# Is the New Covenant different or not?



## S. Spence (Jan 2, 2007)

Hi,

I’m a Reformed Baptist who’s coming round to the idea of household baptism, although I’ve one question. 
A covenant often appears to be defined as, ‘a bond in blood; a bond of life and death which is solemnly administered.’
Now I was wondering how this fitted in with the infant-baptist’s viewpoint. I do believe that the blood of the animals that were cut in half ‘initiated’ the Abrahamic Covenant in someway and also included his descendents. However, if we look to the New Covenant, (which I believe to be the fullest expression of the Covenant of Grace), it was initiated by the blood of Christ. Now, as a Calvinist I believe that Christ’s blood was shed for only the elect. Therefore if we define covenant as a, ‘bond in blood,’ does this mean that only the elect are covenanted with in this dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, since only they are brought into this, ‘bond in blood’?


----------



## Casey (Jan 2, 2007)

This is not a full answer to your question, but perhaps this note will help you: Election is not something peculiar to the New Covenant. Jacob and Esau were both in covenant with God -- but one was elect, the other was not -- and both were circumcised (the sign of the covenant). That's why it's helpful to consider two ways of participating in the covenant: internally (circumcision/baptism of the Spirit) and externally (circumcision/baptism of the flesh), which corresponds to the invisible and visible church respectively. Some may partake of one and not the other. The Baptist idea of having a regenerate membership seems to, in some way, be based on a rejection of this distinction -- it is impossible to know who's regenerate (we may only make a charitable judgment based on their profession and living).


----------



## Davidius (Jan 2, 2007)

By whose shed blood were the beneficiaries of the Covenant of Grace in the Old Testament saved? That blood from the animals was just a type and a shadow of the lamb who 'was slain from the foundations of the world.' Abraham was stilled saved by the blood of Christ just as we are now, post-resurrection. Therefore, those who are true children of Abraham (that is, those who by faith in his footsteps, see Romans 4) have always received salvation by being ingrafted by grace through faith into Christ (see galatians 3). And although this was the case, Abraham was still commanded to place the sign of the Covenant of Grace on every male in his household, even Ishmael, who God said was not the child of promise. 

Seeing the way that God distinguished between the sign and the thing signified in Genesis 17 and Galatians 3 really helped me here. In verses 1-8 God makes a promise to Abraham and to His seed, which we know from Galatians 3 does not mean to all of his physical offspring, but to Christ himself. In verses 9-14 God commands Abraham to put the sign of the covenant on all of his descendants as a sign of the covenant and to include them in the covenant people. Paul goes on to say in Galatians 3 that if we are in Christ we are blessed along with Abraham. Therefore, since Abraham was commanded to give his dispensation's sign of the CoG to his offspring, not as a sign of their faith but of God's promise to those who appropriate the substance of the covenant by faith (see Romans 4 where circumcision is defined as a sign of the righteousness Abraham had by faith, yet it was applied to all of his household when they did not all have this righteousness by faith) we should do the same. And our children will be exhorted, as the Israelites were, to look upon that sacrament and appropriate the benefits of it by faith. If they don't, they'll be eventually removed from the Church like the unbelieving Israelites were. 

So to answer your question, the Covenant of Grace has always been ratified in blood. The sign of of the Covenant of Grace has been commanded to be given to descendants of the one who is in Christ, as a reminder of God's promise and a sign of its benefits, but only those offspring who appropriate the substance by faith receive the eternal benefits.


----------



## ADKing (Jan 2, 2007)

Greetings Stephen,

I recognise the definition of covenant from O Palmer Roberston, but think that it may not be quite precise enough (for example its "bond in blood" language makes it difficult for the covenant of works to be considered a covenant--a whole different debate). 

I think your question needs to be refined to get at what you are asking. Is the New Covenant different from what? The Old?--yes (Hebrews 8). Is the New Covenant different than the covenant of grace?--no, it is an administration of the covenant of grace. 

I would stick with Westminster Larger Catechism Q&A 31 

_Q31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed. _

Nevertheless, the covenant of grace is administered in an outward manner. The overwhelming testimony of scripture, in the Old and New Covenants both, is that this covenant of grace, made with Christ and the elect in him, is outwardly adminsitered in such a way that all those who do profess the true religion _and their children_ are within its pale. 

This is only the tip of the iceberg, I know. Perhaps it helps a little?

By the way, Stephen, I had the privilege of being at Donaghadee Baptist Church last March to attend the midweek ministers' gathering that was put on. Stuart Olyott was speaking on "How not to preach a boring sermon"! It was a great time.


----------



## S. Spence (Jan 2, 2007)

Thanks for all the above replies, they're very helpful.
Talk about a small world Adam! 

I do take the point that salvation has always been through the blood of Christ. However, I was talking to Fred Malone once and he said that it's important to take each covenant on it own merit - He saw them all as an 'expression' of the covenant of Grace but nonetheless the Abrahamic covenant was different from the Mosaic or Davidic covenant and so on. Therefore taking this view it would be possible to be under the Abrahamic Covenant but not be in the Covenant of Grace. Conversely, he would say that the New Covenant is slightly different, in that all who are in this covenant are in the Covenant of Grace. This view does seem to be pretty prevalent with other reformed baptists and I'm wondering what a Presbyterian would make of it?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 2, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Stephen....
> 
> fight it, fight it.....
> 
> ...



There is more to Jeremiah 31 Trevor, don't forget and leave out the rest: "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

So every baptized person in the Baptist church knows the Lord Trevor? The Baptist church no longer needs to teach their neighbors because everyone knows the Lord?


----------



## Davidius (Jan 2, 2007)

ChristopherPaul said:


> There is more to Jeremiah 31 Trevor, don't forget and leave out the rest: "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
> 
> So every baptized person in the Baptist church knows the Lord Trevor? The Baptist church no longer needs to teach their neighbors because everyone knows the Lord?





I need to be taught concerning many things, not to mention frequent reminders of God's grace through the Gospel.

already/not yet


----------



## kceaster (Jan 2, 2007)

Stephen,

One useful thing to keep in mind is that baptism is a sign of the covenant, not a guarantee. Christ's blood is the guarantee. Baptism is a sign and seal that Christ's blood will be the guarantee, IF and only IF, the one being baptized is truly numbered in the elect.

In this way, an infant can receive the same sign and seal that an adult believer does. Thankfully, the guarantee of Christ's blood and the washing away of sins is not contingent upon the profession of faith, or the absence of a profession. The guarantee is contingent upon God's promise and His oath fulfilled in Himself.

If you look at it this way, then you can reconcile both the credobaptist side and the paedobaptist side. Baptism is contingent upon the grace, mercy, and blessing of God. Both the infant and adult must rely upon the Holy Spirit for the effectual application of the benefits symbolized in the sacrament.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## elnwood (Jan 2, 2007)

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> That's why it's helpful to consider two ways of participating in the covenant: internally (circumcision/baptism of the Spirit) and externally (circumcision/baptism of the flesh), which corresponds to the invisible and visible church respectively. Some may partake of one and not the other. The Baptist idea of having a regenerate membership seems to, in some way, be based on a rejection of this distinction -- it is impossible to know who's regenerate (we may only make a charitable judgment based on their profession and living).



