# RC Sproul on baptism



## steadfast7

Hi folks, the recent kindle free book offer, Sproul's _A Taste of Heaven: worship in the light of eternity_ devotes a couple of chapters on baptism (basic stuff that've covered here). I always get tripped up the paedo view of baptism as a promise. Here's his quote that states it plainly:


> When we are baptized the first time, we receive an outward sign of the promise of God, and when we come to faith, *God has kept His promise.* We are now born again. We are now members of the new covenant. We now enjoy in the sight of God personal identification with Jesus Christ. We now participate in His humiliation and the exaltation. What part of the promise has God failed to keep? None. (loc: 747)



As I see it, his logic is:
1. God promises salvation in baptism
2. We believe and are saved
Therefore: God has kept his promise

You see the gaping question this leaves: suppose person A _doesn't_ believe, then?
1. God has not kept his promise
2. God has kept his promise, but it doesn't mean anything
3. The idea of Baptism as a promise is misleading and unhelpful
4. ?

thoughts?


----------



## MW

Nova said:


> suppose person A _doesn't_ believe, then?


 
Romans 3:3, 4.


----------



## steadfast7

armourbearer said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> suppose person A _doesn't_ believe, then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 3:3, 4.
Click to expand...


Yes, but, isn't the sense of Sproul's logic that God's faithfulness to his promise necessarily means benefits conferred to the one baptised? If the promise is conditional and some fail to receive it by faith, then that's fine, but then Sproul is being unnecessarily confusing.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I don't know:

a. Why you're _surprised_ by Sproul's logic. It is the view of baptism in every Reformed confession.
b. Why you're tripped up by the logic.

The order is more like this:

a. In baptism, God promises salvation to everyone who believes: if you believe then I will save you.
b. Baptism signifies that faith.
c. If a person has faith, his baptism is a visible sign and seal of salvation.



Nova said:


> You see the gaping question this leaves: suppose person A doesn't believe, then?
> 1. God has not kept his promise
> 2. God has kept his promise, but it doesn't mean anything
> 3. The idea of Baptism as a promise is misleading and unhelpful
> 
> Thoughts?



Your reasoning is much like the Jewish objector to God as to why He still finds fault in Romans 9. Here's another statement in the Word:

*Believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.*

This is a promise: if A (believe) then B (salvation).

What if person does not believe?!

Here are your own conclusions based on your previous logic:

1. God has not kept his promise
2. God has kept his promise, but it doesn't mean anything
3. The idea of the Gospel as a promise is misleading and unhelpful

Do _you_ have any additional thoughts you can fill in here?


----------



## toddpedlar

Nova said:


> Hi folks, the recent kindle free book offer, Sproul's _A Taste of Heaven: worship in the light of eternity_ devotes a couple of chapters on baptism (basic stuff that've covered here). I always get tripped up the paedo view of baptism as a promise. Here's his quote that states it plainly:
> 
> 
> 
> When we are baptized the first time, we receive an outward sign of the promise of God, and when we come to faith, *God has kept His promise.* We are now born again. We are now members of the new covenant. We now enjoy in the sight of God personal identification with Jesus Christ. We now participate in His humiliation and the exaltation. What part of the promise has God failed to keep? None. (loc: 747)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I see it, his logic is:
> 1. God promises salvation in baptism
> 2. We believe and are saved
> Therefore: God has kept his promise
> 
> You see the gaping question this leaves: suppose person A _doesn't_ believe, then?
> 1. God has not kept his promise
> 2. God has kept his promise, but it doesn't mean anything
> 3. The idea of Baptism as a promise is misleading and unhelpful
> 4. ?
> 
> thoughts?
Click to expand...

 
Rich has rightly responded already, so I wont' belabor the point.

What you have misstated is point 1 of your assessment of Sproul's logic. God does NOT promise salvation to all those who are baptized in a blanket sense. Rather, salvation is promised to those who believe - and baptism is the sign and seal of that promise. (we can get into the seal bit, but only when it's clearly understood that the promise is not that all who are baptized will be saved).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Joshua said:


> Just because I exit and see a sign that says _Disney World_ doesn't necessarily mean I'm yet at Disney World, or will necessarily ever make it thereunto. (I borrowed this from my pastor)


 
I'm at Disney World right now. I have received the seal (Disney World) that the signs pointed to. Of course I'm sitting in a room hearing a lecture about E-mail in the Cloud without my kids so the Promise of fun is not yet realized but is a hope for the future.


----------



## steadfast7

Rich,
as you have written, the order is:


> a. In baptism, God promises salvation to everyone who believes: if you believe then I will save you.
> b. Baptism signifies that faith.
> c. If a person has faith, his baptism is a visible sign and seal of salvation.



my questions to the above:
a. it sounds like baptism is synomous with the gospel offer, which is freely given to all. is not baptism much more than a gospel declaration?
b. who's faith does baptism signify? the child's? how so?
c. if a child does NOT end up having faith, then what is baptism then? it is a sign and seal of nothing.

Todd, you write:


> God does NOT promise salvation to all those who are baptized in a blanket sense. Rather, salvation is promised to those who believe - and baptism is the sign and seal of that promise.



Do Reformed folk view baptism as probationary? as if to say, "here's an outward sign, for now, but we'll wait to see whether God comes through for you." I think this run counter to Sproul's position (or at least his wording). He says, "When we are baptized the first time, we receive an outward sign of the promise of God, and when we come to faith, God has kept His promise." The order here is baptism (promise) --> faith --> God is faithful. 

I cannot help but read this as baptism being a promise (not a conditional one) of something God IS going to do, and our faith being the proof of that promise. 

Indeed, I see the same confidence in the WCF:


> 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.



and also in Dort:


> Since we must make judgments about God's will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.


----------



## Steve Curtis

Nova said:


> 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.



This clause is rather relevant. The grace "is not only offered but really exhibited and conferred" *to the elect*.


----------



## toddpedlar

kainos01 said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This clause is rather relevant. The grace "is not only offered but really exhibited and conferred" *to the elect*.
Click to expand...

 
Yes - In Suk, i think this is what you missed in the Standards. It is very clear that what is offered, exhibited and conferred is given only to those
who are granted it by God's will, and no other. I think you're also misreading Dort, which does not claim that all baptized are certainly sealed with salvation.


----------



## steadfast7

thanks for the explanations. 
coming back to Sproul, does he not seem to be saying that faith is the demonstrative proof of God's faithfulness to his promise? It is as if (though we know it is not so) that those who are baptised will believe, so as to demonstrate God's promise.

So, my question, put another way. How has God kept his promise when those included in the covenant and marked with God's promise do not believe? 

I therefore see two standards operating: 
on the one hand, if an elect person is baptised, God's promise is an intentional, unconditional act
on the other hand, if a non-elect person is baptised, God's promise was only and always a conditional statement of the gospel.

am I totally off on this?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Answers the earlier post, not the immediately preceding

I'm assuming you want an answer _from our perspective._ You've already indicated that the reasoning has eluded you, but I'll offer some response...

a. The "personalism" of baptism is what sets it apart from the general word-of-the-gospel. It still is a gospel-word, the promise in figurative language. It's a learned tongue. Christians speak that language. This goes back to other conversations, Nova. WHO is the principal speaker in baptism? If you say, "the person making his statement of faith, his first step of obedience, etc." then seeing baptism _as principally a word from God_ doesn't compute. How "much" more can baptism say than a gospel-word anyway?

b. Certainly, the parent's faith is part of the significance of infant baptism (which is why infant baptism is only for Abraham's family, and not indiscriminately for all infants or dependents); parents are acting on faith in the promise: "I will be your children's God." But this is so, mainly because baptism is a church-act, before it is an individual-act. The faith of the whole church is on display. But there is also the hope that baptism proleptically has the child's faith in view. God alone is responsible for the germination of the seed of faith in a man. Who says he cannot be bringing it to life right there? He's done similarly in the past.

But we don't baptize on the basis of faith or election infallibly seen or foreseen. In fact, no one does, or else no one would ever be baptized. There are untold numbers of adults, as well as infants, who were baptized without their baptism signifying their faith--because they never had any! In the Baptist-world, there is no more empty statement than a faithless "baptism." According to that view, the church made no statement, nor spoke the manner of the thing, nor most significantly did the individual who is the key to the whole series say anything worth hearing. All is undone by the perceived apostasy.

This, once again, is another gulf of difference between us. Because we reverse the "order of significance" in who is saying what, we hold that those who have been baptized in a recognized way (even occasionally when irregularly done) are baptized, and need not and should never be rebaptized. If we did, we would be recognizing the individual's (later) faith-statement as more primary than the promise-statement that preceded it.

But when, in the case of an elect infant, his faith later comes to be seen, his baptism (though it could not reveal much to the earthly eye at the time) stands witness to the gospel that began to be preached to him as soon as he came into the world. It testifies to the believer's own faith in the promise of God.

c. I guess, I would first say: please go re-read my post on the correlative proclamations of circumcision and baptism, and either refute what I wrote, or else admit that the accusation at the end of your question is just as much an attack on infant-circumcision as on infant-baptism.

Baptism is an objective sign and seal. It doesn't depend for any individual witness for its efficiency. One, or even many, badly set signs pointing to Disneyland doesn't invalidate the true and well-placed signs. Just think how many baptized as adults have no better placement of the sign upon them than many who have been baptized as infants.

