# Question about covenant theology



## Fogetaboutit

I've been looking into covenant theology lately and I have a few questions regarding the CredoBaptist vs PaedoBaptist interpretations.

I'm a novice at this and I would like to have some clarifications.

- Was there always a set covenant community (visible congragation). By this I mean was there a covenant community prior to Abraham? Did the descendants of Seth formed a covenantal community as opposed the the descendants of Cain? How about after the flood until Abraham? 

- In the New Testament we see that the New Testament "Chruch" is the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant community. If baptism replaces circumcision as a seal of this covenant, at what time did the switch occur? At the begining of John's ministry or only after Christ resurection? Is the Baptism of John the same as the one Peter referred to in Acts 2:38-39? If there is a difference, what did the Baptism of John represent as opposed to the baptism administered by the Apostles after the resurection of Christ? If there's no difference does it mean the administration of the New Testament replaced the Old prior to Christ's death and resurection?

- Am I right when I say that the CredoBaptist interpretation is that only the elects (or confirmed believers) should be considered as part of the New Testament covenant community and receive the physical seal of baptism? If so does this mean they do not believe in the concept of a visible and invisible church? If so how do you interpret the passages that refer to people being cut of from the covenant if you hold to a calvinistic soteriology? how do you view the familly of believers in light of this fact? Did the headship of the familly changed with the New Testament administration of the CoG?

- On the other hand in the paedobaptist view, if an adult man coverts to Christianity should his unconverted wife be also baptised along with all his children still living under this roof no matter how old they are? What about times or places where slavery is/was legal, would the slaves be also baptised? If an adult Women converts to Christianity should the children be baptised if her husband refused to have them baptised?

Thanks,


----------



## Unoriginalname




----------



## timmopussycat

Fogetaboutit said:


> I've been looking into covenant theology lately and I have a few questions regarding the CredoBaptist vs PaedoBaptist interpretations.
> . . .
> I'm a novice at this and I would like to have some clarifications.
> - Was there always a set covenant community (visible congragation). By this I mean was there a covenant community prior to Abraham? Did the descendants of Seth formed a covenantal community as opposed the the descendants of Cain? How about after the flood until Abraham?



Those better informed may differ, but I don't think the Bible is explicit as to whether such a community was formally established prior to Abraham.



Fogetaboutit said:


> - In the New Testament we see that the New Testament "Church" is the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant community. If baptism replaces circumcision as a seal of this covenant, at what time did the switch occur? At the begining of John's ministry or only after Christ resurection? Is the Baptism of John the same as the one Peter referred to in Acts 2:38-39? If there is a difference, what did the Baptism of John represent as opposed to the baptism administered by the Apostles after the resurection of Christ? If there's no difference does it mean the administration of the New Testament replaced the Old prior to Christ's death and resurection?



It would appear that the switch occurred after Christ's resurrection and the giving of the Great Commission (Matt 28:19). That there is a difference between John's baptism and Christian baptism is certain from Acts 19:1-5.


---------- Post added at 10:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 AM ----------




Fogetaboutit said:


> - In the New Testament we see that the New Testament "Church" is the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant community. If baptism replaces circumcision as a seal of this covenant, at what time did the switch occur? At the begining of John's ministry or only after Christ resurection? Is the Baptism of John the same as the one Peter referred to in Acts 2:38-39? If there is a difference, what did the Baptism of John represent as opposed to the baptism administered by the Apostles after the resurection of Christ? If there's no difference does it mean the administration of the New Testament replaced the Old prior to Christ's death and resurection?



It would appear that the switch occurred after Christ's resurrection and the giving of the Great Commission (Matt 28:19). That there is a difference between John's baptism and Christian baptism is certain from Acts 19:1-5.



Fogetaboutit said:


> - Am I right when I say that the CredoBaptist interpretation is that only the elects (or confirmed believers) should be considered as part of the New Testament covenant community and receive the physical seal of baptism? If so does this mean they do not believe in the concept of a visible and invisible church? If so how do you interpret the passages that refer to people being cut of from the covenant if you hold to a calvinistic soteriology? how do you view the familly of believers in light of this fact? Did the headship of the familly changed with the New Testament administration of the CoG?



You are not quite right in your first sentence. The CB understanding is that only those who profess faith can be recognized as members of the covenant community and receive the physical sign of baptism. (We recognize that the living elect includes those who have professed faith and those who have yet to do so.) We certainly believe in the concepts of the invisible and visible church; see the 1689 Old London Confession which says: 



OLC 26 said:


> 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.
> 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.



For us the visible church is all churches formed by visible saints.



Fogetaboutit said:


> . . . how do [cb's] interpret the passages that refer to people being cut of from the covenant if you hold to a calvinistic soteriology? how do you view the familly of believers in light of this fact? Did the headship of the familly change with the New Testament administration of the CoG?



I think we interpret such passages the same way calvinist pb's do. We view families of believers as possibly elect and we evangelize them as we do everybody else. Because children are under parent's control they are evangelized in a more intimate and personal way than is possible towards friends and acquaintances. We see no changes to the role of family head, as such, except that we recognize that each member of the family must profess faith before receiving the visible sign of the covenant.


----------



## Zach

I've been kicking around some of the same questions. Particularly regarding the Covenant Community. I'm with Eric on this :


----------



## Fogetaboutit

timmopussycat said:


> We certainly believe in the concepts of the invisible and visible church; see the 1689 Old London Confession which says:



So you would acknowledge that unbelievers will exist within the "visible chruch" (which I suspected). Would unbaptised children be considered to be part of the visible church but not yet part of the invisible church? Or would they be considered to be outside the visible church? What about false converts that have been baptised, are they part of the visible church?


----------



## timmopussycat

As do pb's we acknowledge that unbelievers will exist within church congregations. We are agnostic on not yet professing children. On false converts, they are also part of church congregations and may or may not remain so over time. Some will fall away, others will get that horrible surprise on the last day.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

timmopussycat said:


> As do pb's we acknowledge that unbelievers will exist within church congregations. We are agnostic on not yet professing children. On false converts, they are also part of church congregations and may or may not remain so over time. Some will fall away, others will get that horrible surprise on the last day.



I guess my questions was that according to CB does baptism associate somebody with the visible church or does it presume that this person now belongs to the invisible church?

---------- Post added at 03:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------




timmopussycat said:


> I think we interpret such passages the same way calvinist pb's do. We view families of believers as possibly elect and we evangelize them as we do everybody else. Because children are under parent's control they are evangelized in a more intimate and personal way than is possible towards friends and acquaintances. We see no changes to the role of family head, as such, except that we recognize that each member of the family must profess faith before receiving the visible sign of the covenant.



When we evangelize unbelievers we do not force them to come to church or we do no discipline them when they trangress the law of God. Would you adopt the same approach with your children? Would you discipline an unbeliever if he takes the name of the Lord in vain? How about your children? Assuming that your answers are different for an unbeliever and your children, what is your rational to do so?


----------



## Herald

Fogetaboutit said:


> Was there always a set covenant community (visible congragation). By this I mean was there a covenant community prior to Abraham? Did the descendants of Seth formed a covenantal community as opposed the the descendants of Cain? How about after the flood until Abraham?



Etienne,

The short answer is, "no." The promise made to Abraham inaugurated the covenant bearing his name (the Abrahamic Covenant). There has been, however, one called-out people of God since Adam. This would include the godly line of Seth. 




Fogetaboutit said:


> In the New Testament we see that the New Testament "Chruch" is the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant community. If baptism replaces circumcision as a seal of this covenant, at what time did the switch occur? At the begining of John's ministry or only after Christ resurection? Is the Baptism of John the same as the one Peter referred to in Acts 2:38-39? If there is a difference, what did the Baptism of John represent as opposed to the baptism administered by the Apostles after the resurection of Christ? If there's no difference does it mean the administration of the New Testament replaced the Old prior to Christ's death and resurection?



As explained earlier, God has always had one called-out people since Adam. This called-out people was redemptive in nature. In other words, those who have been called-out are saved. The promises made to Abraham had both a physical and spiritual dimension. One could be part of the covenant nation of Israel but not a spiritual child of Abraham. In that sense there is not complete continuity between the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Testament church, or more appropriately, the New Covenant. 

The switch from circumcision to baptism began with a transition of sorts during the time of John the Baptist and was completed during the time of the Apostles. The baptism of John was a baptism of repentance. It was not done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 18:25; 19:4), therefore it cannot be called a Christian baptism. 




Fogetaboutit said:


> Am I right when I say that the CredoBaptist interpretation is that only the elects (or confirmed believers) should be considered as part of the New Testament covenant community and receive the physical seal of baptism? If so does this mean they do not believe in the concept of a visible and invisible church? If so how do you interpret the passages that refer to people being cut of from the covenant if you hold to a calvinistic soteriology? how do you view the familly of believers in light of this fact? Did the headship of the familly changed with the New Testament administration of the CoG?



The New Covenant community is made up _only _of believers. The reality is that we do not possess perfect knowledge, therefore we may not know for sure if a professor is actually a possessor. Still, Baptists administer the sign to professed believers believing that they are the only worthy recipients of the ordinance. 

Do Baptists believe in a visible and invisible church? Certainly. The visible church is the temporal church. Those who profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are part of the visible church. But the visible church is not infallible. Claiming to be something is not the same as actually being that thing. The invisible church is nothing short of the true New Covenant community. 

The New Covenant is inviolable. That some would illegitimately make claim to it does not change its inviolability. The Old Covenant was not inviolable; with proof being that one could be a member of the Old Covenant physically but not spiritually. Also, by being disobedient to certain requirements of the Covenant, one could be be cut off. The failure to be circumcised is one such requirement. 

As far as the headship of the family; the father is still the spiritual head of the family.


----------



## Herald

timmopussycat said:


> Those better informed may differ, but I don't think the Bible is explicit as to whether such a community was formally established prior to Abraham.



Tim, we are not introduced to the covenant community until Abraham. The very fact that God initiated the Abrahamic Covenant, with no mention of a previous covenant community, makes a strong case for it being the first.


----------



## Scott1

Fogetaboutit said:


> On the other hand in the paedobaptist view, if an adult man coverts to Christianity should his unconverted wife be also baptised along with all his children still living under this roof no matter how old they are? What about times or places where slavery is/was legal, would the slaves be also baptised? If an adult Women converts to Christianity should the children be baptised if her husband refused to have them baptised?



This won't answer all your questions about this topic, but might help understanding one aspect.

It was helpful for me to understand that baptizing infant children does not make them saved, and does not mean they are necessarily saved.

They are marked out to a position of privilege having at least one believing parent who would raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and a covenant community through which would come the ordinary means of grace (e.g. Word and sacrament).

In this sense, the child is "holy" (set apart) to a position of privilege that the child of an unbeliever is not.

This was true with circumcision in the Old Testament in regard to God's people- they were marked out as a covenant community. (Not all were saved, of course).

It's interesting that at the time of our Lord, Israel also practiced baptism-
but for "dirty" gentiles who would convert and come into the covenant community (which was evidenced by circumcision).

(That's why the Jews were so outraged when John the Baptist told them they need to be baptized).

Also, remember, that while it is more common in reformed churches for baptisms to be of infants, adults do come by profession of faith, then receive baptism as well. Both happen regularly in the life of the church.


----------



## Peairtach

Coming from a Pesbyterian point of view:

*Etienne*


> - In the New Testament we see that the New Testament "Church" is the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant community.



The New Testament Church _is_ the Abrahamic Covenant community. As well as being called _the Church_, she is called _the Israel of God_ (Gal 6:16) and _the Commonwealth of Israel_ (Eph 2:12).

OT Israel on the other hand is sometimes called _the Congregation_ or _Church_



> This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us. (Acts 7:38, ESV)



The Gentile Church is grafted into _the Abrahamic Covenantal Olive Tree_, while the majority of the Jews are (temporarily?) cut out (Rom 9)

The Abrahamic Covenant has three administrations. Abraham to Moses (Patriarchal administration). Moses to Christ (Old Covenant administration). Christ to the Eschaton (New Covenant administration).



> - Was there always a set covenant community (visible congragation). By this I mean was there a covenant community prior to Abraham? Did the descendants of Seth formed a covenantal community as opposed the the descendants of Cain? How about after the flood until Abraham?



There was a visible church which didn't have a sign and seal like circumcision, baptism, the Lord's Supper or the Passover, by which people were solemnly admitted to the visible church and the CoG. But the "sons of God" (Gen 6:2) and those that "called on the name of the Lord" (Gen 4:26) would have been distinguished by their worship and lifestyle.



> Is the Baptism of John the same as the one Peter referred to in Acts 2:38-39? If there is a difference, what did the Baptism of John represent as opposed to the baptism administered by the Apostles after the resurection of Christ?



The baptism of John pointed forward to baptism with the Spirit by Christ into Himself at Pentecost. Our baptism is the same except it points back to Pentecost and points forward or backward to the time when we are baptised with the Spirit by Christ into Himself - i.e. regeneration.

We do not read that the disciples that had been baptised by John, e.g. Peter, Andrew, James and John, were baptised again.

When the Gospels say that John's baptism was a baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins they aren't distinguishing John's baptism from Christian baptism, which is also a baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins, but are distinguishing John's baptism from other OT ceremonial cleansings.



> If there's no difference does it mean the administration of the New Testament replaced the Old prior to Christ's death and resurection?



Just as circumcision started long before the time of Moses (Old Covenant), so baptism started sometime before the full inauguration of the New Covenant.



> Would unbaptised children be considered to be part of the visible church but not yet part of the invisible church? Or would they be considered to be outside the visible church?



These are part of the visible church and in the CoG - at least externally, if they weren't regenerated in the womb, if so they are in every sense in the CoG - but have not been solemnly admitted to the visible church and CoG by baptism.



> When we evangelize unbelievers we do not force them to come to church or we do no discipline them when they trangress the law of God. Would you adopt the same approach with your children? Would you discipline an unbeliever if he takes the name of the Lord in vain? How about your children? Assuming that your answers are different for an unbeliever and your children, what is your rational to do so?



Baptised but non communicant members of the visible Church can't receive church sanctions in the way that communicant members can, by removal of access to the Lord's Supper. But there are other ways of dealing with them, as Dabney indicates in his _Systematic Theology_.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Herald said:


> As explained earlier, God has always had one called-out people since Adam. This called-out people was redemptive in nature. In other words, those who have been called-out are saved. The promises made to Abraham had both a physical and spiritual dimension. *One could be part of the covenant nation of Israel but not a spiritual child of Abraham*. In that sense there is not complete continuity between the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Testament church, or more appropriately, the New Covenant.





Herald said:


> *The New Covenant community is made up only of believers*. The reality is that we do not possess perfect knowledge, therefore we may not know for sure if a professor is actually a possessor. Still, Baptists administer the sign to professed believers believing that they are the only worthy recipients of the ordinance.





Herald said:


> Do Baptists believe in a visible and invisible church? Certainly. The visible church is the temporal church. Those who profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ are part of the visible church. But the visible church is not infallible. Claiming to be something is not the same as actually being that thing. The invisible church is nothing short of the true New Covenant community.



If the New Covenant community is made up only of believers would this mean that the visible church (which might have unbeliever in her mist) is not the New Covenant Community? If not what would you call the visible church?

You mentioned that in that under the Abrahamic Covenant one could be part of the covenant nation/community but not necessarilty be a spiritual child of Abraham, is this not the same thing as the visible and invisible church in the New Testament? 



Herald said:


> The New Covenant is inviolable. That some would illegitimately make claim to it does not change its inviolability. *The Old Covenant was not inviolable*; with proof being that one could be a member of the Old Covenant physically but not spiritually. *Also, by being disobedient to certain requirements of the Covenant, one could be be cut off*. The failure to be circumcised is one such requirement.



I'm a bit confused here, are you saying the "essence" of the Abrahamic covenant is different than the New Covenant? Could somebody forsake their salvation in the Old Covenant? Being disobedient in the New Covenant can also cause you to be cut off, this is called excommunication. Could not refusing to be baptised warrant excommunication under the New Covenant?

---------- Post added at 06:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 PM ----------




Peairtach said:


> The New Testament Church is the Abrahamic Covenant community. As well as being called the Church, she is called the Israel of God (Gal 6:16) and the Commonwealth of Israel (Eph 2:12).



This is technically what I meant by "continuity" of the Abrahamic covenant, but thanks for clarifying.


Peairtach said:


> There was a visible church which didn't have a sign and seal like circumcision, baptism, the Lord's Supper or the Passover, by which people were solemnly admitted to the visible church and the CoG. But the "sons of God" (Gen 6:2) and those that "called on the name of the Lord" (Gen 4:26) would have been distinguished by their worship and lifestyle.



This is what I was kind of concluding but I wasn't sure.


----------



## Peairtach

*Bill*


> The switch from circumcision to baptism began with a transition of sorts during the time of John the Baptist and was completed during the time of the Apostles. The baptism of John was a baptism of repentance. It was not done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 18:25; 19:4), therefore it cannot be called a Christian baptism.



We don't know the Baptist's _formula_, but we do know that He baptised in the Name of the Lord and with the Lord's authorisation. Christ in His Divine nature gave sanction to the Baptist's baptism, and in His human nature also agreed with it.

If the Baptist's baptism wasn't the equivalent of Christian baptism, would Jesus and His disciples not need to be rebaptised?


----------



## Herald

Peairtach said:


> *Bill*
> 
> 
> 
> The switch from circumcision to baptism began with a transition of sorts during the time of John the Baptist and was completed during the time of the Apostles. The baptism of John was a baptism of repentance. It was not done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 18:25; 19:4), therefore it cannot be called a Christian baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know the Baptist's _formula_, but we do know that He baptised in the Name of the Lord and with the Lord's authorisation. Christ in His Divine nature gave sanction to the Baptist's baptism, and in His human nature also agreed with it.
> 
> If the Baptist's baptism wasn't the equivalent of Christian baptism, would Jesus and His disciples not need to be rebaptised?
Click to expand...


Richard, I don't view this as a _formula_. Did the Apostles have to submit to Trinitarian baptism? Scripture doesn't say, so I won't speculate. I do know that some of the events that transpired from the time of John the Baptist through the book of Acts were transitional, not normative. I can accept the argument that John's baptism of repentance pointed forward to Christ. When we baptize today we do not do so solely on the basis of repentance from sin. We baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Acts 19 is evidence of the ordinance progressing from transitional to normative. 

Acts 19:1-5 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2 He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." 3 And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism." 4 Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 

Since those who were baptized were disciples (v. 1), and were previously baptized into John's baptism, why the need to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ?


----------



## Herald

Fogetaboutit said:


> If the New Covenant community is made up only of believers would this mean that the visible church (which might have unbeliever in her mist) is not the New Covenant Community? If not what would you call the visible church?



The Baptist understanding of New Covenant community is that it is a designation synonymous with the visible church . We can confidently state that the members of a local church are part of the New Covenant community and the visible church, even if there are false professors in their midst. The difference between the Baptist understanding and Presbyterian understanding is that Baptists only admit members on the basis of a credible profession of faith, whereas Presbyterians include infants who are baptized into believing households. 



Fogetaboutit said:


> You mentioned that in that under the Abrahamic Covenant one could be part of the covenant nation/community but not necessarilty be a spiritual child of Abraham, is this not the same thing as the visible and invisible church in the New Testament?



Similar. A male Jew could be part of the Old Testament covenant community on the basis of his circumcision. Going on the assumption that he does not transgress the Law so egregiously that he is cut off from his people, he can remain part of the covenant community _even if he does not possess saving faith_. This is what Paul meant when he wrote:

Romans 9:6 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 

Even Abraham was not saved because God chose him to be the father of many nations. Abraham was saved by faith.

Genesis 15:6 6 Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. 



Fogetaboutit said:


> I'm a bit confused here, are you saying the "essence" of the Abrahamic covenant is different than the New Covenant? Could somebody forsake their salvation in the Old Covenant? Being disobedient in the New Covenant can also cause you to be cut off, this is called excommunication. Could not refusing to be baptised warrant excommunication under the New Covenant?



No one can forsake their genuine conversion; but remember that the Old Covenant did not convey salvation to anyone. A person could live under the Old Covenant and be reprobate. Depending on their offense against the Law they could be cut off from their people. When the Church excommunicates a person it is effectively saying that person is not saved. We would invoke 1 John 2:19:

1 John 2:19 19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. 

...and...

Matthew 18:17 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 

If they refuse to repent, and never return, they have proven that they were never part of the New Covenant to begin with.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Herald said:


> The Baptist understanding of New Covenant community is that it is a designation synonymous with the visible church . We can confidently state that the members of a local church are part of the New Covenant community and the visible church, even if there are false professors in their midst. The difference between the Baptist understanding and Presbyterian understanding is that Baptists only admit members on the basis of a credible profession of faith, whereas Presbyterians include infants who are baptized into believing households.



So if we are consistent would this not mean that children of Baptists should not be allowed to be part of the church until they profess their faith (if you accept that baptism is a seal of the covenant)?



Herald said:


> Similar. A male Jew could be part of the Old Testament covenant community on the basis of his circumcision. Going on the assumption that he does not transgress the Law so egregiously that he is cut off from his people, he can remain part of the covenant community even if he does not possess saving faith.



Is this not also true for the New Covenant comunity, children are not alienated from the covenant community right, are they not partaker of the same "earthly" benifits as any member of the community? 



Herald said:


> No one can forsake their genuine conversion; but remember that the Old Covenant did not convey salvation to anyone. A person could live under the Old Covenant and be reprobate. Depending on their offense against the Law they could be cut off from their people. When the Church excommunicates a person it is effectively saying that person is not saved. We would invoke 1 John 2:19:



A person can also live under the New Covenant and be a reprobate, even if the Church excommunicates a person it will not affect his salvation if he is truly saved, it will only alienate him from this community. From my understanding 1 John 2:19 is not speaking of excommunication it is only refering to people "forsaking the faith" (leaving the covenant community on their own). This seem to imply that those person were previously "partakers" of the covenant by being associated to a certain community and decide to leave on their own which is a manifestion of their unbelief.

---------- Post added at 08:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:42 AM ----------




Scott1 said:


> It was helpful for me to understand that baptizing infant children does not make them saved, and does not mean they are necessarily saved.
> 
> They are marked out to a position of privilege having at least one believing parent who would raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and a covenant community through which would come the ordinary means of grace (e.g. Word and sacrament).
> 
> In this sense, the child is "holy" (set apart) to a position of privilege that the child of an unbeliever is not.
> 
> This was true with circumcision in the Old Testament in regard to God's people- they were marked out as a covenant community. (Not all were saved, of course).
> 
> It's interesting that at the time of our Lord, Israel also practiced baptism-
> but for "dirty" gentiles who would convert and come into the covenant community (which was evidenced by circumcision).
> 
> (That's why the Jews were so outraged when John the Baptist told them they need to be baptized).
> 
> Also, remember, that while it is more common in reformed churches for baptisms to be of infants, adults do come by profession of faith, then receive baptism as well. Both happen regularly in the life of the church.



This much I did undertand from the paedo baptist position, my question was more about the implication of baptism when compared to circumcision. Since women were not circumcised obviously there would differences but when they say that the children are sanctified by the believing mother because of her influence in their life would it mean they should also be baptised even if the husband to not agree?


----------



## Herald

Fogetaboutit said:


> So if we are consistent would this not mean that children of Baptists should not be allowed to be part of the church until they profess their faith (if you accept that baptism is a seal of the covenant)?