And the confessional paedobaptist makes the same distinction when giving the Lord's Supper to only those who profess faith, as the Baptist does when administering baptism. So when the Baptist says he holds to regenerate church membership, functionally he means the same thing that the confessional paedobaptist does when he holds to a regenerate communicant membership. So the knife cuts both ways.


----------



## Davidius (Jan 2, 2007)

elnwood said:


> And the confessional paedobaptist makes the same distinction when giving the Lord's Supper to only those who profess faith, as the Baptist does when administering baptism. So when the Baptist says he holds to regenerate church membership, functionally he means the same thing that the confessional paedobaptist does when he holds to a regenerate communicant membership. So the knife cuts both ways.



We're commanded to examine ourselves before partaking of the Lord's Supper that we might not do it "in an unworthy manner." For baptism there is no such command because the sign of the Covenant of Grace is rightly administered to the offspring of believers. They may eventually spurn their baptism by failing to appropriate what it signifies by faith and if they do so it will become worthless to them.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 2, 2007)

There are three different groups.

1) Credo-Baptists--who see both as sacraments of "profession," belonging to the exact same people

2) Paedo-Communionists--who see both as sacraments of "inclusion," belonging to the exact same people

and
3) Paedo-baptists--who see baptism as a sacrament of "inclusion", and Communion as a sacrament of "profession."


----------



## non dignus (Jan 2, 2007)

> Therefore if we define covenant as a, ‘bond in blood,’ does this mean that only the elect are covenanted with in this dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, since only they are brought into this, ‘bond in blood’?



No. Circumcision was a bond in blood, but not all circumcised were included in the covenant of redemption, which is not a bond in blood.

As an aside, the secret things belong to God. It is OK to have knowledge and act upon it according to evidence accepted in faith, otherwise the signs of the covenant would have very little meaning. God has given the signs as nearly identical to the things signified. We must trust in the way He administers the covenant through visible signs and not relegate them to a mere hypotheticals. - a little off topic, my apologies.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 2, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> There are three different groups.
> 
> 1) Credo-Baptists--who see both as sacraments of "profession," belonging to the exact same people
> 
> ...



Thanks Bruce, those divisions are helpful.

My only caveat is that many Credo-Baptists (myself included) prefer the term "ordinance" over "sacrament," as in the 1689 London Baptist Confession.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 2, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> We're commanded to examine ourselves before partaking of the Lord's Supper that we might not do it "in an unworthy manner." For baptism there is no such command because the sign of the Covenant of Grace is rightly administered to the offspring of believers. They may eventually spurn their baptism by failing to appropriate what it signifies by faith and if they do so it will become worthless to them.



Baptists see the command to repent and be baptized as equivalent to the command to examine yourself before taking the Lord's Supper. Why refuse one "sacrament" to the recipients of the covenant of grace because of one New Testament command and not another?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 2, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Stephen....
> 
> fight it, fight it.....
> 
> ...



Trevor,
The statement this pastor made needs qualifying; for instance, he is talking to a Baptist (no disrespect meant). In that, he probably took for granted you would apply the biblical distinction of 'in' meaning invisible church and _out_ in the visible. Without applying this distinction when reading scripture, the knot only tightens.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 2, 2007)

> I do take the point that salvation has always been through the blood of Christ. However, I was talking to Fred Malone once and he said that it's important to take each covenant on it own merit - He saw them all as an 'expression' of the covenant of Grace but nonetheless the Abrahamic covenant was different from the Mosaic or Davidic covenant and so on.



All the covenants are still intact; none have been abrogated. Some have been completely fulfilled and others not. For instance, the Abrahamic is fulfilled, being fulfilled and will be fulfilled. 




> Therefore taking this view it would be possible to be under the Abrahamic Covenant but not be in the Covenant of Grace. Conversely, he would say that the New Covenant is slightly different, in that all who are in this covenant are in the Covenant of Grace.


How was this different from Abrahams day?

Oh, and to specifically answer your question, the NC is brand new. In relation to the covenant of works!


----------



## S. Spence (Jan 3, 2007)

Scott Bushey said:


> All the covenants are still intact; none have been abrogated. Some have been completely fulfilled and others not. For instance, the Abrahamic is fulfilled, being fulfilled and will be fulfilled.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Scott

I think those who put forward this view (it's not my view, I haven't figured my own view out completely, yet) would say the difference is that one could be in the Abrahamic Covenant but not in the Covenant of Grace, whilst the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace are one and the same. (A big difference compared with the Abrahamic Covenant.) Therefore to be in the New Covenant is to be in the Covenant of Grace and so Baptism is to be applied only those who profess to be Christ's.

Also I have not come across the view that the New Covenant is brand new compare with the Covenant of Works. I was wondering do you equate the Mosaic Covenant with the Covenant of Works? How does this accord with Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 3, 2007)

Scott Bushey said:


> All the covenants are still intact; none have been abrogated. Some have been completely fulfilled and others not. For instance, the Abrahamic is fulfilled, being fulfilled and will be fulfilled.



So are children of believers children of Abraham? If so, and if they do not become Christians, when do they cease to be children of Abraham?


----------



## Davidius (Jan 3, 2007)

elnwood said:


> So are children of believers children of Abraham? If so, and if they do not become Christians, when do they cease to be children of Abraham?



No, the children of believers were never guaranteed to be the spiritual children of Abraham. They are only the children of Abraham if they appropriate the promises of the Covenant made to Abraham and his Seed (Christ) by faith. 



> Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.


 Matthew 3:8-9



> And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.


 Romans 4:12



> 9So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.


 Galatians 3:9


Since we, therefore, who are in Christ are beneficiaries of the Covenant made to Abraham then we, like Abraham, have the same responsibilities he had, such as putting the sign of the Covenant of Grace on our children and including them in the covenant community.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 3, 2007)

S. Spence said:


> Scott
> 
> I think those who put forward this view (it's not my view, I haven't figured my own view out completely, yet) would say the difference is that one could be in the Abrahamic Covenant but not in the Covenant of Grace, whilst the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace are one and the same. (A big difference compared with the Abrahamic Covenant.) Therefore to be in the New Covenant is to be in the Covenant of Grace and so Baptism is to be applied only those who profess to be Christ's.
> 
> Also I have not come across the view that the New Covenant is brand new compare with the Covenant of Works. I was wondering do you equate the Mosaic Covenant with the Covenant of Works? How does this accord with Heb 8:13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.


At the risk of ruining my rep as a "summarizer," I'd like to expand on this comment/question.

Speaking of the "big difference" between the Abrahamic covenant and the New, we paedo-baptists (PBs) going to differ with our credo-baptist brethren (CBs) at this point: namely, that the New Covenant is co-extensive *at every point* to the Covenant of Grace, that it _is_ basically the Covenant of Grace. This is only true as far as PBs are concerned if one says basically the same thing about every administration of the Covenant of Grace, and then distinguishes between the outward administration and the inward, between the externals and the substance.

For this reason, I tend not to speak of unregenerate membership in the Covenant of Grace _unless_ I include the language of "externals". It is simpler, in my opinion, to speak of membership in the various covenantal administrations on earth, and to affirm (due to such earthly administrations) that they inevitably contain both saved and unsaved persons, elect and reprobate.

