and a _means_ He uses toward that end is baptism but again and again we have to distinguish between what the Church can see and declare through Baptism and how God uses Baptism in the hidden counsel of His will.

I'm convinced that your confusion over the issue (at least the way you express it) is due to the fact that you have read us describing something but you haven't really understood it. You keep falling back on a Baptist dichotomy about baptism belonging to the elect but then having no way to actually histoically institute such a practice (nor a Biblical warrant that commands or restricts Baptism to the elect).

Let's start with the WCF on Sacraments. I want you to read and re-read even as I attempt to explain this:


> I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him: as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.


First, Sacraments are signs and seals of grace that are instituted by Christ. You can see two aspects here. Sacraments have a purpose as a _sign_ and this has to do what is visible and discernible to us as creatures. They also have a _sealing_ function and this is going to do with things that God is doing through them that we creatures may see fruit of but cannot infallibly "see".

Notice that Sacraments serve two purposes. First, they put a "visible" difference between those that belong to the Church. Note that they're instituted by Christ to do this. This is one purpose of a Sacrament that is ALWAYS, ALWAYS accomplished. Every baptism, regardless of what we know about the true spiritual state of the person baptized, puts a visible difference between those that belong to the Church and the world. We know a person is in the Church when they're baptized.

Secondly, it solemnly engages the person to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word. Again, regardless of true spiritual status, the person is put into the visible service of the King. Now, he might be an unfaithful servant at heart but that does not remove the obligation. It's sort of like a person who becomes a citizen and then later commits treason. His treason does not remove the fact that he was a citizen but it is because he was a citizen that he's a traitor. We don't let a person off the hook for treason because he says "Well my heart was never really in it." In other words, in his heart, a person may never have had the fealty of being a servant of Christ but, externally, he can be (and will be judged) because he _owed_ that obedience by his visible and solemn admission to the Kingdom.



> II. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.


This is simply stating that what we can see or feel or touch has a spiritual reality behind it. That reality is secured by God but is meant to encourage us. We can see and feel the waters of baptism and have our minds lifted to the spiritual reality that God has promised. As surely as you feel this water wash the filth of your flesh, so surely will God wash away the sins of all who believe. It is not a "working of the works" but is meant to stimulate and excite faith in us as Christ is manifest through physical means. We are not gnostics.

I


> II. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.


Notice that the "grace which is exhibited" depends "upon the work of the Spirit". That is to say that the spiritual graces that are signified by Baptism depend upon the Sovereign work of the Spirit. It does not depend upon the timing of the person who presents himself or our certainty of his salvation. It does not depend upon the mode or the piety and intention of either the baptizer or the person baptized. It belongs to God. God commands the baptism and then promises that I will determine who I will grant the graces that it signifies to. Our job is to baptize those He commands us to baptize and then we leave it up to Him to be God for efficacy. Do you see now why we can say that baptism can be related to Romans 6 even if we know that it does not confer it?

Baptists, by convincing themselves that they're being more careful about baptizing the elect, think they're getting closer to the hidden things by doing so but they're missing the point of baptism where God says to the Church to baptize and that every baptism has a real significance independent of what we know about hidden things. He then works through the things we see to apply spiritual things according to the counsel of _His_ will and not ours. We don't concern ourselves with guessing at Who God elects. We use the means of grace as Christ has instituted them and let God be sovereign.



> 3. Yes, it is impossible to identify the elect and as noted, this poses a problem to baptist practice. But I see it as a problem for Presbyterians as well. Granted, the theology behind the practice is different, but there is still an attempt to identity gracious working in the heart of the adult professor that comes forward for baptism. They are still examined thoroughly, and this implies a search for signs of grace in that person. I really have not gotten into this topic (sorry if it seems that way) as it's not my primary concern, although I appreciate the responses..


It poses zero problem because our Covenant theology is not built on an un-Biblical premise that God is concerned that His Church only admit into the visible Church those they are pretty sure are elect. When we look to baptize an adult professor we will look for repentance and faith and discern, as near as we can, that his faith is genuine but we are doing so for a different reason.

Baptist view: God is concerned that only those that the Church thinks are elect be baptized. Let's look for the best possible fruit to ensure we don't baptize anyone who is not elect.
Biblical view: God has commanded the baptism of those who have a credible profession of faith and repentance. The Church is not to concern itself with who it thinks are most likely elect. That's up to God and He never commands us to live in light of His decree.




> What makes the new covenant _better_, when the way of being in covenant with God is the same as in all ages past - stipulations, conditional promises, blessings, curses?


Briefly:
1. The fullness of the revelation of God in Christ.
2. A Great High Priest who learned obedience as Messiah and entered into His Priestly Office by His death. He ever lives to make intercession for His people and perfects forever those who draw near to him.
3. The promise of the Holy Spirit.
4. Bold access into the heavenly sanctuary through the veil of Christ.


----------



## steadfast7

more boiling ...


Scott1 said:


> WCF VI. Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance,[13] was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper:[14] which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy,



WCF is very clear as to how it's better. But, to clarify, when it says "... more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy" this applies to _everyone_ who is a covenant child, regardless of election, right? I guess this would be in line with the RCT reading of Hebrews re: tasting the heavenly gift, the blood that sanctified them, etc., where all of these spiritual realities are able to be undone by apostasy. I'm realizing how one's reading of Hebrews can be the deciding factor in this CT debate.



Scott1 said:


> The visible church (professed believers and their children) is not quite the same as the invisible church (spiritually regenerate). As in Old Testament Israel, not all Israel was saved, so it is in the visible church.


 But everything that is given to the invisible church inwardly and eternally, is pronounced on the visible church externally and temporally, if I understand it correctly. The union of sign and signified is ideal, is it not? And this language of "all or nothing" - none of this middle ground stuff - is what Baptists like. The mixed church (_on earth_) is not something that Presbyterians can view as non-ideal or incidental or wish-it-were-not-this-way. It is God's _design_ for the earthly church and must therefore be ideal in that sense. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> Baptist view: God is concerned that only those that the Church thinks are elect be baptized. Let's look for the best possible fruit to ensure we don't baptize anyone who is not elect.
> Biblical view: God has commanded the baptism of those who have a credible profession of faith and repentance. The Church is not to concern itself with who it thinks are most likely elect. That's up to God and He never commands us to live in light of His decree.



If it's true that Baptist try to look for election _infallibly_ (having never been to a Reformed Baptist church, I can't comment), then I would be tempted join you in scoffing at that attempt. To be charitable, I'd like to think they practice the latter "Biblical View", with the presupposition that a credible profession of faith and repentance equals election, _as best as can be determined by humans._


----------



## Contra_Mundum

steadfast7 said:


> Matthew McMahon's "Simple Overview of Covenantal Theology" argues that Acts 2:39 ("promise is for you and your children ...") is not meant for Gentiles, but Jews. Peter is showing how the Abrahamic covenant is being fulfilled for Jews and carries on in NT preaching. Ideas of Gentile inclusion into covenant comes later, but this is not an explicit text for it. If true, how can this be used as a proof-text for covenant theology? Doesn't this hurt the RCT argument?



I haven't read CMM's treatment, or else it's been a long time since I did. In any case, the pertinent question would be: to whom does the language, "and to all who are afar off," refer? Interpretively, the obvious first audience is primarily Jewish by birth, however there is a significant contingent of foreign-born coverts to Judaism, plus "adherents," and other alien visitors. Still, if the main target of Peter's sermon are those familiar with the Jewish faith, and especially interested or contracted to the Abrahamic promise, esp. Gen.17:7, which contains the like terms, "I will establish my covenant {the promise}... to be God *to you* and *to your offspring*."

The question of "who are _all those afar off_," is most resonant with the context of all those foreign-born Jews and other parties interested in coming as close as they dared to Jehovah-of-Israel. The promise to Abraham all along has included hope for the nations, "In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed," Gen.12:3. The question has always been, "how" to be IN Abraham, that is, how to benefit from the mediatorship of the divinely instituted covenant relationship. The covenant (in other words) was never solely and only for Abraham's immediate house, however close one wanted to draw the line; but for the whole world. The world was invited to join IN Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob, then Israel the nation.

