# Paedo vs Credo: Main point of contention?



## steadfast7

Hey brothers,

when it comes to Paedo vs Credo baptism, what would you say is the main point of contention that creates the impasse we see? In other words, what's the ONE issue, that if resolved, would end the debate once for all and put everyone on the same side?

also, one more question: 

is it possible for a Baptist to believe that the Church is Israel? why/not?

cheers.


----------



## Poimen

First question: the covenant of grace specifically, or the understanding of biblical covenants generally:

Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 74



> 74. Q. Should infants, too, be baptized?
> A. Yes. Infants as well as adults belong to God's covenant and congregation. Through Christ's blood the redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to adults. Therefore, by baptism, as sign of the covenant, they must be grafted into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers. This was done in the old covenant by circumcision, in place of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant.



Second question: I will let the Baptists speak for themselves.


----------



## cih1355

steadfast7 said:


> Hey brothers,
> 
> when it comes to Paedo vs Credo baptism, what would you say is the main point of contention that creates the impasse we see? In other words, what's the ONE issue, that if resolved, would end the debate once for all and put everyone on the same side?
> 
> cheers.



The main point of contention has to do with the people whom God makes a covenant with today. Does God make a covenant with believers only or not?


----------



## steadfast7

cih1355 said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey brothers,
> 
> when it comes to Paedo vs Credo baptism, what would you say is the main point of contention that creates the impasse we see? In other words, what's the ONE issue, that if resolved, would end the debate once for all and put everyone on the same side?
> 
> cheers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The main point of contention has to do with the people whom God makes a covenant with today. Does God make a covenant with believers only or not?
Click to expand...


see, this makes sense to me. From the paedo view, I just seem to lose the meaning of covenant, that thing which was instituted in the blood of Christ, which makes atonement for the elect.


----------



## Hamalas

The main point of contention? Easy: they're wrong, we're right.


----------



## Peairtach

Are children of believers in the New Covenant and Church?


----------



## au5t1n

Credos tend to look at things from more of an internal perspective. Is so-and-so regenerate? Or at least, do we have good reason to believe so?

We paedos tend to emphasize external aspects somewhat more. God makes a covenant with professing believers and their households under their rule. Both adults and children in the covenant can apostatize, but the children, like their parents, are expected to keep the covenant they are raised in. Who is and is not truly regenerate is not something we can see (although there are fruits).

That's one of the main differences, though undoubtedly there are others. I am somewhat overgeneralizing to highlight the difference in emphasis that exists.



steadfast7 said:


> Hey brothers,
> 
> when it comes to Paedo vs Credo baptism, what would you say is the main point of contention that creates the impasse we see? In other words, *what's the ONE issue, that if resolved, would end the debate once for all and put everyone on the same side?*



You are assuming at the beginning that the issue hasn't been resolved. I think most of us (paedos and credos) are so bold as to believe it _has_ been resolved.  One need only think of predestination to realize that an issue can be thoroughly resolved, yet not embraced by all.


----------



## eqdj

From what I've read, the main issue are the definitions/degrees of continuity and discontinuity of the covenant(s).

-----Added 11/2/2009 at 07:02:20 EST-----



austinww said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey brothers,
> 
> when it comes to Paedo vs Credo baptism, what would you say is the main point of contention that creates the impasse we see? In other words, *what's the ONE issue, that if resolved, would end the debate once for all and put everyone on the same side?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are assuming at the beginning that the issue hasn't been resolved. I think most of us (paedos and credos) are so bold as to believe it _has_ been resolved.
Click to expand...



I don't think anyone's budging : )


----------



## au5t1n

One more thing:

Baptism also relates to ceremonial cleansing in the OT, and paedobaptists view our children as being in need of this sign of being ceremonially clean. By virtue of being the children of believers, they have a stake in the forgiveness offered in Christ's blood, if they persevere to the end and prove to be truly his disciples (the same applies to adults).

In the credo camp, the tendency is to emphasize baptism as being a public declaration of faith and repentance that has already taken place and that the person can personally attest to.

Edit: In other words, the two groups stress different purposes of baptism. While Reformed Baptists and Reformed paedobaptists may have the same basic view of its purpose in substance, we still have different emphases. We Reformed paedos tend to emphasize the ceremonial cleansing and the remission of sins aspect of it, while in the Reformed Baptist view, the emphasis is slightly more on the public statement aspect of it.


----------



## MW

One will need to distinguish between reformed Anabaptists and unreformed Anabaptists. The point of difference with the unreformed is fundamentally soteriological. Regeneration is produced by faith, and faith is assent to gospel teaching, so there is no Christian life without personal assent to gospel teaching. Obviously there is no place for infant inclusion in this scheme. If infants are saved it is by another means altogether, i.e., either a wideness in God's mercy or a denial of original sin.

It is worthwhile observing that in unreformed paedobaptism the role of personal assent is replaced by sacramental efficacy and sacerdotalism.

In reformed Anabaptism the precedence of regeneration is recognised but the idea of faith as personal assent to gospel doctrine is still retained. Covenant schematics really has nothing to do with it. The covenant schema is devised merely to explain why infants are excluded in the New Testament whereas they were included in the Old Testament. There is no real connection between covenant and baptism in reformed Anabaptist thought. Baptism is a mere sign that accompanies an individual's personal assent to gospel doctrine. It is a picture that the believer has died with Christ, been buried with Christ (immersion thus becomes necessary), and is raised to new life in Christ. One could remove the distinctive new covenant concept and it would not materially alter the reformed Anabaptist view of baptism.

The real state of the question, therefore, has nothing to do with the continuity of the covenants per se, but with the nature of saving faith and the covenant salvation of infants.


----------



## eqdj

armourbearer said:


> One will need to distinguish between reformed Anabaptists and unreformed Anabaptists.



"Reformed Anabaptists"?
You learn something new everyday.


----------



## Skyler

I think you mean "Reformed Baptists". 

There's a difference between baptists and Anabaptists, mainly on the subject of separation from the world and pacifism.


----------



## au5t1n

Skyler said:


> I think you mean "Reformed Baptists".
> 
> There's a difference between baptists and Anabaptists, mainly on the subject of separation from the world and pacifism.


Oh, what a lovely signature you have there! 

Edit: Note that I wrote that before you added the second line.


----------



## eqdj

Skyler said:


> I think you mean "Reformed Baptists".
> 
> There's a difference between baptists and Anabaptists, mainly on the subject of separation from the world and pacifism.



If he does he's got it wrong - i think he means "Reformed Anabaptists" : )


----------



## MW

Skyler said:


> I think you mean "Reformed Baptists".



No, I mean Reformed Anabaptists. The Reformed are true baptisers. "Baptists" rebaptise people who were truly baptised as infants. That makes them Anabaptists.


----------



## MW

Please see sticky as to what views may be advocated in this forum.


----------



## eqdj

steadfast7 said:


> also, one more question:
> 
> is it possible for a Baptist to believe that the Church is Israel? why/not?
> 
> cheers.



If you mean in the same sense as WCF and the Three Forms of Unity, then for the Convental Baptists, Yes. I would commend to you the tabular comparison of the Westminster, Savoy, and Baptist Confessions of Faith.
Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF, 1658 Savoy Declaration, the 1677/1689 LBCF, and the 1742 PCF

For the Dispensational Baptists No. 
For Reformed Anabaptists - i can't answer. I wasn't even aware there was such an animal until a few minutes ago.


----------



## DMcFadden

armourbearer said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean "Reformed Baptists".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I mean Reformed Anabaptists. The Reformed are true baptisers. "Baptists" rebaptise people who were truly baptised as infants. That makes them Anabaptists.
Click to expand...


??? Fair enough, I suppose, as long as we allow the Baptists to say:

"The Baptists are true baptizers. 'Reformed' baptize people who are biblically ineligible for baptism. That makes them nonbaptizers (or maybe Quakers?)."



Actually, as long as the "rules" of the PB permit the WCF AND the LBCF, it probably does not help dialog to invoke either kind of rhetoric. Yes, we know that the paedo and credo folks think that they are right and the other side is wrong. However, most of the Baptists on this board want to be associated with "Anabaptists" about as much as the credo folk here want to be associated with the Federal Vision, Robert Schuller, or Harold Camping. In this context, it takes on more of the character of a slander or "fighting words" than carefully chosen argument for a position.


----------



## MW

eqdj said:


> For the Convental Baptists Yes. I would commend to you the tabular comparison of the Westminster, Savoy, and Baptist Confessions of Faith.
> Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF, 1658 Savoy Declaration, the 1677/1689 LBCF, and the 1742 PCF



Actually, no. The Church is spiritual Israel in new covenantal reformed Anabaptist thought.


----------



## MW

DMcFadden said:


> ??? Fair enough, I suppose, as long as we allow the Baptists to say:
> 
> "The Baptists are true baptizers. 'Reformed' baptize people who are biblically ineligible for baptism. That makes them nonbaptizers (or maybe Quakers?)."



Thankyou for your honesty, Dennis. Where I come from, honesty furthers discussion; it doesn't hinder it; and flattery only serves to puff up.

Please be aware that when you call yourself "Baptists," you are assuming a name the Reformed cannot grant you without conceding the issue.


----------



## SemperEruditio

Main point of contention?

There isn't a scripture that says _"baptize them chillens"_ nor one that says _"don't you dare baptize them chillens!"_


----------



## Grillsy

SemperEruditio said:


> Main point of contention?
> 
> There isn't a scripture that says _"baptize them chillens"_ nor one that says _"don't you dare baptize them chillens!"_



I don't know about that...have you misplaced your copy of the Cotton Patch translation?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Moderator Note

I recommend that a thread be made in the general baptism area. Too Many Baptists are Playing in a Paedo playbox. That should have been stomped on right away.


----------



## au5t1n

I prefer "oikobaptists" and "antipaedobaptists."


----------



## eqdj

steadfast7 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pastor Klein, when did you become a Reformed Paedobaptist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but there are two threads with the same title in two different forums. Is that really necessary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not necessary I guess, but I wanted to get both perspectives without causing conflict on the same thread. I know some people are sensitive about keeping it separate. Feel free to move/delete as you see fit.
> 
> thanks.
> 
> -----Added 11/2/2009 at 06:00:51 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey brothers,
> 
> when it comes to Paedo vs Credo baptism, what would you say is the main point of contention that creates the impasse we see? In other words, what's the ONE issue, that if resolved, would end the debate once for all and put everyone on the same side?
> 
> cheers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The main point of contention has to do with the people whom God makes a covenant with today. Does God make a covenant with believers only or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> see, this makes sense to me. From the paedo view, I just seem to lose the meaning of covenant, that thing which was instituted in the blood of Christ, which makes atonement for the elect.
Click to expand...




PuritanCovenanter said:


> Moderator Note
> 
> I recommend that a thread be made in the general baptism area. Too Many Baptists are Playing in a Paedo playbox. That should have been stomped on right away.



Sorry - i thought this was the one condensed thread - moving along : )


----------



## Brian Withnell

steadfast7 said:


> Hey brothers,
> 
> when it comes to Paedo vs Credo baptism, what would you say is the main point of contention that creates the impasse we see? In other words, what's the ONE issue, that if resolved, would end the debate once for all and put everyone on the same side?
> 
> also, one more question:
> 
> is it possible for a Baptist to believe that the Church is Israel? why/not?
> 
> cheers.



The church under age was the Israel. God promised to be the God of those that believe and of their children. Those that hold to covenant baptism (which I prefer over paedo, as there are no groups that only baptize infants, but they also baptize those new believers who have not previously been baptized) consider the church to be just as much a covenant organization as what we consider Israel. While the credo baptist states they only baptize those that are of faith, the covenant baptist knows that is not so (knowing that even though they only baptize those who profess faith, some of those will not have faith, and so even in a credo baptist church, there is a mixture of the regenerate with unregenerate). The covenant baptist sees a continuation of the sign of the covenant between the OT and NT, but even more broadly applied (even women are baptized).

There are many implications that arise from that single issue. What is it that makes a baptism effective? It is the work of God in the heart of the person baptized, not the faith of the person being baptized. When does a person become a member of the church? The usual way is through baptism (because one is born to believing parents). Ask a covenant baptist what God's ordinary means of growing the church ought to be, and he may likely as not say "through birth" meaning that the children of believing parents are commanded by those parents "Believe!"

I know our credo brethren are brothers in Christ (as I used to be credo baptist, and have no doubt of my own faith during that time). Yet they would withhold the table of the Lord to one such as my eldest daughter unless she is re-baptized. Those are sticky points.


----------



## au5t1n

Skyler said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean "Reformed Baptists".
> 
> There's a difference between baptists and Anabaptists, mainly on the subject of separation from the world and pacifism.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, what a lovely signature you have there!
> 
> Edit: Note that I wrote that before you added the second line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I have a bad habit of posting first, editing later, as many have observed to their chagrin (myself included).
Click to expand...


Well, I would complain to the management if I didn't do the same thing.


----------



## MMasztal

Poimen said:


> First question: the covenant of grace specifically, or the understanding of biblical covenants generally:
> 
> Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 74
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 74. Q. Should infants, too, be baptized?
> A. Yes. Infants as well as adults belong to God's covenant and congregation. Through Christ's blood the redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to adults. Therefore, by baptism, as sign of the covenant, they must be grafted into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers. This was done in the old covenant by circumcision, in place of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second question: I will let the Baptists speak for themselves.
Click to expand...


I agree with Rev. Kok. I would add that of the Baptists I've spoken with (somewhat limited-mostly the independent fundamental type), they imply a false dichotomy in that they believe Reformed folks think infant baptism is regenerational as the papists do. 

This is not an issue I get dogmatic about.


----------



## MW

Skyler said:


> That may be the technical meaning of the term "Anabaptist",



I didn't intend it in anything other than a technical sense, so there is no cause for complaint.


----------



## steadfast7

austinww:


> We paedos tend to emphasize external aspects somewhat more. God makes a covenant with professing believers and their households under their rule. Both adults and children in the covenant can apostatize, but the children, like their parents, are expected to keep the covenant they are raised in. Who is and is not truly regenerate is not something we can see (although there are fruits).



Can it be said that the major difference is hermeneutics: paedos tend to depend heavily on covenant theology; credos seek to follow the explicit statements in scripture, for which there is no explicit command to paedobaptize.

Of course, there's the oikos argument, but doesn't this fall short, given that besides being baptized, households also: 1) receive the Spirit (Acts 11:14-15) and 2) believe (16:34)? The argument that oikos necessarily includes children fails on this point, in my opinion.


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> austinww:
> 
> 
> 
> We paedos tend to emphasize external aspects somewhat more. God makes a covenant with professing believers and their households under their rule. Both adults and children in the covenant can apostatize, but the children, like their parents, are expected to keep the covenant they are raised in. Who is and is not truly regenerate is not something we can see (although there are fruits).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can it be said that the major difference is hermeneutics: paedos tend to depend heavily on covenant theology; credos seek to follow the explicit statements in scripture, for which there is no explicit command to paedobaptize.
> 
> Of course, there's the oikos argument, but doesn't this fall short, given that besides being baptized, households also: 1) receive the Spirit (Acts 11:14-15) and 2) believe (16:34)? The argument that oikos necessarily includes children fails on this point, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

It isn't really the point whether there were children or how young. The point is that the Scripture just assumes when a head converts, his household converts with him. This is both an OT and NT principle (cf. [esv]Gen. 17:7[/esv] and [esv]Acts 2:39[/esv], which echo the same basic household language that is present throughout Scripture). There are other threads discussing this question where people who know the arguments better than I have addressed the issue. Perhaps some of the paedos who have been on here longer can point you to a helpful thread or so on the household baptisms.

As for covenant theology, I'm hesitant to say that is the main difference. I think there are some soteriological implications as well. The Scripture treats the children of believers as believers to be raised in the faith, unless they prove otherwise by falling away. The Baptist view must be read into the text using modern, individualistic assumptions. I think others can address this better than I can, though, to be honest. I recommend you ask some older, wiser credo and paedo members of this board.

-----Added 11/2/2009 at 10:31:37 EST-----



steadfast7 said:


> Can it be said that the major difference is hermeneutics: paedos tend to depend heavily on covenant theology; *credos seek to follow the explicit statements in scripture, for which there is no explicit command to paedobaptize.*



No more are there commands to give them coming-of-age baptisms at a later time.


----------



## Ivan

Grillsy said:


> SemperEruditio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Main point of contention?
> 
> There isn't a scripture that says _"baptize them chillens"_ nor one that says _"don't you dare baptize them chillens!"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about that...have you misplaced your copy of the Cotton Patch translation?
Click to expand...


Really?! The Cotten Patch translation? Interesting. I'd like to see that because Clarence Jordan was a Southern Baptist...kinda.


----------



## Peairtach

The New Covenant is an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant. 

The Abrahamic Covenant, long before the Old Covenant phase, included children.

What's the beef with our dear (ana)baptist brethren? Have they got no sense of (redemptive) history?

It's an Olive Tree (or Vine or Fig) we're ingrafted into. Does a tree not have branches, and do some of those branches not have little twigs or twiglets? The Covenant is organic not atomistic or individualistic.


----------



## steadfast7

Richard Tallach said:


> The New Covenant is an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> The Abrahamic Covenant, long before the Old Covenant phase, included children.
> 
> What's the beef with our dear (ana)baptist brethren? Have they got no sense of (redemptive) history?
> 
> It's an Olive Tree (or Vine or Fig) we're ingrafted into. Does a tree not have branches, and do some of those branches not have little twigs or twiglets? The Covenant is organic not atomistic or individualistic.



It seem as though it is because of continuity with Abraham that baptism, like circumcision, is applied to infants. I admit, it is elegant to view the covenants as having this observable symmetry, but are there are any New Testament descriptions of baptism occurring apart from faith?


----------



## lynnie

"Moroni's magical glasses of proper interpretation:"


----------



## DMcFadden

eqdj said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moderator Note
> 
> I recommend that a thread be made in the general baptism area. Too Many Baptists are Playing in a Paedo playbox. That should have been stomped on right away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry - i thought this was the one condensed thread - moving along : )
Click to expand...


Oops! Me too. Sorry for being inattentive. Also moving along.


----------



## steadfast7

Can a moderator help move the thread?

hope I didn't cause any problems, sorry.


----------



## lynnie

One caution....every scholarly Baptist I knew in my old Baptist days believed that children were set apart/sanctified by the faith of the parents. They believed in Covenantal promises.

But that setting apart happens because of the parent's faith for a Baptist, not because of Baptism.

Even though I travel mostly in paedo circles now, it really bothers me when people say Baptists have no place for kids under the Covenant. Sure they do-they believe it is the faith of the parents that scripture says sets children apart.


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Covenant is an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> The Abrahamic Covenant, long before the Old Covenant phase, included children.
> 
> What's the beef with our dear (ana)baptist brethren? Have they got no sense of (redemptive) history?
> 
> It's an Olive Tree (or Vine or Fig) we're ingrafted into. Does a tree not have branches, and do some of those branches not have little twigs or twiglets? The Covenant is organic not atomistic or individualistic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seem as though it is because of continuity with Abraham that baptism, like circumcision, is applied to infants. I admit, it is elegant to view the covenants as having this observable symmetry, but are there are any New Testament descriptions of baptism occurring apart from faith?
Click to expand...


Where in Scripture do we see infants being described as "apart from faith"? They are raised in the faith. Obviously their mental faculties are undeveloped to a degree, and obviously they do not understand the gospel communicated through English (or whatever language) right out of the womb, but it seems a stretch to use that as a reason to describe them as being "apart from faith" when the Scripture everywhere includes them as belonging to the people of faith, if they are the offspring of believers.

I'm not speaking of regeneration here. Like I said earlier, we paedos don't like to base it on who is/is not regenerate, since that can't be seen. Either way, you will find that not everyone here shares the underlying assumption common in some Baptist circles that infants cannot be regenerate.


----------



## Marrow Man

Ivan said:


> Really?! The Cotten Patch translation? Interesting. I'd like to see that because Clarence Jordan was a Southern Baptist...kinda.



Really? Well, that explains a lot. 

J/K!


----------



## Skyler

armourbearer said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> That may be the technical meaning of the term "Anabaptist",
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't intend it in anything other than a technical sense, so there is no cause for complaint.
Click to expand...


Thank you for clarifying that.


----------



## au5t1n

Skyler said:


> I think you mean "Reformed Baptists".
> 
> There's a difference between baptists and Anabaptists, mainly on the subject of separation from the world and pacifism.



Hey, maybe you should start a _third_ thread on this topic for self-identified Anabaptists.


----------



## Ron

> are there are any New Testament descriptions of baptism occurring apart from faith?



Hello Dennis,

To answer your question, NO. But there's more to the story. We don't know whether the household baptisms recorded in the NT included babies but what we do know is that the _reason_ indexed for those baptism was _not _individual faith but rather household membership. When we come to Scripture with a covenant eye we say sure, household baptism makes perfect sense. In fact, would would expect to see household baptisms occuring. Accordingly, we take those household baptisms as corroborating evidence for the paedo position. (It's not the main argument mind you, but it does offer stong corroborating evidence; as does Samuel Miller's argument from church history.) 

You asked a fair question and now will I. Can we find in Scripture one example of a person born into a covenant home who got baptized _after_ confessing Christ? You grasp the point. Both questions (yours and mine) are intended to argue from silence. In order to determine whether an argument from silence is fallacious or not, a burden of proof must be established. I would suggest that the burden of proof is squarely upon the Baptist who must show that God reduced the external _status_ of covenant children from _his_ children to the devil's children. Is that the glory of the New Covenant when God says that "all will know me"? Is the glory of the New Covenant that God would have us treat our children as outside Christ? 

For what it's worth, here's a more extensive treatment of the subject: Reformed Apologist: A Primer on Covenant Theology & Baptism

Blessings,

Ron


----------



## au5t1n

Ron said:


> Hi Austin,



Hi Ron! The rest of your post is addressed to steadfast7 (Dennis Oh). I'm paedo.


----------



## Ron

austinww said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Austin,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Ron! The rest of your post is addressed to steadfast7 (Dennis Oh). I'm paedo.
Click to expand...


Glad to hear it - I'll change it!


----------



## au5t1n

Ron said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Austin,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Ron! The rest of your post is addressed to steadfast7 (Dennis Oh). I'm paedo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Glad to hear it - I'll change it!
Click to expand...


Thanks. By the way, I didn't mean to be rude in calling you by your first name. I'm accustomed to addressing people by their username, and yours just happened to be your first name. Sorry about that.

-----Added 11/3/2009 at 10:07:46 EST-----

On the other hand, I'm not sure I can pronounce DiGiacomo.


----------



## steadfast7

Ron said:


> are there are any New Testament descriptions of baptism occurring apart from faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Dennis,
> 
> To answer your question, NO. But there's more to the story. We don't know whether the household baptisms recorded in the NT included babies but what we do know is that the _reason_ indexed for those baptism was _not _individual faith but rather household membership. When we come to Scripture with a covenant eye we say sure, household baptism makes perfect sense. In fact, would would expect to see household baptisms occuring. Accordingly, we take those household baptisms as corroborating evidence for the paedo position. (It's not the main argument mind you, but it does offer stong corroborating evidence; as does Samuel Miller's argument from church history.)
Click to expand...

Yes, I fully grant the household baptism thing. I come from an Asian context where it is not unusual for the whole family to convert when the father converts, and children are raised as Christians. There's no contention there, but I don't think this fact necessarily negates the baptist position.


> You asked a fair question and now will I. Can we find in Scripture one example of a person born into a covenant home who got baptized _after_ confessing Christ? You grasp the point. Both questions (yours and mine) are intended to argue from silence. In order to determine whether an argument from silence is fallacious or not, a burden of proof must be established. I would suggest that the burden of proof is squarely upon the Baptist who must show that God reduced the external _status_ of covenant children from _his_ children to the devil's children. Is that the glory of the New Covenant when God says that "all will know me"? Is the glory of the New Covenant that God would have us treat our children as outside Christ?



In my understanding, I do not find any instance where baptism is separated from faith, unless one assumes that household baptism necessarily included children, which is hard to firmly argue for, given the use of oikos in NT narrative contexts. I'm not sure if any baptist would say that the children of believing parents belong to the _devil. _I'm sure there is some level of sanctification occurring (as in the case of an unbelieving spouse).

That's why it seems to me that the main problem comes down to the ambiguity of the term "oikos." Who precisely was included? Calvinists are known to protect the words "all" or "whole" from being used literally (in limited atonement passages, for example), but here it seems the rules have changed, wouldn't you say?


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> Where in Scripture do we see infants being described as "apart from faith"? They are raised in the faith. Obviously their mental faculties are undeveloped to a degree, and obviously they do not understand the gospel communicated through English (or whatever language) right out of the womb, but it seems a stretch to use that as a reason to describe them as being "apart from faith" when the Scripture everywhere includes them as belonging to the people of faith, if they are the offspring of believers.



Yes, agreed. Many infants are described as in the faith. My question was referring to _baptism _occurring apart from faith.


----------



## au5t1n

Particular Baptist said:


> I have to agree with John Macarthur on this issue when I wonder how we can have a conversation about something that isn't even in the bible.... infant baptism. Any indication in the Bible about infant baptism must be inserted by the reader. I personally have wrestled with the issue but find myself firmly credo and for these sets of reasons.
> 
> 1. Infant baptism is no where mentioned in the New Testament. Anyone who wishes to see it there must first insert something there.
> 2. Circumcision and baptism are not exact signs of one another. Circumsion was a sign of the need for cleansing, not a sign of faith in God. Baptism is a sign that "We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."-Romans 6:4.
> 3. Another thing that made me settle the baptism issue is the fact that the Israel of God is made up only of regenerate believers. Now, I know some are thinking that there are going to be people who profess and who are baptized but who yet are not regenerated, and I will give you that point. But, that is no excuse for giving the sign of faith to those who have not visibly repented and expressed faith in Jesus Christ. The Church of God is no longer under the umbrella of the ethnic state of Israel, but is being ruled by Jesus Christ, and therefore we should understand that the state of Israel was a foreshadowing of the true Israel of God, those who are the true sons of Abraham who are Jews inwardly.



Welcome to the PB! Be aware that this is a paedobaptist-only forum and you might get in trouble for advocating credobaptism on here.

Also, you should spend some time reading through the Baptism forum archives. Many of the points you bring up are addressed there, and even if you remain credo, you should see that the issue is not as simple as you are trying to make it. I have found the Baptism archives extremely useful for learning about both sides. Happy searching. 

-----Added 11/3/2009 at 10:27:55 EST-----



steadfast7 said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in Scripture do we see infants being described as "apart from faith"? They are raised in the faith. Obviously their mental faculties are undeveloped to a degree, and obviously they do not understand the gospel communicated through English (or whatever language) right out of the womb, but it seems a stretch to use that as a reason to describe them as being "apart from faith" when the Scripture everywhere includes them as belonging to the people of faith, if they are the offspring of believers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, agreed. Many infants are described as in the faith. My question was referring to _baptism _occurring apart from faith.
Click to expand...


But that's just the problem. Where do you get the idea that an infant of a believer is baptized "apart from faith"? You will not find the Scripture speaking of believers' children this way.


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> But that's just the problem. Where do you get the idea that an infant of a believer is baptized "apart from faith"? You will not find the Scripture speaking of believers' children this way.



I've always understood that for paedos, the infant is baptized on account of the parents' faith, not his/her own faith. Or, am I wrong on this? When I say baptism and faith as inseparable, I'm assuming that the faith is a confessed and intelligent assent done by the person being baptized.


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's just the problem. Where do you get the idea that an infant of a believer is baptized "apart from faith"? You will not find the Scripture speaking of believers' children this way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've always understood that for paedos, the infant is baptized on account of the parents' faith, not his/her own faith. Or, am I wrong on this? When I say baptism and faith as inseparable, I'm assuming that the faith is a confessed and intelligent assent done by the person being baptized.
Click to expand...


You will find various views here even among the paedos on the spiritual state of believers' infants. If the word faith is defined as requiring the ability to articulate the gospel in a language, then you are right, the infant doesn't have that. But baptism is primarily a picture of cleansing of sin, and that pertains as much to infants as to anyone.


----------



## Ron

> I do not find any instance where baptism is separated from faith, unless one assumes that household baptism necessarily included children, which is hard to firmly argue for, given the use of oikos in NT narrative contexts.



Again, you are offering the same argument from silence that I already addressed. Moreover, Romans 4:11 teaches that the sign of circumcision (which was given to infants) was a seal of the righteousness one has by faith. This sign and seal was given to infants yet without them having first believed. Accordingly, it is false that a sign that points to the seal of faith is not intelligible when placed upon infants. How much more the case with a sign that points to union with Christ, which an infant may have through regeneration?! 



> "I'm not sure if any baptist would say that the children of believing parents belong to the _devil."_



I know many baptists who think so. In fact, I know a Reformed Baptist whose husband graduated from Westminster-west with an M. Div. who believes that their miscarried child must certainly be in hell because God never brought the child to a saving knowledge of Christ. In any case, even if no Baptist would say that they don't regard their children as belonging to the devil, they treat them as such at least in one respect - by not permitting them to receive the sign of entrance into the church. 

The bottom line is, when did God abrogate the covenant status of those born of one professing parent? 

Ron


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> But that's just the problem. Where do you get the idea that an infant of a believer is baptized "apart from faith"? You will not find the Scripture speaking of believers' children this way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've always understood that for paedos, the infant is baptized on account of the parents' faith, not his/her own faith. Or, am I wrong on this? When I say baptism and faith as inseparable, I'm assuming that the faith is a confessed and intelligent assent done by the person being baptized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will find various views here even among the paedos on the spiritual state of believers' infants. If the word faith is defined as requiring the ability to articulate the gospel in a language, then you are right, the infant doesn't have that. But baptism is primarily a picture of cleansing of sin, and that pertains as much to infants as to anyone.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the clarification.
As a picture primarily of cleansing sin, I see this as further inseparably linked with identification and union with Christ, atonement, election, gospel assent. If an infant without faith is pronounced as cleansed from sin, how does it affect the "golden chain" and ordo salutis?


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always understood that for paedos, the infant is baptized on account of the parents' faith, not his/her own faith. Or, am I wrong on this? When I say baptism and faith as inseparable, I'm assuming that the faith is a confessed and intelligent assent done by the person being baptized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will find various views here even among the paedos on the spiritual state of believers' infants. If the word faith is defined as requiring the ability to articulate the gospel in a language, then you are right, the infant doesn't have that. But baptism is primarily a picture of cleansing of sin, and that pertains as much to infants as to anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.
> As a picture primarily of cleansing sin, I see this as further inseparably linked with identification and union with Christ, atonement, election, gospel assent. If an infant without faith is pronounced as cleansed from sin, how does it affect the "golden chain" and ordo salutis?
Click to expand...


Indeed, it is linked with all of those things. We do not know who is elect or regenerate, but we are confident that those who profess faith and their children who are raised in the faith, are indeed truly in the faith. We can't presume to know who is/is not definitely regenerate, even among adults. I recommend you search the baptism forums because your questions are answered on old threads better than I can answer, although I try. I'm not saying don't keep asking me; I'm just saying you might find surfing the old threads helpful as a...supplement.


----------



## steadfast7

Ron said:


> Again, you are offering the same argument from silence that I already addressed. Moreover, Romans 4:11 teaches that the sign of circumcision (which was given to infants) was a seal of the righteousness one has by faith. This sign and seal was given to infants yet without them having first believed. Accordingly, it is false that a sign that points to the seal of faith is not intelligible when placed upon infants. How much more the case with a sign that points to union with Christ, which an infant may have through regeneration?!



Thanks for the Rom 4:11 verse. hadn't considered that one yet. But, interestingly, noting the context, it seems to support credo rather than paedo:


> 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness *of the faith* which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who *believe *without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,
> 
> 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the *faith *of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.



See, though circumcision is applied to infants, Paul is not here speaking of infants, but of Abraham who was circumcised after exercising faith. It seems that true fidelity and continuity with the Abrahamic covenant would mean practicing what Abraham did (believe and was circumcised), rather than practicing what was done to his children (circumcision at infancy). I'm probably being heretical or something, so I'll cut the proposal right about -


----------



## Ron

steadfast7 said:


> Thanks for the Rom 4:11 verse. hadn't considered that one yet. But, interestingly, noting the context, it seems to support credo rather than paedo:
> 
> 
> 
> 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness *of the faith* which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who *believe *without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,
> 
> 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the *faith *of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, though circumcision is applied to infants, Paul is not here speaking of infants, but of Abraham who was circumcised after exercising faith. It seems that true fidelity and continuity with the Abrahamic covenant would mean practicing what Abraham did (believe and was circumcised), rather than practicing what was done to his children (circumcision at infancy). I'm probably being heretical or something, so I'll cut the proposal right about -
Click to expand...


You are willing to acknowledge that circumcision was applied to infants and that it was a sign and seal of righteousness through faith when applied to Abraham. Yet you seem reluctant to concede that the sign and seal of circumcision when applied to infants had the exact same meaning. Please tell me then, what did circumcision mean when applied to infants? It meant the same thing - it is _God's_ sign and _God's _seal - whether God gave increase to the one who would bear the sign or not. 

Ron


----------



## Contra_Mundum

steadfast,
For your conclusion to have merit, you must propose a _different_, *objective* meaning for circumcision respecting Abraham than what it means for everyone else who received it--both Ishmael and Isaac, Jacob and Esau, David and Absolom--indeed every male among pre-Messiah Israel.

In fact, this is precisely the proposal that some non-Reformed (but somewhat covenant-minded) baptists have made--teaching that God actually makes two covenants with Abraham, a gracious one and a secular, non-spiritual one. Thus, circumcision is made to do double-duty for Abraham, being to him (alone) a testimony to his faith; but to everyone inclusive, nothing but a badge of national exclusivity.


________________________________

Moderation

And since this thread has been hopelessly intertwined with credo-answers in the paedo-only fourm (there were two threads, one in credo-answers, one in paedo-answers) I am moving it to the general "baptism" forum.


----------



## steadfast7

Ron said:


> You are willing to acknowledge that circumcision was applied to infants and that it was a sign and seal of righteousness through faith when applied to Abraham. Yet you seem reluctant to concede that the sign and seal of circumcision when applied to infants had the exact same meaning. Please tell me then, what did circumcision mean when applied to infants? It meant the same thing - it is _God's_ sign and _God's _seal - whether God gave increase to the one who would bear the sign or not.



I remember reading one of Rev. Buchanan's posts that one of the meanings of circumcision was to point to the Messiah, which was why it was applied to males. Do paedos generally believe this? It was news to me.

Having not yet gone in-depth on this topic, I'm inclined for now to view circumcision as a sign of justifying faith (it seems this way from the text). It follows then, that circumcision applied to male infants is meant to point to Abraham and his faith, through which justification is made for true Israel.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The question I once answered--with respect to "why males ONLY" received the sign of the covenant in the OT--I gave as, that such limitation was an explicit pointer to the _*gender*_ of the promised Messiah.

I don't think this is controversial among us, although I imagine that for many of either side in the debate, little thought has ever been given as to answering "why?". Don't nearly all aspects of our religious devotion point to Christ in some way? It was no different in the Old Testament.

For our part we seldom ask such questions (since the NT is better, of course a sign is given that is applicable to and so visually includes women); and Baptists aren't given to trying to understand a paedo-position from the inside (any more than we typically are of a contrary position).

Nor do I think that a _single_ aspect of the sign exhausts the meaning of it.


----------



## steadfast7

Contra_Mundum said:


> steadfast,
> For your conclusion to have merit, you must propose a _different_, *objective* meaning for circumcision respecting Abraham than what it means for everyone else who received it--both Ishmael and Isaac, Jacob and Esau, David and Absolom--indeed every male among pre-Messiah Israel.
> 
> In fact, this is precisely the proposal that some non-Reformed (but somewhat covenant-minded) baptists have made--teaching that God actually makes two covenants with Abraham, a gracious one and a secular, non-spiritual one. Thus, circumcision is made to do double-duty for Abraham, being to him (alone) a testimony to his faith; but to everyone inclusive, nothing but a badge of national exclusivity.



Thanks for moving the thread and for your response.
That's an interesting Baptist argument - you wouldn't to know any authors that have written on it, I wouldn't mind taking a look. I'm assuming it's not a popular argument.

however, we do know that the NT links Abraham's circumcision with his faith, and also that Paul seemed to have a dual view of circumcision - on the one hand he repudiated it from the Judaizers, and on the other he wanted Timothy get receive it. Hmm, might it also link into the debate of limited atonement: was not two kinds of grace dispensed on the cross, one for the elect and the other for the world? No need to get to get into that, I guess. But it might be an interesting study.


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> however, we do know that the NT links Abraham's circumcision with his faith, and also that Paul seemed to have a dual view of circumcision - on the one hand he repudiated it from the Judaizers, and on the other he wanted Timothy get receive it. Hmm, might it also link into the debate of limited atonement: was not two kinds of grace dispensed on the cross, one for the elect and the other for the world? No need to get to get into that, I guess. But it might be an interesting study.



N.b. Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother. Titus, who was fully Gentile, Paul refused to circumcise.


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> however, we do know that the NT links Abraham's circumcision with his faith, and also that Paul seemed to have a dual view of circumcision - on the one hand he repudiated it from the Judaizers, and on the other he wanted Timothy get receive it. Hmm, might it also link into the debate of limited atonement: was not two kinds of grace dispensed on the cross, one for the elect and the other for the world? No need to get to get into that, I guess. But it might be an interesting study.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N.b. Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother. Titus, who was fully Gentile, Paul refused to circumcise.
Click to expand...


Right-o. Short and sweet! But, it does show that circumcision had both a national and spiritual meaning that Paul kept distinct, yes?


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> however, we do know that the NT links Abraham's circumcision with his faith, and also that Paul seemed to have a dual view of circumcision - on the one hand he repudiated it from the Judaizers, and on the other he wanted Timothy get receive it. Hmm, might it also link into the debate of limited atonement: was not two kinds of grace dispensed on the cross, one for the elect and the other for the world? No need to get to get into that, I guess. But it might be an interesting study.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N.b. Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother. Titus, who was fully Gentile, Paul refused to circumcise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right-o. Short and sweet! But, it does show that circumcision had both a national and spiritual meaning that Paul kept distinct, yes?
Click to expand...

Scripture doesn't really separate national and spiritual with respect to Israel the way Baptists like to separate them. God expected, by virtue of his covenant with Abraham, that all Israel would love and obey him. The fact that not all Israelites practiced this was their disobedience, not a division of the covenant with Abraham into spiritual vs. purely national.


----------



## Ron

steadfast7 said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> however, we do know that the NT links Abraham's circumcision with his faith, and also that Paul seemed to have a dual view of circumcision - on the one hand he repudiated it from the Judaizers, and on the other he wanted Timothy get receive it. Hmm, might it also link into the debate of limited atonement: was not two kinds of grace dispensed on the cross, one for the elect and the other for the world? No need to get to get into that, I guess. But it might be an interesting study.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N.b. Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother. Titus, who was fully Gentile, Paul refused to circumcise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right-o. Short and sweet! But, it does show that circumcision had both a national and spiritual meaning that Paul kept distinct, yes?
Click to expand...