When one is then speaking of the Covenant of Grace _per se_, he has formost in his mind the grand, cross-temporal redemptive-historical scheme that incorporates all the sub-ministrations from Adam (post-fall) to our own day. This is not to say that you cannot say "CoG" when you are talking about the historic administration--be that Mosaic, or Abrahamic, or Christic (New), or etc.--but one must make sure his audience is on the page with him.


This then is a grand (perhaps we may say the keystone) distinction between the credo-only-baptist position and the paedo-baptist position. We no more think that Abraham's children were "in" his covenant, that is full participants other than outwardly unless they had faith, than we think that anyone--including our children--are full participants "in covenant" (CoG, NC administration) unless they too have faith. God does keep, and always has kept, his elect in his covenant, while those only outwardly in covenant are either apostate or self-deceived, trying to attain by works what could only be had (ever) by faith--namely, the promises.

But we believe that starting from the beginning God included children of the faithful in his covenant-dealings with his people. Abraham was told to put the sign of the covenant on his children, for to demonstrate publicly that "of such was the kingdom of heaven;" and we don't believe that command (apart from a change in the actual sign) has ever been changed. So for the PB, *external covenant* itself defines who is to be externally baptized. And the external covenant contains whoever the Bible defines. And we disagree with the CB on who the Bible so defines, obviously.

I think this came out in the White-Shishko debate, but many (if not most) CBs will deny that the NC technically has a "visible administration." This is due to the fact that in their view the NC is purely invisible. Therefore, they will not say that the visible church is that visible administration.

Baptism in the CB scheme is part of the "outward testimony" of a true believer, and _must_ follow the verbal portion of his testimony. Baptism is chiefly about the person himself, and so if the verbal testimony was false the water baptism was not a true depiction of spirit-reality, and the outward rite must be repeated following true conversion. The CB church is making no claim at all about the individual or upon him, but is simply serving as a ratifying agency. It is not administrating the NC.

The PB church, on the other hand, believes it is adminstrating the NC externally. Thus, any baptisms it performs, _assuming it is not a bogus church,_ are true baptisms. This is because in PB theology of baptism and covenant, baptism is something objective to a person, something that is happening to him. Therefore, if the baptism is not accompanied by faith then it is a sign against the baptized person for greater judgment.

But, what about a person who is not a real convert when he is baptized? (or the same question posed for an unregenerate infant)? There is no faith there, right? Actually there could be faith present there in seed form, but that's another issue (regeneration and conversion being two different things). But because we do not tie an objective baptism temporally to objective faith, the promise of salvation from God may be made to his elect person before--maybe even long before--his conversion. But when faith is present there, it validates the covenant sign as a sign of blessing. God's promise was a long time in coming, but it surely came.

For the one who is never truly regenerated, his baptism is a part of incurring covenant apostasy judgment. The warning of God (another kind of promise) might be a long time coming for him too, but it surely comes also (2 Pet. 3:4).

Now, in CB theology: since the unconverted wasn't baptised, just wet, then there is no covenant violation for a lying profession and for the ritual bath. One cannot incur covenantal judgment if one isn't at least outwardly in covenant; the crime itself is impossible under CB doctrine. The baptism of the unconverted wasn't anything real or objective. There's no external administration of the CoG (today's NC) for him to violate.

Was it sinful? sure. Against greater light? yes. But no extra heinousness and added aggravation, as though the sin were committed against the covenant. There is a related issue of REBaptizing here that could be brought in, but I'm presuming not to go there; and so the worst problem here in connection to the NC is this liar wasted a pastor's time and the church's.

I'm not saying the CB doesn't heartily believe warning passages such as Heb. 6:1-8, only that he cannot consistently view them as covenantal judgments if there is no such thing as visible administration of the New Covenant. Such judgments are simply a restatment of the warning of Gen. 2:17 related to the Covenant of Works, "You shall surely die."


Finally (and I know this is already a long post), what about the NEW vs. CoW? Certainly it's called "new" specifically in contrast to "old-as-in-Mosaic." But Scott is correct to say that being the end-administration of the CoG, that Christ brought completion or fulfillment of his covenant dealings in the NT age, that the NC stands in starkest contrast to the CoW--starkest versus how the Mosaic administration stood in relation to the CoW, as well as verus the others to the CoW in clarity and completeness.

The Mosaic covenant contained within it the moral law (and many other regulations) that clearly reflected aspects of the CoW. This is how Jesus for example interprets those aspects of the Law (Lk. 10:28), as does Paul (Gal. 3:12; cf. Lev. 18:5). But it was linked to the Mosaic administration of the CoG primarily to demonstrate the futility of unsaved men trying to please God, and the necessity of grace.

And the sacrificial typology of Israelite religion was the counterweight to the inclusion of the law. It was the CoG in types and shadows of the Messiah to come. Only after the Israelite embraced the sacrifices by faith could he look to the law as something he loved, as his guide for righteous living, which was being renewed upon his heart by faith.


So, to try to answer the query relative to Heb. 8:13, the Old (Mosaic) Covenant administration was being replaced by the New one, in the Person of Jesus Christ, the new Mediator. The Mosaic is now obsolete, and ready to disappear. But that simply means that in terms of history, the latter replaces the former; the former disappears behind or under the latter.

So when Scott says it isn't _abrogated_ (means *to annul*), he is saying that the Old hasn't been crumpled up like a used piece of note-paper and thrown in the trashcan, or even folded and put up in a file box. No, it's been largely _fulfilled;_ its been completed, and superceded--a big difference in terms.

The fact of the completion of some covenant obligations means the covenant can be relegated to history without prejudice. It can also be replaced or renewed, and such action can include preservation of old duties or promises, as well as new or replacement ones. Because covenant is itself the history of redemption, and our identity is fused with history, all the covenants are our covenants, and they are Christ's who fulfills everything in them. They are literally the foundation of the NC in which we dwell, as well as providing some of the usable furniture (as in the case of Abraham) in our present dwelling.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 3, 2007)

elnwood said:


> So are children of believers children of Abraham? If so, and if they do not become Christians, when do they cease to be children of Abraham?



When they show themselves to be apostate.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 3, 2007)

elnwood said:


> So are children of believers children of Abraham? If so, and if they do not become Christians, when do they cease to be children of Abraham?



Not all children of believer Abraham were children of Abraham (Rom. 9:7). And yet, they were all his children _outwardly_. So, since they did not become Christians (or hope in Messiah), when did they cease to be children of Abraham?


The answer to the conundrum of course is in election, the basic subject of Rom. 9. Since Ishmael wasn't a believer himself, since Esau wasn't a believer himself, they weren't Abraham's children in any meaningful sense. Neither were most of the "children of Israel" who fell in the wilderness. "WE are the circumcision," NOT them (Phil. 3:3), even if they have a physical circumcision and we don't.

It was a privilege to be born into Abraham's house--but with privileges comes responsibility. But of course only the elect are helped to fulfill their responsibility, while the rest are left to reject theirs. Thankfully, there were many who sustained their's by God's grace.

The rest never ceased to be his children because they never were his spiritual children to begin with. But in another sense, given that they were his physical children, and they had the promises as an outward possession, they "ceased" to be his children when they rejected those promises, or when they apostatized, or even when they tried to lay hold of the promises by works instead of faith. But that behavior just showed their true colors, showed they "never were of us," were bastards from the word *GO*, and not true sons.