CMM could be reflecting on the fact that in the opening bloom of the new-covenant people, it still appears as a "Jewish-movement." The first hearers are primarily Jewish by religion, are familiar with the Abrahamic promise, and so the words of Peter are tailored for a community of listeners who are steeped in Judaism, and who know their Bibles. Peter, unlike Paul later on, goes directly to a fundamental person and expression of the historic faith in order to preach Christ as the fulfillment of the Genesis, the very beginning of Promise.

So, in this Act.2 context, what is more likely: 1) that "all those who are afar off," refers to the strangers to the Promise who were, are, and WILL BE brought near to the Promise-Fulfillment, as those earlier were brought to the Promise-Waiting; or 2) that "to all those who are afar off," refers to various children _not present_, while "to your children," refers to the children _who are present_ in Jerusalem that day? If the former, it certainly fits into the context of the Abrahamic promise, and resonates with the Jews who are then looking for this very fulfillment to happen someday.

If CMM argues _against_ the idea that this passage is _explicit_ concerning Gentile inclusion (referring only to Jews who will later-on come to faith), I will have to disagree. Because it seems so clear that the setting itself (cf. Act.2:9-11) militates in favor of a direct reference.

Alternatively, CMM might mean only that Peter may still be thinking that the divinely ordered *means* of inclusion IN the Lord Jesus Christ _includes _integration into the covenant-life of the national-church. Thus "IN Abraham" by sign might be a rational entailment, and hardly a new-requirement for a predominately Jewish church; as would be legal adherence to Moses, in most if not all particulars. Peter is simply waving people from the Jews and all nations _into the church of Christ_.

Personally, I wouldn't be so concerned to restrict Peter's terminology to Jews (of all origins and backgrounds), mainly because *I don't think that was LUKE'S intent*. I think Luke meant his largely Gentile audience to feel the call of God to Christ right from the opening pages of his treatise.


P.S. A postscript on "... as many as the Lord our God shall call."
Sometimes, it has been claimed that a RCT reading of this text ignores this relevant phrase. I can only attribute this reckoning to an understanding of Abraham's covenant as physical, not spiritual, in essence. Because RCT thinks of Abraham's covenant as essentially spiritual--Isaac is in and Ishmael is out, Jacob is in and Esau is out, etc.--we claim that "as many as the Lord our God shall call" is already implicit (if not explicit, prior to the apostasy of either Ishmael or Esau) in the promise to Abraham.

If the only way (ever) to lay hold of the essential thing concerning the Promise has been by faith, because salvation is by grace, then "as many as the Lord our God shall call," has *always* been the acknowledged stance of the believer's heart. He hoped in God (or acted unbelievingly), respecting the promise, Gen.17:7, as it directly concerned his children. But the believer has always said, "If it is not to be that I should see my children walking in my faith-footsteps, for reasons hidden from me; yet will I hold to my God, and to the unfailing quality of his promises." "Not my will, but Thine be done." "Though he slay me, yet will I trust him."

So "as many as the Lord our God will call," is no _ignored_ aspect of v.39, so far as RCT is concerned. It is as true now, as it has ever been--to Abraham, to Isaac, to David, and so many others. "These all died IN FAITH..." Heb.11:13.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

steadfast7 said:


> when it says "... more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy" this applies to everyone who is a covenant child, regardless of election, right?



It says "The Gpspel... is HELD FORTH..." by these simpler, but better presentations (Word and Sacrament) than all the glory-laden exhibitions of an earlier age. Indeed, the gospel is held-forth to covenant-children, as to everyone; but perhaps we could say *especially* held forth to them, who "from childhood have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" 2Tim.3:15.



steadfast7 said:


> It is God's design for the earthly church and must therefore be ideal in that sense.


That's a fair reading: i.e., the church as an (invisibly) "perfect" institution, but comprised of (more or less) "imperfect" people. As over against the church as a (visibly) "imperfect" institution, comprised (ideally) of only "perfect" people.


----------



## steadfast7

Thanks for that, Rev. B. Yes, it seems CMM views the sermon as a call to remnant Jews to hear the reformulation of the Abrahamic covenant through Joel's prophecy. "Those who are far off", according to him, are scattered Jews not present. He uses this argument, not in the way it is normally expounded, but only to show that covenantal language (and not individualism) is the "still the norm" in the NT era. It's just surprising to see it interpreted in this way, when I thought this passage was already set in stone in the minds of Reformed folk. I agree with you, Luke-Acts is too inclusive of Gentiles for this passage to implicitly exclude them. 

Could you help with another argument in the book, which I believe is raised by many RCT proponents. It argues that Jer 31 does not refer to new testament believers, but the fully realized church in heaven - where there will be no more need to tell another to know the Lord, the law will be fully written on the heart and obeyed, etc. I though the whole idea of covenant is that it is earthly and temporal - they are inaugurated on earth and fulfilled on earth. What happened to all the emphasis on God's condescending to our weakness, if the New Covenant is really about the church in heaven? Isn't this argument inconsistent with covenant theology as a whole? I understand the already-but-not-yet scheme, but that is speaking of the eschaton, not the establishing of the new covenant, which we all (I think) agree is completed in Christ's blood. If it's true that Jer 31 is not yet fully realized, then what is the basis for saying that it is realized at all, how would we know, and doesn't it imply that Christ's work is not complete?


----------



## Scott1

steadfast7 said:


> But, to clarify, when it says "... more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy" this applies to everyone who is a covenant child, regardless of election, right?



This seems like "over analyzing," or reading too much into the proposition of doctrine.

Everyone, in a sense, benefits from the explicit revelation of the person and work of Christ, and His Word.

The whole world, in a sense benefits by "common grace" of having the truth. People in Christian countries often benefit more even if they are not believers.

More so within the covenant community. But only the elect (past, present and future) partake in regeneration, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the spirit of adoption, the confirmation of the Word, etc.




steadfast7 said:


> none of this middle ground stuff



There's not really any "middle ground." People who are in the covenant community but who are not saved have a privilege the world does not have- the benefits of hearing the Word, having the support of a covenant community of believers. An infant has the benefit of one or more believing parents to raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

All these are benefits "the world" does not have.

What's so difficult about that to understand?

---------- Post added at 03:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:14 PM ----------




steadfast7 said:


> It is God's design for the earthly church and must therefore be ideal in that sense.




Everything is God's design in His creation. Absolutely everything.

And, in a fallen world, sin has affected every aspect of life, including that of the church visible. It cannot separate a believer from what God has elected (redemption) but it affects all behavior.

And so it will be until our Lord returns.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

steadfast7 said:


> If it's true that Baptist try to look for election infallibly (having never been to a Reformed Baptist church, I can't comment), then I would be tempted join you in scoffing at that attempt. To be charitable, I'd like to think they practice the latter "Biblical View", with the presupposition that a credible profession of faith and repentance equals election, as best as can be determined by humans.



First, I am not scoffing at Baptists for their view. I am stating it. I call it un-Biblical because I believe it is. I confess, with my Church, what I believe the Scriptures teach and, by definition, the Baptist view would then be un-Biblical.

Secondly, What is the practical difference in what I wrote and what you restated? You just confirmed what I said. You have a Baptistic preocuppation that "a credible profession of faith and repentance equals election, as best as can be determine by humans". You confirm the very notion that I am saying is un-Biblical. Where does God ever command or instruct the creature "to the best of his ability" to determine the hidden things of God? The Biblical view is that a credible profession of faith and repentance is required for an adult to be admitted to the visible Church by baptism and treated as a brother with all the privliges and responsibilities that entails.

Election is left to God. I sound like a broken record but the HIDDEN THINGS BELONG TO THE LORD (Deut 29:29). Do not consider lightly the injunction of the Lord that the "guessing" or the "best possible determination" of hidden things belongs to us. They do not. We're not even permitted to guess at them. Fruit is somethihng we can see and make judgments about. We can say that "...you life is not in keeping with one who confesses faith and repentance" but we are never permitted to say: "...he is more or less likely to be elect or reprobate on the basis of what I'm seeing." Those are two completely separate categories. One is Biblical, the second is a violation of Deut 29:29.


----------



## steadfast7

Scott, hear Calvin on this, quoted from Horton, "God's Grandchildren."


> "Baptism, viewed in regard to us, is a passive work: we bring nothing to it but faith; and all that belongs to it is laid up in Christ." But how can a child bring faith to baptism? *"Those who were baptized when mere infants, God regenerates in childhood or adolescence, occasionally even in old age,"* as the seed of faith is planted in the heart of the covenant child. *"Infants are renewed by the Spirit of God according to the capacity of their age, till that power which was concealed within them grows by degrees, and becomes fully manifest at the proper time,"* Calvin wrote.