We are consistent. No one, child or adult, is a member of the church apart from a credible profession of faith. Thankfully, however, they are exposed to the Gospel by being raised in a Christian home and attending worship with their family. 





Fogetaboutit said:


> Is this not also true for the New Covenant comunity, children are not alienated from the covenant community right, are they not partaker of the same "earthly" benifits as any member of the community?



No. Children who have not made a credible profession of faith are not allowed to be administered the ordinances of the Church; baptism and the Lord's Supper. These are both temporal (earthly) and spiritual benefits that are not available to them. They do benefit from the love of the Church, and by hearing the Word of God which will, hopefully, lead to their salvation.





Fogetaboutit said:


> A person can also live under the New Covenant and be a reprobate, even if the Church excommunicates a person it will not affect his salvation if he is truly saved, it will only alienate him from this community. From my understanding 1 John 2:19 is not speaking of excommunication it is only refering to people "forsaking the faith" (leaving the covenant community on their own). This seem to imply that those person were previously "partakers" of the covenant by being associated to a certain community and decide to leave on their own which is a manifestion of their unbelief.



A person cannot be in the New Covenant and be reprobate. The New Covenant is inviolable; it cannot be broken or forsaken. A person can be among those in the New Covenant but not be part of it himself. This is what the book of Jude speaks to. 

1 John 2:19 applies in that a person who refuses to repent displays an unregenerate heart. The passage in Matthew 18 speaks directly to church discipline.


----------



## Herald

Etienne,

I'm curious. You're attending a Reformed Baptist church. Have you ever asked these questions to your pastor or elders? I'm not saying your don't have the right to bring these questions up on the Puritan Board; I just want to make sure you're availed yourself to the ministry of those who have charge over you in the Lord.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

The question I have concerning John's baptism is that if it is solely a baptism of repentance than how would you reconcile the fact that Jesus was baptised by him?

I heard an interpretation which made sense to me saying that the Baptism of Jesus by John was part of this ordination to the priesthood (since he is our high priest). The Levites had to be at least 30 years old before they could be ordained to the priesthood (Numbers 4:1-4) which Jesus would have met (Luke 3:23) and they also had to go throught a purification by water (Numbers 8:5-7). This could explain why Jesus asked the Pharisees if the baptism of John was of men or of God when they asked by which authority he was ministering in the temple.

---------- Post added at 09:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 AM ----------




Herald said:


> Etienne,
> 
> I'm curious. You're attending a Reformed Baptist church. Have you ever asked these questions to your pastor or elders? I'm not saying your don't have the right to bring these questions up on the Puritan Board; I just want to make sure you're availed yourself to the ministry of those who have charge over you in the Lord.



Yes I have and I'm currently going through some suggested books from a baptist perspective, there was just some questions that didn't seem to be answered yet from the few books I have read so far, I just thought I could cut some corners by asking the questions here.

---------- Post added at 09:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:24 AM ----------




Herald said:


> We are consistent. No one, child or adult, is a member of the church apart from a credible profession of faith. Thankfully, however, they are exposed to the Gospel by being raised in a Christian home and attending worship with their family.



So if a child is attending church with his familly he would not be considered part of the community until he is baptised and partake of the communion is that correct?



Herald said:


> A person cannot be in the New Covenant and be reprobate. The New Covenant is inviolable; it cannot be broken or forsaken. A person can be among those in the New Covenant but not be part of it himself. This is what the book of Jude speaks to.



so would you say that the New Covenant is somewhat different from the other administration of the CoG? Would you say that the Abrahamic Covenant is an administration of the CoG itself or an overlaping covenant seperate from the CoG but runing in paralell to it since it could be broken?


----------



## Herald

Fogetaboutit said:


> The question I have concerning John's baptism is that if it is solely a baptism of repentance than how would you reconcile the fact that Jesus was baptised by him?



Matthew Henry writes that Christ submitted to John's baptism in order, "to show his readiness to comply with all God's righteous precepts." Henry goes on to write that Christ, "fulfilled up the righteousness of the ceremonial law." He first set the example and then began His teaching ministry. Did Christ need to repent of sin? As the sinless Lamb of God, He neither sinned nor knew sin; but as One who would atone for the sins of the elect, He first set the example. 



Fogetaboutit said:


> Yes I have and I'm currently going through some suggested books from a baptist perspective, there was just some questions that didn't seem to be answered yet from the few books I have read so far, I just thought I could cut some corners by asking the questions here.



I urge you to go beyond books and have actual dialog with your pastor and elders. God has called these men to just such a work. Go to them with your questions and a teachable spirit. I am sure it will profit you much.



Fogetaboutit said:


> So if a child is attending church with his familly he would not be considered part of the community until he is baptised and partake of the communion is that correct?



Any person, including a child, you has not come to faith in Christ is not included in the New Covenant, nor part of the New Covenant community. Being baptized, and partaking of the Lord's Supper apart from being born again, does not make a person a Christian; i.e. a member of the New Covenant. 



Fogetaboutit said:


> so would you say that the New Covenant is somewhat different from the other administration of the CoG? Would you say that the Abrahamic Covenant is an administration of the CoG itself or an overlaping covenant seperate from the CoG but runing in paralell to it since it could be broken?



I believe the Abrahamic Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Redemption. It contained physical promises that were built on spiritual truths. Abraham _believed _God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. This was nothing less than a salvific moment in Abraham's life. The covenant made with him points to that through the cutting of circumcision. However, the Abrahamic Covenant was not completely spiritual. As I explained earlier, a Jewish male could be circumcised and live within the covenant community, while all the time not being a spiritual child of Abraham; i.e. not saved. This is why the New Covenant is a "better covenant" (Heb. 7:22).


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Herald said:


> I urge you to go beyond books and have actual dialog with your pastor and elders. God has called these men to just such a work. Go to them with your questions and a teachable spirit. I am sure it will profit you much.



I did and still am, I'm just trying to make sure I'm not making false assumption from what I have learn so far from both positions.



Herald said:


> Any person, including a child, you has not come to faith in Christ is not included in the New Covenant, nor part of the New Covenant community. Being baptized, and partaking of the Lord's Supper apart from being born again, does not make a person a Christian; i.e. a member of the New Covenant.



So just to confirm, from your perspective the visible church is not part of the New Covenant, only the invisible church is? Your interpretation of New Covenant community is the invisible chruch?



Herald said:


> I believe the Abrahamic Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Redemption. It contained physical promises that were built on spiritual truths. Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. This was nothing less than a salvific moment in Abraham's life. The covenant made with him points to that through the cutting of circumcision. However, the Abrahamic Covenant was not completely spiritual. As I explained earlier, a Jewish male could be circumcised and live within the covenant community, while all the time not being a spiritual child of Abraham; i.e. not saved. This is why the New Covenant is a "better covenant" (Heb. 7:22).



Maybe I'm confused but I thought the that Covenant of Redemption was the covenant made between the member of the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) which defines their roles in the redemption of the elect? If so how could the Abrahamic Covenant be an adiminstration of this Covenant? From my understanding of the Covenant Theology so far I was under the impression that the Abrahamic was an administration of the CoG. What I also understood was the "betterness" of the New Covenant was in contrast to the Mosaic Covenant.



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



Hebrews 7:22 is contrasting the priesthood of Jesus with the Levitical Priesthood which was ordained as part of the Mosaic Covenant and not the Abrahamic Covenant. This is why the author of Hebrews is refering that Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchisedec since he preceded Aaron before the Levitical priesthood was even established.


----------



## Scott1

Fogetaboutit said:


> but when they say that the children are sanctified by the believing mother because of her influence in their life would it mean they should also be baptised even if the husband to not agree?



If I'm understanding, we are saying that either parent being a believer would be grounds to have their infant child baptized, whether the mother or father. Really, the child is presented upon the faith of at least one parent.

If you are asking about a situation of a husband not a believer, and a wife who is, should baptism be withheld if the husband objects to baptizing them...

Can the wife tithe when her husband not want to, for example?

Practically, Peter tells us a woman can be used by godly behavior to "win over" the husband to Christ. That is not at all an unheard of pattern when a woman obediently suffers through for this.

There is not a simple answer to every situation.

Situations change.

The believing wife married to an unbelieving husband should make every effort to have the infant children baptized because it is great sin to neglect baptism.

She ought appeal, and appeal again to her husband for consent to do so even if he does not agree.

The posture is try at every opportunity, appealing to God, appealing to husband, trusting God for the results.

It's too simply to pose a scenario and say a woman ought defy her husband, and then claim that is the biblical way.

Larry Burkett used to say with regard to tithing,

The believing wife asks the unbelieving husband to tithe for one year and if they were worse off at the end of one year, she would never ask again. Time and time again, God proved himself through this faith, he related.

This is the way believers approach authority (whether it be husband, parent, employer, magistrate, church authority)- willing to suffer to honor Christ, and in faith.

Scripture gives us many examples, God works this way in the Kingdom.


----------



## non dignus

> So just to confirm, from your perspective the visible church is not part of the New Covenant, only the invisible church is? Your interpretation of New Covenant community is the invisible chruch?



The paedobaptist would offer the perspective that children are actually born into the new covenant and would be breaking covenant by not being baptised. The sign of the covenant is given to them because they are members of the covenant by virtue of being members of a holy household. That is to say, giving the sign does not *make* them covenant members, they are given the sign because they *are* covenant members already. They are holy and thus given the sign. 

Any adult is made holy by Word and Spirit. This is made manifest by profession of faith. They are holy and thus given the sign. Their children are holy and thus given the sign. All holy persons are disciples. All disciples are Christians. Thus all holy infants are disciples and Christians.

Therefore the paedobaptist argues that *all *members in good standing of visible churches are new covenant members. We understand it this way because of the many warnings in scripture about falling away from the new covenant, which would be impossible if only the elect were members of it. 

Thus in the presbyterian view there are wolves among the sheep. Hypocrites in the church do not enjoy union with Christ and gifts of the Spirit. They are not connected to the covenant in the same way as elect members. Outwardly, or administratively, the hypocrite is connected and treated in the same way as the elect. As imperfect as this sounds, this is because when the administration of the covenant of grace enters time and space it becomes subject to the fall. Many credible professions of faith are later deemed false. A false professor who is excluded must, by definition, have been _included_ in the first place. 



> Maybe I'm confused but I thought that the Covenant of Redemption was the covenant made between the members of the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) which defines their roles in the redemption of the elect? If so how could the Abrahamic Covenant be an adiminstration of this Covenant? From my understanding of the Covenant Theology so far I was under the impression that the Abrahamic was an administration of the CoG. What I also understood was the "betterness" of the New Covenant was in contrast to the Mosaic Covenant.




The covenant of redemption (CoR) is a covenant of works within the Trinity. The covenant of grace (CoG) is the result of the works and conditions of the covenant of redemption. The CoG is made possible by the CoR. The CoG inaugurated in the Abrahamic promise cannot be annulled by Moses. The CoG continues in Moses but is overlaid with a *civic *covenant of works (CoW) . The republication of the CoW in Moses was not for individual salvation but for national blessing. in my opinion sacrifices made individually were in gratitude for the LORD'S promise to Abraham's house and sacrifices made generally were for expiation of national guilt. 





> Jeremiah 31:31-32
> 
> 31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make *a new covenant with the house of Israel*, and with the house of Judah:
> 
> 32 *Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt*; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hebrews 7:22 is contrasting the priesthood of Jesus with the Levitical Priesthood which was ordained as part of the Mosaic Covenant and not the Abrahamic Covenant. This is why the author of Hebrews is refering that Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchisedec since he preceded Aaron before the Levitical priesthood was even established.
Click to expand...


When Jeremiah wrote this the ten tribes of Israel were long gone. Our high priest has joined Israel and Judah together again by the covenant in His blood. How is this is a better covenant? Whereas the prophets, priests, and kings were anointed with the Holy Spirit in the old covenant, all, from the least to the greatest are anointed with the Holy Spirit. This is not to say that we are given _divine knowledge _as to who the elect are. Rather we are given an outward covenant in order to have a _sure faith _of who the elect are.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

non dignus said:


> The CoG continues in Moses but is overlaid with a civic covenant of works (CoW) . The republication of the CoW in Moses was not for individual salvation but for national blessing.



This is a debatable point. Especially since the New Covenant has the same warnings for the Church as a whole and individually as it was with the Church in the Old Covenant. These warnings of blessing and cursing had to do with apostasy just as they do with the New Covenant Church. Examine 1 Cor 5 and Revelation chapter 2. A good read of the book of Hebrews will also reveal the same thing that the New Covenant is the same in substance as the Mosaic was. The difference is that we have a better surety and high priest.


----------



## non dignus

PuritanCovenanter said:


> non dignus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CoG continues in Moses but is overlaid with a civic covenant of works (CoW) . The republication of the CoW in Moses was not for individual salvation but for national blessing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a debatable point. Especially since the New Covenant has the same warnings for the Church as a whole and individually as it was with the Church in the Old Covenant. These warnings of blessing and cursing had to do with apostasy just as they do with the New Covenant Church. Examine 1 Cor 5 and Revelation chapter 2. A good read of the book of Hebrews will also reveal the same thing that the New Covenant is the same in substance as the Mosaic was. The difference is that we have a better surety and high priest.
Click to expand...


Yes sir, a highly debatable point. Etienne probably wasn't asking for this much! 

They are similar in substance. Perhaps the major difference being that the holy nation now covers the whole earth as pilgrims and strangers subject to various civil laws in diverse cultures. Are you saying the new covenant has cursings? Are you leaning toward paedobaptism? 

'good chatting with you again.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

non dignus said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> non dignus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CoG continues in Moses but is overlaid with a civic covenant of works (CoW) . The republication of the CoW in Moses was not for individual salvation but for national blessing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a debatable point. Especially since the New Covenant has the same warnings for the Church as a whole and individually as it was with the Church in the Old Covenant. These warnings of blessing and cursing had to do with apostasy just as they do with the New Covenant Church. Examine 1 Cor 5 and Revelation chapter 2. A good read of the book of Hebrews will also reveal the same thing that the New Covenant is the same in substance as the Mosaic was. The difference is that we have a better surety and high priest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes sir, a highly debatable point. Etienne probably wasn't asking for this much!
> 
> They are similar in substance. Perhaps the major difference being that the holy nation now covers the whole earth as pilgrims and strangers subject to various civil laws in diverse cultures. Are you saying the new covenant has cursings? Are you leaning toward paedobaptism?
> 
> 'good chatting with you again.
Click to expand...

You evidently didn't see this post. http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/kline-works-merit-pardigm-70896/#post908561
I have been keeping it low key on purpose. 

And yes, I do believe Hebrews 10:28-31
(Heb 10:28) He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

(Heb 10:29) Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


(Heb 10:30) For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again,* The Lord shall judge his people*.


(Heb 10:31) * It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God*.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

non dignus said:


> The covenant of redemption (CoR) is a covenant of works within the Trinity. The covenant of grace (CoG) is the result of the works and conditions of the covenant of redemption. The CoG is made possible by the CoR. The CoG inaugurated in the Abrahamic promise cannot be annulled by Moses. The CoG continues in Moses but is overlaid with a civic covenant of works (CoW) . The republication of the CoW in Moses was not for individual salvation but for national blessing. in my opinion sacrifices made individually were in gratitude for the LORD'S promise to Abraham's house and sacrifices made generally were for expiation of national guilt.



So if understand correctly, the CoG is the covenant between God and his elect which is unbreakable, the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic were "earthly" (for lack of better terms) administrations of the CoG in the Old testament Dispensation and the New Covenant is the "earthly" administration of the CoG in the New Testament dispensation (according to paedobaptist)?

So to clarify did the administrations of the CoG in the OT (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) worked in parallel to each other or did one replace the other ( example: did the Mosaic Administration replaced the Abrahamic Administration?)

My understanding so far was that these administrations were running in parallel since they are dealing with different implications of the CoG which were all combined in the New Covenant “administration” under Christ. Is that correct?

Would it be fair to say that the CredoBaptist interpretation of Covenant Theology is that the New Covenant is not an administration of the CoG but is actually synonymous with the CoG itself without any “earthly” administration?


----------



## non dignus

Fogetaboutit said:


> non dignus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The covenant of redemption (CoR) is a covenant of works within the Trinity. The covenant of grace (CoG) is the result of the works and conditions of the covenant of redemption. The CoG is made possible by the CoR. The CoG inaugurated in the Abrahamic promise cannot be annulled by Moses. The CoG continues in Moses but is overlaid with a civic covenant of works (CoW) . The republication of the CoW in Moses was not for individual salvation but for national blessing. in my opinion sacrifices made individually were in gratitude for the LORD'S promise to Abraham's house and sacrifices made generally were for expiation of national guilt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if understand correctly, the CoG is the covenant between God and his elect which is unbreakable, the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic were "earthly" (for lack of better terms) administrations of the CoG in the Old testament Dispensation and the New Covenant is the "earthly" administration of the CoG in the New Testament dispensation (according to paedobaptist)?
Click to expand...


The CoG is earthly. It is breakable because the administration of it has been made subject to the curse. But the elect can never be lost. That is to say the CoR is unbreakable. 


> So to clarify did the administrations of the CoG in the OT (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) worked in parallel to each other or did one replace the other ( example: did the Mosaic Administration replaced the Abrahamic Administration?)



Yes, the Abrahamic promise is parallel to the Mosaic Covenant. Galatians 3



> My understanding so far was that these administrations were running in parallel since they are dealing with different implications of the CoG which were all combined in the New Covenant “administration” under Christ. Is that correct?


Yes. I agree. The dispensationalist gets it exactly backward because the Mosaic Covenant, not the 'church age' is a temporary parenthesis in redemptive history.


> Would it be fair to say that the CredoBaptist interpretation of Covenant Theology is that the New Covenant is not an administration of the CoG but is actually synonymous with the CoG itself without any “earthly” administration?



I will defer to the credobaptist, but I think he would say that the New Covenant is brand new and replaces the Abrahamic Promise. However, the CoG must be earthly because the sacraments are earthly, the office of the keys are earthly, and our physical bodies are awaiting glorification. So the CoG has physical blessings as well as spiritual blessings. In my opinion, the credobaptist holds forth an over-realized eschatology in this regard. The paedobaptist would say that the New Covenant is a renewal of the promise to Abraham who is the father of us all. We are also the seed of Abraham. Gal 3:29


----------



## Fogetaboutit

OK I guess I was confused on what the CoR and the CoG were.

So correct me if I’m wrong but from what I have understood so far, the CoR is the covenant between the members of the Godhead on their roles in the redemption of the elect and it actually involves the unbreakable covenant between God and his elects?

The CoG is the earthly covenant between God and his covenanted people. The reason this covenant can be broken is because it is administered from an earthly perspective and the fact that we live in a fallen world. This covenant has different administrations (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic now combined/fulfilled in the New covenant) with types and shadows pointing to the spiritual realities of the CoR.

The CoR is eternal but the CoG is only spanning from Gen 3:15 until the consummation. Would this be a fair assessement?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

The thing that I question is whether the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, Covenants run parallel. It seems to me that the Covenant of Grace runs linearly through these Covenants revealing the Covenant of Redemption in shadows and promises. It builds progressively revealing each step it progresses into the fulfilment of the New Covenant in which we have the Surety of the Promises, Christ Jesus the Lord. 



> (Heb 7:21) (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec: )
> 
> (Heb 7:22) By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Etienne,
Here's a Q&A from the Westminster Larger Catechism:Question 31: With whom was the covenant of grace made?
Answer: The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.​

The Westminster Standards do not directly discuss the Covenant of Redemption, a term for the inter-Trinitarian plan of salvation, but a couplet like the one above reveals the background of the thought. (You can find a more explicit statement in the Sum of Saving Knowledge, which in the Scottish Presbyterian Standards is often printed with the constitutional documents).

The Covenant of Grace is that eternal covenant _when viewed from the standpoint of the earth,_ when looking upwards as it were, viewed through the lens of Christ. It is the portion of the Covenant of Redemption that intersects with our experience. We experience the Covenant of Redemption only through our Mediator, only through our Head, to whom we are united by faith in the Covenant of Grace.

Because the Covenant of Grace has so much to do directly with humanity, since it is (partly) administered in the realm of lesser things, and even fallen and broken things, we consider it under two modes of administration--earthly and imperfect administration, carried out by fallible men, based on things essentially visible; and a heavenly and perfect administration, executed by the Spirit, Son and Father, based on the secret things of God. See Dt.29:29. There is a "coming down" administration, and a "looking up" administration.

Full participants in the Covenant of Grace are partakers of both modes of administration. They receive the fullness of divine grace, by faith union with Christ--blessings that are the lawful property (by blessed donation) of the elect. These persons also, when they are properly related to the church in the world, worthily receive his benefits that are associated with the promise of God, by which he comes to us in our weakness through the means of grace instituted by himself. The church is his institution, organized in the main for the well-being of his dispersed flock, while they are on their pilgrimage.

But there are also those who infiltrate the church in its progress. These fall in with the membership, often even adopting the mannerisms, language and thoughts of the membership, all the while keeping a strange heart to the things of God. These partake unworthily of the promises, ministered to them through the means of grace. They are engaged in a kind of theft--not of eternal goods (which they can never taste), but of the service that has been laid out for the benefit of those who have seats at the table. Hence, there is a great terror in store for the one who is seated there, found not to have a wedding garment, Mt.22:12-13. The wonder is that there is a seat there for the one who only hoped to get the crumbs that fell from the master's table, Mt.15:27-28. See also Mt.8:11.

This is what we mean, then, that the CoG contains unbelievers. These may have many outward indications of belonging to the CoG, while they do not have a divine acknowledgement. The "down-coming" administration does not know them or recognize them. These are like the one in Pilgrim's Progress who makes his pass to the door of the Celestial City, only to find he has no citizenship. And there is a door for him hard by the gates of paradise that commits him to his rightful master in hell.


----------



## Peairtach

We are still in the Abrahamic Covenant in its super-dooper New Covenant administration.

It was promised to Abraham that he would be a father of nations and that he would inherit the world.

*E.g.*


> Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. (Gn 17:5)
> 
> And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. (Gn 17:8)
> 
> For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. (Rom 4:13)



The nation of Israel was just a token of international salvation, and was always open to incorporating others. The Land of Israel was just a token of the whole World and was always open to expansion, as tribes and nations joined with the Covenant People or were subdued by them.


----------



## non dignus

Randy,
You make an interesting question about the relation being parallel or linear. Could you elaborate?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I just question the parallel statement. As a Reformed Baptist I would state that the Presbyterians and paedo's flatten out the continuity of the Covenants too much. I held to an understanding that the CofW and CofG ran parallel and were both administered in the various covenants running up to the New Covenant which was not a mixture of CofW and CofG. As you can see I have had a change of heart concerning my view. I no longer believe that they run parallel next to each other through the various covenants. I do not believe the Covenant of Works is administered at all in the the administrations of the Covenant of Grace. I believe as the Westminster states that the Covenant of Grace was administered differently in the various covenants. I also believe that the Covenants are progressive in their Revelation. We all believe in Progressive revelation. I do not therefore see the covenants as stand alone dispensations as I use to see. I see the Covenants as progressively revealing the Covenant of Grace and building up those who are in the faith in its various administrations. Each proceeding Covenant reveals a bit more and builds on the previous covenant. 

Does that make sense?



> III. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
> 
> IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ, the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.
> 
> 
> V. *This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation, and is called the Old Testament.*


----------



## non dignus

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I just question the parallel statement. .....I do not believe the Covenant of Works is administered at all in the the administrations of the Covenant of Grace.