Now, in the Baptist-world, those all may be signs and seals of nothing, but to us they are still objective testimonies of the gospel. They are still witnesses, and will serve the baptized one day, for good or for ill, whether it pointed plainly enough, or was sadly marred. Because the gospel comes with a warning. "If ye believe not, ye are damned already, and will be damned eternally." The judgment-sign of baptism will witness against all those who saw it, and ignored the straight and narrow way to life, in favor of the broad path that leads to destruction. The seal is God's oath, as well as a mark of ownership. Whoever despises that mark is doubly-cursed.

You're probably not going to agree, *but* that has to do with having differences (perspectives) in how we read Scripture.


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from In Suk*


> a. it sounds like baptism is synomous with the gospel offer, which is freely given to all. is not baptism much more than a gospel declaration?



The Gospel is presented in God's Providence to all who hear it but peculiarly to those who in God's providence are born into the visible Christian Church as the offspring of Christians.



> b. who's faith does baptism signify? the child's? how so?


Baptism with water represents Christ's baptising of an individual into Himself by/with the Holy Spirit, regeneration, cleansing, etc. It represents the monegistic work of God.



> c. if a child does NOT end up having faith, then what is baptism then? it is a sign and seal of nothing.


Then what advantage has the Jew (the Christian)? Or what is the value of circumcision (baptism)? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews (the Christians) were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? (Romans 3:1-3, ESV).


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Nova said:


> thanks for the explanations.
> coming back to Sproul, does he not seem to be saying that faith is the demonstrative proof of God's faithfulness to his promise? It is as if (though we know it is not so) that those who are baptised will believe, so as to demonstrate God's promise.
> 
> So, my question, put another way. How has God kept his promise when those included in the covenant and marked with God's promise do not believe?
> 
> I therefore see two standards operating:
> on the one hand, if an elect person is baptised, God's promise is an intentional, unconditional act
> on the other hand, if a non-elect person is baptised, God's promise was only and always a conditional statement of the gospel.
> 
> am I totally off on this?


 
Sproul is saying something along this line: 
1) "I will save you, through faith in my beloved Son."
2) Faith --> yielding to
3) my recognition that "God is true to his word."

I do not see how you can justly read Sproul as asserting that anyone baptized is getting a promise that is essentially _*conditioned*_ on the baptism itself! That's reading into his words, or failing to note that the promise he points to is conditioned according to the exercise of faith, which has its origin in the hidden decrees of God for election. It is *believers* as believers who demonstrate God's blessed fulfillment of the promise in them.

How God keeps his promise is according to his eternal decree, a thing that is not within our purview. Refusing to believe entails a different sort of fulfillment of God's promise: according to the covenant of Works.

To your last statement of comparison, the promise to the elect in the gospel is just as conditional in its expression (believe and live) as it is to the reprobate. Of course, according to the decree, the determination to save or reprobate is not contingent on anything. But that issue is not relevant to the word of law or gospel. Again, this difference seems to touch on that question of the relation of baptism to an infallible expression of faith, or election. We deny baptism is essentially grounded in either. It is grounded in the gospel, which is the temporal announcement of the good news, good for this present age only.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

In Suk,

We've touched on this in a different thread. You seem to keep forgetting that this is not, precisely, an "infant thing" for the Presbyterian. It is a "nature of baptism itself thing".

That is to say that you need to stop for a minute, go back and read Sproul, or the Confession itself, speaking about an adult professor and discover what it says about baptism in general.

Baptism is not the Gospel but it placards and signifies the same object that the Gospel points to: Christ.

As I have said before, so I will say again, this notion of Baptism as a sign of God's Promise, as something announced _to_ the individual baptized, and not on the basis of _what the Church knows is exactly true_ of the individual is of dire consequence to understand.

Until that gets into your blood stream you will not understand why Baptism is a _comfort_ to a believer under the trials and accusations of Satan. I guarantee you that there will come a time in your life (if that time is not now) that you will sin greatly and you will doubt whether you have faith and, if now, did you have true faith at the time of your baptism. If baptism is nothing more than the Church telling you that they're pretty confident you're one of the elect at the time of your baptism then that says nothing about Today. If that Baptism was grounded in something Promissory from almighty God then you have every confidence in the character of the One Who made the Promise.

God's decrees are hidden in His counsel (Deut 29:29). Without something historical to ground us, we have no way of knowing anything about the Covenant of Grace in our own lives or the lives of others. We might agree with the Scriptures that God saves the elect but, apart from anything historical, we would be left with nothing to live by. God acts, by His ministers, to announce to needy sinners the kind intentions of His grace toward us.


----------



## steadfast7

Rev. B:


> I do not see how you can justly read Sproul as asserting that anyone baptized is getting a promise that is essentially conditioned on the baptism itself! That's reading into his words, or failing to note that the promise he points to is conditioned according to the exercise of faith, which has its origin in the hidden decrees of God for election. It is believers as believers who demonstrate God's blessed fulfillment of the promise in them.


 I agree that the promise he points to is conditioned on faith, but Sproul gives no hint that I can see that suggests conditionality. His words are so absolute. Rather than saying "if" we believe, he says "*when*" we believe. 

This objectivity, as you call it, is what Richard also echoes when he says,


> Baptism with water represents Christ's baptising of an individual into Himself by/with the Holy Spirit, regeneration, cleansing, etc. It represents the monegistic work of God.



Here's where I get confused. Doesn't this mean that the one baptised is baptised into Christ, regenerated, cleansed, the recipient of the monergistic work of God (unconditional)? What does baptism say about the one baptised, if not these things? 

This is why I see two meanings at work in paedobaptism: baptism is an uncondtional promise to the elect; a conditional promise to the rest. if so, that makes sense.


----------



## MW

Nova said:


> Yes, but, isn't the sense of Sproul's logic that God's faithfulness to his promise necessarily means benefits conferred to the one baptised? If the promise is conditional and some fail to receive it by faith, then that's fine, but then Sproul is being unnecessarily confusing.



Romans 3 makes it clear that the promissory sign is itself an "advantage" by virtue of the promise signified in it, that promise being contained in "the oracles of God." The very act of receiving the promissory sign confers benefits on the one who receives it. It is no small blessing to belong to the visible community of God's people and to enjoy God's promises both proclaimed and ratified by covenant. The apostle Paul specifically states that the presence of unbelief in some does not negate the "advantage" which is conferred by means of the promissory sign. The unbeliever has lied, not God. This is evident from the fact that those who have believed have been made full possessors of the things which were promised in the promissory sign.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> baptism is an uncondtional promise to the elect; a conditional promise to the rest. if so, that makes sense.



Baptism is a conditional promise to all the baptized. The condition of the promise (faith) is wrought by God in the elect and the graces signified by baptism are conferred and sealed to that individual.

To the rest, the promise is still true: if you do not believe, you are condemned.


----------



## steadfast7

armourbearer said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but, isn't the sense of Sproul's logic that God's faithfulness to his promise necessarily means benefits conferred to the one baptised? If the promise is conditional and some fail to receive it by faith, then that's fine, but then Sproul is being unnecessarily confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans 3 makes it clear that the promissory sign is itself an "advantage" by virtue of the promise signified in it, that promise being contained in "the oracles of God." The very act of receiving the promissory sign confers benefits on the one who receives it. It is no small blessing to belong to the visible community of God's people and to enjoy God's promises both proclaimed and ratified by covenant. The apostle Paul specifically states that the presence of unbelief in some does not negate the "advantage" which is conferred by means of the promissory sign. The unbeliever has lied, not God. This is evident from the fact that those who have believed have been made full possessors of the things which were promised in the promissory sign.
Click to expand...

 
Hmm, but isn't covenant inclusion essentially a spiritual thing? And therefore, the main benefits thereof ought to be spiritual, namely eternal life. However, the one who does not believe can receive no spiritual benefit, but remain dead in their sins. Are there other spiritual advantages? Also, if a covenant child does not believe, is their condemnation any worse?


----------



## MW

Nova said:


> Hmm, but isn't covenant inclusion essentially a spiritual thing? And therefore, the main benefits thereof ought to be spiritual, namely eternal life. However, the one who does not believe can receive no spiritual benefit, but remain dead in their sins. Are there other spiritual advantages? Also, if a covenant child does not believe, is their condemnation any worse?


 
I fail to see the relevance of any line of questioning which serves to cast doubt on the apostle's clear statement that the promissory sign is a distinct "advantage" even considering the lack of saving virtue in the case of those who do not believe.


----------



## steadfast7

armourbearer said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, but isn't covenant inclusion essentially a spiritual thing? And therefore, the main benefits thereof ought to be spiritual, namely eternal life. However, the one who does not believe can receive no spiritual benefit, but remain dead in their sins. Are there other spiritual advantages? Also, if a covenant child does not believe, is their condemnation any worse?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I fail to see the relevance of any line of questioning which serves to cast doubt on the apostle's clear statement that the promissory sign is a distinct "advantage" even considering the lack of saving virtue in the case of those who do not believe.
Click to expand...

 
No doubt there is the clear advantage to the Jew, who was the referent in question, in that they've been entrusted with the oracles, they belong to the Messianic line by blood, etc. There is also no doubt as to promise's advantage upon believing elect, as they receive _exactly _what the sign represents. But what does the reprobate within a covenant family receive in terms of spiritual advantage? and what does his reprobation say about covenant membership?


----------



## MW

Nova said:


> But what does the reprobate within a covenant family receive in terms of spiritual advantage? and what does his reprobation say about covenant membership?