It seems in the writings of many of the Reformed, the efficacy of God's promises to covenant children is such that there is no reason to doubt that regeneration IS going to happen. It's so matter of fact, so idealistic, so confident. There's hardly any talk of apostasy or the baptism of reprobates, it seems to me, because this is far from their minds and seen to be very rare.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

steadfast7 said:


> It seems in the writings of many of the Reformed, the efficacy of God's promises to covenant children is such that there is no reason to doubt that regeneration IS going to happen.



Many of the Reformed believe what you just stated? Who? Where is that stated in a Reformed Confession, which represents Reformed teaching on this? What is the full Calvin quote in context? I would also add that your re-stating of the case is an inaccurate representation of Calvin's point. I don't mean this to sound pejorative but is English your first language because I'm having a terrible time trying to understand how you're drawing the conclusions you are from the sentences you're interacting with.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I am sorry if I am jumping in at a bad place. 

Rich, 
Does not most of the reformed paedo postion hold to presumptive regeneration for the infants of believers? From what I have read in the past this does seem to be a very prominent position that is held to.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am sorry if I am jumping in at a bad place.
> 
> Rich,
> Does not most of the reformed paedo postion hold to presumptive regeneration for the infants of believers? From what I have read in the past this does seem to be a very prominent position that is held to.


 
It's a loaded term so I would not grant that it is a Confessional position. If, by presumptive regeneration, one means that we think that baptism grants or guarantees regeneration then the Confessions plainly deny this by leaving it to the Holy Spirit's Sovereign operation.

If, by presumptive regeneration, one means that we treat all disciples with a judgment of charity then that is a different matter. We confess clearly that baptism does not confer grace simply by its administration. Nevertheless, a disciple is encouraged and exhorted as if he is responsible for and may respond to the encouragement and exhortation of God's Word. In this way, we are not unlike any other Body in its treatment of disciples. We don't exhort a fellow disciple _assuming_ they were unregenerate. We exhort, with the judgment of charity, assuming they have the ability to apprehend spiritual things.

In this sense, then, we are neither making a dogmatic judgment concerning the hidden things one way or another. What can be said is that we are, from a practical standpoint, treating them as if they have capacity as opposed to treating them as if they have none. Paul does the same in his letters by appealing to an entire congregation as the Elect of God, not because he knows they are all elect, but because he is treating all the visible body of Christ with a charitable assumption that the things he speaks about belong to the visible Body.

When I have the time, I'd like to read Calvin's quote in fuller context because he's not precisely stating what Dennis is inferring even from the limited quote. So far as I'm concerned with every disciple: TODAY is the day of salvation. Hear the Word of the Lord today. If, by chance, a disciple has been a member of a Church for his whole life, he may have never been born again but the call to the Church is to declare salvation in Christ TODAY and TODAY may be the day that these repeated exhortations convert a man for the first time or continue to sanctify those who were converted long ago. Calvin's point is that the Promise that attends the Sign is not affixed to the moment of administration so that we may worry about the timing of the Spirit's work, which is done in secret.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Randy,
The term is loaded and ill-defined.

"Presumption" has lost nearly all of its _indifferent_ force (as in, "Dr. Livingstone, I *presume*?"), and is now used almost always according in the sense of "unwarranted" expectation or commitment.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Something that I would consider here is how the term disciple is being used. That term alone probably needs to be defined by the different sides of the debate. I agree your children can be disciples. But how does the New Testament and the literature of the past use the term.

What is a disciple?

Is a disciple made by baptism? 

Can one be a disciple without having been baptized? 

As far as the earlier discussion goes about looking into the Secret things of God I would also like to say that the Lord does tell us to examine the fruit of things and that the disciple John does tell us to test the spirits. Evidently some things can be revealed on some level. Peter could discern that Simon was in a bad place.



> (Act 8:23) For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.



I do believe that the Lord has given us some wisdom to know some things. Do we know beyond a shadow of doubt? I wouldn't want to claim so. But I do think this following passage does apply. 



> (Rom 10:6) But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above
> 
> (Rom 10:7) Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
> 
> (Rom 10:8) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
> 
> (Rom 10:9) * That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus*, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
> 
> (Rom 10:10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
> 
> (Rom 10:11) For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
> 
> (Rom 10:12) For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
> 
> (Rom 10:13) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.



*I do believe there are some markers the Lord has given the Church to discern by. And those markers are performed by Reformed folk and Baptist folk in examination for communion. Why can't they be used to discern the eligibility for candidates for baptism? I believe they are for adults in Presbyterian Churches. They don't first baptize someone (ie and adult) thus making them a disciple first. At least not in the Presbyterian circles I have been involved with.*


----------



## Scott1

steadfast7 said:


> Scott, hear Calvin on this, quoted from Horton, "God's Grandchildren."
> 
> 
> 
> "Baptism, viewed in regard to us, is a passive work: we bring nothing to it but faith; and all that belongs to it is laid up in Christ." But how can a child bring faith to baptism? *"Those who were baptized when mere infants, God regenerates in childhood or adolescence, occasionally even in old age,"* as the seed of faith is planted in the heart of the covenant child. *"Infants are renewed by the Spirit of God according to the capacity of their age, till that power which was concealed within them grows by degrees, and becomes fully manifest at the proper time,"* Calvin wrote.
Click to expand...


We're going off into a slightly different issue with this.

Suffice it to say, we go by the Confession of Faith (e.g. Westminster, 3 Forms) as faithful summaries of the doctrine of Scripture, not the select quotations of (even) the esteemed gentlemen you mention.

The best summary of the Confessions on this point is that, while we have reason to hope, we do not have reason to demand. But a child who is born with at least one believing parent is "holy" that is set, apart, to a position of privilege in that:

1) they have at least one parent to raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and
2) a covenant community through which come the Word, and the "ordinary means of grace."

This is a great advantage compared to those outside the church.

Why would a believing parent *not* have reason to hope that God will be gracious and merciful to their child?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Scott1 said:


> Why would a believing parent *not* have reason to hope that God will be gracious and merciful to their child?



I don't think that is the point Scott. We all have reason to hope that God will be gracious and merciful to our children. I think you might be missing the point.


----------



## Scott1

PuritanCovenanter said:


> We all have reason to hope that God will be gracious and merciful to our children. I think you might be missing the point.





steadfast7 said:


> It seems in the writings of many of the Reformed, the efficacy of God's promises to covenant children is such that there is no reason to doubt that regeneration IS going to happen. It's so matter of fact, so idealistic, so confident. There's hardly any talk of apostasy or the baptism of reprobates, it seems to me, because this is far from their minds and seen to be very rare.



I know there is a lot of "back and forth" on the thread, but the response was to Steadfast's comment about a perceived near-certainty of the salvation of a "covenant" child. It goes to the nature of covenant community, visible church, etc.

The reformed covenant view gives rise to high expectations because the visible church is the ordinary place of salvation, and the conduit for the ordinary means of grace, and so the hope is all the more fitting.... so it would seem.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I understand Scott. I know where it is coming from.


----------



## ryanhamre

I like this definition of the essential prerequisite, fundamental assumption, whatever you want to call it, for all of what is known as "Covenant Theology", and I think Paul wrote it best-



> Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, *just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him*.



Borrowed from Ephesians 1:3-4


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> Many of the Reformed believe what you just stated? Who? Where is that stated in a Reformed Confession, which represents Reformed teaching on this? What is the full Calvin quote in context? I would also add that your re-stating of the case is an inaccurate representation of Calvin's point. I don't mean this to sound pejorative but is English your first language because I'm having a terrible time trying to understand how you're drawing the conclusions you are from the sentences you're interacting with.



Yes, English is my first language, but I've only theological language isn't  I think a different thread for this topic is in order. I'm having trouble finding Horton's source, he merely writes, Institutes chapters 15 and 16 in his article. Better to go directly to the Institutes itself. I'll collect some quotes.