The unbeliever's status is that he is fallen in Adam, but he is still heaping up sins. I know we are not in a formal CoW now, but how would God account for my sins committed today if I were not in Christ? The CoW must still be in effect in some sense.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

The result of the Covenant of Works is not done away. The same is true for everyone except Christ Jesus the Lord. They are all born in Adam even if they did not sin the same way as Adam did. They are all born in that sin and commit sin they do. Everyone born is heaping up sin upon sin if they are not found in Christ. It was effective in its original form and the result of it carries to this day. The difference in Christ is that he didn't share in our federal head of Adam. That is why He was able to fulfill it and suffer on our behalf. He was born of the seed of a woman as it was promised back in Genesis 3:15. So the progressive revealing of the Covenant of Grace to man started with Adam and Eve and it has been progressively revealed in the proceeding promises and Covenants that are administered by it.


----------



## Loopie

Good Evening Everyone,

I am new to the Puritan Board Forum, but I was very interested in the discussion on covenant theology, particularly the discussion between Paedo-Baptism and Credo-Baptism. Though I am not an expert in these areas, I want to hopefully contribute to this discussion by pointing out a few things.

First of all, I just finished reading Greg Nichols’ new book Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God’s Covenants. In it Nichols summarizes the different views concerning covenant theology. He compares and contrasts the London Baptist Confession, the Westminster Confession (as well as larger and shorter catechisms), the Belgic Confession, and the Heidelberg Catechism. He then goes into detail concerning each of the covenants that we see in scripture, and they relate to each other. With that said, I will summarize what Nichols presents in his book, and why he concludes that Paedo-Baptist position is an inconsistent one.

In Part II of his book (Part I was a compare and contrast of the different Reformed and Baptist confessions), Nichols presents the three monumental intrusions that God made into history. First was the rescue that occurred at the time of the flood. Second was the redemption of the Hebrew nation out of Egyptian slavery. Third was the redemption of God’s people from their sins by the atoning work of Christ. Nichols then declares that in each of these instances, the righteous servants and the saved societies were organically joined:

“God pledges to bless his righteous servants and their posterity. Each saved society is the posterity of a righteous servant. God perpetuates each covenant with a saved society. God makes covenants with the societies he saved from the flood, Egypt, and sin. He makes the Noahic community covenant with Noah’s posterity, the old covenant with the Patriarch’s physical posterity, and the new covenant with Jesus’ spiritual posterity.” (Nichols 108)

Nichols then presents an easy to understand diagram that provides the following information:


FeatureNoahic EconomyMosaic EconomyChristian EconomyRighteous ServantNoahPatriarchs/AbrahamJesusPosterity BeneficiariesNoah's FamilyPatriarchs physical childrenJesus' children (Abraham's spiritual children)Divine Salvationfrom Floodfrom Egyptfrom SinSaved SocietyArk DwellersHebrew IsraelChristian IsraelOrganic PerpetuityPhysical posterity of Ark DwellersPhysical children of PatriarchsSpiritual children of Jesus


From here, Nichols discusses the seven historical covenants: God’s covenant with Noah (pre flood), God’s covenant with Noah’s posterity (post flood), Abrahamic Covenant, Old Covenant, Davidic Covenant, Messianic Covenant, and the New Covenant.

But before he discusses each of these covenants in detail, he spends a considerable time talking about the Covenant of Grace. Nichols quotes Genesis 3:15 as being the foundational passage concerning God’s covenant of grace. God promises to bruise/crush Satan’s head, and in that promise is the redemption of Eve’s seed. Again Nichols presents an easy to read table:


Essential FeaturesThe RedeemedThe RedeemerPartakers NamedAll God's ElectJesus ChristPromises MadeApply RedemptionAccomplish Redemption


Nichols then declares that not all men in Adam partake of this covenant. It is the Elect who are the spiritual seed of Eve, the redeemed. God accomplishes this redemption through the general and effectual call of the gospel.

In addressing the misconception that the children of believers are automatically partakers of the covenant simply because they are the physical children of Abraham’s spiritual posterity, he makes the following statement:

“Now, has God so connected the means to the ends that these means are in every instance effectual? Is every hearer of the gospel converted? Does every child nurtured by godly parents inherit his parents’ faith? Does every sinner for whom the redeemed intercede repent and believe? I could wish the answer to these questions was yes, but it is not. God makes these means effective as it pleases him. As it is said, the best of means are means at best. The means of grace are great privileges. Yet, the partakers of the covenant of grace are all the elect, not all the privileged. Not all hearers of the gospel are elect. Not all children raised in godly homes are elect. Not all sinners for whom saints pray are elect. We should not confound being privileged by the means of grace with being a partaker of the covenant of grace.” (Nichols 132-133)

Nichols says more on the subject:

“Similarly, Christians are Eve’s and Abraham’s spiritual children. The physical children of Christians thus enjoy great privileges. They enjoy these religious privileges in their final and finest form. God often uses the nurture of Christian parents, gospel preaching, and intercessory prayer to apply redemption to our physical children. Yet sadly, not a few of them, in spite of all their privileges, remain, like Cain, the devil’s children. And patently, the devil’s children, however privileged, are not partakers of the covenant of grace…
…In this light Christians should evaluate our views of our physical children. God made the covenant of grace with Eve (the believer) and her seed (spiritual children). Ask some plain questions. First question, was total inability removed from all her physical children because God made the covenant of grace with her? Second question, did God remove the guilt of Adam’s sin from all her physical children? Third question, did God assure Even that he would work faith in all her physical children’s hearts? Fourth question, were all her physical children, collectively, God’s elect? Fifth and final question, were all her physical children partakers of the covenant of grace? The answer to all these questions is, no. Ask the same questions about Noah and his physical children. Even ask these questions about Abraham and his physical children. The answers are all the same, no. We should apply these answers conscientiously to our doctrines and practices. Conscience in submission to Scripture, not parental longing, should govern our theology.” (Nichols 138)

As for the church, Nichols makes it clear that there is a difference between what the visible church is and what the visible church is supposed to be:

“Can men discern God’s creation of spiritual seed, the fulfillment of this solemn pledge? The answer is, yes. Can men infallibly discern God’s creation of spiritual seed? The answer is, no. Man looks on what appears to be genuine conversion in a credible profession of faith; but only God sees the real spiritual state of every heart. Thus Bavinck most cogently distinguishes appearance from essence.” (Nichols 139)

Even though I could go on summarizing Nichols’ understanding of each of God’s covenants, I feel that I presented enough information to hopefully encourage you to read his book. Before I finish though, I want to quickly discuss how Nichols’ defines the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Redemption:

“The covenant of grace focuses on the application of redemption by means of the general and effectual call. When God applies redemption by this gospel call, he implements or executes his covenant of grace. Its essence is God’s solemn pledge to accomplish redemption by Christ and apply it to his elect. The gospel call is the method by which he implements, executes, and fulfills his solemn pledge.” (Nichols 13)

In the end, I feel that Nichols has done an excellent job presenting a clear and consistent understanding of covenant theology. Not only does he reference a large number of Reformed and Baptist Confessions, he also compares and contrasts John Gill, Charles Hodge, Robert Lewis Dabney, Herman Bavinck, and Louis Berkhof. He argues that the seven different covenants described in scripture are all a means by which God accomplishes his covenant of grace. The covenant of grace is God’s “pledge to apply redemption to his elect, through the general and effectual call of the gospel.” The covenant of grace is accomplished in time and history, which reveals it to be the manifestation of God’s covenant of redemption (the decree to save that was made eternally within the Godhead). The seven covenants in scripture are organized into three covenantal economies: Noahic, Mosaic, and Christian. There is continuity between them when it comes to God’s elect. Salvation from sin has always been by grace through faith in Christ, and the elect have always been Eve’s/Abraham’s spiritual children. In Nichols’ own words, “the organic continuity of the covenant of grace is spiritual, and thus supports believer-only communion and baptism, which are visible tokens of God’s covenantal favor to his people in Christ.” (Nichols 100)


----------



## non dignus

Welcome, Loopie. 
It is an honor to respond to your 1st post. 
How does Nichols interpret Deut. 29:29?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Yep, that is a Reformed Baptist perspective. I should know. Welcome to the Puritanboard Eric. Make sure you make a signature that will show up in your posts. Here is the requirement for it. http://www.puritanboard.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_signaturereqtsfaq

I would differ from Nichols in a few places probably. The first intrusion was at the base. God shed blood in covering Adam and Eve. I also believe there is more continuity between the Covenants than he does. I am also a bit more inclined to appreciate the term Covenant of Works than he is as I noted in this place. http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/reformed-baptistic-perspective-gods-covenants-70004/#post897939

I wonder if he deals with the nature and substances of the Covenants. That is one thing that has pulled me away from 30 years of adhering to the Reformed Baptist position. I was viewing the Covenants as stand alone Covenants which administered both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. I wonder if he does this as do many other Reformed Baptists. I don't believe that is true any longer. I see the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants as administrations of the Covenant of Grace. They don't administer a Covenant of Works.


----------



## Loopie

To Non Dignus:

Allow me to quote from Nichols in an area where he references Deuteronomy 29:29:

"The wilderness generation, due to its rebellion, displays both continuity and diversity. There is continuity in Joshua and Caleb. They experienced firsthand both divine redemption from Egypt and divine inheritance in Canaan. There is also diversity. Most of the men that God redeemed from Egypt perished in their unbelief in the wilderness. Their children, who inherited Canaan, were either minors or yet unborn when God redeemed their fathers from Egypt. As God instituted the Abrahamic covenant at various seasons of his life, so he instituted the Mosaic covenant throughout their wilderness wanderings (Jer. 31:32). He began its institution at Sinia (Exod. 19:3, 6: Deut. 5:2-3) and concluded it in Moab (Deut. 26:17-19, 29:1, 9-13). Thus its original partakers are the wilderness generations of Hebrew Israel.
God perpetuated this pledge with successive generations of Hebrew Israel, descended from the original partakers by natural generation (Deut. 29:14-15, 29). If the descendants of the original partakers break this covenant, God inflicts on them its curses and judgments. Eventually, if they persist in this disobedience, even after God afflicts and judges them severely, he removes them from their inheritance in the land of Canaan and sends them into captivity in a foreign land (Deut. 29:24-28). This confirms that God perpetuates this covenant with successive generations of Hebrew Israel." (Nichols 208-209)

Now I am not sure if that answers your question, or if you wanted to discuss that verse in more detail. Again, I myself cannot do justice to Nichols' work, though I will do my best to summarize his arguments and present them to you.

To Puritan Covenanter:

Throughout my reading of Nichols' book I never got the impression that he did not believe in continuity among the covenants. Consider what he says in this statement:

"The Supreme Designer, Artist, and Engineer of the universe arranges his pledges in a form that is beautiful, intricate, orderly, and revelatory; in a word, it is remarkable. These seven covenants have a benevolent framework that consists in the Noahic Economy. They have a redemptive focus comprised of the Mosaic and Christian economies. They culminate with a Messianic fulfillment in the Christian economy. This entire house of pledges rests on an evangelical foundation, the mother-promise, the covenant of grace." (Nichols 110)

Based on this statement, and others, I would suggest that Nichols does indeed support the continuity of the covenants. This of course depends on if I am understanding your definition of 'continuity' properly. If I have not, then I would ask that you explain to me more about what you mean by 'continuity', and I can therefore confirm whether or not Nichols holds to this type of continuity.

As for God shedding blood for Adam and Eve, Nichols asserts this several times in his book. He does not deny it at all. He argues that when we look at the Adamic Covenant, we need to look at the relationship between God and Adam:

"In sum, Adam's original relation to God was familial and filial-parental. Thus it was warm and affectionate, not cold or distant. It was not an impersonal relationship between contracting parties. It was not between a disinterested judge and an unrelated defendant, or a ruler to an unknown subject. Thus, a 'covenant of works' model simply doesn't compart with its filial-parental framework...
...It is important to grasp the impact of this. Royal sonship has familial and legal aspects. A prince is his father's subject and servant. Even so Adam was his Father's subject and servant. A king is a prince's father and judge. So God was Adam's Father and Judge. A prince is capable, as Absalom was, of leading a revolt against his father's kingdom. Even so, Adam was capable of treason against his Father's government." (Nichols 337)

As for the nature of the Adamic Covenant, it was of grace, since the blessings that Adam had were unmerited (he already had them when God placed him in the garden, and God was not obligated to put Adam there):

"First, Adam enjoyed the unmerited privilege of physical and spiritual life. He enjoyed communion with God. He knew God. He had affectionate fellowship with him. Scripture calls such knowledge and fellowship with God 'life' (John 17:3). Thus Adam had life, physical and spiritual. Thus, he had the right to eat from the tree of life (Gen. 2:16). Yet, it is also true that Adam's life was mutable.
Second, Adam enjoyed the unmerited privilege of home in paradise, the Garden of Eden. Adam lived in blessing and delight. The Garden of Eden was beautiful and comfortable. God abundantly supplied their every need.
Now, consider carefully the source and ground of these privileges. Adam did not merit life in paradise. He never earned it. God gave all this to him from the beginning, freely, out of parental favor. Adam enjoyed blessing from his Father that was unmixed and unmerited. God established Adam's filial relationship and its privileges wholly from his 'creative paternal favor'. He founded it on unmerited favor to the son he created upright (Eccles. 7:29). Adam enjoyed every privilege and blessing freely from the generous love of his Creator Father. Again, categories like 'contracting parties', and 'stipulations', misrepresent God's unmerited favor from which he freely gave every privilege and blessing to his son Adam." (Nichols 338)

In the end, I think Nichols presents the Adamic Covenant not as a covenant of works, but a covenant of life. Even before the fall, God bestowed unmerited favor to his son Adam. Adam never earned the privilege of being in the garden. I think that Nichols would agree with you that the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants are administrations of the covenant of grace. He seems to suggest that ALL seven of the covenants are administrations of the overall covenant of grace. As for the Covenant of Works, Nichols does not agree with the term, and prefers calling it the Covenant of Life or better yet, the Adamic Covenant.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Loopie said:


> Again, categories like 'contracting parties', and 'stipulations', misrepresent God's unmerited favor from which he freely gave every privilege and blessing to his son Adam." (Nichols 338)



So, are you suggesting that the Covenant of Works was a gracious Covenant Eric? That Adam didn't have stipulations and had an unmerited favor bestowed upon him in the Covenant of Works? I do understand that God was gracious in his condescending to Adam. But is the Covenant of Works a gracious Covenant in light of Romans 4. If there were no covenanting parties and no stipulations then why was Adam cast out? If there was an unmerited favor then what happened to cause Adam to fall from it? 



> (Rom 4:1) What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
> 
> (Rom 4:2) *For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory*; but not before God.
> 
> 
> (Rom 4:3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
> 
> 
> (Rom 4:4) *Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.*
> 
> 
> (Rom 4:5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
> 
> 
> (Rom 4:6) Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
> 
> 
> (Rom 4:7) Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
> 
> 
> (Rom 4:8) Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.



And really you did not address my concern of how works are implemented into the framework of the Mosaic and other Covenants that Reformed Baptists teach. I have not read Nichols and wasn't going to since I have spent much time in the earlier works of Reformed Baptist and thought he really wouldn't have anything else to offer that differed. I would really like to know if he diverts from Reformed Baptist thought on this subject. No one is denying that Reformed Baptist hold to a framework that says the Covenants don't administer the Covenant of Grace. That is not the dispute. It is whether or not they administer a works application along side of the grace offered in these Covenants.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Covenant of Life or Covenant of Works, what's the difference? Adam was promised life upon *condition* of perfect, perpetual, personal *obedience*. He was promised death if he disobeyed. This sounds like a semantical debate, but one of questionable value.

And the truth is, words are very important, such that we want to be careful about when an where we use certain language, so as to safeguard certain concepts. "Works" and "Grace" are highly charged words, and often used in stark contrast to one another in Scripture. Creation is one starting point for history. The Fall of Man is the RE-starting point, and a different principle reigns so far as the creature relating to his Creator. Its the difference between a perfect man relating to God, and a sinner relating to God.

The Westminster divines do not use "grace" to describe Adam's unfallen relation to God, precisely because there is an urgent requirement to conserve that term. Instead, the use the language "voluntary condescension." WCF 7:1 "The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some *voluntary condescension* on God’s part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant."​Here, no one can be in doubt as to the fact that God must stoop to meet us, and that no creature is capable of strictly deserving the attentions of God. But God is still free to set up the terms of his engagement with his creation, and to establish the "merits" for maintaining the relation viable.


If it bears up, that there is a kind of embedded unease in the Ref.Bapt. conception of the economy of the covenants with the notion of "Covenant of Works" (and I do not claim there is, or that Nichols has been represented; I just don't know), then this would have to stand as another significant contrast in _starting points_, which I frequently say is the great difference in how Covenant Theology and Covenantal-Baptist theology differ.

Further, if you look at the 1st chart (reproduced above), you see how that the Mosaic economy is described by Nichols as placing all sorts of *essential* emphasis on physical things, *in contrast to* the Christian economy, which he describes as placing (new) emphasis on Spiritual things. I find this radical contrast completely artificial, and foreign to biblical religion taken together. In contrast to the CB understanding of the former covenant, I do not believe that the enhanced sensory quality of Moses' was an essential quality at all. Those sensory aspects obtained an "overshadowing" quality because of the dullness of the people, but they were meant to illumine them (particularly the elect) to spiritual truth in a darkened age.

In the CT (vrs. CB) there is contrast between the Mosaic and Christic economies; however it is not contrast that is adequately expressed by pitting "physical" and "Spiritual" against one another as _principles_. The difference in those departments is one of degree, relative to the expression of those covenants historically. Furthermore, if one pushes farther back chronologically behind the Mosaic economy to the Abrahamic covenant (ala Paul's NT argument, Gal.3:18), one finds Spiritually-dominant economy antedating the Mosaic-economy.

And this reveals another distinction, one that the same chart (above) shows by way of omission, or combination. See how Moses subsumes Abraham, so that Abraham's covenant has no columnar reference? Where is the unique reference to Gen.12, 15, & 17? It is as though the covenant of Ex.20-24 (Sinai) has effectively muted the Abrahamic covenant. This apparently "validates" a Judaic (Pharisaic) reading of the OT! But Paul (following Christ) exposes the dominant Judaic reading (by the 1st century) of the OT as fallacious!


There are significant differences between the CB and the CT readings of these matters. And, sadly, it sounds as though again (this time in a massive, book-length treatment) the CB position is portrayed as distinct from the CT _simply on the basis of alleged consistency,_ the CB view naturally being portrayed as "more consistent." But this presentation ought to make more people wince, at its claim so incongruous with observable fact.

It is far more reasonable to reckon that there is an essential divergence _at the root of the matter,_ rather than at the conclusion of it. The difference in our conclusions has to do with the STARTING POINT, the hermeneutical origin, and then is worked out to different termini and practices. Consistency is the goal of both movements, and either side's insistence that the other side "get consistent" will result in endless talking past each other, rather than coming to an accurate understanding of the other's views (even where disagreement remains). At least, when someone changes position, it will be because they understood their reason for switching (or returning) went much deeper down.

This in no way invalidates the observation that both of these camps are related, or that they share many points of doctrine in common. This is quite rational, theologically as well as historically. We're dealing with the "same" materials, albeit with different principles of construction. But if we just think that its all about using the SAME principles, just "inconsistently" applied, we will not understand the other project.


----------



## Loopie

To Puritan Covenanter:

As I said earlier, I cannot do justice to Nichols' own words. I simply recommend that those who are interested in the topic of covenant theology take a look at his book. I certainly could offer many quotes from it, but other than reproducing the work verbatim, I am unable to do justice to his arguments. 

What I will say is that the Adamic Covenant was indeed a covenant. But to use terms such as 'stipulations' and 'contracting parties' does not do justice to the fact that there is a parental relationship, a filial relationship, between God and Adam. Yes, God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge. Adam already enjoyed both physical and spiritual life prior to this. As Nichols says: "All this unmerited privilege and happiness carried with it filial obligation."

How would Adam complete his responsibility? Here is what Nichols says:

"Thus, Adam labored in hope that when he fulfilled his work on earth, the creation mandate, he would enter God's rest. God would translate him, without death, into his heavenly presence."

So I would agree that there was indeed a covenant between Adam and God, where Adam was obligated to obey. At the same time Adam has already received unmerited favor and blessing. His position was mutable, but if he fulfilled God's commands, he could expect to enter into God's rest. The reason why Nichols tries to avoid the term Covenant of Works, is because it implies that Adam had to work his way into God's favor. Yet this is a favor that Adam already had, and he could only lose it by disobedience. That is why I think Nichols avoids the term covenant of works.

As for the works application alongside a covenant of grace, I do not think that Nichols has ever labeled the Abrahamic or Mosaic Covenants as covenants of works. In fact, I still don't quite follow what you are trying to get at. Yes there were rules and stipulations in each of the covenants, but in each of those covenants God is bestowing his unmerited favor. Abraham was declared righteous well before he was circumcised. Salvation has always been by grace through faith in Christ. Some of the covenants cover more ground than just salvation though. Obviously the Noahic Covenant was redemption from the flood, but not from sin (not all who are part of the Noahic Covenant are Eve's spiritual children, the Elect). In the same way, there were physical and earthly promises to the Hebrew Nation, but not all who were circumcised were Abraham's spiritual children. 

In the end I am not sure what you mean by administering a works application alongside the covenant of grace. If anyone has worked for the salvation of the Elect, it is Christ, who has done a perfect work. 

To Contra_Mundum:

I must disagree with your statement that Adam was promised life upon perfect, perpetual, obedience. Adam already possessed life before God even commanded him to obedience. The only promise was a loss of life, death, upon disobedience. Adam was not in a neutral position when God planted him in the garden. Adam was in fellowship with God, and had both physical and spiritual life. Yet Adam was mutable. Certainly Adam could expect to enter into God's heavenly, eternal rest upon completion of his appointed tasks, but he already had life.

I agree with you completely that we must be careful of the terms that we use. Nichols does not call the Adamic Covenant a Covenant of Works or of Grace. Both are present in different senses. He simply acknowledges that is the Adamic Covenant, and that it is centered upon the filial-parental relationship between God and Adam.

As for your criticisms of Nichols' work, I again strongly recommend that you read his work for yourself, since I am not one to do justice to his position. I simply attempted to summarize his positions. Nichols does not deny a spiritual aspect of the Mosaic and Abrahamic Covenants. Yet we see that not all of Abraham's physical children were the Elect. Not all of Hebrew Israel were of the Elect. The spiritual remnant (Eve's spiritual seed) were always within the physical (visible) church. Salvation has always been by grace through faith.

In the end I must ask, what is your own position concerning the covenants, how they relate to each other, and how God redeems his people from sin? If our biggest area of disagreement is whether not children should be baptized, then let us discuss it plainly and clearly. I will now cease summarizing Nichols' book, and speak simply from my own understanding.