 
Problems are bound to emerge whenever we pry into God's secret decree of election and reprobation and do not satisfy ourselves with the things which are revealed. The promises of God are given in hope of eternal life not in despair of eternal damnation. Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:17-20.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Nova,
"When" is a thoroughly conditional particle. Its principal condition is temporal, but may be used synonymously with "if" or "since." You have to read a degree of "certainty" into it. "If" is the purely conditional particle, but "when" can express the purely hypothetical, as in: "When all the runners clear the bases, the next batter steps up to the plate." You can read quite a few assumptions into those words. Was it a home run, or a double play? A play-by-play call, or something lifted from a rule book?

The point being, Sproul is writing to professed believers, from the standpoint of Reformed convictions. You have to read him in context: literary context--_and _author-audience context, confessional context, etc. You have to take the "meta" into consideration along with all the rest, especially as you come to read him possessing a well-defined alternate meta-framework.

As for your question to me, I think Rich has focused on the key point already in answer. Baptism in this world is not, it _cannot_, be indexed to election in any way whatsoever, so far as the Reformed understand it. Because election is a "sure thing," and the Spirit's baptism is a "sure thing," but ritual, water baptism is not, and never will be.

To attempt, intentionally, to conform baptism to the elect with any more precision now than in the days of Abraham is wildly optimistic, because we aren't any better at discerning spiritual status now than we were then. God determined the best focal-length for picturing his forever-people in this fallen world. He didn't leave it to us to make the picture any sharper since Pentecost, but because the Spirit was poured out, he improved the picture overall. Its no longer tin-type and washed-out, but lively and colorful. But, it's still a picture, with limits. We aren't in heaven yet.

Indexing baptism to election is an attempt to bring heaven down to earth. It's an "overrealized eschatology," an attempt to make the temporal church the church of the "saved," when it is actually the church of the "being-saved." We haven't entirely left typology behind, in passing from the OT into the NT. The presence of signs and the hope of heaven both testify to that reality. We still walk by faith, not sight.

From our standpoint, we idealize the church we *can't* see, and say "it's a perfect institution we are representing here on earth, made up (entirely) of imperfect people." Your flipped-side from us first idealizes the individual souls we can't see, and says, "The church temporal is an imperfect (mixed) institution, comprised of some perfect (elect/justified) people." That's a pretty significant change in perspective.

Sure, baptism goes on to represent gospel-implications, because salvation is the promise of the gospel. And yes, it's monergistic. You are uncomfortable with representing that _upon_ an individual, because it might not be true _for that one_? No, because then you'd be uncomfortable with baptism being given to anyone! So, you hope to gain some confidence in whether it is subjectively true for that individual by letting him "speak for himself." Well, who speaks first in monergistic salvation? Does my affirmation of my faith take priority, or God's gospel word of calling?

We'd like to think everyone who gets baptized has the hope of blessing. But that's not a reasonable hope, not even for millions who have made an empty profession as adults, and followed that with baptism. How many unregenerate people are there out there who are hardened to hearing the gospel because they were baptized after walking an aisle, and have been associated with 1st Baptist on the corner for thirty years? I'm sorry, but while the abuse of infant-baptism over the centuries produced many falsely confident in ritual salvation, since the popularity of believer's-only-baptism came to dominate in "evangelical" America, the Baptist-churches should be acknowledging about now that their preference in the ritual has not produced a church (general) that is any more believing than the "baby-sprinklers."

Water-baptism can't attach us to Christ, so all it can do is represent spiritual realities to watching eyes. It sounds like you want to make the actions of water-baptism speak in every case a definitive word about something that isn't so much promissory (of the unseen), as much as it stipulates a condition should be existing, which cannot be seen (and may prove false, and that definitive word need retraction). When I, as a believer, consider what great salvation was and is promised to me in the gospel, and in my baptism, I am as encouraged as I ever could be by ALL that which baptism symbolizes.


----------



## steadfast7

thanks Rev. B., and everyone else too. Some excellent thoughts to consider.
I guess in my baptistic optimism, I see covenant membership to mean sure salvation, and I find it mind-boggling that God might view someone as in Christ in one sense, but potentially _not _in Christ at the same time.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Nova,
What does baptism have to do with "God's view" of anything? Is that another expression of trying to bring heaven down to earth?

The two of us are simply reading the message of baptism very differently here, which is a point I've been trying to help you see (not bring about a change in your mind). You don't have to adopt my view, or I yours, so as to get inside and see what the other guy is seeing.

We're actually fairly stiffly opposed to the head-for-head concept of one being "in Christ" by external-covenant. We think that sort of language is contra-confessional. You so tightly bind the spiritual union with the public witness, that you speak of them both as one act, and certainly present. For you, to be baptized in water is to be united to Christ (for an elect person) because faith is really present (a predicate). The order of these things is absolutely critical for your system, and where it isn't properly followed, baptism has not "taken," it is not real.

And you seem to be having trouble, just here, understanding this other view; because those things that you cannot even conceive as distinct or in any other order, we on this side make room for: that a man may be baptized in water, and what God says is true, and what the man says is a lie. This can only be the case if it is possible for God to be contradicted by sinners. And while he will never be contradicted successfully by anyone eternally, temporally he is frequently (temporarily) contradicted.

For you, to speak of being "in covenant" is synonymous with being "in Christ." It's as simple as that. The one equates to the other.

For me, to speak of being "in covenant" pleads for further clarification: are we talking about deluding, deluded, delusional people who have outward covenant-marks (whether baptism, membership, profession, good deeds, etc.) but nothing of substance? Or are we talking about people with genuine faith, with or without any outward-signs?

For you, the first of my possibilities contains no covenant-relation at all. Whereas, I understand those persons to have an outward, external connection to the covenant, an "accidental" or merely formal connection, without the substance or reality. That means they are "in covenant" in a true but temporal way only, which is not healthy but damning. These people may not be said _*in any way*_ to be "in Christ." But I can say that because for me, in this sense of an exclusive outward administrations, "in covenant" and "in Christ" are not synonymous.

Now, for a believer, he may have the latter connection, and be "in the covenant of grace spiritually" while (due to bad temporal circumstances) he is not able to be tied to the external administration of the covenant. This man is "in covenant" _because_ he is "in Christ. Ideally, he will be able to find an external administration of the covenant (a church-body) to unite with, where the blessings of the covenant are present in profusion. But, in my interactions here and elsewhere, I realize that the Baptist (generally) does not acknowledge an external administration of the covenant of grace any more (if it ever existed), under the New Covenant.

As for the children of believers, we understand them already to be within the ambit of the covenant, by sovereign design, born into a believing house instead of a heathen's. And we believe God has already dictated that the outward connection (that already exists, like it or not) is properly acknowledged by the church. They are to be denominated as disciples, and treated as such: baptized and taught the faith (Mt.28:19-20). There is no _a priori_ that says, such ones will or likely will be delusional. That is a prejudicial supposition, which is not based on Scripture. In fact, it is contrary to Scripture, Prv.22:6. We have a biblically defensible expectation that such little ones that are made subject to divinely ordained means will (most likely) reap divinely ordained ends.

But we don't assume they are "in Christ." If they die, then we hope in the promise made, and obey the word that directs us not to despair. If elect, then God is able to find them "in Christ" in their death, something entailed in any human's salvation, something we should hope for in any loved one's death where there is reason to hope. But we never assume a temporal condition for an eternal.

Good night.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

In Suk,

I think, again, as I stated in another thread, you are failing to even apprehend the basic ideas being presented and I think you don't even realize the implications to your own view.



Nova said:


> I guess in my baptistic optimism, I see covenant membership to mean sure salvation, and I find it mind-boggling that God might view someone as in Christ in one sense, but potentially not in Christ at the same time.



Let's stop talking about theory here and get to practical theology.

Are you baptized?

Are you elect?

Are you in the New Covenant?

How do you know?


----------



## OPC'n

just accept it..... Sproul is always right


----------



## steadfast7

Rev B., thanks for labouring with me on this.


> For you, to speak of being "in covenant" is synonymous with being "in Christ." It's as simple as that. The one equates to the other.
> For me, to speak of being "in covenant" pleads for further clarification: are we talking about deluding, deluded, delusional people who have outward covenant-marks (whether baptism, membership, profession, good deeds, etc.) but nothing of substance? Or are we talking about people with genuine faith, with or without any outward-signs?
> 
> For you, the first of my possibilities contains no covenant-relation at all. Whereas, I understand those persons to have an outward, external connection to the covenant, an "accidental" or merely formal connection, without the substance or reality. That means they are "in covenant" in a true but temporal way only, which is not healthy but damning. These people may not be said *in any way *to be "in Christ." But I can say that because for me, in this sense of an exclusive outward administrations, "in covenant" and "in Christ" are not synonymous.



How can someone be in the New Covenant but not, *in any way*, be in Christ? I only see this as possible if there is really no relation between the external administration and the internal reality. Should we not at least attempt to bring those together? 



> What does baptism have to do with "God's view" of anything? Is that another expression of trying to bring heaven down to earth?


 I thought it had everything to do with God's view. Is covenant membership a purely external and administrative pronouncement by the church, or does it not reflect God's perspective as well? Surely it does. Paedos argue all the time that God _views _children of believing parents as holy, as covenant members.

Also, how is covenant membership "damning" for some? As Rev. Winzer noted, "The very act of receiving the promissory sign confers benefits on the one who receives it. It is no small blessing to belong to the visible community of God's people and to enjoy God's promises both proclaimed and ratified by covenant." If there is reprobation in Christ, how is this a better promise than the old covenant?