----------



## tman

steadfast7 said:


> I'm looking for THE essential presupposition that undergirds covenant theology from both the Reformed and Covenant baptist perspective.
> 
> NO lengthy tombes, arguments or discourses please! I do not intend for this to be a debate, unless you disagree with someone of your own same confession. * What is the fundamental assumption that you bring to your understanding of covenant theology?* Presuppositions are basically unproven axioms, so no point trying.
> 
> From what I understand from the Reformed position: there has always been ONE way in which God has viewed and dealt with his people and has not changed in all generations.
> 
> Covenantal Baptist: The cross of Christ (New Covenant) brings out a fundamental change in the way God views those whom he calls his.
> 
> Is this essentially correct? I think this needs more tweaking and boiling down, but I'm looking for the basic of the basic.


 
God was for the elect before the cross happened. He chose the elect before the decree of the fall of humanity into sin. God starts at what we perceive as the end. God was pleased with the elect before the cross because He had already justified them because of life and death of Christ. We have our time tables messed up because of our belief in infralapsarianism.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

steadfast7 said:


> Could you help with another argument in the book, which I believe is raised by many RCT proponents. It argues that Jer 31 does not refer to new testament believers, but the fully realized church in heaven - where there will be no more need to tell another to know the Lord, the law will be fully written on the heart and obeyed, etc. I though the whole idea of covenant is that it is earthly and temporal - they are inaugurated on earth and fulfilled on earth. What happened to all the emphasis on God's condescending to our weakness, if the New Covenant is really about the church in heaven? Isn't this argument inconsistent with covenant theology as a whole? I understand the already-but-not-yet scheme, but that is speaking of the eschaton, not the establishing of the new covenant, which we all (I think) agree is completed in Christ's blood. If it's true that Jer 31 is not yet fully realized, then what is the basis for saying that it is realized at all, how would we know, and doesn't it imply that Christ's work is not complete?


I think the interpretive question for RCT turns on this matter of v34, "And *no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me*, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

It seems to me that this sentence must be understood _comparatively,_ if in this world; or _absolutely,_ only if in the next. On what possible ground can one admit of the present time: that any Christian should so neglect his brother, that he would not encourage him to "know the Lord?"

_Comparatively,_ there was a terrible need for Israelites to encourage their brethren to "know the Lord," because except for a few exceptional generations, the majority of the people of the Old Covenant were apparently faithless. I think the weakness was even in the believers, due to the minimal influences of Holy Spirit. This weakness manifested itself quite frequently (so it seems) in the failure of parents in their due use of the ordinary means of grace. It isn't just Eli's sons, but Samuel's sons after him! And David's sons in the next generation. The Rechabites (Jer.35) seem noteworthy for a remarkable intergenerational witness, which God graces with a salvific note (v19).

Then, to press the comparative advantage, we should expect to see a greater degree of faithfulness in the church in our Spirit-filled age. The painful urgency of a lone believer speaking to his fellows in every pew, pleading with the majority of the membership to turn from their gross idolatries and sins of the flesh--this scenario is not so common today, and not (in my view) because we are better gatekeepers. To hold that notion would, I think, shortchange the activity of the Spirit.

Actually, the Minister who is doing his duty in the pulpit is urging upon all the members faith-in-Christ, and turning-from-sin, on a weekly basis. He personates God, "as though God were pleading through us: we implore on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God," 2Cor.5:20. That is, "Know the Lord!"

Nor would I deny there are apostate churches; but having no gospel, they have no church to speak of. And the true believers have for the most part fled. So, of course no one is saying "know the Lord" in those places.

I would argue that the point Jeremiah makes comparatively (OC vs.NC) is reemphasized by Ezekiel, in promises pertaining to the NC, 11:19; 36:26; 37:14, which celebrate the outpouring of Holy Spirit. It is his work that empowers the means, and encourages the faithful use of those means to the attainment of salvation. And if we care about the future, and the rising generation, and the continuation of this congregation or that, we should be praying for the Spirit's continual work, and even insist that the call to "know the Lord" keep sounding forth from our pulpits, and our own lips when appropriate.

And it is just there, where the gospel is sounding forth so strongly from the pulpit, that the desperate urgency of the typical Israelite of long ago is no more. We have good reasons to hope in those identified as our brothers, in those who stay under a sound ministry of Word and Sacrament. The Spirit is mightily accompanying His gospel. And still, when we see our brother overtaken in a fault, we who are spiritual go to him to restore such a one, Gal.6:1. "Know the Lord, brother."

Absolutely and ideally, the only time no one will ever need to say to his brother, "know the Lord," will be the glorified state, where everyone we meet will be none other than a redeemed saint, who knows his Lord intimately. Only when the "not yet" has become the "right now" is this reality instantiated.


----------



## steadfast7

hmm, i wonder if the "know the Lord" motif is meant to be emphasized to that degree. Hebrews seems to not make that emphasis, so should we? The major point of the New Covenant is the forgiveness of sins performed by the one-time mediatorial work of Christ. You're right, the RCT argument hinges on the current for the church to teach one another to know the Lord, and because this isn't seen yet, they send the NC into the future, into heaven. The problem is that covenants are supposed to be earth and time-bound. That's why they exist - for God to condescend to us, make promises and fulfill them in time so that our faith can be strengthened. For the NC to await heaven for its completion defeats this purpose of covenants. Second, if the NC needs to await some future reality, then what are we to say about Hebrews stress that Jesus' sacrifice is a completed work?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> It seems to me that this sentence must be understood comparatively, if in this world; or absolutely, only if in the next. On what possible ground can one admit of the present time: that any Christian should so neglect his brother, that he would not encourage him to "know the Lord?"



In the context of the passage one must needs determine what is meant by this terminology. And the opinions and various nuances are going to have to be taken into account. In total context this has to do with the New Covenant vs. the one that was made previous to this. 




> (Jer 31:31) 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:
> 
> (Jer 31:32) 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 31:33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
> 
> (Jer 31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.



It seems to me that this Knowing the Lord has to do with something specific. It is also connected with the New Covenant as opposed to the Old Covenant. There must be something different between the those who were involved with the Old and the New. This knowing is connected with the Law put in their hearts and their sins having been forgiven. This sounds like something that is descriptive of those who are in Christ. (ie members in union with Christ in the New Covenant) 

Now I am not saying that none in the Old didn't know the Lord. It is obvious that some did. But not from all of them as it is proposed that all in the New will know the Lord. 

And I agree with Bruce that we should weekly encourage everyone to know the Lord. But I imagine it will be of a different degree for those who are in Christ as opposed to those who are not. For those who are in Christ this knowing will be and encouragement to grow closer to him and to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord. But they will already know him on one level if they are in Christ. Jesus said in John 17:3, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." Jesus also said that we have everlasting life and have passed from Death unto life already in John 5:24. (Joh 5:24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. So then I would think that this level of Knowing God must be a given for those who are in the New Covenant as defined in Jeremiah 31 and that is how this is to be understood.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I do believe there are some markers the Lord has given the Church to discern by. And those markers are performed by Reformed folk and Baptist folk in examination for communion. Why can't they be used to discern the eligibility for candidates for baptism? I believe they are for adults in Presbyterian Churches. They don't first baptize someone (ie and adult) thus making them a disciple first. At least not in the Presbyterian circles I have been involved with.



Still wondering about this in relation to disciples.


----------



## Peairtach

*Dennis*


> For the NC to await heaven for its completion defeats this purpose of covenants. Second, if the NC needs to await some future reality, then what are we to say about Hebrews stress that Jesus' sacrifice is a completed work?



Of course the New Covenant hasn't reached its fulfillment, as Baptists acknowledge anyway, but not with regard to baptism and the membership of the covenant.

In individual eschatology Baptists acknowledge that we are in the "already not yet" and that individual members of the New Covenant are not free of sin.

Yet in collective eschatology baptists deny that their are any false professors in the New Covenant administration.

Do Baptists recognise that there are false professors in the Church?

*Martin*


> Why can't they be used to discern the eligibility for candidates for baptism? I believe they are for adults in Presbyterian Churches.



They can be, as with Baptist practice. But we believe from Scripture that baptism is for adults with a credible profession of faith and their children. Children don't have to be asked any Qs. 

The adult professing faith is the covenant head and representative of the children. God has placed the children in a Christian family in His providence. He hasn't just engrafted an individual branch into the Visible Church and New Covenant administration, but a branch with twigs. E.g. Romans 11 and the analogy of the Olive Tree.