We all agree that God is sovereign and free in who he saves. Yet for some reason many Christian parents believe that simply because they are believers, that their state of grace is guaranteed to be transferred to their children (which is the primary reason why they baptize them). This is never promised in scripture to ANY physical children, but only to spiritual children. Abraham was in a state of grace when God promised him physical children. Yet Ishmael, and other children were not of the Elect. Eve's physical children were not guaranteed to be the Elect, because we see that Cain, who murdered his brother, was cursed. So throughout scripture, who are those guaranteed to be the recipients of God's Saving Grace? It is always the spiritual children, whether Eve's, Abrahams, or Christ's. Now some would go so far as to say that ALL children who die automatically go to heaven (unless they have reached the age of accountability). I am sure most of us disagree with that, but we still need to be consistent in our understanding of baptism. If we baptize our children and they grow up and live to be unbelievers, then they were not of God's Elect, and were not Abraham's spiritual children. But while physical circumcision was commanded for Abraham's physical children (many of whom were not believers), Christ's spiritual children are the ones to receive baptism and communion (as well as circumcision of the heart). 

Consider that in the Old Testament we see that the true church was invisible. Often times most of the people of Hebrew Israel were NOT believers. Yet all of them were entitled to physical circumcision. All of them were part of the Mosaic Covenant, although not all of them were Abraham's spiritual children. In the New Testament we see that Christ gathers the invisible church (the remnant) and makes it visible. Only Christ's spiritual children are authorized to be part of this church, and to receive the signs of the new covenant (communion, baptism, and heart circumcision). Yet since we do not infallibly know who the Elect are, and since our physical children are not guaranteed to receive the state of grace that we currently enjoy, we need to refrain from infant-baptism. By engaging in infant-baptism we make the unwarranted assumption that we KNOW who the Elect are, and that our children are guaranteed to be part of that elect. We forget though that God is as free to save infants as he is free to save us. I have no claim to salvation, but God freely chose to save me for his own purposes, regardless of who my parents were.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Loopie said:


> I must disagree with your statement that Adam was promised life upon perfect, perpetual, obedience.


Technically, it's not *my* statement, but the statement of the Standards I'm oath-bound to confess as the biblical truth.


--WLC. A#20 "...entering into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience,..." 

--proofs @ _loc. cit.:_ Gen. 2:16–17. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Gal. 3:12. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Rom. 10:5. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

--It is *also a part of the LBC* to which you profess to adhere, *19.1* http://www.puritanboard.com/confessions/1689lbcf.htm#Ch.19 (and see the same in WCF.19.1).​

Do you believe in the Probation of Adam? That he had a better blessedness to attain than the blessedness of Eden? That it is better to be "not able to sin," than it is to be "upright" (Ecc.7:29) but mutable, and "able to sin"? If you do, then I don't know why you would disallow that there are two distinct modes of living even before the fall; and that not having the ultimate life, it yet remains held out to Adam as a motive

I say there's a qualitative difference between being alive, and working to stay that way; and having eternal life without fear of losing it. Paul says that there is such a person who "is dead even while she lives" 1Tim.5:6. That is to say, there is more than one sense in which we may be said to "live" in the present; all the same, there was a better-life waiting for Adam. The Tree of Life was a sign of it (as was the Sabbath). In the first estate, God suspended life on continued obedience. In the ultimate estate, he guarantees life, by himself ensuring the conditions that make it possible.



Loopie said:


> In the end I must ask, what is your own position concerning the covenants, how they relate to each other, and how God redeems his people from sin?


My position can be broadly defined within the contours of traditional Covenant Theology. I believe in a Covenant of Works existing before (and after) the fall, which binds or condemns all of the human race in the first Adam, the federal head of all his posterity (by ordinary generation). I believe in a Covenant of Grace, instituted after the fall to redeem the elect. I think it is present in seed form in Gen.3:15, and is progressively developed and revealed throughout the ages until it is uniquely and comprehensively revealed in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the promised Seed--of the woman, of Abraham, of Judah, of David, Rom.1:3. In him we have redemption through his blood.

The full witness of the Scriptures to the Lord Jesus Christ is the gospel of God; Christ is the hope of all the ages. The covenants of the past ages are all expressions of the grand, salvific Covenant of Grace. They enlarge the previously given revelation, as well as serving for a guide for the people who fall under their various administrations. Usually, the covenant-relations overlap. For example, the Law (Moses' covenant, or the Old covenant), which comes 430 years _after_ the Promise (Abraham's covenant), cannot annul the previous one (Gal.3:17), because the the previous one is superior. The Davidic covenant does not supercede the Mosaic, because David's is largely a further expression of Moses', or more exactly an enlargement of certain provisions previously dormant or less developed. The New Covenant is the institution of the Mediatorship of Christ, which brings to fruition (has brought, or will bring that which remains to be completed) all that the previous covenants anticipated. The fullness of the Covenant of Grace is the completion of the new heavens and new earth, when God may be all in all, 1Cor.15:28.




Loopie said:


> We all agree that God is sovereign and free in who he saves. Yet for some reason many Christian parents believe that simply because they are believers, that their state of grace is guaranteed to be transferred to their children (which is the primary reason why they baptize them). This is never promised in scripture to ANY physical children, but only to spiritual children. Abraham was in a state of grace when God promised him physical children. Yet Ishmael, and other children were not of the Elect. Eve's physical children were not guaranteed to be the Elect, because we see that Cain, who murdered his brother, was cursed. So throughout scripture, who are those guaranteed to be the recipients of God's Saving Grace? It is always the spiritual children, whether Eve's, Abrahams, or Christ's. Now some would go so far as to say that ALL children who die automatically go to heaven (unless they have reached the age of accountability). I am sure most of us disagree with that, but we still need to be consistent in our understanding of baptism. If we baptize our children and they grow up and live to be unbelievers, then they were not of God's Elect, and were not Abraham's spiritual children. But while physical circumcision was commanded for Abraham's physical children (many of whom were not believers), Christ's spiritual children are the ones to receive baptism and communion (as well as circumcision of the heart).


Brother Eric,
I'm going to respectfully ask of you that you *not* impute to me beliefs that I do not hold, nor that most Reformed or Presbyterian pastors, theologians, and laypeople hold--the ones who know their doctrine, and are worthy of the historic designations.

Your paragraph above contains claims about vaguely defined people and groups with whom you have some sorts of disagreement. It isn't entirely clear that you know exactly who these people are, or what they believe; or how many of the people you may be grouping together have such thoroughgoing disagreements between them, that they could not reasonably be placed into the same category on any but the most superficial resemblance. By way of comparison, I understand that JW's practice full-body immersion as a baptismal practice ( Baptism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). It shows as much unawareness of the views of the typical Ref.Baptist to lump him together with such incompatible beliefs as JW's hold, if I sought to explain what I thought was improper about baptism "ONLY when an individual is old enough to understand its significance" (to quote from the wiki-link).

So, again, I'm asking you to (1) first acquaint yourself with the views of those whose doctrine and practice differs from yours, by asking questions or reading texts, before you lead off asking then answering your own rhetorical questions, as in the above paragraph.




Loopie said:


> Consider that in the Old Testament we see that the true church was invisible. Often times most of the people of Hebrew Israel were NOT believers. Yet all of them were entitled to physical circumcision. All of them were part of the Mosaic Covenant, although not all of them were Abraham's spiritual children. In the New Testament we see that Christ gathers the invisible church (the remnant) and makes it visible. Only Christ's spiritual children are authorized to be part of this church, and to receive the signs of the new covenant (communion, baptism, and heart circumcision). Yet since we do not infallibly know who the Elect are, and since our physical children are not guaranteed to receive the state of grace that we currently enjoy, we need to refrain from infant-baptism. By engaging in infant-baptism we make the unwarranted assumption that we KNOW who the Elect are, and that our children are guaranteed to be part of that elect. We forget though that God is as free to save infants as he is free to save us. I have no claim to salvation, but God freely chose to save me for his own purposes, regardless of who my parents were.


Seriously, you do not know what you are talking about.

You have no idea (literally) why we baptize... anybody. Mature or infant. You really don't. Ask some questions, brother. That's the only way you will get to the root of our divide.

Blessings.


----------



## Loopie

To Contra_Mundum:

I apologize if I did not present myself more clearly in what I was trying to say. I fully agree with you that the words you spoke were of the Westminster Confession. I agree that Adam had a better life to look forward to, a life that was immutable, eternally in God's rest. Of course, without a bit of explanation, one might conclude that the phrase 'covenant of life' could mean that Adam did not actually have life until his job was accomplished. He certainly did have life, a spiritual life that was at the same time not immutable as ours is. Quite simply, Adam did have more to look forward to after some set probationary period. 

Based upon your description of Covenant of Works and Grace, we are in agreement, and I do not disagree with anything that you have said up until this point. All men are obligated to be obedient to God, and all men are guilty of breaking God's law. The Covenant of Grace is God's means of redeeming the Elect, a redemption that was eternally decided within the Godhead as the Covenant of Redemption.

Also, again I apologize if my statements led to misunderstanding. I never was imputing arguments to you specifically. I had transitioned to a more broad subject area, a shift in the topic (though I realize that I did not make a big enough shift in my terminology). When I refer to people who argue for an age of accountability, or for infants being guaranteed to go to heaven upon death, I referred to examples of people that I have had discussions with in my own life (not JWs by the way). I am not trying to lump anybody on this forum, or anyone Reformed, in with those people. I again apologize if I left you with that impression. I realize now that I should have been more clear in my transition from a discussion of specific covenants, namely the Adamic Covenant, to a more broader discussion of infant salvation and infant baptism in general. 

Now since we are practically in full agreement concerning the Covenants of Works/Grace, and the Adamic Covenant, I had wanted to transition to a more broad topic. I felt that there was really nothing more to discuss concerning Adam's position both prior to and after the fall. Looking at what you just said concerning Adam, and the fact that I truly do agree with you, I think it is right that we move on to a topic such as infant-baptism. 

Now, I respectfully say that I do not appreciate it when you assert that I do not know what I am talking about. Let us allow each other a bit of grace, and not become combative or argumentative (again I apologize if my words appeared that way in my earlier posts). With that said, I do ask that you please show me where I have erred in my understanding of infant-baptism. If you claim that I have no idea what I am talking about, then the most gracious thing to do is to share with me exactly what you believe concerning the baptism of infants, instead of just ending on such a negative note. 

In fact, since you bring up adult baptism, I respectfully request that you share with me (as succinctly and clearly as possible) why adults are to be baptized. I do not ask this simply for the fun of it, but to ensure that we both start out on the same sheet of music prior to addressing any differences. Now I am sure that we would agree perhaps 95% or so, but the only way to address the divide between us is to really narrow down the differences in our viewpoints. That is why I am asking you to share your view concerning both adult baptism and infant-baptism, and why you think infant baptism is consistent with Covenant Theology. 

In the end, I think there was a slight disconnect in our communication. The different writing techniques between people will cause this, particularly since only 10% of a message is in the words, while the rest is in tone and body language (something which forums in general lack). I will try to be more clear in future posts, but I respectfully ask that you not simply write me off as not knowing what I am talking about (besides, if you are going to say that to someone, the least you can do is show them why they are ignorant, and share with them your viewpoints instead of just leaving them hanging with an insult). 

I look forward to our continued discussion, and hopefully a more respectful one concerning infant and adult baptism. God Bless!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Eric,
I appreciate your willingness to review what you wrote, and to see that in moving into new territory for discussion you need to be clear on your purpose. In the two paragraphs which I criticized, you did make copious propositional statements, some about your views, some about what some other people may possibly believe. And interspersed a query in the middle there, which seems more rhetorical than curious. At that point, you seemed to be "defending" all over the map, anticipating this or that, but not really knowing your opponent's disposition. To use another metaphor: you pulled out the sword, brandished it, and whirled yourself about a bit executing set forms, and peering into the mist for a contestant. But at that point, you're just sparring with shadows.

I'm not entirely surprised that you didn't appreciate my observations, even swathed as they were in gentle encouragement to wait on genuine combat. I think you would have appreciated even less a blitz. What is your acquaintance with this position? Have you read any books by defenders of baptism from a Reformed or Presbyterian perspective? Have you had any conversations with knowledgeable pastors or elders from this perspective? Have you so much as read our confessional statements? If not, then I'd have to say in all honesty that you are more ignorant on the subject than informed. And it would be truly unkind and mean-spirited to use that to my advantage in a contest you were obviously not prepared for.

It would be hard for me to accurately describe where you've erred in your understanding of infant baptism, because I only have your few statements on the subject, half of which seem like "counter-moves" against imagined declarations by paedo-baptists. But let me start with this:


Loopie said:


> for some reason many Christian parents believe that simply because they are believers, that their state of grace is guaranteed to be transferred to their children (which is the primary reason why they baptize them).


You know, you may be right that there are many Christian parents who think this way. Who are they? What churches do they belong to? More importantly, what is the doctrine "on paper" of that church? Because lots of people believe all sorts of mixed-up stuff, that those who believe just what the doctrinal-statement declares would deny in a heartbeat. This might be true even in a Baptist church.

What is the primary reason why (informed) parents of a Reformed and Presbyterian persuasion present their children for baptism? Here's Q&A #166 of the WLC


Question 166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?
Answer: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, *are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.*

Prooftexts include, Col. 2:11–12; Acts 2:38–39; Rom. 4:11–12; 1 Cor. 7:14; Luke 18:15–16; See Gen. 17:7–9; Gal. 3:9–14; Rom. 11:16​

If you want to know why I baptize (certain) infants, the answer is in the *bolded* portion above, a very plain statement as to the reason. Because the children so described "are in that respect within the covenant." The bottom line for why we (on this side of our divide) baptize infants is because we believe that God has ordered it so to be done, and so we do it. And we don't make unreliable judgments concerning the status of election of our children in order to justify God's directive, _any more than_ we make the equally unreliable judgment concerning the status of election of any adult whom we baptize. When it comes to salvation we simply believe the promise of the gospel: that the Lord will save all those, and only those, who have faith in him; so let this person being baptized hope in the Lord.

Here's a second quote from your earlier post:


Loopie said:


> By engaging in infant-baptism we make the unwarranted assumption that we KNOW who the Elect are, and that our children are guaranteed to be part of that elect.


I hope it is clear to you that in order for you to say this about us at all, you must superimpose your understanding of baptism on us. I'm not sure where you would have to go in order to find a Reformed paedo-baptist who believes anything remotely like this. ONLY (some?) credobaptists make ANY attempt to baptize on the basis of scrying election. If you followed carefully what I said in the above section, you noted there the explicit denial that for us baptism is based on supposed knowledge of election (or good guesswork)--whether that be for an infant, OR for an adult. This is because the facts of election are not within the purview of any human being.


We baptize all those (and only those) of whom we have commandment to baptize. These are the persons that God has identified as being within the visible bounds of his covenant-dealings. His original, explicit designation of those persons so identified as standing within the covenant was stated in Gen.17, namely Abraham and his house. The males were to receive the sign of the covenant in their flesh, namely circumcision. This sign continued as covenant-sign down to the coming of the kingdom of God, and the Lord Christ of it. The old sign of circumcision was replaced by a new sign, baptism. Baptism isn't restricted to the males, but to every member of the covenant including women. And what of the children? Have they now been put out of the covenant? Where? It is nowhere stated that they are put out. In fact, there are references to them with a fair degree of frequency, and the terms are quite favorable.

I'm not going to try to anticipate all the possible objections and questions these views inevitably raise. I'm going to let you raise what you want, and try to answer them that way. I will say this: the assertion that Abraham's covenant was all (or primarily) about physical realities (versus spiritual)--and Moses' covenant the same along with his--is utterly and completely at odds with traditional Covenant Theology. It is an alien concept to the way that Covenant Theology developed out of the post-reformation exegetical revolution. CT in its traditional form understands that the covenant with Abraham was a spiritual covenant. There are earthly realities that accompany heavenly ones. But this is no different from what every age experiences, this side of heaven. The earthly, in some imperfect sense, mirrors the heavenly.

So there you have some food for thought.


----------



## JP Wallace

Loopie said:


> We all agree that God is sovereign and free in who he saves. Yet for some reason many Christian parents believe that simply because they are believers, that their state of grace is guaranteed to be transferred to their children (which is the primary reason why they baptize them).



Eric, let me as a Reformed Baptist reiterate what Bruce has said, in some of what you are writing here you are misunderstanding and misrepresenting the paedobaptist position, this is something that is frequently done (and they do it do sometimes of us!), but it really is essential that we critique a position that we understand it. It is not good enough to study one side of the argument. Here is the clear and unambiguous teaching and 'official' position of every paedobaptist on this board,

Westminster 28:5
V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

As you can see baptism does not regenerate, nor does it's application mean a person is regenerate, nor is it applied on the basis of presumed regeneration, much less election, all of that is error. There have been those who baptise on the basis of presumed regeneration, but that is not the Westministerian doctrine.

As I understand it, my presbyterian and other paedo-baptist friends baptise their children because they believe God commands the application of a covenant sign in the Abrahamic covenant and has not rescinded that commandment in the new covenant, though He has changed the sign. I recommend the following short series of sermons from Prof. Edward Donnelly on the subject. Prof. Donnelly knows RB's very well and deals with the subject very well I believe.

Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church(NI) - SermonAudio.com


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Some paedo's baptize on the presumption of election and not regeneration Pastor Wallace. They presume that in God's grace he has elected their Children even though they are not regenerate yet. I wouldn't do either. I would baptize based upon a father or mother's profession of faith as the child is sanctified and a covenant member of the Church the parent is a member at. Thus placing the child under the authority and discipleship of Christ, His Church, and the Parent's responsibility to raise up the child in the fear and admonition of the Lord as the Child is to recognize that God claims to be his God since he or she is a member of the Covenant Community. That places the responsibility of the child to respond to the Grace of God as well as it has placed the responsibility of their authorities to do what is commanded. 

I have listened to all kinds of Paedo's through the years and this is the three situations I have heard. This is where I have landed on the issue so far. And I am still not sure I have understood all of the arguments.

I think I defend my position fairly well in this post in this thread we are also discussing right now. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/mosaic-republication-c-o-w-71664/#post917483


----------



## Peairtach

*Eric*


> Mosaic Economy
> 
> Righteous Servant=Patriarchs/Abraham
> 
> Posterity Beneficiaries=Patriarchs physical children



Thanks for the post, Eric, and welcome to the PB. Sounds like a stimulating Reformed Baptist book on covenant theology.

The above place in the table misses out something important, that the Abrahamic Covenant was not only made with Abraham's posterity, but also with all those who entered the Abrahamic covenant by profession and their children.



> But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, (Rom 11:17)



People are still being engrafted into the Abrahamic Covenantal Olive Tree today, not atomistically but organically.


----------



## Loopie

To Rev. Buchanan:

As I said before, I apologized for what appeared to be a rapid and quick brandishing of the sword. As a humble Christian I recognized when I was not as clear in my purpose and my words as I should have been. That being said, mutual respect is very important in any discussion, so we need to maintain that towards one another.

I understand your position concerning paedo-baptism. The reason I asked your opinion on the matter is because not all Presbyterians adhere closely to the Westminster Standards. And though I myself agree with 99% of the Westminster Standards, I do disagree with the concept that in some way the children of believers are members of the New Covenant. I understand that you believe that God has ordered you to do so, and if I believed that he indeed commanded that all children of believers should be baptized, then I would adhere to your position. So that is the first divide between us, that you believe God commands the children of all believers to be baptized, while I do not believe God has commanded that.

As for the idea that some baptize their infants based upon the understanding that their state of grace is transferred to them in this way, yes there are some who would call themselves 'presbyterians', but again would not necessarily hold to the Westminster Standards. I agree with you completely that a church's confessions are important, and they need to be biblical.

As for reading and knowledge on the topic of baptism, there is no doubt that you have covered more books, lectures, sermons, debates, than I have. Of course, this does not mean that you should refrain from discussing these topics with me out of a quasi-charitable desire to not 'take advantage of me' in a discussion that I am not prepared for. Sir, I am a big boy, and I have no problem being destroyed in a discussion if I fail to prepare for it. I am responsible for my words, and I do not ask for anyone to wear kid gloves when having a discussion with me.

With that said, on the specific topic of baptism, I have read the London Baptist Confessions, the Westminster Confessions (including the shorter and larger catechisms). Now I certainly have to reference those writings, since I have not memorized them to any great level. As for books, I have read Nichols' newest work, as well as Calvin's Institutes. I am currently working on other works as well when my free time permits. As for other sources of information, such as lectures and debates, I have spent most of my efforts listening to Dr. James White and his discussions on baptism, as well as his debates with those who adhere to paedo-baptism.

Now that we have made a fresh start (so to speak), it would seem that our differences are two in number. One is that we disagree on who exactly is part of the New Covenant. Two is that we disagree on who God commands to be baptized. 

One passage that I would like to address is Acts 2:38-39:

"Peter said to them, 'Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.'"

Now it is my understanding that paedo-baptists would say that since the promise is made for us and our children, that therefore the children need be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. I would argue that we need to ask what the promise is and what the context is. We can see that the promise (forgiveness as a result of faith and repentance, coupled with the gift of the Holy Spirit) is made to the Jews ("you and your children"), and to the Gentiles ("all who are far off"). Yet this promise is based upon God's election ("as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself"). For this reason I would say that Acts 2:38-39 is not to be understood as suggesting that the infants of believers are to be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins.

As for the disagreement concerning who is to be considered as part of the New Covenant, I have attempted to simply summarize what Nichols was presenting in his book (though I agree I could have done better). Allow me to try again.

When we look at the covenants throughout all of scripture, what is the basic structure that we see? In the Adamic Covenant we see that those who fall under that covenant are all of Adam's physical descendants. All have broken God's commands, and all are guilty. Yet we see that within this group is the spiritual remnant, the Elect of God. God's promise to Eve that her seed will crush the head of Satan hints at this. God was not telling her that all of her physical children (which would be Adam's physical children as well) would be redeemed.

As we transition to the Noahic Covenant, we see the same thing. God made a covenant with his righteous servant Noah, and the promise (of not destroying the world by flood again) was made to all of Noah's physical descendants. In this way, every human on earth is a partaker of the Noahic Covenant, a covenant that has been sealed by the sign of the rainbow. Of course, within this group the spiritual remnant still existed. Not all of Noah's descendants were God's elect, yet God's elect were indeed partakers of the Noahic Covenant.

With the Abrahamic Covenant we again see the same structure. God made a covenant with his righteous servant Abraham, with promises both spiritual and physical in nature. The sign of the covenant was physical circumcision of Abraham's physical children. We know that Abraham was already right with God prior to his circumcision, and not afterwards. We also see that Abraham circumcised his household, including Ishmael. Again, we see that all of Abraham's physical children were made partakers of this covenant, though we certainly recognize that not all of them are the spiritual remnant, the Elect of God. Not all of Abraham's physical children would be redeemed from sin.

In the Mosaic Covenant the same can be said concerning the Hebrews. They were all under the covenant, but not all of them were the spiritual remnant, the spiritual children of Abraham. 

In the Davidic Covenant we see that God promises that the house of David will not fail to have someone on the throne of Judah. This is a promise to David and his physical descendants. Certainly there is a spiritual promise as well that is fulfilled in Christ. Yet we must agree that not all of David's physical descendants were part of the spiritual remnant, the elect of God. This is evident of the many wicked kings that sat on the throne of Judah.

Finally, when we get to the New Covenant, we see a genuine change in structure. Christ does not have any physical descendants. This is very different from ALL of the other righteous servants that God entered into covenant with. In the New Covenant we see that the spiritual remnant becomes the specific partakers of the New Covenant. The remnant includes those not circumcised as well as circumcised. Yet all of them are considered to be the spiritual children of Abraham. Whereas before the spiritual remnant were members of older covenants with those who were not the spiritual remnants, we now see that the New Covenant is made for only the spiritual remnant. Those who are members of the New Covenant are members of the church, the body of Christ, of whom Christ is the head. They are the Elect. The signs of this covenant are baptism, communion, and circumcision of the heart. 