Rich, in response to your questions
Let's stop talking about theory here and get to practical theology.

Are you baptized? _Yes_

Are you elect? _Yes_

Are you in the New Covenant? _Yes_

How do you know? _The Holy Spirit testifies with mine that I am a child of God._

cheers.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> So, isn't there a sense in which those baptised are in Christ?



Yes. The Elect are in Christ.

OK, In Suk, that's the last question from you in this thread. You need to be the answerer from this point forward if you desire to participate in this thread.



Nova said:


> Are you baptized? Yes
> 
> Are you elect? Yes
> 
> Are you in the New Covenant? Yes
> 
> How do you know? The Holy Spirit testifies with mine that I am a child of God.


1. Is there anyone else in your Church who has this internal testimony of the Holy Spirit?
2. Was the Holy Spirit testifying with your spirit that you are a child of God the basis for your baptism in the Church?
3. There are many that will come to Christ on the Day of Judgment surprised they are not His. How do you know that the Spirit testifies with your spirit that you are a child of God.


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, isn't there a sense in which those baptised are in Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. The Elect are in Christ.
> 
> OK, In Suk, that's the last question from you in this thread. You need to be the answerer from this point forward if you desire to participate in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you baptized? Yes
> 
> Are you elect? Yes
> 
> Are you in the New Covenant? Yes
> 
> How do you know? The Holy Spirit testifies with mine that I am a child of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Is there anyone else in your Church who has this internal testimony of the Holy Spirit?
> 2. Was the Holy Spirit testifying with your spirit that you are a child of God the basis for your baptism in the Church?
> 3. There are many that will come to Christ on the Day of Judgment surprised they are not His. How do you know that the Spirit testifies with your spirit that you are a child of God.
Click to expand...

 
1. I would think that all who are saved have the Spirit ministering to them in this way.
2. No, the Holy Spirit does not minister on the basis of my water baptism.
3. I don't need to know how I know he testifies, I simply need to _be testified to _by him.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Semper Fidelis said:


> 1. Is there anyone else in your Church who has this internal testimony of the Holy Spirit?
> 2. Was the Holy Spirit testifying with your spirit that you are a child of God the basis for your baptism in the Church?
> 3. There are many that will come to Christ on the Day of Judgment surprised they are not His. How do you know that the Spirit testifies with your spirit that you are a child of God.


 


Nova said:


> 1. I would think that all who are saved have the Spirit ministering to them in this way.


I don't understand. Who are you talking about? I'm asking about people you know in your Church. Do _you_ know anyone who has had the Spirit minister to them in this way?


Nova said:


> 2. No, the Holy Spirit does not minister on the basis of my water baptism.


What relation does water baptism have to the New Covenant?


Nova said:


> 3. I don't need to know how I know he testifies, I simply need to _be testified to _by him.


Does the Holy Spirit operate apart from the Word and give you immediate testimony? Is this a kind of gnosis that you have?


----------



## littlepeople

2 observations, then back to lurking. Too many chefs....much better chefs than I am



Nova said:


> I see covenant membership to mean sure salvation, and I find it mind-boggling that God might view someone as in Christ in one sense, but potentially not in Christ at the same time.



1 Cor. 10 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.

In Suk, many of your objections to covenant baptism are truly objections to baptism by human hands in general. The meaning and purpose you are drawing from baptism demands that baptism only be applied to known regenerates. The obvious problem is that there are no known regenerates. It's not a state that men can rightly judge in one another. And merely professing myself to be regenerate should not constitute the level of proof that your view of baptism demands of me. I can tell you I am a millionaire, but you won't know until you peer into my bank account at the last day. If baptism was meant to be applied only to those whom we knew to be regenerate, then it is a command that was never meant to be executed. All men are either regenerate or still in bondage to sinful lying. According to your understanding of baptism and your knowledge of the natural state of man's heart, you should not be surprised if most/many of your baptism subjects are really just liars. I don't recall any New Testament command to baptize liars. Do you?

Please forgive the facetiousness of my post, I just have a hard time being succinct without a little sarcasm. The point is, your view of baptism means that baptistic churches and reformed churches are in equal error in that we both baptize those who aren't known by us to be regenerate. Except that there are way more broadly baptistic churches than reformed ones, so perhaps their error gets propogated more widely.

ok back to lurking


----------



## Peairtach

*In Suk*


> Here's where I get confused. Doesn't this mean that the one baptised is baptised into Christ, regenerated, cleansed, the recipient of the monergistic work of God (unconditional)? What does baptism say about the one baptised, if not these things?



It doesn't necessarily mean this with credo baptism either as the elders can't look into the heart of the professor. They may not be regenerate before or at the point of their baptism but may - or may not - come to faith in Christ later.

Likewise for the infants of believers. They may not be regenerate before or at the point of their baptism but may - or may not - come to faith in Christ later.

The Baptists haven't succeeded in applying baptism only to the regenerate because they can't look into people's hearts - only God can do that.

The Lord asks us to apply baptism to those who have a credible profession of faith and their children. 

The baptists are being rather narrow and legalistic in seeking to apply baptism to the regenerate elect alone. It's a ridiculous exercise in perfectionism. We're in a different eschatalogical situation to the situation before Christ's first advent but we're not in the Heavenly Eschatological Kingdom and can see who the elect are, and marriage and the human family are still with us.

E.g. _Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. (Matt 13:47-48)_

We're in the New Covenant phase of the gloriously expanding and expansive Abrahamic Covenant. It is fundamental to that Abrahamic Covenant that when adults are engrafted into it their children are also included, even if the sign is changed from circumcision to baptism.

_And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. (Genesis 12:3)_


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Is there anyone else in your Church who has this internal testimony of the Holy Spirit?
> 2. Was the Holy Spirit testifying with your spirit that you are a child of God the basis for your baptism in the Church?
> 3. There are many that will come to Christ on the Day of Judgment surprised they are not His. How do you know that the Spirit testifies with your spirit that you are a child of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nova said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I would think that all who are saved have the Spirit ministering to them in this way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't understand. Who are you talking about? I'm asking about people you know in your Church. Do _you_ know anyone who has had the Spirit minister to them in this way?
Click to expand...

Well, I haven't gone around asking lately, but I have it heard it as an answer given.


> 2. No, the Holy Spirit does not minister on the basis of my water baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> What relation does water baptism have to the New Covenant?
Click to expand...

It's a sign of fellowship with Christ, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life. The NC is the summation of these.


> 3. I don't need to know how I know he testifies, I simply need to _be testified to _by him.
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Holy Spirit operate apart from the Word and give you immediate testimony? Is this a kind of gnosis that you have?
Click to expand...


He works in conjuction with his Word, of course. Not gnosis, but Spirit-enabled faith, testimony and discernment.

Question 80: Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation?

Answer: Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavor to walk in all good conscience before him, may, without extraordinary revelation, *by faith grounded upon the truth of God's promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made, and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God*, be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation.

---------- Post added at 04:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 PM ----------

Richard and Brandon, thanks for your comments, I'll try to address them once I am permitted.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> Well, I haven't gone around asking lately, but I have it heard it as an answer given.


I didn't ask if you had heard them _say_ they had an internal testimony, I asked if you _knew_ anyone who actually possessed the reality of that internal testimony. After all you noted earlier that God is not unsure of these things.



Nova said:


> It's a sign of fellowship with Christ, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life. The NC is the summation of these.


It's a sign to whom?


Nova said:


> Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavor to walk in all good conscience before him, may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the truth of God's promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made, and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God, be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation.





Nova said:


> 3. I don't need to know how I know he testifies, I simply need to be testified to by him.


So, do you need to know how you know the Spirit testifies of these things or do you not need to know?
Why do you quote the WLC when it otherwise confuses how grace operates in your estimation? How can you be confident in its answer here when its fundamentally flawed hermeneutic on the operation of grace leads to a sign/seal sacramentology by necessity, which you reject?


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> I didn't ask if you had heard them _say_ they had an internal testimony, I asked if you _knew_ anyone who actually possessed the reality of that internal testimony. After all you noted earlier that God is not unsure of these things.


 Ohh, I see. No one can be sure of another's internal reality; only of our own.



> It's a sign to whom?


 unto the party baptised.



Nova said:


> 3. I don't need to know how I know he testifies, I simply need to be testified to by him.
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you need to know how you know the Spirit testifies of these things or do you not need to know?
Click to expand...

When you ask "how do you know the Spirit testifies to you?" I read that to mean that you are seeking something external to the Spirit (cognition, discernment, feelings, etc?) to validate that the Spirit is in fact testifying. But I say that my capacities to know are irrelevant; what He enables me to know is everything. I don't need to know _how _my inner assurance works, but only that I _am _assured by Him.



> Why do you quote the WLC when it otherwise confuses how grace operates in your estimation? How can you be confident in its answer here when its fundamentally flawed hermeneutic on the operation of grace leads to a sign/seal sacramentology by necessity, which you reject?


WLC question 80 is a fine answer that I gladly confess. Westminster doesn't own the monopoly on the inner witness of the Spirit language, and I don't think sacramentology is here necessitated.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> Ohh, I see. No one can be sure of another's internal reality; only of our own.



Does that include ministers who baptize others in the Church?



Nova said:


> unto the party baptised.



What relation does the sign have to the realities it points to for the party baptized?