Any national signifcance was subordinate. Abraham was not a Jew! Israel became a nation 430 years later. What Baptists (and dispensationalists) need to grasp is that God always had a people _that he so happened to form into a nation. _Accordingly, the promises preceded the nation and therefore may be received by God's people after the expiration of the nation. In short, God's promises were to his elect, _which for a time he turned into a nation_. Now God is making disciples of all nations, which was always part of the promise. 

Ron


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> N.b. Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother. Titus, who was fully Gentile, Paul refused to circumcise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right-o. Short and sweet! But, it does show that circumcision had both a national and spiritual meaning that Paul kept distinct, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scripture doesn't really separate national and spiritual with respect to Israel the way Baptists like to separate them. God expected, by virtue of his covenant with Abraham, that all Israel would love and obey him. The fact that not all Israelites practiced this was their disobedience, not a division of the covenant with Abraham into spiritual vs. purely national.
Click to expand...


I agree with you on Church-Israel continuity, (Reformed Baptists are ok with this, I think), but the new covenant is not simply one of Christ wanting or hoping that all Christian families be finally saved. The new covenant is efficacious unto salvation for it is a covenant instituted in Christ's own redeeming blood. That's why it seems to me that definite atonement, faith, baptism, and union with Christ should all be integrally linked. the paedo views seems to seek to retain national and genetic covenantal ties. Perhaps it can be said that for the credo baptism is soteriologically oriented; for the paedo, ecclesiological.

-----Added 11/3/2009 at 12:34:37 EST-----



Ron said:


> Any national signifcance was subordinate. Abraham was not a Jew! Israel became a nation 430 years later. What Baptists (and dispensationalists) need to grasp is that God always had a people _that he so happened to form into a nation. _Accordingly, the promises preceded the nation and therefore may be received by God's people after the expiration of the nation. In short, God's promises were to his elect, _which for a time he turned into a nation_. Now God is making disciples of all nations, which was always part of the promise.



I agree fully that covenant promises _and fulfillments_ are made to the elect. if this is so, it seems to me that paedobaptism betrays this theology somewhat more than credo. 

Here's the logic:
1. covenant promises are made to all Israel
2. not all Israel is truly elect
3. Therefore, covenant promises are made to non-elect people. 

Are paedos ok with this? I find this disturbing and casts a big shadow on the power of God's promises, unless a covenant does not necessarily lead to salvation. But if not, then what does a covenant accomplish?

Doesn't the paedo view also run into the problem of dual covenants: one for general Christian families, and one for the elect _in _those families?


----------



## charliejunfan

SemperEruditio said:


> Main point of contention?
> 
> There isn't a scripture that says _"baptize them chillens"_ nor one that says _"don't you dare baptize them chillens!"_



Yep Yep, and also I think many Baptists miss the fact that there is no scripture that says "and then WOMEN took the Lord's Supper." 
While making fun of Paedo's way of interpretation baptist's make use of the exact same interpretation methods to include women in the partaking of the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Ron

steadfast7 said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right-o. Short and sweet! But, it does show that circumcision had both a national and spiritual meaning that Paul kept distinct, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture doesn't really separate national and spiritual with respect to Israel the way Baptists like to separate them. God expected, by virtue of his covenant with Abraham, that all Israel would love and obey him. The fact that not all Israelites practiced this was their disobedience, not a division of the covenant with Abraham into spiritual vs. purely national.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you on Church-Israel continuity, (Reformed Baptists are ok with this, I think), but the new covenant is not simply one of Christ wanting or hoping that all Christian families be finally saved. The new covenant is efficacious unto salvation for it is a covenant instituted in Christ's own redeeming blood. That's why it seems to me that definite atonement, faith, baptism, and union with Christ should all be integrally linked. the paedo views seems to seek to retain national and genetic covenantal ties. Perhaps it can be said that for the credo baptism is soteriologically oriented; for the paedo, ecclesiological.
> 
> -----Added 11/3/2009 at 12:34:37 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any national signifcance was subordinate. Abraham was not a Jew! Israel became a nation 430 years later. What Baptists (and dispensationalists) need to grasp is that God always had a people _that he so happened to form into a nation. _Accordingly, the promises preceded the nation and therefore may be received by God's people after the expiration of the nation. In short, God's promises were to his elect, _which for a time he turned into a nation_. Now God is making disciples of all nations, which was always part of the promise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree fully that covenant promises _and fulfillments_ are made to the elect. if this is so, it seems to me that paedobaptism betrays this theology somewhat more than credo.
> 
> Here's the logic:
> 1. covenant promises are made to all Israel
> 2. not all Israel is truly elect
> 3. Therefore, covenant promises are made to non-elect people.
> 
> Are paedos ok with this? I find this disturbing and casts a big shadow on the power of God's promises, unless a covenant does not necessarily lead to salvation. But if not, then what does a covenant accomplish?
> 
> Doesn't the paedo view also run into the problem of dual covenants: one for general Christian families, and one for the elect _in _those families?
Click to expand...


My dear brother Dennis,

I believe you are not internalizing what has _already_ been stated. Please slow down and only respond if you can articulate back the paedo paradigm that is being set forth. 

You state up front: "I agree fully that covenant promises _and fulfillments_ are made to the elect." Then you say that in P1: _"covenant promises are made to all Israel". _The only way I can reconcile these two statements of yours is by inferring that you mean by your first statement that the the "covenant promises and their fulfillments" are made to the elect _but not only the elect. _ That of course is false. God's promise is to the elect _alone_. That is what you are missing my brother. God said that he would _establish_ his covenant between himself and Abraham; but not only would God _establish_ his covenant promise with Abraham, he would also _establish_ it with Abraham’s seed after him. In response to the promise of God, which was one of redemption of a people and land for them to occupy, Abraham pleaded that his son Ishmael might live before God in faithfulness. (Genesis 3:18) God refused Abraham’s request, saying “as for Ishmael, I have heard thee… but my covenant will I *establish* with Isaac” _not Ishmael _(Genesis 17: 20, 21). Notwithstanding, all those who were of the household of Abraham were to receive the sign and seal of the covenant, _as if _ God had established the covenant with them too. Consequently, those who had received the sign were to be considered in covenant with God; whereas those who had not received the sign - yet qualified to receive it - were to be treated as covenant breakers. We might say that the invisible church was to be found within the visible church, "out of which there was no ordinary way of salvation" (Acts 2:47b; WCF 25.2). 

Although God’s covenant was _established_ from the outset _only_ with the elect in Christ, it was to be _*administered*_ to all who professed the true religion along with their households. The theological distinction of the visible and invisible church was well in view, even at the time of Abraham. Although this was the theology of the covenant, the apostle still had to labor the point to the New Testament saints at Rome. After telling his hearers that nothing could separate God’s people from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:39), the apostle had to explain why the people of God, to whom the promises pertained, had fallen away from the faith. How, in other words, could the people of God become apostate if the promise of redemption would come to fruition? With his pedagogical background in place, the apostle explained the timeless Old Testament Covenant Theology, which is that although God _established_ his covenant with the elect in Christ, it was to be _*administered* _to those who were not elect as long as they were of the household of a professing believer. Consequently, it is not hard to imagine that they are not all true Israel who are from external Israel (Romans 9:6); and that all the New Testament church is not the true church. “That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: *but the children of the promise are counted for the seed*” (Romans 9:8).

This discussion is one of ecclesiology. 

Ron


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Richard Tallach said:


> The New Covenant is an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> The Abrahamic Covenant, long before the Old Covenant phase, included children.
> 
> What's the beef with our dear (ana)baptist brethren? Have they got no sense of (redemptive) history?
> 
> It's an Olive Tree (or Vine or Fig) we're ingrafted into. Does a tree not have branches, and do some of those branches not have little twigs or twiglets? The Covenant is organic not atomistic or individualistic.



Richard,

In all due respect you don't understand the Particular Baptist view of Covenant Theology. You are correct. It is an Olive tree that is mentioned. The unbelieving have been cut off now and the tree is in the New Covenant and consists of the regenerate. The tree was pruned. The believing are ingrafted in because the Covenant is a better Covenant with better Promises and the Covenant Head is Christ and his offspring now. Abraham is a part of Christ's seed and we are children of Abraham in like manner and considered descendants under promises made to him concerning Christ as his seed which fulfilled all of those promises. Abraham's seed is defined as those who are of faith now. It is the same Everlasting Covenant of Grace that has been instituted from the beginning with Promise and fulfillment. Ishmael was a part of the Abrahamic but not all of the promises that were given to Abraham concerning his posterity were meant for all of his descendants. Ishmael was never included in the Everlasting Covenant. Genesis 17 bears this out as well does Galatians.



> (Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
> 
> (Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
> 
> (Gal 4:25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
> 
> (Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.


----------



## charliejunfan

steadfast7 said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right-o. Short and sweet! But, it does show that circumcision had both a national and spiritual meaning that Paul kept distinct, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture doesn't really separate national and spiritual with respect to Israel the way Baptists like to separate them. God expected, by virtue of his covenant with Abraham, that all Israel would love and obey him. The fact that not all Israelites practiced this was their disobedience, not a division of the covenant with Abraham into spiritual vs. purely national.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you on Church-Israel continuity, (Reformed Baptists are ok with this, I think), but the new covenant is not simply one of Christ wanting or hoping that all Christian families be finally saved. The new covenant is efficacious unto salvation for it is a covenant instituted in Christ's own redeeming blood. That's why it seems to me that definite atonement, faith, baptism, and union with Christ should all be integrally linked. the paedo views seems to seek to retain national and genetic covenantal ties. Perhaps it can be said that for the credo baptism is soteriologically oriented; for the paedo, ecclesiological.
> 
> -----Added 11/3/2009 at 12:34:37 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any national signifcance was subordinate. Abraham was not a Jew! Israel became a nation 430 years later. What Baptists (and dispensationalists) need to grasp is that God always had a people _that he so happened to form into a nation. _Accordingly, the promises preceded the nation and therefore may be received by God's people after the expiration of the nation. In short, God's promises were to his elect, _which for a time he turned into a nation_. Now God is making disciples of all nations, which was always part of the promise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree fully that covenant promises _and fulfillments_ are made to the elect. if this is so, it seems to me that paedobaptism betrays this theology somewhat more than credo.
> 
> Here's the logic:
> 1. covenant promises are made to all Israel
> 2. not all Israel is truly elect
> 3. Therefore, covenant promises are made to non-elect people.
> 
> Are paedos ok with this? I find this disturbing and casts a big shadow on the power of God's promises, unless a covenant does not necessarily lead to salvation. But if not, then what does a covenant accomplish?
> 
> Doesn't the paedo view also run into the problem of dual covenants: one for general Christian families, and one for the elect _in _those families?
Click to expand...


Yes, we are ok with this, because the Covenant of Grace is a conditional covenant, infants of believers are in this Covenant. The Covenant of Redemption though is unconditional since Christ did it for the elect, those who are elect and in Christ as the fulfiller of the Covenant of Redemption fulfill the condition of the Covenant of Grace which is righteousness that can only be obtained by Faith, and that faith is given by the Holy Spirit only to the elect.
So Covenant promises ARE made to unelect people, they must receive the promise though, by Faith, and of course only the elect are granted faith by the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Ron

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Abraham's seed is defined as those who are of faith now.



PC,

Abraham’s seed was always the elect alone, so nothing has changed in that regard. That is why Paul had to remind his hearers in Romans 9 that it was the children of the _promise_ who were counted as the seed! The Baptist position is that under the old, the seed included those who were not elect, which is not Pauline. It's a false premise. 

Furthermore, Baptists will often say that the abrogation of the principle regarding children of professing believers as part of the seed is what Jeremiah has in view in verse 31:34: "...they will all know me....”, which they say means that the New Covenant is made only with believers who know the Lord. Accordingly, they reason that we should ensure as best as possible to administer the New Covenant only to those who profess faith in Christ, which infants cannot do. The problem they run into with this line of reasoning is that the verse does not teach that the covenant is only made with those who posses belief! The promise of Jeremiah 31 is a promise of greater fidelity (verse 32), greater empowerment (verse 34), and a greater depth of knowledge (verse 34). It does not address the qualification for covenant entrance. (I’ll address “depth of knowledge” later).

Verse 34 does not speak to the question of with whom the covenant will be established. It merely teaches that those with whom the covenant will be established will indeed “know the Lord.” Before considering what it means to “know the Lord” we must first appreciate that verse does not teach us that the covenant will be made only with true believers _after_ they believe. At the very least, if Baptists were correct, then the knowledge of the Lord would not be a blessing of the covenant but rather something that first must be obtained in order to enter into the covenant! Moreover, the verse cannot possibly exclude infants from covenant entrance who will grow up to “know the Lord” because the verse does not imply a change in qualifications for covenant entrance, but rather it speaks to the increase of blessings that will be received by those with whom God establishes the New Covenant! The verse is not speaking of a new qualification for entering into the covenant; rather it is speaking about something different that will occur under the newer economy as compared to the older economy for those who will be in covenant.

Since the Old Covenant was established with the elect alone, we may safely say that a saving knowledge was granted to all with whom God established the Old Covenant, barring no early deaths that would preclude saving _knowledge_. Consequently, the verse must be speaking to the quality and depth of that saving knowledge under the newer economy as opposed to the mere possession of it, which all those with whom God established the Old Covenant would have received. Not surprisingly, that is what we see in the New Covenant. Under the New Covenant with the establishment of the priesthood of all believers, through the revelation of Christ, the completed canon and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit – we all “know the Lord”(!) in a manner vastly different than that under the old economy. In summary, Jeremiah 31 may not be used to defend a more stringent entrance examination for covenant privileges simply because it does not imply anything more than increase of blessings. Thankfully the glory of the New Covenant is not to be found in the exclusion of infants!

Ron


----------



## Zenas

The main contention in the paedo v. credo debate: Whether to baptize children of believers.


----------



## steadfast7

Ron said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture doesn't really separate national and spiritual with respect to Israel the way Baptists like to separate them. God expected, by virtue of his covenant with Abraham, that all Israel would love and obey him. The fact that not all Israelites practiced this was their disobedience, not a division of the covenant with Abraham into spiritual vs. purely national.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you on Church-Israel continuity, (Reformed Baptists are ok with this, I think), but the new covenant is not simply one of Christ wanting or hoping that all Christian families be finally saved. The new covenant is efficacious unto salvation for it is a covenant instituted in Christ's own redeeming blood. That's why it seems to me that definite atonement, faith, baptism, and union with Christ should all be integrally linked. the paedo views seems to seek to retain national and genetic covenantal ties. Perhaps it can be said that for the credo baptism is soteriologically oriented; for the paedo, ecclesiological.
> 
> -----Added 11/3/2009 at 12:34:37 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any national signifcance was subordinate. Abraham was not a Jew! Israel became a nation 430 years later. What Baptists (and dispensationalists) need to grasp is that God always had a people _that he so happened to form into a nation. _Accordingly, the promises preceded the nation and therefore may be received by God's people after the expiration of the nation. In short, God's promises were to his elect, _which for a time he turned into a nation_. Now God is making disciples of all nations, which was always part of the promise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree fully that covenant promises _and fulfillments_ are made to the elect. if this is so, it seems to me that paedobaptism betrays this theology somewhat more than credo.
> 
> Here's the logic:
> 1. covenant promises are made to all Israel
> 2. not all Israel is truly elect
> 3. Therefore, covenant promises are made to non-elect people.
> 
> Are paedos ok with this? I find this disturbing and casts a big shadow on the power of God's promises, unless a covenant does not necessarily lead to salvation. But if not, then what does a covenant accomplish?
> 
> Doesn't the paedo view also run into the problem of dual covenants: one for general Christian families, and one for the elect _in _those families?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My dear brother Dennis,
> 
> I believe you are not internalizing what has _already_ been stated. Please slow down and only respond if you can articulate back the paedo paradigm that is being set forth.
> 
> You state up front: "I agree fully that covenant promises _and fulfillments_ are made to the elect." Then you say that in P1: _"covenant promises are made to all Israel". _The only way I can reconcile these two statements of yours is by inferring that you mean by your first statement that the the "covenant promises and their fulfillments" are made to the elect _but not only the elect. _ That of course is false. God's promise is to the elect _alone_. That is what you are missing my brother. God said that he would _establish_ his covenant between himself and Abraham; but not only would God _establish_ his covenant promise with Abraham, he would also _establish_ it with Abraham’s seed after him. In response to the promise of God, which was one of redemption of a people and land for them to occupy, Abraham pleaded that his son Ishmael might live before God in faithfulness. (Genesis 3:18) God refused Abraham’s request, saying “as for Ishmael, I have heard thee… but my covenant will I *establish* with Isaac” _not Ishmael _(Genesis 17: 20, 21). Notwithstanding, all those who were of the household of Abraham were to receive the sign and seal of the covenant, _as if _ God had established the covenant with them too. Consequently, those who had received the sign were to be considered in covenant with God; whereas those who had not received the sign - yet qualified to receive it - were to be treated as covenant breakers. We might say that the invisible church was to be found within the visible church, "out of which there was no ordinary way of salvation" (Acts 2:47b; WCF 25.2).
> 
> Although God’s covenant was _established_ from the outset _only_ with the elect in Christ, it was to be _*administered*_ to all who professed the true religion along with their households. The theological distinction of the visible and invisible church was well in view, even at the time of Abraham. Although this was the theology of the covenant, the apostle still had to labor the point to the New Testament saints at Rome. After telling his hearers that nothing could separate God’s people from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:39), the apostle had to explain why the people of God, to whom the promises pertained, had fallen away from the faith. How, in other words, could the people of God become apostate if the promise of redemption would come to fruition? With his pedagogical background in place, the apostle explained the timeless Old Testament Covenant Theology, which is that although God _established_ his covenant with the elect in Christ, it was to be _*administered* _to those who were not elect as long as they were of the household of a professing believer. Consequently, it is not hard to imagine that they are not all true Israel who are from external Israel (Romans 9:6); and that all the New Testament church is not the true church. “That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: *but the children of the promise are counted for the seed*” (Romans 9:8).
> 
> This discussion is one of ecclesiology.
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


Dear Ron,
thanks for journeying with me on this thread - you're a real trooper. 

The above syllogism #1-3 is not actually my view, but my distillation of the paedo view ie. that covenant promises do not necessarily mean election. Charliejunfan asserts this explicitly:


> So Covenant promises ARE made to unelect people, they must receive the promise though, by Faith, and of course only the elect are granted faith by the Holy Spirit.



Interestingly, you said the opposite as Charlie:


> God's promise is to the elect _alone_.


So, there seems to be a discrepancy here between the paedos - I'll leave it you two to work it out. Does God covenant with the elect only, or with all who are within the family of elect? Unless, of course, we are talking about different covenants, each with different people in mind, and which accomplish different things. 

Now you seem to distinguish the _establishment _of a covenant (for the elect) from the _administration _of a covenant (to households of the elect). This is similar to my above belief that promises _*and their fulfillment*_ are for the elect alone. You and I are in agreement if this is the case. So, I think I have read you correctly and are tracking with you.

My only remaining problem is this: if the new covenant is made to those who are not necessarily elect, in other words, if it is administered but not established, promised but not fulfilled ... then in what way is the new covenant a better covenant? Should not the new covenant, in Christ's blood, be surer, more efficacious, more reliable? Again that covenant is:


> I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts; and _I will be their God, and they shall be My people_. No more shall every man teach his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least off them to the greatest of them,” says the LORD. “For I will _forgive their iniquity_, and their sin I will remember no more.


The covenant is effective unto salvation, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Ron

> Yes, we are ok with this, because the Covenant of Grace is a conditional covenant, infants of believers are in this Covenant. The Covenant of Redemption though is unconditional... So Covenant promises ARE made to unelect people, they must receive the promise though, by Faith, and of course only the elect are granted faith by the Holy Spirit.



Be careful, Charlie. This is false and denies the WLC, Q&A 31, which I suspect you want to uphold. It is false that the covenant of grace was made with persons not elected unto salvation. 

Ron

-----Added 11/3/2009 at 01:55:12 EST-----



steadfast7 said:


> My only remaining problem is this: if the new covenant is made to those who are not necessarily elect, in other words, if it is administered but not established, promised but not fulfilled ... then in what way is the new covenant a better covenant? Should not the new covenant, in Christ's blood, be surer, more efficacious, more reliable?



Happy to journey with you (for a while). For our purposes (without getting into what the Westminster standards address in 7.6) , the NC is much grander because of the quality and depth of that saving knowledge under the newer economy as opposed to the mere possession of it, which all those with whom God established the Old Covenant would have received. Not surprisingly, that is what we see in the New Covenant. Under the New Covenant with the establishment of the _priesthood of all believers, through the revelation of Christ, the completed canon and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit – we all “know the Lord”(!) in a manner vastly different than that under the old economy_. In summary, Jeremiah 31 may not be used to defend a more stringent entrance examination for covenant privileges simply because it does not imply anything more than _increase of blessings_. Thankfully the glory of the New Covenant is not to be found in the exclusion of infants!

Best wishes,

Ron


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right-o. Short and sweet! But, it does show that circumcision had both a national and spiritual meaning that Paul kept distinct, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture doesn't really separate national and spiritual with respect to Israel the way Baptists like to separate them. God expected, by virtue of his covenant with Abraham, that all Israel would love and obey him. The fact that not all Israelites practiced this was their disobedience, not a division of the covenant with Abraham into spiritual vs. purely national.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with you on Church-Israel continuity, (Reformed Baptists are ok with this, I think), but the new covenant is not simply one of Christ wanting or hoping that all Christian families be finally saved. The new covenant is efficacious unto salvation for it is a covenant instituted in Christ's own redeeming blood. That's why it seems to me that definite atonement, faith, baptism, and union with Christ should all be integrally linked. the paedo views seems to seek to retain national and genetic covenantal ties. Perhaps it can be said that for the credo baptism is soteriologically oriented; for the paedo, ecclesiological.
> 
> -----Added 11/3/2009 at 12:34:37 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any national signifcance was subordinate. Abraham was not a Jew! Israel became a nation 430 years later. What Baptists (and dispensationalists) need to grasp is that God always had a people _that he so happened to form into a nation. _Accordingly, the promises preceded the nation and therefore may be received by God's people after the expiration of the nation. In short, God's promises were to his elect, _which for a time he turned into a nation_. Now God is making disciples of all nations, which was always part of the promise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree fully that covenant promises _and fulfillments_ are made to the elect. if this is so, it seems to me that paedobaptism betrays this theology somewhat more than credo.
> 
> Here's the logic:
> 1. covenant promises are made to all Israel
> 2. not all Israel is truly elect
> 3. Therefore, covenant promises are made to non-elect people.
> 
> Are paedos ok with this? I find this disturbing and casts a big shadow on the power of God's promises, unless a covenant does not necessarily lead to salvation. But if not, then what does a covenant accomplish?
> 
> Doesn't the paedo view also run into the problem of dual covenants: one for general Christian families, and one for the elect _in _those families?
Click to expand...


Let's say my friend Bob is a professing Christian, regular churchgoer, not in egregious sin, etc. Now I don't know if Bob is truly regenerate or elect, but I believe he is and I treat him like he is. Now, you keep accusing us of separating salvation from baptism and the covenant. We do not. I believe and expect the same of believers' children as I do of adult believers. They are raised in the knowledge of the Lord and I consider them God's people unless given reason to believe otherwise. There is no need to accuse paedobaptists of separating the covenant from salvation. It is simply that I do not know who, in the church, really has that salvation, whether it be Bob or his son. Nevertheless, the NT echoes the principle that our children are holy, raised in the faith, and heirs to the same promises we are, as long as they persevere to the end and prove to be truly God's elect. This is why whole households are baptized.

-----Added 11/3/2009 at 02:11:57 EST-----

p.s. I didn't mention church-Israel continuity. I was only talking about Israel in the post you quoted. My point was that just because Israel was a nation doesn't mean, as you assumed, that it is intended to consist of believers and unbelievers. Of course it did consist of false believers, but this was not what God demanded of Israel. He told them all to love and obey him. Some disobeyed (by his decree, yes, but against the spiritual demands of the covenant - It wasn't supposed to be just a physical, national covenant. All Israel was told to know God.)


----------



## Peairtach

lynnie said:


> One caution....every scholarly Baptist I knew in my old Baptist days believed that children were set apart/sanctified by the faith of the parents. They believed in Covenantal promises.
> 
> But that setting apart happens because of the parent's faith for a Baptist, not because of Baptism.
> 
> Even though I travel mostly in paedo circles now, it really bothers me when people say Baptists have no place for kids under the Covenant. Sure they do-they believe it is the faith of the parents that scripture says sets children apart.



Well if some baptists agree that the kids are in the covenant, why do these baptists not agree that they should receive the sign of the covenant?

Probably because baptists believe that there should be individual testimony that the individual has entered the internal and living aspect of the covenant?

If babies could talk and tell baptists whether they were saved or not, presumably baptists wouldn't mind baptising the saved ones like John the Baptist when he was a baby?

But this doesn't follow the biblical pattern. Babies born to believing parent(s) are born at least into the outward, formal and legal aspect of the covenant, the bond of the covenant. We don't know if they are saved or not, although some are.

But the biblical pattern is to baptise them all in anticipation, if they aren't saved, of their future baptism with/by the Spirit by Christ into the invisible church/ washing in the blood of Christ by the application of the Spirit/regeneration.

The pattern was set in the Covenant of Promise with Abraham, when parents didn't ask of their baby boys, Is he circumcised in heart yet?, but circumcised them all, in anticipation of future circumcision of heart if it hadn't happened before or at the baby boy's circumcision.

Circumcision of a baby boy could be used by the Spirit to bring him to genuine faith (internal circumcision) as baptism of children in the New Covenant can be used by the Spirit to bring _them_ to genuine faith. 

Not sacerdotally but accompanied by the Word of God/explanation of the meaning of circumcision/baptism as the children grow up.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Ron said:


> Furthermore, Baptists will often say that the abrogation of the principle regarding children of professing believers as part of the seed is what Jeremiah has in view in verse 31:34: "...they will all know me....”, which they say means that the New Covenant is made only with believers who know the Lord. Accordingly, they reason that we should ensure as best as possible to administer the New Covenant only to those who profess faith in Christ, which infants cannot do. The problem they run into with this line of reasoning is that the verse does not teach that the covenant is only made with those who posses belief! The promise of Jeremiah 31 is a promise of greater fidelity (verse 32), greater empowerment (verse 34), and a greater depth of knowledge (verse 34). It does not address the qualification for covenant entrance. (I’ll address “depth of knowledge” later).
> 
> Verse 34 does not speak to the question of with whom the covenant will be established. It merely teaches that those with whom the covenant will be established will indeed “know the Lord.” Before considering what it means to “know the Lord” we must first appreciate that verse does not teach us that the covenant will be made only with true believers _after_ they believe. At the very least, if Baptists were correct, then the knowledge of the Lord would not be a blessing of the covenant but rather something that first must be obtained in order to enter into the covenant! Moreover, the verse cannot possibly exclude infants from covenant entrance who will grow up to “know the Lord” because the verse does not imply a change in qualifications for covenant entrance, but rather it speaks to the increase of blessings that will be received by those with whom God establishes the New Covenant! The verse is not speaking of a new qualification for entering into the covenant; rather it is speaking about something different that will occur under the newer economy as compared to the older economy for those who will be in covenant.
> 
> Since the Old Covenant was established with the elect alone, we may safely say that a saving knowledge was granted to all with whom God established the Old Covenant, barring no early deaths that would preclude saving _knowledge_. Consequently, the verse must be speaking to the quality and depth of that saving knowledge under the newer economy as opposed to the mere possession of it, which all those with whom God established the Old Covenant would have received. Not surprisingly, that is what we see in the New Covenant. Under the New Covenant with the establishment of the priesthood of all believers, through the revelation of Christ, the completed canon and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit – we all “know the Lord”(!) in a manner vastly different than that under the old economy. In summary, Jeremiah 31 may not be used to defend a more stringent entrance examination for covenant privileges simply because it does not imply anything more than increase of blessings. Thankfully the glory of the New Covenant is not to be found in the exclusion of infants!
> 
> Ron




Well,
You bring up some interesting points. Your problem in my estimation is that you do not include the full scope of the Jeremiah passage. 



> (Jer 31:31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
> 
> (Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
> 
> (Jer 31:33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
> 
> (Jer 31:34) And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.



There is a distinction between the two Covenants and differences laid out. 

First God says that he will put His law in their hearts and that He will be there God and they shall be His people.

These people who are included in this New Covenant are not taught to know the Lord because they all shall know Him and their sins are forgiven and remembered no longer. 

So those who are in this Covenant already have a heart that is different and they are considered to know him already. I get that out of this passage because of this part....



> And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD



I also do not believe the Old Covenant is made with the Elect alone. I guess you are going to have to distinguish between what it means to be Elect. Elect according to being National Isreal or Elect according to the Covenant of Grace. If you maintain that only the elect are members of the Covenant of Grace then you are going to have to establish if the Covenant of Grace is made only with those God chooses for redemption from the foundation of the World or not. Because we all know that the Old Covenant is also called a ministration of death in 2nd Corinthians. And it is done away for that which is better. 



> (2Co 3:8) How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
> 
> (2Co 3:9) For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
> 
> (2Co 3:10) For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
> 
> (2Co 3:11) For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.



I do not hold that the Abrahamic nor the Mosaic are purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace. We have discussed this many times before here.


----------



## Herald

Matthew's term of "reformed Anabaptists" is a misnomer. Baptists do not believe in rebaptism. Anything less than believers baptism is an illegitimate baptism, therefore it is not baptism. My paedo brethren disagree with that, but that's how Reformed Baptists view it. In good conscience I will not acquiesce to the term "reformed Anabapist." 

As far as the OP, there is no one issue. The divide between credos and paedos is not that simplistic. It is real, substantial, and complicated.


----------



## Peairtach

Herald said:


> Matthew's term of "reformed Anabaptists" is a misnomer. Baptists do not believe in rebaptism. Anything less than believers baptism is an illegitimate baptism, therefore it is not baptism. My paedo brethren disagree with that, but that's how Reformed Baptists view it. In good conscience I will not acquiesce to the term "reformed Anabapist."
> 
> As far as the OP, there is no one issue. The divide between credos and paedos is not that simplistic. It is real, substantial, and complicated.



As this single thread already appears to show!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Also note that our tradition comes from Particular Baptists which are known as Puritans. We do not have our tradition stemming from the anabaptists. We should probably be known more as antipaedobaptists.


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> Let's say my friend Bob is a professing Christian, regular churchgoer, not in egregious sin, etc. Now I don't know if Bob is truly regenerate or elect, but I believe he is and I treat him like he is. Now, you keep accusing us of separating salvation from baptism and the covenant. We do not. I believe and expect the same of believers' children as I do of adult believers. They are raised in the knowledge of the Lord and I consider them God's people unless given reason to believe otherwise. There is no need to accuse paedobaptists of separating the covenant from salvation. It is simply that I do not know who, in the church, really has that salvation, whether it be Bob or his son. Nevertheless, the NT echoes the principle that our children are holy, raised in the faith, and heirs to the same promises we are, as long as they persevere to the end and prove to be truly God's elect. This is why whole households are baptized.



I agree that we do not and cannot know whether someone is elect - that's for God and the individual to know. I also agree that there is measure of holiness in a child born to believing parents, in much the same way that an unbelieving spouse has been "sanctified" by the believing one. 

Your hypothetical situation is valid in the case of a professing adult Christian, but in paedobaptism, a very different thing is happening. Someone who is incapable of professing Christian faith and performing deeds which evidence grace is being given the sign and seal of a covenant of grace. That sign is given 1. on the grounds of parental faith; and 2. _in hope of_ future faith. In both cases, there is no regard to that infant's current and actual standing before God, and the clergy and community are left making big assumptions.


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> Matthew's term of "reformed Anabaptists" is a misnomer. Baptists do not believe in rebaptism. Anything less than believers baptism is an illegitimate baptism, therefore it is not baptism. My paedo brethren disagree with that, but that's how Reformed Baptists view it. In good conscience I will not acquiesce to the term "reformed Anabapist."



But Bill, you did acquiesce in the term "Anabaptist" the moment you called us your paedo brethren. Either we are your brethren or we aren't. If we are, then our baptism is valid, even though some have only ever received sprinkling as infants. If our baptism isn't valid, then we are no part of the visible church, and you have no basis upon which to receive us as brethren.


----------



## Ivan

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew's term of "reformed Anabaptists" is a misnomer. Baptists do not believe in rebaptism. Anything less than believers baptism is an illegitimate baptism, therefore it is not baptism. My paedo brethren disagree with that, but that's how Reformed Baptists view it. In good conscience I will not acquiesce to the term "reformed Anabapist."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Bill, you did acquiesce in the term "Anabaptist" the moment you called us your paedo brethren. Either we are your brethren or we aren't. If we are, then our baptism is valid, even though some have only ever received sprinkling as infants. If our baptism isn't valid, then we are no part of the visible church, and you have no basis upon which to receive us as brethren.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Also note that our tradition comes from Particular Baptists which are known as Puritans. We do not have our tradition stemming from the anabaptists. We should probably be known more as antipaedobaptists.



Randy, the literature supports deriving their "communal" existence from Separatist-Puritan stock, which is in reality not genuine Puritanism, since a Puritan sought the purity of the Church of England and separatists rejected national churches. The Anabaptist label has been used to denote their "doctrinal" distinctives. The true Puritans regularly made use of it.


----------



## Ron

PuritanCovenanter said:


> “There is a distinction between the two Covenants and differences laid out.
> 
> First God says that he will put His law in their hearts and that He will be there God and they shall be His people.”



PC,

Why can’t and infant have God’s law written on his heart. And why can’t infants be God’s people? Your response, no doubt, will be that infants cannot be God’s people until they are converted. But that’s irrelevant to the debate. Neither can adults be God’s people nor have his law written on their hearts until they are converted. Please grasp this, the question is not whether one is yet converted; the question is whether one is to be _regarded_ as converted! That is what the debate is about. Nobody knows who is converted but God; and God can convert infants just as easily as adults. So conversion may not be the issue, but rather the question is _who are to be regarded as the children of promise? _



> “These people who are included in this New Covenant are not taught to know the Lord because they all shall know Him and their sins are forgiven and remembered no longer.”



Can’t an infant have his sins forgiven? But once again, the issue is not whether one’s sins (man’s or infant’s) are forgiven but rather the question pertains to whether one is to be _regarded _as one whose sins are forgiven. Moreover, the verse regarding everyone knowing the Lord need not be taken in such a wooden way as to exclude infants - lest infants dying in infancy and those born with mental deficiencies could never be saved! After all, the verse pertains to the _invisible _and not the visible church! *Accordingly, the verse may not be used as an exhaustive description of those within the invisible church lest infants and those incapable of being called could not be God’s children! *

I believe that I have exhausted this matter. So naturally I believe that all I can do is repeat myself, which I do not have the luxury of doing. 

Best of providence,

Ron


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say my friend Bob is a professing Christian, regular churchgoer, not in egregious sin, etc. Now I don't know if Bob is truly regenerate or elect, but I believe he is and I treat him like he is. Now, you keep accusing us of separating salvation from baptism and the covenant. We do not. I believe and expect the same of believers' children as I do of adult believers. They are raised in the knowledge of the Lord and I consider them God's people unless given reason to believe otherwise. There is no need to accuse paedobaptists of separating the covenant from salvation. It is simply that I do not know who, in the church, really has that salvation, whether it be Bob or his son. Nevertheless, the NT echoes the principle that our children are holy, raised in the faith, and heirs to the same promises we are, as long as they persevere to the end and prove to be truly God's elect. This is why whole households are baptized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that we do not and cannot know whether someone is elect - that's for God and the individual to know. I also agree that there is measure of holiness in a child born to believing parents, in much the same way that an unbelieving spouse has been "sanctified" by the believing one.
> 
> Your hypothetical situation is valid in the case of a professing adult Christian, but in paedobaptism, a very different thing is happening. Someone who is incapable of professing Christian faith and performing deeds which evidence grace is being given the sign and seal of a covenant of grace. That sign is given 1. on the grounds of parental faith; and 2. _in hope of_ future faith. In both cases, there is no regard to that infant's current and actual standing before God, and the clergy and community are left making big assumptions.
Click to expand...


You are still forcing your presuppositions onto me. I do not share some of these base presuppositions. For instance, I don't believe that the children of believers are in neutral zone and have the same chance of being elect as an unbeliever's child. I think we should expect believers' children, who are raised in the knowledge of the Lord, to be his people, unless they fall away. In other words, believers' children have to apostasize, not simply never join in the first place, in order to be regarded as not in the church. They are born into a believing family. They either stay or they leave. They don't stand on the fence and then pick a side when they're 5.

Also, you are still assuming that we are only hoping the infant will be regenerate later. This is getting into a whole other topic that I don't believe we can speculate too much on; however, I believe I see the infants of believers differently than you do, and this is going to be a clincher in the credo/paedo debate.

-----Added 11/3/2009 at 05:45:16 EST-----

An unbelieving spouse, furthermore, is only said to be sanctified for the sake of the child. Question: Why does Paul bother to emphasize that "[o]therwise your children would be unclean" ([esv]1 Cor. 7:14[/esv]) if there is no real significance to that? Why, if they are holy and are raised in a household of faith, should they not be baptized? Why leave them in a state of not having been declared ceremonially clean before the world, by virtue of being inheritors of the promises? Yes, to receive these promises, they will need to be elect; and yes, some of them will not be elect, but that is the same situation as with any adult believer. As far as we may expect, they are holy. In fact, the pattern throughout Scripture is that men with unbelieving children are reprimanded by God, as if we should expect the children of believers to persevere (and prove to be elect) under good parenting? It is even a requirement for elders.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew's term of "reformed Anabaptists" is a misnomer. Baptists do not believe in rebaptism. Anything less than believers baptism is an illegitimate baptism, therefore it is not baptism. My paedo brethren disagree with that, but that's how Reformed Baptists view it. In good conscience I will not acquiesce to the term "reformed Anabapist."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But Bill, you did acquiesce in the term "Anabaptist" the moment you called us your paedo brethren. Either we are your brethren or we aren't. If we are, then our baptism is valid, even though some have only ever received sprinkling as infants. If our baptism isn't valid, then we are no part of the visible church, and you have no basis upon which to receive us as brethren.
Click to expand...


Matthew, I accept the fact that you are my brother in Christ, and a visible saint, based upon what you confess. Salvation is by grace through faith, not grace through faith plus baptism. To be sure, baptism is an ordinance that is not optional for the believer, and not being biblically baptized would prevent you from joining a Baptist church. If a paedobaptist moved to our area and wanted to join our church, but would not submit to believers baptism, they could not join. Their conviction on baptism would be respected, and I would not challenge their profession if it was biblically based, but they would not be allowed to become a member of my church.


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> Matthew, I accept the fact that you are my brother in Christ, and a visible saint, based upon what you confess. Salvation is by grace through faith, not grace through faith plus baptism. To be sure, baptism is an ordinance that is not optional for the believer, and not being biblically baptized would prevent you from joining a Baptist church. If a paedobaptist moved to our area and wanted to join our church, but would not submit to believers baptism, they could not join. Their conviction on baptism would be respected, and I would not challenge their profession if it was biblically based, but they would not be allowed to become a member of my church.