In the end, we see that there is continuity within the covenants, but there is also a genuine shift in who is considered to be partakers of the covenant. All of Abraham's children were commanded to be circumcised, but not all of them were the Elect. Yet the New Covenant is greater, and better, than the Old. Christ does not have any physical children, and it is the spiritual children of Abraham, the Elect, that are to receive baptism, communion, and circumcision of the heart. Throughout scripture we see that it is never the case that all of the physical children of believers (righteous servants) are guaranteed to be the spiritual remnant, the Elect. So why is it the case now, under the New Covenant, that we should baptize the children of believers as if they were the spiritual children of Abraham, the Elect?

To Pastor Wallace:

It was not my purpose to misunderstand or misrepresent the paedo-baptist position. Yet there are those who do hold to the views that I described (I wasn't making it up). Now I certainly did not mean to suggest that Reverend Buchanan held to these views, but I wanted to bring up the fact that if we are not careful in our consistent view of scripture, it can lead us to those false views. I agree that the WCF makes the caveat regarding paedo-baptism that it is no guarantee of salvation. The problem is that in one sense it is being argued that the children of believers are members of the body of Christ, the church (of whom Christ will lose none). Yet if they grow up and we realize that they weren't really part of the New Covenant, the church, then what have we suggested? Haven't we suggested that Christ HAS lost some? Is it truly consistent with perseverance of the saints? This is a problem unless we believe that those under the New Covenant are not all members of the body of Christ. 

Ultimately, I believe that not only has the New Covenant changed the sign of the covenant from circumcision to baptism, but those who are considered to be members of this covenant has also changed. Abraham's physical descendants are partakers of circumcision, whether they are believers or not. Christ does not have physical descendants, and we see that he calls the spiritual remnant as the legitimate partakers in the New Covenant.

I hope that I was able to clarify my position a bit, and I truly look forward to continued discussion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Loopie said:


> Yet if they grow up and we realize that they weren't really part of the New Covenant, the church, then what have we suggested?


Are the baptized adults in your congregation members of the church?
Are they all elect?
If some of your baptized adults turn out to be non-elect, what has your Church suggested by baptizing them?


----------



## Loopie

To Semper Fidelis:

There is no doubt that some adults who profess Christ (as well as receive the sacraments) are not of the Elect. They might be part of the visible church, but certainly not the invisible church. Yet we both would agree that they are not partakers of the New Covenant, and never have been. If they are not the Elect, then they are not true members of the body of Christ. Yet their false confession will condemn them, and they will answer to God. The question is: are they legitimately authorized to receive baptism and communion as deceivers? I would say that they are not authorized to do so, because they are false believers, not the spiritual children of Abraham. With that said, we do not know for certain whether our children are the Elect or not, and whether they are of Christ's body or not. When we baptize our infants we seem to be assuming to ourselves some role that is solely God's. He will call his Elect in his own time. If we baptize our children knowing full well that they might be of the reprobate, we knowingly err in our role as parents. If a person confesses Christ, deceives the church, and takes baptism and communion unlawfully, that person alone errs, and will be held accountable for their actions.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Loopie said:


> I have spent most of my efforts listening to Dr. James White and his discussions on baptism, as well as his debates with those who adhere to paedo-baptism.



I don't believe this is going to get you very far. I was a Reformed Baptist for many years and argued much along the same lines. And it is easy to win a debate sometimes (depending on the opponent) and depending on the topics discussed and you may still be incorrect. 


Loopie said:


> Yet this promise is based upon God's election ("as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself"). For this reason I would say that Acts 2:38-39 is not to be understood as suggesting that the infants of believers are to be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins.



I recently found this to be an interesting topic. God calls many. I believe he even calls for infant inclusion into the Church and Covenant Community. We also have to remember that Acts is a narrative of historical events and that we should be careful about pulling stiff doctrine out of Acts. Many come away from Acts thinking that baptism is the means for forgiveness, cleansing of sin, and for making one right for receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. Do you want to make that wooden statement? One has to remember to whom Peter was addressing and the purpose of what he was saying. 

Concerning calling I will refer you to a passage that I recently discovered in looking at Calvin's comments.  



> Matthew 22:14 14*.For many are called, but few are chosen.* The object of the parable is pointed out by the conclusion, that few are chosen, though many are called; from which we infer, that we ought not to attempt an ingenious explanation of every minute clause. But lately, *Christ did not threaten that the greater part would be thrown out, but mentioned one man only; and now we learn from him, that out of a large number few will be retained. And certainly, though in the present day a more numerous body of men is collected into the Church by the Gospel than was formerly collected by the Law, it is but a small portion of them whose faith is evinced by newness of life. Let us not flatter ourselves with the empty title of faith, but let every man seriously examine himself, that at the final review he may be pronounced to be one of the lawful guests*; for, as Paul reminds us, that the vessels in the Lord’s house are not all of the same kind, so
> let every one that calleth on the name of the Lord
> depart from iniquity, (2Ti_2:19.)
> I enter no farther, at present, into the question about the eternal election of God; for the words of Christ mean nothing more than this, that the external profession of faith is not a sufficient proof that God will acknowledge as his people all who appear to have accepted of his invitation. (293)
> (293) “Tous ceux qui semblent s’estre rangez sous son enseigne;” — “all those who appear to have ranked themselves under his banner.”



I also wanted you to look at my prior post concerning the Mosaic Covenant. I wanted you to look at it so that you could see that I believe the substance of the Covenants are the same and why they are the same. If they are then the same principles apply from Covenant to Covenant. That is something that isn't really discussed enough in this dialogue. Check this out if you would please. It will answer the post you respond to Rich in my estimation. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/mosaic-republication-c-o-w-71664/#post917483


I am going out of town for the rest of the day so I won't be able to respond. I will try later tonight if anyone addresses me.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Thanks Eric.
On this board, the rule of thumb is you assume your conversation partner is familiar with the confessional terms of the debate, unless he gives you a reason to think otherwise. In which case, you, Eric, should to call him to account by his own Standard.





Loopie said:


> One passage that I would like to address is Acts 2:38-39:
> 
> "Peter said to them, 'Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.'"
> 
> Now it is my understanding that paedo-baptists would say that since the promise is made for us and our children, that therefore the children need be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. I would argue that we need to ask what the promise is and what the context is. We can see that the promise (forgiveness as a result of faith and repentance, coupled with the gift of the Holy Spirit) is made to the Jews ("you and your children"), and to the Gentiles ("all who are far off"). Yet this promise is based upon God's election ("as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself"). For this reason I would say that Acts 2:38-39 is not to be understood as suggesting that the infants of believers are to be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins.


Specifically, what the paedo-baptist makes of Act 2:38-39 is first of all, that the Promise of it is a repetition and restatement of the Abrahamic Promise, Gen.12:2-3; Gen.15:5; Gen.17:7--in the context of the arrival of the One who brings all the promises of God to fulfillment.

I'll illustrate the parallel that the paedo-baptist understands this way:
The promise is:to Abraham -- / -- to you
to Abraham's descendants -- / -- to your children
to all the nations -- / -- to those who are afar off​I believe the overwhelmingly Jewish audience would have immediately and instinctively have recognized this. 

Now, I'll address the substance of the Promise, which is: remission of sins._(the unconstrained gift of the Spirit is an effect of Messiah's reign, Eph.4:8; Ps.68:18; cf. Jn.7:39)_​This is, in fact, what the Promise to Abraham is all about, has ever been about. God's covenant with Abraham is the beginning of fulfillment of the promise of Gen.3:15. The only way to have a right-relationship with God, to have Him as "your exceeding great reward" (Gen.15:1), is to have the curse lifted. And this salvation can only come by faith in the Promise of God, even the curse-destroying Savior, which faith Abraham has and is saved, Gen.15:6; cf. Rom.4:3. In Jesus Christ the saints have the promised reconciliation, see Col.1:20-23; Rom.5:11; etc. In other words, the substance of the promise--whether in Abraham's day, or afterward, down to Pentecost and our own day--is *exactly* the same.

Now, I'll address Peter's explicit coda, "...as many as the Lord our God shall call."
**This coda is ALSO *exactly* what the Abrahamic Promise contains.** "Oh, that Ishmael might live before thee!" And God said, "No." (Gen.17:18-19)​In other words, there was a constraint upon the promise in Abraham's own day. Abraham had no right to presume upon the salvation of every one of his descendants, not even of his own sons! The knowledge in Abraham's day (and in all the after-days even before the coming of Christ) was that _the promise was for *as many* of Abraham/his descendants/Gentiles *as the Lord our God should call*._ The promise has ONLY and EVER been for the elect of God.

Paul understands this: Rom.2:28-29, "For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise [a pun on the name "Judah"] is not from man but from God." And again, Rom.9:6, "Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel." Yes, the truth made plain to Abraham is illustrated yet again, in an even more blatant manner, in only the second generation--as God chooses only one of twin sons from the womb of their mother.

Now, I'll address the matter of "baptized... for remission of sins."
Since I do not think that you think that the water of baptism cleansed the hearts of the first hearers of Peter from their sins (cf. 1Pet.3:21)--and I would agree--then our rival interpretations of this clause is almost wholly dependent on the meaning of the Gk. word, "eis," here translated "for." Am I correct in judging that you would read that as meaning "because of," that is to say, be baptized because your sins have been forgiven"? Indubitably, this cannot be an _infallible_ claim, i.e. that the remission of sins for all those listening in the crowd was revelationally confirmed. We know that because there were mockers present, Act.2:12. So, clearly there would needs be some sort of qualification to Peter's words on this reading, namely a heart-obedience to the accompanying command, "Repent."

There are three intentional observations I'd like to say on the phrase: 1) I do not believe that 'eis' is used in a "purposeful" sense, i.e. that the forthcoming ablution will be for the accomplishment or application of the hearers' forgiveness; but also, I am not convinced that an understanding of 'eis' as indicating the "basis" for their baptism does justice to the expression. 2) The old KJV version used the term "unto" to translate 'eis,' which I think is better than the modern "for." Calvin has many excellent things to say on this text, but from them:


> Although in the text and order of the words, baptism doth here go before remission of sins, yet doth it follow it in order, because *it is nothing else but a sealing of those good things which we have by Christ* that they may be established in our consciences.


That is to say, I think an appropriate gloss for Peter's words is: "Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ *unto*--meaning _as a seal, a mark, a memorial of_--the remission of sins." Thus 'eis' serves here ideally in the "middling way," neither strictly expressive of basis nor of purpose.

Leading to the third observation, 3) that this understanding returns the whole expression to its idealized form; which is to say, the word that is "missing" from the text is the personal pronoun, "your." Peter says, "Be baptized for remission of sins," and not "...for remission of YOUR sins." The hearers' attention is turned upon the thing itself (baptism), and NOT turned self-referentially upon the appropriation _by the baptized_ of the forgiveness offered "in the name of Jesus Christ." But rather, the forgiveness of sins is referred _by baptism_ to the work of Christ. And so the "statement" made by baptism is above all things an objective testament to the work of Christ on behalf of helpless sinners.

But no good use of it can be made, apart from obedience to the first command in that text, namely "Repent." Necessary personal appropriation is what one DOES with the work of Christ that is witnessed to him. The witness is constant, continual, as also the repentance must be. Calvin again on the same place:


> As the doctrine of repentance hath a daily use in the Church so must we think of the forgiveness of sins, that the same is continually offered unto us; and surely it is no less necessary for us during the whole course of our life, than *at our first entrance into the Church*, so that it should profit us nothing to be once received into favor by God, unless *this embassage* should have a continual course; be-reconciled unto God, because “he which knew no sin was made sin for us, that we might be the righteousness of God in him,” (2Co_5:20).


Baptism according to Calvin is nothing but the gospel-in-symbols, it is that "official messenger" (ambassador, by way of personification) of forgiveness of sins, which shall forever accompany that repentance so characteristic of the believer.

And, as an aside, circumcision in old time taught the same basic truths that baptism now does.




Loopie said:


> As for the disagreement concerning who is to be considered as part of the New Covenant...
> ....................
> Finally, when we get to the New Covenant, we see a genuine change in structure. Christ does not have any physical descendants. This is very different from ALL of the other righteous servants that God entered into covenant with. In the New Covenant we see that the spiritual remnant becomes the specific partakers of the New Covenant. The remnant includes those not circumcised as well as circumcised. Yet all of them are considered to be the spiritual children of Abraham. Whereas before the spiritual remnant were members of older covenants with those who were not the spiritual remnants, we now see that the New Covenant is made for only the spiritual remnant. Those who are members of the New Covenant are members of the church, the body of Christ, of whom Christ is the head. They are the Elect. The signs of this covenant are baptism, communion, and circumcision of the heart.
> 
> In the end, we see that there is continuity within the covenants, but there is also a genuine shift in who is considered to be partakers of the covenant. All of Abraham's children were commanded to be circumcised, but not all of them were the Elect. Yet the New Covenant is greater, and better, than the Old. Christ does not have any physical children, and it is the spiritual children of Abraham, the Elect, that are to receive baptism, communion, and circumcision of the heart. Throughout scripture we see that it is never the case that all of the physical children of believers (righteous servants) are guaranteed to be the spiritual remnant, the Elect. So why is it the case now, under the New Covenant, that we should baptize the children of believers as if they were the spiritual children of Abraham, the Elect?


Obviously, there is tons of stuff to take issue with here. One reason why it is often so hard to discuss these things is that too often, one or both sides feels the need to present _one's whole case in every post._ This is just about as stressful as can be, and it is hard to take the interlocking issues and deal with them separately. This is why I said way back in an earlier post, that until one sees that the issues are "deeper" than the surface, or accusations of "inconsistency," little helpful progress is possible. Yes, we do agree on A LOT of the discrete "points" of the theological enterprise. Thank God for it. But, the way we come at it, and put it together is VERY DIFFERENT. That's what we have to admit.

This "change in structure" you refer to above, _I basically deny its reality_. The true "change" that comes about in the "structure" of the Covenant of Grace (if we want to use those terms), happens--as it has happened through the whole of human history--in the actualization of eschatology. Either "personal" eschatology, or "historical" eschatology, i.e. the end of the world. The "meaningful" physical descendants of Abraham were the elect, ONLY the elect. The others--from Ishmael, to Achan, to Ahab--did not share their father's faith, and so did not share in the truth of the covenant made with him. They stand as warning signs to those within and without the church of the fate of hypocrites and formalists in religion. Paul, again, puts it so clearly that I do not know that it is possible to improve upon his stark statement: "Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham" Gal.3:7. No one else. Only those of faith.

In other words, the basic reality is that Abraham "only" has *spiritual descendants*. Hear what Jesus Christ says, Jn.6:63, "The flesh profiteth *nothing*." Moses has "only" spiritual descendants. David has "only" spiritual descendants. Etc. Etc. We have all those wonderful ingraftings of the "firstfruits of the Gentiles," all through the Old Testament--men like Caleb the Kenezite, Ittai the Gittite, and Uriah the Hittite; women like Rahab of Jericho, and Ruth the Moabitess. All these people who have been united by faith to become Abraham's seed.

Well, what about the fact that there was all those other descendants after the flesh? And why was there a national covenant, and a Promised Land, and all that? Because such conditions were part of the divine plan for bringing forth the Son of God into the world, cf. Heb.9:26. Many subordinate purposes could be adduced, but here are a few notices from Scripture: 1Cor.10:6, 11 "Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did.... Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come." Rom.15:4 "For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." Rom.4:23-24 "But the words 'it was counted to him' were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also." Heb 10:28-29 "Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?."


Lastly, more than once now the principle of "heart-circumcision" has been attached to the New Testament. I don't want to attribute the wrong idea to you, or assume you don't know something, so I will do the rhetorical question bit here, and ask (and answer) the question: Where does the first mention of heart-circumcision come in? It's Lev.26:41, written by the first biblical writer of them all, Moses. He explicitly mentions it twice more, in his sermons in Deuteronomy--refs. 10:16 and 30:10. In other words, no later than the national constitution (and it seems artificial to think that Moses invented, rather than inheriting the idea) the people of God are well-informed that there is an outward rite, and an inward reality that is *supposed* to correspond to the external.

How is this different from today's baptismal ritual? There's an outward rite, and an inward reality that is *supposed* to correspond to the former. Of course, its never a perfect correlation. Now, I can't tell you how many times I've been told by a baptist-brother that "heart-circumcision" corresponds to "baptism," but it's been often. Well, I'd be loath to deny that observation as such, but I truly wonder what has happened to the whole-structure parallelism? We have inward/outward circumcision in the OT. And we have inward/outward baptism in the NT. The fact that Paul can take the physical referent in the second pair, and connect it to the OT spiritual corollary only highlights the fact that the principles of the two signs are virtually interchangeable. And the really fascinating thing is that Peter does something similar but inverted, taking a different OT physical type (the flood) and deliberately connecting it to the inward baptism of the Spirit.

See that? An OT spiritual concept connected to the NT baptismal rite (Col.2:11-12); and an OT earthly type connected to the NT baptismal spirituality (1Pet.3:20-21). How do they do that? Well, if the religion is basically the very same thing OT & NT, these teachers are simply taking the Bible they already have and applying its eternal truths to the present age. And what gets written down in the first century of the NT is now our Christian heritage, along with the OT they preached from.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Eric: You didn't answer my questions.

You wrote:


> There is no doubt that some adults who profess Christ (as well as receive the sacraments) are not of the Elect. They might be part of the visible church, but certainly not the invisible church.


Again, then, _your Church_ baptized them presumably. I asked you what it says about baptism that you administered it to those who are potentially not elect. You didn't answer that question. You answered the question about what it says about the person.



> Yet we both would agree that they are not partakers of the New Covenant, and never have been.


We would only agree that they do not receive the graces signified by the Sacraments of the New Covenant. They are not in Christ by definition and our Confession states this.



> The question is: are they legitimately authorized to receive baptism and communion as deceivers? I would say that they are not authorized to do so, because they are false believers, not the spiritual children of Abraham.


Then why is your Church baptizing them and administering the Lord's Supper to them if they are not authorized to receive them?



> With that said, we do not know for certain whether our children are the Elect or not, and whether they are of Christ's body or not.


Yet, by your admission, you do not know for certain whether the baptized members of your congregation are elect or are of Christ's body. Why are you baptizing them?



> When we baptize our infants we seem to be assuming to ourselves some role that is solely God's. He will call his Elect in his own time. If we baptize our children knowing full well that they might be of the reprobate, we knowingly err in our role as parents.


Yet, it is not the parents who are baptizing but the Church and so, if the Church baptizes a person who may be reprobate, the Church by your logic knowingly errs in its role as those authorized to perform baptism.



> If a person confesses Christ, deceives the church, and takes baptism and communion unlawfully, that person alone errs, and will be held accountable for their actions.


No, the Church has erred as well according to the criteria you have established.

I would suggest you need to study your Confession more carefully because it does not ground the baptism of professors in the manner you have for the logical errors it obviously creates.


----------



## Loopie

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'll illustrate the parallel that the paedo-baptist understands this way:
> The promise is:to Abraham -- / -- to you
> to Abraham's descendants -- / -- to your children
> to all the nations -- / -- to those who are afar off​I believe the overwhelmingly Jewish audience would have immediately and instinctively have recognized this.



The difficulty lies in the fact that Abraham has both physical and spiritual children. Which descendants are you talking about? All of them? Which ones are the Elect? Is it not purely the spiritual children of Abraham? Are the non-Elect members of the New Covenant?



Contra_Mundum said:


> Abraham had no right to presume upon the salvation of every one of his descendants, not even of his own sons! The knowledge in Abraham's day (and in all the after-days even before the coming of Christ) was that _the promise was for *as many* of Abraham/his descendants/Gentiles *as the Lord our God should call*._ The promise has ONLY and EVER been for the elect of God.



Completely agree.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Since I do not think that you think that the water of baptism cleansed the hearts of the first hearers of Peter from their sins (cf. 1Pet.3:21)--and I would agree--then our rival interpretations of this clause is almost wholly dependent on the meaning of the Gk. word, "eis," here translated "for." Am I correct in judging that you would read that as meaning "because of," that is to say, be baptized because your sins have been forgiven"?



Again, completely agree.



Contra_Mundum said:


> but also, I am not convinced that an understanding of 'eis' as indicating the "basis" for their baptism does justice to the expression.



So are you suggesting that the repentance and belief of those Peter is addressing is not the reason for their baptism? If it is not the purpose, nor the basis, and is simply a 'middling way', then how does that make any sense? Baptism logically comes either before or after repentance, making it either a purpose or a basis. Why shouldn't those being addressed be baptized even if they refuse to repent and believe? If repentance and faith is not the basis for their baptism, then it should be perfectly allowable for them to receive baptism while still refusing to repent and believe.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Peter says, "Be baptized for remission of sins," and not "...for remission of YOUR sins."



So would you argue that the word 'your' is an improper addition to the translation of the Greek?



Contra_Mundum said:


> Baptism according to Calvin is nothing but the gospel-in-symbols, it is that "official messenger" (ambassador, by way of personification) of forgiveness of sins, which shall forever accompany that repentance so characteristic of the believer.



I do not quite follow your line of reasoning. Are you suggesting that baptism is simply a different form of the gospel? So if there is a general and effectual call of the gospel, then there is a general and effectual call of baptism? Should we then baptize all human adults (whether they repent or not) as a sort of general call of the baptism-gospel, with the understanding that at least some of them will repent and believe by the effectual call of the baptism-gospel?



Contra_Mundum said:


> Obviously, there is tons of stuff to take issue with here. One reason why it is often so hard to discuss these things is that too often, one or both sides feels the need to present _one's whole case in every post._ This is just about as stressful as can be, and it is hard to take the interlocking issues and deal with them separately. This is why I said way back in an earlier post, that until one sees that the issues are "deeper" than the surface, or accusations of "inconsistency," little helpful progress is possible. Yes, we do agree on A LOT of the discrete "points" of the theological enterprise. Thank God for it. But, the way we come at it, and put it together is VERY DIFFERENT. That's what we have to admit.



Completely agree.



Contra_Mundum said:


> The "meaningful" physical descendants of Abraham were the elect, ONLY the elect. The others--from Ishmael, to Achan, to Ahab--did not share their father's faith, and so did not share in the truth of the covenant made with him.



Those meaningful physical descendants of Abraham were Abraham's spiritual children. Of course, the Elect also included Abraham's spiritual children who were not his physical descendants. Like you said, others such as Ishmael did not share in their father's faith, and so did not share in the truth of the covenant. But even though God established his covenant with Abraham's son Isaac, not all of Isaac's physical descentants were of the Elect. Still, the covenant with Isaac included both Elect and non-Elect, with circumcision being given as a sign to both groups of people. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> They stand as warning signs to those within and without the church of the fate of hypocrites and formalists in religion. Paul, again, puts it so clearly that I do not know that it is possible to improve upon his stark statement: "Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham" Gal.3:7. No one else. Only those of faith.



Yes, those of faith are Abraham's spiritual children. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> In other words, the basic reality is that Abraham "only" has *spiritual descendants*. Hear what Jesus Christ says, Jn.6:63, "The flesh profiteth *nothing*." Moses has "only" spiritual descendants. David has "only" spiritual descendants. Etc. Etc.