Nova said:


> When you ask "how do you know the Spirit testifies to you?" I read that to mean that you are seeking something external to the Spirit (cognition, discernment, feelings, etc?) to validate that the Spirit is in fact testifying. But I say that my capacities to know are irrelevant; what He enables me to know is everything. I don't need to know how my inner assurance works, but only that I am assured by Him.


Which is it? He testifies through the Word or with nothing external?


Nova said:


> WLC question 80 is a fine answer that I gladly confess. Westminster doesn't own the monopoly on the inner witness of the Spirit language, and I don't think sacramentology is here necessitated.



The WLC is a summation of certain ideas based on a hermeneutic you reject. If you agree with it then you have agreed to the clause where it speaks of the Spirit using means to give assurance to the believer. I'm asking you how you can have confidence in its systematic summary of this doctrine. Are you aware of the necessary consequences to the various clauses about means and their relationship to sacraments?


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> Does that include ministers who baptize others in the Church?


 Yes. "another" includes them as well. Where are you going with this?



> What relation does the sign have to the realities it points to for the party baptized?


 For the elect, reality of the sign has been applied.



> Which is it? He testifies through the Word or with nothing external?


 Being the inspirer of the Word, the Word need not be considered separated categorically from the Spirit. Something external would be human reason. Reason does not validate the Spirit's work.



> The WLC is a summation of certain ideas based on a hermeneutic you reject. If you agree with it then you have agreed to the clause where it speaks of the Spirit using means to give assurance to the believer. I'm asking you how you can have confidence in its systematic summary of this doctrine. Are you aware of the necessary consequences to the various clauses about means and their relationship to sacraments?


 First, by your rationale of 'hermeneutic', a baptist (or any non Reformed person) could never, and should never agree with anything in the WLC. Second, I fail to see why the Spirit using the means of an inner witness means submitting to sacramentalism (which I am not entirely opposed to, in fact, depending on how that it's defined).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> Yes. "another" includes them as well.


Does the Church baptize on the basis of regeneration?


Nova said:


> For the elect, reality of the sign has been applied.


So what, then, does baptism signify to the rest of the Church about the party baptized?


Nova said:


> Being the inspirer of the Word, the Word need not be considered separated categorically from the Spirit. Something external would be human reason. Reason does not validate the Spirit's work.


So when you quoted the WLC:


Semper Fidelis said:


> by faith grounded upon the truth of God's promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made


Do you agree with this or not? Where are the promises of life made?



Nova said:


> irst, by your rationale of 'hermeneutic', a baptist (or any non Reformed person) could never, and should never agree with anything in the WLC. Second, I fail to see why the Spirit using the means of an inner witness means submitting to sacramentalism (which I am not entirely opposed to, in fact, depending on how that it's defined).


I didn't ask that. I asked whether you understood the hermeneutic that the WLC uses to arrive at certain conclusions where "promises of life" have a certain meaning attached to them. Are you sure you're agreeing to what you think you are agreeing to by quoting the WLC here?


----------



## steadfast7

The church baptises on the basis of a credible profession of faith, b/c faith is the alone instrument that takes hold of the promises of life which are in the gospel.

If there is a deep chasm of secret knowledge underlying the confession that only trained commentators are privy to and must explain before anyone can agree to a paragraph, then I shall need to be instructed further, but as long as simple words have simple meanings, I have confidence that 'promises of life' is the gospel offer. Even if it had the strict baptismal underpinnings as you are suggesting, this is not something that I deny. I do not deny that in baptism is a declaration of the promises of the gospel; I just think how this plays out in language gets overly optimistic and confusing, as per my OP.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> The church baptises on the basis of a credible profession of faith, b/c faith is the alone instrument that takes hold of the promises of life which are in the gospel.



Is the profession of faith the same as a faith that takes hold of the promises of life which are in the gospel?



Nova said:


> I have confidence that 'promises of life' is the gospel offer



So the Spirit uses means to testify to the believer?


Nova said:


> I do not deny that in baptism is a declaration of the promises of the gospel; I just think how this plays out in language gets overly optimistic and confusing, as per my OP.


Well, if the language is overly optimistic, I'm providing you an opportunity to demonstrate how you might demonstrate a coherent alternative where you link sign to thing signified in a baptismal candidate in a way that avoids this "optimism".


----------



## steadfast7

In credobaptism, there is the honest attempt, as far as human limitations can allow, of bringing together Christ's work and one to whom it has applied. Credobaptism does not _intentionally _bring in the unregenerate into the church, whereas paedobaptism does.

By optimism, I mean when Sproul, for example, suggests that the one baptised is regenerated, thereby demonstrating God's fulfillment of promise. It is optimistic because there is no discussion of the baptised who do not get saved.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> In credobaptism, there is the honest attempt, as far as human limitations can allow, of bringing together Christ's work and one to whom it has applied.



You didn't answer my question. I asked you if profession of faith is the same as possession of the same. Is it?

Furthermore, is it not "optimistic" of you to assume that the professor of faith possesses the reality of the same?



Nova said:


> By optimism, I mean when Sproul, for example, suggests that the one baptised is regenerated, thereby demonstrating God's fulfillment of promise. It is optimistic because there is no discussion of the baptised who do not get saved.



Could you please provide some discussion of the baptised who does not get saved in your schema?


----------



## toddpedlar

Nova said:


> In credobaptism, there is the honest attempt, as far as human limitations can allow, of bringing together Christ's work and one to whom it has applied. Credobaptism does not _intentionally _bring in the unregenerate into the church, whereas paedobaptism does.



This is an inappropriately condemning statement. Paedobaptists no more "intentionally" bring unregenerate into the
church than do credobaptists. Both should recognize that some of those they baptize are not regenerate. Both, if
rational, will recognize that they've not only baptized unregenerate elect people, but they've baptized unregenerate reprobates.
You're painting with too broad a brush, and attacking where you needn't be so offensive.



Nova said:


> By optimism, I mean when Sproul, for example, suggests that the one baptised is regenerated, thereby demonstrating God's fulfillment of promise. It is optimistic because there is no discussion of the baptised who do not get saved.


 
Just wanting to make sure you're being fair to Sproul here.

Does Sproul suggest that EVERY baptized individual is regenerated??

Where (as Rich asks) do we ever see Baptists write about those who are baptized yet turn out
to be obviously reprobate? (and please, please don't tell me that rarely if ever happens!)


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Nova said:


> ContraMundum wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> For you, to speak of being "in covenant" is synonymous with being "in Christ." It's as simple as that. The one equates to the other.
> For me, to speak of being "in covenant" pleads for further clarification: are we talking about deluding, deluded, delusional people who have outward covenant-marks (whether baptism, membership, profession, good deeds, etc.) but nothing of substance? Or are we talking about people with genuine faith, with or without any outward-signs?
> 
> For you, the first of my possibilities contains no covenant-relation at all. Whereas, I understand those persons to have an outward, external connection to the covenant, an "accidental" or merely formal connection, without the substance or reality. That means they are "in covenant" in a true but temporal way only, which is not healthy but damning. These people may not be said *in any way *to be "in Christ." But I can say that because for me, in this sense of an exclusive outward administrations, "in covenant" and "in Christ" are not synonymous.
> 
> 
> 
> How can someone be in the New Covenant but not, *in any way*, be in Christ? I only see this as possible if there is really no relation between the external administration and the internal reality. Should we not at least attempt to bring those together?
Click to expand...

But my statement was restricted to the "first possibility." It doesn't include those with "genuine faith." The "someone" in the paragraph you refer to is the deluding or deluded person--this man's in the church, he's baptized (let's just say, it was upon his profession), and he's a liar. What (if any) connection to the New Covenant does your theological understanding predicate of him? Unless I miss my guess, you will say he has NO connection, despite being a visible church member. Ergo, he's not "in Christ."

Well, I don't think he's "in Christ" either! But I also believe that the New Covenant is administered BOTH internally and infallibly (by the Spirit); AND externally and fallibly (by the church). He's "in the New Covenant" outwardly, and not inwardly. Someone who participates in _both_ administrations is "in Christ," however I do not have any access to the Spirit's membership roll. Only the one on earth; and I don't have the insight to put anyone down as "in Christ," only as "in Covenant." So, if you will just read the paragraph as written, you see how we mean to "bring those together."

I have yet to meet a Baptist who believes that the New Covenant has "visibility," in the sense of an external administration; it is wholly spiritual, perfect and ideal. Almost to a man (if they are conversant theologically), they say that ALL who are in the New Covenant are believers, ergo, all who are in the New Covenant are also "in Christ." The Baptist church doesn't "administer" the New Covenant; that is always an immediate and perfect work of Christ through his Spirit. The Baptist church contains a New Covenant gathering (the true Saints who are present), for practicing New Covenant discipline and ordinances (for the perfecting of the saints); but it is NOT the visible New Covenant Embassy, representative of the Government that at present is in "a far country."

And the Baptist church is faithful to that stance, with its view of membership. Covenant "citizenship" is claimed by individuals, and their professions are duly noted as membership. But the Baptist church does not claim those persons as New Covenant "citizens." If one is excommunicated, he is _*disowned*_, _disfellowshipped_he is not "stripped of his citizenship." He wasn't ever a citizen, and you can't lose what you never had.

But on our side, the language of "disfellowship" is strange speech, not our lingo. Excommunicates are traitors, who are stripped of their citizenship. It is something akin to someone from a terrorist organization coming to this country, and gaining citizenship, for the purposes of infiltration and sabotage. He really is a citizen, even though he's lying about his allegiance all the way through the process. When he's caught, perhaps he will be punished, then stripped of his citizenship, and deported. We could say, "You never were an American!" but the truth is, outwardly, he was. He jumped through all the hoops, and got his papers.