So paedos are brothers; they are just not allowed to take their place as ordinary members of the Father's family. That sounds like a heathen and publican to me, not a brother. There is obviously a disconnect in your thinking between Christianity and the Christian Church which has no basis in the Bible. I am sorry to have misunderstood your use of the term "brother," my brother.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, I accept the fact that you are my brother in Christ, and a visible saint, based upon what you confess. Salvation is by grace through faith, not grace through faith plus baptism. To be sure, baptism is an ordinance that is not optional for the believer, and not being biblically baptized would prevent you from joining a Baptist church. If a paedobaptist moved to our area and wanted to join our church, but would not submit to believers baptism, they could not join. Their conviction on baptism would be respected, and I would not challenge their profession if it was biblically based, but they would not be allowed to become a member of my church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So paedos are brothers; they are just not allowed to take their place as ordinary members of the Father's family. That sounds like a heathen and publican to me, not a brother. There is obviously a disconnect in your thinking between Christianity and the Christian Church which has no basis in the Bible. I am sorry to have misunderstood your use of the term "brother," my brother.
Click to expand...


Matthew, I am not going to apologize for being a Baptist. I am also not going to parse words with you. You know exactly what Baptists believe. That a Baptist has the brass to state in plainly seems to be cause for vilification.


----------



## Herald

I do want you, Presbyterian brethren on this board (and yes, I do mean _brethren_) to know that I hold you in high regard in spite of our disagreement over baptism. I will gladly fellowship and worship with you. I even depart with some Baptists by opening the Lord's table to Presbyterians. I draw the line at formal church membership. I am simply being true to my Baptist convictions.


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> Matthew, I am not going to apologize for being a Baptist. I am also not going to parse words with you. You know exactly what Baptists believe. That a Baptist has the brass to state in plainly seems to be cause for vilification.



Brother, I'm not asking you to apologise for your conviction nor have you been vilified. I am simply pointing out that you call us brethren in terms of Christianity but not in terms of the Christian church. So far as our relationship with Christ is concerned you seem very comfortable to regard us as your brethren. So far as our relationship with Christ's church is concerned you are ready to treat us as heathen and publicans.

Concerning your additional post, I think it is to be regretted that you have introduced church membership as a quasi-sacrament rather than as a practical recognition of the participants of the two sacraments which the Head of the Church has ordained. There should never be a discrepancy between church membership and church privileges. This discrepancy would be further evidence of a disconnect between Christianity and the Christian church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

To the OP, the fundamental disagreement is over what a disciple is. Is a person baptized and taught everything because he demonstrates the mature fruits of discipleship or is he baptized in order to be discipled? I believe the Scriptures manifestly teach the latter. Discipleship is not to be conflated with regeneration but all the means of grace are administered by the Church toward the end that a Sovereign God will convert and mature to His holy ends. The baptism of infants is a visible testimony that grace precedes faith.


----------



## Ron

Herald, 

Let me try to help you out a bit. 

*Your dilemma:*

You believe we are Christians, so you are glad to fellowship, worship and commune with us. Notwithstanding, we could not join your church thereby placing ourselves under the authority of your elder board. Accordingly, it seems as if you are willing to regard people as in Christ who could never be excommunicated from Christ’s visible body. In other words, your willingness to regard us as true brothers in Christ prevents you from having a consistently biblical ecclesiology. For a consistently biblical ecclesiology presupposes that anyone who may be treated as _in_ Christ must also be a potential candidate for being declared _outside_ Christ (should they become delinquent in doctrine or lifestyle). 

*A possible solution:*

Let’s assume (a) that you would not fellowship, commune or worship with anyone who was not a member of a true Christian Church, and (b) you consider Presbyterian churches to be true Churches of Jesus Christ. If such were true, then your position would be a bit more palatable. What you’d be saying then is that you would not fellowship with just anyone who professes Christ and lives a moral life, but only with those who are members of true Christian churches – even such Christian churches that would be as unbiblical as Presbyterian churches with respect to baptism. 

The way the dilemma and the solution differ is that the dilemma suggests that you would fellowship, worship and commune with people outside the visible church, which is an unbiblical ecclesiology and something that I believe was giving Matthew (and frankly me) some heartburn. The solution I’ve proposed saves your catholicity and to some extent your ecclesiology by requiring membership in Christ’s body and submission to spiritual oversight as necessary conditions for Christian communion etc. You’d still be left with a somewhat inconsistent, sectarian ecclesiology (on a local level, if you will) that would allow for Christians to join lesser churches than you believe yours to be, but that inconsistency is I believe part-and-parcel with baptistic thought. That’s the best I can do to present your views in the best possible light. 

Warmly,

Ron


----------



## MW

Ron said:


> The solution I’ve proposed saves your catholicity and to some extent your ecclesiology by requiring membership in Christ’s body and submission to spiritual oversight as necessary conditions for Christian communion etc.



This is a generous attempt at a solution, but I don't think it saves anything. "Baptism is a sacrament ... for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church" (WCF 28:1). According to Bill, denying the "Anabaptism" tag requires asserting that sprinkling infants is not baptism, and therefore "Baptists" administer the ordinance for the first time. That being the case, these infants are not baptised, which means they are not members of the visible church catholic. If they are not members of the visible church catholic then they cannot be true members of a visible particular church, because particular churches are nothing less than members of the visible church catholic.


----------



## Ron

armourbearer said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solution I’ve proposed saves your catholicity and to some extent your ecclesiology by requiring membership in Christ’s body and submission to spiritual oversight as necessary conditions for Christian communion etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a generous attempt at a solution, but I don't think it saves anything. "Baptism is a sacrament ... for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church" (WCF 28:1). According to Bill, denying the "Anabaptism" tag requires asserting that sprinkling infants is not baptism, and therefore "Baptists" administer the ordinance for the first time. That being the case, these infants are not baptised, which means they are not members of the visible church catholic. If they are not members of the visible church catholic then they cannot be true members of a visible particular church, because particular churches are nothing less than members of the visible church catholic.
Click to expand...


Matthew,

It certainly saves _something_ but obviously not as much as you or I might like. It certainly doesn't save what we know to be the sign of entrance into the visible church. Notwithstanding, it does save other necessary conditions for full communion, such as submission to elder rule, a credible profession of faith, etc. Those necessary conditions for communion are I believe something our dear brother would affirm; yet your critique of his position could imply the opposite, that he would call "brother" someone who, for instance, was not in submission to any elders. I think that needed to be noted.

Blessings,

Ron


----------



## MW

Ron said:


> It certainly saves _something_ but obviously not as much as you or I might like. It certainly doesn't save what we know to be the sign of entrance into the visible church. Notwithstanding, it does save other necessary conditions for full communion, such as submission to elder rule, a credible profession of faith, etc. Those necessary conditions for communion are I believe something our dear brother would affirm; yet your critique of his position could imply the opposite, that he would call "brother" someone who, for instance, was not in submission to any elders. I think that needed to be noted.



Would these be unbaptised elders? Would this be the profession of an unbaptised person? Without baptism there is no visible church, hence there can be no fulfilment of any condition for church communion. That is why the first mandate in making disciples is to baptise.


----------



## Iconoclast

I am enjoying this thread in that many important topics are being discussed.

Austin inpart you said this:


> You are still forcing your presuppositions onto me. I do not share some of these base presuppositions. For instance, I don't believe that the children of believers are in neutral zone and have the same chance of being elect as an unbeliever's child. I think we should expect believers' children, who are raised in the knowledge of the Lord, to be his people, unless they fall away. In other words, believers' children have to apostasize, not simply never join in the first place, in order to be regarded as not in the church. They are born into a believing family. They either stay or they leave. They don't stand on the fence and then pick a side when they're 5.
> 
> Also, you are still assuming that we are only hoping the infant will be regenerate later. This is getting into a whole other topic that I don't believe we can speculate too much on; however, I believe I see the infants of believers differently than you do, and this is going to be a clincher in the credo/paedo debate.



Austin your speaking as if anyone can be a christian by physical birth into a family with a believing parent without the work of the Spirit.
ie, they are in? until they show they are not ??
Getting back to the OP this idea of a non saving ,new covenant membership
is a major difference in the baptism debate as well as what is the Church.

Baptists are told they cannot teach or hold office in a padeo church,unless they conform to the padeo view,and this is proper. why should padeos think it strange when they are asked to do the same when among baptists?

Matthew, Ron, Rich, Bruce and all the padeo brethren are brothers because of the blood of Christ, and *Spirit baptism.* Entrance into the blood bought Church is through Spirit baptism. This is another difference obviously.
Your position looks at water baptism as the entrance. We believe Spirit baptism alone actually places anyone in the actual[invisible] church.
To their own master they stand or fall. God knows the heart.

The use of the language of visible/invisible church although sometimes helpful,and a theologically needful at times, also can cloud these discussions

Austin when you say this:


> Also, you are still assuming that we are only hoping the infant will be regenerate later.


 I understand the position you advocate but it begs the question are believing parents hoping/or presuming or something else? We both anticipate and prayerfully look for evidence of the Spirits work in our children as we are conscious that often God works in a believing home through the word of God being taught by the Spirit led parents.


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> Matthew, Ron, Rich, Bruce and all the padeo brethren are brothers because of the blood of Christ, and *Spirit baptism.*


*

Anthony, how could you possibly know if we have Spirit baptism? At best we might display outward marks of it, but only God knows whom He has baptised with His Spirit. Hence the necessity of the invisible/visible church distinction, not simply as a theological nicety but as a practical reality.*


----------



## Ron

armourbearer said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly saves _something_ but obviously not as much as you or I might like. It certainly doesn't save what we know to be the sign of entrance into the visible church. Notwithstanding, it does save other necessary conditions for full communion, such as submission to elder rule, a credible profession of faith, etc. Those necessary conditions for communion are I believe something our dear brother would affirm; yet your critique of his position could imply the opposite, that he would call "brother" someone who, for instance, was not in submission to any elders. I think that needed to be noted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would these be unbaptised elders? Would this be the profession of an unbaptised person? Without baptism there is no visible church, hence there can be no fulfilment of any condition for church communion. That is why the first mandate in making disciples is to baptise.
Click to expand...


Matthew,

First off, we are not just speaking of one particular Baptist here but rather all Baptists everywhere. 

There are degrees of theological inconsistencies. For instance, all Arminians have a view of free will that if true would necessitate the heresy of Open Theism. Now I hope you would agree that a typical Arminian congregation that affirms God’s omniscience can be a true church of Jesus Christ, but one that is completely consistent in their Arminianism (to the point of being Open Theistic _by creed_) would be no church of Jesus Christ. The point being, there are degrees of inconsistency. One can embrace the false teaching of libertarian freedom while _inconsistently_ embracing the truth of God’s exhaustive omniscience. It is what we call a happy inconsistency. We should be delighted that Arminians are not so consistent as to reject all truths that would logically follow from their fundamental belief of libertarian freedom. In the like manner, it is better for our Baptist brethren in their rejection of our view of baptism to still acknowledge churches such as ours as true churches of Jesus Christ, even though if they were consistent with their views they would not. You wish to magnify the point that Baptists have no consistent basis to fellowship with you because if they were _consistent_ with their view of infant baptism, then they would not regard an adult as a true believer and member of a true church without having been baptized as a believer. All along I have agreed with this point. What I have tried to add is that although they are not consistent with their ecclesiology to the point of not acknowledging our assemblies as true churches, they can happily (yet inconsistently) embrace *the truth* that OPC churches are true churches of Jesus Christ. Accordingly, their fellowship and communion would be based upon _some truth_ (e.g., clear teaching of the gospel, etc.), but not the sacramental truth regarding baptism as it relates to ecclesiology. In the like manner, I can fellowship with an Arminian over _the truth_ of God’s exhaustive omniscience even though if he were 100% consistent he would have no claim on that truth over which we might fellowship. 

I've beaten this enough. Please take the last word. 

Warmly yours,

Ron


----------



## Iconoclast

armourbearer said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, Ron, Rich, Bruce and all the padeo brethren are brothers because of the blood of Christ, and *Spirit baptism.*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Anthony, how could you possibly know if we have Spirit baptism? At best we might display outward marks of it, but only God knows whom He has baptised with His Spirit. Hence the necessity of the invisible/visible church distinction, not simply as a theological nicety but as a practical reality.*
Click to expand...

*

Hello Matthew,



Anthony, how could you possibly know if we have Spirit baptism? At best we might display outward marks of it,

Click to expand...

 Well yes , as I noted God alone sees the heart. We are instructed by the apostle Paul to mark those who walk after the apostolic example,in contrast to those who are self-serving.



17Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. 

18(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 

19Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.) 

20For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: 

21Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.


King James Version (KJV)

Click to expand...

 I see you men as brothers who attempt to give instruction according to the scriptures. If any are false brethren,tares,goats , I am confident that God will be the judge of all such persons.
Believers in Rockhampton have made a judgment that you match the biblical qualifications of an elder. How do they know for sure?
I do not see where we are going to "know for sure" until the last day declares the reality .
What I do know is that the Spirit indwells all members of the body of Christ. Unsaved persons are not part of that body, as Jesus did not die for false professors. You have professed to be part of that body.Others have believed your profession. So do we.
A parent who believes they are correctly applying a sign and seal of the covenant to their infant still makes similar judgements as their child grows older. They look for evidence that the child,or young adult has the signs of those indwelt by the Spirit in order to become a "communicant" member.
Is this in reality that much different? if you have believed the infant to be in the visible outward administration, and yet seems to lack those signs of regeneracy as they grow older, you still make the same judgements on that which is seen and heard as the credo does.
The profession outwardly does not save apart from it being Spirit wrought. Yet all true believers will profess. a square is a rhombus, but a rhombus is not a square. On one hand I see the use of the visible /invisible distinction and it serves as a helpful model. Yet I look more at the scriptures teaching on what is referred to as the invisible church as being the primary use of the description of the church. 
I am still re-examining Hebrews 3-4, and 1cor 10 using the padeo paradigm as you have suggested in times past. It just takes me awhile as I keep drifting down different lines of thought Have to go to work now.*


----------



## timmopussycat

steadfast7 said:


> Hey brothers,
> 
> when it comes to Paedo vs Credo baptism, what would you say is the main point of contention that creates the impasse we see? In other words, what's the ONE issue, that if resolved, would end the debate once for all and put everyone on the same side?



Since this thread is now open to both sides, I reply:

The real issue is whether pb is truly a good and necessary consequence of Scriptural data. Pb's believe it is, cb's find either logical gaps in the reasoning or insufficient exegesis of relevant Scriptures in attempts to demonstrate pb's necessity.

NB: If someone wants to offer detailed argumentation proving the pb position, I'm not going to play. My observation is solely offered as an attempt to identify the key issue that prolongs the debate.


----------



## au5t1n

Iconoclast said:


> I am enjoying this thread in that many important topics are being discussed.
> 
> Austin inpart you said this:
> 
> 
> 
> You are still forcing your presuppositions onto me. I do not share some of these base presuppositions. For instance, I don't believe that the children of believers are in neutral zone and have the same chance of being elect as an unbeliever's child. I think we should expect believers' children, who are raised in the knowledge of the Lord, to be his people, unless they fall away. In other words, believers' children have to apostasize, not simply never join in the first place, in order to be regarded as not in the church. They are born into a believing family. They either stay or they leave. They don't stand on the fence and then pick a side when they're 5.
> 
> Also, you are still assuming that we are only hoping the infant will be regenerate later. This is getting into a whole other topic that I don't believe we can speculate too much on; however, I believe I see the infants of believers differently than you do, and this is going to be a clincher in the credo/paedo debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Austin your speaking as if anyone can be a christian by physical birth into a family with a believing parent without the work of the Spirit.
> ie, they are in? until they show they are not ??
> Getting back to the OP this idea of a non saving ,new covenant membership
> is a major difference in the baptism debate as well as what is the Church.
> 
> Baptists are told they cannot teach or hold office in a padeo church,unless they conform to the padeo view,and this is proper. why should padeos think it strange when they are asked to do the same when among baptists?
> 
> Matthew, Ron, Rich, Bruce and all the padeo brethren are brothers because of the blood of Christ, and *Spirit baptism.* Entrance into the blood bought Church is through Spirit baptism. This is another difference obviously.
> Your position looks at water baptism as the entrance. We believe Spirit baptism alone actually places anyone in the actual[invisible] church.
> To their own master they stand or fall. God knows the heart.
> 
> The use of the language of visible/invisible church although sometimes helpful,and a theologically needful at times, also can cloud these discussions
> 
> Austin when you say this:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, you are still assuming that we are only hoping the infant will be regenerate later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand the position you advocate but it begs the question are believing parents hoping/or presuming or something else? We both anticipate and prayerfully look for evidence of the Spirits work in our children as we are conscious that often God works in a believing home through the word of God being taught by the Spirit led parents.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, I do suffer from a plaguing inability to communicate well, but I will try to explain what I meant.

I did not say anything about being born a genuine Christian without the work of the Spirit, nor do I think we should just assume that any particular child or adult is regenerate. I think SemperFidelis said it much better than I did. They are born and raised _disciples_. Many disciples fall away and prove to be unregenerate, both adult converts and children who have been raised in the knowledge of the Lord. I do not _assume_ anything about anyone's spiritual state; however, I do _treat_ the children of believers as belonging to God's people, just as I do the same towards my own pastor, whom I cannot prove to be regenerate either, other than witnessing fruits.

The bottom line is, we cannot baptize anyone - infant or adult - on the basis of certain spiritual change. We baptize those who become disciples, and their children, who are discipled from the tenderest ages. This is the most consistent practice.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> Either we are your brethren or we aren't. If we are, then our baptism is valid, even though some have only ever received sprinkling as infants. If our baptism isn't valid, then we are no part of the visible church, and you have no basis upon which to receive us as brethren.



Nonsense - and a little thought should show you why. 

Unless you hold to a form of baptismal regeneration, valid water baptism is not the ground on which we may recieve one another as brethren, nor the means by which the unbaptized professing convert actualizes his menbership in Christ's visible church. 

If the only basis we have for accepting someone as a Christian brother or sister is that they are baptised as infants, how can you possibly justify baptising an adult raised in a non-Christian home when they now profess conversion? If you baptize such a person as likely regenerate based on their confession of faith and a life now marked by turning from sin, why can't we recognize you as equally regenerate and thus our brethen in Christ?

John 1:12, 13 makes it certain that all "those who received [Christ] who believed in his name have the right" to be recognized as "children of God...born ...of God". Since we can sufficiently identify the likely regeneracy of adult individuals turning from non-Christian backgounds by a profession of faith accompanied by a turning from sin to God's ways, both pb's and cb's baptize them. But recognizing the likely regeneracy of such converts necessarily entails also recognizing them as entitled to membership of the visible church, even if they haven't yet become members of a local church by formally joining that organization (however that is done).

Since professing pb's have (almost always) joined a local church, a Baptist has not the least problem recognizing a professing Presbytrian, other Reformed, Lutheran or evangelical Anglican or any other pb with church membership as both a brother and a member of Christ's visible church in the world.


----------



## au5t1n

timmopussycat said:


> Unless you hold to a form of baptismal regeneration, valid water baptism is not the ground on which we may recieve one another as brethren, *nor the means by which the unbaptized professing convert actualizes his menbership in Christ's visible church.*



I'll venture a guess that many credobaptists on this board will disagree with you here. And furthermore, baptism is clearly treated in Scripture as the means by which members are set apart as being in the visible church.


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> You are still forcing your presuppositions onto me. I do not share some of these base presuppositions. For instance, I don't believe that the children of believers are in neutral zone and have the same chance of being elect as an unbeliever's child.



Hey Austin, 
wow, I've missed a lot over the past couple days! Right, I don't necessarily see them as being in a neutral zone either. They are blessed for being born into Christian families, and there is a very high probability (for lack of better words) that they are elect and will be regenerate. 



> I think we should expect believers' children, who are raised in the knowledge of the Lord, to be his people, unless they fall away. In other words, believers' children have to apostasize, not simply never join in the first place, in order to be regarded as not in the church. They are born into a believing family. They either stay or they leave. They don't stand on the fence and then pick a side when they're 5.



I agree, and this applies to credo families as well. But note that even within the paedo scheme, the child still needs to "pick a side" (age 16 if I'm not mistaken?) through the quasi-sacrament of confirmation. Regarding the need to apostatize, this suggests that the grown up child borrows his parents' faith until such a time as he decides to let go of it. To the PB, would that apostasy be regarded as "lighter" or equal to apostatizing one's own faith?



> Also, you are still assuming that we are only hoping the infant will be regenerate later. This is getting into a whole other topic that I don't believe we can speculate too much on; however, I believe I see the infants of believers differently than you do, and this is going to be a clincher in the credo/paedo debate.



I think that more critical to the debate is not our view of infants, but the nature and meaning of baptism.


----------



## Robert Truelove

It seems like most of the replies are dealing with the fundamental differences between the Reformed and Baptists on the concept the covenant. While this is true, in my opinion, it is really secondary to the issue.

I think we can find the answer to the question by looking at where virtually all Baptist polemics on this subject begin...

The real issue is one of hermeneutics. The Baptist position is first and foremost about the absence of any explicit teaching regarding infant baptism in the New Testament whereas the Reformed position accepts that inference on this subject is just as binding as that which is explicitly stated.

That this is the heart of the issue can be demonstrated from Fred Malone's book entitled "The Baptism of Disciples Alone". As a Reformed Baptist attempting to critique infant baptism from a covenantal perspective, he begins his case in the 2nd chapter dealing with the subject of hermenuetics. The chapter concludes with...

"...let us consistently apply the principle that the explicit teaching of Scripture takes precedence over inference from Scripture. If we follow these principles consistently, we must conclude that supposed 'good and necessary inference' from the Old Testament cannot carry more weight than the New Testament command and example expressly set down in Scripture, especially for the 'sacraments institutes by Christ' Himself."

If chapter 2 is correct than the arguement for the Baptist case is made and the covenantal argument made in the rest of the book is superfluous.

For Malone, the heart of the matter is the lack of an explicit reference to infant baptism in the New Testament. For this reason he sees the inference drawn for infant baptism to contradict that which is explicit.

This is my starting point with Baptists who wish to discuss this subject. If the absence of an explicit text is ultimately why they are Baptist, then no amount of persuasion will be sufficient until they first see the error of their approach to the Scriptures.

Some Reformed Baptists who are educated on this subject will affirm inference but deny that it can rightly be made with infant baptism. I've had a few interesting conversations with Reformed Baptists where I'll ask the question "What if there was an explicit reference to infant baptism in the New Testament; would you then agree with the Reformed paedobaptist position as it understands the rest of the Scripture?". In each case the answer was "yes". This demonstrates that, even with Reformed Baptists, it is ultimately not about the covenants but about the lack of an explicit reference.




steadfast7 said:


> Hey brothers,
> 
> when it comes to Paedo vs Credo baptism, what would you say is the main point of contention that creates the impasse we see? In other words, what's the ONE issue, that if resolved, would end the debate once for all and put everyone on the same side?
> 
> also, one more question:
> 
> is it possible for a Baptist to believe that the Church is Israel? why/not?
> 
> cheers.


----------



## timmopussycat

austinww said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you hold to a form of baptismal regeneration, valid water baptism is not the ground on which we may recieve one another as brethren, *nor the means by which the unbaptized professing convert actualizes his menbership in Christ's visible church.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll venture a guess that many credobaptists on this board will disagree with you here. And furthermore, baptism is clearly treated in Scripture as the means by which members are set apart as being in the visible church.
Click to expand...


I think I have shown that a GNC of John 1: 12,13 is that someone who presents with the Scriptural criteria for being recognized as a child of God, must be recognized as both brother and entitled to church membership. Any case for the contrary must demonstrate that the consequence is not necessary.

While some passages concerning "baptism" have been taken as you note, the problem with such readings is whether or not the baptism referred to is really water baptism or whether such passages are intended to refer to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, as mentioned in 1 Cor 12:13.

It should be noted that Martyn Lloyd-Jones gives several good reasons for believing that water baptism cannot be in view when "baptism" is mentioned in Rom. 6 in his commentary on that chapter. Anyone who wants to affirm the contrary will need to engage the arguments there.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also note that our tradition comes from Particular Baptists which are known as Puritans. We do not have our tradition stemming from the anabaptists. We should probably be known more as antipaedobaptists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Randy, the literature supports deriving their "communal" existence from Separatist-Puritan stock, which is in reality not genuine Puritanism, since a Puritan sought the purity of the Church of England and separatists rejected national churches. The Anabaptist label has been used to denote their "doctrinal" distinctives. The true Puritans regularly made use of it.
Click to expand...


What literature Reverend Winzer? I have proven this isn't necessarily true on the PB. The early Particular Baptist were not separatists as you imply if I am understanding some things correctly.



> Baptists shared with Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Calvinists, their protest against the totalitarianism of the papacy and their zeal to recover the spirituality of the Church. They were Calvinists standing within the covenant theology expressed in the Westminster (putting aside paedo baptism). On the other hand, the General Baptist (which were mostly pelagian) were originally English separatists or Puritans who broke with the Church of England, which they regarded as a false church, perverted by error. Their sectarian spirit and point of view was carried over into their church life. *On the other hand the Particular Baptists arose out of a non-Separatist independency. They were Congregational in polity but more ecumenical in spirit. They did not renounce the Church of England as being entirely corrupt. They sought to maintain some bond of unity between themselves and Christians of other Communions. Among these Particular Baptists were those who were willing to admit into its membership, without rebaptism, those of other communions.*
> 
> p.22 A History of the Baptists By Robert G. Torbet
> Kenneth Scott Latourette did the forward to the book.



In fact I think this was surely John Bunyan's position.

I hope to resume this later. I am not feeling to well. I will probably be on tomorrow.


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> I think we should expect believers' children, who are raised in the knowledge of the Lord, to be his people, unless they fall away. In other words, believers' children have to apostasize, not simply never join in the first place, in order to be regarded as not in the church. They are born into a believing family. They either stay or they leave. They don't stand on the fence and then pick a side when they're 5.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, and this applies to credo families as well. But note that even within the paedo scheme, the child still needs to "pick a side" (age 16 if I'm not mistaken?) through the quasi-sacrament of confirmation. Regarding the need to apostatize, this suggests that the grown up child borrows his parents' faith until such a time as he decides to let go of it. To the PB, would that apostasy be regarded as "lighter" or equal to apostatizing one's own faith?
Click to expand...


Apostasy is not leaving one's own faith because that would fly against perseverance of the saints. Apostasy is leaving the visible Church. But we are talking about two different things. You are essentially looking at this from a purely internal perspective. I am suggesting that all we see in Scripture is people being baptized if they were to be counted among Christ's disciples (visibly) because nothing further can be seen. For instance, Simon Magus said he wanted to be Christ's disciple, and therefore he was baptized. He was not regenerate, but Philip could not base baptism on that - He could only base it on the fact that Simon had said he wanted to abandon his past and become a disciple. I am only suggesting that believers' infants, being the children of Christians, are counted disciples and initiated into the discipleship process by virtue of being born in a Christian family. It says nothing about their spiritual state, except that we _expect_ that they should not abandon the path they are raised in, although we cannot know it for an indisputable fact. Indeed, in a Reformed Baptist church, a lot of young children are baptized on professions of faith that seem incredibly sincere, and yet they later fall away. I have never met a 5YO of faithful baptist parents who, when asked if he believed in Jesus, responded, "No, I choose to be an atheist." The child is raised in the faith, although we do not know the spiritual condition of the child any more than we do of the parent.

Regarding confirmation, it is called that for a reason. The child is not initially choosing the faith at that point, but _confirming_ it. I do not believe there is a universal age, and I certainly think 16 is way too long to wait in my opinion. I think 16 is the top end of the range among Reformed and Presbyterian churches, so it seems unfair for you to pick the top of the range and use it against me. 

Edit: Forgive me, but we have long since gotten off topic from your OP. There are already vast numbers of threads on this very subject where much more eloquent people than I have interacted with the issue from the perspective we are discussing, and I feel kind of guilty engaging you on it since I know I cannot discuss it as well as others can/have.

Regarding the central issue that separates the two camps, though, I think I can fairly say that we have been witnessing it in our own debate, although we haven't been talking about it directly. It has been underlying our discussion this whole time. What it comes down to is different approaches to visible/invisible church and how baptism relates to the two.


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> Apostasy is not leaving one's own faith because that would fly against perseverance of the saints. Apostasy is leaving the visible Church. But we are talking about two different things. You are essentially looking at this from a purely internal perspective. I am suggesting that all we see in Scripture is people being baptized if they were to be counted among Christ's disciples (visibly) because nothing further can be seen. For instance, Simon Magus said he wanted to be Christ's disciple, and therefore he was baptized. He was not regenerate, but Philip could not base baptism on that - He could only base it on the fact that Simon had said he wanted to abandon his past and become a disciple.


This is a great example which establishes rather than denies CB. The point being that Simon _WANTED _to become a disciple and so received baptism. This example is similar with all other instances of baptism in the NT, as far as can be established reasonably, that is, those who received baptism professed personal faith.



> I am only suggesting that believers' infants, being the children of Christians, are counted disciples and initiated into the discipleship process by virtue of being born in a Christian family. It says nothing about their spiritual state, except that we _expect_ that they should not abandon the path they are raised in, although we cannot know it for an indisputable fact.



Your suggestion remains to be established scripturally. Are infants disciples? Do they bear the marks of NT disciples? Can one become a disciple by proxy or association, according to the biblical pattern? The thing about baptism, which above all is a sign of our identification with Christ's death and resurrection (Col 2:12 "...having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead"), has everything to do with one's spiritual state, how can it not? PB seems to water-down (no pun intended) the weight of the meaning of baptism, putting it at the level of circumcision when it seems to mean so much more.



> Forgive me, but we have long since gotten off topic from your OP. There are already vast numbers of threads on this very subject where much more eloquent people than I have interacted with the issue from the perspective we are discussing, and I feel kind of guilty engaging you on it since I know I cannot discuss it as well as others can/have.



Dude, don't feel guilty. I'm enjoying our discussion and it's helpful for me cause it's at a level i can understand. I'll get around to the archives if/when I get a chance. Hope we can continue the talks.

peace.

-----Added 11/4/2009 at 02:29:47 EST-----



Robert Truelove said:


> This is my starting point with Baptists who wish to discuss this subject. If the absence of an explicit text is ultimately why they are Baptist, then no amount of persuasion will be sufficient until they first see the error of their approach to the Scriptures.
> 
> Some Reformed Baptists who are educated on this subject will affirm inference but deny that it can rightly be made with infant baptism. I've had a few interesting conversations with Reformed Baptists where I'll ask the question "What if there was an explicit reference to infant baptism in the New Testament; would you then agree with the Reformed paedobaptist position as it understands the rest of the Scripture?". In each case the answer was "yes". This demonstrates that, even with Reformed Baptists, it is ultimately not about the covenants but about the lack of an explicit reference.



Thanks for the post. I think both camps would agree that an explicit statement would be most helpful and we'd all prefer that over the complexities of inferential theology. Thus, the clinchers for me would be:
1. explicit reference to an infant baptism occurring in the New Testament
2. determining whether 'oikos' necessarily includes _all _ members within a given household, including infants. Remember that our friend John Owen showed very well that the words "whole", "world" and "all" don't always include every individual.

In the absence of the above, what is the best practice? In the objective sense, we would want to practice what is most safe and scripturally faithful; subjectively, we want to practice what is most meaningful.


----------



## Robert Truelove

You must also keep in mind that the silence on infant baptism cuts both ways. 

Since the Bible doesn't explicitly state what Christian parents are to do with their children in regards to baptism, the Baptist must also use inference to answer the question. 

Ultimately Baptists infer from the lack of an explicit text that infants should be baptized while paedobaptists infer from the covenantal framework of Scripture that infants are to be baptized; especially since there is no command to cease to administer the sign of the covenant to children.

The "absence" of explicit teaching is used by both positions to advance their causes. I am a paedobaptist because, in absence of an explicit command not to baptize my children, I look to the Scriptures as a whole to draw the correct inference as to whether or not the sign of the covenant should be applied to them or not.



steadfast7 said:


> Robert Truelove said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is my starting point with Baptists who wish to discuss this subject. If the absence of an explicit text is ultimately why they are Baptist, then no amount of persuasion will be sufficient until they first see the error of their approach to the Scriptures.
> 
> Some Reformed Baptists who are educated on this subject will affirm inference but deny that it can rightly be made with infant baptism. I've had a few interesting conversations with Reformed Baptists where I'll ask the question "What if there was an explicit reference to infant baptism in the New Testament; would you then agree with the Reformed paedobaptist position as it understands the rest of the Scripture?". In each case the answer was "yes". This demonstrates that, even with Reformed Baptists, it is ultimately not about the covenants but about the lack of an explicit reference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the post. I think both camps would agree that an explicit statement would be most helpful and we'd all prefer that over the complexities of inferential theology. Thus, the clinchers for me would be:
> 1. explicit reference to an infant baptism occurring in the New Testament
> 2. determining whether 'oikos' necessarily includes _all _ members within a given household, including infants. Remember that our friend John Owen showed very well that the words "whole", "world" and "all" don't always include every individual.
> 
> In the absence of the above, what is the best practice? In the objective sense, we would want to practice what is most safe and scripturally faithful; subjectively, we want to practice what is most meaningful.
Click to expand...


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apostasy is not leaving one's own faith because that would fly against perseverance of the saints. Apostasy is leaving the visible Church. But we are talking about two different things. You are essentially looking at this from a purely internal perspective. I am suggesting that all we see in Scripture is people being baptized if they were to be counted among Christ's disciples (visibly) because nothing further can be seen. For instance, Simon Magus said he wanted to be Christ's disciple, and therefore he was baptized. He was not regenerate, but Philip could not base baptism on that - He could only base it on the fact that Simon had said he wanted to abandon his past and become a disciple.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a great example which establishes rather than denies CB. The point being that Simon _WANTED _to become a disciple and so received baptism. *This example is similar with all other instances of baptism in the NT, as far as can be established reasonably, that is, those who received baptism professed personal faith.*
Click to expand...


This is assuming the position you are trying to prove. I know of 9 baptisms in the NT, not counting John's baptisms, and of the 9, 5 are household baptisms, 2 had no households present (Paul and the Ethiopian), and the other 2 we aren't told anything else about (Gaius and Simon Magus).



steadfast7 said:


> I am only suggesting that believers' infants, being the children of Christians, are counted disciples and initiated into the discipleship process by virtue of being born in a Christian family. It says nothing about their spiritual state, except that we _expect_ that they should not abandon the path they are raised in, although we cannot know it for an indisputable fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your suggestion remains to be established scripturally. Are infants disciples? Do they bear the marks of NT disciples? Can one become a disciple by proxy or association, according to the biblical pattern? The thing about baptism, which above all is a sign of our identification with Christ's death and resurrection (Col 2:12 "...having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead"), has everything to do with one's spiritual state, how can it not? PB seems to water-down (no pun intended) the weight of the meaning of baptism, putting it at the level of circumcision when it seems to mean so much more.
Click to expand...


I agree that baptism has everything to do with one's spiritual state, but as I have already said, I think the children of believers, who are raised to believe unlike pagan children, are to be expected to be truly God's unless and until they apostasize; however, we can no more assume their spiritual state than we can my pastor's. We do act like it is so and expect it to be so, though.

-----Added 11/4/2009 at 04:23:02 EST-----

Regarding explicit references to infant baptism:

The evidence here is clearly in our favor. There is neither (a) an instance of an infant explicitly said to have been baptized nor (b) an instance of a child of believers having a coming-of-age baptism later. All we can do is look at principles established in Scripture, and they all point to the inclusion of infants, e.g. Peter's re-echoing of Gen. 17:7 in Acts 2:39, the 5 household baptisms out of 9 total baptisms in the NT (!), and yes, even Jesus' statements about letting the children come to him are relevant, even if they aren't prooftexts.

Edit: All the examples used to prove that personal professed faith is the prerequisite for baptism are examples of adults converting for the first time. None of them were raised in a family of believers.


----------



## JML

Robert Truelove said:


> You must also keep in mind that the silence on infant baptism cuts both ways.
> 
> Since the Bible doesn't explicitly state what Christian parents are to do with their children in regards to baptism, the Baptist must also use inference to answer the question.
> 
> Ultimately Baptists infer from the lack of an explicit text that infants should be baptized while paedobaptists infer from the covenantal framework of Scripture that infants are to be baptized; especially since there is no command to cease to administer the sign of the covenant to children.
> 
> The "absence" of explicit teaching is used by both positions to advance their causes. I am a paedobaptist because, in absence of an explicit command not to baptize my children, I look to the Scriptures as a whole to draw the correct inference as to whether or not the sign of the covenant should be applied to them or not.




I have never heard it expressed in this way. Thank you for your thoughts. However, your reasoning seems a bit like the normative instead of the regulative principle since their is no command to baptize infants but we see it only after someone has expressed faith. Just my Baptist thoughts.


----------



## MW

Ron said:


> There are degrees of theological inconsistencies. For instance, all Arminians have a view of free will that if true would necessitate the heresy of Open Theism. Now I hope you would agree that a typical Arminian congregation that affirms God’s omniscience can be a true church of Jesus Christ, but one that is completely consistent in their Arminianism (to the point of being Open Theistic _by creed_) would be no church of Jesus Christ. The point being, there are degrees of inconsistency.



First, Open theism is not the consistent outcome of Arminianism. Arminianism maintains a doctrine of God which is in accord with classical theism. Secondly, reformed churches separated from Rome because it corrupted the doctrines of grace in a semi-Pelagian direction. Churches which are Arminian in confession are no better than the Church of Rome and hence corrupt churches. They are churches because they administer Trinitarian baptism in accord with the institution of Christ. But they are corrupt churches because they teach significant errors.

Now this is altogether different from a "Baptist" perspective, where we are not considered as baptised, and hence not even churches of Jesus Christ. We do not even belong to the visible church in order to be considered as corrupt churches. We have no churches. If, in charity, some of them feel this is rather harsh and are inconsistently compelled to receive us as churches because of the ministry and spirituality that they see amongst us, I receive it thankfully. "Brethren" should not disown each other but are their brother's keeper. But this is beside the theological point that baptism marks entrance into the visible church and without baptism one has no basis upon which to accept an individual as a visible saint, and therefore as a "brother."


----------



## Peairtach

The New Testament silence about women partaking of the Lord's Supper doesn't seem to bother our baptist brethren in the slightest.

Shooorly shome inconshishtenshy, Mish Moneypenny!


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> Others have believed your profession. So do we.



The "others" baptised me without profession, which you do not accept.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either we are your brethren or we aren't. If we are, then our baptism is valid, even though some have only ever received sprinkling as infants. If our baptism isn't valid, then we are no part of the visible church, and you have no basis upon which to receive us as brethren.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense - and a little thought should show you why.
Click to expand...


OK. I'm listening.



timmopussycat said:


> Unless you hold to a form of baptismal regeneration, valid water baptism is not the ground on which we may recieve one another as brethren, nor the means by which the unbaptized professing convert actualizes his menbership in Christ's visible church.



A false dilemma. Baptismal regeneration refers to a mechanical effect of baptism on the spiritual condition of the person baptised. The denial of a spiritual effect does not require one to deny all effects of baptism. Baptism effects visible church communion. This is clear from the fact that the book of Acts relates how the apostles always required it in connection with repentance. Repentance is invisible and known only to God; baptism is visible and can be seen by men.



timmopussycat said:


> If the only basis we have for accepting someone as a Christian brother or sister is that they are baptised as infants, how can you possibly justify baptising an adult raised in a non-Christian home when they now profess conversion? If you baptize such a person as likely regenerate based on their confession of faith and a life now marked by turning from sin, why can't we recognize you as equally regenerate and thus our brethen in Christ?