Here I would disagree with you, because you have read Gal 3:7 to suggest that the physical descendants of Abraham have somehow disappeared. In truth, the spiritual children of Abraham existed amongst the physical descendants of Moses, and the physical descendants of David. Would you argue that the same is true for Noah? Did Noah ONLY have spiritual descendants? There is a slight inconsistency here in the structure that you are proposing. I would argue that Abraham's physical descendants have not ceased to exist. The spiritual descendants, the Elect, have always existed, but they have always existed within the broader group (this is true of Noah's descendants, Isaac's descendants, Moses' descendants, and David's descendants). In the New Covenant though we see that God finally calls his spiritual remnant out as their own group, as the visible church. In the older covenants, God included non-Elect as partakers of those covenants. In the New Covenant, God calls the spiritual children of Abraham, the remnant, out. It is they alone who are called to partake in the signs and seals of the New Covenant (baptism, communion, and heart-circumcision). 



Contra_Mundum said:


> Lastly, more than once now the principle of "heart-circumcision" has been attached to the New Testament. I don't want to attribute the wrong idea to you, or assume you don't know something, so I will do the rhetorical question bit here, and ask (and answer) the question: Where does the first mention of heart-circumcision come in? It's Lev.26:41, written by the first biblical writer of them all, Moses. He explicitly mentions it twice more, in his sermons in Deuteronomy--refs. 10:16 and 30:10. In other words, no later than the national constitution (and it seems artificial to think that Moses invented, rather than inheriting the idea) the people of God are well-informed that there is an outward rite, and an inward reality that is *supposed* to correspond to the external.



Certainly they knew about circumcision of the heart, but the difference is that God makes it one of the signs of the restoration. Yes they were commanded to be circumcised in heart, but it was not going to happen until God was the one to change their hearts. We see in Deuteronomy 30:6 that Moses, after predicting the disobedience and captivity of the Israelites, promises that God will be the one to circumcise their hearts (a sign of the New Covenant). That is why I would argue that heart-circumcision should be attached to the New Testament as a specific sign of the New Covenant.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Now, I can't tell you how many times I've been told by a baptist-brother that "heart-circumcision" corresponds to "baptism," but it's been often. Well, I'd be loath to deny that observation as such, but I truly wonder what has happened to the whole-structure parallelism? We have inward/outward circumcision in the OT. And we have inward/outward baptism in the NT. The fact that Paul can take the physical referent in the second pair, and connect it to the OT spiritual corollary only highlights the fact that the principles of the two signs are virtually interchangeable.



I would disagree that they become fully interchangeable. Certainly the reference to outward baptism is connected to inward cirumcision (the reference is not from outward baptism to outward circumcision). Obviously God did not call Abraham to inwardly circumcise his children. He called Abraham to outwardly circumcise them. In this way I think there is a slight inconsistency in your argument, because you end up interchanging outward baptism with outward circumcision, even though you specifically said that the corollation is between inward circumcision and outward baptism. With this in mind the corollation is more like a cross-corollation rather than a direct and full interchangeable corollation.

---------- Post added at 06:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ----------

To Rich:

Allow me to better explain my arguments. You seem to be arguing that since there is nothing wrong or unbiblical about the church baptizing those who profess Christ (who may be reprobate), then there is nothing wrong or unbiblical with the church baptizing infants (who may be reprobate). Is that a fair understanding of your argument?

First of all, the correlations are not exact. In the first instance we have those who profess Christ as receiving the sacraments. In the second instance we have infants (who have not professed Christ) as receiving the sacraments. That is why there is a difference between the two instances, and why the first is expected, while the second is not.

In the instance of parents baptizing their children, why should this relationship change as the infant grows up? If I was an unbeliever, but my parents became believers, shouldn't they still baptize me even if I was older (say, 11 or 12, or even 29)? This might be the case if my parents did not accept Christ until I was a teenager. Why does the relationship change when children become older? Does it change simply because at some point in my childhood (at some arbitrary and unknowable moment), I am able to profess Christ on my own? Would I not still technically be a partaker of the New Covenant, since my parents are believers? So regardless of what age I am, I should receive the sacrament of baptism, right? I know that the Westminster Confession declares that only infants should be baptized, but at what age does that stage end? At least in the Abrahamic Covenant the specific time of 8 days was given for the circumcision of children. But who decides when an infant is no longer an infant, and when a person is able to confess the Lord on their own? 

Finally, there is a difference between the presumption of the church regarding those who cannot speak for themselves, and the presumption of the church regarding those who can speak for themselves. We know that the church is not infallible, and we can expect that many will enter the church who do not belong (are not of the elect). Yet we must not ignore the importance of the profession of faith that one makes. The church SHOULD be as careful and responsible as possible about who receives the sacraments. By giving these sacraments to infants the church is not being as careful as it should be (it is being overly presumptuous). In fact, the church is being very liberal with the sacraments, when it should instead wait for a confession of faith from the individual before providing them with those sacraments.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Loopie said:


> You seem to be arguing that since there is nothing wrong or unbiblical about the church baptizing those who profess Christ (who may be reprobate), then there is nothing wrong or unbiblical with the church baptizing infants (who may be reprobate). Is that a fair understanding of your argument?


No, I am telling you that your own standard for baptism is hanging you on the same gallows you are attempting to hang others. You will see the error in your reasoning if you simply follow your own arguments out. This is why the LBCF does not admit to the same standard for baptism that you are attempting to argue for.



Loopie said:


> Finally, there is a difference between the presumption of the church regarding those who cannot speak for themselves, and the presumption of the church regarding those who can speak for themselves.


Now this is a different standard. You previously stated this was the standard:



> The question is: are they legitimately authorized to receive baptism and communion as deceivers? I would say that they are not authorized to do so, because they are false believers, not the spiritual children of Abraham.


Clearly you stated that those who are not "spiritual children of Abraham" are not authorized to receive baptism and communion. Either the Church is authorized to baptize them or they are not. Make up your mind.


----------



## non dignus

Loopie said:


> The difficulty lies in the fact that Abraham has both physical and spiritual children. Which descendants are you talking about? All of them? Which ones are the Elect? Is it not purely the spiritual children of Abraham? Are the non-Elect members of the New Covenant?


 
Hi again, Eric.
Thanks for Nichols' rendering of Deut. 29:29. I mentioned that verse because this debate often boils down to 'knowing' who is elect and who is not. But Moses said that the secret things belong to the Lord, and he also said that the revealed things (covenant) belong to us and to our children forever. As Dr. McMahon has said, "The elect do not have a big 'E' on their foreheads." 

The covenants are given so we might believe and have certainty of these things, not so that we might peer into the secret decrees of God. Paedobaptists simply believe that all holy persons are to receive the sign of holiness, namely Baptism. Believers are holy, as far as we humanly know, and children of at least one believing parent are holy. 1 Cor 7:14 

If baptism were only administered to the deadsure elect, as the Baptist requires (bless his heart), then one would have to evaluate a whole lifetime of fruit and baptise candidates on their death bed. 

The Lord has promised to save our children. The promise is to the body as a whole, not to individuals per se. That is why some children are lost but the promise is sure.


----------



## Loopie

Rich,

It is indeed true that the church is authorized to administer the sacraments. There is another question though: who is authorized to accept and receive those covenants?

Say, hypothetically, that you know someone who is certainly not a Christian. You are aware that this person only wants to enter into a church for selfish reasons (perhaps just to fit in and make friends, or because of peer pressure). Now you might go to the church elders and inform them that you do not believe this person to be a true believer. Yet when they confront the person, the person asserts that they have accepted Christ, and wish to be baptized and take communion. There are two different questions we need to ask here:

1) Is the church authorized to baptize this person? Yes. The church is acting based off of the best information that they have. Though you might speak up against their decision, they might not give your arguments much weight (particularly if the person was very convincing). We know that the church is not infallible, and we have been told in scripture that there will be many false prophets and false teachers within the church. In this case the church is not being overly presumptuous or liberal with the sacraments, as its decision to baptize others is based on a credible confession of faith (which many false believers give). 

2) Is the person in question authorized to request and receive baptism? No. God knows the heart of that individual, and whether that individual is of the Elect or of the Reprobate. That individual can expect great judgment for deceiving the church, and essentially being a wolf in sheep's clothing. Obviously the church cannot infallibly know the heart of the individual, or else the church would not have baptized them.

This leads me to another hypothetical question: If the church did have infallible knowledge of who was of the Elect and who was of the reprobate, would (and should) the church still baptize those reprobate who request it? If the church knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that a person WAS NOT a believer, should the church still baptize them? Obviously not. The church should act based upon what it knows, and what God has revealed to it. That is why the church needs to be careful and conservative in the distribution of its sacraments. 

That is also why the LCF declares that the proper subjects of the sacrament of baptism are "Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ." What futher revelation can the church have concerning someone's faith other than this? If the church was able to infallibly know who was Elect and who was not, they would not simply give baptism to someone that they infallibly knew was reprobate. That is why the church is indeed authorized to baptize those who profess Christ (even if they profess falsely). This does not ignore the fact that the reprobate are deceiving the church, disobeying God, and defiling the sacraments when they request and receive baptism on a false profession of faith.


----------



## Loopie

Non dignus, 

Hi again to you as well!

I addressed the issue of knowing the Elect in my response to Rich, and I would never argue that the church must determine if someone is truly Elect before baptizing them. The church is unable to do this, for the church is not infallible.

I understand that paedo-baptists believe that all holy persons are to receive the sign of holiness. Yet in 1 Corinthians 7:4, are the terms 'sanctified' and 'holy' to be referring to salvation, or being a partaker of the New Covenant? If they are, then the verse is indeed saying that unbelieving husbands are made partakers of the New Covenant (or are redeemed from sin) through their believing wives, and vice versa. Does this mean then that the unbelieving husbands of believing wives should receive baptism? If not, then why not? What if the children are older? Should they also receive baptism without professing Christ? 

I would argue then that baptism is not JUST a sign of holiness, but a sign of being a partaker of the New Covenant, of having ones sins forgiven, and of having new life. Based on the paedo-baptist reading of 1 Corinthians 7:4, unbelieving husbands/wives should also be eligible to receive baptism, to be considered partakers of the New Covenant, and to be viewed as having a newness of life without repenting and believing.

In the end, I would say that the Lord has promised to save the spiritual children of Abraham, the Elect. Certainly we would be able to argue that the New Covenant would EXACTLY parallel the Abrahamic Covenant if Christ himself had physical children. We could then argue that Christ's physical children should receive the sacraments, just like every previous righteous servant's children received the sign of their particular covenants. But since Christ did not have physical children, the promise and the sacraments are only to the spiritual children. We do not know if our physical children are the spiritual children of Abraham, and for that reason we must base our decisions to administer the sacraments on a credible profession of faith, not a profession of silence (which infants can only give).


----------



## non dignus

Herald said:


> David, that sounds awfully condescending ("bless his heart").



Bill,
Please accept my apology. My intention was not to be condescending. It was my feeble attempt to appeal _ad absurdum._ The idea is to show a faulty argument by using magnification.

The Baptist will not baptise infants because the inward spiritual condition of infants cannot be known. It is for the purity of the church that he is cautious not to baptise unsound candidates. This is admirable indeed, no joke. But I don't see in scripture this scrupulousness in regard to the young. To the contrary, I see children in holy writ as the most viable candidates for baptism. 

If children of believers are holy, what is there more to say? 
If heaven belongs to such as these, what is there more to say? Mt 19:14

---------- Post added at 09:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:54 PM ----------




Loopie said:


> Does this mean then that the unbelieving husbands of believing wives should receive baptism? If not, then why not? What if the children are older? Should they also receive baptism without professing Christ?



The difference between the sanctified spouse and the sanctified child is this: the spouse is an unbeliever, and the child is a nonbeliever. The unbeliever has a faith apart from Christ. The nonbeliever has no faith apart from Christ. 

Older children can be distinguished in this way as well. We don't force baptisms, but on the other end, we give special treatment to older children of believers. We give them the benefit of the doubt, where we wouldn't with the older child of unbelievers. 

Above all, we are commanded to baptise our children (Acts 2:38,39) and we find little in this regard to the unbelieving spouse.


----------



## Loopie

David,

You are suggesting a difference between a non-believer and an unbeliever? Does scripture anywhere suggest this difference? I would argue that a non-believer is the same as an unbeliever. Children are not spiritually or morally 'neutral'. They are conceived in iniquity, sinful from birth. There are simply two types of people in the world, unbeliever and believer, Elect or Reprobate. 

As for the sanctified spouse, I still see no reason why the believing husband should not baptize her without a confession of faith on her part. If BOTH his children and her are sanctified and made holy through him, then why should there be any difference between how he treats them? If he baptizes the children with no confession on their part (in the hopes that they will one day confess), he is just as right to baptize the wife with no confession on her part (in the hopes that she will one day confess).

I honestly do not see how scripture calls us to baptize based on giving someone the benefit of the doubt without hearing any confession from them. 

I also do not see how Acts 2:38-39 is a call to baptize our children. Remember in verse 39 that it is to as many as the Lord our God will call to himself (Election).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Eric,
I will go ahead and post what I wanted you to see from the other thread. I bring up Deuteronomy 29:29 in it along with other things I think pertain to the discussion here also.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Charles,
> Thanks for helping me clarify. I can not judge another man's faith. I do have to operate within the perimeters of what God says concerning outward obedience and disobedience. That is why Deuteronomy 29:29 is important here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Deu 29:29) The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also believe that is another reason why the substance of the Mosaic and New Covenants are the same. Church membership in both Covenants are the same for the most part. Thus it is important to understand both covenants substance wise since God calls both the Old Covenant believers and New Covenant believers His Church. Covenant relationship is so important in this discussion.
> 
> There is some sense in which our Children are Covenant members and are sanctified by our belief as the marriage covenant sanctifies the unbelieving spouse. There is also a sense that a confessor can be in a covenant relationship by being a member in the New Covenant Church and forsake that covenant relationship as Hebrews 10:29 states. I am still trying to work this out.
> 
> I recently stated and asked questions from some guys concerning some of this subject. I will let you all into my line of thinking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my working out the differences that are brought up concerning Ishmael and Isaac, I think I am looking at trying to understand how our children relate to the Covenant by their families. Are we to really consider them to be outside the Covenant as the Baptists who believe in baptizing only confessing people? Are our children not considered to be disciples?
> 
> Abraham raised Ishmael up to know his God. In fact Abraham interceded for Ishmael concerning this issue in Genesis 17. Is this really anything different than we are charged with? Do not our children have some connectivity to the Covenant and teaching of the Lord as the New and Old Testaments command?
> 
> We are commanded to go forth baptizing, teaching, and making disciples. Are our children not considered to be disciples even if we can’t judge the motives and intents of their hearts? The Lord through St. Paul commands us to raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Is that not discipleship? We raise them up in an environment that teaches them to call upon the Lord and seek him for forgiveness and sustenance in all things concerning life. Most of our children grow up praying, reading, and believing the Lord is their God as we have taught them. We teach them the Lord ’s Prayer telling them to pray as Jesus commanded.
> 
> (Mat 6:9) After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
> 
> (Mat 6:10) Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as _it is_ in heaven.
> 
> (Mat 6:11) Give us this day our daily bread.
> 
> (Mat 6:12) And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
> 
> (Mat 6:13) And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
> 
> 
> Is this not discipleship? Are we not raising our children as disciples? What is the definition of disciple? Do we really believe that Ishmael wasn’t being discipled and taught to call upon the Lord as his God. Besides Abraham, didn’t God command everyman in Israel to teach his household the Covenant that God proclaims himself to be their God.
> 
> (Exo 20:2) I _am_ the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
> 
> (Exo 20:3) Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
> 
> Were those in the Old Covenant not considered to be disciplined and taught in the way in which God was their God? Even though not all of Israel is Israel they were to be taught the relational status of the Covenant as our Children are. If we are not to teach them this then what are we to teach them? Is this not the same thing we are commanded to do in bringing up our Children in the fear, nurture, and admonition of the Lord? Are our children not to be under the headship of their fathers? If we neglect this aren’t we neglecting the very thing that God has commanded us to do!
> 
> Yes, our little disciples may end up becoming apostates. But they are sanctified and attached to us as we are attached to the Church. There is a manner of sanctification in this because of our attachment to her. As it is stated in Hebrews 10:29, we should be fearful lest we trodden underfoot the Son of God, and count the blood of the covenant, wherewith we are sanctified, an unholy thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The above is what I look at when considering the Covenantal relationship we have in the Church. As far as Church discipline goes there is the outworking of what we are commanded concerning those who violate the law of God severely and are cut off from the visible Church as is prescribed in 1 Corinthian 5:9-11 and 2 Thessalonians 3:14,15.
> 
> And let us not forget the warnings and admonishments of Revelation chapter 2 where God says he will remove the candlestick and judge based upon our works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (1Co 5:9) I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
> 
> 
> (1Co 5:10) Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out ofthe world.
> 
> 
> (1Co 5:11) But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer,or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
> 
> 
> 
> (2Th 3:14) And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
> 
> (2Th 3:15) Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have to operate in the here and now trusting in the fact that the secret things belong unto the Lord but those things which are revealed are for us and our children that we might be participants in the Covenant relationship. If one is elect he will in no wise be cast out for our Lord holds them and nothing can separate us from the love of God. But if one is exhibiting unbelief by his actions God has told us how to respond and expects it. That one is to be delivered over to Satan as 1 Corinthians 5 states that he might be gained. This is very much the same in substance as the Old Covenant. There is a divorce or cutting off that grace might awaken the heart and a gracious return would be allowed as it was with the Church in the Old Testament.
Click to expand...


I didn't include the whole post here but I also go and ask others to consider Jeremiah 31 with a further exposition of it in Chapter 32. Most people don't go far enough in reading and just drop more important insight about Jeremiah 31 concerning the New Covenant that is revealed in Chapter 32.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Loopie said:


> The difficulty lies in the fact that Abraham has both physical and spiritual children. Which descendants are you talking about? All of them? Which ones are the Elect? Is it not purely the spiritual children of Abraham? Are the non-Elect members of the New Covenant?


Difficult for whom? The church in this life is a mixed community. The only descendants who "count" are those who possess the thing that is signified, and not merely the sign. Possessing the sign alone, is equivalent to possessing nothing, Lk.19:26. *But it doesn't mean these "sign-holders" aren't members in that respect.*

To your first "I completely agree," comment: are you saying that you agree that Peter's statement Act 2:39 is basically a RE-statement of the Abrahamic promise for a Christ-covenant age? In each of the four clauses? Then you should have no problem understanding the paedo-baptist's appeal to that verse.



Loopie said:


> So are you suggesting that the repentance and belief of those Peter is addressing is not the reason for their baptism? If it is not the purpose, nor the basis, and is simply a 'middling way', then how does that make any sense? Baptism logically comes either before or after repentance, making it either a purpose or a basis. Why shouldn't those being addressed be baptized even if they refuse to repent and believe? If repentance and faith is not the basis for their baptism, then it should be perfectly allowable for them to receive baptism while still refusing to repent and believe.


1) I made an non-technical, exegetical argument for the meaning of a specific word in Act.2:38. 2) Repentance might be a "reason" _in some sense_ for attending to baptism, but _this_ text doesn't make such a causal connection. 3) You seem to be off track, because here you are talking about the relation between "repentance" and "baptism," but I was talking about the relation between "remission/forgiveness" and "baptism," and I was responding to YOUR reference to THAT clause. 4) When the focus is strictly exegesis, you need to confine yourself to the terms in the verse under consideration; faith/belief (despite the relevance it has theologically) isn't mentioned here. *Bottom line: please reread my whole treatment of the phrase in question, and make your queries/charges relevant.*



Loopie said:


> So would you argue that the word 'your' is an improper addition to the translation of the Greek?


It depends. A reasonable argument can be made that the word "your" belongs there by inference. And, I failed to note the textual-variants on this verse. Alexandrine family MSS (followed by many modern translations) include Gk. 'humon,' meaning "your," added as the final word of that clause. So adopting that reading would weaken the force of my reasoning; but not enough, in my estimation, to overthrow my main point: that baptism itself and the objective meaning of baptism is principally what is in view, which facts are personally consequential by application.



Loopie said:


> I do not quite follow your line of reasoning. Are you suggesting that baptism is simply a different form of the gospel? So if there is a general and effectual call of the gospel, then there is a general and effectual call of baptism? Should we then baptize all human adults (whether they repent or not) as a sort of general call of the baptism-gospel, with the understanding that at least some of them will repent and believe by the effectual call of the baptism-gospel?


Eric, please do not attempt to infer implications from what I've stated, if by your own admission, you don't fully understand what I'm (or Calvin is) saying. You are an officer in the military. You would not be so careless if people's lives were on the line. Baptism is a "visible Word." The meaning invested in the rite points to Jesus Christ. Yes, baptism teaches the same Jesus, the same gospel that the written or spoken Word does. Not some other Jesus, or some other truth. Read 29.1 of your own confession. The rest of your ridiculous (and slightly abusive) comments I'm just going to pass by, as words rashly spoken, Ecc.5:2.

This is just another one of the places where your views and mine are (probably) inverses. In your view, is baptism above all else a "personal witness to faith possessed?" Is baptism the Christian's first/principal act of obedience? Regardless, I do know that in Baptist theology if you were not actually a believer when you were baptized, then when you really do believe you must be baptized, because you were "never really baptized" before; or, as some describe the practice, you must be "rebaptized." So in any event, the subjective element of baptism (what a man says about himself) is highly pronounced in your view. But in my view, the "objective" fact of baptism is paramount in any proper instance of it. Someone who meets the criteria and presents for baptism--if he is lawfully baptized, then he IS baptized; and if his heart is bad and his profession untrue or never true, that doesn't invalidate the baptism that was administered. This is because *what God says in the gospel is true, even when what men say about the gospel or themselves is a lie,* Rom.3:4.



Loopie said:


> Those meaningful physical descendants of Abraham were Abraham's spiritual children. Of course, the Elect also included Abraham's spiritual children who were not his physical descendants. Like you said, others such as Ishmael did not share in their father's faith, and so did not share in the truth of the covenant. But even though God established his covenant with Abraham's son Isaac, not all of Isaac's physical descentants were of the Elect. Still, the covenant with Isaac included both Elect and non-Elect, with circumcision being given as a sign to both groups of people.


No, if you are going to speak in absolute terms, "the covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed," WLC31. Abraham's covenant is one administration of this covenant, ergo it's a covenant with the elect, and that's it. Circumcision is a sign unto faith, Rom.4:11. But any earthly administration of this covenant includes unbelievers. It is impossible NOT to include them. We don't know who the elect are. So, there are always unbelievers and non-elect people who are within the covenant in terms of its less-than-ideal, pre-consummative states. Everyone in the church--elect and non-elect alike--are "under its discipline," and the important thing to do in all places and times is carry out that discipline properly.



Loopie said:


> Here I would disagree with you, because you have read Gal 3:7 to suggest that the physical descendants of Abraham have somehow disappeared. In truth, the spiritual children of Abraham existed amongst the physical descendants of Moses, and the physical descendants of David. Would you argue that the same is true for Noah? Did Noah ONLY have spiritual descendants? There is a slight inconsistency here in the structure that you are proposing. I would argue that Abraham's physical descendants have not ceased to exist. The spiritual descendants, the Elect, have always existed, but they have always existed within the broader group (this is true of Noah's descendants, Isaac's descendants, Moses' descendants, and David's descendants). In the New Covenant though we see that God finally calls his spiritual remnant out as their own group, as the visible church. In the older covenants, God included non-Elect as partakers of those covenants. In the New Covenant, God calls the spiritual children of Abraham, the remnant, out. It is they alone who are called to partake in the signs and seals of the New Covenant (baptism, communion, and heart-circumcision).