Nova said:


> ContraMundum wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> What does baptism have to do with "God's view" of anything? Is that another expression of trying to bring heaven down to earth?
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it had everything to do with God's view. Is covenant membership a purely external and administrative pronouncement by the church, or does it not reflect God's perspective as well? Surely it does. Paedos argue all the time that God _views _children of believing parents as holy, as covenant members.
Click to expand...

I note an equivocation on the meaning of "God's view." We don't try to replicate God's _infallible_ view of the human heart. We just baptize those whom we think he has indicated Scripturally he wants marked with HIS mark of ownership. He calls the shots, we don't question his wisdom in that. On the other hand, Scripturally he calls those children "holy," which tells us something about his historically expressed "perspective" regarding such persons.



Nova said:


> Also, how is covenant membership "damning" for some? As Rev. Winzer noted, "The very act of receiving the promissory sign confers benefits on the one who receives it. It is no small blessing to belong to the visible community of God's people and to enjoy God's promises both proclaimed and ratified by covenant." If there is reprobation in Christ, how is this a better promise than the old covenant?


Those are not _eternal_ benefits, but the fact that "to him that has nothing, even the little he has will be taken away from him," doesn't unmake the benefit. The book of Hebrews tells us of those who have tasted the very real benefits of the age to come, and who fall away. That letter is replete with warnings to professing Christians.

And your final line? You've simply repeated your opening position, that to be "in the New Covenant" equals being "in Christ." I rejected your equation. There is no reprobation "in Christ." But since I believe in an outward form for the New Covenant, I can say that outward-only participants are in danger of damnation, just as certain professing Christians in Hebrews were. The New Covenant is "better" principally because of the finished work of Christ and the outpouring of Holy Spirit. He's not just working mainly in one tiny nation of the world with an eyedropper; he's doing more and saving more now than ever.


Hope that explains more from this perspective.


----------



## steadfast7

Profession of faith is not the same as the possession of the reality. Indeed, no one can know who's elect, there's no denying that. But what I see in the baptist scheme is the desire and effort to unify the external administration with the internal reality, the visible church with the invisible. I think we all agree that it would be ideal if we could SEE objective grace and election in individuals, baptise THEM and bring THEM and ONLY THEM into the church. This would be reasonable, for in the eschaton, there will be no distinction any longer, no impurity, no discrepancy. Todd, your adverse reaction to the charge that paedos admit unregenerates into the Church confirms this correct desire to see One Holy Catholic Church; one communion of Saints.

Baptists, infallible and gullible though they are, are _trying _to filter out unregenerates from the wedding ceremony. It's simple isn't it? Two systems: one has a screening process, the other doesn't. Which one will let in more undesirables? 

I don't think it's inappropriately condemning to say that paedos intentionally bring in unregenerates into the Church, more so than credos. First, most of us believe that regeneration usually occurs close to the time someone believes, and although God can regenerate infants, most are regenerated later. Therefore, infant baptism tends to baptise those who are not yet regenerate. Second, according to canon, paedos MUST baptise and admit EVERY infant of one believing parent. So say there are 10 infants to be baptised, and 2 are not elect. The fact they are all commanded to be baptised and pronounced with the same blessing of membership, this imperative suggests intentionality. You brought them in knowing that some will not receive the reality. I don't see why the God, or the Church should want that, unless there were some instrumental or advantageous reason to create a church of a mixed flock of sheep and goats?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Nova,
How can you say we don't have a "screening process"? We don't baptize "just anybody," and we don't baptize just anyone's dependents. And we DON'T have sight to see the invisible, and we never shall. Ever. So hypothesizing about what would be ideal is futile. We don't base our estimate about how we SHOULD be doing baptism on what we would LIKE to be doing (such as maybe baptizing only elect people). We have a impure church on earth, and that's all we will ever have on earth.

You're claiming to have a better (finer?) screen you're using versus the one we use. That's it. It's theoretically possible that you may screen out more unregenerate persons in the initial process, however there isn't really any objective way to determine even that for certain, and it cannot be demonstrated at all over the long-term.

And, in the process your chosen method _necessarily screens out_ an indeterminate number of God's children from among the total offspring who belong to the faithful. Obviously, this reading goes back to a disagreement over the nature of the Abrahamic covenant; but our position is that God long ago chose, in the case of children of believers, to err on the side of inclusion and visible mercy, rather than on the side of exclusion and visible hostility. Will this method let in "undesirables": Esaus and Ishmaels, Judases along with Peters? Yes. That's what the OT church did, and what similar acts do now.

If we're all supposed to be flagellating ourselves, I guess this is where I'm supposed to say, "Presbyterians, fallible and gullible as we are, we don't try to be wiser than God, and pick a better screen than he."

In Todd's defense, I think his reaction is against the pejorative statement that we "knowingly" and "intentionally" include the unregenerate in our churches. Which is nonsense, since 1) we are simply obeying the command (as we hear it), and both your side and ours "know" that some of those we baptize are untrue to God; and 2) we practice church discipline, which may lead to the removal at the last extremity of the unrepentant sinner--we deal with those we think may be evidencing "unregeneracy" (although they may not be, ultimately). We have to cut them out of the visible covenant, so that their souls may be delivered in the Day of Judgment.

As for your rationalist proposal that the Baptist has the superior method of constituting the church and preserving church discipline, I would humbly ask for the empirical data that backs up that contention. Alternatively, I would like to know the biblical texts that provide the propositions that lead to the logical conclusions you have offered. I'm really not interested in "common-sense" expectations, which cannot be reliable guides in spiritual things. TNX.


----------



## Peairtach

The reformed baptists don't seem to realise that there are inner and outer aspects to the Covenant and that there is the visible and invisible Church.

When someone is baptised in a reformed baptist church and they subsequently fall away, is that person's profession of faith deprived of all meaning in reformed baptist theology? They were never in the Covenant _in any sense_? Leaving aside the question of paedobaptism, this is not the position in the New Testament, where it is indicated that it would be better not to profess faith in Christ, rather than profess faith in Christ and subsequently turn away from Him. 

If this is the view of the Reformed Baptists, they obviously (over) reacted to paedobaptism in order to avoid the implications of the fact that there are outer as well as inner aspects to the Covenant of Grace, and that unsaved people can indeed - either properly or improperly - be in the Covenant of Grace and the Visible Church, not only in the Old Covenant period but also today.

Do we say that when a husband proves to be a bad husband, that he was never a husband _in any sense_?

*Quote from Nova*


> then how can some (unregenerates) enjoy some external benefits of membership but not take hold of all?



The Spirit of God can work in the elect before they are converted by common grace in a covenantal way. See e.g. Guthrie's "Christian's Great Interest.'' 

God - in the administration of the Covenant of Grace _in history not in eternity_- wants the children of those who have a credible profession of faith to be baptised. He does not tell the minister beforehand whether this child is regenerate or even elect. 

The secret things belong to God, not to the paedobaptists or the reformed baptists.



> I find this odd, because paedos confess that baptism is both the sign and seal, so I don't see how one baptised can receive the sign but not end up sealed.



Someone growing up in the Covenant of Grace doesn't fully appreciate his baptism as a sign and seal until he is regenerate and has saving faith. And even after coming to faith in Christ we learn further the meaning of the sacraments. 

This doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit can't use that baptism before he/she is converted, explained to him from the pulpit and in the home, along with the Word of God, as a means to lead him to faith.



> Perhaps this has a lot to do with culture and context of the early Reformed churches, who did not conceive of covenant children rebelling against the faith, but this is a very relevant question in our context, don't you think?



I think the reformers - who it is safe to say - knew their Bibles well, conceived of covenant children rebelling against the faith. We only have to site the generation of Jews that rejected the message of our Lord. In the covenant but not of the covenant apart from a relatively small number.


----------



## Phil D.

Nova said:


> I think it can be argued that although the concept of dual aspects to the covenant is present in Reformed theology, it was not as prominent in early thought.


 
The prominent Westminster divine Samuel Rutherford wrote:

"Persons are two ways in Covenant with God, [1] externally by visible profession, and conditionally, not in reference to the Covenant, but to the things promised in Covenant, which none obtains, but such as fulfill the condition of the Covenant...And, [2.] Infants born of Covenanted parents are in Covenant with God, because they are born of such parents, as are in Covenant with God.

...The Lord promiseth life and forgiveness shall be given to these who are externally in the covenant, providing they believe, but the Lord promiseth not a new heart and grace to believe to these who are only externally in Covenant. And yet he promiseth both to the elect...Hence the Covenant must be considered two ways, [1] in abstracto and formally...so [i.e., ‘and in this way’] all within the Visible Church are in the Covenant of Grace…[2.] In the concrete…as the Lord not only promises, but acts and engraves the Law in the heart, commensurably with the decree of Election, so the elect only are under the Covenant of Grace. (_The Covenant of Life Opened: or, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace_, [Edinburgh, 1655])​


----------



## Semper Fidelis

In Suk: I did not grant you permission to do anything but answer questions. Subsequent posts have been deleted.


Nova said:


> But what I see in the baptist scheme is the desire and effort to unify the external administration with the internal reality, the visible church with the invisible.


Please provide a single Scripture where an Apostle or Christ expresses the "desire" and "effort" to unify the external administration to the internal reality.