Confession of faith and new life should never be separated from baptism. The New Testament constantly appeals to the new life of the brother in terms of baptism. E.g., Colossians 2:12, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." This leads to a specific visible and admonitory relation whereby brethren may address each other in terms of "If baptised, then..." You cannot appeal to us and say, "If baptised, then..." Hence your description of us as brethren is emptied of all visible and admonitory significance.



timmopussycat said:


> John 1:12, 13 makes it certain that all "those who received [Christ] who believed in his name have the right" to be recognized as "children of God...born ...of God".



This is invisible and known only to God. We are speaking about visible saints.


----------



## Iconoclast

Pastor Truelove,
In Acts 21:21 we see an indication that one of the things spoken among the Jews was that Paul was teaching them not to circumcise their children [the covenant sign]
It does not say he was teaching any replacement sign. It does say that the sign of the covenant was not to be administered according to Paul's teaching.
If there was a replacement sign don't you think it would be clearly mentioned here?
How do you understand this passage? Also along the same line,when the Acts 15 meeting took place,again we see no statement that their is any replacement sign. We do see that circumcision is no longer in effect. The sign and what it signified are fulfilled in Christ.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> What literature Reverend Winzer? I have proven this isn't necessarily true on the PB. The early Particular Baptist were not separatists as you imply if I am understanding some things correctly.



See Barry Howson, "Erroneous and schismatical opinions," especially Appendix B. He writes, "But there is plenty of evidence connecting the Calvinistic Baptist ecclesiology with Puritan-Separatism" (p. 318). He appeals to the studies of White, Novak, and Tolmie. Novak's study details the roots of numerous particular Baptist leaders, and he concludes that they were exposed to "the radical Calvinism of separated worship before [their] adoption of the particular Baptist position" (ibid.).


----------



## Ron

armourbearer said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are degrees of theological inconsistencies. For instance, all Arminians have a view of free will that if true would necessitate the heresy of Open Theism. Now I hope you would agree that a typical Arminian congregation that affirms God’s omniscience can be a true church of Jesus Christ, but one that is completely consistent in their Arminianism (to the point of being Open Theistic _by creed_) would be no church of Jesus Christ. The point being, there are degrees of inconsistency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, Open theism is not the consistent outcome of Arminianism. Arminianism maintains a doctrine of God which is in accord with classical theism. Secondly, reformed churches separated from Rome because it corrupted the doctrines of grace in a semi-Pelagian direction. Churches which are Arminian in confession are no better than the Church of Rome and hence corrupt churches. They are churches because they administer Trinitarian baptism in accord with the institution of Christ. But they are corrupt churches because they teach significant errors.
> 
> Now this is altogether different from a "Baptist" perspective, where we are not considered as baptised, and hence not even churches of Jesus Christ. We do not even belong to the visible church in order to be considered as corrupt churches. We have no churches. If, in charity, some of them feel this is rather harsh and are inconsistently compelled to receive us as churches because of the ministry and spirituality that they see amongst us, I receive it thankfully. "Brethren" should not disown each other but are their brother's keeper. But this is beside the theological point that baptism marks entrance into the visible church and without baptism one has no basis upon which to accept an individual as a visible saint, and therefore as a "brother."
Click to expand...


Matthew,

I was willing to give you the last word on this matter but at that time I would have never imagined that a Reformed pastor would make such a blunder on another matter. You just denied that the logical implication of libertarian free will is Open Theism. Matthew, I built a sound argument based upon a simple analogy that employed a premise that should be obvious to all Reformed pastors. That premise was: _... all Arminians have a view of free will *that if true *would necessitate the heresy of Open Theism._ You just denied that premise, which is basic to Reformed thinkers. Plainly put, LFW requires that a future choice is neither metaphysically true nor false with respect to its outcome prior to it occuring, which means that God cannot know the outcome of a LFW choice because God cannot know anything that is not true! Accordingly, an Arminian view of the will, taken to its logical end, denies God's omniscience. I launched an argument based upon an analogy that was basic to that very _simple _premise about LFW, but even that premise you are unwilling to accept. I cannot help you, Matthew. Be happy in your disagreements with our Baptist brethren.

Ron


----------



## MW

Ron said:


> Matthew, I built a sound argument based upon a simple analogy that employed a premise that should be obvious to all Reformed pastors. That premise was: _... all Arminians have a view of free will *that if true *would necessitate the heresy of Open Theism._ You just denied that premise, which is basic to Reformed thinkers. Plainly put, LFW requires that a future choice is neither metaphysically true nor false with respect to its outcome prior to it occuring, which means that God cannot know the outcome of a LFW choice because God cannot know anything that is not true!



This is slander to the conservative Arminian. You are requiring the difficulty of his position to be answered in terms of the Open Theist solution. From Calvin to Edwards the reformed have answered the conservative Arminian in terms of God's choice of creation notwithstanding foreknowledge of evil. That answer is without bearing on the Open Theist. By requiring such consistency you are cutting off an important tactical argument that has been successful in showing the conservative Arminian the error of his belief.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either we are your brethren or we aren't. If we are, then our baptism is valid, even though some have only ever received sprinkling as infants. If our baptism isn't valid, then we are no part of the visible church, and you have no basis upon which to receive us as brethren.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense - and a little thought should show you why. Unless you hold to a form of baptismal regeneration, valid water baptism is not the ground on which we may recieve one another as brethren, nor the means by which the unbaptized professing convert actualizes his membership in Christ's visible church. If the only basis we have for accepting someone as a Christian brother or sister is that they are baptised as infants, how can you possibly justify baptising an adult raised in a non-Christian home when they now profess conversion? If you baptize such a person as likely regenerate based on their confession of faith and a life now marked by turning from sin, why can't we recognize you as equally regenerate and thus our brethen in Christ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A false dilemma. Baptismal regeneration refers to a mechanical effect of baptism on the spiritual condition of the person baptised. The denial of a spiritual effect does not require one to deny all effects of baptism. Baptism effects visible church communion. This is clear from the fact that the book of Acts relates how the apostles always required it in connection with repentance. Repentance is invisible and known only to God; baptism is visible and can be seen by men.
Click to expand...


That water baptism was required by the Apostles in connection with repentance does not entail as necessary consequence that proposition that water baptism grants the right to enter the communion of the visible church. When an unbeliever is regenerated, he at that moment has the right to be called a child of God (John 1:12,13) and the right to enter visible church communion. Paedo-baptized professors may not be “validly” baptized by credo understanding, but we follow Scripture when it tells us plainly that you have the right to be recognized as a child of God. 



armourbearer said:


> Confession of faith and new life should never be separated from baptism. The New Testament constantly appeals to the new life of the brother in terms of baptism. E.g., Colossians 2:12, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." This leads to a specific visible and admonitory relation whereby brethren may address each other in terms of "If baptised, then..." You cannot appeal to us and say, "If baptised, then..." Hence your description of us as brethren is emptied of all visible and admonitory significance.



In post 106 I wrote:


> “While some passages concerning "baptism" have been taken as you note, the problem with such readings is whether or not the baptism referred to is really water baptism or whether such passages are intended to refer to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, as mentioned in 1 Cor 12:13.”



If the word baptism in Col 2:12 and other places (esp. Rom 6) refers to the regenerating activity of the Spirit described in 1 Cor. 12:13, then CB's may with propriety both admonitively address our PB friends as brethren and members of the visible church using the “If baptized (regenerate) then…”, even though we differ in our understanding of who should receive water baptism when. 



armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> John 1:12, 13 makes it certain that all "those who received [Christ] who believed in his name have the right" to be recognized as "children of God...born ...of God".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is invisible and known only to God. We are speaking about visible saints.
Click to expand...


John, in context, is making a contrast between two visible groups, marked out as different by their differing actions. After speaking of Christ's historic people, who have not received him, he now speaks of those who have received him. It is a visible people, identifiable by their reception of and belief in Christ, who have received the “right to become children of God.”


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Paedo-baptized professors may not be “validly” baptized by credo understanding, but we follow Scripture when it tells us plainly that you have the right to be recognized as a child of God.



Then baptism isn't actually a "sign" of anything in your perspective. There is no point raising a contention about its administration -- who, what, where, when, why, or how. Nothing actually depends upon it. It obviously only matters in play churches.


----------



## Ron

armourbearer said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, I built a sound argument based upon a simple analogy that employed a premise that should be obvious to all Reformed pastors. That premise was: _... all Arminians have a view of free will *that if true *would necessitate the heresy of Open Theism._ You just denied that premise, which is basic to Reformed thinkers. Plainly put, LFW requires that a future choice is neither metaphysically true nor false with respect to its outcome prior to it occuring, which means that God cannot know the outcome of a LFW choice because God cannot know anything that is not true!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is slander to the conservative Arminian. You are requiring the difficulty of his position to be answered in terms of the Open Theist solution. From Calvin to Edwards the reformed have answered the conservative Arminian in terms of God's choice of creation notwithstanding foreknowledge of evil. That answer is without bearing on the Open Theist. By requiring such consistency you are cutting off an important tactical argument that has been successful in showing the conservative Arminian the error of his belief.
Click to expand...


Matthew,

*1.* If LFW is true, then God cannot be omniscient
*2.* Arminian theology affirms LFW 
*3.* Therefore, consistent Arminianism denies God’s omniscience (Open Theism)

That is not "slander to the conservative Arminian" as you say. It's the ugly truth of one of their guiding tenets, LFW. 

Are you willing to deny 1, that God cannot know a future creaturely choice that defies an eternal truth value? Are you willing to deny 2, that Arminian theology affirms LFW? Are you going to deny that 3 follows from 1 & 2? 

It's irrelevant that there are other ways to refute Arminian thought because that truth does not refute the truth that is before you, which you have openly denied. The point stands that consistent Arminianism leads to Open Theism and you have yet to defend your assertion to the contrary. In the like manner, the Baptists you are arguing with, _if consistent_, would not consider many OP elders (for instance) as true elders (let alone part of the visible church) if they never were baptized as adults. Yet they, like the Arminian who affirms God's omniscience, are happily inconsistent. We can be glad for that because consistency in such cases would be worse. You are willing to rejoice over the plain vanilla Arminian not being an Open Theist, but you do not allow for such inconsistency with the Baptist regarding his willingness to commune with those never baptized as adults, etc. If you care to respond, please address what is _now _before you and maybe we can work backwards. *How does LFW not lead to Open Theism when taken to its logical conclusion? You have denied that premise and I would simply like to see a logical argument in the defense of that denial.* Do you dare argue like a Molinist? 

Ron


----------



## Ron

timmopussycat said:


> “When an unbeliever is regenerated, he at that moment has the right to be called a child of God (John 1:12,13) and the right to enter visible church communion. Paedo-baptized professors may not be “validly” baptized by credo understanding, but we follow Scripture when it tells us plainly that you have the right to be recognized as a child of God.”



Tim,

Let’s consider an adult who has never been baptized who gets converted late in life. Such a one may immediately be considered a believer (without full communion privileges); yet consistent with that profession he _must_ be willing (even happy!) to submit to believer’s baptism in a reasonable amount of time. Of course if he refuses the ordinance, then the profession may no longer be considered credible. 

It seems as if you are suggesting that one may disobey the ordinance of baptism yet commune with God’s people. How can such disobedience to the great commission mandate be consistent with a credible profession of faith? One’s doctrine and lifestyle would have to come into question in such a case. Accordingly, if you truly reject infant baptism, the same reasoning should apply to those baptized in infancy who will not submit to baptism after making a credible profession of faith. 

But here is my major point: If you are consistent with your tradition (i.e. acting according to Reformed Baptist confessional standards), you will affirm that _“all that are admitted unto the privileges of a church, are also under the censures and government thereof, according to the rule of Christ.”_ In other words, for one to be worthy of communion he must also be in a position to be censured by the elders. Membership presupposes accountability and elders may not presume to rule in the name of Christ over those who have not been subjected to Christ’s baptism with water. In a word, one cannot be censured without having been baptized. Moreover, if one refuses the sign of baptism, he may not be regarded as one who possesses what the sign signifies. With respect to what water baptism signifies, let me again remind you what all Reformed Baptists are to embrace: _“Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.”_

Ron


----------



## MW

Ron said:


> It's irrelevant that there are other ways to refute Arminian thought because that truth does not refute the truth that is before you, which you have openly denied. The point stands that consistent Arminianism leads to Open Theism and you have yet to defend your assertion to the contrary. In the like manner, the Baptists you are arguing with, _if consistent_, would not consider many OP elders (for instance) as true elders (let alone part of the visible church) if they never were baptized as adults. Yet they, like the Arminian who affirms God's omniscience, are happily inconsistent. We can be glad for that because consistency in such cases would be worse. You are willing to rejoice over the plain vanilla Arminian not being an Open Theist, but you do not allow for such inconsistency with the Baptist regarding his willingness to commune with those never baptized as adults, etc. If you care to respond, please address what is _now _before you and maybe we can work backwards. *How does LFW not lead to Open Theism when taken to its logical conclusion? You have denied that premise and I would simply like to see a logical argument in the defense of that denial.* Do you dare argue like a Molinist?



On conservative Arminians, you want to use their teaching on free will to push them away from a belief in omniscience and drive them to open theism; I want to use their belief in omniscience to chase them away from their teaching on free will and draw them to Calvinism. It doesn't take a great deal of insight to see which is the more Christian of those two options.

On "Baptists," I haven't attributed anything to them beyond what they themselves have stated -- we are not baptised and we may not become members of their church. They accept us as brethren in Christ but reject us as brethren in Christ's church. They sit and talk with us on Puritanboard, but we may never be permitted to sit with them as fellow-members around the Family table and commune together. These are the simple facts as they themselves have stated them. I rejoice we are accounted brethren in Christ and lament that we are rejected as brethren in Christ's church.

Please, in future, attempt to keep the discussion in context. I have never given any reason for any to think that I would argue like a Molinist.


----------



## Herald

> On "Baptists," I haven't attributed anything to them beyond what they themselves have stated -- we are not baptised and we may not become members of their church. *They accept us as brethren in Christ but reject us as brethren in Christ's church.* They sit and talk with us on Puritanboard, but *we may never be permitted to sit with them as fellow-members around the Family table and commune together.* These are the simple facts as they themselves have stated them. I rejoice we are accounted brethren in Christ and *lament that we are rejected as brethren in Christ's church.*



There was a thread on the PB a while back that dealt with church discipline against credo parents who refused to have their children baptized. The general gist of the majority of Presbyterian responses was that "gentle" church discipline would be initiated in order to convince the credo parents of their sin. Eventually, if the parents did not submit to the paedo position, they would be subject to varying degrees of church discipline such as: being barred from the Lord's table, formal admonishment, and even excommunication. Barring from the Lord's table and excommunication seems like harsh positions to take against members of Christ's church, doesn't it? 

In most instances where a Presbyterian wishes to join a Baptist church, it's because of a change of conviction on doctrine. It's the same thing for the majority of Baptists who join Presbyterian churches. Why would a Presbyterian wish to join a Baptist church if he was not in agreement with that church doctrinally? There a few reasons that come to mind. One may be because there are no sound Presbyterian churches in the area, or maybe the Presbyterian church they were a member of has ceased to proclaim the gospel. If there are extenuating circumstances that would find a convinced Presbyterian attending a Baptist church long term, that is something that should be discussed with the elders. There may be some accommodation in extenuating circumstances, but it certainly would not be normative. 

What of a visiting Presbyterian who professes faith in Jesus Christ? Are they not welcome in our church? Are we not to break bread with them, either at the Lord's table or in our homes? Should we warn the rest of our members, "Beware! A paedo infidel is in the house!"? Of course not! They are welcome to worship, break bread, and fellowship with us. They are welcome to come again and again. If they wish to join our church it is our responsibility, as elders, to introduce them to our doctrinal positions. As Baptists, we cannot ignore the command to believe and be baptized. You may disagree with it, reject it, and despise it, but Baptists believe it is what scripture teaches. Our confession echoes the belief. If a person disagrees with our position on baptism, why would they want to join our church (notwithstanding the exceptions mentioned in the previous paragraph)? Why would a convinced Baptist want to join a Presbyterian church if they were going to face church discipline for not baptizing their children? 

I believe the majority of Presbyterian PB members already knew, before the creation of this thread, what would be required of them if they decided to join a Baptist church. You are preying upon this obvious doctrinal distinction to paint Baptists in a negative light. If there is any lamenting to be had it is over your exasperating a doctrinal disagreement to a level that creates this division you speak of.


----------



## Peairtach

It's a difficult one Herald, but look at Moses. 

He was attacked by God and his life threatened for not circumcising one of his sons, maybe not circumcising him in accordance with his wife's wishes.

Who knows how important paedobaptism is?


----------



## Herald

Richard Tallach said:


> It's a difficult one Herald, but look at Moses.
> 
> He was attacked by God and his life threatened for not circumcising one of his sons, maybe not circumcising him in accordance with his wife's wishes.
> 
> Who knows how important paedobaptism is?



Richard, I have no problem with the reason Presbyterians place such a high value on infant baptism. I understand their covenant implications. I can take your question and ask, "How important is credobaptism?" The knife cuts both ways. We understand the differences between us, and I am not advocating that we gloss over those differences. They are real. But what good does it do for us to use incendiary rhetoric to further the divide between us?


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Paedo-baptized professors may not be “validly” baptized by credo understanding, but we follow Scripture when it tells us plainly that you have the right to be recognized as a child of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then baptism isn't actually a "sign" of anything in your perspective. There is no point raising a contention about its administration -- who, what, where, when, why, or how. Nothing actually depends upon it. It obviously only matters in play churches.
Click to expand...


Are you being deliberately obtuse as a teaching device for fellow readers here? I ask because I find it hard to believe that you really not know that Baptists know that Scripture comnmands water baptism, since our recognition of that command is inConfessionated (LBC 29:1). (If I may paraphrase your request to Ron in post 125, "please, in future, attempt to keep the discussion in context. I have never given any reason for any to think that I would" ignore a plain Scriptural command.) Whatever water baptism's full purposes may be, it is a straw man argument to try to claim that Baptists believe water baptism only matters in play churches. We recognize it as "a sign of [our] fellowship" with Christ in his death, resurrection etc. (LBC 29:1), but the Confession does not mandate it as *the sole* sign by which we identify Christian brothers and fellow members of the visible church. 

Instead, the Confession provides 26:2, 5-14 as a means by which we identify Christian brothers and members of the visible church. You will find nothing in these statements that necessarily excludes pb's from being recognzied as "brethren in Christ's church" if the church referred to is the visible church. 

While pb's may be excluded from membership in local Baptist churches it is for the same reason that cb's are excluded from membership in particular Pb churches: to wit that church history has shown that the differences in this doctrine usually make it very difficult to achieve and maintian a strong Christian fellowship and witness.

-----Added 11/5/2009 at 09:13:12 EST-----



Ron said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> “When an unbeliever is regenerated, he at that moment has the right to be called a child of God (John 1:12,13) and the right to enter visible church communion. Paedo-baptized professors may not be “validly” baptized by credo understanding, but we follow Scripture when it tells us plainly that you have the right to be recognized as a child of God.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim,
> 
> Let’s consider an adult who has never been baptized who gets converted late in life. Such a one may immediately be considered a believer (without full communion privileges); yet consistent with that profession he _must_ be willing (even happy!) to submit to believer’s baptism in a reasonable amount of time. Of course if he refuses the ordinance, then the profession may no longer be considered credible.
> 
> It seems as if you are suggesting that one may disobey the ordinance of baptism yet commune with God’s people. How can such disobedience to the great commission mandate be consistent with a credible profession of faith? One’s doctrine and lifestyle would have to come into question in such a case. Accordingly, if you truly reject infant baptism, the same reasoning should apply to those baptized in infancy who will not submit to baptism after making a credible profession of faith.
Click to expand...


I am not at all suggesting that one ought to disobey a clear biblical command and freely commune with God's people. But I recognize that cb is not clearly commanded, but only indicated and exemplified and that pb is an inference from Scripture, even if arguably not GNC thereof. Unless a pb believer recognizes the holes in the logic by which pb is justified, pb looks biblical. The OLC recognizes (26:3) that the purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error, which means that Christian individuals are subject to mixture and error. That someone has not undergone water baptism as a believer, while an error, is not an error of such nature that Baptists are confessionally required to deny recognition as Christian brethen and fellow members of the visible church to those committing it.



Ron said:


> But here is my major point: If you are consistent with your tradition (i.e. acting according to Reformed Baptist confessional standards), you will affirm that _“all that are admitted unto the privileges of a church, are also under the censures and government thereof, according to the rule of Christ.”_



I am not denying that a pb cannot be properly admitted into membership in a local Baptist congregation. I affirm regenerate local church (i.e., congregational) membership. But Matthew started this rabbit trail by denying the possibility that Baptists may legitimately recognize our Pb friends as Christian brothers and fellow members of the visible church, a denial that I and others are attempting to show is incorrect.


----------



## Ron

armourbearer said:


> On conservative Arminians, you want to use their teaching on free will to push them away from a belief in omniscience and drive them to open theism; I want to use their belief in omniscience to chase them away from their teaching on free will and draw them to Calvinism. It doesn't take a great deal of insight to see which is the more Christian of those two options.



Dear Matthew,

God’s omniscience certainly necessitates that he knows in his prescience all creaturely choices he determines. In fact, all thinking Arminians will gladly grant the point. However, _that_ point does not logically imply that God cannot know libertarian fee choices too. Accordingly, it is most appropriate to perform a _reductio ad absurdum_ of LFW, which is no less than to show that LFW would destroy God’s omniscience. Such a mode of exposing the error of the Arminian view of the will hardly needs to be seen as an attempt to “push” someone toward Open Theism. Moreover, you seem to have a double standard; for you are most diligent in pointing out to our Baptist brethren that their doctrine if taken to its logical conclusion would lead them to no longer fellowship with Presbyterians. Certainly we ought not construe from your _reductio_ of their position that you are trying to drive them away from inter-denominational fellowship! Indeed, it should be our hope that the logical end of LFW might actually scare the true Christian away from such a view of the will. In light of that, I hope you will reconsider your most recent statements on this matter. At the very least, if you don’t agree with that line of reasoning, please keep in mind that the _reductio_ of the LFW position was offered among Reformed brethren and not in an effort to move someone way from LFW, but rather to illustrate by way of analogy that Christians are often happily inconsistent. You seem to want to take a perfectly sound argument and turn in on its head as being uncharitable toward Arminians (even though the polemic that employs _modus tollens_ is in fact appropriate when used with Arminians, as I believe I showed above). With that said, let me say with all due respect that to suggest that such a mode of argumentation is not appropriate, let alone less Christian, is at the very least not indubitable though it might sound pious to the untrained ear. 



armourbearer said:


> On "Baptists," I haven't attributed anything to them beyond what they themselves have stated -- we are not baptised and we may not become members of their church. They accept us as brethren in Christ but reject us as brethren in Christ's church. They sit and talk with us on Puritanboard, but we may never be permitted to sit with them as fellow-members around the Family table and commune together. These are the simple facts as they themselves have stated them. I rejoice we are accounted brethren in Christ and lament that we are rejected as brethren in Christ's church.



I have agreed with you on this point all along, as the thread bears out. Let me say again that if Baptists are true to the implications of their doctrine, then they must count us as outside the church. Thankfully, they act in accordance to the true reality of our position in the church when they fellowship with us. In other words, they are better in practice than they are in doctrine. I hope we all will be. 



armourbearer said:


> Please, in future, attempt to keep the discussion in context. I have never given any reason for any to think that I would argue like a Molinist.



Regarding keeping to the point of the thread, I simply argued one specific point by way of one analogy, which is a mode of argumentation I rarely wish to employ, unless of course I believe it is becoming apparent to me that my addressing of the actual point is becoming (in my estimation) fruitless. I’ll try to be more conscious of that in the future. Thank you for the reminder. 

Regarding your statement that you did not give any cause to believe that you would argue like a Molinist, with all due respect I think you should take more responsibility for what you actually wrote. Let me _briefly_ review the bidding since you found my statement unfounded. I pointed out to you that _the_ Arminian view of “free will” would destroy God’s omniscience (i.e. leads to Open Theism). You explicitly denied that point. Please appreciate, Matthew, that to deny that point _is_ to affirm Molinism - for Molinism is the only _articulated_ form of Arminianism that affirms both LFW and God’s omniscience. That is why I made the statement. Obviously you don’t affirm Molinism but you did so, maybe unwittingly but certainly implicitly, by _denying_ that LFW logically leads to Open Theism. My hope is you will appreciate and own what you so clearly stated without ambiguity.

With warmest regards,

Ron


----------



## Ron

timmopussycat said:


> I am not at all suggesting that one ought to disobey a clear biblical command and freely commune with God's people. But I recognize that cb is not clearly commanded, but only indicated and exemplified and that pb is an inference from Scripture, even if arguably not GNC thereof. Unless a pb believer recognizes the holes in the logic by which pb is justified, pb looks biblical.



Tim,

I appreciate the point you are making. I really do. My problem is that the Bible requires _true_ baptism for membership and not a mere _intention_ of baptism. So you are left with the problem of discounting what you believe to be _true_ baptism as a condition for membership, which Scripture does not afford you. In the like manner, the Galatian error of the gospel does not get a B- for effort. It fails outright, as does infant Baptism in your estimation. And NO - I am not equating the importance of the two doctrines.

Pax,

Ron


----------



## Contra_Mundum

My reply is going to be brief, and to the initial question:

*To what single (!) issue can we boil-down the paedo-credo debate?*

My answer is not going to be _single_ but dual (sorry).

1) How should we read the Bible? This is a general-description, and a thread post is really insufficient to adequately elaborate on all the nuance of this issue, but the fact is that both sides read, hence interpret, the Bible in significantly different ways. This is not to say that as believers, we do not together often arrive at substantially the same conclusions. Thank God we do, however the basic difference remains.

Credos read the Bible "back-to-front." That is, they find themselves *in* the NT, the NT age, and basically formulate virtually all their theology in a "New-Covenant-Scriptures" context. The Old Testament is not particularly formative of the NT-Christian's doctrine and practice. At best, the OT serves as history, and for the provision of analogical relations.

One of the clearest barometers for awareness of this perception is the question of Psalm-singing. If a church considers the Psalms to be pretty much entirely a reflection of Old Covenant theology, piety, and practice, they will seldom (if ever) sing the Psalter. Why should they? Those are Old-Covenant perspectives on Christ. I realize that this is not a "rule". But I would ask the reader to carefully consider this observation, and explain the notable absence of Psalms among the majority of Baptist churches in another way. They were abandoned; so why? Did the similar abandonment (but to a far lesser extent) of the Psalms by paedo-churches reflect a loss of theological and covenant-minded committments? I think the answer is "yes."

Paedos (who understand their theology) read the Bible "front to back." That is, they understand that they are right there with Abraham when his covenant was made; in fact they are metaphorically "in his loins," regardless of their ethnic heratige. They are his "seed" by faith. They walk with Israel through the wilderness, and the Red Sea, and covenant with God at Sinai. They are shepherded by David, and are among the sons of Israel who are carted off to Babylon with their brothers, Daniel and his three friends. The names of the fathers are *their own fathers'* names.

The NT is understood as completing the theology of the OT. The OT is understood, read through the lens of Christ come, but the NT is also understood through the lens of the OT faith.

More could be said, but this must suffice.

2) Is the meaning of baptism _objective_ or _subjective_?

This question could also go on at length. However, because it has already been stated here, I will summarize: Baptists believe baptism is basically a statement BY the Christian about himself. The Presbyterian sees baptism as a statement BY GOD about his GOSPEL, true irrespective of the intent of the person being baptized. Which is why no baptism need ever be re-performed. God only has to speak once.


----------



## JML

Contra_Mundum said:


> *Credos* read the Bible "back-to-front." That is, they find themselves *in* the NT, the NT age, and basically formulate virtually all their theology in a "New-Covenant-Scriptures" context. The Old Testament is not particularly formative of the NT-Christian's doctrine and practice.  *At best, the OT serves as history, and for the provision of analogical relations.*
> 
> One of the clearest barometers for awareness of this perception is the question of Psalm-singing. If a church considers the Psalms to be pretty much entirely a reflection of Old Covenant theology, piety, and practice, they will seldom (if ever) sing the Psalter. Why should they? Those are Old-Covenant perspectives on Christ. I realize that this is not a "rule". But I would ask the reader to carefully consider this observation, and explain the notable absence of Psalms among the majority of Baptist churches in another way. They were abandoned; so why? Did the similar abandonment (but to a far lesser extent) of the Psalms by paedo-churches reflect a loss of theological and covenant-minded committments? I think the answer is "yes."



Those are some strong allegations from one who is not a credo. I am a Baptist who is a member of a Psalms only church. It might be better if the Baptists spoke for themselves instead of being told what we are by someone who is not one. I apologize if my tone sounds harsh, it is not meant to be so.


----------



## au5t1n

John Lanier said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Credos* read the Bible "back-to-front." That is, they find themselves *in* the NT, the NT age, and basically formulate virtually all their theology in a "New-Covenant-Scriptures" context. The Old Testament is not particularly formative of the NT-Christian's doctrine and practice.  *At best, the OT serves as history, and for the provision of analogical relations.*
> 
> One of the clearest barometers for awareness of this perception is the question of Psalm-singing. If a church considers the Psalms to be pretty much entirely a reflection of Old Covenant theology, piety, and practice, they will seldom (if ever) sing the Psalter. Why should they? Those are Old-Covenant perspectives on Christ. I realize that this is not a "rule". But I would ask the reader to carefully consider this observation, and explain the notable absence of Psalms among the majority of Baptist churches in another way. They were abandoned; so why? Did the similar abandonment (but to a far lesser extent) of the Psalms by paedo-churches reflect a loss of theological and covenant-minded committments? I think the answer is "yes."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are some strong allegations from one who is not a credo. I am a Baptist who is a member of a Psalms only church. It might be better if the Baptists spoke for themselves instead of being told what we are by someone who is not one. I apologize if my tone sounds harsh, it is not meant to be so.
Click to expand...

Speaking as one who was raised in Baptist churches and who has many, many Baptist friends and acquaintances, I will jump in and tell you that Rev. Buchanan's description is the norm by about a billion-to-one ratio against churches like yours, if yours does not fit the description.


----------



## JML

austinww said:


> Speaking as one who was raised in Baptist churches and who has many, many Baptist friends and acquaintances, I will jump in and tell you that Rev. Buchanan's description is the norm by about a billion-to-one ratio against churches like yours, if yours does not fit the description.



I was merely pointing out that he attributed it to all of us. I do agree for some this would be true but not everyone. Like I said, I was not meaning to be harsh in my comments but only pointing out that a blanket statement like that is not true. It may be the norm but is not true of all of us. Forgive me if I sounded rude as I was not trying to be.


----------



## au5t1n

John Lanier said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking as one who was raised in Baptist churches and who has many, many Baptist friends and acquaintances, I will jump in and tell you that Rev. Buchanan's description is the norm by about a billion-to-one ratio against churches like yours, if yours does not fit the description.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was merely pointing out that he attributed it to all of us. I do agree for some this would be true but not everyone. Like I said, I was not meaning to be harsh in my comments but only pointing out that a blanket statement like that is not true. It may be the norm but is not true of all of us. Forgive me if I sounded rude as I was not trying to be.
Click to expand...

My mistake. I got the impression you were suggesting the description was a caricature of Baptist churches, when in reality it fits most Baptist churches very well In my humble opinion. More accurately, it is a generalization; and like all generalizations, it is not universal.


----------



## VictorBravo

This thread has been pretty good at demonstrating the _dynamics_ of the credo/paedo debate, while occasionally hitting upon the original question.

I think Bruce's observation, while broad-brushed (as I know he admits), is a pretty good starting point. I think historically it is correct, but the debate has evolved and become more nuanced. Certainly the old paedo arguments have been refined and adjusted, as have the credo's. A lot of LBCF chuches I know would be chafed at being said that they place the OT in a subordinate position. I have no doubt this is because the paedo adherents had some good points that corrected and sharpened Baptist thought. By the same token, I sense that some of the older paedo arguments have been dropped because they appear inconsistent (as in using historical arguments to support paedobaptism while ignoring historical precedent for paedocommunion--please this is an example--don't discuss).

The problem is that the subject is very complex--it has been debated for centuries and a lot of emotional baggage has attached itself to the subject. I know many Baptists are sensitized at accusations of hating their children or being stupid, and I am painfully aware that many paedos are stung by the condescending tone of some Baptist arguments and practices.

It is all too easy to impute bad motives to the other side. Those motives may even exist, despite our best efforts at good will. 

Let me turn the tables, and yield some ground, by admitting that many Baptist arguments are poorly thought out. Yet, I cannot be persuaded by strident and emotional arguments that would seek to bully me into changing my position to the Paedo position either. Frankly, I've been studying both versions of covenant theology for quite some time and I still find myself reading the paedo position and occasionally thinking to myself "What?!"

Integrity demands that we cut through the emotional arguments, and make a good-faith effort to understand both sides of the issue. As I said before, the issue is complex. This is because not only is the historical and biblical data not clearly expressed, but also your choice of how to interpret the data is based upon preconception or worldview. It's a tough nut to crack, and, as Bahnsen stated, your worldview is what you would rather die for than give up.

I take as a given that both sides want to understand God's Word properly. Both do not want to stray from the clear direction of Scripture. Both agree that lack of conformity to what God prescribes is sin. And we don't want to sin.

Even more, we don't want to be accused of sin. Sinful as we are, we have a need to be right in our own eyes.

Acknowledging that zealous folks on both sides have their hands on their daggers ready to attack what they see as heresy, or at least as gross misunderstanding, we find ourselves in a delicate dance in which we seek not to kill each other and yet we seek to kill error.

I sometimes think, speculatively, that God has rendered us in such a fashion that the answer to this issue remains obscure. Because it ignites such passion on both sides, it drives us to study Scripture all the more. Perhaps this is the effect that God had in mind. I would not presume this, but it gives me some cheer.


----------



## timmopussycat

Ron said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not at all suggesting that one ought to disobey a clear biblical command and freely commune with God's people. But I recognize that cb is not clearly commanded, but only indicated and exemplified and that pb is an inference from Scripture, even if arguably not GNC thereof. Unless a pb believer recognizes the holes in the logic by which pb is justified, pb looks biblical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim,
> 
> I appreciate the point you are making. I really do. My problem is that the Bible requires _true_ baptism for membership and not a mere _intention_ of baptism. So you are left with the problem of discounting what you believe to be _true_ baptism as a condition for membership, which Scripture does not afford you. In the like manner, the Galatian error of the gospel does not get a B- for effort. It fails outright, as does infant Baptism in your estimation. And NO - I am not equating the importance of the two doctrines.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


And you here beg the question on whether the baptism that is required for membership is in fact water baptism. If you haven't seen it you should examine the presentation given in the relevant chapters of Lloyd-Jones' commentary on Romans 6:3-6.

-----Added 11/5/2009 at 04:30:35 EST-----



John Lanier said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Credos* read the Bible "back-to-front." That is, they find themselves *in* the NT, the NT age, and basically formulate virtually all their theology in a "New-Covenant-Scriptures" context. The Old Testament is not particularly formative of the NT-Christian's doctrine and practice.  *At best, the OT serves as history, and for the provision of analogical relations.*
> 
> One of the clearest barometers for awareness of this perception is the question of Psalm-singing. If a church considers the Psalms to be pretty much entirely a reflection of Old Covenant theology, piety, and practice, they will seldom (if ever) sing the Psalter. Why should they? Those are Old-Covenant perspectives on Christ. I realize that this is not a "rule". But I would ask the reader to carefully consider this observation, and explain the notable absence of Psalms among the majority of Baptist churches in another way. They were abandoned; so why? Did the similar abandonment (but to a far lesser extent) of the Psalms by paedo-churches reflect a loss of theological and covenant-minded committments? I think the answer is "yes."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are some strong allegations from one who is not a credo. I am a Baptist who is a member of a Psalms only church. It might be better if the Baptists spoke for themselves instead of being told what we are by someone who is not one. I apologize if my tone sounds harsh, it is not meant to be so.
Click to expand...


Thank you John, I particularly appreciate your support in calling out an error found more than once - the tendency for one side of an intellectual argument to misread how the consequences of the other view appear to those holding it.


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> Barring from the Lord's table and excommunication seems like harsh positions to take against members of Christ's church, doesn't it?



Actually, no; household discipline is part and parcel of belonging to a family, as Hebrews 12 points out. The difference is that the antipaedobaptist is treated as one who is a baptised member of the visible church.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Are you being deliberately obtuse as a teaching device for fellow readers here?



Do you mean "abstruse?" If you would like to engage in discussion please stick to the points being discussed and refrain from side-commentary.



timmopussycat said:


> I ask because I find it hard to believe that you really not know that Baptists know that Scripture comnmands water baptism, since our recognition of that command is inConfessionated (LBC 29:1). (If I may paraphrase your request to Ron in post 125, "please, in future, attempt to keep the discussion in context. I have never given any reason for any to think that I would" ignore a plain Scriptural command.)



This is irrelevant. The confessional conviction of the "Baptist" is not at issue, but the consequent conviction that professors who have only received infant baptism are not actually "baptised." So yes, as stated to Ron, please do keep the discussion in context.



timmopussycat said:


> Whatever water baptism's full purposes may be, it is a straw man argument to try to claim that Baptists believe water baptism only matters in play churches. We recognize it as "a sign of [our] fellowship" with Christ in his death, resurrection etc. (LBC 29:1), but the Confession does not mandate it as *the sole* sign by which we identify Christian brothers and fellow members of the visible church.



And my statement was fitted to bring this very point to your attention. Please note that the Scripture texts adduced by the Confession include Colossians 2:12, which you explained as referring to the regenerating work of the Spirit. If now you are willing to follow your Confession and refer such texts to water baptism, then you are obliged to answer my original point in terms of water baptism. You can't simply refer to paedobaptists as Spirit baptised and satisfy yourself that this meets the visible and admonitory nature of brotherly fellowship. You are now obliged to say, "If water baptised, then ...," which by your disowning of our baptism you are unable to do.


----------



## Prufrock

*[Moderator]
Please note, Matthew Winzer has not affirmed Molinism; to say that one position is not another is not to affirm either position. The fact is that Arminianism, as articulated by Arminius and Episcopius [this is the extent of my knowledge] is consciously not "Open Theist," and to argue most successfully against the position we need to argue against the position which they actually consciously maintain.

But, as noted above, as a moderator I request that for the purposes of remaining on topic, we drop the tangential Arminian/Open Theist topic. It was brought in as a parallel; let's not let it overtake the thread.
[/Moderator]*


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you being deliberately obtuse as a teaching device for fellow readers here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean "abstruse?" If you would like to engage in discussion please stick to the points being discussed and refrain from side-commentary.
Click to expand...