And then there were the one's who had the promises outwardly, who appeared to reject them, or hold on to them by works, who afterward repented and "became" Abraham's children, who were received back like a Prodigal son. As well as them who were adopted into the people--men like Caleb the Kenezite, and Ittai the Gittite, and Uriah the Hittite, and Luke the physician, and Titus, and others in Scripture, and many, untold many more.

So, for paedo-baptists, today their children possess the name of Abraham and heritage of faith by their parents connection to Abraham. They are outwardly "children of Abraham." But are they inwardly? Only time--the same time that revealed many Israelites' reprobation--will reveal that. Maybe not until Judgment Day. If they ARE Abraham's seed spiritually (elect), then they will never "cease" being. And if they AREN'T, then they won't cease being either, never having been, even if they apostatize, demonstrating what they are.


----------



## MW (Jan 3, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> The promise of the NC is that every member will know the Lord - from the least to the greatest.



Baptism is an administration of the covenant of grace. Simon the magician was baptised, but he but he did not know the Lord. Hence the promise of the new covenant is not fulfilled in every one to whom the new covenant is administered, as equally as it did not apply to every one under the old covenant.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 3, 2007)

Scott Bushey said:


> When they show themselves to be apostate.



Philosophical question -- if a person shows themselves to be apostate and the church doesn't see them, are they still a child of Abraham? (i.e. tree falls in a forest).

I'm serious with this question, because this answer is wholly unsatisfactory for me. A person is apostate long before they show themselves to be. So are they not a child of Abraham when they were first apostate, i.e. from birth? Or when the church notices and puts them out? What if a person is apostate but never shows themselves to be? It seems like you are arguing that the church essentially determines by their church discipline and administration of the sacraments who is a child of Abraham.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 3, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Philosophical question -- if a person shows themselves to be apostate and the church doesn't see them, are they still a child of Abraham? (i.e. tree falls in a forest).



The distinction needs to be made in regards to the visible church and the invisible. Apostates can be part of the visible church; they are not children of Abraham in the spiritual sense.



> I'm serious with this question, because this answer is wholly unsatisfactory for me. A person is apostate long before they show themselves to be. So are they not a child of Abraham when they were first apostate, i.e. from birth?



They are not. Reprobation and apostasy are not the same things.



> Or when the church notices and puts them out? What if a person is apostate but never shows themselves to be? It seems like you are arguing that the church essentially determines by their church discipline and administration of the sacraments who is a child of Abraham.



Don,
There are numerous exhortations and warning in scripture about falling away. I won't go into all those as you know them. Apostates are baptized everyday; only Christ knows who are His. The church is limited in this regard; that is why the only element the church can use to determine this thing is via discipline and the response of the sinner, i.e. he repents and is restored, he rejects repentance and abandons (apostsizes) the faith.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 3, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Not all children of believer Abraham were children of Abraham (Rom. 9:7). And yet, they were all his children _outwardly_. So, since they did not become Christians (or hope in Messiah), when did they cease to be children of Abraham?
> 
> 
> The answer to the conundrum of course is in election, the basic subject of Rom. 9. Since Ishmael wasn't a believer himself, since Esau wasn't a believer himself, they weren't Abraham's children in any meaningful sense. Neither were most of the "children of Israel" who fell in the wilderness. "WE are the circumcision," NOT them (Phil. 3:3), even if they have a physical circumcision and we don't.
> ...



Before I get started, Bruce, I know that you said you were breaking your reputation as a summarizer, but even though it was really long, I think it was an excellent summary of the difference between credos and paedos.

With regards to the children of Abraham thing, the way I see it, it breaks down to two types of children of Abraham -- physical and spiritual. Each have their own promises.

The physical are the physical descendants of Abraham. Certain promises are made to physical Israel, i.e. physical land, etc., but all of these things are types. God still calls physical descendants of Israel "Israel," "his people," "children of Abraham," etc. even when they show themselves as apostate.

The spiritual are those who have faith, i.e. born-again Christians. This is the anti-type, the reality. Heavenly promises are made to the true children of Abraham: those who are of the elect.

From my perspective, the paedo view confuses the physical and spiritual children of Abraham. In the Old Testament, God considered physical Israel the recipient of his promises. But in the New Testament, it is clear that there remains no more promises for physical children of Abraham. Physical lineage is nothing! The future promises are for spiritual children of Israel. (Romans 2)

Yet, though paedos consider physical Israel no longer a recipient of covenant promises, they still consider their physical children to be somehow recipients of the promises made to Abraham. To me, this seems inconsistent.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 3, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Philosophical question -- if a person shows themselves to be apostate and the church doesn't see them, are they still a child of Abraham? (i.e. tree falls in a forest).
> 
> I'm serious with this question, because this answer is wholly unsatisfactory for me. A person is apostate long before they show themselves to be. So are they not a child of Abraham when they were first apostate, i.e. from birth? Or when the church notices and puts them out? What if a person is apostate but never shows themselves to be? It seems like you are arguing that the church essentially determines by their church discipline and administration of the sacraments who is a child of Abraham.



Don,

Are you a child of Abraham? I can't see your heart and know if you are regenerate. If you show yourself to be apostate and the Church doesn't see it, were you ever baptized into the Church?

I'm serious with the question because your conclusions are wholly unsatisfactory to me. If baptism requires that the person be _truly_ a child of Abraham in that the recipient possess the faith of Abraham then how do I know that you really do apart from you telling me that you do? I've known plenty that said they have faith and are now apostate.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 3, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Before I get started, Bruce, I know that you said you were breaking your reputation as a summarizer, but even though it was really long, I think it was an excellent summary of the difference between credos and paedos.
> 
> With regards to the children of Abraham thing, the way I see it, it breaks down to two types of children of Abraham -- physical and spiritual. Each have their own promises.
> 
> ...



Thank you Don. I'm sure those are kinder words than I deserve, but I'm glad that I was equitable in your eyes, even in disagreement.

Thanks to off-board interchanges with Reformedman, I grew in my understanding of the CB position, although no closer to adopting it.

I don't believe the physical seed of Abraham have _any_ promises based on their parentage. None. Its all by faith or they get nothing: "Even what he has will be taken away" (Mt. 13:12). So I don't agree that "God considered physical Israel the recipient of his promises." Only in a general capacity as outward members of his church they all (including unbelievers) benefitted from what the faithful remnant received.

When God calls the physical descendants "Israel," he's referring to the Old Covenant church, he's preaching to them _in toto,_ collectively. He doesn't differetiate in his outward calls, praises, or rebukes. They are the only church there is.

So I say that the NT didn't change anything with respect to physical lineage. I don't agree that it IS or WAS _absolutely_ nothing--Paul says there were clear advantages (Rom. 3:2). "Circumcision is nothing," says Paul (1 Cor. 7:19), in opposition to ritualism, and similar in Rom. 2:25-29. It has always been a blessing to have godly parents, this seems to be the import of Ex. 20:6. What no one I know of is saying is that physical descent is or ever was something to boast in or put confidence in. That is an error, however, *in every age*, not just this one or that one; and the error is not a _product_ of infant circumcision or infant baptism, but of formalism.