Nova said:


> I think we all agree that it would be ideal if we could SEE objective grace and election in individuals, baptise THEM and bring THEM and ONLY THEM into the church.


We don't all agree. You see, the world we have and the knowledge we possess have been ordained of God. Do you claim to know better than God that you cannot know the names of the elect and we are left wanting on the basis of His determined counsel? Where, again, has God required the Church to bring the Elect, and them only, into the Church? Where is their Apostolic example of the same?


Nova said:


> First, most of us believe that regeneration usually occurs close to the time someone believes, and although God can regenerate infants, most are regenerated later.


Which is it, In Suk? You know who is elect or you do not? Do you know, contra John 3, where the Spirit blows? Where, again, in the Scriptures do you find that regeneration "usually" occurs close to the time someone believes?

Secondly, you are again being sloppy in your terminology. You said "believes" but you probably mean to say "professes". You have already admitted the two are not the same.


Nova said:


> Therefore, infant baptism tends to baptise those who are not yet regenerate.


Because you have the mind of God you know this? Or do you have some other kind of Scriptural warrant for this where you know the identity or the timing of those regenerated?



Nova said:


> So say there are 10 infants to be baptised, and 2 are not elect. The fact they are all commanded to be baptised and pronounced with the same blessing of membership, this imperative suggests intentionality.


Premise 1: The Baptist minister does not know whether _any_ are elect.
Premise 2: The Baptist minister baptizes _every_ man who professes.
Conclusion (In Suk's logic): The Baptist is _intentionally_ baptizing the unregenerate.


Nova said:


> I don't see why the God, or the Church should want that, unless there were some instrumental or advantageous reason to create a church of a mixed flock of sheep and goats?


Perhaps you ought to start quoting some Scripture instead of presenting a rationalistic schema where you _speculate_ what God would or would not like.
1. Has God given a Baptist Church knowledge of who the sheep or the goats are?
2. What advantage is there for the Baptist, who follows your reasoning, to baptize a single soul?


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> Please provide a single Scripture where an Apostle or Christ expresses the "desire" and "effort" to unify the external administration to the internal reality.



Anachronistic. All that is required by the NT is evidence that the visible church ought to be the invisible church, and that Church ought to be working toward it. Eph 4:11 "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13*until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,* 14so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes."

There is also evidence from the fact that the Apostles are addressing the elect in their ministry. They are thinking of the ideal church, the invisible church, the elect, when they minister. They do not conceive of the mixture as being in any way ideal. eg. 1 Peter: "1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, *To those who are elect *exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood ..."

Titus 1 "1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, *for the sake of the faith of God’s elect *and their knowledge of the truth..."



> Where, again, has God required the Church to bring the Elect, and them only, into the Church? Where is their Apostolic example of the same?


 It's the elect who ARE the Church. God has required the Church to BE the Church, and God's servants, like Paul, "endure everything *for the sake of the elect*, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory" (2 Tim 2:10). Paul doesn't know who the elect are, but he sets the this ideal Church before him in his mind and ministry and serves them.



> Which is it, In Suk? You know who is elect or you do not? Do you know, contra John 3, where the Spirit blows? Where, again, in the Scriptures do you find that regeneration "usually" occurs close to the time someone believes?


 This has been answered already. NO ONE KNOWS WHO'S ELECT. But no one, paedo or credo, baptises an adult without profession of faith or an indication of fruit bearing. The Reformed have varying views regarding the time of regeneration. I'm entitled to hold to a view.



> Premise 1: The Baptist minister does not know whether _any_ are elect.
> Premise 2: The Baptist minister baptizes _every_ man who professes.
> Conclusion (In Suk's logic): The Baptist is _intentionally_ baptizing the unregenerate.



A gross misrepresentation. This was NOT the logic put forward. 
1. Presbyterian minister baptizes all infants of believers
2. Not all infants of believers are regenerate
3. Presbyterian minister baptizes unregenerate infants

No one said anything about Baptists baptizing EVERY professor; that is your caricature. However, it is true that a Presbyterian MUST baptise EVERY infant of a believing parent.

I'm done with the thread, Rich. I'm not one for confrontation and I'm saddened at this turn of events. Sorry if I offended anyone.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> Anachronistic. All that is required by the NT is evidence that the visible church ought to be the invisible church, and that Church ought to be working toward it. Eph 4:11 "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes."
> 
> There is also evidence from the fact that the Apostles are addressing the elect in their ministry. They are thinking of the ideal church, the invisible church, the elect, when they minister. They do not conceive of the mixture as being in any way ideal. eg. 1 Peter: "1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood ..."
> 
> Titus 1 "1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth..."



1. Anachronistic? You don't have to base your desires or efforts upon didactic teaching from the Scriptures?

2. Here's In Suk's reasoning:
a. The Apostles don't know who the Elect were...
b. The Apostles knew who the Elect were when they addressed them in letters.

3. In Ephesians 4, did you notice the word "until" in the passage - it is a hope and not a present reality. If anything, you quote a verse that would demonstrate admixture.

4. Whether the work is for the elect does not imply they did not baptize the unelect or that their chief end in baptism was to avoid the same. Paul served alongside in the ministry with men who he later notes have completely rejected the faith. The apostles also address many people beside the elect in the Scriptures (at least we do not know).



Nova said:


> It's the elect who ARE the Church. God has required the Church to BE the Church, and God's servants, like Paul, "endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory" (2 Tim 2:10). Paul doesn't know who the elect are, but he sets the this ideal Church before him in his mind and ministry and serves them.




Notice the eisogesis in play here: Paul says he works everything for the sake of the elect, In Suk says that the elect ARE the Church.

In Suk: You are certain you are Elect. Who else is in "The Church" at Grace Community Church? Why do you call it a "Church"? Ought you not call it something else unless you're sure _everyone_ is elect?

Except, as you will exclaim below, you cannot.



Nova said:


> This has been answered already. NO ONE KNOWS WHO'S ELECT. But no one, paedo or credo, baptises an adult without profession of faith or an indication of fruit bearing. The Reformed have varying views regarding the time of regeneration. I'm entitled to hold to a view.



It's been answered and then you jump, irrationally, to statements where you claim to know the elect or the timing of their regeneration. If you are frustrated then it is only a reflection of you own inconsistency of expression and presentation.

Actually, on this board, you are not entitled to any view contra a Confession and your view is un-Confessional from a paedo and credo Confessional view. You are not entitled to violate the Word of God and speculate on things hidden (Deut 29:29).



Nova said:


> A gross misrepresentation. This was NOT the logic put forward.
> 1. Presbyterian minister baptizes all infants of believers
> 2. Not all infants of believers are regenerate
> 3. Presbyterian minister baptizes unregenerate infants
> 
> No one said anything about Baptists baptizing EVERY professor; that is your caricature. However, it is true that a Presbyterian MUST baptise EVERY infant of a believing parent.



Again, In Suk is frustrated but states that Presbyterians KNOW who the regenerate and unregenerate are. Either that or In Suk knows. Perhaps you can reply in ALL CAPS that you do NOT know know the identity of the regenerate again and then we'll all wonder how you wrote the above. Furthermore, Baptist ministers do, in fact, baptize, every person that they believe gives a credible confession (as do Presbyterians).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Been staying out of these discussions for the most part. Just thought I would throw this in for fire. LOL



> LBCF xiv 3.
> This faith, although it be different in degrees, and may be weak or strong, yet it is in the least degree of it different in the kind or nature of it, as is all other saving grace, *from the faith and common grace of temporary believers*; and therefore, though it may be many times assailed and weakened, yet it gets the victory, growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.





> The real 1689 LBCF
> Chapter 26: Of the Church
> 1._____ The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) *may be called invisible*, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
> ( Hebrews 12:23; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:10, 22, 23; Ephesians 5:23, 27, 32 )
> 
> 2._____ All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called *visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.*
> ( 1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 11:26; Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:20-22 )
> 
> 3._____ The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.
> ( 1 Corinthians 5; Revelation 2; Revelation 3; Revelation 18:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12; Matthew 16:18; Psalms 72:17; Psalm 102:28; Revelation 12:17 )


----------



## Peairtach

Well that shows that the Reformed Baptists recognise the visible and invisible churches, Randy. But in correspondence to that do they recognise invisible and visible aspects to the Covenant?

E.g. Abraham was in covenant with God in his heart ("invisibly") long before he was circumcised in his body.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Richard Tallach said:


> Well that shows that the Reformed Baptists recognise the visible and invisible churches, Randy. But in correspondence to that do they recognise invisible and visible aspects to the Covenant?
> 
> E.g. Abraham was in covenant with God in his heart ("invisibly") long before he was circumcised in his body.



I am not sure what you are asking about in your first question Rich. I think I know the answer but want you to be more specific with your question before I answer. 

Yes, Abraham was justified by his faith before He received the Covenant of Circumcision. He was included in the Covenant of Grace as one given to Christ by the Father. But as we have discussed this before I believe their are mingled Covenants administered through the Abrahamic and Mosaic. Is the CofW included? I don't believe so in its First administration. But there is "Do This and Live" content in those covenants which do resemble the Covenant of Works.


----------



## Peairtach

> I am not sure what you are asking about in your first question Rich. I think I know the answer but want you to be more specific with your question before I answer.



Remind of the best place(s) online to get the Reformed Baptist take on the Covenant and baptism.