No, I put quotes around "only" as I'm being forced into the use of absolute language because of your terms. I didn't argue that they disappeared; I argued that they were never consequential members of the covenants to which they had superficial attachments. These people had REAL existence, and their superficial attachments were REAL as well, and *damnable*.
This is an aside, dealing with a distracting point. Noah's covenant has value, but the NT points us to Abraham's covenant as the "programmatic" beginning for producing the Savior of the world. Noah's covenant is a new-creation covenant, it's as wide as the whole world (even going beyond the human race for import). In it God makes a divine preservation-promise that affects all the survivors on earth, without consideration for how, or if, they care. _There is no sense in which "faith" or "believing" in this covenant has any bearing whatever on what takes place on the basis of it._ On the basis of a new world-order, creation and humanity is granted lease on life. But if we analyzed the situation, we'd have to admit that even in Noah's case, the only ones who absolutely benefit from it are believers. Now back to the main issue.​

No, I'm going to continue to state that the non-elect were NOT partakers of the earlier covenants--not if what you mean is that they were engaged to the substance of the covenant irrespective of whether they had faith or not. Being engaged only by an outward ("accidental" in classical terms) rule is sufficient to DAMN, to create responsibility and culpability; but not sufficient to BLESS (in any truly gracious sense of the word). Look, I can use the language of "participants" when speaking of those non-elect who are under the umbrella of covenant,_ if I'm conversing with someone who recognizes with me a dual administration of covenant--one earthly, one heavenly._ Half the time, you admit an agreement with my expressions of this dual-administration. And then you turn around and deny the very basis for the expressions we agreed on. What this boils down to is the reality that you and I arrive at "things we agree on" from *radically* different directions. And I'm trying to make that clear. But you still insist on using the language of "inconsistency," as if that's all there was to it.



Loopie said:


> Certainly they knew about circumcision of the heart, but the difference is that God makes it one of the signs of the restoration. Yes they were commanded to be circumcised in heart, but it was not going to happen until God was the one to change their hearts. We see in Deuteronomy 30:6 that Moses, after predicting the disobedience and captivity of the Israelites, promises that God will be the one to circumcise their hearts (a sign of the New Covenant). That is why I would argue that heart-circumcision should be attached to the New Testament as a specific sign of the New Covenant.


What "difference?" Different from what? Heart-circumcision is obviously a PART of the Old Testament religion. Did the OT saints have their hearts circumcised or not? Isn't this regeneration? Who has always been the agent of regeneration? Would you indeed make regeneration peculiar to the Restoration? Why doesn't it make as much (or more!) sense to say that Moses and Jeremiah prophesy that after chastisement, God promises to do a *more thorough* or *more abundant* work of this grace than he had hitherto done? _[Edit: remove my apparent exasperation as unhelpful]_.



Loopie said:


> I would disagree that they become fully interchangeable. Certainly the reference to outward baptism is connected to inward cirumcision (the reference is not from outward baptism to outward circumcision). Obviously God did not call Abraham to inwardly circumcise his children. He called Abraham to outwardly circumcise them. In this way I think there is a slight inconsistency in your argument, because you end up interchanging outward baptism with outward circumcision, even though you specifically said that the corollation is between inward circumcision and outward baptism. With this in mind the corollation is more like a cross-corollation rather than a direct and full interchangeable corollation.


I didn't write "fully interchangeable," but "virtually interchangeable." And again with the "inconsistency" nonsense! It isn't apparent that you grasped what I said. You rehearse back to me some of what I wrote, and you express some surprise with the "accuracy" with which I wrote; but then you just allege that I'm "inconsistent." Well, why? Because I don't see it your way? What kind of reason is that? I do not see you have worked through to even accurately represent what I wrote (misquotes and all), so as to be able to define *MY* "confusion. My point is that the referent, the spiritual import, of each pair (there are two pairs of sign/thing-signified involved) is the same reality, so the apostle(s) in teaching can "cross-correlate" without any sense of incongruity.



You are welcome to disagree with my claims, and offer your contrary views. I don't have a problem with that at all. I want you to have a good experience on this site. And let me say, I honestly don't care about "changing your thinking." My aim is clarity. And I'd rather have a convinced Baptist on my side, than a person following fads. But you do need to try to go it a little slower, maybe? And improve your accuracy and precision, both reading and writing. Passion and confidence is not going to make up for misrepresentation and a tin-ear. Let me repeat: our divide is not a question of consistency. It's a question of starting points, starting assumptions, hermeneutical methods. If they differ (and they do, sometimes surprisingly) then it isn't surprising that they end up different as well. To land a blow for inconsistency, you are going to have to show how one conclusion is incompatible with another (on the same principles), or that your opponent's conclusion is incompatible with his start, principles, or methodology. Just disagreeing with YOU doesn't prove that YOU are consistent, or that HE is inconsistent.


----------



## non dignus

Thank you, Eric, for a lively discourse. Iron sharpens iron.



Loopie said:


> David,
> 
> You are suggesting a difference between a non-believer and an unbeliever?



Absolutely. You heard it first right here. 

Our consistory had a case where the wife of a Reformed brother had spent a lot of time in evangelical churches. Frankly, her confession was not solid, as you might well imagine. We accepted her profession of faith on the grounds that she was committed to her husband. If she had walked in alone, I'm certain we would have asked her to wait longer in order to ascertain if she really wanted to worship with us.

Unbelievers _believe_. They just don't believe the truth. Nonbelievers, on the other hand, do not have higher thinking skills. Does God exclude the mentally handicapped, the demented, the brain damaged, and likewise small children? Of course not, perish the thought.



> .....Children are not spiritually or morally 'neutral'. They are conceived in iniquity, sinful from birth. There are simply two types of people in the world, unbeliever and believer, Elect or Reprobate.



I'm not saying anyone is morally neutral. I am saying that children of believers are holy. When God calls you, He takes everything you have. Is that wrong? 



> I also do not see how Acts 2:38-39 is a call to baptize our children. Remember in verse 39 that it is to as many as the Lord our God will call to himself.



Peter is saying to the men present that God IS calling them to Himself because they are the seed of Abraham. And to those who are afar off, as many as the Lord will call, He is calling their children with them. This is the promise. 

HC 74. ....and through the blood of Christ both redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit *Who works faith*, are promised to them no less than to their parents...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Loopie said:


> Rich,
> 
> It is indeed true that the church is authorized to administer the sacraments. There is another question though: who is authorized to accept and receive those covenants?
> 
> Say, hypothetically, that you know someone who is certainly not a Christian. You are aware that this person only wants to enter into a church for selfish reasons (perhaps just to fit in and make friends, or because of peer pressure). Now you might go to the church elders and inform them that you do not believe this person to be a true believer. Yet when they confront the person, the person asserts that they have accepted Christ, and wish to be baptized and take communion. There are two different questions we need to ask here:
> 
> 1) Is the church authorized to baptize this person? Yes. The church is acting based off of the best information that they have. Though you might speak up against their decision, they might not give your arguments much weight (particularly if the person was very convincing). We know that the church is not infallible, and we have been told in scripture that there will be many false prophets and false teachers within the church. In this case the church is not being overly presumptuous or liberal with the sacraments, as its decision to baptize others is based on a credible confession of faith (which many false believers give).


Your hypothetical is a cavil and does not merit serious response. That is, unless your Church actually regularly baptizes people as the above suggests.



> 2) Is the person in question authorized to request and receive baptism? No. God knows the heart of that individual, and whether that individual is of the Elect or of the Reprobate. That individual can expect great judgment for deceiving the church, and essentially being a wolf in sheep's clothing. Obviously the church cannot infallibly know the heart of the individual, or else the church would not have baptized them.


Don't forget to add that the Church would also be God because He alone knows the hidden things.



> This leads me to another hypothetical question: If the church did have infallible knowledge of who was of the Elect and who was of the reprobate, would (and should) the church still baptize those reprobate who request it? If the church knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that a person WAS NOT a believer, should the church still baptize them? Obviously not. The church should act based upon what it knows, and what God has revealed to it. That is why the church needs to be careful and conservative in the distribution of its sacraments.


Now we have not only a cavil but an impious hypothetical. It is impious because it is a direct violation of Deut 29:29. Let me see if I get this straight: if the hidden things didn't belong to the Lord then we would know who to baptize THEREFORE this establishes what?



> That is also why the LCF declares that the proper subjects of the sacrament of baptism are "Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ."


Which, the impious hypothetical?



> What futher revelation can the church have concerning someone's faith other than this? If the church was able to infallibly know who was Elect and who was not, they would not simply give baptism to someone that they infallibly knew was reprobate. That is why the church is indeed authorized to baptize those who profess Christ (even if they profess falsely). This does not ignore the fact that the reprobate are deceiving the church, disobeying God, and defiling the sacraments when they request and receive baptism on a false profession of faith.


Again, assuming a violation of Deut 29:29 and living in a world we don't live in, I just don't see how this is relevant.

Here's the problem as I see it: you are not only terribly ignorant of your own Confession and the reasons it establishes for the baptism of professors but you lack the training in and the mature use of the tools necessary to understand the doctrines you are attempting to handle. You do not appear interested in learning from others how to properly apply hermeneutical principles necessary for understanding but you respond with clumsy, impious, and self-contradictory arguments boldly asserting their "obvious" implications.

I would suggest you become more self-aware of your limitations and take on the role of the student here. You don't have to be convinced by me but there are several Baptist elders here who can instruct you in some of the basic tools that you obviously lack as you are embarrassing yourself and violating the Word in the process.


----------



## KaphLamedh

Thanks Loopie for good long answer!


----------



## Loopie

Rich,

I do not believe my hypothetical scenario was a cavil. I am not trying to bring up pointless and irritating arguments or situations. I was trying to illustrate a point.

The point is that there are scenarios where a person convinces the church that they are a believer. They confess Christ convincingly, but ultimately are deceivers. Other members of the church might have already had doubts concerning that person's faith. Certainly in my own church if two or three witnesses were to suggest to our leadership that someone was not really repentant, but had given false confessions, there would be a slight hesitation on the part of the church leadership to baptize that person. Is this not a reasonable thing for the church to do?

Believe me, I know that the hidden things are the Lord's, and for that reason the church must act (and is not wrong to act) based on what it knows. At the same time, each individual person knows whether they are in the Lord or not, and whether they have repented unto salvation or not. If they profess falsely, they err, and will be judged for it. 

What I am saying is that the church acts based on what it knows, not what it doesn't know. If it acted based on what information it DID NOT have (ie. it had no reason to believe that a person WAS NOT a believer), that would result in the church legitimately baptizing every single person (without the need of a confession of faith) unless some other information convinces the church not to.

If the church acted based on what information it DID have (ie. it had good reason to believe that a person WAS a believer), that would result in the church legitimately baptizing only those who profess Christ, being that a credible profession of Christ was the standard by which the church decided whether to baptize or not. It would seem that in the examples of baptism in the New Testament, this is how the church acted in its administration of the sacrament.

Now as to your statement that I am ignorant in my knowledge of the LBC, I do not see where I have erred. If you would kindly show me my error, I will be happy to admit it humbly. In fact, I am very interested in the arguments that others make, whether they are paedo-baptist or credo-baptist, and have learned a good amount in these discussions, especially with Rev. Buchanan. He is a very well-learned man, and I do not doubt both his knowledge and his faith. He certainly made a perfect statement when he said that our differences were a matter of starting points, starting assumptions, and hermeneutical methods.

In fact, I will say right now that I am not learned enough in Greek and Hebrew in order to offer any significant responses to Rev. Buchanan's hermeneutical method. Now this does not mean that I will concede that his hermeneutical method must therefore be correct. I will certainly continue in my research on both sides of the issues, but this is something that ALL believers should continue to do their entire lives. 

Now I must say that I respectfully do not approve of your statement that I respond "with clumsy, impious, and self-contradictory arguments boldly asserting their "obvious" implications." If you would provide some examples of this I would be happy to discuss them with you (and I will repent as necessary). If I have been impious in my attitude towards others, I again ask that you show me where. I have nothing but respect for those in this forum, and as brothers we should always show grace towards each other. I apologize if anything I have said has bothered or upset you, but I do not believe that anything that I have said fits the very nasty criteria that you just mentioned. I also do not see where I have violated God's holy Word, since I hold it to be the final standard and authority. 

With that said, allow me to end this post back on topic. We do see the covenants very differently. It would seem that paedo-baptists see more similarity between the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant, whereas credo-baptists see more differences. This is not to say that credo-baptists are trying to ignore continuity or any similarity. In fact, to get back to the whole reason why I posted in this thread in the first place, what stands out the most to me is what Nichols' book teaches concerning the relationship between who the covenant is being made with, and how that covenant transfers to future generations. 

In EVERY covenant of the Old Testament, we see that God makes his covenant with a righteous servant (Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Christ). Each of those covenants continue in the next generations by the descendants of those righteous servants. The big shift occurs from the Old Testament to the New Testament, when we see that Christ is the representative head of those in the New Covenant. The shift is apparent because each of the previous covenants were continued through the physical descendants of each those righteous servants. Christ, who obviously has no physical descendants, formed his covenant with his spiritual descendants. Now those spiritual descendants have existed throughout all of human history, but they always existed in the Old Testament as a group that was part of the larger group of physical descendants. In every one of those Old Testament covenants, not all of the physical descendants were the spiritual children, yet it is those specific spiritual children, the Elect, that Christ calls his church. In Christ, the covenants are fulfilled and made perfect in the New Covenant, which is inviolable. 

In the end, I realize the differences between the two positions. I also am not so blind as to see when a discussion cannot continue to edify anyone, especially when it causes others to feel anger, frustration, or resentment towards me. It is not my intention to cause these emotions. I myself have been on enough discussion boards in my life to not let the words of others (whom I have never met face-to-face) evoke similar emotions in me. With that said, I will refrain from adding fuel to the fire in this discussion. I have no problem if someone would like to make any last points, or ask me any questions that they want me to answer. Please keep in mind though that I will not be online until after New Years, since I will be on vacation during the break. I wish you all a Merry Christmas!

Posted 2 January 2012:

I also want to quicky say that I apologize for anything I have done to upset anyone, or to disrupt the forums. Even though my only purpose in posting in this thread was to encourage others to read a book that just came out in print, I realize that I went further into the discussions without a proper or full understanding of the topic at hand. I did not intend to act impious or disrespectful in any way, and I ask for forgiveness from those who were offended at my words (it was not their intent to offend). I will certainly ensure that I am extremely careful in any future posts, and I pray that we can always maintain a foundation of mutual respect (even if there are differences in theology). I pray that the Lord will provide you all a blessed and happy new year!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Loopie said:


> I respectfully request Rich that you please recant your accusations against me, as they are cruel, harsh, and not given in brotherly love.


Eric,

My statements were neither cruel nor harsh but reflect my analysis of your presentation. They were not written in anger but were intended to rebuke and correct. You do not need to know how to read Greek and Hebrew in order to apply basic principles of hermeneutics which are applied to even non-inspired literature. Your responses and hypotheticals owe more to speculation rather than sober GNC based on exegesis of texts and their systemization. That you cannot see that your hypotheticals are cavils and, in the case of a Church knowing the hidden things of God impious, is telling to me. You even state that the LBCF position owes, in some measure, to these faulty criteria. Others are unable to explain it to you as you are too hasty to defend yourself rather than seriously evaluating the dangers of speculating beyond what God reveals to us.

Even in your recent post regarding the nature of the Covenants, you assert a Covenant theology as if you are learned in the manner of a Reformed Federal Theology but your presentation is found wanting and contrary to the LBCF's own Covenant theology. You don't present it as something you are working through or in need of further study but as the definitive Reformed Baptist view on the topic.


----------



## non dignus

Eric,

I am failing to see how Moses' physical descendants figure in a Biblical dispensation. I don't remember a genealogy featuring Moses. I quess the Levites would be featured in that schema. But Levi payed tithes to Melchizedek in the loins of Abraham. Please correct me.

Instead, I see 'a great multitude' mentioned in Revelation at the end of the Bible which makes a sort of book-end with Genesis 15, where the 'great multitude' is promised to Abraham. It's all for the sake of God calling Abraham to be the Father of many nations, seeing that Adam dropped the ball. Thus the cultural mandate to be fruitful and multiply is fulfilled in Christ. (Which in my estimation is a good argument for infant inclusion)


----------



## non dignus

Herald said:


> David, naturally. That is the essence of the disagreement among paedos and credos. Credos believe there is warrant in Scripture for professor-only baptism, whereas paedos do not. I have gone on record in numerous Puritan Board threads that debating baptism is putting the cart in front of the horse. The real debate is over the nature and administration of the New Covenant. Get that issue right and baptism takes care of itself.



Bill,
I would love to read some good threads on this. Could you direct me to some? If I have anything to add, maybe I could start a new one after Christmas.
Thanks!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I still have a lot of Reformed Baptist thought on my Puritanboard blog. You could go through it to find a lot of what Bill is saying. I changed position based upon the nature and substance of the Covenants. Most of them are things I used to defend the Reformed Baptist position. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/pu...rcumcision-51/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/pu...nesis-17-7-71/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/pu...eally-new-315/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/pu...s-2-11-12-318/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/pu...ians-7-14-338/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/pu...-children-349/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/pu...an-conner-351/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/pu...an-conner-352/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/pu...-covenant-479/


----------



## KingofBashan

Fogetaboutit said:


> *If baptism replaces circumcision as a seal of this covenant*, at what time did the switch occur?



This small, bolded portion of your original question is pivotal.

If I understand properly, the cbaptist view is that circumcision is a shadow of regeneration, and baptism is a sign of regeneration, while regeneration is the seal for covenant membership.

If I understand properly, the pbaptist view is that circumcision is the outward sign of covenant membership, and baptism is the new circumcision for the new covenant.

This means that for a cbaptist, baptism is only to be administered to newborns - ie regenerates. This means that for a pbaptist, baptism is only to be administered to newborns - ie physical children of believers. (Or proselytes)

To see a justification for the cbaptist position, see Colossians 2:11-15, and Fred Malone's "The Baptism of Disciples Alone", or the much shorter (and free) "A String of Pearl's Unstrung", specifically his "second pearl".

Bottom line, if I understand properly, the cbaptist view is that baptism does _not_ replace circumcision as a seal of the covenant. It is an ordinance instituted by Christ to be administered to those who "become disciples", a means of grace practiced in corporate worship for the edification of the body of Christ.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

KingofBashan said:


> If I understand properly, the cbaptist view is that circumcision is a shadow of regeneration, and baptism is a sign of regeneration, while regeneration is the seal for covenant membership.
> 
> If I understand properly, the pbaptist view is that circumcision is the outward sign of covenant membership, and baptism is the new circumcision for the new covenant.
> 
> This means that for a cbaptist, baptism is only to be administered to newborns - ie regenerates. This means that for a pbaptist, baptism is only to be administered to newborns - ie physical children of believers.


You don't understand properly. Circumcision wasn't _either_ a sign or a seal but _both_ a sign and a seal. It signified the Promise made by God, and, by faith, sealed the reality that the sign pointed to. The person who was circumcised, who believed in faith, possessed the _reality_ that the sign pointed to, believed the Gospel (Heb 4), and was saved in Christ.

Baptism isn't _either_ a sign or a seal but _both_ a sign and a seal. It signifies the Promise of salvation made by God, and by faith, seals the reality that sign points to. The baptized person, who believes in faith, possesses the reality that the sign points to, believes the Gospel, and is saved in Christ.




KingofBashan said:


> This means that for a cbaptist, baptism is only to be administered to newborns - ie regenerates.


Let's try this again.

Baptism is _only_ to be administered to regenerate people? Do I understand you properly?

Does your Church practice baptism?

Are all those whom the Church has baptized in your congregation _regenerate_?



KingofBashan said:


> This means that for a pbaptist, baptism is only to be administered to newborns - ie physical children of believers.


Huh? Was there some sort of premise that I'm missing here that leads to this faulty conclusion?


----------



## KingofBashan

Rich,

My church does practice baptism. I attend a church that subscribes to the LBCF. We baptize professing believers who have been examined. All evidence points to their regeneration. This of course does not guarantee they are regenerate, but it protects the purity of the church to a large degree. (The way I worded my statement was perhaps too presumptuous. It assumes that we understand that the only way to know if someone is regenerate is if they profess faith.)

I have two counter-questions concerning the idea that baptism is both sign and seal:

If baptism is a seal of our faith, then why does Paul point to the Spirit as our seal? That would strongly imply regeneration as the seal. 
If baptism is a seal, then how does anyone who is baptized ever fall away from the faith?

I have a third question for clarification:

What is the "reality that sign points to"?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

KingofBashan said:


> (The way I worded my statement was perhaps too presumptuous. It assumes that we understand that the only way to know if someone is regenerate is if they profess faith.)


Again too presumptuous. One does not _know_ another is regenerate by the profession of faith. God alone knows this.



KingofBashan said:


> If baptism is a seal of our faith, then why does Paul point to the Spirit as our seal? That would strongly imply regeneration as the seal.
> If baptism is a seal, then how does anyone who is baptized ever fall away from the faith?


I did not state that baptism is a seal of our faith. Re-read what I wrote. Baptism is a seal to those who have faith. Those with faith possess the reality signified by baptism and have all its graces sealed to them. The Spirit is, of course, that which seals the reality of things signified to _those who have faith_. He also grants that faith by His Sovereign choosing.

Here there is not an un-biblical separation between the sign and what is signified. Baptism is a sign but it is used of the Spirit as a seal to those to whom the graces belong. It is not a seal to all who receive baptism but only to those who receive, by God's grace, evangelical faith and all other evangelical graces belonging to union with Christ.



> I have a third question for clarification:
> 
> What is the "reality that sign points to"?


Union with Christ.


----------



## KingofBashan

I didn't mean I was too presumptuous about accepting a brother's profession at face value, but that I was too presumptuous about how a pbaptist might interpret my cbaptist statement. A cbaptist believes in regenerate church membership. This is primarily judged by their profession of faith, and if I understand things properly (which as you have pointed out I may not), secondarily by evidence this profession is genuine. Our Lord instituted church discipline to account for any case where this profession was a lie - which isn't the fault of the congregation for "not knowing their regeneration" but is the sin of the false professor who told the lie.

Am I understanding you properly: 1. The believer possesses union with Christ by faith. 2. The sign of this union is baptism. 3. The benefits of union with Christ are guaranteed (sealed) by the Spirit. 4. The Spirit guarantees using baptism.

If I am reading you right we agree on everything except 4. Therefore, if I read you right, I still have to press the question because the Bible doesn't teach us that the guarantee of our inheritance (union with Jesus) is baptism, but our guarantee is the Spirit himself. God dwelling in us now is the guarantee of the eternal union we will experience with God forever. Baptism is only an ordinance, a means of grace, a sign of a spiritual reality which God has sovereignly acomplished in the heart of the individual to be baptized.

I realize we don't see eye to eye on this. But I believe I did originally articulate the cbaptist position accurately. The point being that the original poster was asking some cbaptist questions from pbaptist presuppositions. He should be aware of this or he will have a difficult time sorting through the issues clearly.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Union with Christ possesses the believer through Election, predestination, and regeneration which gives him faith which is the instrument of justification and sanctification. That is how I understand Union with Christ. He brings us into union with himself through His Work.