Twigs were always engrafted with branches into the CoG. Baptists say that with the coming of John the Baptist that this abruptly stopped and John inaugurated the new atomistic individualism.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Richard Tallach said:


> Yet in collective eschatology baptists deny that their are any false professors in the New Covenant administration.
> 
> Do Baptists recognise that there are false professors in the Church?



Absolutely, and we have discussed this to death on the PB. They are those who have slipped in unaware as the Apostle states to spy our our liberty. But they have no part in this Covenant though they might appear to be and discernment usually weeds them out when thy bring in heresies.


----------



## steadfast7

I'd have to wait to hear from Randy about the New Covenant still awaiting fulfillment. It seems clear to me that the work of Christ is completed. The object of the faith of the OT saints has come, the atonement has been made, the enemy and death have been defeated, we have been united with him and are seated with him in heavenly places where we enjoy every spiritual blessing in him. The only thing we are awaiting is the physical manifestation of these things. If we are still awaiting New Covenant fulfillment then this implies that there's something left for the blood of Christ to accomplish. Perhaps Paul's point of filling up the afflictions of Christ can be chimed in, but I think that's something else.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter
> I do believe there are some markers the Lord has given the Church to discern by. And those markers are performed by Reformed folk and Baptist folk in examination for communion. Why can't they be used to discern the eligibility for candidates for baptism? I believe they are for adults in Presbyterian Churches. They don't first baptize someone (ie and adult) thus making them a disciple first. At least not in the Presbyterian circles I have been involved with.





Richard Tallach said:


> They can be, as with Baptist practice. But we believe from Scripture that baptism is for adults with a credible profession of faith and their children. Children don't have to be asked any Qs.
> 
> The adult professing faith is the covenant head and representative of the children. God has placed the children in a Christian family in His providence. He hasn't just engrafted an individual branch into the Visible Church and New Covenant administration, but a branch with twigs. E.g. Romans 11 and the analogy of the Olive Tree.
> 
> Twigs were always engrafted with branches into the CoG. Baptists say that with the coming of John the Baptist that this abruptly stopped and John inaugurated the new atomistic individualism.



And maybe this is where we look at the Covenant Head and covenant Children situation. Who are the Covenant Head and children as defined by the scriptures. The following is pretty interesting. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/covenant-head-covenant-children-349/


----------



## Contra_Mundum

steadfast7 said:


> You're right, the RCT argument hinges on the current for the church to teach one another to know the Lord, and because this isn't seen yet, they send the NC into the future, into heaven.


Because RCT envisions a particularly strong "continuity" (in and by Christ's Person) from this present age into the next (glorification), the NC is a part of both ages. This is evidenced by the fact that there is an eternal Mediator, who will never change or die. Thus, there is an *aspect* of the NC that is entirely future, one that is expressed by Jeremiah's language that no one will have to instruct his neighbor in righteousness.

And how does the CBT deal with the same question? I know you tell one another to "know the Lord," right? But why, if the NC is _right this minute_ entirely realized and idealized? Well, the church is not, strictly speaking (from the CBT perspective) a NC institution (maybe "expression" would be a better term). The Baptist denies a visible administration of the present covenant. So, the preacher or the individual is not operating within a NC administration when they call one another, and unbelievers, to "know the Lord." That is something "this-worldly," not something members of the NC actually say to one another when their astral-selves brush against each other in the "already" of the numinal realm.

I think I've addressed your questions. If the already/not yet of Christ's permanent Mediatorship can't fit what you're asking, I don't know how else to explain it. In glory, we still relate to our God by means of covenant, though the Mediator.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

steadfast7 said:


> I'd have to wait to hear from Randy about the New Covenant still awaiting fulfillment.



I do not agree with Bruce concerning what it means "to know the Lord." I am not sure what you are looking for me to answer. Christ came and fulfilled the promises given to Adam and Eve and concerning the Covenants of Promise. 

The Corruptible must still put on the incorruptible and the sowing, watering, reaping is still being done. 

Maybe 1 Cor 15 can answer some of your questions as it points to future things. 



> (1Co 15:22) For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
> 
> (1Co 15:23) But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
> 
> (1Co 15:24) Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
> 
> (1Co 15:25) For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
> 
> (1Co 15:26) The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
> 
> (1Co 15:27) For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
> 
> (1Co 15:28) And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.



Help me understand what you are asking.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

PuritanCovenanter said:


> It seems to me that this Knowing the Lord has to do with something specific. It is also connected with the New Covenant as opposed to the Old Covenant. There must be something different between the those who were involved with the Old and the New. This knowing is connected with the Law put in their hearts and their sins having been forgiven. This sounds like something that is descriptive of those who are in Christ. (ie members in union with Christ in the New Covenant)
> 
> Now I am not saying that none in the Old didn't know the Lord. It is obvious that some did. But not from all of them as it is proposed that all in the New will know the Lord.


Randy,
I don't see how you've replied with anything of substance. First of all, "knowing the Lord" has to be intelligible to the original OC audience; and since it does refer to the NC era still to come, it has to have identical (or substantively identical) content in our era. "Law in the heart" is not a concept reserved for the NC:Ps.37:31 "The law of his God is in his heart; his steps do not slip." Ps.40:8 "I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart." Is.51:7 "Listen to me, you who know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear not the reproach of man, nor be dismayed at their revilings."​How did the law get there really and truly, if the hand of God was not involved? And surely, the saints of the OC knew forgiveness of sin, and were waiting for the better things to come with respect to such. They were united to Christ in their own era, through their connection to the shadowy mediator-types of the OC. The call to believe gospel is *indistinguishable* from the call to "Know the Lord!" They are one and the same. We know the Lord by means of the gospel, its promise and fulfillment. Nothing less is adequate.

Jeremiah is speaking of the age when the shadows are dispelled. Your interpretation of this passage is comprehensible only on the theory that the NC is simply not a part of this world at all. With all due respect, I must reject that concept. I don't think that's even close to what Jeremiah and other OC saints anticipated, and even though they did not clearly see the dichotomized comings of Messiah, with his installation in a "far country" as Mediator coming at the end of the first, or how long he would tarry there before the consummation. They were looking ahead to a "purged" kingdom, and that purgation won't take place until heaven and earth meet!

So, either we are having some NC life right now, or else we aren't going to have it at all in this world. I don't know any other way to put it. Under your view, a believers "participation" in the age to come and the NC blessings is not something tangible in this world at all, not in the least. The call to "know the Lord" isn't NC-conversation. Gospel ministry isn't NC conversation! Because I can't preach the Gospel to you, Randy. You're already a believer. So, what do we have to talk about? Christian living, right? Sanctification? Because the Gospel ("Know the Lord!") is just the door, the command to those outside the covenant, how unbelievers get in?

I think this only forces down an artificial distinction upon our NC preaching. Because if our knowing is already idealized, then what do we need preaching for, except to gather a crowd to get the sinners in the doors? Does that sound familiar? If we, being believers, don't need the encouragement to believe and keep believing, then there is no principled reason why we need a good gospel sermon. Just give me pious advice, and encouragement to holy living; or doctrinal or eschatological finesse. Seems to me, there are already lots of churches out there who are just acting out the practical ramifications of a NC theology that has no bona fide connection to bodily life.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

PuritanCovenanter said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe there are some markers the Lord has given the Church to discern by. And those markers are performed by Reformed folk and Baptist folk in examination for communion. Why can't they be used to discern the eligibility for candidates for baptism? I believe they are for adults in Presbyterian Churches. They don't first baptize someone (ie and adult) thus making them a disciple first. At least not in the Presbyterian circles I have been involved with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still wondering about this in relation to disciples.
Click to expand...

The first thing to note is that the two-element list of "baptizing and teaching" isn't saying much about "order," even if it implies a little about it. It has more of a logical than temporal quality to it.

What we ask for in an adult-baptism/communion (membership) course, is someone's elementary ability to discern the content of the gospel, and what that means for a person in his position. It doesn't take a long time to check to see if this person understands what it means to participate in either grace or judgment. But we both know of churches where baptism and admission to communion are steps that can take months or years. This is nothing but applied theology. A communicant's class is _minimal_ preparation. The forming of a disciple is a lifetime of labor. Baptism/Communicant's class is merely the "test" stage of the ministry of evangelism, which is whole-cloth with the ongoing teaching ministry of the church.