Physical descent (or adoption) was the way God chose to present and preserve the church in the world for a time, especially to bring forth the Messiah from that church. There is no more confining the church to the 12 Tribes, or the 1 Tribe. There's no more reason for the separation laws, the Old Covenant lineal priesthood, etc. When Jesus was born, those days were numbered.

Where you see me confusing physical and spiritual children, since I see no difference in this era versus the former I don't see how the same objections cannot be levelled against Abraham-Moses. They all had children who were recipients _only externally_ of Abrahamic promises, because of unbelief. Yet we all agree the parents were doing what God commanded in sharing those blessings. In that era, God preserved his church mainly through _faithful_ children (what few there were). I believe in our own NC era God has not stopped building his church _at least in part,_ through the same means--a godly heritage of _faithful_ children.

I don't just want a big family. I want a big family of children then grandchildren (etc.), who are all faithful believers. I want them all to be children of my father Abraham. So, I tell them this is their spiritual heritage. It is THEIR'S, for the having, for the keeping, because in his providence God gave THEM to ME, and I belong to HIM. But they can only claim it by their own exercise of faith. Anyone who says otherwise is a ritualist.


Anyway, I'm glad we agree on so many other things.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 4, 2007)

elnwood said:


> From my perspective, the paedo view confuses the physical and spiritual children of Abraham.



The fact is, the bible delineates the two in the visible/invisible church distinction, not confuses them.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 4, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Don,
> 
> Are you a child of Abraham? I can't see your heart and know if you are regenerate. If you show yourself to be apostate and the Church doesn't see it, were you ever baptized into the Church?
> 
> I'm serious with the question because your conclusions are wholly unsatisfactory to me. If baptism requires that the person be _truly_ a child of Abraham in that the recipient possess the faith of Abraham then how do I know that you really do apart from you telling me that you do? I've known plenty that said they have faith and are now apostate.



I am a child of Abraham because I have been saved. My baptism and church membership have no bearing on my status as a child of Abraham.

As Bruce so accurately summarized, I don't believe that our churches are a visible administration of the New Covenant. A member of the New Covenant is someone who is regenerate. I might use the terminology "visible church" to include those who are unregenerate but assemble with the church (since church can simply mean assembly), I would never say that someone enters the New Covenant through baptism.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 4, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Thank you Don. I'm sure those are kinder words than I deserve, but I'm glad that I was equitable in your eyes, even in disagreement.
> 
> Thanks to off-board interchanges with Reformedman, I grew in my understanding of the CB position, although no closer to adopting it.
> 
> I don't believe the physical seed of Abraham have _any_ promises based on their parentage. None. Its all by faith or they get nothing: "Even what he has will be taken away" (Mt. 13:12). So I don't agree that "God considered physical Israel the recipient of his promises." Only in a general capacity as outward members of his church they all (including unbelievers) benefitted from what the faithful remnant received.



There has always been a faithful remnant, but I still see God consider physical lineage in the Old Testament. For example, when the kingdoms split, and Judah is considered the visible assembly and Israel is taken into exile, God still will speak of Israel AND Judah as his people, and desires to restore them, even though Israel is neither part of the visible assembly or the invisible.

But with regards to the New Covenant, every covenant has promises. Are the promises in the New Covenant the same as in the Old Covenant? No! Hebrews 8:6 says Christ is the mediator of a *better covenant*, enacted on *better promises*.

Acts 2:39 says "For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." But what is the promise? Acts 2:33 says the promise is the Holy Spirit, echoed again in verse 38, and again in Galatians 3:14, and again in Ephesians 1:13, "*sealed* with the promised Holy Spirit."

The New Covenant promise is the Holy Spirit, i.e. regeneration. Whereas in the Old Covenant, circumcision was both the sign and the seal, in the New Covenant, baptism is the sign, but the Holy Spirit is the seal (also see 2 Cor. 1:22 and Ephesians 4:30). Baptism is called a sign, but never called a seal -- a paedo can't cry "continuity" because continuity would say that circumcision was still the seal until the New Covenant changed it.

In what sense are unregenerate infants the recipients of the promise of the New Covenant? None. In what sense do they receive the New Covenant seal? None. They do not receive the Holy Spirit, and thus they do not receive the promise or the seal of the New Covenant.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Anyway, I'm glad we agree on so many other things.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 4, 2007)

Paul! Good to finally interact with you. I saw your debate with Derek Sansone a couple years ago. Good work.



Paul manata said:


> Adults have always had to profess faith.



I am not yet convinced that this is true. Where in the Old Testament is one told to make a profession of faith before one is circumcised? After the 40 years of wandering in the desert, did God require a profession of faith when he had the children of Israel circumcised?



Paul manata said:


> But, 'repent and be baptised' does not logically translate to 'only those who repent may be baptised.' Baptists often commit an elementry logical blunder.



It does if you apply the Regulative Principle of Worship to Baptism.



Paul manata said:


> But as long as we're stuck on commands, God put children into the church, they've nowhere been commanded to be removed, and so I, for one, allow them to stay in since I'll let God be the one who determines the members of His church, not me. He put them in, he's nowhere commanded they be removed.



How does one enter the church? By circumcision? Or by baptism? If it is by circumcision or baptism, why did the Jewish believers need to be baptized? If it is by baptism only, as I believe, then your premise is flawed.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 4, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> Think about it. If an adult male knows he's going to get his penis cut, with no pain medication, don't you think he's making a pretty big profession? Alternatively, adults who wanted no part of Jehovah were not forced to be circumcised. If so, then you have my little story to deal with.



Paul, I think you are equating wanting to be part of the people of God and making a profession of faith. You still have not shown be a scripture where an adult is told to make a profession of faith before circumcision!

Making a profession of faith and desiring to be part of God's community are distinct concepts. I know people who like to go to church but who wouldn't make a profession of faith. Should we baptize them?

Therefore, I still am not convinced of your statement "Adults have always had to profess faith."



Paul manata said:


> No, it doesn't. But if you care to try and make the *logical* connection, be my guest.
> 
> That Peter told adults to repent and be baptised, at best, only shows that adults are to repent and be baptised. The regulative principle doesn't magically change the logical structure of propositions and what they logically entail.



The RPW doesn't change the logic, but it adds an additional presupposition.

Here's a go.

Premise 1: Public acts worship should be dictated solely based on what God commands (Regulative Principle of Worship).
Premise 2: Baptism is an act of public worship.
Premise 3: In the bible, baptism is only commanded after a profession of faith.
Corollary: Baptism is never commanded of an infant who has not professed faith.
Conclusion: Baptism should only performed after a profession of faith.
Corollary: Baptism should not be performed on an infant who has not professed faith.



Paul manata said:


> My child, and the children of Israelites, are members of the church *before* they are baptised or circumcised. So, your rejoinder not only has a flawed premise but begs the question.



So you can have members of the church who are not baptized?!? You don't believe baptism is entry into the visible New Covenant?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 4, 2007)

elnwood said:


> There has always been a faithful remnant, but I still see God consider physical lineage in the Old Testament. For example, when the kingdoms split, and Judah is considered the visible assembly and Israel is taken into exile, God still will speak of Israel AND Judah as his people, and desires to restore them, even though Israel is neither part of the visible assembly or the invisible.