If someone proves to be unregenerate after they have been baptised in a Reformed Baptist church, do you believe that they were/are in any sense in the Covenant - e.g. outwardly but not inwardly, legally in the bond of the covenant but without the life, visibly but not internally?

If someone is converted after they have been baptised in a Reformed Baptist church, do you have to baptise them again?



> 2._____ All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.
> ( 1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 11:26; Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:20-22 )



Presbyterians would hold that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Liberals, Evangelicals and Reformed, Pentecostals, etc, are part of the Visible Church at its broadest, but ideally massive dead wood in the Visible Church should be greatly pruned back by church sanctions to make way for greater real and living growth.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Richard Tallach said:


> I am not sure what you are asking about in your first question Rich. I think I know the answer but want you to be more specific with your question before I answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remind of the best place(s) online to get the Reformed Baptist take on the Covenant and baptism.
Click to expand...

Man, I must be a glutton for punishment. This is my third time posting this. I keep getting logged off. 

In response to your first statement and or question I would recommend a book that is online at google books now. 
Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New ... - Google Books


Richard Tallach said:


> If someone proves to be unregenerate after they have been baptised in a Reformed Baptist church, do you believe that they were/are in any sense in the Covenant - e.g. outwardly but not inwardly, legally in the bond of the covenant but without the life, visibly but not internally?



NO. I do not. 
Just because something is in a cookie jar doesn't make it a cookie. I believe the RB Church has discussed this topic extensively and Dr. Gary Crampton in his new book does a bang up job on this. I recommend you get a copy to understand his position from a Confessional position. It is done from a Confessional direction and as one who was a Presbyterian for many years. 
I would also take you to understand that just because you claim to be an American Citizen doesn't necessarily make you one. We have many illegal aliens who have crept in unawares seeking out the liberties and benefits. Also some come in looking like American Citizens but in their hearts they are not. They are called illegal aliens. God knows who are HIS. 



> (Rom 8:9) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. *Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.*





> (Gal 2:4) And that because of false brethren *unawares* brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
> 
> (Gal 2:5) To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
> 
> Also remember Titus 1:4





> (1Jn 2:19) They went out from us, *but they were not of us*; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.





Richard Tallach said:


> If someone is converted after they have been baptised in a Reformed Baptist church, do you have to baptise them again?


I would leave that to the Elders. Early Particular Baptist struggled with allowing Paedobaptist baptisms in their church memberships after conversion. Bunyan would. So would many Particular Baptists. But not all of them. I believe Nehemiah Coxe had a problem with it. But to address your question. I would leave it to the Elders of a Congregation to weigh the matter. I was rebaptized because I was baptized under false pretenses the first time I was baptized. I state it this way because not every congregation would see things the same way just as Paedo Covenantalists doesn't. I will prove my point in the next question.



Richard Tallach said:


> 2._____ All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.
> ( 1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 11:26; Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:20-22 )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presbyterians would hold that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Liberals, Evangelicals and Reformed, Pentecostals, etc, are part of the Visible Church at its broadest, but ideally massive dead wood in the Visible Church should be greatly pruned back by church sanctions to make way for greater real and living growth.
Click to expand...


I don't believe you are truly representing the whole here. I don't think you are trying to lie or misrepresent. But I know many Presbyterians who do not accept what you have said. They do not believe that the baptism of apostate organizations such as the RCC or other wayward groups are true baptism. T. H. Thornwell has written a wonderful book on this topic. 
The Collected Writings of James ... - Google Books

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/validity-roman-catholic-eastern-orthodox-baptisms-37009/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/redo-rc-baptism-valid-41300/
Everyone doesn't agree here.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Something else I have thought about.... I don't think others understand the differences in Church membership. I have been involved with Presbyterians for many many years. Something missing from this discussion is Communicate Membership as opposed... well not really opposed... just membership. One acknowledges a Confession of faith and the fulfillment of ones confession and discipline. The other is looking and discipling toward it.


----------



## Spinningplates2

Thanks for the lesson in patience.


----------



## Peairtach

Thanks for the info, Randy.



> NO. I do not.
> Just because something is in a cookie jar doesn't make it a cookie.



What about the example of the couple that are properly married and then it turns out that the husband doesn't love the wife and never has? Would we say that the husband isn't a husband _in any sense?_.

People enter covenantal relationships who shouldn't; that doesn't mean that they have not in some sense entered a covenantal relationship.

What about the Jew - of Paul's day, for argument's sake - who wasn't a Jew internally? Should we say that they weren't Jews in any sense? Surely the fact that they were Jews in one sense made their lack of faith and repentance a greater crime against God?



> Yes, Abraham was justified by his faith before He received the Covenant of Circumcision. He was included in the Covenant of Grace as one given to Christ by the Father. But as we have discussed this before I believe their are mingled Covenants administered through the Abrahamic and Mosaic. Is the CofW included? I don't believe so in its First administration. But there is "Do This and Live" content in those covenants which do resemble the Covenant of Works.



Abraham was in a sense in covenant with God before his circumcision.

I - at present - can't see any RoCoW in Moses, and how is it to be extended back to Abraham, when the law wasn't republished until Moses? 

There may sometimes be a hypothetical proclamation and presentation of the law as a CoW in Moses (e.g. Leviticus 18), not as a RoCoW, which would mean that God was entering a CoW with the Israelites/and wanted them to enter into it, but in order to remind them of the impossibility of salvation in that way. 

Our Lord Jesus does similar with e.g. the Rich Young Ruler, thus authorising generations of Gospel preachers to do the same, but would we say that the New Covenant was, or contained, a RoCoW?

A hypothetical presentation of the law as a CoW should not be called a RoCoW, nor should the typological teaching aid of the possibility of being exiled from the Holy Land. These were all given in God's grace to sinners to teach them, and ultimately to lead to the salvation of the elect among Israel.

In the case of Adam, the CoW was given in God's bountful goodness ("grace" if you like, although it is somewhat confusing to use the word "grace" with respect to the CoW) to a man who hadn't sinned and was capable of keeping a CoW.

Eden and Sinai are like chalk and cheese.


----------



## ronlsb

I hate to be so bold as to express something differently than Dr. Sproul, but I would say baptism, like circumcision before it, is a sign and seal of the righteousness of God which comes to all who have faith in the gospel promise. Just as Isacc did not possess this faith when he was circumsized but attained it at a later age, so it is with children who receive the sign now as infants. They begin to possess the righteousness of God when they come to saving faith, just as Isaac did. Why the sign then, one might ask, if it might all be for nought? Answer--Clearly there are great advantages to being raised by Godly parents assisted by a congregation of believers. The apostle Paul spells out such advantages to the Jews in the Old Covenant simply because they were circumsized and part of God's chosen people. Conversely, if the individual who was baptized and raised in this environment never comes to faith, his condemnation on judgment day will be much greater than he who was never baptized, just as the fate of the unbelieving Jew would be much more severe than a Gentile who was never circumsized. 

Despite our differences with my baptistic brothers, there are many similiarities with their view of the sacrament and ours. Many are baptized and accepted as members of the church, thus enjoying its benefits, who will ultimately not possess true saving faith. Like the individuals mentioned above who were baptized as infants, their punishment will be much greater for having had the blessings that come with the sign and yet ultimately rejecting Christ and never actually possessing the righteousness of God as a result. One of the big differences between the camps is that padeo baptists view the sign as a promise of God and His righteousness to all who trust Christ (thus, the sign is about God, not man), rather than the baptist view that the sign is about man (and a public declaration than he has believed in Christ). One of the reasons I am a Presbyterian is that I feel I am standing on much safer ground to view both the sacraments as picturing God and the promises of Christ rather than a picture of what a man has done in response to the gospel, as wonderful as that may be. I am fully assured that Abraham would have had the exact view of both circumcision and the passover, which, with the death and resurrection of Christ, have now been replaced with baptism and the Lord's supper (obvioulsy there being no more need to shed blood). Blessings!


----------



## Iconoclast

ronlsb said:


> One of the reasons I am a Presbyterian is that I feel I am standing on much safer ground to view both the sacraments as picturing God and the promises of Christ rather than a picture of what a man has done in response to the gospel



Hello Ronslb,
Baptists who are thinking biblically would not believe that baptism is a picture of what a man has done in response to the gospel[/quote]

We believe that baptism is the proper biblical confession of what*God has done* to the man,drawing him savingly to himself,allowing and enabling him to savingly believe.


----------



## Marrow Man

Ronlsb, please fix your signature (see the link in my signature below). Thanks.


----------



## Peairtach

Thanks for the contribution, ron.



> Just as Isacc did not possess this faith when he was circumsized but attained it at a later age,



As far as I'm aware we don't know at what point in his life Isaac believed. He could have believed in the womb, after his birth, at his circumcision or after his circumcison.



> Despite our differences with my baptistic brothers, there are many similiarities with their view of the sacrament and ours.



Although baptism isn't applied to covenant children in baptist families as it should be, those children do have the lesser benefit of being present at the baptisms of others.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Richard. 

We both can accuse each other of not being biblical. I am not sure that is going to help the conversation. Abraham's children were included in two different aspects concerning the Covenant of Promise in the Seed (ie. Covenant of Grace) and the Covenantal Promises laid out concerning the promises for Abraham and his general posterity. There is a "cutting off" spelled out to those who are born in Abraham's stead just as there is in the Mosaic. As I said before. It is not the Covenant of Works. It has semblance to it though. So I think your last post is going off the rails a bit. You haven't proven much to me.


----------