I don't agree with the definition of "disciple" that equates to a genuine profession of faith. Even a true profession, or evidence that one can discern the body and blood of the Lord, culminating in baptism, isn't the sum of the process of making a disciple. It is the beginning of disciple-making. Disciples are made by baptizing (a result of evangelism, and sign of subject's embracing the gospel message) and teaching (growing in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ).


----------



## Scott1

steadfast7 said:


> hmm, i wonder if the "know the Lord" motif is meant to be emphasized to that degree. Hebrews seems to not make that emphasis, so should we? The major point of the New Covenant is the forgiveness of sins performed by the one-time mediatorial work of Christ. You're right, the RCT argument hinges on the current for the church to teach one another to know the Lord, and because this isn't seen yet, they send the NC into the future, into heaven. The problem is that covenants are supposed to be earth and time-bound. That's why they exist - for God to condescend to us, make promises and fulfill them in time so that our faith can be strengthened. For the NC to await heaven for its completion defeats this purpose of covenants. Second, if the NC needs to await some future reality, then what are we to say about Hebrews stress that Jesus' sacrifice is a completed work?



Dennis, this may not be considering of all the previous discussion, but maybe this will help in understanding.

The old and new covenants, though administered differently, are of the same redemptive substance- by grace through faith (in Christ's righteousness alone). Always have been.

Christ was implicit in the Old Testament. He is explicit in the New Testament.

Redemption is a process. It involves a series of events- election, inner calling, regeneration, saving faith, adoption, sanctification... which ends in glorification. The elect are in various stages of this process at a given point in time.

Some are regenerated and are in the process of sanctification, yet that is not complete until they receive a glorified body at the second resurrection.

Christ does not fully put death away until after His return, and the final judgment.

There yet remains for all, the second resurrection, the resurrection of the body (to receive a glorified body) at the great judgment.

This a process, and requires holding to by faith. Though received, it is not all here yet.

There is a lot yet to come- and much of the life in the church, Christ's Body, is about focusing on this mystery, being grateful for it, and strengthening our faith toward the covenant promises.

That goes for believers- and their children, presumably being raised up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and amidst His worship and ordinances (in the covenant community).


----------



## Contra_Mundum

steadfast7 said:


> If we are still awaiting New Covenant fulfillment then this implies that there's something left for the blood of Christ to accomplish.


What is glory (new heavens/earth), if not the "fulfillment" of the New Covenant? When you say


steadfast7 said:


> The *only* thing we are awaiting is the physical manifestation of these things


your words have a "gnostic" ring to them, a "neglect of the body" (Col.2:23) that basically ignores the intrinsic worth of the body and the indispensable need for the resurrection of the body. That last is so significant, it forms a portion of the Apostles' Creed. It is substantial with our blessed hope (Tit.2:13; cf. Act.23:6; 24:15; 1Pet.1:3-4).


Jesus saves us, Soul and Body; so, indeed the blood of Jesus has something left for us individually, if by that you mean the delay in our bodily transformation. It is "ours" by way of anticipation (so sure, we can speak of glorification as if it were already past, Rom.8:30), but it isn't in our hands yet--it won't be even if we go to heaven to finish waiting for it in the presence of Jesus.
The Sacrificial work of Christ is DONE. 
The Applicatory work of Christ by his Spirit is NOT DONE.

We have not yet arrived in the Promised Land.


----------



## steadfast7

Contra_Mundum said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we are still awaiting New Covenant fulfillment then this implies that there's something left for the blood of Christ to accomplish.
> 
> 
> 
> What is glory (new heavens/earth), if not the "fulfillment" of the New Covenant? When you say
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The *only* thing we are awaiting is the physical manifestation of these things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your words have a "gnostic" ring to them, a "neglect of the body" (Col.2:23) that basically ignores the intrinsic worth of the body and the indispensable need for the resurrection of the body. That last is so significant, it forms a portion of the Apostles' Creed. It is substantial with our blessed hope (Tit.2:13; cf. Act.23:6; 24:15; 1Pet.1:3-4).
> 
> Jesus saves us, Soul and Body; so, indeed the blood of Jesus has something left for us individually, if by that you mean the delay in our bodily transformation. It is "ours" by way of anticipation (so sure, we can speak of glorification as if it were already past, Rom.8:30), but it isn't in our hands yet--it won't be even if we go to heaven to finish waiting for it in the presence of Jesus.
> The Sacrificial work of Christ is DONE.
> The Applicatory work of Christ by his Spirit is NOT DONE.
> 
> *We have not yet arrived in the Promised Land.*
Click to expand...

 
Consider some of these verses from Hebrews and let's follow the logic:

11:9 By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. 10 *For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.*

13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15 If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 *But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.*

39 And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 *since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.*

12:18 For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest 19 and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. 20 For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” 21 Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” 22 *But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,* and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 *and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven*, and to God, the judge of all, *and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect*, 24 *and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant*, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

Hebrews is not speaking "gnostically" - the dualistic separation of spirit and body - but objectively. He is speaking of what has once for all occurred in the heavens, from God's perspective. How would we explain away the perfect tense here? The phrase "we have not have not yet arrived in the promise land" is therefore not entirely true, although I understand what you're getting at. And the fact that the argument is wrapped up in the language of New Covenant fulfillment in Christ's blood makes this all the more significant to the discussion.

So what are we to make of "know the Lord"? Hebrews does not emphasize it, nor is there any commentary from the New Covenant perspective on this. Therefore, could it not as easily be taken as a hyperbole pointing to the idealism of the NC, as much of prophetic writings contain?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> Jeremiah is speaking of the age when the shadows are dispelled. Your interpretation of this passage is comprehensible only on the theory that the NC is simply not a part of this world at all. With all due respect, I must reject that concept. I don't think that's even close to what Jeremiah and other OC saints anticipated, and even though they did not clearly see the dichotomized comings of Messiah, with his installation in a "far country" as Mediator coming at the end of the first, or how long he would tarry there before the consummation. They were looking ahead to a "purged" kingdom, and that purgation won't take place until heaven and earth meet!



And I believe the shadows were dispelled at the coming of the Messiah? Of course I believe that the NC is a part of this world and your accusation against my understanding is way off base. The New Covenant Church is a part of this World. So your understanding of what I am saying is skewed. The Jews were looking for things that made them also not recognize the Messiah and the fulfillment of the the Finished work of the Gospel of the Kingdom. There are promises yet to be fulfilled but I know that the language of Jeremiah has been fulfilled concerning the comparison of the two Covenants he is mentioning. Hebrews 8 is significant in proving that. One must look at the Jeremiah 31 passage in light of the Hebrews 8 passage also. And I sense there is a lack of wanting to do that. To just point out how the Jews would be seeing this passage is very insufficient because they missed the mark a few times.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Dennis,
Before I get to Hebrews, ref. Rom.8:30, _are you glorified (past tense) right now?_ No; in principle you are, because "he who began a good work in you _will be faithful to complete it *at the day of Jesus Christ*,"_ Php 1:6. Are you *complete* now, or later?

Other texts: Rom.13:11 "And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now *our salvation is nearer than when we believed"*.
2Tim.4:18 "And *the Lord shall deliver me* from every evil work, and *will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom*: to whom be glory for ever and ever."
Rom.7:24 "Wretched man that I am! Who *will deliver me from this body of death*?"
2Cor.1:10 "He delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us. On him we have set our hope that *he will deliver us again*."

It's clear that some aspect of our salvation isn't yet at hand, because we are still hoping for it. "For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?" Rom.8:24.

Hebrews. The saints of old were waiting on Christ, and the heavenly city (which any earthly inheritance could only signify, being impermanent by nature). In Christ, everything is attained. The OT saints could not inherit before us, because Christ was not come. And now together, in Christ, we have attained it. We have, for our present consolation, a "hope set before us," (looking ahead) which *hope* enters "behind the veil" that still blocks our earthly vision, where Jesus has gone _as a forerunner on our behalf_, who "pioneered" the way to heaven, Heb.6:18-20.

Heb.2:10-11, in bringing many sons to glory, he is sanctifying (an ongoing work) one body. And the point of Heb.4, the writer is anxious to urge the believers to hold fast, and to enter into the heavenly rest; which he sets in the context of Christian worship. Because there is still a heaven to get to, there remains a Sabbath-keeping (v9) here below. Sunday-worship is a foretaste of heaven; we not only "rest" in Jesus' finished work in saving-faith, and constantly rest in him after a metaphorical manner; but we are actually invited to rest when summoned to his special presence weekly.