No, I meant obtuse in the sense of deliberately "playing stupid" as a teaching device. And it was intended as a serious question. I found it hard to believe that you would not know the LBC's statements on the matter. And if you did, it would appear that you were either engaging in unhelpful rhetoric or "playing stupid" as a teaching device.



armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ask because I find it hard to believe that you really not know that Baptists know that Scripture comnmands water baptism, since our recognition of that command is inConfessionated (LBC 29:1). (If I may paraphrase your request to Ron in post 125, "please, in future, attempt to keep the discussion in context. I have never given any reason for any to think that I would" ignore a plain Scriptural command.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is irrelevant. The confessional conviction of the "Baptist" is not at issue, but the consequent conviction that professors who have only received infant baptism are not actually "baptised." So yes, as stated to Ron, please do keep the discussion in context.
Click to expand...


No, it is not irrelevant. Your entire point is an attempt to make the point that we Baptists must reject pb's as both brethren and members of the visible church on theological grounds. But our theology is determined by the LBC, and even though we believe that those who have received only infant baptism are not truly baptised, if the LBC does not force us to reject pb's as brethen in Christ and members of the visible church, you are wrong in your argument. So confessional convictions are indeed at issue. And you seem to recognize this: for we find you attempting to use the Confession to make your point 2 pps. down. 



armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever water baptism's full purposes may be, it is a straw man argument to try to claim that Baptists believe water baptism only matters in play churches. We recognize it as "a sign of [our] fellowship" with Christ in his death, resurrection etc. (LBC 29:1), but the Confession does not mandate it as *the sole* sign by which we identify Christian brothers and fellow members of the visible church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And my statement was fitted to bring this very point to your attention. Please note that the Scripture texts adduced by the Confession include Colossians 2:12, which you explained as referring to the regenerating work of the Spirit. If now you are willing to follow your Confession and refer such texts to water baptism, then you are obliged to answer my original point in terms of water baptism. You can't simply refer to paedobaptists as Spirit baptised and satisfy yourself that this meets the visible and admonitory nature of brotherly fellowship. You are now obliged to say, "If water baptised, then ...," which by your disowning of our baptism you are unable to do.
Click to expand...


While we can't say "If water baptised, then..." to a pb, we don't need to. The Baptist Fathers of yesterday and their descendants today most certainly can say with the confession If "professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying [your] own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation," then.... 

Incidentally, how came you to overlook the fact that the LBC only adduces Col. 2:12 (and Rom. 6:3-5) to support the statement that "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign ..." of various things, rather than adducing these verses as supporting the idea that only cb's may be recognized as Christian brethen and members of the visible church, which is the point for which you need to find support. 

(BTW, I fully support the LBC's statement even though I would derive it from other Scriptures than the Rom. 6 and Col. 2 passages)

As I understand the matter, the Scriptural citations in confessions do not carry the same weight as the statements. Even if that is not correct in the case of the LBC, what is certain is that even though the original writers of the Confession held that Col. 2:12 and Rom. 6:3-5 referred to water baptism, they clearly did not press possible antipb implications of their readings of those Scriptures so far as to make your point. It is illegitimate to read a possible implication from the Scriptures an assembly uses to support one doctrine in such a way as to force them to contradict their plain statement of another doctrine. Anyone making such an attempt will be presuming that the authors of the confession saw the same implications as you do, and the Confessional writers may not have done so. Certainly, their doctrine of the visible church, as stated in LBC 26:2,3 does not exclude pbs.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> No I meant obtuse in the sense of deliberately "playing stupid" as a teaching device. And it was intended as a serious question. I found it hard to believe that you would not know the LBC's statements on the matter. And if you did, it would appear that you were either engaging in unhelpful rhetoric or "playing stupid" as a teaching device.



Well, I wasn't deliberately playing stupid, and I was only trying to teach by plain statement what would be the consequence if you reject the fact that water baptism actually represents visible church communion.



timmopussycat said:


> No it is not irrelevant. Your entire point is an attempt to make the point that we Baptists must reject pb's as both brethren and members of the visible church on theological grounds. But our theology is determined by the LBC, and even though we believe that those who have received only infant baptism are not truly baptised, if the LBC does not force us to reject pb's as brethen in Christ and members of the visible church, you are wrong in your argument. So confessional convictions are indeed at issue. And you seem to recognize this: for we find you attempting to use the Confession to make your point 2 pps. down.



Of course I am using the Confession, to show what you ought to believe concerning the significance of baptism; but the precise point you brought up from the Confession -- baptism on profession of faith --is not the confessional point at issue. Now can we get back to the point at issue?



timmopussycat said:


> Yes, but how came you to overlook the fact that the LBC only adduces Col. 2:12 as supporting the statement that "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign ..." of various things" (a statement which I fully believe biblical even though I would derive it from other Scriptures than the Rom and Col passages): it does not adduce that verse as supporting the idea that only cb's may be recognized as Christian brethen and members of the visible church, which is the point for which you need to find support.



That is not the point, again. The point was that Colossians 2:12 is referenced as teaching "water baptism signifies..." I originally appealed to Colossians 2:12 to show visible and admonitory brotherhood on the understanding that they were water baptised. You rejected this understanding in favour of the view that such passages speak of spiritual baptism. I then showed how the Confession appeals to these passages in its statement on water baptism. If you don't accept your Confession's adduction of such passages, then say so; further, show how you would substantiate the point without adducing such passages. The fact is, unless "baptism" in these passages contains at least an allusion to water baptism there is no scrptural basis for saying that water baptism is a "sign" of anything. Given your yea and nay approach to this discusson, it would appear that in reality you don't actually think baptism signifies anything at all, or if it does, the sign is not important and can be replaced with other signs for discerning visible Christians. Please make yourself clear and stop hiding behind rhetorical smokescreens.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barring from the Lord's table and excommunication seems like harsh positions to take against members of Christ's church, doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no; household discipline is part and parcel of belonging to a family, as Hebrews 12 points out. The difference is that the antipaedobaptist is treated as one who is a baptised member of the visible church.
Click to expand...


Mmm. So if a Baptist church admitted a paedobaptist into membership who refused to be scripturally baptized (as Baptists believe scripture teaches), we would eventually have to bring church discipline to bear on this person. And if a Presbyterian church goes so far in church discipline as to excommunicate a professing believer who will not submit their child to baptism, they have turned that person over to Satan. What is wrong with this picture?

It would seem to me that the wisest course of action would be to understand that their are those for whom Christ died who have different opinions on covenant theology and baptism. They are no less saints because of their differences. I am not advocating an acceptance of the other's position; simply a realization that that difference exists and cannot be bridged by harsh or pointed rhetoric. Sometimes we need to know when a fight can't be won and commit the other person to Christ.


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> Mmm. So if a Baptist church admitted a paedobaptist into membership who refused to be scripturally baptized (as Baptists believe scripture teaches), we would eventually have to bring church discipline to bear on this person. And if a Presbyterian church goes so far in church discipline as to excommunicate a professing believer who will not submit their child to baptism, they have turned that person over to Satan. What is wrong with this picture?



What is wrong with this picture? Bill, you don't know what excommunication is. No Presbyterian declares an antipaedobaptist unbaptised and therefore no member of the church. Nor does he exercise church discipline to the extent he exercises church discipline on an antipaedobaptist simply because he is an antipaedobaptist. In so far as he exercises church discipline on such it is on the basis that such is understood to be a baptised member of the church of Jesus Christ. If he is disciplined it would be for contumacy, not because he holds a specific belief.

Again, the difference is, paedobaptists acknowledge antipaedobaptists to be baptised members of the visible church, the family of Jesus Christ on earth; whereas antipaedobaptists who reject the baptism of infants and attempt to extricate themselves from the label of "anabaptists" do not acknowledge professors who were baptised as infants as baptised members of the visible church, the family of Jesus Christ on earth. Folk like John Bunyan would be the exception.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I meant obtuse in the sense of deliberately "playing stupid" as a teaching device. And it was intended as a serious question. I found it hard to believe that you would not know the LBC's statements on the matter. And if you did, it would appear that you were either engaging in unhelpful rhetoric or "playing stupid" as a teaching device.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I wasn't deliberately playing stupid, and I was only trying to teach by plain statement what would be the consequence if you reject the fact that water baptism actually represents visible church communion.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not irrelevant. Your entire point is an attempt to make the point that we Baptists must reject pb's as both brethren and members of the visible church on theological grounds. But our theology is determined by the LBC, and even though we believe that those who have received only infant baptism are not truly baptised, if the LBC does not force us to reject pb's as brethen in Christ and members of the visible church, you are wrong in your argument. So confessional convictions are indeed at issue. And you seem to recognize this: for we find you attempting to use the Confession to make your point 2 pps. down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I am using the Confession, to show what you ought to believe concerning the significance of baptism; but the precise point you brought up from the Confession -- baptism on profession of faith --is not the confessional point at issue. Now can we get back to the point at issue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never left the point. The point at issue, the one you are attempting to force, and which you think cb's must necessarily hold, is that cb's must reject pb's as brethren in Christ and members of the invisible church. You adduced the LBC's citation of Col 2:12 as referring to water baptism as support for the inference you draw. And as I pointed out the confession does not use Col. 2:12 to make your point, instead using it to make another. So you still need to find LBC justification for your point. Absent such justification,common honesty should teach you not to make such a charge againnst brothers in the visible church unless you can find a Scripture that does support it.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but how came you to overlook the fact that the LBC only adduces Col. 2:12 as supporting the statement that "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign ..." of various things" (a statement which I fully believe biblical even though I would derive it from other Scriptures than the Rom and Col passages): it does not adduce that verse as supporting the idea that only cb's may be recognized as Christian brethen and members of the visible church, which is the point for which you need to find support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not the point, again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes it is the point. If Col 2:12 is not Confessionally used to deny pb's are brethren in Christ and members of the visible church, it cannot be cited in support of your claim that cb's must reject pb's as such.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point was that Colossians 2:12 is referenced as teaching "water baptism signifies..." I originally appealed to Colossians 2:12 to show visible and admonitory brotherhood on the understanding that they were water baptised. You rejected this understanding in favour of the view that such passages speak of spiritual baptism. I then showed how the Confession appeals to these passages in its statement on water baptism. If you don't accept your Confession's adduction of such passages, then say so;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did say so.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> further, show how you would substantiate the point without adducing such passages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matt. 28:19, Mark 1:4, Acts 22:16 are a start. And one could also point out that the Confession may be using Rom. 6 and Col. 2:12 to refer to water baptism as *a sign* of the baptism by the Spirit which is the primary referent of those passages. Or it may not be. But notice that of the things said to be signified by water baptism in the confession, the fact that it is "ordained by Christ unto the party baptized" is enough, so that when one is baptised in obedience to Christ's command, the mere fact of one's baptism witnesses to the one baptised that one has fellowship with Christ and thus all the rest of the blessings follow.
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, unless "baptism" in these passages contains at least an allusion to water baptism there is no scrptural basis for saying that water baptism is a "sign" of anything. Given your yea and nay approach to this discusson, it would appear that in reality you don't actually think baptism signifies anything at all, or if it does, the sign is not important and can be replaced with other signs for discerning visible Christians. Please make yourself clear and stop hiding behind rhetorical smokescreens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not taken a yea and nay approach and my own position is not the issue, yours is. You have made a charge that misrepresents Baptist confessional obligations that to date you have failed to justify. Either justify your charge or quit posting this thread.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> I have never left the point. The point at issue, the one you are attempting to force, and which you think cb's must necessarily hold, is that cb's must reject pb's as brethren in Christ and members of the *invisible* church.



"*Visible* church" has been my point all along. If you go back and carefully read my posts again you might grasp the actual point I have been making and be in some sort of a position to respond intelligibly to it. You might also think about constructing something of a coherent and self-consistent reply, as well as get your interpretation straight on such passages as Colossians 2:12 and whether baptism is a visible sign of inward grace. Of course the Confession is using such passages to show water baptism is a sign of spiritual baptism; what else would it have meant by adducing them? You don't seem to have any idea as to what a visible sign actually is. Perhaps you could study up on it a little. And I have not alleged anything more nor less than Bill himself has stated. I'm not sure who you think you are that you can tell me to quit posting to the thread.


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr

timmopussycat said:


> Either justify your charge or quit posting this thread.



Wow. You're quite arrogant. Maybe you need to read Ephesians 4:3, "eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." If anything, at least try and maintain a spirit of stoicism. Stay away from personal and direct attacks. Attitudes like this not only make the said views non-credible but also misrepresent credo-baptists. Personally I'm a paedo, but conservations like this make me more confident in the belief that credo-baptists are sectarian. Maybe you should show a spirit of catholicity yourself by staying away from this sort of dialog.


----------



## William Price

Baptism was always a testimony of the conversion of the believer by the hand of God. It was a sign of the covenant the believer came into through and by Christ. My main problem with paedobaptism is this. How can a baby come into the covenant when they have not shown signs of regeneration, and no fruit of repentance? If they are being brought into the covenant, how then is this possible?


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mmm. So if a Baptist church admitted a paedobaptist into membership who refused to be scripturally baptized (as Baptists believe scripture teaches), we would eventually have to bring church discipline to bear on this person. And if a Presbyterian church goes so far in church discipline as to excommunicate a professing believer who will not submit their child to baptism, they have turned that person over to Satan. What is wrong with this picture?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with this picture? Bill, you don't know what excommunication is. No Presbyterian declares an antipaedobaptist unbaptised and therefore no member of the church. Nor does he exercise church discipline to the extent he exercises church discipline on an antipaedobaptist simply because he is an antipaedobaptist. In so far as he exercises church discipline on such it is on the basis that such is understood to be a baptised member of the church of Jesus Christ. If he is disciplined it would be for contumacy, not because he holds a specific belief.
> 
> Again, the difference is, paedobaptists acknowledge antipaedobaptists to be baptised members of the visible church, the family of Jesus Christ on earth; whereas antipaedobaptists who reject the baptism of infants and attempt to extricate themselves from the label of "anabaptists" do not acknowledge professors who were baptised as infants as baptised members of the visible church, the family of Jesus Christ on earth. Folk like John Bunyan would be the exception.
Click to expand...


Matthew, my comments are taken from what other Presbyterians have said regarding progressive church discipline if a member-parent of a Presbyterian church will not submit their child to baptism. If someone is eventually put out of the church, or it's suggested that they leave, I really don't have a problem with it. I was using it as a example of a Presbyterian core theological belief that is taken every bit as serious as Baptists and baptism. If circumstances found me in an area where they only bible believing church was Presbyterian, I would approach the elders and inform them of my Baptist convictions. I certainly would not join if I were to eventually face discipline over my belief, but I would gladly attend. 

I know what the difference is between Baptists and Presbyterians regarding baptism and the visible church. We simply have a difference of opinion. As far as trying to extricate myself from the anabaptist label, there is no such attempt being made. I believe the label is fallacious, therefore it doesn't apply. YOU can believe it, and it even promote it as an accurate term to describe Baptists. In fact, I'm sure you do believe it. If anything this dialog has provided the OP with the difference between credo and paedobaptists. I don't believe it has resolved anything, but it certainly has highlighted the theological rift.


----------



## steadfast7

Hey Austin, hard for me to catch up with the flow of discussion, but I wanted to revisit your earlier post.


austinww said:


> I agree that baptism has everything to do with one's spiritual state, but as I have already said, I think the children of believers, who are raised to believe unlike pagan children, are to be expected to be truly God's unless and until they apostasize; however, we can no more assume their spiritual state than we can my pastor's. We do act like it is so and expect it to be so, though.



I don't know if "expected to be truly God's.." does it for me. The NT doesn't make assumptions about discipleship and union with Christ through the Spirit. If you consider Paul's encounter with disciples who had received John's baptism, Paul insisted on them needing to receive the Holy Spirit, then he "re"baptized into the name of Jesus, and they were filled with the Spirit. (I understand that talking about John's baptism vis a vis new Covenant may take us down a bunny trail, and may be this is unique in salvation in history), but my point is Paul does tend to link baptism with being filled by the Holy Spirit. 



> Regarding explicit references to infant baptism:
> 
> The evidence here is clearly in our favor. There is neither (a) an instance of an infant explicitly said to have been baptized nor (b) an instance of a child of believers having a coming-of-age baptism later. All we can do is look at principles established in Scripture, and they all point to the inclusion of infants, e.g. Peter's re-echoing of Gen. 17:7 in Acts 2:39, the 5 household baptisms out of 9 total baptisms in the NT (!), and yes, even Jesus' statements about letting the children come to him are relevant, even if they aren't prooftexts.
> 
> Edit: All the examples used to prove that personal professed faith is the prerequisite for baptism are examples of adults converting for the first time. None of them were raised in a family of believers



Yes, silence does seem to abound in this situation. But let's look closer:
1. The Acts 2:39 account (this promise is for you and your children and all who are far off). I would be careful to use this to support familial discipleship, because taking this verse literally, one would have to admit universalism. ie. "all who are far off." I think Peter was simply highlighting the extent and availability of salvation beyond Israel.

2. Household baptisms
In regard to Cornelius:


> Acts 10:44 "While Peter was still speaking these words, *the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message*. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them _speaking in tongues and praising God_. Then Peter said, 47 "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have."


Cornelius' 'household' is mentioned when Paul reiterates the story:


> Acts 11:14 He will bring you a message through which you and all your household will be saved.





> Acts 16:15 "When she [Lydia] and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a *believer *in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house."





> Acts 16:33 "At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to *believe in God—he and his whole family*."





> Acts 18:7 "Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. 8Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household *believed *in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him *believed and were baptized*. "





> 1 Cor 16:15 "You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and *they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints*."



In these 5 mentions of household baptism in the NT, correct me if I'm wrong, but in _each _case the baptism of the household was tied to either belief, or Holy Spirit filling, or devoted service. If the paedobaptist is to the argue for household baptism as the key scriptural proof, then exegetical consistency requires that infants are capable of speaking in tongues, believing, and devoting themselves to service. 

So, if 'household' is the hermeneutical key, then the evidence it is certainly NOT in favour of PB, but rather CB. The text regarding Jesus welcoming the children to come to him does not, in my opinion, require a baptismal reading.

To be fair, I still agree with you that there remains silence on the matter, but it's simply not true that the scriptural evidence is in favour of PB; it doesn't even look neutrally split down the middle either. It seems that a preference for an Abrahamic reading of baptism is dominating PB interpretation, rather than a New Covenant reading. In which case, Rev Bruce's point #1 is right.


----------



## au5t1n

Dennis,

I'm glad we've had a short break because I've had some time to think. I really believe your OP is key here - we are somewhat skirting around the central issue, in my opinion. This is my fault, but let me try to get us into some sort of common ground now.

Would you agree with me that we cannot reach an agreement on the subjects of baptism unless we first agree on the purpose and meaning baptism? With that premise in mind, please answer this question:

What is the primary purpose of baptism?

Or to put it another way: Why do we baptize people at all?


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> Dennis,
> 
> I'm glad we've had a short break because I've had some time to think. I really believe your OP is key here - we are somewhat skirting around the central issue, in my opinion. This is my fault, but let me try to get us into some sort of common ground now.
> 
> Side note: Regarding the household baptisms, I will try to find one of the threads I have read related to belief being associated with the baptisms. There were good points from both sides and I'm not sure I am equipped to answer those questions myself at this point.
> 
> Now, I have a few questions that I believe will help us get to the heart of the matter, which will both answer your OP and help us pursue our discussion more profitably:
> 
> 1) Would you agree that in order to know the proper subjects of baptism, we must first understand the purpose of baptism?
> 
> 2) Why did Christ command baptism? What purpose does it serve?
> 
> 3) What exactly is baptism?
> 
> 4) Why did John baptize; and how is Christian baptism similar and different?
> 
> Please give me your perspective on these questions to the best of your ability and I will try to see if we can find common ground and pursue the question at hand with more focus.
> 
> Short, direct answers are best, unless you believe further elaboration is necessary for your answer to be clear.



Hi Austin,

answers to your questions:

1. Yes, absolutely.
2. Baptism in the Gospels was 1. a call to repentance (Luke 3:3); 2. Identification with Christ (eg Mark 10:34); 3. A mark of discipleship (Matt 28:18-20). I would say the fuller NT purposes included identification with Christ, sign of being immersed in the Holy Spirit, forgiveness of sin, spiritual circumcision.
3. Baptism means being dipped or washed with (or in) water.
4. John baptized to call Israel to repentance and obedience. I think it was the beginnings of Christian baptism, in its "primative" form, whose meaning came to its fullness post-Pentecost.

-----Added 11/6/2009 at 10:00:49 EST-----

Different people baptize for different reasons - so it seems. I believe the NT pattern for baptism was for individuals who believed and were recognized by the church as having (or seeking) union and identification with Christ


----------



## au5t1n

Sorry, I didn't realize you were online and I edited. Disregard the edit - Later I will answer your response to what I originally posted.

-----Added 11/6/2009 at 10:24:17 EST-----

Good answer. Would you agree that the purposes you listed (identification with Christ, repentance, forgiveness of sin, being Christ's disciple, etc.) all fall under "cleansing of sin," since that is what baptism visually depicts (with water) and since the other things you listed are all intimately connected with cleansing of sin by the blood of Christ?


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> Good answer. Would you agree that the purposes you listed (identification with Christ, repentance, forgiveness of sin, being Christ's disciple, etc.) all fall under "cleansing of sin," since that is what baptism visually depicts (with water) and since the other things you listed are all intimately connected with cleansing of sin by the blood of Christ?



Cleansing of sin would be a natural outworking of baptism, sure, but whether all of those categories "fall under" the rubric of cleansing of sin ... I'd prefer to view baptism in relation to Christ, rather than to sin per se. but it sounds ok for now.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never left the point. The point at issue, the one you are attempting to force, and which you think cb's must necessarily hold, is that cb's must reject pb's as brethren in Christ and members of the *invisible* church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "*Visible* church" has been my point all along.
Click to expand...

 "Invisible" was a typo. Please read it as "visible", something that should have been obvious from my previous posts where I had repeatedly quoted or cited the LBC on the visible church.



armourbearer said:


> If you go back and carefully read my posts again you might grasp the actual point I have been making and be in some sort of a position to respond intelligibly to it.



I think I understand your point. You have been repeatedly claiming:



armourbearer said:


> [water] baptism marks entrance into the visible church and without baptism one has no basis upon which to accept an individual as a visible saint, and therefore as a "brother."



a point which you attempt to support from Col 2:12 as in the following post:



armourbearer said:


> Confession of faith and new life should never be separated from baptism. The New Testament constantly appeals to the new life of the brother in terms of baptism. E.g., Colossians 2:12, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." This leads to a specific visible and admonitory relation whereby brethren may address each other in terms of "If baptised, then..." You cannot appeal to us and say, "If baptised, then..." Hence your description of us as brethren is emptied of all visible and admonitory significance.



(


armourbearer said:


> You might also think about constructing something of a coherent and self-consistent reply, as well as get your interpretation straight on such passages as Colossians 2:12 and whether baptism is a visible sign of inward grace. Of course the Confession is using such passages to show water baptism is a sign of spiritual baptism; what else would it have meant by adducing them?



I was guarding against a potential misunderstanding I saw, which, in the event, thankfully, you did not make.) 



armourbearer said:


> You don't seem to have any idea as to what a visible sign actually is. Perhaps you could study up on it a little.



Let's not get diverted to straw man arguments. What is really at issue here is not any alleged inconsistencies or ignorance on my part, but whether or not your charge that cb's cannot recognze pb's as brethen or members of the visible church can be justified. You have attempted to justify your charge by claiming that:
a) since Col. 2:12 was used by the LBC to refer to water baptism, cb's cannot recognize pb as legitimate, and are therefore prohibited from saying in brotherly admonition, "If (water) baptized, then...", . If that is so, then a necessary consequence of that prohibition is that
b) cb's must deny brotherly recognition to pb's and equally deny that pb churches are true churches. 
If this is not what you intended by your reference to Col. 2:12, what other point or points did you intend to draw from it? 

On the other hand, the point I am making, and the one you have not sufficiently answered, is that forced cb denials of Christian brotherhood and visible church membership to pb's are not necessary consequences of Col. 2:12, *even if that verse is held to refer to water baptism.*

Let me reiterate my counterpoints in a way that attempts to avoid rabbit trails.

Your argument would be indeed be valid if "If (water) baptized, then..." was the only Scripturally and Confessionally authorized ground by which cb's may recognize Christian brethren and accepting assemblies as true Christian churches. *But my entire point is that "If baptized, then... " is not the sole ground upon which Confessional Baptists in particular are Scripturally and Confessionally authorized to extend such recognition.* 

Here are my reasons.

1) Confessional. 

The LBC, in defining the visible church, does not draw your corollory from Col. 2:12 when it defines the visible church. Instead, it defines the visible church as "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." (LBC 26:2) and it recognizes (26:3) that not all errors make the erring church a synogogue of Satan. This second statement brings pb's within the Confessionally defined visible church: for unless it can be shown (and I don't think the case can be made), that the Confession elsewhere plainly holds that pb is an error of such nature as to turn a pb holding church into a synogogue of Satan, one cannot issue a Confessionally based denial of Christian brotherhood and visible church member status to those holding pb. Instead pb's must be and are regarded as being brethen and their churches true churches, although erring on this one point. (Which is exactly the same way pb's regard cb's and cb churches, (i.e., as Christian brothers and true churches although making the reverse error on this same point.)

(BTW, it is illegitimate to try to show that the implications one may see arising from Col 2:12 must govern how the Confession is understood at 26:2,3. Such a procedure is an attempt to interpret the clear by the unclear. In addition, if one attempts this justification, one is presuming that the Confession's writers worked out the implications in the same way as oneself. Neither of these procedures are usually recognized as good exegetical technique. For example, non-theonomic Reformed readers rightly criticize Greg Bahnsen for his attempt to justify his Theonomic interpreation of WCF 19:1-4 by casting it as a necessary mplication of the original vesrsion of chapter 23, rather than relying on the Divine's explicit doctrine of the Law of God in the first part of ch. 19. NB to Theonomists-this point is provided as illustration of present Reformed opinion on exegetical technique, not to open discussion of Bahnsen's views.) 

Now you appear to make the same type of error as Bahnsen when you rely on the implication you see in Col. 2:12 while ignoring the plain testimony of the LBC 26:2 and 3, statements which are stated in such a way that they open the door of brotherly recognition to pb's and their churches. So it is quite possible that the Baptist forefathers did not see these matters in the way you do. And it is how they inConfessionated these matters, and not your opinion of how we should see them, to which Reformed Baptists are confessionally bound.

2) Scriptural. 

Were the Baptist fathers justified in not explicitly identifying pb believers as false brethen and pb churches as synogoges of Satan? Yes, because as I have earlier shown (and it is a point to which you have yet to effectively respond), *Col. 2:12 and 'if baptised, then..." is not the sole Scriptural ground upon which we may recognize Christian brethren and visible churches*. For...



timmopussycat #102 said:


> John 1:12, 13 makes it certain that all "those who received [Christ] who believed in his name have the right" to be recognized as "children of God...born ...of God". Since we can sufficiently identify the likely regeneracy of adult individuals turning from non-Christian backgounds by a profession of faith accompanied by a turning from sin to God's ways, both pb's and cb's baptize them. But recognizing the likely regeneracy of such converts necessarily entails also recognizing them as entitled to membership of the visible church, even if they haven't yet formally become members of a local church by formally joining that organization (however that is done).



To this you replied:



armourbearer said:


> This is invisible and known only to God. We are speaking about visible saints.



but you have yet to address my rejoinder ...



timmopussycat post 121 said:


> John, in context, is making a contrast between two visible groups, marked out as different by their differing actions. After speaking of Christ's historic people, who have not received him, he now speaks of those who have received him. It is a visible people, identifiable by their reception of and belief in Christ, who have received the “right to become children of God.”



(And here are a couple of seriously intended question for you. If the visible church is known only to God, and not knowable to us (although fallably) because of observable changes in individuals' behaviours and professions, how can you accept a profession of faith accompanied by a turning from sin to God's ways, as identification of a believer sufficient to entitle him to baptism and church membership – as pb's regularly do? And if you do so because such signs are the likely indicators upon which baptism may be scripturally administered, then why cavail at cb's because we recognize you as brethren upon the same grounds you use to accept the yet unbaptised but professing candidate as both a brother and entitled to membership in Christ's visible church? We're doing exactly what you are doing.)

3) State of the debate.

While you rightly note that cb's cannot say to pb's "if baptised then...", *the problem you must still address before you can say that cb's may not recognize pb's as brethen and members of the visible church is that you must prove that there are no other possible Scriptural and Confessional grounds for granting such recognition, and that all other alleged grounds for doing so (and I've only submitted 2 for discussion; there may be others), are demonstrably unConfessional (by LBC) or unScriptural.* 

Until such proof is provided, cb's are free to gladly recognize pb's as brethren and fellow members of the visible church based on what we see as pb's falling within the group that has a Scripturally stated right to be so recognized in John 1:12,13 or, (00for that matter any other subseqently issued justification not adequently refuted). We can therefore rightly and properly issue brotherly appeals on the basis of your "professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying [your] own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation." 

How then can you justify your charge and save us from our (on your hypothesis) errors in recognizing pb's as true brethren and pb churches as valid? It seems to me that before you can attempt to claim that "If baptised, then..." is the only ground cb's have to issue such recogntion, you must at least first show the LBC defintion of the visible church untenable and the deduction I have drawn from John 1:12,13 is not GNC, and as noted above, the present state of the argument is that you have done neither of these things. Until you can do them, however, you cannot rightly say that cb's cannot Scripturally and Confessionally recognize pb's as brethen and members of the visible church. 



armourbearer said:


> And I have not alleged anything more nor less than Bill himself has stated.



Bill has not claimed that cb's must reject pb's as brethren in Christ and members of visible churches based on your reading of Col. 2:12's implications. In fact, his practice of addressing you as a brother in Christ denies that he agrees with your reading of that verse's implications.



armourbearer said:


> I'm not sure who you think you are that you can tell me to quit posting to the thread.



I think I am someone fraternally advising you that you face a choice of imperatives and appealing to you to choose wisely. My statement was given in the form of two alternatives: "Either...or....", not as a command to do one of them. (And in the second alternative, I did not say exactly what I meant, alas. Instead of "quit posting this thread", the second alternative should have read "stop repeating a yet to be founded charge without providing a better foundation". (Forgive me, brother, my bad.)

Here is the situation I see you facing. The current state of the argument is this: even though cb's cannot address pb's on the basis of "if water baptized then," *I have shown, and you have yet to successfully refute, Scriptural and LBC reasons why "if baptized, then..." is not the only ground upon which cb's may rightly recognize pb's as brethren and members of the visible church.* 

*Until you can prove that Confesssional Baptists must believe that "if water baptized, then..." is the only Scriptural and Confessional ground for recognizing a man as a brother and visible church member, your charge that cb's cannot rightly accept a pb as Christian brother and member of the visible church remains unfounded*, and hence either a real, or at least a potential, slander. If you are "professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying [your] own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation," then why would you want to continue making even a potentially slanderous charge against those who name Christ as Saviour and Lord without accepting the responsibility to demonstrate the soundness of the charge against a well meant objection that appears to have some Scriptural and Confessional support? And if you won't accept the challenge to demonstrate the soundness of your charge, why should you expect cb's to accept it as valid?

(To avoid presumption of motives or spiritual states on anyone's part, may I say that the two questions I pose in the above paragraph are seriously intended.)


----------



## au5t1n

That's fair. My point is that baptism doesn't visually symbolize identification with Christ or repentance; it visually gives us a picture of cleansing (hence the water). So those other purposes are connected to cleansing of sin. We are cleansed from sin in our identifcation with Christ and given new, penitent hearts. Those things are all related, but the one that baptism depicts visually is cleansing, and the others are intimately connected with that. Furthermore, we are baptized "for the remission of sin". I'm not suggesting baptismal regeneration; I'm suggesting that the key purpose of baptism is "an appeal to God for a good conscience" (Peter wrote that, but I don't have the reference because I'm on my iTouch). So can we agree that the primary meaning of baptism has to do with a cleansing of sin, which of course comes from identification with Christ and inward repentance? After all, that is what baptism looks like. That is what it is a visual sign of. Agreed?

Edit: That reference is [esv]1 Pet. 3:21[/esv].


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> That's fair. My point is that baptism doesn't visually symbolize identification with Christ or repentance; it visually gives us a picture of cleansing (hence the water). So those other purposes are connected to cleansing of sin. We are cleansed from sin in our identifcation with Christ and given new, penitent hearts. Those things are all related, but the one that baptism depicts visually is cleansing, and the others are intimately connected with that. Furthermore, we are baptized "for the remission of sin". I'm not suggesting baptismal regeneration; I'm suggesting that the key purpose of baptism is "an appeal to God for a good conscience" (Peter wrote that, but I don't have the reference because I'm on my iTouch). So can we agree that the primary meaning of baptism has to do with a cleansing of sin, which of course comes from identification with Christ and inward repentance? After all, that is what baptism looks like. That is what it is a visual sign of. Agreed?
> 
> Edit: That reference is [esv]1 Pet. 3:21[/esv].



Sounds good.


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fair. My point is that baptism doesn't visually symbolize identification with Christ or repentance; it visually gives us a picture of cleansing (hence the water). So those other purposes are connected to cleansing of sin. We are cleansed from sin in our identifcation with Christ and given new, penitent hearts. Those things are all related, but the one that baptism depicts visually is cleansing, and the others are intimately connected with that. Furthermore, we are baptized "for the remission of sin". I'm not suggesting baptismal regeneration; I'm suggesting that the key purpose of baptism is "an appeal to God for a good conscience" (Peter wrote that, but I don't have the reference because I'm on my iTouch). So can we agree that the primary meaning of baptism has to do with a cleansing of sin, which of course comes from identification with Christ and inward repentance? After all, that is what baptism looks like. That is what it is a visual sign of. Agreed?
> 
> Edit: That reference is [esv]1 Pet. 3:21[/esv].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds good.
Click to expand...


Excellent! On to my next premise: Would you agree that the proper subjects of baptism would be those to whom the meaning rightly belongs; that is, cleansing of sin?


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fair. My point is that baptism doesn't visually symbolize identification with Christ or repentance; it visually gives us a picture of cleansing (hence the water). So those other purposes are connected to cleansing of sin. We are cleansed from sin in our identifcation with Christ and given new, penitent hearts. Those things are all related, but the one that baptism depicts visually is cleansing, and the others are intimately connected with that. Furthermore, we are baptized "for the remission of sin". I'm not suggesting baptismal regeneration; I'm suggesting that the key purpose of baptism is "an appeal to God for a good conscience" (Peter wrote that, but I don't have the reference because I'm on my iTouch). So can we agree that the primary meaning of baptism has to do with a cleansing of sin, which of course comes from identification with Christ and inward repentance? After all, that is what baptism looks like. That is what it is a visual sign of. Agreed?
> 
> Edit: That reference is [esv]1 Pet. 3:21[/esv].
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent! On to my next premise: Would you agree that the proper subjects of baptism would be those to whom the meaning rightly belongs; that is, cleansing of sin?
Click to expand...


Yes, but let's also remember that those who are baptized, whether within the PB or CB framework, are not necessarily elect/regenerate. ie. we cannot be certain; i'm just safeguarding against baptismal regeneration ... 
But I'm with you so far.


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent! On to my next premise: Would you agree that the proper subjects of baptism would be those to whom the meaning rightly belongs; that is, cleansing of sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but let's also remember that those who are baptized, whether within the PB or CB framework, are not necessarily elect/regenerate. ie. we cannot be certain; i'm just safeguarding against baptismal regeneration ...
> But I'm with you so far.
Click to expand...


I agree. We know that many who were baptized in the NT were not regenerate (e.g. Simon Magus), but they were baptized anyway; just as in the OT, many who were not circumcised of heart were circumcised in their flesh. So how do we figure out to whom this forgiveness rightly pertains? You point out that in the NT, people professed faith before baptism, and rightly so. But why would we baptize pagans who do not believe? That wouldn't make any sense.

Question: Since baptism symbolizes forgiveness of sin, is denying baptism to the infants of believers suggesting that they are not forgiven of God? Surely God does forgive our children, right? If we can treat a Christian brother like he is regenerate and will not fall away, even though he might, why not give the same confidence to our infants, to whom God promises to be their God? Do they have to wait to be forgiven?

-----Added 11/6/2009 at 01:32:10 EST-----

Signs mean things. If baptism is a sign of forgiveness of sin, then it follows that the way we use the sign makes a statement about what we believe to be true about forgiveness. It therefore follows that whom we baptize makes a statement about to whom we believe forgiveness belongs; does it not?


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent! On to my next premise: Would you agree that the proper subjects of baptism would be those to whom the meaning rightly belongs; that is, cleansing of sin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but let's also remember that those who are baptized, whether within the PB or CB framework, are not necessarily elect/regenerate. ie. we cannot be certain; i'm just safeguarding against baptismal regeneration ...
> But I'm with you so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. We know that many who were baptized in the NT were not regenerate (e.g. Simon Magus), but they were baptized anyway; just as in the OT, many who were not circumcised of heart were circumcised in their flesh. So how do we figure out to whom this forgiveness rightly pertains? You point out that in the NT, people professed faith before baptism, and rightly so. But why would we baptize pagans who do not believe? That wouldn't make any sense.
> 
> Question: Since baptism symbolizes forgiveness of sin, is denying baptism to the infants of believers suggesting that they are not forgiven of God? Surely God does forgive our children, right? If we can treat a Christian brother like he is regenerate and will not fall away, even though he might, why not give the same confidence to our infants, to whom God promises to be their God? Do they have to wait to be forgiven?
> 
> Signs mean things. If baptism is a sign of forgiveness of sin, then it follows that the way we use the sign makes a statement about what we believe to be true about forgiveness. It therefore follows that whom we baptize makes a statement about who we believe forgiveness belongs to; does it not?
Click to expand...


Yes, signs certainly do mean things, and we try our best to apply the sign to those to whom forgiveness belongs - those justified by faith. Being forgiven of sins is a pretty big deal. I wouldn't consider objective forgiveness of sins any differently from election/regeneration/justification. I don't think you're suggesting that all children born of Christian parents are justified as a birthright, so I hope we're not talking past one another here. It's one thing to reckon that a brother is regenerate, it's quite another to pronounce that he is truly is. Is there a proof text to support that children of believers are forgiven of their sins? I'm trying to think of one ...


----------



## au5t1n

> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but let's also remember that those who are baptized, whether within the PB or CB framework, are not necessarily elect/regenerate. ie. we cannot be certain; i'm just safeguarding against baptismal regeneration ...
> But I'm with you so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. We know that many who were baptized in the NT were not regenerate (e.g. Simon Magus), but they were baptized anyway; just as in the OT, many who were not circumcised of heart were circumcised in their flesh. So how do we figure out to whom this forgiveness rightly pertains? You point out that in the NT, people professed faith before baptism, and rightly so. But why would we baptize pagans who do not believe? That wouldn't make any sense.
> 
> Question: Since baptism symbolizes forgiveness of sin, is denying baptism to the infants of believers suggesting that they are not forgiven of God? Surely God does forgive our children, right? If we can treat a Christian brother like he is regenerate and will not fall away, even though he might, why not give the same confidence to our infants, to whom God promises to be their God? Do they have to wait to be forgiven?
> 
> Signs mean things. If baptism is a sign of forgiveness of sin, then it follows that the way we use the sign makes a statement about what we believe to be true about forgiveness. It therefore follows that whom we baptize makes a statement about who we believe forgiveness belongs to; does it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, signs certainly do mean things, and we try our best to apply the sign to those to whom forgiveness belongs - those justified by faith. Being forgiven of sins is a pretty big deal. I wouldn't consider objective forgiveness of sins any differently from election/regeneration/justification. I don't think you're suggesting that all children born of Christian parents are justified as a birthright, so I hope we're not talking past one another here. It's one thing to reckon that a brother is regenerate, it's quite another to pronounce that he is truly is. Is there a proof text to support that children of believers are forgiven of their sins? I'm trying to think of one ...
Click to expand...