Again, our interpretations diverge based on the way each of our traditions read the Old Testament (even though rejoicing in a common root). How does God restore _Israel?_ By ingathering them with (not apart from) the Gentiles, and Samaritans. So is God really speaking of the ethnic 10-Tribes, or of his elect? It took 750 more years for that to become unmistakably clear.



elnwood said:


> But with regards to the New Covenant, every covenant has promises. Are the promises in the New Covenant the same as in the Old Covenant? No! Hebrews 8:6 says Christ is the mediator of a *better covenant*, enacted on *better promises*.


Of course the subsidiary promises aren't _exactly_ the same, or else they wouldn't be different covenants. That is the nature of having a _history_ of redemption. But the reality, the end, the goal has never changed, and neither has the essential means of attaining the reality. The problem of focusing on accidents instead of substantia is that accidents change frequently. This is the Judaizing error: focusing on the accidents as though they had substance, and claiming that God can't (or wouldn't) change his administrations, although he had already done so several times.

But Don, I know you recognize that the promises contain some continuity, because you agree that salvation is promised the same way in all the covenants. How is the promise of salvation by grace through faith through Christ _better than_ the promise of salvation by grace through faith through Christ? Of course one can say a difference is that what's _better now_ is that the thing is DONE. So the promised END is exactly the same, but nature of the promise regarding _the effecting of attainment_ IS better, because redemption in Christ is historically accomplished.

Clearly, what's "better" is that the scaffolding and temporary supports of the Old Covenant are gone, and glory is fully revealled. It's like a unique building going up. The Abrahamic covenant is like a massive central pillar, upon which is erected a gorgeous dome. Then, a floor plan is laid out and fixed, and a temporary structure built all around the limits and up to a roof line, which ties into a permanent ceiling that is being expanded out from the central pillar.

That central pillar is obscured somewhat by the temporary walls and scaffolding, but you shouldn't forget it, and if you look you can see it. And what's above you can see if you step back is not changing. But the temporary stuff is not holding up the dome or the ceiling. Don't fall in love with the scaffolding. It's coming down, I promise, and eventually it does. Then the beauty and symmetry of the whole thing is exposed. All the temporary stuff has been replaced by a new and living way, the permanence of Christ.

There are things about this building that have never, ever changed. The pillar of faith, the way of salvation, the crowning jewel, the heavenly reaches, etc. The walls and the structural integration are all *different*. But of course, they are all the *same* too. They are the same walls and the same structural supports of the same building. But they are better walls, better everything.​
Every single covenant was a step forward in some way. The Mosaic covenant was "better" than Abraham's too, a step forward. *More* of God's redemption plan was taught through Moses than was taught through Abraham. Just like its better to be gangly and have acne than to remain forever in infancy, because you are growing up. You are making progress, even though you might feel like an ugly duckling. Paul's point (in Galatians and Romans especially) is that the essence of Abraham's covenant--salvation by faith--was NEVER overturned, even after the coming of the Law. Faith was part and parcel of the later covenant (the central pillar).



elnwood said:


> Acts 2:39 says "For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." But what is the promise? Acts 2:33 says the promise is the Holy Spirit, echoed again in verse 38, and again in Galatians 3:14, and again in Ephesians 1:13, "*sealed* with the promised Holy Spirit."
> 
> The New Covenant promise is the Holy Spirit, i.e. regeneration. Whereas in the Old Covenant, circumcision was both the sign and the seal, in the New Covenant, baptism is the sign, but the Holy Spirit is the seal (also see 2 Cor. 1:22 and Ephesians 4:30). Baptism is called a sign, but never called a seal -- a paedo can't cry "continuity" because continuity would say that circumcision was still the seal until the New Covenant changed it.


We say the Old Covenant also promised regeneration, and since it is always effected by the H.S., him too _necessarily,_ although not "poured out" in power and abundance. This is because all the covenants are administrations of the ONE CoG.

I think splitting the sign/seal is needlessly pedantic; I don't think these basically spiritual matters have ever been divided. We PBs bring inner and outer baptism together in meaning, in exactly the same way as inner and outer circumcision share meaning. This is why one term can be used to express either an inner or an outer situation, depending on the context. The H.S. is the seal--genuine spiritual article--whether Old or New Covenant. So circumcision and baptism are both "signs," pointers to the seal, and "seals," that is the sign can be spoken of as emblematic of the dominant spiritual reality that it represents. That's why I said that the splitting of the words--as though they were drastically different things--is nothing but quibbling over words.

As far as the PB is concerned, the only thing that has changed fundamentally is the sign of the covenant. And given the connection sign and seal, the sign can be denominated as the seal when the thought meant to be conveyed is the spiritual reality emblemized in the action.



elnwood said:


> In what sense are unregenerate infants the recipients of the promise of the New Covenant? None. In what sense do they receive the New Covenant seal? None. They do not receive the Holy Spirit, and thus they do not receive the promise or the seal of the New Covenant.


1) PBs who actually believe the theology of the WCF or 3FU don't claim that infants of necessity receive the promise effecatiously, apart from exercise of their own, saving faith. But if they are elect, we reckon God has made a promise to them, first before the world began, and second through his church. However, in the sense that an outward promise is made, "I will be your God, IFF you believe," we acknowledge. And if they are never regenerated, they will be judged for their rejection. But that is because we think the NC has an earthly administration in the church.

2) If speaking of the seal as the spiritual REALITY, I have to agree it isn't received, unless God is doing a regeneration we can't see or even speculate on at that instant. But I don't want anything to do with those (Lutheran, or worse) affirmations. But if simply denominating the sign by the thing signified, namely the seal, then I would again have to disagree, and say an outward seal was given by the outward sign, by the nature of the case. A sign points to objective things, a seal indicates subjective things.


Anyway, that's how we explain ourselves...


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 4, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> elnwood said:
> 
> 
> > So you can have members of the church who are not baptized?!? You don't believe baptism is entry into the visible New Covenant?
> ...



Good point. To this I will add that Baptists do treat their children as members of the church by allowing the church to teach them all that Jesus commanded.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 4, 2007)

elnwood said:


> I am not yet convinced that this is true. Where in the Old Testament is one told to make a profession of faith before one is circumcised? After the 40 years of wandering in the desert, did God require a profession of faith when he had the children of Israel circumcised?



Oh, but they did!

Joshua 5:1-9: circumcision
Joshua 5:10-11: Passover, which required circumcision and profession of faith (see Ex. 12:26-27, and 42-29)
Joshua 8:32-35: confession of the law


----------



## elnwood (Jan 4, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> Yeah, people just "wanted to be a part of the people of God" so much that they'd have someone cut their penis with no pain meds.



Would you rather have some skin cut off or remain wandering in a desert for forty years? Again, I am not convinced.



Paul manata said:


> Furthermore, that one was circumcised represented that he had turned to follow Jehovah. It represented turning away from false gods, denouncing idols, and a circumcised heart. I represented that he would bring sacrifices to the priest so that his sins may be atoned. If this isn't a profession of faith, I don't know what is.



So you're proving that circumcision for adults is always after a profession of faith because circumcision represents a profession of faith? I don't buy it.