Thus, worship is the substance of Heb.12:18-29. A double-contrast is made, between Christian worship, and worship at either an earthly Jerusalem, or an earthly Sinai. Sinai was a place of fearsome glory, and a terrified people. Not only that, but the Jerusalem that is below (Gal.4:25) now corresponds to Sinai. We go no longer to Jerusalem, the Temple, and a repeat of the former glories of Sinai for worship. Instead we go to heaven, are "seated in the heavenly places" (Eph.2:6). There we are in the company not of a few names on a parchment roll, but of the whole company of the "firstborn" enrolled on the comprehensive list. There we are surrounded by ALL the saints of the past (there of spirit) and of the present (there by faith), not to mention the myriads of angels. There we delight in our Mediator, our Priest-Prophet-King, who delights in us. Worship in the church is supposed to make us exceeding dissatisfied with staying here any longer than necessary, because the foretaste can't last, and we have to depart for another week of marching in the wilderness.

All saints have been "made perfect" in Christ, the saints above being even more perfected in the sense they have been fully freed from all sin-taint (but still waiting resurrection, which is the direct implication of the fact they are spirits-only).

So, no, Hebrews isn't speaking gnostically. And neither is Paul, when he says that we have salvation, and yet are being saved, and that in hope. We're not in heaven yet, and heaven (and the resurrection) is the GOAL of our salvation, the blessed presence of God, in our body, with no sin to interfere. To say that we literally possess _everything_ right now, this instant, denies the wholesome necessity of our own, individual resurrection to complete our salvation.



steadfast7 said:


> So what are we to make of "know the Lord"? Hebrews does not emphasize it, nor is there any commentary from the New Covenant perspective on this. Therefore, could it not as easily be taken as a hyperbole pointing to the idealism of the NC, as much of prophetic writings contain?


Of course, I can't help but think "word-concept-fallacy" here. The whole book of Hebrews is shot-through with warnings to the church against falling away. What is that, if not an appeal to "Know Your Lord!"?

I am deeply dissatisfied with the interpretive stance on Hebrews that understands it as written to a special, unique situation "between" the OC and NC, a "transition" book, that is literally an evangelistic appeal to uncommitted Jews to come out into the NC, and not "shrink back" into the shadows of the OC. That strikes me as a tailor-made paradigm, crafted to suit the precommitment to an overrealized eschatology. In such terms, Hebrews isn't addressed to Christian-Jews per se, and to the church (as are the rest of the NT letters) here most likely comprised of a Jewish-majority; but instead it is written to a hybrid community, not as-a-whole settled on Christ, and not fully divested of either OC participation or non-believers (which would explain the numerous warnings against falling away, and encouragements to faith in Christ who is better).

I do not share the presuppositions that support that read. Hebrews is a Christian book; it is written to a Christian, ethnically Jewish-dominant congregation; it quite possibly started out as a sermon; it is not unique, but is Apostolic preaching at its finest--it is the kind of sermon that we should hear all the time, this one possibly beginning at the text, Ps.2:7 (cf.Heb.1:5), and expositing the identity of "My Son." Christians should never tire of the gospel, it's worrisome if they do or if their shepherds neglect it by them, and they need to be warned not to fall away from Christ.

As for there being NO New Testament commentary on "know the Lord," I doubt if I can produce anything more direct than possible allusions (but the Scripture is full of such things from all over the OT). Why we must have such a thing as a direct quote and specific exposition seems like demanding a certain kind of answer, or else one won't be satisfied.

Php.3:10 "that *I may know him* and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,"
Here is Paul, considering what knowledge he had as nothing and relatively useless (sort of like the food you ate yesterday), and desirous to actually get to know Jesus (the Lord). And is this not an exhortation to the same attitude? Of course it is, v15, "Let those of us who are mature think this way." 

Heb.10:30 "For we *know him who said*, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people."
Here is the pastor, saying to his flock, "You, who claim to be Christians, you surely _know him_, then. For if you do not, then what? Then are you "of those who shrink back and are destroyed," No, but be "of those who have faith and preserve their souls" (v.39).


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Randy,
You're my brother, and I love you. And we disagree sharply on this. And I think that you are probably closer to me in many things, because of your own journeying in paths of your R&P brethren. You've been impacted deeply by RCT, and that has led you to CBT, and I'm glad you are there, and not someplace else.

And that is why I think you (of all people) can understand the difference between what a man like me means when he says the NC partakes of this world, versus what you would mean if you choose the same terms. If you, having a Baptist mind on this point, don't think the NC is _administered_ in this world; then the manner in which we, being in this world, _partake_ or _participate_ in it is discernibly different in your definition from what I mean by the words "a part of this world." I don't mean to offend.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> To just point out how the Jews would be seeing this passage is very insufficient because they missed the mark a few times.


I could care less at this point how the Pharisees and their students (the bulk of the people in Jesus' earthly days) missed the mark of understanding. They were living in the final apostasy of the OC era. I specifically said "_what Jeremiah and other OC saints anticipated_," by which I mean the true and best Messianic expectations, some of which are told explicitly in Heb.11, and elsewhere. How _should_ the *remnant* have been reading it, that is the question, and it is answered by Jesus, Jn.5:39; 3:10; Lk.24:25-27.

I agree that the passages (Jer.31 and Heb.8) are meant to shed light on each other; neither can be interpreted in a vacuum, and then brought to the other. But I think there are deeper presuppositions that you need to acknowledge. I have a presupposition that says: _Heaven is the first place where I don't need to tell my brothers, "Know the Lord."_ Another one says: _I'm not in heaven yet._ A third is: _I live at present in an evil age._

Conclusion: Jeremiah is referring ideally to a reality entirely beyond this present evil age.

I live with one foot in this age, and one foot in the next. I am a member, and a _minister,_ of the New Covenant. And I teach my NC neighbors and brethren every Sunday, in obedience to the commandment,"Know the Lord."

Perhaps you are nodding in agreement this whole way through. Then we must have a different definition or meaning or relevance of that imperative, "Know the Lord." I know we disagree on the temporal significance of (when/where) they "shall know me, from the least to the greatest." As to "who," the "all" is eschatological, it is electional. But in the period between times, we cannot (infallibly) tell the difference between those in, and those out. The threshing (Ps.1:4) is still going on.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I agree with you and I tried to show my thoughts on what Know the Lord had implication wise in a previous post in relation to the passage and how that varies in different situations as I noted here. 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> And I agree with Bruce that we should weekly encourage everyone to know the Lord. But I imagine it will be of a different degree for those who are in Christ as opposed to those who are not. For those who are in Christ this knowing will be encouragement to grow closer to him and to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord. But they will already know him on one level if they are in Christ. Jesus said in John 17:3, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." Jesus also said that we have everlasting life and have passed from Death unto life already in John 5:24. (Joh 5:24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. So then I would think that this level of Knowing God must be a given for those who are in the New Covenant as defined in Jeremiah 31 and that is how this is to be understood.



We agree a whole more than we disagree that is for sure. 

Love ya Pastor.


----------



## steadfast7

not sure if Randy already made this argument, but re: "know the Lord" isn't it the case that even in heaven, there will be no end to the call to know him? We will never cease to know him in the Php 3:10 sense. Even the glorious angels are calling out to each other night and day naming the excellencies of his holiness, and the heavens are declaring the glory of God, their voice and speech never ceasing, as if they, and we, do not already know it? In another sense can't it also be said that those of us who are regenerate and walking in the Spirit do not need to be told to "know the Lord" for we already know him. In these last days God has spoken to us in his Son, and the Spirit is already bearing witness of our adoption? All this to say that there are many ways in which "know the Lord" can be understood, but this has not hindered the author of Hebrews; this portion of Jeremiah is not an issue for him, for he is wrapped up in the perfected realities of the rest of the promise.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

steadfast7 said:


> All this to say that there are many ways in which "know the Lord" can be understood, but this has not hindered the author of Hebrews; this portion of Jeremiah is not an issue for him, for he is wrapped up in the perfected realities of the rest of the promise.



Really? The author of Hebrews is wrapped up in the perfected realities of the New Covenant?

Does that fit with the flow and purpose of the Book of Hebrews?

Not at all.