No, I didn't say children born to Christian parents are all truly forgiven for that reason alone. Some will fall away. But they are falling away, not simply reaching an age of accountability at which they chose not to join the visible church in the first place.

Jesus goes out of his way to show that forgiveness belongs to children. When children are criticized for praising him, he quotes [esv]Psalm 8:2[/esv]:



> But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” they were indignant, 16 and they said to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read,
> 
> “‘Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies
> you have prepared praise’?”
> -Matthew 21:15-16(ESV)



This is just one of many examples. But don't miss the key issue: Isn't not baptizing the children of infants making a statement about who forgiveness is given to? Given the examples of household baptism in the NT and the things Jesus says about children, isn't the most reasonable conclusion (using Occam's razor) that the children of Christians have as much a place in forgiveness as we do, provided, of course, that they do not prove to be unregenerate later, which should be the exception not the rule, as with adults?

This is really the clincher for me, so I'll emphasize it again: Since baptism symbolizes cleansing of sin, whom you baptize makes a powerful statement about to whom forgiveness pertains. Denying baptism to the infants of believers is making a statement that flies against the way children of believers are regarded in the NT.

^^-----This is my answer to your original post. This is where the heart of the matter lies.


----------



## Ron

austinww said:


> So can we agree that the primary meaning of baptism has to do with a cleansing of sin, which of course comes from identification with Christ and inward repentance?



Hey Austin,

I hate to crash the party but this seems very simplistic if not misleading. Romans 6 and Galatians 3 offer what might be considered the most clear word pictures having to do with baptism. Romans 6 specifically speaks of baptism in terms of union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection, which is a different emphasis and one that is much more pregnant with meaning than merely cleansing from sin. We are identified in baptism with Christ’s vicarious work on behalf of those chosen in him, which has to do with the fulfillment of the law, satisfaction, propitiation, expiation, vindication, etc., which is ours through having been united to the whole Christ and his finished work. It is through _union_ that all those aspects of our salvation become ours. This is why Galatians 3 refers to baptism in terms of our having _put on_ Christ. Colossians 2 also speaks of burial and resurrection, which again is best summed up with union. This is not to suggest that Baptism does not signify the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3) and _also_ the forgiveness of sins; it does. Notwithstanding, whatever you’re driving at, if it cannot be achieved without distorting the full orbed scriptural depiction of baptism as union with Christ _and all it implies_, I might consider taking another approach to whatever it is you are leading up to.

The suspense is killing me! 

Ron


----------



## au5t1n

Just to give you a taste of the inconsistency of the Baptist view, tell me: How many children of faithful Baptist parents do not get baptized at some point? Baptist children who fall away and prove unregenerate when they get into college are already baptized. Here's my point:

If Reformed Baptists were consistent, they would have to baptize some of their children, and not baptize others. Surely you do not believe they are all justified by faith (as you stated the criterion should be)? But Reformed Baptists baptize ALL of their children. Many fall away, but not before they are all baptized upon professions of faith that appear totally legitimate. 

Take two kids, Johnny and Joseph. Neither is elect. Neither will ever be regenerate, but both are born to Christian parents (and I don't mean nominal Christian parents). Johnny is baptized as a baby and when he hits 18, he falls away. Joseph is a Reformed Baptist. His parents wait until he is, say, 9, and he makes a profession of faith, sounds really sincere, is examined by elders, and is baptized at the age of 9. He too hits 18 and falls away.

Now please explain to me again how the Baptist practice is better at identifying the truly regenerate?


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> No, I didn't say children born to Christian parents are all truly forgiven for that reason alone. Some will fall away. But they are falling away, not simply reaching an age of accountability at which they chose not to join the visible church in the first place.
> 
> Jesus goes out of his way to show that forgiveness belongs to children. When children are criticized for praising him, he quotes [esv]Psalm 8:2[/esv]:
> 
> [bible]Matthew 21:15-16[/bible]
> 
> This is just one of many examples. But don't miss the key issue: Isn't not baptizing the children of infants making a statement about who forgiveness is given to? Given the examples of household baptism in the NT and the things Jesus says about children, isn't the most reasonable conclusion (using Occam's razor) that the children of Christians have as much a place in forgiveness as we do, provided, of course, that they do not prove to be unregenerate later, which should be the exception not the rule, as with adults?
> 
> This is really the clincher for me, so I'll emphasize it again: Since baptism symbolizes cleansing of sin, whom you baptize makes a powerful statement about to whom forgiveness pertains. Denying baptism to the infants of believers is making a statement that flies against the way children of believers are regarded in the NT.
> 
> ^^-----This is my answer to your original post. This is where the heart of the matter lies.



I most certainly believe that baptism is applied to those that we reckon as forgiven. And who is forgiven? The saints, the elect, the justified. And from where does it come? Is it not the shedding of the blood of Christ that brings forgiveness to the elect?

I am with all my ability trying to use rational inference (Occam) here, but end up with affirming the precise opposite as you. That's fascinating!

The NT descriptions of household baptism and Jesus' words regarding children do NOT imply the de facto forgiveness of children. In fact, it does not seem to be concerned about answering that question at all. What can be seen from the household texts (which are the most relevant) is that baptism was tied to faith, the Holy Spirit, repentance, etc.

The clincher for me is the unbroken chain of election, limited atonement, regeneration, faith, justification, etc ... It is to these ones which the sign of forgiveness rightly belongs.


----------



## tdowns

*This is the reality.*



austinww said:


> Just to give you a taste of the inconsistency of the Baptist view, tell me: How many children of faithful Baptist parents do not get baptized at some point? Baptist children who fall away and prove unregenerate when they get into college are already baptized. Here's my point:
> 
> If Reformed Baptists were consistent, they would have to baptize some of their children, and not baptize others. Surely you do not believe they are all justified by faith (as you stated the criterion should be)? But Reformed Baptists baptize ALL of their children. Many fall away, but not before they are all baptized upon professions of faith that appear totally legitimate.
> 
> Take two kids, Johnny and Joseph. Neither is elect. Neither will ever be regenerate, but both are born to Christian parents (and I don't mean nominal Christian parents). Johnny is baptized as a baby and when he hits 18, he falls away. Joseph is a Reformed Baptist. His parents wait until he is, say, 9, and he makes a profession of faith, sounds really sincere, is examined by elders, and is baptized at the age of 9. He too hits 18 and falls away.
> 
> Now please explain to me again how the Baptist practice is better at identifying the truly regenerate?



This def. sums it up, the reality of how it works out in practice.


----------



## au5t1n

Ron said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can we agree that the primary meaning of baptism has to do with a cleansing of sin, which of course comes from identification with Christ and inward repentance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Austin,
> 
> I hate to crash the party but this seems very simplistic if not misleading. Romans 6 and Galatians 3 offer what might be considered the most clear word pictures having to do with baptism. Romans 6 specifically speaks of baptism in terms of union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection, which is a different emphasis and one that is much more pregnant with meaning than merely cleansing from sin. We are identified in baptism with Christ’s vicarious work on behalf of those chosen in him, which has to do with the fulfillment of the law, satisfaction, propitiation, expiation, vindication, etc., which is ours through having been united to the whole Christ and his finished work. It is through _union_ that all those aspects of our salvation become ours. This is why Galatians 3 refers to baptism in terms of our having _put on_ Christ. Colossians 2 also speaks of burial and resurrection, which again is best summed up with union. This is not to suggest that Baptism does not signify the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3) and _also_ the forgiveness of sins; it does. Notwithstanding, whatever you’re driving at, if it cannot be achieved without distorting the full orbed scriptural depiction of baptism as union with Christ _and all it implies_, I might consider taking another approach to whatever it is you are leading up to.
> 
> The suspense is killing me!
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


All of those things are intimately connected with forgiveness. No one is forgiven without being identified with Christ. No one is forgiven without repentance. However, baptism is washing with water, and therefore its symbolism is washing of sin. True washing of sin can only happen by identification with Christ and repentance of sin. They are all joined at the hip, and ultimately identification with Christ is the source of all. But baptism, being a washing with water, directly symbolizes cleansing of sin, which comes only by union with Christ through faith.

The washing with water depicts washing with sin, which is why Peter can tell his hearers to be baptized for the remission of sins. I expected steadfast7 to say its purpose is to make a public profession of faith, which I would have countered by saying that we could do that with a t-shirt saying, "I believe in Jesus." Baptism symbolizes more than that; it symbolizes cleansing of sin. Thankfully, he assented to that point.

Does that make it clearer what I meant? Thanks for making me refine my language. I need to do that more often.


----------



## Ron

austinww said:


> Just to give you a taste of the inconsistency of the Baptist view, tell me: How many children of faithful Baptist parents do not get baptized at some point? Baptist children who fall away and prove unregenerate when they get into college are already baptized. Here's my point:
> 
> If Reformed Baptists were consistent, they would have to baptize some of their children, and not baptize others. Surely you do not believe they are all justified by faith (as you stated the criterion should be)? But Reformed Baptists baptize ALL of their children. Many fall away, but not before they are all baptized upon professions of faith that appear totally legitimate.
> 
> Take two kids, Johnny and Joseph. Neither is elect. Neither will ever be regenerate, but both are born to Christian parents (and I don't mean nominal Christian parents). Johnny is baptized as a baby and when he hits 18, he falls away. Joseph is a Reformed Baptist. His parents wait until he is, say, 9, and he makes a profession of faith, sounds really sincere, is examined by elders, and is baptized at the age of 9. He too hits 18 and falls away.
> 
> Now please explain to me again how the Baptist practice is better at identifying the truly regenerate?



Austin, that's just ridiculous. To be fair, let's assume that the same percentage of non-elect children are born in both type homes, baptist and paedobaptist. The paedobaptist parents present 100% of their non-elect children for baptism whereas there will be some percentage of non-elect children born of baptist parents who never get baptized due to a manifestation of unbelief prior to being baptized. Consequently, their system would statistically ensure a greater percentage of converts in the church, all other things being equal, which presents no threat to the position you are wanting to defend.

Ron


----------



## Contra_Mundum

John Lanier said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Credos* read the Bible "back-to-front." That is, they find themselves *in* the NT, the NT age, and basically formulate virtually all their theology in a "New-Covenant-Scriptures" context. The Old Testament is not particularly formative of the NT-Christian's doctrine and practice.  *At best, the OT serves as history, and for the provision of analogical relations.*
> 
> One of the clearest barometers for awareness of this perception is the question of Psalm-singing. If a church considers the Psalms to be pretty much entirely a reflection of Old Covenant theology, piety, and practice, they will seldom (if ever) sing the Psalter. Why should they? Those are Old-Covenant perspectives on Christ. I realize that this is not a "rule". But I would ask the reader to carefully consider this observation, and explain the notable absence of Psalms among the majority of Baptist churches in another way. They were abandoned; so why? Did the similar abandonment (but to a far lesser extent) of the Psalms by paedo-churches reflect a loss of theological and covenant-minded committments? I think the answer is "yes."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are some strong allegations from one who is not a credo. I am a Baptist who is a member of a Psalms only church. It might be better if the Baptists spoke for themselves instead of being told what we are by someone who is not one. I apologize if my tone sounds harsh, it is not meant to be so.
Click to expand...


John,
I don't intend to be harsh either. No offense meant. I would hope you could see my answer in the larger perspective. The question as put is overwhelming, actually, and so any answer is bound to demand more than a sentence, paragraph, or even page. But there's not room or time for that here. Please reflect on the substance of my comment.

Feel free to distance yourself from particularities, however the essence of my comments do hold water, in my opinion. At the very core of the dispute between baptists and presbyterians is a hermeneutical controversy. In short-hand, I believe that dispute can be summed up in the "direction" in which we read the Bible.

If someone asked me why I baptize children, and I am going to start with a _theological rationale_, a theology of baptism, I am very likely to START my explanation at Genesis 17, because the deeper question they are asking (even if they don't know it to be so) is "why do you apply the sign of the covenant to children of believers?" This is a didactic text dealing explicitly with instructions on who should receive such a sign.

*Where would you start a similar answer from your own side*? Would you start with examples of NT baptism, and move on to the epistolary analogies? I would probably move to the theological applications in the epistles second, and conclude with an appeal to examples of both individual and household baptisms in the NT as the completion of my explanation. I.e., doctrine, then practice.


In any case, I respectfully acknowledge that you are actually stricter in practice than my own church, where we sing just over 50% Psalms. However, out of the multi-thousands of baptistic churches in the land, wouldn't you concede that those who practice either exclusive Psalmody, or use a book like the Trinity Hymnal, can be counted by the mere dozens? How many of the others, if you suggested the Psalms ought to be sung in any degree of consistency, would respond with some version of "why do we want to sing Old Testament?"

If you can agree with me thus far, then perhaps you will also agree that the issue is, at base, hermeneutical. Some Baptists have expressed the cred-paedo difference in terms of "continuity/discontinuity", but that idea (it seems to me) does not adequately explain how we get to the dispute over what concepts stay, and which should go.

Blessings.


----------



## tdowns

*Ron,*

Ron, that seems it could be true, if most baptists, waited till the child is late teens or even college, but, in reality, most baptize by 12 at latest, and at that point, very rare a child will "reject" the taught faith of their parents at that age. So, I'd say it's near 100% kids being baptized before their faith can truly be known.


----------



## Prufrock

Austin, 

I'm not sure exactly where you're going, but it seems you may not be representing the traditional understanding for why we baptize our children. You seem to still be working within a framework that Baptism is designed to say something about the person receiving it (at least within some level of probability); the traditional understanding is different: it states that Baptism declares -- not necessarily something about the person -- but simply what is true of the covenant itself, or what is objectively true: that _if_ one repents and believes, they will have life. Consider these words from James Durham's second sermon on Isaiah 53:


> a 6th confirmation is from the nature of God's administration of his external covenant, which is sealed in Baptism to both [the elect and non-elect], not one Covenant to one, and another Covenant to another, but the same Covenant on condition of believing to both. (Durham, James _Christ Crucified_, 1683, p.10)


It *seems* to me that you are still operating within a basic Baptistic framework with respect to the nature or the "whatness" of Baptism.


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> Just to give you a taste of the inconsistency of the Baptist view, tell me: How many children of faithful Baptist parents do not get baptized at some point? Baptist children who fall away and prove unregenerate when they get into college are already baptized. Here's my point:
> 
> If Reformed Baptists were consistent, they would have to baptize some of their children, and not baptize others. Surely you do not believe they are all justified by faith (as you stated the criterion should be)? But Reformed Baptists baptize ALL of their children. Many fall away, but not before they are all baptized upon professions of faith that appear totally legitimate.
> 
> Take two kids, Johnny and Joseph. Neither is elect. Neither will ever be regenerate, but both are born to Christian parents (and I don't mean nominal Christian parents). Johnny is baptized as a baby and when he hits 18, he falls away. Joseph is a Reformed Baptist. His parents wait until he is, say, 9, and he makes a profession of faith, sounds really sincere, is examined by elders, and is baptized at the age of 9. He too hits 18 and falls away.
> 
> Now please explain to me again how the Baptist practice is better at identifying the truly regenerate?



This is an interesting thought experiment, and it's best to expand it. 

A1, consider all who have been baptized as infants from the early church till now, in all denominations.
A2 suggest what percentage of them were elect. 

B1 consider all who have been baptized on profession of faith
B2 suggest what percentage of them were elect. 

Is it not mildly conceivable that B2 > A2 ?

In other words, we should expect that there be more elect (per capita) among those who profess and are baptized, than those who did not profess and were baptized.


----------



## au5t1n

Ron said:


> The paedobaptist parents present 100% of their non-elect children for baptism whereas *there will be some percentage of non-elect children born of baptist parents who never get baptized due to a manifestation of unbelief prior to being baptized.* Consequently, their system would statistically ensure a greater percentage of converts in the church, all other things being equal, which presents no threat to the position you are wanting to defend.



How many young children of faithful Baptists profess unbelief before they are baptized? I've never met a child of faithful Baptist parents who would not say they believe in the gospel, even if they may fall away later.

-----Added 11/6/2009 at 02:26:38 EST-----



Prufrock said:


> Austin,
> 
> I'm not sure exactly where you're going, but it seems you may not be representing the traditional understanding for why we baptize our children. You seem to still be working within a framework that Baptism is designed to say something about the person receiving it (at least within some level of probability); the traditional understanding is different: it states that Baptism declares -- not necessarily something about the person -- but simply what is true of the covenant itself, or what is objectively true: that _if_ one repents and believes, they will have life. Consider these words from James Durham's second sermon on Isaiah 53:
> 
> 
> 
> a 6th confirmation is from the nature of God's administration of his external covenant, which is sealed in Baptism to both [the elect and non-elect], not one Covenant to one, and another Covenant to another, but the same Covenant on condition of believing to both. (Durham, James _Christ Crucified_, 1683, p.10)
> 
> 
> 
> It *seems* to me that you are still operating within a basic Baptistic framework with respect to the nature or the "whatness" of Baptism.
Click to expand...


No, I agree with you. Perhaps I am being unclear. I know that baptism isn't a guarantee that the person receiving it is forgiven. It doesn't change the fact that forgiveness is what baptism symbolizes, right? It certainly does not mean anything if the baptized person never has a changed heart.


----------



## steadfast7

I don't mind the idea of baptism as a sign (ie, pointer) of the belonging in the covenant. But as "seal" ? Isn't a seal an authentication, a confirmation? perhaps I'm wrong on my definition ...


----------



## Ron

austinww said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> The paedobaptist parents present 100% of their non-elect children for baptism whereas *there will be some percentage of non-elect children born of baptist parents who never get baptized due to a manifestation of unbelief prior to being baptized.* Consequently, their system would statistically ensure a greater percentage of converts in the church, all other things being equal, which presents no threat to the position you are wanting to defend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many young children of faithful Baptists profess unbelief before they are baptized? I've never met a child of faithful Baptist parents who would not say they believe in the gospel, even if they may fall away later.
Click to expand...


Plenty... For instance, I have only one brother-in-law and he did. Nonetheless, all it takes is one person to refute your point. 

Ron


----------



## timmopussycat

Ron said:


> Notwithstanding, whatever you’re driving at, if it cannot be achieved without distorting the full orbed scriptural depiction of baptism as union with Christ _and all it implies_, I might consider taking another approach to whatever it is you are leading up to.



Hi Ron

Thanks.
You have just provided the best statement I have yet seen outlining one of the two major resons why I remain credo. I don't believe it possible to baptize infants without distorting the full orbed scriptural depiction of [either Spirit] baptism [as reality or water baptism as sign of our] union with Christ _and all it implies_.


----------



## Ron

tdowns said:


> Ron, that seems it could be true, if most baptists, waited till the child is late teens or even college, but, in reality, most baptize by 12 at latest, and at that point, very rare a child will "reject" the taught faith of their parents at that age. So, I'd say it's near 100% kids being baptized before their faith can truly be known.



Regardless of your experience, it takes only one person to refute the point Austin would like to make. Baptists should have a greater percentage of genuine converts on their roles than we, but so what? You guys are arguing a point you can't win and that has no bearing on whether we are called to baptize infants! Get with the program, men.

Ron

-----Added 11/6/2009 at 02:33:45 EST-----



timmopussycat said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notwithstanding, whatever you’re driving at, if it cannot be achieved without distorting the full orbed scriptural depiction of baptism as union with Christ _and all it implies_, I might consider taking another approach to whatever it is you are leading up to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Ron
> 
> Thanks.
> You have just provided the best statement I have yet seen outlining one of the two major resons why I remain credo. I don't believe it possible to baptize infants without distorting the full orbed scriptural depiction of [either Spirit] baptism [as [reality or water baptism as sign of our] union with Christ _and all it implies_.
Click to expand...


Why, can't an infant be united to Christ? Isn't Jesus an equal opportunity Savior and not a respecter of persons? More to the point, these are God's signs and seals. He may hang them where he wants!

Ron


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say children born to Christian parents are all truly forgiven for that reason alone. Some will fall away. But they are falling away, not simply reaching an age of accountability at which they chose not to join the visible church in the first place.
> 
> Jesus goes out of his way to show that forgiveness belongs to children. When children are criticized for praising him, he quotes [esv]Psalm 8:2[/esv]:
> 
> [bible]Matthew 21:15-16[/bible]
> 
> This is just one of many examples. But don't miss the key issue: Isn't not baptizing the children of infants making a statement about who forgiveness is given to? Given the examples of household baptism in the NT and the things Jesus says about children, isn't the most reasonable conclusion (using Occam's razor) that the children of Christians have as much a place in forgiveness as we do, provided, of course, that they do not prove to be unregenerate later, which should be the exception not the rule, as with adults?
> 
> This is really the clincher for me, so I'll emphasize it again: Since baptism symbolizes cleansing of sin, whom you baptize makes a powerful statement about to whom forgiveness pertains. Denying baptism to the infants of believers is making a statement that flies against the way children of believers are regarded in the NT.
> 
> ^^-----This is my answer to your original post. This is where the heart of the matter lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I most certainly believe that baptism is applied to those that we reckon as forgiven. And who is forgiven? The saints, the elect, the justified. And from where does it come? Is it not the shedding of the blood of Christ that brings forgiveness to the elect?
> 
> I am with all my ability trying to use rational inference (Occam) here, but end up with affirming the precise opposite as you. That's fascinating!
> 
> The NT descriptions of household baptism and Jesus' words regarding children do NOT imply the de facto forgiveness of children. In fact, it does not seem to be concerned about answering that question at all. What can be seen from the household texts (which are the most relevant) is that baptism was tied to faith, the Holy Spirit, repentance, etc.
> 
> The clincher for me is the unbroken chain of election, limited atonement, regeneration, faith, justification, etc ... It is to these ones which the sign of forgiveness rightly belongs.
Click to expand...


Are you suggesting these do not pertain to infants? I think our fundamental issue is that you are looking at children as only individuals, apart from any covenantal connection. If they are in the covenant by virtue of being raised in a Christian household, then surely forgiveness belongs to them too? Only if they are elect, or course, but we cannot know which ones are not elect. Nevertheless, the Bible speaks as though, generally speaking, Christians will raise Christians. It is a terrible tragedy when this doesn't happen and a child of Christians abandons the covenant.


----------



## timmopussycat

steadfast7 said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to give you a taste of the inconsistency of the Baptist view, tell me: How many children of faithful Baptist parents do not get baptized at some point? Baptist children who fall away and prove unregenerate when they get into college are already baptized. Here's my point:
> 
> If Reformed Baptists were consistent, they would have to baptize some of their children, and not baptize others. Surely you do not believe they are all justified by faith (as you stated the criterion should be)? But Reformed Baptists baptize ALL of their children. Many fall away, but not before they are all baptized upon professions of faith that appear totally legitimate.
> 
> Take two kids, Johnny and Joseph. Neither is elect. Neither will ever be regenerate, but both are born to Christian parents (and I don't mean nominal Christian parents). Johnny is baptized as a baby and when he hits 18, he falls away. Joseph is a Reformed Baptist. His parents wait until he is, say, 9, and he makes a profession of faith, sounds really sincere, is examined by elders, and is baptized at the age of 9. He too hits 18 and falls away.
> 
> Now please explain to me again how the Baptist practice is better at identifying the truly regenerate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an interesting thought experiment, and it's best to expand it.
> 
> A1, consider all who have been baptized as infants from the early church till now, in all denominations.
> A2 suggest what percentage of them were elect.
> 
> B1 consider all who have been baptized on profession of faith
> B2 suggest what percentage of them were elect.
> 
> Is it not mildly conceivable that B2 > A2 ?
> 
> In other words, we should expect that there be more elect (per capita) among those who profess and are baptized, than those who did not profess and were baptized.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure we should expand the experiment this way. Scripture does not warrant us to argue from results in this case. The ultimate isssue is: what does Scripture command or exemplify.


----------



## Prufrock

Austin,

Are you saying that that the reason Christians baptize their children is because we think (or at least, it is _probable_) that they are elect/forgiven/regenerate/etc.? In other words, is baptism designed to (within some level of probability) say something actual about the individual who has received it?


----------



## timmopussycat

Ron said:


> tdowns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ron, that seems it could be true, if most baptists, waited till the child is late teens or even college, but, in reality, most baptize by 12 at latest, and at that point, very rare a child will "reject" the taught faith of their parents at that age. So, I'd say it's near 100% kids being baptized before their faith can truly be known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of your experience, it takes only one person to refute the point Austin would like to make. Baptists should have a greater percentage of genuine converts on their roles than we, but so what? You guys are arguing a point you can't win and that has no bearing on whether we are called to baptize infants! Get with the program, men.
> 
> Ron
> 
> -----Added 11/6/2009 at 02:33:45 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notwithstanding, whatever you’re driving at, if it cannot be achieved without distorting the full orbed scriptural depiction of baptism as union with Christ _and all it implies_, I might consider taking another approach to whatever it is you are leading up to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Ron
> 
> Thanks.
> You have just provided the best statement I have yet seen outlining one of the two major resons why I remain credo. I don't believe it possible to baptize infants without distorting the full orbed scriptural depiction of [either Spirit] baptism [as [reality or water baptism as sign of our] union with Christ _and all it implies_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why, can't an infant be united to Christ? Isn't Jesus an equal opportunity Savior and not a respecter of persons? More to the point, these are God's signs and seals. He may hang them where he wants!
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


While Christ may unite a child to him in infancy, the real question is when does the church have the right to state that union with Christ has taken place in a given individual's life? And since an infant cannot tell us he professes faith, one of two criteria in John 1:12,13 is not yet present and if it baptizes infants, a church is presuming such union upon insufficient evidence.


----------



## au5t1n

Ron said:


> tdowns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ron, that seems it could be true, if most baptists, waited till the child is late teens or even college, but, in reality, most baptize by 12 at latest, and at that point, very rare a child will "reject" the taught faith of their parents at that age. So, I'd say it's near 100% kids being baptized before their faith can truly be known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of your experience, it takes only one person to refute the point Austin would like to make. Baptists should have a greater percentage of genuine converts on their roles than we, but so what? You guys are arguing a point you can't win and that has no bearing on whether we are called to baptize infants! Get with the program, men.
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


Maybe you're right. But I was raised in Baptist churches, and _every_ child professed faith in the gospel and was baptized. There were none who were not baptized because we waited until they could say, "No, I don't believe the gospel."

-----Added 11/6/2009 at 02:42:24 EST-----



Prufrock said:


> Austin,
> 
> Are you saying that that the reason Christians baptize their children is because we think (or at least, it is _probable_) that they are elect/forgiven/regenerate/etc.? In other words, is baptism designed to (within some level of probability) say something actual about the individual who has received it?



That's a difficult question. I do not believe in presumptive regeneration. I do believe, however, that Christians baptize our children because we believe that forgiveness belongs to them, if and only if they continue in the path they are raised in. Otherwise, they never had forgiveness.

Edit: After all, baptism symbolizes forgiveness. There has to be some reason we give them a sign that symbolizes forgiveness. We believe God does cleanse our children, even if some may fall away. It is the same with adult converts. We do not know that they are truly forgiven either, but we apply the sign of forgiveness because we expect and treat them as forgiven, although we cannot guarantee it.


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I didn't say children born to Christian parents are all truly forgiven for that reason alone. Some will fall away. But they are falling away, not simply reaching an age of accountability at which they chose not to join the visible church in the first place.
> 
> Jesus goes out of his way to show that forgiveness belongs to children. When children are criticized for praising him, he quotes [esv]Psalm 8:2[/esv]:
> 
> [bible]Matthew 21:15-16[/bible]
> 
> This is just one of many examples. But don't miss the key issue: Isn't not baptizing the children of infants making a statement about who forgiveness is given to? Given the examples of household baptism in the NT and the things Jesus says about children, isn't the most reasonable conclusion (using Occam's razor) that the children of Christians have as much a place in forgiveness as we do, provided, of course, that they do not prove to be unregenerate later, which should be the exception not the rule, as with adults?
> 
> This is really the clincher for me, so I'll emphasize it again: Since baptism symbolizes cleansing of sin, whom you baptize makes a powerful statement about to whom forgiveness pertains. Denying baptism to the infants of believers is making a statement that flies against the way children of believers are regarded in the NT.
> 
> ^^-----This is my answer to your original post. This is where the heart of the matter lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I most certainly believe that baptism is applied to those that we reckon as forgiven. And who is forgiven? The saints, the elect, the justified. And from where does it come? Is it not the shedding of the blood of Christ that brings forgiveness to the elect?
> 
> I am with all my ability trying to use rational inference (Occam) here, but end up with affirming the precise opposite as you. That's fascinating!
> 
> The NT descriptions of household baptism and Jesus' words regarding children do NOT imply the de facto forgiveness of children. In fact, it does not seem to be concerned about answering that question at all. What can be seen from the household texts (which are the most relevant) is that baptism was tied to faith, the Holy Spirit, repentance, etc.
> 
> The clincher for me is the unbroken chain of election, limited atonement, regeneration, faith, justification, etc ... It is to these ones which the sign of forgiveness rightly belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting these do not pertain to infants? I think our fundamental issue is that you are looking at children as only individuals, apart from any covenantal connection. If they are in the covenant by virtue of being raised in a Christian household, then surely forgiveness belongs to them too? Only if they are elect, or course, but we cannot know which ones are not elect. Nevertheless, the Bible speaks as though, generally speaking, Christians will raise Christians. It is a terrible tragedy when this doesn't happen and a child of Christians abandons the covenant.
Click to expand...


Forgiveness _may _pertain to them, and may God be gracious to them. But it is no one's birthright. The church is called to baptize the faith-ful; or to make the invisible church, visible, as it were. Baptism is a not stab in the dark of who's elect or not, it's a visible representation of union with Christ through the Spirit.


----------



## Ron

timmopussycat said:


> And since an infant cannot tell us he professes faith, one of two criteria in John 1:12,13 is not yet present and if it baptizes infants, a church is presuming such union upon insufficient evidence.



This is monstrosity of logic. The verse teaches that those who receive Christ by faith are indeed sons of God. However, the verse you quoted does not negate the principle that you should be trying to refute... Now please produce a deductive argument with premises justified by Scripture that concludes that we ought not to consider infants of professing believers as having been engrafted into Christ. 

Ron

-----Added 11/6/2009 at 02:49:15 EST-----



austinww said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tdowns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ron, that seems it could be true, if most baptists, waited till the child is late teens or even college, but, in reality, most baptize by 12 at latest, and at that point, very rare a child will "reject" the taught faith of their parents at that age. So, I'd say it's near 100% kids being baptized before their faith can truly be known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of your experience, it takes only one person to refute the point Austin would like to make. Baptists should have a greater percentage of genuine converts on their roles than we, but so what? You guys are arguing a point you can't win and that has no bearing on whether we are called to baptize infants! Get with the program, men.
> 
> Ron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you're right. But I was raised in Baptist churches, and _every_ child professed faith in the gospel and was baptized. There were none who were not baptized because we waited until they could say, "No, I don't believe the gospel."
> 
> -----Added 11/6/2009 at 02:42:24 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Austin,
> 
> Are you saying that that the reason Christians baptize their children is because we think (or at least, it is _probable_) that they are elect/forgiven/regenerate/etc.? In other words, is baptism designed to (within some level of probability) say something actual about the individual who has received it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a difficult question. I do not believe in presumptive regeneration. I do believe, however, that Christians baptize our children because we believe that forgiveness belongs to them, if and only if they continue in the path they are raised in. Otherwise, they never had forgiveness.
> 
> Edit: After all, baptism symbolizes forgiveness. There has to be some reason we give them a sign that symbolizes forgiveness. We believe God does cleanse our children, even if some may fall away. It is the same with adult converts. We do not know that they are truly forgiven either, but we apply the sign of forgiveness because we expect and treat them as forgiven, although we cannot guarantee it.
Click to expand...


Austin, it's a matter of precept not probability.

Ron


----------



## steadfast7

again, it's important to point out that an infant can most certainly be united with Christ. The question is whether the church has the right to apply this sign/seal on _every _infant in the church. No matter how you slice it, PB assumes that an infant's ingrafting into Christ is objectively happening in every case. This either diminishes the meaning of ingrafting, or diminishes meaning of baptism.


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> again, it's important to point out that an infant can most certainly be united with Christ. The question is whether the church has the right to apply this sign/seal on _every _infant in the church.



I accidentally clicked "Thanks" instead of "Quote" on your post (No offense )

Couldn't we apply this logic to adult converts? How do we know their true spiritual state?

Edit: Nevermind. We have discussed this already and I would rather you answer Ron's question below than mine. I don't want to overwhelm you with multiple questioners.


----------



## Ron

steadfast7 said:


> again, it's important to point out that an infant can most certainly be united with Christ. The question is whether the church has the right to apply this sign/seal on _every _infant in the church.



Yes, now when did God abrogate the principle that children _are_ to be regarded as His children? Please, no more pointing to Jer. 31, as if that answers any questions. Once and for all, actually put forth a deductive argument with a valid form and then we'll go step by step examining each premise and the exegesis that goes along with its justification. Fair enough?

Ron


----------



## Contra_Mundum

William Price said:


> Baptism was always a testimony of the conversion of the believer by the hand of God. It was a sign of the covenant the believer came into through and by Christ. My main problem with paedobaptism is this. How can a baby come into the covenant when they have not shown signs of regeneration, and no fruit of repentance? If they are being brought into the covenant, how then is this possible?


Hi William,

Thank you for this post. I am not _responding_ to your point, so much as bringing your post up as evidence of my second point, made earlier.

The first issue that must be addressed in understanding the credo-paedo divide is hermeneutical. I thank John for protesting, and for allowing greater visibility to that issue. With due allowance for exceptions (thank God for clarity on the RPW among the many children of the Reformation), still the looking-_backwards_ through the Bible does indeed offer a coherent explanation for many of our differences. That this perspective doesn't always result in short-shrift given to the OT is thankworthy, and expected. However, it does explain the secondary-status accorded the OT generally in such churches.​
My second point directly addressed the question of "what does baptism SAY?" William, your post is an ideal illustration of the difference that I pointed to in my earlier post. You state twice that baptism is a statement fundamentally concerning "the believer". This is precisely the Baptist's confession, and it is also precisely the CONTRARY position to the Confessional Presbyterian or Reformed.

When one considers the fact that no previously baptized Baptist, once he has been convinced (and his church convinced) that he was NOT a believer at the time of his previous baptism, in his conscience he is obliged to get baptized. The first action (whatever one wants to call it) is invalid.

Why? Because in this theology, baptism is *essentially* (not exclusively, perhaps) a PERSONAL STATEMENT. It is either TRUE of FALSE. And in order to be valid, it must in the end be a TRUE statement, a statement made regarding the reality of one's inner state.


As a Confessional paedo-baptist (regarding the children of professing believers, not willy-nilly child-daubers), I do not believe the *essential* statement of baptism is personal; as to the person himself, the conclusion of baptism is _derivative_ from the basic statement. The basic statement of baptism is DIVINE. God is doing the speaking, via his ministry of the church.

God's statement is a gospel statement. Again, we are forced to say less than is maximally possible to express, but perhaps one might put it this way: "I will save to the uttermost, by the cleansing power of union with Christ effected through the Holy Spirit, *all who have faith* in the saving merits of the blood of Jesus the Son, including this person," whether he comes himself, or as a child-under-age is merely presented.

Hence, what ANY person believes concerning what God promises, non-verbally but pictorially through baptism, it is effectual whenever and however he believes in the meaning of his baptism. This also makes the STATEMENT of God TRUE, irrespective of the sincerity, honesty, confusion, actual cognition of the moment, any later apostasy, any possible return to God, or any other aspect of the SUBJECT; or even in most cases the state of the church or minister, however deformed or defective.

The vital thing is to BELIEVE, to have FAITH in that which baptism signifies and teaches, the reality to which the sign is pointing. And, according to our theology, that reality is IN HEAVEN, in the person of Christ. And not in the soul of the individual being baptized, *because baptism is about Jesus, and not about me.*


----------



## steadfast7

Ron said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, it's important to point out that an infant can most certainly be united with Christ. The question is whether the church has the right to apply this sign/seal on _every _infant in the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, now when did God abrogate the principle that children _are_ to be regarded as His children? Please, no more pointing to Jer. 31, as if that answers any questions. Once and for all, actually put forth a deductive argument with a valid form and then we'll go step by step examining each premise and the exegesis that goes along with its justification. Fair enough?
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


Well, first off. Can we examine this principle that you are putting forth, with scripture? And, can we be sure that being a child of God in the OT, means the same thing as being a child of God in the NT? You are already beginning to assume that they mean the same thing, but that first needs to be established.


----------



## timmopussycat

austinww said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, it's important to point out that an infant can most certainly be united with Christ. The question is whether the church has the right to apply this sign/seal on _every _infant in the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I accidentally clicked "Thanks" instead of "Quote" on your post (No offense )
> 
> Couldn't we apply this logic to adult converts? How do we know their true spiritual state?
Click to expand...


In the absolute sense we don't know the true spiritual state of adult converts. But Scripture authorizes us to presume union with Christ has taken place when we observe the presence of belief in him and receiving him, as fallible as those evidences turn out to be in particular cases. We have no equivalent authorization to presume union has taken place in children before the child's belief in Christ and receiving him can be communicated to us.

The word "right" in John 1:12 cannot be referring to a status claim that the believer must make against God to establish that he is God's child, for since "The Lord knows those who are his," we will never need to exercise that "right" in heaven.

So receiving Christ and believing in his name must be seen as the Scripturally authorized marks that one is a believer, a status that the believer may need to claim a place among God's people on earth.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

steadfast7 said:


> again, it's important to point out that an infant can most certainly be united with Christ. The question is whether the church has the right to apply this sign/seal on _every _infant in the church. No matter how you slice it, PB assumes that an infant's ingrafting into Christ is objectively happening in every case. This either diminishes the meaning of ingrafting, or diminishes meaning of baptism.



Actually, it is the Baptist position that compels us to make unwarranted assumptions. When God gave Abraham his covenant sign, and it was applied throughout his generations, even after the institution of the Mosaic adminstration, the _assumption_ made (on divine authority) was that the child was an "Israelite in truth, in whom there was no guile," until such time as he earned a death sentence or excommunication.

Therefore, it is apparent that God intended us to *err* on the side of charity and hope, on the side of generosity.

In the present day, the Baptist would have us reverse the burden of proof. With the acknowledgment that many of those children of the saints ARE indeed eventually to make explicit their commitment to the faith in which they were raised, the Baptist will have us make the _ unwarranted_ assumption that they are NOT "Israelites in truth." In other words, the New Covenant is proposed to be less generous, less inclusive, less hopeful in its open declarations. No, but (so we are told) the sign of inclusion must not be placed upon the children, because no more is "the promise to you _and to your seed after you_."

So, who makes the _unwarranted_ assumption? Is it the paedo-baptist, who believes God has commanded his assumption, as far back as Gen.17? Or the credo-only-baptist, who assumes that the households in the NT _*cannot*_ have had infant children, because he KNOWS that baptism can only follow a profession in order to be valid?