Paul manata said:


> Premise 3 is false. Your P 3 is based on the texts that that don't logically translate to "baptism is only commanded after a profession of faith." That the only *examples* of baptisms that you have are of those who made a profession of faith, does not entail "only those who make professions should be baptised.



We're not concerned with examples primarily, but COMMANDS. Where is baptism commanded of an infant?



Paul manata said:


> Furthermore, let's play around a bit:
> 
> Premise 1: Public acts worship should be dictated solely based on what God commands (Regulative Principle of Worship).
> Premise 2: Baptism is an act of public worship.
> ...



Timing is a circumstance, but recipients of baptism is not. Otherwise, we could baptize infants, dogs, chairs, and all sorts of other things. For baptism, a recipient is necessary, and scripture only commands believers to be baptized.



Paul manata said:


> Anyway, the regulative principle was never meat to deny those things deduced by good and necessary inference.



Correct. This is the crux of the disagreement. I don't think infant baptism is a good and necessary inference.



Paul manata said:


> Lastly, maybe you can formalize the "?!?" into an argument. If not, it appears that you think exclamation points and question marks should bully me into dropping what I take to be obvious.



The "?!?" are punctuation marks, which in this case denotes both an exclamation and a question. I don't see how this punctuation would make you thing I was trying to "bully" you.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 4, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Oh, but they did!
> 
> Joshua 5:1-9: circumcision
> Joshua 5:10-11: Passover, which required circumcision and profession of faith (see Ex. 12:26-27, and 42-29)
> Joshua 8:32-35: confession of the law



I re-read Joshua 5. I don't see a profession of faith of the adults _before_ circumcision in the same way baptism is administered in the New Covenant.

As far as your previous post, you present your side well, but I just disagree! I see the New Covenant as so much _better_ that I don't see as much continuity as you do! I see the New Covenant promises as certain, not conditional promises to covenant children. And so on, and so forth ...

But it's been fun, Bruce. I'm sure we'll go at it another time.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 4, 2007)

Hey Paul,

It is often difficult for me to tell when you are joking and when you are serious. Some of your statements can be quite cutting, and I don't know when I should take them seriously. In the future, please use smileys, or something to make it more obvious. I'm sure you don't want to be needlessly offensive any more than I want to be needlessly offended.

The "good and necessary inference" is usually noted as an exception to the Regulative Principle, as in, it doesn't have an explicit command, but it is necessary for the function of the church. Obviously, I don't share the same view of Covenant Theology as you do, so my "good and necessary inferences" will be different than yours.

I believe your "removal of members makes it better" statement is probably sarcastic, especially given that your statement implies that credobaptism is logically consistent with sexism. However, your statement is also rooted in your belief that removal of members cannot possibly make things better.

In that case, why do you remove apostate members? You believe, as I do, that removing apostate members makes it better. We baptists are merely one step ahead of you and try not to let them in the unregenerate to begin with before they show themselves apostate.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 4, 2007)

elnwood said:


> Hey Paul,
> 
> It is often difficult for me to tell when you are joking and when you are serious. Some of your statements can be quite cutting, and I don't know when I should take them seriously. In the future, please use smileys, or something to make it more obvious. I'm sure you don't want to be needlessly offensive any more than I want to be needlessly offended.
> 
> ...



The above just shows your misunderstanding of apostasy; no one 'removes' apostate members. Members whom apostatize, on their own behalf, leave the church.

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


----------



## elnwood (Jan 4, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> Furthermore, you have no explicit command to only baptize those who profess. So the RPW knife cuts both ways, as you weild it.



No, that's the historical use of the RPW. The EP argument from the RPW is not that the scripture commands only to use the Psalms, but that the scripture commands to use the Psalms and doesn't command to use any other songs.

Paul, you should take up stand up comedy.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 4, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> by "remove apostates" I mean this: "Put away the wicked man from among yourselves."



Paul,
Just to clarify, I was really responding to Don as earlier in the thread he was intermingling apostasy and reprobation.


----------



## Davidius (Jan 4, 2007)

In a section that is not narrative (like the Baptist favorite from Acts) but didactic (which is what the Baptists try to turn the Acts passage into), Peter describes what happened to Noah and _his family_ as baptism. By whose faith did they all pass through the water? Not because of Noah's apostate sons, that's for sure. The whole scenario is pictured around him as the head of the household. 



> For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. (1 Peter 3:18-22)





> For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; (2 Peter 2:4-5)



And similarly with Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:1-15...



> I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.



Another text of the NT in which the author is using Old Testament imagery to describe baptism. Those fathers of ours weren't alone when they were baptized in in the cloud and in the sea and drank from the Rock which was Christ. Their families were with them. Nevertheless...with most of them God was not pleased. 

The household baptisms in Acts are starting to make sense. Let the didactic interpret the narrative instead of the other way around.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 4, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> But, I've been pleading for you to show me where Scripture commands that we're only to baptise professors. I made this point in my first post and you've still not addressed it. Go back and re-read the thread to follow the entire argument.



By the Regulative Principle, as I've already explained. If this doesn't make sense to you, pick up a copy of Fred Malone's book on baptism, or read some of the threads on this board regarding Exclusive Psalter.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 4, 2007)

Scott Bushey said:


> Paul,
> Just to clarify, I was really responding to Don as earlier in the thread he was intermingling apostasy and reprobation.



My answer would have been the same that Paul gave.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 4, 2007)

For the record, when the passage states, "put away", it is not meaning to throw the person out of the church building, but to excommunicate the person spiritually from the visible body. Apostates leave the church, never to return. The passage here presented is an example of proper discipline; again, much different from apostasy.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 4, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist,

The 1 Peter passage is comparing Christ's sufferings, death and resurrection as an appeal to God, to baptism, which also represents death and resurrection in being immersed in water and raised up again. Noah is mentioned because Christ's resurrection was proclaimed to those who perished in the flood, and thus is incidental, and not the main point or part of the analogy.

Re: 1 Corinthians 10, they were baptized into Moses. This is not the same as baptism into Christ. Even the paedobaptist says that Moses' covenant administration has passed away.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 4, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> right, but we do excommunicate apostates.
> 
> Not all excommunicated people are apostates, but apostates should all be excommunicated.
> 
> Anyway, I think we're still waiting for what Don thinks they've "apostatized" from and what they're "removed" from....




Agreed. 

~nice rifle by the way!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 4, 2007)

elnwood said:


> I am a child of Abraham because I have been saved. My baptism and church membership have no bearing on my status as a child of Abraham.
> 
> As Bruce so accurately summarized, I don't believe that our churches are a visible administration of the New Covenant. A member of the New Covenant is someone who is regenerate. I might use the terminology "visible church" to include those who are unregenerate but assemble with the church (since church can simply mean assembly), I would never say that someone enters the New Covenant through baptism.



Don,

I'm sorry if it seems like we're ganging up on you but statements like the above make the Reformed Baptist position so perplexing.

So baptism and the New Covenant have no apparent connection to each other.

Why are you arguing with us about who should be baptized then based on the perfection of the New Covenant?

*This* is the blindspot that I see with Reformed Baptists. They are so comfortable arguing for the perfection of the New Covenant and spend so much time talking about how only the elect are truly a part of it. They'll argue for hours and write papers about it thinking that they're tearing down the scaffolding for infant baptism.