----------



## Herald

Union with Christ is something that is made possible by the atoning work of Christ and the sealing work of the Spirit. The Spirit regenerates, sanctifies, and seals. The Spirit's warrant to do these things is based on the redemptive work of the Son, and the divine calling of the elect by the Father through predestination and election; similar to what Randy wrote. 

Price, where we separate with paedobaptists is on who is the proper recipient of baptism. We agree with them on the redemptive work that baptism signifies. The difficult thing for both paedobaptists and credobaptists is to correctly understand the other side of the argument. 

I have a suggestion for you that I recently made to another newcomer to the board. Take your time to read through some of the past threads on the topic, in this case, baptism. Bone up on the what others have said. It will help give you a better understanding, not only of the paedobaptist position, but of your own position. When I joined this board I was on the fence regarding baptism. I took the time to consider the many threads that dealt with the topic. I also sought the counsel of my pastor and did my own study/research. I eventually became convinced of the position I now hold. I am forever grateful to those paedobaptist brothers who displayed great patience with me even though we disagreed. 

Blessings.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

KingofBashan said:


> Our Lord instituted church discipline to account for any case where this profession was a lie - which isn't the fault of the congregation for "not knowing their regeneration" but is the sin of the false professor who told the lie.


Actually, Church discipline has nothing to do with trying to determine whether a person is regenerate or not but deals, specifically, with unrepentant sin. The institution of discipline by the Lord says nothing about the Church determining the hidden things of God.


KingofBashan said:


> Am I understanding you properly: 1. The believer possesses union with Christ by faith. 2. The sign of this union is baptism. 3. The benefits of union with Christ are guaranteed (sealed) by the Spirit. 4. The Spirit guarantees using baptism.


No.

The Spirit does not "guarantee" using baptism but baptism is the outward sign (that works through the senses) by which the Spirit seals these things. We do not believe in immediate revelation. The Word and Sacraments are all mediated. We are bound to space and time. Our knowledge of the things of God comes through the things He gives us and has annexed His Promise to. His Word reveals Christ to our hearing. The Sacraments reveal Christ and seal His benefits to us in our seeing, touching, and tasting. It's not as if baptism exists in some corner to signify union with Christ but has nothing to do with who the Spirit communicates or grants the benefits that union to us. This is why the word baptism can be so easily interchanged in the NT Scriptures between physical act and spiritual reality because it's not _either_ that we are sealed by the Spirit or we are sealed by baptism. There is a sacramental union between the two where the spiritual reality (what we have no access to without means) is united to the physical sign (what we can hear, see, taste, touch).


----------



## Herald

Semper Fidelis said:


> KingofBashan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Lord instituted church discipline to account for any case where this profession was a lie - which isn't the fault of the congregation for "not knowing their regeneration" but is the sin of the false professor who told the lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Church discipline has nothing to do with trying to determine whether a person is regenerate or not but deals, specifically, with unrepentant sin. The institution of discipline by the Lord says nothing about the Church determining the hidden things of God.
Click to expand...


Rich is absolutely correct. Church discipline deals specifically with unrepentant sin. Could it play a role in uncovering a false professor? Yes, but that's not its primary purpose. The unrepentant sinner who is put out of the church is being declared an unbeliever by the church, or at least considered to be such. But what about the false professor who never draws attention to himself? He lives an outwardly moral life and executes his spiritual duties in an acceptable manner. They may never face church discipline. All Christians need to understand that there may be false professors in their midst who may never come to their attention. 



sent from my Toshiba Thrive


----------



## KingofBashan

Thank you all for your helpful posts. Bill and Rich, you have helped sharpen my understanding of church discipline. I was unclear if not incorrect in what I said. Thank you.

Through this discussion I am gaining a better understanding of the paedobaptist understanding of baptism. I also appreciate Rich's patience.

Bill, perhaps I am weak on my understanding of the verb "seals". My understanding is that it relates to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is the "mark of God", so to speak, on his people, which is, everywhere it is mentioned in this kind of context, referring to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Rich, I still don't see how you come to the conclusion that the Spirit uses the sign of baptism to seal "these things". But before I ask you any further questions I am going to take Bill's advice and read some of the other posts on this same topic. My questioning hasn't been to attack you or change your mind, but to understand your logic. The only way I know how to delve into someone's logic is to ask them pressing questions. I realize along with Bill that the differences over baptism are rooted in very different logical analysis of the Bible. I simply don't understand the paedobaptist logic.

I appreciate what Bill said when he wrote, 



> Price, where we separate with paedobaptists is on who is the proper recipient of baptism. We agree with them on the redemptive work that baptism signifies.



I am thankful Rich and I agree on so much, and on such important matters. If my posts came across in any other way, that was not my intention.

Like I said, my original inent was to summarize briefly the differences between credobaptist and paedobaptist views, which the OP seemed to miss. He was asking questions that expected cbaptist answers from pbaptist presuppositions, and vice versa, (the most glaring of which in my opinion was the idea that baptism is a seal). Our baptist forefathers put it like this when they wrote an appendix to the LBCF, saying:



> If our brethren do suppose baptism to be the seal of the Covenant which God makes with every beleiver (of which the Scriptures are altogether silent) it is not our concern to contend with them herein; yet we conceive the seal of that Covenant is the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ in the particular and individual persons in whom he resides, and nothing else.



I'll follow their lead and no longer make it my concern to contend over this minor point. My objective was simply to make the point for the sake of the OP.


----------



## Herald

KingofBashan said:


> Bill, perhaps I am weak on my understanding of the verb "seals". My understanding is that it relates to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is the "mark of God", so to speak, on his people, which is, everywhere it is mentioned in this kind of context, referring to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.



Eric,

I recommend that you read a 19th Century Baptist theologian on this topic. Here is a link:

Manual of Theology, Second Part
by John L. Dagg

Read his handling of the topic of baptism


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Price,

I think a few things might help you understand the relationship of the Holy Spirit to our assurance of God's grace. Quoting Calvin as he discusses how the Spirit operates to seal our faith:


> 36. The next thing necessary is, that what the mind has imbibed be transferred into the heart. The word is not received in faith when it merely flutters in the brain, but when it has taken deep root in the heart, and become an invincible bulwark to withstand and repel all the assaults of temptation. But if the illumination of the Spirit is the true source of understanding in the intellect, much more manifest is his agency in the confirmation of the heart; inasmuch as there is more distrust in the heart than blindness in the mind; and it is more difficult to inspire the soul with security than to imbue it with knowledge. Hence the Spirit performs the part of a seal, sealing upon our hearts the very promises, the certainty of which was previously impressed upon our minds. It also serves as an earnest in establishing and confirming these promises. Thus the Apostle says, “In whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance,” (Eph. 1:13, 14). You see how he teaches that the hearts of believers are stamped with the Spirit as with a seal, and calls it the Spirit of promise, because it ratifies the gospel to us. In like manner he says to the Corinthians, “God has also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts,” (2 Cor. 1:22). And again, when speaking of a full and confident hope, he founds it on the “earnest of the Spirit,” (2 Cor. 5:5).
> 
> Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.



Certainly the Holy Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance but He is the earnest insofar as He assures us of God's grace. This is accomplished by imbuing us of a knowledge that we are Christ's. He gives us an awareness and confidence, in faith, that the Promises of God belong to us.

In his discussion of Sacraments, then, Calvin ties together this same idea of the Holy Spirit's operation on faith through visible signs which seal the believer's interest in Christ:


> 1. *AKIN to the preaching of the gospel, we have another help to our faith in the sacraments*, in regard to which, it greatly concerns us that some sure doctrine should be delivered, informing us both of the end for which they were instituted, and of their present use. First, we must attend to what a sacrament is. It seems to me, then, a simple and appropriate definition to say, that it is an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of good-will toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in our turn testify our piety towards him, both before himself, and before angels as well as men. *We may also define more briefly by calling it a testimony of the divine favour toward us, confirmed by an external sign, with a corresponding attestation of our faith towards Him.* You may make your choice of these definitions, which in meaning differ not from that of Augustine, which defines a sacrament to be a visible sign of a sacred thing, or a visible form of an invisible grace, but does not contain a better or surer explanation. As its brevity makes it somewhat obscure, and thereby misleads the more illiterate, I wished to remove all doubt, and make the definition fuller by stating it at greater length.
> 
> 2. The reason why the ancients used the term in this sense is not obscure. The old interpreter, whenever he wished to render the Greek term μυστήριον into Latin, especially when it was used with reference to divine things, used the word sacramentum. Thus, in Ephesians, “Having made known unto us the mystery (sacramentum) of his will;” and again, “If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God, which is given me to you-wards, how that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery” (sacramentum) (Eph. 1:9; 3:2). In the Colossians, “Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but is now made manifest to his saints, to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery” (sacramentum) (Col. 1:26). Also in the First Epistle to Timothy, “Without controversy, great is the mystery (sacramentum) of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh” (1 Tim. 3:16). He was unwilling to use the word arcanum (secret), lest the word should seem beneath the magnitude of the thing meant. When the thing, therefore, was sacred and secret, he used the term sacramentum. In this sense it frequently occurs in ecclesiastical writers. And it is well known, that what the Latins call sacramenta, the Greeks call μυστήρια (mysteries). The sameness of meaning removes all dispute. Hence it is that the term was applied to those signs which gave an august representation of things spiritual and sublime. This is also observed by Augustine, “It were tedious to discourse of the variety of signs; those which relate to divine things are called sacraments” (August. Ep. 5. ad Marcell.).
> 
> 3. From the definition which we have given,* we perceive that there never is a sacrament without an antecedent promise, the sacrament being added as a kind of appendix, with the view of confirming and sealing the promise, and giving a better attestation, or rather, in a manner, confirming it. In this way God provides first for our ignorance and sluggishness, and, secondly, for our infirmity; and yet, properly speaking, it does not so much confirm his word as establish us in the faith of it.* For the truth of God is in itself sufficiently stable and certain, and cannot receive a better confirmation from any other quarter than from itself. *But as our faith is slender and weak, so if it be not propped up on every side, and supported by all kinds of means, it is forthwith shaken and tossed to and fro, wavers, and even falls. And here, indeed, our merciful Lord, with boundless condescension, so accommodates himself to our capacity, that seeing how from our animal nature we are always creeping on the ground, and cleaving to the flesh, having no thought of what is spiritual, and not even forming an idea of it, he declines not by means of these earthly elements to lead us to himself, and even in the flesh to exhibit a mirror of spiritual blessings.* For, as Chrysostom says (Hom. 60, ad Popul.). “Were we incorporeal, he would give us these things in a naked and incorporeal form. Now because our souls are implanted in bodies, he delivers spiritual things under things visible. Not that the qualities which are set before us in the sacraments are inherent in the nature of the things, but God gives them this signification.”
> 
> 4. This is commonly expressed by saying that a sacrament consists of the word and the external sign. By the word we ought to understand not one which, muttered without meaning and without faith, by its sound merely, as by a magical incantation, has the effect of consecrating the element, but one which, preached, makes us understand what the visible sign means. The thing, therefore, which was frequently done, under the tyranny of the Pope, was not free from great profanation of the mystery, for they deemed it sufficient if the priest muttered the formula of consecration, while the people, without understanding, looked stupidly on. Nay, this was done for the express purpose of preventing any instruction from thereby reaching the people: for all was said in Latin to illiterate hearers. Superstition afterwards was carried to such a height, that the consecration was thought not to be duly performed except in a low grumble, which few could hear. Very different is the doctrine of Augustine concerning the sacramental word. “Let the word be added to the element, and it will become a sacrament. For whence can there be so much virtue in water as to touch the body and cleanse the heart, unless by the agency of the word, and this not because it is said, but because it is believed? For even in the word the transient sound is one thing, the permanent power another. This is the word of faith which we preach says the Apostle” (Rom. 10:8). Hence, in the Acts of the Apostles, we have the expression, “Purify their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:9). And the Apostle Peter says, “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience)” (1 Pet. 3:21). “This is the word of faith which we preach: by which word doubtless baptism also, in order that it may be able to cleanse, is consecrated” (August. Hom. in Joann. 13). You see how he requires preaching to the production of faith. And we need not labour to prove this, since there is not the least room for doubt as to what Christ did, and commanded us to do, as to what the apostles followed, and a purer Church observed. Nay, it is known that, from the very beginning of the world, whenever God offered any sign to the holy Patriarchs, it was inseparably attached to doctrine, without which our senses would gaze bewildered on an unmeaning object. Therefore, when we hear mention made of the sacramental word, let us understand the promise which, proclaimed aloud by the minister, leads the people by the hand to that to which the sign tends and directs us.
> 
> 5. Nor are those to be listened to who oppose this view with a more subtle than solid dilemma. They argue thus: We either know that the word of God which precedes the sacrament is the true will of God, or we do not know it. If we know it, we learn nothing new from the sacrament which succeeds. If we do not know it, we cannot learn it from the sacrament, whose whole efficacy depends on the word. Our brief reply is: The seals which are affixed to diplomas, and other public deeds, are nothing considered in themselves, and would be affixed to no purpose if nothing was written on the parchment, and yet this does not prevent them from sealing and confirming when they are appended to writings. It cannot be alleged that this comparison is a recent fiction of our own, since Paul himself used it, terming circumcision a seal (Rom. 4:11), where he expressly maintains that the circumcision of Abraham was not for justification, but was an attestation to the covenant, by the faith of which he had been previously justified. And how, pray, can any one be greatly offended when we teach that the promise is sealed by the sacrament, since it is plain, from the promises themselves, that one promise confirms another? The clearer any evidence is, the fitter is it to support our faith. But sacraments bring with them the clearest promises, and, when compared with the word, have this peculiarity, that they represent promises to the life, as if painted in a picture. Nor ought we to be moved by an objection founded on the distinction between sacraments and the seals of documents—viz. that since both consist of the carnal elements of this world, the former cannot be sufficient or adequate to seal the promises of God, which are spiritual and eternal, though the latter may be employed to seal the edicts of princes concerning fleeting and fading things. But the believer, when the sacraments are presented to his eye, does not stop short at the carnal spectacle, but by the steps of analogy which I have indicated, rises with pious consideration to the sublime mysteries which lie hidden in the sacraments.
> 
> 6. As the Lord calls his promises covenants (Gen. 6:18; 9:9; 17:2), and sacraments signs of the covenants, so something similar may be inferred from human covenants. What could the slaughter of a hog effect, unless words were interposed or rather preceded? Swine are often killed without any interior or occult mystery. What could be gained by pledging the right hand, since hands are not unfrequently joined in giving battle? But when words have preceded, then by such symbols of covenant sanction is given to laws, though previously conceived, digested, and enacted by words. Sacraments, therefore, are exercises which confirm our faith in the word of God; and because we are carnal, they are exhibited under carnal objects, that thus they may train us in accommodation to our sluggish capacity, just as nurses lead children by the hand. And hence Augustine calls a sacrament a visible word (August. in Joann. Hom. 89), because it represents the promises of God as in a picture, and places them in our view in a graphic bodily form (August. cont. Faust. Lib. 19). We might refer to other similitudes, by which sacraments are more plainly designated, as when they are called the pillars of our faith. For just as a building stands and leans on its foundation, and yet is rendered more stable when supported by pillars, so faith leans on the word of God as its proper foundation, and yet when sacraments are added leans more firmly, as if resting on pillars. Or we may call them mirrors, in which we may contemplate the riches of the grace which God bestows upon us. For then, as has been said, he manifests himself to us in as far as our dulness can enable us to recognise him, and testifies his love and kindness to us more expressly than by word.
> 
> 7. It is irrational to contend that sacraments are not manifestations of divine grace toward us, because they are held forth to the ungodly also, who, however, so far from experiencing God to be more propitious to them, only incur greater condemnation. By the same reasoning, the gospel will be no manifestation of the grace of God, because it is spurned by many who hear it; nor will Christ himself be a manifestation of grace, because of the many by whom he was seen and known, very few received him. Something similar may be seen in public enactments. A great part of the body of the people deride and evade the authenticating seal, though they know it was employed by their sovereign to confirm his will; others trample it under foot, as a matter by no means appertaining to them; while others even execrate it: so that, seeing the condition of the two things to be alike, the appropriateness of the comparison which I made above ought to be more readily allowed. It is certain, therefore, that the Lord offers us his mercy, and a pledge of his grace, both in his sacred word and in the sacraments; but it is not apprehended save by those who receive the word and sacraments with firm faith: in like manner as Christ, though offered and held forth for salvation to all, is not, however, acknowledged and received by all. Augustine, when intending to intimate this, said that the efficacy of the word is produced in the sacrament, not because it is spoken, but because it is believed. Hence Paul, addressing believers, includes communion with Christ, in the sacraments, as when he says, “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:27). Again, “For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). But when he speaks of a preposterous use of the sacraments, he attributes nothing more to them than to frigid, empty figures; thereby intimating, that however the ungodly and hypocrites may, by their perverseness, either suppress, or obscure, or impede the effect of divine grace in the sacraments, that does not prevent them, where and whenever God is so pleased, from giving a true evidence of communion with Christ, or prevent them from exhibiting, and the Spirit of God from performing, the very thing which they promise. We conclude, therefore, that the sacraments are truly termed evidences of divine grace, and, as it were, seals of the good-will which he entertains toward us. They, by sealing it to us, sustain, nourish, confirm, and increase our faith. The objections usually urged against this view are frivolous and weak. They say that our faith, if it is good, cannot be made better; for there is no faith save that which leans unshakingly, firmly, and undividedly, on the mercy of God. It had been better for the objectors to pray, with the apostles, “Lord, increase our faith” (Luke 17:5), than confidently to maintain a perfection of faith which none of the sons of men ever attained, none ever shall attain, in this life. Let them explain what kind of faith his was who said, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief” (Mark 9:24). That faith, though only commenced, was good, and might, by the removal of the unbelief, be made better. But there is no better argument to refute them than their own consciousness. For if they confess themselves sinners (this, whether they will or not, they cannot deny), then they must of necessity impute this very quality to the imperfection of their faith.
> 
> 8. But Philip, they say, replied to the eunuch who asked to be baptized, “If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest” (Acts 8:37). What room is there for a confirmation of baptism when faith fills the whole heart? I, in my turn, ask them, Do they not feel that a good part of their heart is void of faith—do they not perceive new additions to it every day? There was one who boasted that he grew old while learning. Thrice miserable, then, are we Christians if we grow old without making progress, we whose faith ought to advance through every period of life until it grow up into a perfect man (Eph. 4:13). In this passage, therefore, to believe with the whole heart, is not to believe Christ perfectly, but only to embrace him sincerely with heart and soul; not to be filled with him, but with ardent affection to hunger and thirst, and sigh after him. It is usual in Scripture to say that a thing is done with the whole heart, when it is done sincerely and cordially. Of this description are the following passages:—“With my whole heart have I sought thee” (Ps. 119:10); “I will confess unto thee with my whole heart,” &c. In like manner, when the fraudulent and deceitful are rebuked, it is said “with flattering lips, and with a double heart, do they speak” (Ps. 12:2). The objectors next add—“If faith is increased by means of the sacraments, the Holy Spirit is given in vain, seeing it is his office to begin, sustain, and consummate our faith.” I admit, indeed, that faith is the proper and entire work of the Holy Spirit, enlightened by whom we recognise God and the treasures of his grace, and without whose illumination our mind is so blind that it can see nothing, so stupid that it has no relish for spiritual things. But for the one Divine blessing which they proclaim we count three. For, first, the Lord teaches and trains us by his word; next, he confirms us by his sacraments; lastly, he illumines our mind by the light of his Holy Spirit, and opens up an entrance into our hearts for his word and sacraments, which would otherwise only strike our ears, and fall upon our sight, but by no means affect us inwardly.
> 
> 9. Wherefore, with regard to the increase and confirmation of faith, I would remind the reader (though I think I have already expressed it in unambiguous terms), that in assigning this office to the sacraments, it is not as if I thought that there is a kind of secret efficacy perpetually inherent in them, by which they can of themselves promote or strengthen faith, but because our Lord has instituted them for the express purpose of helping to establish and increase our faith. The sacraments duly perform their office only when accompanied by the Spirit, the internal Master, whose energy alone penetrates the heart, stirs up the affections, and procures access for the sacraments into our souls. If he is wanting, the sacraments can avail us no more than the sun shining on the eyeballs of the blind, or sounds uttered in the ears of the deaf. Wherefore, in distributing between the Spirit and the sacraments, I ascribe the whole energy to him, and leave only a ministry to them; this ministry, without the agency of the Spirit, is empty and frivolous, but when he acts within, and exerts his power, it is replete with energy. It is now clear in what way, according to this view, a pious mind is confirmed in faith by means of the sacraments—viz. in the same way in which the light of the sun is seen by the eye, and the sound of the voice heard by the ear; the former of which would not be at all affected by the light unless it had a pupil on which the light might fall; nor the latter reached by any sound, however loud, were it not naturally adapted for hearing. But if it is true, as has been explained, that in the eye it is the power of vision which enables it to see the light, and in the ear the power of hearing which enables it to perceive the voice, and that in our hearts it is the work of the Holy Spirit to commence, maintain, cherish, and establish faith, then it follows, both that the sacraments do not avail one iota without the energy of the Holy Spirit; and that yet in hearts previously taught by that preceptor, there is nothing to prevent the sacraments from strengthening and increasing faith. There is only this difference, that the faculty of seeing and hearing is naturally implanted in the eye and ear; whereas, Christ acts in our minds above the measure of nature by special grace.
> 
> 10. In this way, also, we dispose of certain objections by which some anxious minds are annoyed. If we ascribe either an increase or confirmation of faith to creatures, injustice is done to the Spirit of God, who alone ought to be regarded as its author. But we do not rob him of the merit of confirming and increasing faith; nay, rather, we maintain that that which confirms and increases faith, is nothing else than the preparing of our minds by his internal illumination to receive that confirmation which is set forth by the sacraments. But if the subject is still obscure, it will be made plain by the following similitude: Were you to begin to persuade a person by word to do something, you would think of all the arguments by which he may be brought over to your view, and in a manner compelled to serve your purpose. But nothing is gained if the individual himself possess not a clear and acute judgment, by which he may be able to weigh the value of your arguments; if, moreover, he is not of a docile disposition, and ready to listen to doctrine; if, in fine, he has no such idea of your faith and prudence as in a manner to prejudice him in your favour, and secure his assent. For there are many obstinate spirits who are not to be bent by any arguments; and where faith is suspected, or authority contemned, little progress is made even with the docile. On the other hand, when opposite feelings exist, the result will be, that the person whose interests you are consulting will acquiesce in the very counsels which he would otherwise have derided. The same work is performed in us by the Spirit. That the word may not fall upon our ear, or the sacraments be presented to our eye in vain, he shows that it is God who there speaks to us, softens our obdurate hearts, and frames them to the obedience which is due to his word; in short, transmits those external words and sacraments from the ear to the soul. Both word and sacraments, therefore, confirm our faith, bringing under view the kind intentions of our heavenly Father, in the knowledge of which the whole assurance of our faith depends, and by which its strength is increased; and the Spirit also confirms our faith when, by engraving that assurance on our minds, he renders it effectual. Meanwhile, it is easy for the Father of lights, in like manner as he illumines the bodily eye by the rays of the sun, to illumine our minds by the sacraments, as by a kind of intermediate brightness.
> 
> 
> Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.


----------