----------



## au5t1n

I have to get off the computer for a while, but I want to make it clear before I go that I firmly believe baptism is about God and not the person being baptized. All I have intended here is to point out that there is a reason why we do not baptize unbelievers and their children, but we do baptize believers and their children. In that sense - and in that sense only - baptism is relevant to the person. We are not making any assumptions about anyone's spiritual state. We are affirming the promise of God that if - and only if - they have faith, they are forgiven by God, but not otherwise.

-----Added 11/6/2009 at 03:21:28 EST-----



Contra_Mundum said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, it's important to point out that an infant can most certainly be united with Christ. The question is whether the church has the right to apply this sign/seal on _every _infant in the church. No matter how you slice it, PB assumes that an infant's ingrafting into Christ is objectively happening in every case. This either diminishes the meaning of ingrafting, or diminishes meaning of baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is the Baptist position that compels us to make unwarranted assumptions. When God gave Abraham his covenant sign, and it was applied throughout his generations, even after the institution of the Mosaic adminstration, the _assumption_ made (on divine authority) was that the child was an "Israelite in truth, in whom there was no guile," until such time as he earned a death sentence or excommunication.
> 
> Therefore, it is apparent that God intended us to *err* on the side of charity and hope, on the side of generosity.
> 
> In the present day, the Baptist would have us reverse the burden of proof. With the acknowledgment that many of those children of the saints ARE indeed eventually to make explicit their commitment to the faith in which they were raised, the Baptist will have us make the _ unwarranted_ assumption that they are NOT "Israelites in truth." In other words, the New Covenant is proposed to be less generous, less inclusive, less hopeful in its open declarations. No, but (so we are told) the sign of inclusion must not be placed upon the children, because no more is "the promise to you _and to your seed after you_."
> 
> So, who makes the _unwarranted_ assumption? Is it the paedo-baptist, who believes God has commanded his assumption, as far back as Gen.17? Or the credo-only-baptist, who assumes that the households in the NT _*cannot*_ have had infant children, because he KNOWS that baptism can only follow a profession in order to be valid?
Click to expand...


 That is a much better way of expressing what I have been unable to communicate on this thread.


----------



## steadfast7

Contra_Mundum said:


> William Price said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism was always a testimony of the conversion of the believer by the hand of God. It was a sign of the covenant the believer came into through and by Christ. My main problem with paedobaptism is this. How can a baby come into the covenant when they have not shown signs of regeneration, and no fruit of repentance? If they are being brought into the covenant, how then is this possible?
> 
> 
> 
> Hi William,
> 
> Thank you for this post. I am not _responding_ to your point, so much as bringing your post up as evidence of my second point, made earlier.
> 
> The first issue that must be addressed in understanding the credo-paedo divide is hermeneutical. I thank John for protesting, and for allowing greater visibility to that issue. With due allowance for exceptions (thank God for clarity on the RPW among the many children of the Reformation), still the looking-_backwards_ through the Bible does indeed offer a coherent explanation for many of our differences. That this perspective doesn't always result in short-shrift given to the OT is thankworthy, and expected. However, it does explain the secondary-status accorded the OT generally in such churches.​
> My second point directly addressed the question of "what does baptism SAY?" William, your post is an ideal illustration of the difference that I pointed to in my earlier post. You state twice that baptism is a statement fundamentally concerning "the believer". This is precisely the Baptist's confession, and it is also precisely the CONTRARY position to the Confessional Presbyterian or Reformed.
> 
> When one considers the fact that no previously baptized Baptist, once he has been convinced (and his church convinced) that he was NOT a believer at the time of his previous baptism, in his conscience he is obliged to get baptized. The first action (whatever one wants to call it) is invalid.
> 
> Why? Because in this theology, baptism is *essentially* (not exclusively, perhaps) a PERSONAL STATEMENT. It is either TRUE of FALSE. And in order to be valid, it must in the end be a TRUE statement, a statement made regarding the reality of one's inner state.
> 
> 
> As a Confessional paedo-baptist (regarding the children of professing believers, not willy-nilly child-daubers), I do not believe the *essential* statement of baptism is personal; as to the person himself, the conclusion of baptism is _derivative_ from the basic statement. The basic statement of baptism is DIVINE. God is doing the speaking, via his ministry of the church.
> 
> God's statement is a gospel statement. Again, we are forced to say less than is maximally possible to express, but perhaps one might put it this way: "I will save to the uttermost, by the cleansing power of union with Christ effected through the Holy Spirit, *all who have faith* in the saving merits of the blood of Jesus the Son, including this person," whether he comes himself, or as a child-under-age is merely presented.
> 
> Hence, what ANY person believes concerning what God promises, non-verbally but pictorially through baptism, it is effectual whenever and however he believes in the meaning of his baptism. This also makes the STATEMENT of God TRUE, irrespective of the sincerity, honesty, confusion, actual cognition of the moment, any later apostasy, any possible return to God, or any other aspect of the SUBJECT; or even in most cases the state of the church or minister, however deformed or defective.
> 
> The vital thing is to BELIEVE, to have FAITH in that which baptism signifies and teaches, the reality to which the sign is pointing. And, according to our theology, that reality is IN HEAVEN, in the person of Christ. And not in the soul of the individual being baptized, *because baptism is about Jesus, and not about me.*
Click to expand...


Rev. B, this is a perfect illustration of the point you made earlier regarding hermeneutics. CBs seek out the explicit instruction of the NT, PBs look wider and more derivatively for robust theological meaning. 

On the question: should we baptize our infants?

Credos say "for the sake of obedience to scripture, no"
Paedos say "for the sake of theological significance, yes"

While elegant and an excellent portrayal of the gospel, my question is whether we the priority is to _practice _baptism, or find _meaning _in it? I'm understanding the ordinance vs. sacrament distinction clearer now.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> (Rom 10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
> 
> (Rom 10:10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.



This is an important factor being left out in the baptist discussion. 

I have remained out of the discussion because it got to far past my ability to respond since I took a few days off from the PB. 

I have quite a few blogs on this stuff also if you guys want to look at them that answer many objections.

Here is one on Genesis 17...
John Tombes on Genesis 17:7 - The PuritanBoard

New Covenant Sanctification PT. 1 by Alan Conner - The PuritanBoard

Sanctification and New Covenant Membership (II) by Alan Conner - The PuritanBoard

Covenant Head and Covenant Children - The PuritanBoard

Sanctification in 1 Corinthians 7:14 - The PuritanBoard

An Exegetical Appraisal of Colossians 2:11-12 - The PuritanBoard

Circumcision and Baptism Colosians 2:11-12 A.W. Pink - The PuritanBoard

Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? - The PuritanBoard

Is the New Covenant really New. - The PuritanBoard

Now that is a shotgun blast......


----------



## Poimen

steadfast7 said:


> On the question: should we baptize our infants?
> 
> Credos say "for the sake of obedience to scripture, no"
> Paedos say "for the sake of theological significance, yes".



Perhaps you did not mean to posit it in this way but as you present the question here you have made a false dichotomy. Paedos baptize children because they do so in obedience to scripture taking into account all of scripture's teaching on baptism in relation to scripture's teaching of the covenant. 

Your presentation would be closer to the truth if you had said: Credos say "for the sake of obedience to the explicit command of scripture"; Paedos say "for the sake of obedience to the implicit command of scripture". 

To be fair, however, even this would not be the whole truth since the credo cannot point us to a passage of scripture that says "only baptize believers" nor would the paedo say that the command is only implicit for one of the central meanings of baptism for the paedo is covenant (or household) inclusion.


----------



## Prufrock

steadfast7 said:


> again, it's important to point out that an infant can most certainly be united with Christ. The question is whether the church has the right to apply this sign/seal on _every _infant in the church. *No matter how you slice it, PB assumes that an infant's ingrafting into Christ is objectively happening in every case.* This either diminishes the meaning of ingrafting, or diminishes meaning of baptism.



The bold portion is not true. At all. 

As I attempted to explain, and as Rev. Buchanan has explained, and, at a quick glance, as it appears Ron has pointed at -- baptism (for the paedobaptist) is *not* a sign about _what is true about this particular person._ It is an objective sign of the covenant; not a subjective sign of the individual. We do not baptize _on account_ of who we think is probably regenerate or will be regenerate. We baptize on account of divine precept -- that a man and all his belong to the Lord so far as his life is externally ordered.


----------



## steadfast7

Contra_Mundum said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, it's important to point out that an infant can most certainly be united with Christ. The question is whether the church has the right to apply this sign/seal on _every _infant in the church. No matter how you slice it, PB assumes that an infant's ingrafting into Christ is objectively happening in every case. This either diminishes the meaning of ingrafting, or diminishes meaning of baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is the Baptist position that compels us to make unwarranted assumptions. When God gave Abraham his covenant sign, and it was applied throughout his generations, even after the institution of the Mosaic adminstration, the _assumption_ made (on divine authority) was that the child was an "Israelite in truth, in whom there was no guile," until such time as he earned a death sentence or excommunication.
> 
> Therefore, it is apparent that God intended us to *err* on the side of charity and hope, on the side of generosity.
> 
> In the present day, the Baptist would have us reverse the burden of proof. With the acknowledgment that many of those children of the saints ARE indeed eventually to make explicit their commitment to the faith in which they were raised, the Baptist will have us make the _ unwarranted_ assumption that they are NOT "Israelites in truth." In other words, the New Covenant is proposed to be less generous, less inclusive, less hopeful in its open declarations. No, but (so we are told) the sign of inclusion must not be placed upon the children, because no more is "the promise to you _and to your seed after you_."
> 
> So, who makes the _unwarranted_ assumption? Is it the paedo-baptist, who believes God has commanded his assumption, as far back as Gen.17? Or the credo-only-baptist, who assumes that the households in the NT _*cannot*_ have had infant children, because he KNOWS that baptism can only follow a profession in order to be valid?
Click to expand...


The baptist position (I think) is not that the children are NOT God's people, but that we cannot assume that they are.

I think there are assumptions being made by both camps, but let's see where it leads.

the PB assumption (believer's children are God's children), seems to weaken the efficacy of the covenant. ie. if they do not become regenerate, the covenant was ineffective. However, it is inclusive.

the CB assumption (only professing Christians are God's children), seems to weaken the extent of the covenant. However, it is effective unto salvation.

Strangely, I see a parallel between the baptism debate and the limited atonement debate. Both theologies limit or weaken something.

Arminians weaken the efficacy while maximizing the extent.
Calvinists weaken the extent, while maximizing the efficacy.

There is a kind of theological consistency that makes me want to weaken the extent, while maximizing the efficacy. Remember, that the New Covenant (forgiveness, belonging to God's family, etc) is a covenant in the atoning blood of Christ. so, atonement is not merely a parallel, but is intrinsic the very debate.


----------



## au5t1n

Prufrock said:


> As I attempted to explain, and as Rev. Buchanan has explained, and, at a quick glance, as it appears Ron has pointed at -- baptism (for the paedobaptist) is *not* a sign about *what is true about this particular person.* It is an objective sign of the covenant; not a subjective sign of the individual. We do not *baptize on account of who we think is probably regenerate or will be regenerate.* We baptize on account of divine precept -- that a man and all his belong to the Lord so far as his life is externally ordered.



I know this post was directed at steadfast7, but as it has been suggested I am advocating the bolded views above, I want to point out that in the earlier part of this thread, I spent considerable time explaining to steadfast7 that we cannot baptize on the basis of who is and is not regenerate. When I speak of who the sign "belongs to," I am only pointing out that it is indeed a sign of something inward that is promised to those who have faith. My meaning is nothing more nor less than what Rev. Buchanan said here:



Contra_Mundum said:


> Actually, it is the Baptist position that compels us to make unwarranted assumptions. When God gave Abraham his covenant sign, and it was applied throughout his generations, even after the institution of the Mosaic adminstration, *the assumption made (on divine authority) was that the child was an "Israelite in truth, in whom there was no guile," until such time as he earned a death sentence or excommunication.*
> 
> Therefore, it is apparent that God intended us to *err* on the side of charity and hope, on the side of generosity.



I have tried to be clear that I do not believe baptism is on the basis of regeneration, known or presumed, but on the basis of God's promise to believers and their households, if they prove to be truly His elect. I hope this clears it up. Thanks for holding me accountable in my language.


----------



## steadfast7

Poimen said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the question: should we baptize our infants?
> 
> Credos say "for the sake of obedience to scripture, no"
> Paedos say "for the sake of theological significance, yes".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you did not mean to posit it in this way but as you present the question here you have made a false dichotomy. Paedos baptize children because they do so in obedience to scripture taking into account all of scripture's teaching on baptism in relation to scripture's teaching of the covenant.
> 
> Your presentation would be closer to the truth if you had said: Credos say "for the sake of obedience to the explicit command of scripture"; Paedos say "for the sake of obedience to the implicit command of scripture".
> 
> To be fair, however, even this would not be the whole truth since the credo cannot point us to a passage of scripture that says "only baptize believers" nor would the paedo say that the command is only implicit for one of the central meanings of baptism for the paedo is covenant (or household) inclusion.
Click to expand...


Granted, the available texts are descriptive, not prescriptive.

-----Added 11/6/2009 at 04:01:43 EST-----



Prufrock said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, it's important to point out that an infant can most certainly be united with Christ. The question is whether the church has the right to apply this sign/seal on _every _infant in the church. *No matter how you slice it, PB assumes that an infant's ingrafting into Christ is objectively happening in every case.* This either diminishes the meaning of ingrafting, or diminishes meaning of baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bold portion is not true. At all.
> 
> As I attempted to explain, and as Rev. Buchanan has explained, and, at a quick glance, as it appears Ron has pointed at -- baptism (for the paedobaptist) is *not* a sign about _what is true about this particular person._ It is an objective sign of the covenant; not a subjective sign of the individual. We do not baptize _on account_ of who we think is probably regenerate or will be regenerate. We baptize on account of divine precept -- that a man and all his belong to the Lord so far as his life is externally ordered.
Click to expand...


The question remains as to whether this was the function and meaning of baptism as seen in scripture? 

Was it personal, and did it reflect anything about the individual's spiritual state? I suggest yes.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

steadfast7 said:


> The baptist position (I think) is not that the children are NOT God's people, but that we cannot assume that they are.


But we say, on Paul's authority, that our covenant is the same as Abraham's, and that he is our father. God told him his children would be reckoned as His people. And God told him to mark all his physical offspring, even for the sake of the elect among those offspring. So the "assumption" is a God-directed assumption; it is warranted on the basis of the commandment.



steadfast7 said:


> I think there are assumptions being made by both camps, but let's see where it leads.
> 
> the PB assumption (believer's children are God's children), seems to weaken the efficacy of the covenant. ie. if they do not become regenerate, the covenant was ineffective. However, it is inclusive.


Hebrews is explicit: weakness isn't inherent in God's covenant-dealings, but in the humans engaged to them. The _covenant of grace_ has always been completely efficacious, because it has never relied on man for its maintenance at all. Abraham's covenant is of grace, and yet it contained (and contains) signs applied to fallible professors, and their children.

So, starting in Genesis, the first book of the whole Bible, we understand there to be both an internal adminstration, and an external administration of this covenant. The external is imperfect, necessarily. The internal is perfectly administered by the Spirit. But Man looks on the outward appearance.



steadfast7 said:


> the CB assumption (only professing Christians are God's children), seems to weaken the extent of the covenant. However, it is effective unto salvation.


It only is effective in the secret places, which are inaccessible to us. No one doubts the effectiveness of the inward workings of the Covenant of Grace.

The assumption in the above statement is that ONLY and ALL professing Christians are God's children, a manifest untruth which I know you admit. No only are ALL professors not God's children (perhaps not even the majority of them!), but some non-professors (by reason of present inability) are in fact God's children. This is because God's children are according to election, which is secret. We are not to try to baptize on the basis of election, that is, according to who are God's secret children; but according to who are God's externally acknowledged children. And that definition comes to us from Gen.17.



steadfast7 said:


> Strangely, I see a parallel between the baptism debate and the limited atonement debate. Both theologies limit or weaken something.
> 
> Arminians weaken the efficacy while maximizing the extent.
> Calvinists weaken the extent, while maximizing the efficacy.
> 
> There is a kind of theological consistency that makes me want to weaken the extent, while maximizing the efficacy. Remember, that the New Covenant (forgiveness, belonging to God's family, etc) is a covenant in the atoning blood of Christ. so, atonement is not merely a parallel, but is intrinsic the very debate.


You are dividing the Covenant of Grace here. You are separating the Covenant of Grace, or our present (new) covenant, from Abraham's covenant as if the two were fundamentally distinct. They are not (although some baptist theologians suggest that Abraham actually participates in TWO separate covenants: one spiritual, one carnal).

Abraham's covenant is atoning, indeed, unilateral as we see God alone pass through the carved pieces of the animals, Gen.15. The basis for it is hope in the Promised One, Christ.

Where you would limit the extent of the vocalized (external) promise, to a "church-within-the-church," we know of no such limitation, beyond the walls of the church. Again, the question is not that the "extent" has been universalized, but where is the visible line to be drawn.

The Baptist claim is that their limitation of baptism to adult professors is an ideal (or more ideal) picture of efficacy. But this is an unsustainable claim. The sheer number of adult-baptisms, followed by apostasy (even when the members stay in the church) gives this claim the lie. This protest should not be relied on as an argument.

A more serious question would be: "what is the biblical definition of *disciple*." After all, Jesus said, "Make disciples, by baptizing and teaching." So, who are they who are to be baptized and taught the faith? Should our children be so? If that is not the order we should follow with them, what is the argument for whatever alternate treatment be proposed? Where in the Bible do we go to find this method? And what do we make of the example of Abraham, of whom the Lord spoke, "For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD"?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

steadfast7 said:


> The question remains as to whether this was the function and meaning of baptism as seen in scripture?
> 
> Was it personal, and did it reflect anything about the individual's spiritual state? I suggest yes.



Of course, baptism ideally represents the individual baptized's spiritual state. The question is, can it so *become* that, in evidence; or must it only be a statement that is TRUE, or is not a statement at all? Can not GOD speak, and be found TRUE, though every man a liar?


----------



## Ron

Baptism must be viewed in the context of God's covenant dealings...

Immediately after the fall of man God promised that he would inflict a deep seated hatred between the seed of the woman and the seed of Satan. That _promise_, which would come to fruition being a promise(!), included the good news that the seed of the woman would crush the serpent’s head(Genesis 3:15). Then the Lord of the covenant covered with skins the two who were naked and ashamed(Genesis 3:21).

God later expanded upon his promise with respect to the seed, saying that he would _establish_ his covenant between himself and Abraham; but not only would God establish his covenant promise with Abraham, he would also establish it with Abraham’s seed after him. This _promise_ that was made to Abraham and his seed was that God would be a God to them and that they would occupy the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession (Genesis 17:7, 8). In response to the promise of God, which was one of redemption of a people and land for them to occupy, Abraham pleaded that his son Ishmael might live before God in faithfulness. (Genesis 3:18) God refused Abraham’s request, saying “as for Ishmael, I have heard thee… but my covenant will I _establish_ with Isaac” not Ishmael (Genesis 17: 20, 21).

God’s promise of redemption of the seed would come to fruition; yet it did not apply to all of Abraham’s physical descendents. In fact, it even applied to those who were not of physical descent. Notwithstanding, all those who were of the household of Abraham were to receive the sign and seal of the covenant, _as if they themselves were partakers of the promise of God_. Even more, those within a professing household who did not receive the sign and seal of the covenant were to be considered outside the people of God and covenant breakers. In other words, infants who did not receive the sign of the covenant due to a parent’s spiritual neglect were to be considered lost and, therefore, under the dominion of Satan (Genesis 17:13, 14). This sign of the covenant was so closely related to the covenant that it was actually called the covenant by the Lord (Genesis 17:10). Consequently, those who had received the sign were to be considered in covenant with God; whereas those who had not received the sign yet qualified to receive it were to be treated as covenant breakers. We might say that the invisible church was to be found within the visible church, "out of which there was no ordinary way of salvation" (Acts 2:47b; WCF 25.2).

When we come to Galatians 3 we learn something quite astounding. The promise was made to a single Seed, who is the Christ; and it is by spiritual union with him, pictured in the outward administration of baptism, that the promise extends to the elect (in Christ). “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ…For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ… And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:16, 26-29) The apostle in no uncertain terms teaches that the covenant promise is established with the God-man - the incarnate Christ, and by covenantal extension with all who would be truly, by the Spirit, buried and raised with him in baptism.

Although God’s covenant was _established _from the outset with only the elect in Christ, it was to be _administered _to all who professed the true religion along with their households. The theological distinction of the visible and invisible church was well in view, even at the time of Abraham. Although this was the theology of the Covenant, the apostle still had to labor the point to the New Testament saints at Rome. After telling his hearers that nothing could separate God’s people from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:39), the apostle had to explain why the people of God, to whom the promises pertained, had fallen away from the faith. How, in other words, could the people of God become apostate if the promise of redemption would come to fruition? With his pedagogical background in place, the apostle explained the timeless Old Testament Covenant Theology, which is that although God established his covenant with the elect in Christ, it was to be administered to those who were reprobate as long as they were of the household of a professing believer. Consequently, it is not hard to imagine that they are not all true Israel who are from external Israel (Romans 9:6); and that all the New Testament church is not the true church. “That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Romans 9:8).

With respect to the promise of the land of Canaan, it too was a type, as were the sacrifices that have passed away. The promise was seen as part-for-whole even by Abraham, who in his own time was looking not for the dirt of Palestine but the streets of gold, “a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” (Hebrews 11:10). In fact, all the “heroes of the faith” died without receiving the promises, “but having seen them afar off…confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth… For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God [the very essence of the covenant! “I will be your God...”]: for he hath prepared for them a city.” (Hebrews 11:13-16)

*In sum,* God’s promise was that he would redeem a people that he would place in his recreation, the church. The church’s final destiny is the consummated New Heavens and New Earth, wherein righteousness dwells. Until God separates the sheep from the goats, the visible church will contain unbelievers and hypocrites. Upon consummation, the visible church and the elect will be one and the same.
*
From a proper view of the covenant, we can now take a look at the practice of covenant baptism.*

Under the older economy, although the covenant of promise was _established_ solely with the elect in Christ, it was to be _administered_ to the households professing believers. This means that the children of professing believers were to receive the mark of inclusion and, therefore, be counted among the people of God prior to professing faith in what the sign and seal of the covenant contemplated. Covenant children, even if they were not elect, were to be _treated_ as the elect of God and heirs according to the promise based upon corporate solidarity with a professing parent.

When we come to the New Testament nothing has changed with respect to the heirs of the promise. The promise remains established with the elect in Christ, as it always was. The question is whether the children of professing believers have somehow lost the privilege of receiving the sign of entrance into the New Testament church.

By way of review, God's promise to save Abraham and his "seed" was without any preconditions (Genesis 17:7) that had to be met by those prior to God establishing his promise with the elect. Abraham responded to God's promise of salvation in faith, which was first issued in Genesis 12, whereby he was justified (Genesis 15:6). Although God promised Abraham and his elect son Isaac salvation, God rejected Ishmael (Genesis 17:18-21). Nonetheless, Ishmael was to receive the outward sign of the covenant-promise, which was circumcision (Genesis 17:10ff). Accordingly, God's precept was that his covenant sign be administered to the household of Abraham, even though God established his covenant solely with the elect in Christ. The apostle Paul reminds us in Romans nine that the promise of salvation was not intended for every single person to whom the outward administration of the covenant was to be administered. In fact, the apostle explicitly tells us that the children of the "promise" are counted as Abraham's seed, and not the children of the flesh (Romans 9:8). Accordingly, all those who would believe the promise are the true children of Abraham (Romans 9: 8; Galatians 3:9). Most importantly, the "seed" to whom the promise was made was actually Christ alone (Galatians 3:16). It is through union with Christ, the single Seed of Abraham, that we become seeds of Abraham. As Galatians 3:29 states, "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, and heirs according to the promise."

We must keep in mind that Abraham was not Jewish. Indeed, Israel according the flesh eventually came from Abraham's loins, but the promise was that Abraham would be the father of many nations. Israel did not even become a nation until 430 years after God called Abraham according to the promise (Galatians 3:17). Consequently, contrary to what so many Baptists think, the sign of circumcision primarily had spiritual significance as opposed to national or ethnic significance. As Romans 4:11 states, "[Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith..." The verse does not state that Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of his ethnic origin.

God always had an elect people, which he formed into a nation about 2400 years into redemptive history. Nonetheless, the promise both precedes and transcends the nation and could, therefore, not be abrogated upon the apostasy of the nation. God has now taken the kingdom away from the nation of Israel and has started his final building project, the church. The church is the international people of God, a nation bearing the fruit of the covenant. Consequently, when one is converted to Christ he need not become part of the nation of Israel; for Christ has sent his followers into the world to make disciples of all nations.

God commanded 4,000 years ago that the sign of the covenant be placed upon the males within the household of professing believers. Although the sign of entrance into the people of God has changed from circumcision to baptism, God never rescinded his covenant principle concerning the subjects who were to receive the sign and seal of the covenant promise. In the same way that all Israel was not Israel, all the church is not the church. Nonetheless, we are by precept to place the sign of membership in the church upon those who qualify, per the instruction of God – which was never rescinded or abrogated.

*Here's the problem that many paedobaptists run into when dealing with Baptists, especially Reformed Baptists.* Reformed Baptists will argue that the Old Covenant was established with the elect and reprobates in professing households since many who were to receive the sign of the covenant fell away. Then they rightly show that the New Covenant is established only with the elect. Accordingly, they reason: if the covenant has changed from including non-believers to including only true believers, then baptism should be reserved only for professing believers in order to ensure (as best as possible) that the visible church resemble the true regenerate church of the New Testament. The paedobaptist gets tripped up by that argument when he tries to argue that both the New and the Old Covenants are established with reprobates within professing households, which Randy Booth tries to do in his book "Children of the Promise." Such paedobaptists are certainly correct with respect to the continuity from Old to New but they cannot argue effectively that the New Covenant is established with certain unbelievers, which is the error that the Reformed Baptist zeros in on and exposes simply by highlighting the doctrine of "Perseverance Of The Saints," which is so well argued in the New Testament by the apostle Paul. Consequently, the Baptist argument often goes like this: "Hey Mr. Paedobaptist, you and I agree that the Old Covenant was made with the visible people of God, which includes believers and unbelievers (since many Israelites fell away from the true religion); therefore, we can agree that circumcision was to be administered to all males, elect or not, within a professing houshold. However, since the New Covenant is clearly made with the elect in Christ who will persevere in the faith (unlike unfaithful Israel), then it is reasonable to maintain that the covenant has changed with respect to inclusiveness. Therefore, the sign of the covenant should be reserved for those the elders are persuaded are actually believers." In other words, the Baptist argues that since the people of God fell away under the older economy, then the Old Covenant promise must have been made with at least some reprobates; yet the elect of God will not fall away in the New Covenant, therefore, the New Covenant promise must be made with the elect alone. The flaw in reasoning should be obvious. The Baptist is contrasting the Old Testament visible church with the New Testament invisible church! By using a twisted comparison, the Baptist argues for a covenant in the Old Testament based upon those who were to receive the sign (elect and reprobate), only then to turn around and argue for the New Testament sign to be reserved for the elect alone based upon the New Covenant being established with the elect alone! Baptists change their criteria in order to suit their desired ends. They establish whom the covenant was made with under the older economy by looking at who was to receive the sign; then they establish who is to receive the sign under the new economy by looking at whom the New Covenant was made with!

Ron


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Bill has not claimed that cb's must reject pb's as brethren in Christ and members of visible churches based on your reading of Col. 2:12's implications. In fact, his practice of addressing you as a brother in Christ denies that he agrees with your reading of that verse's implications.



This strain of the discussion began when I pointed out that Bill must recognise my baptism because he calls me a brother. Bill said, Not so, telling me that I was unbaptised and could not be a member of his church. On the understanding that he considers his church to be a church of Jesus Christ, I drew the distinction that I am received as a brother in Christ but rejected as a heathen in Christ's visible church. Now, Bill seems to accept this distinction; so I don't see why others can't. If your church could accept me as a member then yours would be an altogether different "Baptist" scenario.

On Colossians 2:12 and related texts, there are two confessional points to be considered. The first and primary point is the Confession's teaching that baptism is a sign of fellowship with Christ. The second point is the adducing of this text to support that assertion.

Under the first point, I maintain that there is no way of knowing who are "professing the faith of the gospel" and are thus "visible saints" (LBC 26:2) apart from baptism. You maintain that baptism is only *a* sign and therefore you are able to know visible saints apart from baptism. As far as I can see this misunderstands what is meant by baptism being a sign. Either it signifies something in revealed religion or it does not. The lack of the sign must therefore signify a lack of something. But you refuse to allow that it leads to a lack of anything. Hence, as far as I can see, you are saying yea and nay with regard to baptism being a sign. You are saying it functions as a sign positively, but it doesn't function as a non-sign when it is not applied. At this point I think you need to do further reading as to what is actually meant by calling baptism a sign.

Under the second point -- proof texts -- you have maintained Col. 2:12 and related texts only refer to spiritual baptism whereas the Confession appeals to them in support of a substantive statement about water baptism. It is your prerogative to dissent from your Confession, but it doesn't place any burden on me to argue in defence of your Confession.

I have attempted to draw out the points of the discussion that are relevant to the issue. Other matters concerning spiritual baptism, John 1:12, etc, are not relevant to the discussion, as my posts have clearly recognised the sense in which Bill calls me a brother in Christ, i.e., invisibly. If these points could be kept to the fore in all further discussions it would be very helpful.


----------



## Peairtach

There were two elections in the Old Covenant:-

The whole nation of Israel was elect or chosen in the sense that all in God's providence were in the Old Covenant of Grace.

Within that nation and outside it were the truly elect, i.e. those who had or were going to exercise true faith in God as Saviour from sin.

Also in the New Covenant there are two elections:-

All those adults and children who are within the visible church in God's providence have been chosen to be there in God's providence. The fact that if church discipline was properly operative, many should be put out, is another Q.

Within the visible church and outside it there are the truly elect, i.e. those who do or will exercise true faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

A clear distinction must be made between providential choosing by God and the salvific election of saving grace, unlike the Federal Visionistas and others.

Because God has chosen some to be born within the visible Church and within the New Covenant people, he wants them to receive the mark of the visible Church and New Covenant people.

The baptists confuse and conflate the visible and invisible churches, such that they want to try to apply the mark of the visible church only to those in the invisible church. But the invisible church is invisible even to baptist ministers.

We know what the visible church is and can discern it: those who profess the faith with their children. We cannot discern the elect or infallibly tell who's born again.

That the New Covenant administration should revert to an attempt to baptise only those who are in the church invisible, when New Covenant ministers and elders haven't been given any new powers by God to do this, seems strange.

_To an extent_ the invisible tares and wheat must be allowed to grow together, until they become visible, and the tares can be separated from the wheat, by discipline or at death.

-----Added 11/6/2009 at 06:04:30 EST-----

There also was a typological adumbration of the duality of the New Covenant, in the Old Covenant, in the difference between the Levites and Priests, on the one hand, and the rest of Israel on the other.

E.g. only the priests could eat the Bread of the Presence, see the holy things and commune with God in this way.

Only believers are priests.

This duality is reflected even in baptist churches. Only baptists who are truly born again are priests. The other unbelieving baptists, i.e. those who have got in by mistake, are outwardly in the bond of the covenant without the inner reality. They are in a privileged position but if they fail to believe their condemnation will be greater.


----------



## Herald

> This strain of the discussion began when I pointed out that Bill must recognise my baptism because he calls me a brother. Bill said, Not so, telling me that I was unbaptised and could not be a member of his church. On the understanding that he considers his church to be a church of Jesus Christ, I drew the distinction that I am received as a brother in Christ *but rejected as a heathen in Christ's visible church*. Now, Bill seems to accept this distinction; so I don't see why others can't. If your church could accept me as a member then yours would be an altogether different "Baptist" scenario.



Matthew, if by heathen (ethnikos) you mean one who is outside the church it would depend on how you wish to parse that term. I do not consider you to be scripturally baptized. That presents a problem if you moved into our area and for some reason wanted to join our church. However, I do not consider you an _ethnikos _akin to a pagan or an unbeliever. That is why I am able to call you a brother in Christ, based on your profession of faith. The 1689 LBC states:



> 26.2 All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.



Your profession causes me to accept you as a visible saint. The veracity of your profession makes you an invisible saint. The fact that you a visible saint, based on profession, requires you to be scripturally baptized. Not submitting to baptism, either by wanton disobedience, or in your case based on a claim of a previous baptism results in certain actions by the church. If a new convert steadfastly refuses to be baptized, it displays a disobedient heart. This is serious because this new professed saint is failing to heed the first act of obedience of a Christian. Such disobedience may call his profession into question. As to a paedobaptist who refuses to be baptized; we would not place them in the same genre as the new convert. Their conviction is not based on a refusal to be baptized, but on a conviction that they have been scripturally baptized. Baptists would disagree, as the body of conversation in this thread will bear witness. Would that preclude the paedobaptist from membership? Yes. Would it preclude them from worship, fellowship, and partaking of the Lord's Supper? No. 

Now, as to all of this, aren't we all becoming a bit of weary of point and counter point? The OP sought to define our differences. I think that has been done ad infinitum, ad nauseum.


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> Matthew, if by heathen (ethnikos) you mean one who is outside the church it would depend on how you wish to parse that term. I do not consider you to be scripturally baptized. That presents a problem if you moved into our area and for some reason wanted to join our church. However, I do not consider you an _ethnikos _akin to a pagan or an unbeliever. That is why I am able to call you a brother in Christ, based on your profession of faith.



Bill, Is your church a church of Jesus Christ? Who are rejected from the church of Jesus Christ? Heathen and publicans. We don't reject brethren from Christ's church. Hence, while you may call me a brother in Christ, you are calling me a heathen in Christ's church.



Herald said:


> The 1689 LBC states:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 26.2 All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your profession causes me to accept you as a visible saint.
Click to expand...


What does the rejection of an individual from the membership of the church of Jesus Christ say about their profession?



Herald said:


> Would that preclude the paedobaptist from membership? Yes. Would it preclude them from worship, fellowship, and partaking of the Lord's Supper? No.



First, There is no other membership but that which recognises a right to the ordinances of Christ. There should be no other privilege of membership, and insofar as there are further privileges of membership they are not conferred by Christ.

Secondly, I don't think any person should be admitted to the Lord's supper who has not been baptised. Something is amiss there.


----------



## Herald

And wheels of the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round. 

I'm better off saying, "Tag, you're it."

I take my leave of this dialog. Adieu.


----------



## MW

Bill, Tim, et al,

I have begun a new thread to discuss the design of baptism. I ask you to interact on that thread and discuss your reasons for separating profession and baptism: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/design-baptism-55153/


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> Bill, Tim, et al,
> 
> I have begun a new thread to discuss the design of baptism. I ask you to interact on that thread and discuss your reasons for separating profession and baptism: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/design-baptism-55153/



Matthew, as previously noted I am not going to get into a discussion on the ins and outs of justifying the doctrine of baptism. My only concen throughout the thread has been to attempt to help you see that your charge that Confessional Baptists cannot recognize pb's as bothers in Christ and members of visible churches is untenable.


----------



## Brian Withnell

timmopussycat said:


> While Christ may unite a child to him in infancy, the real question is when does the church have the right to state that union with Christ has taken place in a given individual's life? And since an infant cannot tell us he professes faith, one of two criteria in John 1:12,13 is not yet present and if it baptizes infants, a church is presuming such union upon insufficient evidence.



I don't think you understand those that hold to baptism as a covenant sign and seal. Those that were born to Abraham were given the sign and seal of the covenant (circumcision) even when they were hated by God. "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" is stated of two circumcised individuals; while I look forward to meeting Jacob as a member of the church invisible, I am as certain as I can be that Esau will not be a member of that great and glorious church.

It is not within the church's authority to change to whom the sign is applied without perfectly clear teaching from the word. Not implied teaching. Not silence. If we are to change from OT to NT for something that is commanded as carrying forward, we would need completely unambiguous command to not baptize those that are the children of those who believe.

You state: "the real question is when does the church have the right to state that union with Christ has taken place in a given individual's life?" I would state that is not the question at all. The church never has the right to state that union with Christ has taken place, as only the Lord himself knows. What the church has is a command to baptize, and it has a duty to baptize all those whom Christ would include in the visible church. There is no question. All those who have a credible profession of faith, and their children, are commanded to be baptized.

It is not us to presume _anyone_ by mere _profession of faith_ to be truly a member of the church invisible (that is, united to Christ). All those that are baptized are not saved, even in those church that are credo. Profession of faith is not what saves a person; that is by grace alone. A profession of faith makes little difference, and if a profession of faith (i.e., being able to actually state a belief in Christ) was a necessary part, then those that die in infancy are lost, and even the elect parents of those infants have no hope of salvation for their children ... in fact, the opposite would be true, and they would have assurance of the damnation of their children. That I believe is contradicted by "I will be their God and the God of their children."

So even baptists knowingly baptize some who are not elect (for they know that not all who profess faith are in fact saved). So then if a question arises which is worse? Baptizing those that the OT would have baptized as part of the covenant community (and entering them into the visible church under age) or abandoning the principle taught within the OT with no positive command to stop, to reduce the number of those joined to the visible church and risk what I would see as clearly disobeying God's command that was never abrogated, because it was reiterated.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Matthew, as previously noted I am not going to get into a discussion on the ins and outs of justifying the doctrine of baptism. My only concen throughout the thread has been to attempt to help you see that your charge that Confessional Baptists cannot recognize pb's as bothers in Christ and members of visible churches is untenable.



As noted, I don't deny the "brothers in Christ" part, but the "members of visible churches." The linked thread does not get into the ins and outs of baptism, but merely the design of baptism in relation to profession of faith. It relates specifically to the issue of "visible saints." Dagg's statement makes it clear that one must be baptised as a visible part of Christian profession; hence it is impossible to separate profession and baptism the way you are attempting to do.


----------



## timmopussycat

Brian Withnell said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> While Christ may unite a child to him in infancy, the real question is when does the church have the right to state that union with Christ has taken place in a given individual's life? And since an infant cannot tell us he professes faith, one of two criteria in John 1:12,13 is not yet present and if it baptizes infants, a church is presuming such union upon insufficient evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you understand those that hold to baptism as a covenant sign and seal. Those that were born to Abraham were given the sign and seal of the covenant (circumcision) even when they were hated by God. "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" is stated of two circumcised individuals; while I look forward to meeting Jacob as a member of the church invisible, I am as certain as I can be that Esau will not be a member of that great and glorious church.
Click to expand...


Actually I do understand the pb doctrine of covenatal baptism fairly well, including the fact that God gave the covenant sign to those who were not elect when he made his covenant with Abraham



Brian Withnell said:


> It is not within the church's authority to change to whom the sign is applied without perfectly clear teaching from the word. Not implied teaching. Not silence. If we are to change from OT to NT for something that is commanded as carrying forward, we would need completely unambiguous command to not baptize those that are the children of those who believe.