BUT

It doesn't bear in the least on the recipients of baptism.


----------



## S. Spence (Jan 5, 2007)

I've been reading all this with great interest. 

Do you think it would be fair to say that CB's see continuity through all the covenants in the OT but then a pretty big difference when it comes to the New Covenant? Whereas PB's see greater continuity between OT and NT. 

In fact would be fair to say that PB's see each and every Covenant building on the previous one without abrogating it in any way. For example although it may seem that the ceremonial law of the Mosaic Covenant has been set aside - it hasn't really as it was fulfilled rather than abrogated in the death of Christ and is being fulfilled presently by His intercession for us in Heaven?

Now I know not all PB's may agree with this view point, as Michael Horton sees the Mosaic Covenant as a re-instatement of the CoW's and he puts a pretty convincing argument forward for his position. 

Anyway I think the main point of difference here between the PB's and the CB's is how the Abrahamic Covenant relates or if it relates to the New Covenant. 

I still haven't totally made my mind up yet on this subject even though over the past two years I read virtually every book, blog and article on the subject of baptism. I find it a pretty difficult subject to get clear; it is a pity that it is so divisive in our denominations.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 5, 2007)

> Do you think it would be fair to say that CB's see continuity through all the covenants in the OT but then a pretty big difference when it comes to the New Covenant?



A couple things: The PB sees the new covenant fulfilled and consummated at Calvary. It's efficaciously goes all the way back to Genesis ch 3, where it was instituted; think of it as a UPS package being delivered. Genesis 3 is the point of origination. Calvary is the place of delivery.









If CB, the question to ask in this regard is, what does the NT saint/Gods elect, have over the old testament saint? What BIG difference? Practically, absolutely NOTHING!




> In fact would be fair to say that PB's see each and every Covenant building on the previous one without abrogating it in any way.



They all sit on the NC implemented in Genesis 3, i.e. the C of G. 




> Now I know not all PB's may agree with this view point, as Michael Horton sees the Mosaic Covenant as a re-instatement of the CoW's and he puts a pretty convincing argument forward for his position.



Reinstatement implies it was uninstalled; I don't ever see anywhere where the Mosaic was uninstalled.



> Anyway I think the main point of difference here between the PB's and the CB's is how the Abrahamic Covenant relates or if it relates to the New Covenant.



The Abrahamic Covenant is the tires that the UPS truck runs on; the street is the NC. The C of G is the dirt and tar that make up the street that the UPS truck runs on.


----------



## S. Spence (Jan 5, 2007)

Scott Bushey said:


> A couple things: The PB sees the new covenant fulfilled and consummated at Calvary. It's efficaciously goes all the way back to Genesis ch 3, where it was instituted; think of it as a UPS package being delivered. Genesis 3 is the point of origination. Calvary is the place of delivery.



Scott would you then differ from Richard L. Pratt who sees the NC as initiated and in some way presently fulfilled but not yet consumated. Pratt says that the NC wont be consumated until Christ's second coming. 

This is how he explains Jer 31, i.e. when the NC is consumated then and only then will, 'they *all know *the Lord,' therefore presently the Church is composed of believers and unbeliever and so infant baptism is correct.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 5, 2007)

S. Spence said:


> Scott would you then differ from Richard L. Pratt who sees the NC as initiated and in some way presently fulfilled but not yet consumated. Pratt says that the NC wont be consumated until Christ's second coming.
> 
> This is how he explains Jer 31, i.e. when the NC is consumated then and only then will, 'they *all know *the Lord,' therefore presently the Church is composed of believers and unbeliever and so infant baptism is correct.



Yes; I like the way Pratt words that.


----------



## gwine (Jan 5, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Baptism is an administration of the covenant of grace. Simon the magician was baptised, but he but he did not know the Lord. Hence the promise of the new covenant is not fulfilled in every one to whom the new covenant is administered, as equally as it did not apply to every one under the old covenant.



I'm not sure I can agree Simon did not know the Lord. 



> 9But there was a man named Simon, who had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he himself was somebody great. 10They all paid attention to him, from the least to the greatest, saying, "This man is the power of God that is called Great." 11And they paid attention to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic. 12But when *they believed* Philip as he preached *good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ*, they were baptized, both men and women. 13*Even Simon himself believed*, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles* performed, he was amazed. *


*

Am I reading it wrong? I would agree that his understanding was wrong, but he did repent.




20But Peter said to him, "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! 21You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. 22Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. 23For I see that you are in the gall[c] of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity." 24And Simon answered, "Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me."

Click to expand...

*


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 5, 2007)

It was Simon's own duty to pray for forgiveness, something the text does not indicate happened. So, at best we have to leave the question undecided.

But while this is all the Bible speaks of Simon, church tradition from not so long after this period (Justin Martyr, c. AD 100-165) confirms Simon in his role as a false teacher. Make of that what you will... +/-


----------



## MW (Jan 5, 2007)

gwine said:


> I'm not sure I can agree Simon did not know the Lord.
> 
> Am I reading it wrong? I would agree that his understanding was wrong, but he did repent.



There are various indications in the passage itself to show that Simon had not been made a partaker of the inward, spiritual blessings of the covenant of grace. Verse 23 is the clearest: "for I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." Says Calvin: "Therefore Peter’s meaning is, that Simon fell not only in one point, but that his very heart root was corrupt and bitter; that he fell into Satan’s snares not only in one kind of sin, but that all his senses were ensnared, so that he was wholly given over to Satan, and was become the bond-slave of iniquity."


----------



## gwine (Jan 5, 2007)

Thank you, Rev. Buchanan and Rev. Winzer. That makes sense after reading your replies.


----------



## elnwood (Jan 17, 2007)

Paul manata said:


> right, but we do excommunicate apostates.
> 
> Not all excommunicated people are apostates, but apostates should all be excommunicated.
> 
> Anyway, I think we're still waiting for what Don thinks they've "apostatized" from and what they're "removed" from....



I didn't even realize I was being ganged up on. I haven't been following this thread recently, which is why I haven't replied.

Whether someone leaves the church or is removed from the church, either way, the church removes the members from the rolls, and continues to do its best to uphold a regenerate church membership (in the same way a paedobaptist church tries to maintain a communicant church membership that is regenerated).

Church membership, communicant or not, is not the New Covenant!


----------



## elnwood (Jan 17, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Don,
> 
> I'm sorry if it seems like we're ganging up on you but statements like the above make the Reformed Baptist position so perplexing.
> 
> ...



Sure it does. Baptism is a New Covenant _sign_, but it is not a New Testament _seal_. Baptism does not confer or confirm New Covenant membership upon an individual, but it is a sign of it.

Circumcision is the Old Testament sign and seal. Thus, while circumcision, as a seal, was directly connected to who was in the Old Testament covenant, baptism is just a sign that points to the New Covenant membership.

The bible says that the Holy Spirit, not baptism, is the promise and New Covenant seal. Thus, baptism points to New Covenant membership, but the Holy Spirit actually confirms New Covenant membership.

[bible]2 Cor. 1:22[/bible]
[bible]Eph. 1:13[/bible]
[bible]Eph. 4:30[/bible]


----------