The point throughout the Book of Hebrews is the exhortation of believers to not shrink back and to continue in visible fellowship and to hold fast to their Confession. The Book is replete, prior to and after this section, with the warnings of apostasy. Yet, in a fit of ADHD, the author gets wrapped up in the perfected realities of the New Covenant. This would represent a significant departure from the theme of Hebrews where the apex of Revelation, Priesthood, and Kingship of Christ are used to exhort those in the Church to persevere in the things they have been taught and that they have no place to go back to. 

Futhermore, the author is wont to show that all the physical things they see are "passing away" and shadows of what Christ has inaugurated and to shrink back would be much greater condemnation to those who would fail to press forward. In other words, the entire Book of Hebrews can be seen as a "lesser to greater" argument that Christians might persevere because of the greatness of Christ by comparison to the things that heralded and shadowed Him and are "passing away". The letter's focus does not lend itself to the notion that authors' discussion on Hebrews 8 is to get the reader to reflect abstractly on the idea that, for those in the New Covenant, we no longer need a present exhortation. It certainly does not lend itself to the idea that the author is calling the reader to think to Himself: "Not to worry, I will never cease to know Him...those threats apply to someone else or they are completely theoretical...."

Bruce has his finger on the issue and has expressed it throughout.

One of the things that gelled for me a few years ago after studying the whole revelation through Seminary study, is the nature of the revelation of the Kingdom of God and New Covenant in the Old Testament and how that revelation is more complete in the NT.

In the Old Testament, the vantage point of Revelation sees a Day approaching where all will be fulfilled. For all intents and purposes, the Kingdom and the Day of the Lord look like a POINT in time where all will be fulfilled in one fell swoop. The Lord will judge and the Lord will bless.

When Christ comes on the scene, however, and His revelatory works dawn as well as the completion of Revelation by the Apostles, it becomes clear that where the OT might have given the impression that the Day of the Lord (or Kingdom of God) was a POINT, it is in fact a whole era between the announcement of Christ that the Kingdom is "upon you" and His coming again to consummate and finally defeat sin and death in Judgment.

The Day of the Lord is upon us and we live in the Last Days. Even in Hebrews, TODAY is the Day. The Kingdom is the Church militant as she fulfills the commission of the King to bring the Gospel to men and announce that Today is the day of salvation. We live with the confidence that Christ reigns but wait, in hope, for what we do not see, with the substance of knowing that all He has promised will come to pass. We have the more sure Revelation of these things through His death, resurrection, and ascension but are still called to look at the Saints of Old who had to wait on the Lord and His Promises. Hebrews 11 is meant to show how all the Saints had to wait, in faith, for what God would accomplish. We do likewise but are blessed to live with the fullness of God's revelation and the inauguration of the New Covenant that they could only see from afar. In a sense, they waited for the New Covenant when all would be fulfilled at once and, as I noted before, we live in the New Covenant where we see that Christ has come and is going to come again but it is not a single point in time but an era.

Thus, to look at Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31 as completely fulfilled and inaugurated is to see the NC from an OT vantage point. Presuppositions sadly inhibit men from the fuller revelation that the NT provides about the nature of the New Covenant. The Day of the Lord, the NC, the Kingdom are not a point but an _era_. The Wisdom of the Age to Come has dawned upon the Wisdom of this Age. 

The OT Prophets saw a single mountain in the distance but we now see that the NC is a mountain range because we have the vantage point of NT revelation. We live in the reality of being a part of the mountain range but know, as well, that the full consummation and our ultimate glorification is not a present reality but a hope.


----------



## steadfast7

There's nothing anti-Reformed Baptist, that I can think of, about warning apostates of doom, or calling potential wavering Christians to get back in line and keep faithful to the confession lest they be lost forever; and therefore there's nothing particularly paedobaptistic about it. Those who end up apostatizing would be reckoned as John did: "they went out from us because they were never with us..." 

If the injunctions in Hebrews are so severe, could this not actually be _evidence _that the author thinks so highly of the New Covenant, it's efficacy, and it's completeness? Indeed, observe the places where the strongest warnings appear in Hebrews: 

Chapter 6: 4For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.
...
but looks what comes right after: v. 9ff, "Though we speak in this way,* yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation.* 10 For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do. 11 And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the* full assurance of hope* until the end, 12 so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those *who through faith and patience inherit the promises.*

Again, consider, chapter 10: 37 For,

“Yet a little while,
and the coming one will come and will not delay;
38 but my righteous one shall live by faith,
and if he shrinks back,
my soul has no pleasure in him.”
...
but then, the flip side: 39 *But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.*

I agree that Hebrews is shot through with warnings, no doubt. But it's also shot through with the good news of the finished work and the full assurance that comes with it. What I see is the classic NT motif: if _A_, *how much more* _B_? if _A_ for the saints of old,* how much more *_B_ for us? Indeed, the law came through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

steadfast7 said:


> I agree that Hebrews is shot through with warnings, no doubt. But it's also shot through with the good news of the finished work and the full assurance that comes with it. What I see is the classic NT motif: if A, how much more B? if A for the saints of old, how much more B for us? Indeed, the law came through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.



But of course. I have not said otherwise. My point, however, is that the greatness of the NC is used to awaken believers to the excellencies of it that they might persevere in it and not shrink back from it. I assume you may have either missed or forgotten where I noted earlier in the thread that there is a "lesser to greater" note throughout the letter.

The specific point I'm making is that a proper NC perspective does not create an "all at once" ideal for NC believers. We are in the NC but everything promised in the NC is not yet consummated because Christ has not yet returned. We have the full assurance that these things will come to pass given the revelation of Christ and His Perfected Prophet, Priest, and King that eclipses all that came before to shadow His advent. Even so, we wait, in hope, for what we do not see yet. Thus, Hebrews 8, when speaking of the NC and quoting Jer 31, is not intended to communicate that all that Jeremiah prophesied about the NC is a present possession. Jeremiah 31 looked "telescopically" at all that the NC would fulfill and, as I noted before, from the OT vantage-point it looked like it would happen all at once. The NT makes clear that the NC is not a _point_ but an _era_. The Kingdom is among us but is not yet consummated.

When one understands this, they better understand the disciples' confusion and questions to Christ assuming that He would now fulfill everything prophesied. This even happens after the Resurrection and it is not until He sends the Spirit that they fully understand that the NC will not happen all-at-once but opens up into the Last Days. 

One could say that Jews had an over-realized eschatology with respect to expectations of the Messiah's advent and the NT straightens that out. A Baptist view that idealizes the NC as "fully realized" in its treatment of Heb 8 quoting Jer 31 suffers from the same misapprehension of NT Revelation. The NT rounds out the proper understanding of the NC as Already/Not Yet. When one misses this point, it is as if they are looking at the NC with OT eyes.


----------



## steadfast7

Here's a thought:

Has Jesus completed the stipulations of the Father given in the covenant of Redemption? 

I believe he has. He has gone into the Holy of Holies in heaven and has by his blood once for all perfected those are being sanctified. Jesus said he has completed all that the Father has given him to do. The only thing left is the manifestation of these realities on earth. If so, then doesn't it follow then, that the earthly covenants, which are subsumed under the overarching covenant of redemption, are thus completed? Therefore, we should be able to say that the NC is likewise complete. Or, is the NC something distinct altogether? 

Without a doubt, the NC is not fully _realized_, there is no disagreement there, but how can we say it has not reached its completion in Christ if Christ has indeed fulfilled the covenant of redemption? Isn't it so that the CoR is the only covenant that begins and ends in heaven, a covenant among the Godhead? everything else is an earthly covenant.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Dennis,

I'm closing the thread. Your questions have been answered. I don't know how many time you can be told the difference between the hidden things of God and the revealed things and then ignore the command of the Scriptures. We don't live by things that are in eternity and in the mind of God. Historically, the New Covenant is not yet consummated. Everything necessary to secure the benefits for those to whom the graces of the NC belong has been accomplished. The once-for-all sacrifice necessary to atone for the sin of the elect has been accomplished.

Yet, as is clear, Christ has not yet come again. He comes again not to deal with sin because He dealt with that once-for-all but He will come again to receive those Whom He has purchased. His return and the consummation of all things are part of the promise of the New Covenant. It is one Covenant but it does not happen all at once nor are we called, as creatures, to think of it as having already been consummated but as those who look for, pray for, and expectantly long for His return.


----------