After a remark like this, I may properly make the comment (and it will sound snide, sorry) that I don't think you understand those that hold to credo baptism as covenant sign and seal. The question is not whether the church has authority to change to whom the sign is given without clear teaching, but whether the clearly observable changes in the NT teaching on regeneration and entrance into the church necessarily imply (by GNC) a change in infant eligability to receive the sign. To give but one example, in the OT, every male physically descended from Abraham Isaac and Jacob was cirucmcised, but Paul's comment in Gal. 3:7, "They that have faith are children of Abraham", although not directly addresed to the question of infants may or may not entail, by GNC, the church's limiting those it recognizes as children of Abraham to those professing faith. (I'm not going to enter into debates on this - I am just identifying exactly what the problem is.) 



Brian Withnell said:


> You state: "the real question is when does the church have the right to state that union with Christ has taken place in a given individual's life?" I would state that is not the question at all. The church never has the right to state that union with Christ has taken place, as only the Lord himself knows. What the church has is a command to baptize, and it has a duty to baptize all those whom Christ would include in the visible church. There is no question. All those who have a credible profession of faith, and their children, are commanded to be baptized.



You are in part correct. I made a slight overstatement. I should have written
"...when does the church have the right to assume that it is likely that union with Christ has taken place in a given individuals life." The church does have both the need to make that assumption, since if it can't make that assumption it cannot admit anyone to its membership, as it will be unable to distinguish a probable believer from an unbeliever. 

And the church has also God provided criteria upon which it may make that assumption. Although John 1:12 is not directly addressing this issue, John does give the church the criteria we must use to distinguish possible believers from clear unbelievers, criteria that Paul later echoed (Rom. 10:9). So when the church admits someone to membership, we are not presuming that we infallibly know that they are members of the invisible church. 



Brian Withnell said:


> Profession of faith is not what saves a person; that is by grace alone.



I agree.



Brian Withnell said:


> A profession of faith makes little difference, and if a profession of faith (i.e., being able to actually state a belief in Christ) was a necessary part, then those that die in infancy are lost, and even the elect parents of those infants have no hope of salvation for their children ... in fact, the opposite would be true, and they would have assurance of the damnation of their children. That I believe is contradicted by "I will be their God and the God of their children."



A profession of faith may not be a necessary part of salvation in the case of elect infants dying in infancy directly even though we are not specifically told so. But the question at issue is not about elect infants, but about under what conditions does the church have the right to recognze someone as a possible believer. And there are some scriptures that plainly state that professed faith is essential to such recognition.



Brian Withnell said:


> So even baptists knowingly baptize some who are not elect (for they know that not all who profess faith are in fact saved). So then if a question arises which is worse? Baptizing those that the OT would have baptized as part of the covenant community (and entering them into the visible church under age) or abandoning the principle taught within the OT with no positive command to stop, to reduce the number of those joined to the visible church and risk what I would see as clearly disobeying God's command that was never abrogated, because it was reiterated.



And cb's see good reason to believe by GNC that God's command was changed.

-----Added 11/7/2009 at 08:21:31 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew, as previously noted I am not going to get into a discussion on the ins and outs of justifying the doctrine of baptism. My only concen throughout the thread has been to attempt to help you see that your charge that Confessional Baptists cannot recognize pb's as bothers in Christ and members of visible churches is untenable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As noted, I don't deny the "brothers in Christ" part, but the "members of visible churches."
Click to expand...


You could have fooled me!! For after seeing you writing.... 



armourbearer said:


> [water] baptism marks entrance into the visible church and without baptism one has no basis upon which to accept an individual as a visible saint, and therefore as a "brother."



and 



armourbearer said:


> Either we are your brethren or we aren't. If we are, then our baptism is valid, even though some have only ever received sprinkling as infants. If our baptism isn't valid, then we are no part of the visible church, and you have no basis upon which to receive us as brethren.



...I could come to no other conclusion but that you did deny the possiblity of cb acceptence of pb's as Christian brethren. For if one has no basis upon which to accept an individual as a visible saint, how on earth can one accept him as a brother in Christ? Yet you now turn around and claim you don't deny the possiblity that cb's can truly accept pb's as brother's in Christ???!!!

How is this possible? 

If you really don't deny that we cb's can accept you pb's as Christian brothers, please resolve the contradiction ASAP. For It seems to me that what you wrote in the abpve cited posts, will if true, necessarily eliminate not only any possibilty of cb's accepting pb's as brethren in Christ, but will eliminate any possibility of pb's accepting cb's as brethren in Christ as well. 

And I would still like to see either a detailed response to my post 156 that fully comes to grips with issues I raised there (as I will show in a reply to follow, your post 204 does not do so) justifying your charge that cb's cannot recognize pbs as visible saints, brethren and members of visible churches, or a withdrawl of the charge if you can't justify it. Since one consequnce of your charge being correct, (if it is), is that immediate and radical rethinking of ecumenical relations (both on this board and elsewhere) becomes a vitally urgent necessity for just about all of us, I suggest that you owe it to the board to either justify your charge ASAP or to withdraw it with equal speed. 

(Afterthought: are you, perhaps, trying to restrict the term "brethren" to those you recognize as sharing ecclesiastical relations, rather than allowing the term it's Scriptural extent? If you were attempting to make such a restriction, I suggest doing so leads to a highly unwise apparent contradiction with Scripture. For if you recognize any man as a Christian, the GNC is that he must be every bit as much a child of God as you are, and thus, by Scriptural definition, your brother. I try to avoid using multi-definition words in theological communication to avoid misunderstandings based on equivocation).



armourbearer said:


> The linked thread does not get into the ins and outs of baptism, but merely the design of baptism in relation to profession of faith. It relates specifically to the issue of "visible saints." Dagg's statement makes it clear that one must be baptised as a visible part of Christian profession; hence it is impossible to separate profession and baptism the way you are attempting to do.



Dagg is not the LBC and hence he is not authoritative for confessional Baptists, something of which you must be well aware. And the LBC, as I have repeatedly pointed out, expounds its doctrine of the visible church in such a way as to necessarily leave pb's within it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Richard Tallach said:


> There were two elections in the Old Covenant:-
> 
> The whole nation of Israel was elect or chosen in the sense that all in God's providence were in the Old Covenant of Grace.
> 
> Within that nation and outside it were the truly elect, i.e. those who had or were going to exercise true faith in God as Saviour from sin.
> 
> Also *in the New Covenant there are two elections*:-...



May I pointedly demurre from the *bolded* statement?

I think I understand what you intend to defend by it, however the language is infellicitous at best. In the present dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, post-cross, post-national-Israel, we should not speak of election in two parts, or two elections.

To do so is to concede a critical point to the FV folks, among other issues. No, there isn't _now_ another sort of "election" which we may speak of regarding the visible church. No, the New Testament drops the language of "election" with respect to any visible estate. Paul doesn't speak thus, Peter, James, etc.

There is NO "conditional election" in the NT, respecting reprobates within the church. And we should not speak as though God's election is publicly proclaimed over his church in the present age, as it was in the previous. Election is an element of the personal and individual salvation, of the perfected church. The church on earth is not the justified, sanctified, and glorified; but the church in heaven.

Neither is election, properly speaking, a corporate statement at all, since the branches chosen are individually grafted onto the vine.

As I said, I thnk I realize what you meant to convey, Richard, but to speak as you did does not confine and define "election" properly.


----------



## Ron

*I sincerely hope this post is read by all. It can save us all a lot of time because the arguments are now distilled. There are actual proofs put forth for both positions that are easy to follow and interact with.*



steadfast7 said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, it's important to point out that an infant can most certainly be united with Christ. The question is whether the church has the right to apply this sign/seal on _every _infant in the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, now when did God abrogate the principle that children _are_ to be regarded as His children? Please, no more pointing to Jer. 31, as if that answers any questions. Once and for all, actually put forth a deductive argument with a valid form and then we'll go step by step examining each premise and the exegesis that goes along with its justification. Fair enough?
> 
> Ron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, first off. Can we examine this principle that you are putting forth, with scripture? And, can we be sure that being a child of God in the OT, means the same thing as being a child of God in the NT? You are already beginning to assume that they mean the same thing, but that first needs to be established.
Click to expand...


You can't be serious. Of course we can examine the principle from Scripture and if you don't think these terms have been established, then I don't think you're trying as hard as you could; yet allow me to review the bidding just the same. 

As I've said multiple times on this thread, the covenant was *ESTABLISHED* with the Seed of Abraham, which was the incarnate Christ and all who are elected in him. _Genesis 17; Galatians 3_

Although the covenant of promise was *ESTABLISHED* with the elect in Christ alone, it was to be *ADMINISTERED *to those within a professing believer's houshold. That is to say, those who were to received the adminstration of the covenant (i.e. households) were to also be regarded as spiritual children of God. 

Paul reminded his audiance in Romans 9 of the Old Testament principle that ONLY the children of PROMISE were truly counted as the seed, which was to say that not all Israel was Israel - (i.e. not all those of physical decent were spritual children of God - yet they were to be regarded as such!). Yet notwithstanding, when God's judgements and blessings came upon Israel, God was treating Israel as an organic whole. The visible church was to be considered the true people of God, even though not all Israel was Israel. Baptist theology agrees with that! Moreover, even today, Baptist pastors will rightly treat all their baptized members as the church - even though not all the church is the church - since there are again unbelievers on the roles. _There is no debate over how we are to treat the visible church._ We are to treat its members as disciples of the Lord. *The question is, who is to be regarded as being in that church?*

Since nobody has cared to put forth an actual argument, let me get the ball rolling. 

*Here is what I see the Reformed Baptist argument to be:*

*1.* In the older economy the covenant was established with professing believers and their households (whether elect or not)

*2.* It should be ensured as best as possible to place the mark of the covenant upon those with whom the covenant is established

*3.* Therefore, the mark of circumcision was to be placed upon professing believers and their households (whether they would ever believe or not)

*4.* The new covenant is established only with the elect

*5. *Given (2 and 4), we should therefore wait until someone makes a profession of faith before admitting them to baptism

*Now if you think I have misrepresented the Baptist argument, then I by all means I invite you to actually put forth an argument rather than just using your rhetoric skills. *

*The Baptist argument has many problems:*

1 is False: The old covenant was only established with the elect. 

2 is False: God required that the sign and seal of the covenant be placed upon those who had not demonstrated election by making a credible profession of faith.

3 is True: The premise follows from two preceding false premises making the premise unsound, although the premise is true

4 is True

5 is False: Premise 2 is false, which is why 5 is false.

*I've showed you yours, now I'll show you ours.*

*A sound Paedobaptist argument:*

*1.* An Old Covenant precept was that whenever possible the sign of entrance into the covenant was to be placed upon all who were to be regarded as God’s people

*2.* Children of professing believers were to be regarded as God’s people under the Old Covenant

*3.* Children of professing believers whenever possible were to receive the sign of entrance into the Old Covenant by way of precept (1, 2)

*4.* God’s precepts may not be abrogated without explicit instruction or good and necessary inference

*5.* God never abrogated the Old Testament precept regarding who was to receive the sign of entrance into the Old covenant

*6.* The sign of entrance into the New Covenant is water baptism

*7.* God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive the sign of entrance into the New Covenant (3, 4 and 5)

*8.* God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive water baptism (6, 7)

*Now, of course you will want to disagree with point 5, but in doing so, please prove point 5 wrong rather than just point to Jer. 31 without any logical commentary.* Believe it or not, the problem I have found with most Baptists is that they do not arrive at the their conclusions using rigerous logic based upon premises derived from Scripture. Here's your opportunity to prove me wrong. 

Ron


----------



## Robert Truelove

Iconoclast said:


> Pastor Truelove,
> In Acts 21:21 we see an indication that one of the things spoken among the Jews was that Paul was teaching them not to circumcise their children [the covenant sign]
> It does not say he was teaching any replacement sign. It does say that the sign of the covenant was not to be administered according to Paul's teaching.
> If there was a replacement sign don't you think it would be clearly mentioned here?
> How do you understand this passage? Also along the same line,when the Acts 15 meeting took place,again we see no statement that their is any replacement sign. We do see that circumcision is no longer in effect. The sign and what it signified are fulfilled in Christ.



I think you are missing a few things. To briefly respond (and no, I am not answering all of the issues by any stretch but merely wish to touch a few points)...

1. The accusation made against Paul in Acts 21 was a false accusation. Paul never taught the Jews not to circumcise their children; this he taught to the gentiles (and yes, I believe that circumcision was to ultimately pass away for the Jew because baptism replaced it but that is another subject). This is significant as is demonstrated below...

2. Acts 15 presents far more problems for the Baptist position than that of the paedobaptists.

The Baptists ask, "if Baptism replaced circumcision, then why not just simply say so in Acts 15 and settle the matter?". Admittedly, that would be very helpful however...

The fact that 1st Century Christian Jews continued to circumcise their children clearly demonstrates they did not see the New Covenant abrogating the promise to their children. There is not one word of correction applied to this understanding in the New Testament.

So, for me, the real weight from Acts 15 as it relates to the issue of the children of believers and the covenant is on the side of the paedobaptist position. If the argument from the covenant holds (and 1st Century Christian Jews certainly thought it still held for their children), than paedobaptism is the unavoidable conclusion.


----------



## Peairtach

Contra_Mundum said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were two elections in the Old Covenant:-
> 
> The whole nation of Israel was elect or chosen in the sense that all in God's providence were in the Old Covenant of Grace.
> 
> Within that nation and outside it were the truly elect, i.e. those who had or were going to exercise true faith in God as Saviour from sin.
> 
> Also *in the New Covenant there are two elections*:-...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May I pointedly demurre from the *bolded* statement?
> 
> I think I understand what you intend to defend by it, however the language is infellicitous at best. In the present dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, post-cross, post-national-Israel, we should not speak of election in two parts, or two elections.
> 
> To do so is to concede a critical point to the FV folks, among other issues. No, there isn't _now_ another sort of "election" which we may speak of regarding the visible church. No, the New Testament drops the language of "election" with respect to any visible estate. Paul doesn't speak thus, Peter, James, etc.
> 
> There is NO "conditional election" in the NT, respecting reprobates within the church. And we should not speak as though God's election is publicly proclaimed over his church in the present age, as it was in the previous. Election is an element of the personal and individual salvation, of the perfected church. The church on earth is not the justified, sanctified, and glorified; but the church in heaven.
> 
> Neither is election, properly speaking, a corporate statement at all, since the branches chosen are individually grafted onto the vine.
> 
> As I said, I thnk I realize what you meant to convey, Richard, but to speak as you did does not confine and define "election" properly.
Click to expand...


Yes. We have to have clear distinctions unlike the FV, to avoid dangerous confusion.

It may be better to say that God providentially places  all children that are born to those who profess the faith within the visible church and conditionally within the Covenant of Grace, and that that is still significant in a way that baptists don't see it.

Children providentially placed by God in covenant families have promises, privileges and responsibilities that other children don't have.


----------



## MW

Contra_Mundum said:


> To do so is to concede a critical point to the FV folks, among other issues. No, there isn't _now_ another sort of "election" which we may speak of regarding the visible church. No, the New Testament drops the language of "election" with respect to any visible estate. Paul doesn't speak thus, Peter, James, etc.



Paul uses it in Colossians 3:12, Peter uses it in 1 Peter 5:13, John uses it in 2 John 1, 13, and James effectively uses it when he addresses the visible church as the twelve tribes and does not flinch at calling them adulterers and adulteresses who should humble themselves and draw near to God.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> If you really don't deny that we cb's can accept you pb's as Christian brothers, please resolve the contradiction ASAP. For It seems to me that what you wrote in the abpve cited posts, will if true, necessarily eliminate not only any possibilty of cb's accepting pb's as brethren in Christ, but will eliminate any possibility of pb's accepting cb's as brethren in Christ as well.



Context is everything. From the start I acknowledged that Bill receives us as brethren in Christ but not in Christ's church. The portions you have quoted were my attempt to show the inconsistency of such a procedure. Showing the inconsistency does not negate the fact that I recognised his reception of us as brethren in Christ. It is the easiest thing in the world to wrest statements from their context in order to make them say something they were never intended for. I don't think this is a skill Christians should be eager to master.


----------



## Peairtach

armourbearer said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> To do so is to concede a critical point to the FV folks, among other issues. No, there isn't _now_ another sort of "election" which we may speak of regarding the visible church. No, the New Testament drops the language of "election" with respect to any visible estate. Paul doesn't speak thus, Peter, James, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul uses it in Colossians 3:12, Peter uses it in 1 Peter 5:13, John uses it in 2 John 1, 13, and James effectively uses it when he addresses the visible church as the twelve tribes and does not flinch at calling them adulterers and adulteresses who should humble themselves and draw near to God.
Click to expand...


There is a sense in which God chooses some children to be born into covenant families. Ultimately God chooses/has chosen all providences. These children are not by accident there, and they are greatly privileged.

As long as people understand clearly what we mean. 

The FV apparently says that God elects some to the invisible church/the inner-life of the Covenant, and yet they can turn out to be reprobate. This contradicts the Reformed faith.


----------



## MW

Richard Tallach said:


> The FV apparently says that God elects some to the invisible church/the inner-life of the Covenant, and yet they can turn out to be reprobate. This contradicts the Reformed faith.



They use an eschatological approach which distinguishes between the now and not yet; but from a traditional approach it equates to what you have summarised; only they would not acknowledge it as their view. Yes, it contradicts the Reformed faith, and it is at this point the FV is to be confronted, not at the point of temporal election, which is clearly assumed or articulated throughout the Old and New Testaments.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you really don't deny that we cb's can accept you pb's as Christian brothers, please resolve the contradiction ASAP. For It seems to me that what you wrote in the abpve cited posts, will if true, necessarily eliminate not only any possibilty of cb's accepting pb's as brethren in Christ, but will eliminate any possibility of pb's accepting cb's as brethren in Christ as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Context is everything. From the start I acknowledged that Bill receives us as brethren in Christ but not in Christ's church. The portions you have quoted were my attempt to show the inconsistency of such a procedure. Showing the inconsistency does not negate the fact that I recognised his reception of us as brethren in Christ. It is the easiest thing in the world to wrest statements from their context in order to make them say something they were never intended for. I don't think this is a skill Christians should be eager to master.
Click to expand...


While it may be an easy skill to wrest statements from their context in order to make them say something they were never intended for, that was not what I was doing. For I recognized from the start as axiomatic that you did not believe the logical conclusion of your own premises as applied to pb's. Otherwise you would not be a contributor to the PB. 

But it was equally clear that you did believe that your conclusions were logical if applied to Bill and to other cb's. I am asking you to prove your claim that we cb's must see things in the way you think we ought to see them, or to put it another way, to prove your charge that Bill is necessarily inconsistent with his confessional beliefs or else to withdraw the charge. 

To do this you need to at least clearly explain why you think Col. 2:12 (whether or not it is read as referring to water baptism) must determine (on cb premises) whether or not one may not recognize a fellow believer or member of a visible church solely on the basis of having been cb'd over against a whole family of texts such as John 1:12,13 that give other grounds for recognizing someone as a child of God without requiring water baptism as a prerequisite for such recognition. To try to dismiss this text as "irrelevant" (your word) when pb's make use of similar texts making the same point in doctrine and practice to recognize those individuals whom pb's may properly baptize and admit into their churches. For example: in Acts 10:41, the visible grounds for recognizing that a known group of visible people had been born again were such that the Apostle Peter asked "Can any forbid water?" When in Rom. 10:9 Paul tells us that "if you confess with your mouth and believe with your heart you shall be saved" a necessary consequence of that statement is that if someone who confesses with his mouth and turns from sin we must be recognized as a child of God. And anyone who may be recognized as a likely child of God must be recognized as a brother (Heb. 2:11). Since Pb's routinely use these texts to justify baptizing professing converts as into the status of brethren and members of the visible church, you must justify why you pb's can justly baptize professing converts on these grounds even though they are not enough for cb's to recognize somone as a Christian brother and member of the visible church. 

I have now twice asked you to justify your charge of cb inconsistency or else to withdraw it. May I suggest that not providing justification for one's charges while leaving the charge to stand is not a position that Christians should be eager to find themselves in.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> But it was equally clear that you did believe that your conclusions were logical if applied to Bill and to other cb's. I am asking you to prove your claim that we cb's must see things in the way you think we ought to see them, or to put it another way, to prove your charge that Bill is necessarily inconsistent with his confessional beliefs or else to withdraw the charge.



For which I started another thread. Pergamum has already helpfully shown the consistency of understanding baptism to be an essential part of Christian profession in antipaedobaptist thought.



timmopussycat said:


> To do this you need to at least clearly explain why you think Col. 2:12 (whether or not it is read as referring to water baptism) must determine (on cb premises) whether or not one may not recognize a fellow believer or member of a visible church solely on the basis of having been cb'd over against a whole family of texts such as John 1:12,13 that give other grounds for recognizing someone as a child of God without requiring water baptism as a prerequisite for such recognition.



I already have. Colossians 2:12, on the understanding it refers to water baptism, requires that baptism be seen as part and parcel of profession and therefore of recognition of brethren. You rejected the water baptism referent. As noted, that is not my problem seeing as your Confession appeals to it for support of a substantive statement about water baptism. John 1:12 doesn't refer to profession of faith, but to faith itself, which is unseen; therefore that text cannot refer to visible membership or visible saints.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it was equally clear that you did believe that your conclusions were logical if applied to Bill and to other cb's. I am asking you to prove your claim that we cb's must see things in the way you think we ought to see them, or to put it another way, to prove your charge that Bill is necessarily inconsistent with his confessional beliefs or else to withdraw the charge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For which I started another thread. Pergamum has already helpfully shown the consistency of understanding baptism to be an essential part of Christian profession in antipaedobaptist thought.
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> To do this you need to at least clearly explain why you think Col. 2:12 (whether or not it is read as referring to water baptism) must determine (on cb premises) whether or not one may not recognize a fellow believer or member of a visible church solely on the basis of having been cb'd over against a whole family of texts such as John 1:12,13 that give other grounds for recognizing someone as a child of God without requiring water baptism as a prerequisite for such recognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have. Colossians 2:12, on the understanding it refers to water baptism, requires that baptism be seen as part and parcel of profession and therefore of recognition of brethren. You rejected the water baptism referent. As noted, that is not my problem seeing as your Confession appeals to it for support of a substantive statement about water baptism. John 1:12 doesn't refer to profession of faith, but to faith itself, which is unseen; therefore that text cannot refer to visible membership or visible saints.
Click to expand...


Matthew you are persistantly ignoring the point I am trying to address. Even if Col 2:12 is taken to refer to water baptism, why are you so insistent in your belief that it is the only ground upon which LBC's may recognize believers when the LBC itself defines believers and members of visible churches in terms of the criteria outlined in John 1:12,13. And you are ignoring repeated demonstrations of the fact that John 1:12, 13, and parallel passages, don't just refer to those people with faith as an abstract group that cannot be identified, but equally if not more to the signs that mark out those with faith.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Matthew you are persistantly ignoring the point I am trying to address. Even if Col 2:12 is taken to refer to water baptism, why are you so insistent in your belief that it is the only ground upon which LBC's may recognize believers when the LBC itself defines believers and members of visible churches in terms of the criteria outlined in John 1:12,13. And you are ignoring repeated demonstrations of the fact that John 1:12, 13, and parallel passages, don't just refer to those people with faith as an abstract group that cannot be identified, but equally if not more to the signs that mark out those with faith.



Col. 2:12, union with Christ through baptism. If this has reference to water baptism as a physical marker of the spiritual reality then the absence of the physical marker leaves one with no basis for asserting the spiritual reality under ordinary circumstances. One would have to posit their own visible marker in the place of the one which God has instituted.

LBC states particular congregations ought to be made up of these visible saints who have professed faith, but the antipaedobaptist has declared these "unbaptised" visible saints cannot become members of their particular congregations.

LBC makes no such reference to John 1:12 or reflects its teaching in its statements on church and baptism. Sorry, you can't alter what is written.


----------



## William Price

Questions. According to paedobaptists, infants are baptized into the covenant, but what if one was not baptized as an infant? Can this individual be baptized into the covenant upon conversion? What is the difference between infant baptism into the covenant and an adult who God has converted being baptized? Is one greater than the other?


----------



## Peairtach

William Price said:


> Questions. According to paedobaptists, infants are baptized into the covenant, but what if one was not baptized as an infant? Can this individual be baptized into the covenant upon conversion? What is the difference between infant baptism into the covenant and an adult who God has converted being baptized? Is one greater than the other?



The child has the benefits of being baptised which can be blessed to him by the Holy Spirit through the Word and prayer. The parent(s) are obeying God's Word in having their child baptised.

E.g. if a child is baptised then the fact that he/she has been baptised can be explained to him/her by minister or parents. The meaning of baptism can also be simply explained, from the Word (see the WCF on not separating sacrament from Word) to the child as she grows up. The Holy Spirit can bless this to the child, leading to their conversion.

Remember that even with circumcision it would have to be explained to the little boy that he was circumcised. Otherwise he could easily grow up thinking that God had made all little boys that way!

See also Larger Catechism on Improving Baptism.

This cannot be done - with the same import - with a child who is born into a believing family but is not baptised as a child, just as the ceremony of circumcision or the knowledge of the fact, could not be blessed to an uncircumcised little boy in the same way as a circumcised little boy.

Probably the subject of improving baptism and improving a child's baptism merits a separate thread!! Baptism threads seem to be currently sprouting exponentially.


----------



## au5t1n

William Price said:


> Questions. According to paedobaptists, infants are baptized into the covenant, but what if one was not baptized as an infant? Can this individual be baptized into the covenant upon conversion? What is the difference between infant baptism into the covenant and an adult who God has converted being baptized? Is one greater than the other?



Good question. No, one is not greater than the other. Yes, a child raised to unbelievers who later converts would need to be baptized (Indeed, this is what we see in Acts). However, the children of believers should be baptized in infancy, ideally.

If, when you speak of being baptized upon conversion, you are speaking of the children of believers, then you would have to establish when that conversion took place, which is just about impossible. I was raised being taught the faith and I don't know when I was regenerated, within quite a wide range. I don't even know what _year_ the Lord changed my heart. Mind you, I was also baptized at 13, but that's not the point.

Thoughts?

Edit: N.b. When you asked if infant or adult baptism is better, I assumed the adult is a convert who had been raised in an unbelieving family. If you were speaking of an adult raised in a believing family, then it would have been better to baptize him/her as an infant in our view (not a superior baptism, but a more timely baptism so-to-speak). If you are speaking of an adult convert, though, then no, his baptism is not inferior, except that there are obvious advantages to being raised by believers, but that wasn't your question.


----------



## Herald

Richard Tallach said:


> William Price said:
> 
> 
> 
> Questions. According to paedobaptists, infants are baptized into the covenant, but what if one was not baptized as an infant? Can this individual be baptized into the covenant upon conversion? What is the difference between infant baptism into the covenant and an adult who God has converted being baptized? Is one greater than the other?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The child has the benefits of being baptised which can be blessed to him by the Holy Spirit through the Word and prayer. The parent(s) are obeying God's Word in having their child baptised.
> 
> E.g. if a child is baptised then the fact that he/she has been baptised can be explained to him/her by minister or parents. The meaning of baptism can also be simply explained, from the Word (see the WCF on not separating sacrament from Word) to the child as she grows up. The Holy Spirit can bless this to the child, leading to their conversion.
> 
> Remember that even with circumcision it would have to be explained to the little boy that he was circumcised. Otherwise he could easily grow up thinking that God had made all little boys that way!
> 
> See also Larger Catechism on Improving Baptism.
> 
> This cannot be done - with the same import - with a child who is born into a believing family but is not baptised as a child.
> 
> Probably the subject of improving baptism and improving a child's baptism merits a separate thread!!
Click to expand...


Richard,

Just a point of clarification from the Baptist side (not a point for debate). Baptists believe it is the gospel itself that (borrowing some of your words)...



> ...can also be simply explained, from the Word to the child as he grows up. The Holy Spirit can bless this to the child, leading to their conversion.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew you are persistantly ignoring the point I am trying to address. Even if Col 2:12 is taken to refer to water baptism, why are you so insistent in your belief that it is the only ground upon which LBC's may recognize believers when the LBC itself defines believers and members of visible churches in terms of the criteria outlined in John 1:12,13. And you are ignoring repeated demonstrations of the fact that John 1:12, 13, and parallel passages, don't just refer to those people with faith as an abstract group that cannot be identified, but equally if not more to the signs that mark out those with faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Col. 2:12, union with Christ through baptism. If this has reference to water baptism as a physical marker of the spiritual reality then the absence of the physical marker leaves one with no basis for asserting the spiritual reality under ordinary circumstances. One would have to posit their own visible marker in the place of the one which God has instituted.
> 
> LBC states particular congregations ought to be made up of these visible saints who have professed faith, but the antipaedobaptist has declared these "unbaptised" visible saints cannot become members of their particular congregations.
> 
> LBC makes no such reference to John 1:12 or reflects its teaching in its statements on church and baptism. Sorry, you can't alter what is written.
Click to expand...


John 1:12 states those persons who have received Christ and believed on his name have been given the right to be called sons of God. For such folk to truly receive Christ and believe, the following realities: entrance into "fellowship with Christ, in his death and resurrection; ... being engrafted into him; ... remission of sins; and ... giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life". These realities taken together are what the bible calls regeneration and conversion. Now Scripture tells us that the probable presence of regeneration and conversion may be known by known by certain indicatiors on the part of the professor (confession with the mouth Rom 10:9, and a turning from iniquity to following Christ). So when someone requests



armourbearer said:


> to be baptised as a sign that they have renounded the world and are resolved to follow Christ.



you are not really baptizing them on their profession alone. Underneath your acceptance of their profession is a recognition that if they want to follow Christ, they must believe on him and for that to be truly possible then regeneration and conversion must have occurred. Even if what you are dealing with is someone who turns out to be a false professor, the professon of renouncing the world and desire to follow Christ is enoough to say that the person so professing has professed belief in Christ and his desire indicates that he has received Christ and so has the Scripturally given right to be recognized as a child of God. 

Now if any pb who has taken the step of joining a local pb church whose doctrine is either evangelical or Reformed, that step necessarily reiterates that person's desire to renounce the world and follow Christ. Cb's may rightly recognize that that the presence of that desire in a pb's life indicates the likely if not certain regeneracy and conversion of the pb in question and treat him as a brother and member of the visible church. Which is why your charge that cb's are necessarily inconsistent with our principles is unfounded.


----------



## Peairtach

> Richard,
> 
> Just a point of clarification from the Baptist side (not a point for debate). Baptists believe it is the gospel itself that (borrowing some of your words)...
> 
> 
> Quote:
> ...can also be simply explained, from the Word to the child as he grows up. The Holy Spirit can bless this to the child, leading to their conversion.



Well no sacrament is rightly administered without the Word. So a wordless sacrament couldn't be blessed to anyone saved or unsaved.

People can be brought to salvation without the water, wine and bread, and just with the Word, but does the Holy Spirit not also use the sacraments, which always when truly administered should be accompanied with the Word - including infant circumcision and infant baptism - to bring unsaved infants to faith? Or are you saying that infant circumcision was of no salvific use to the individual, and that infant baptism can be of no salvific use to the individual?

Was not infant circumcision an encouragement to seek the true circumcision? E.g."Circumcise your hearts and not your foreskins!" (e.g. Jeremiah 4:4) Likewise infant baptism is an encouragement to seek the true baptism.

The Bible and the WCF don't indicate that infant baptism and circumcision were only of spiritual benefit to the individual concerned _after_ they believed. The Holy Spirit can and does work on individuals before they are converted to lead them to conversion.


----------



## Herald

> People can be brought to salvation without the water, wine and bread, and just with the Word, but does the Holy Spirit not also use the sacraments, which always when truly administered should be accompanied with the Word - including infant circumcision and infant baptism - to bring unsaved infants to faith? Or are you saying that infant circumcision was of no salvific use to the individual, and that infant baptism can be of no salvific use to the individual?



Richard, the Lord can use anything He desires as part of the process of calling his elect, whether it be a song, motion picture, billboard etc. Many circumstances can be used to bring the sinner to the place where they will hear and believe the gospel. My point is that it is the gospel alone that contains the words of life. Reformed Baptists don't recognize a specific slavific function in baptism, whereas we do, in the Lord' Supper. Of course, the reason we don't attach a specific salvific value to baptism is because we view baptism as the first act of obedience in the life of a believer. In the Lord's Supper we see the visual proclamation of the gospel message to all who are in attendance. 

Of course, I am simply articulating what Reformed Baptists generally believe. I'm not seeking debate. Consider it a simple point of clarification if you will.


----------



## Peairtach

Herald said:


> People can be brought to salvation without the water, wine and bread, and just with the Word, but does the Holy Spirit not also use the sacraments, which always when truly administered should be accompanied with the Word - including infant circumcision and infant baptism - to bring unsaved infants to faith? Or are you saying that infant circumcision was of no salvific use to the individual, and that infant baptism can be of no salvific use to the individual?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, the Lord can use anything He desires as part of the process of calling his elect, whether it be a song, motion picture, billboard etc. Many circumstances can be used to bring the sinner to the place where they will hear and believe the gospel. My point is that it is the gospel alone that contains the words of life. Reformed Baptists don't recognize a specific slavific function in baptism, whereas we do, in the Lord' Supper. Of course, the reason we don't attach a specific salvific value to baptism is because we view baptism as the first act of obedience in the life of a believer. In the Lord's Supper we see the visual proclamation of the gospel message to all who are in attendance.
> 
> Of course, I am simply articulating what Reformed Baptists generally believe. I'm not seeking debate. Consider it a simple point of clarification if you will.
Click to expand...


That's fine brother. I think the subject of precisely what influence or use baptism is to believers or non-believers, to those to whom it is applied whether children or adults, to those who are present at a baptism whether children or adults, may be slightly off topic and would be better moved to another thread or continued on another thread.


----------



## steadfast7

Ron said:


> *I sincerely hope this post is read by all. It can save us all a lot of time because the arguments are now distilled. There are actual proofs put forth for both positions that are easy to follow and interact with.*
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, now when did God abrogate the principle that children _are_ to be regarded as His children? Please, no more pointing to Jer. 31, as if that answers any questions. Once and for all, actually put forth a deductive argument with a valid form and then we'll go step by step examining each premise and the exegesis that goes along with its justification. Fair enough?
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first off. Can we examine this principle that you are putting forth, with scripture? And, can we be sure that being a child of God in the OT, means the same thing as being a child of God in the NT? You are already beginning to assume that they mean the same thing, but that first needs to be established.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't be serious. Of course we can examine the principle from Scripture and if you don't think these terms have been established, then I don't think you're trying as hard as you could; yet allow me to review the bidding just the same.
> 
> As I've said multiple times on this thread, the covenant was *ESTABLISHED* with the Seed of Abraham, which was the incarnate Christ and all who are elected in him. _Genesis 17; Galatians 3_
> 
> Although the covenant of promise was *ESTABLISHED* with the elect in Christ alone, it was to be *ADMINISTERED *to those within a professing believer's houshold. That is to say, those who were to received the adminstration of the covenant (i.e. households) were to also be regarded as spiritual children of God.
> 
> Paul reminded his audiance in Romans 9 of the Old Testament principle that ONLY the children of PROMISE were truly counted as the seed, which was to say that not all Israel was Israel - (i.e. not all those of physical decent were spritual children of God - yet they were to be regarded as such!). Yet notwithstanding, when God's judgements and blessings came upon Israel, God was treating Israel as an organic whole. The visible church was to be considered the true people of God, even though not all Israel was Israel. Baptist theology agrees with that! Moreover, even today, Baptist pastors will rightly treat all their baptized members as the church - even though not all the church is the church - since there are again unbelievers on the roles. _There is no debate over how we are to treat the visible church._ We are to treat its members as disciples of the Lord. *The question is, who is to be regarded as being in that church?*
> 
> Since nobody has cared to put forth an actual argument, let me get the ball rolling.
> 
> *Here is what I see the Reformed Baptist argument to be:*
> 
> *1.* In the older economy the covenant was established with professing believers and their households (whether elect or not)
> 
> *2.* It should be ensured as best as possible to place the mark of the covenant upon those with whom the covenant is established
> 
> *3.* Therefore, the mark of circumcision was to be placed upon professing believers and their households (whether they would ever believe or not)
> 
> *4.* The new covenant is established only with the elect
> 
> *5. *Given (2 and 4), we should therefore wait until someone makes a profession of faith before admitting them to baptism
> 
> *Now if you think I have misrepresented the Baptist argument, then I by all means I invite you to actually put forth an argument rather than just using your rhetoric skills. *
> 
> *The Baptist argument has many problems:*
> 
> 1 is False: The old covenant was only established with the elect.
> 
> 2 is False: God required that the sign and seal of the covenant be placed upon those who had not demonstrated election by making a credible profession of faith.
> 
> 3 is True: The premise follows from two preceding false premises making the premise unsound, although the premise is true
> 
> 4 is True
> 
> 5 is False: Premise 2 is false, which is why 5 is false.
> 
> *I've showed you yours, now I'll show you ours.*
> 
> *A sound Paedobaptist argument:*
> 
> *1.* An Old Covenant precept was that whenever possible the sign of entrance into the covenant was to be placed upon all who were to be regarded as God’s people
> 
> *2.* Children of professing believers were to be regarded as God’s people under the Old Covenant
> 
> *3.* Children of professing believers whenever possible were to receive the sign of entrance into the Old Covenant by way of precept (1, 2)
> 
> *4.* God’s precepts may not be abrogated without explicit instruction or good and necessary inference
> 
> *5.* God never abrogated the Old Testament precept regarding who was to receive the sign of entrance into the Old covenant
> 
> *6.* The sign of entrance into the New Covenant is water baptism
> 
> *7.* God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive the sign of entrance into the New Covenant (3, 4 and 5)
> 
> *8.* God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive water baptism (6, 7)
> 
> *Now, of course you will want to disagree with point 5, but in doing so, please prove point 5 wrong rather than just point to Jer. 31 without any logical commentary.* Believe it or not, the problem I have found with most Baptists is that they do not arrive at the their conclusions using rigerous logic based upon premises derived from Scripture. Here's your opportunity to prove me wrong.
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


Dear Ron,

What a post! It's a bit overwhelming, and I doubt I'm the best person to offer a defence for the baptist position, but I do have questions and observations, which are all just different ways of noticing the same tendency within Paedobaptism.

1. I think my question regarding "child of God" in the OT and NT is still a valid one. Many, if not most, of the references of the people of God in the OT refer to national Israel, _as a whole_ without distinguishing the elect, within the elect (ie "true" Israel). In some places do we see this finer distinction, but the NT almost always speaks of God's children as those who are fully elected unto salvation. I don't see the absurdity in distinguishing circumcision administered nationally and ethnically, from baptism administered to those of faith. 

2. From what I observe from the PB position, there is no definitive link between the administration (sign) and the establishment (reality) of the covenant. You are emphatic that the covenant in both testaments is established with spiritual Israel only, but administered to ethnic Israel. I'm sure you would agree that baptizing generations upon generations of Christian families does not ensure or signify their salvation (?). Baptists at least make the _attempt _to bridge the covenant sign with actual salvation. 

3. Paedobaptism therefore perpetuates a dual-view of election: a general election down genetic lines (like national Israel); and a specific election of individuals destined for salvation. The NT clearly de-emphasizes any claim of election based on ethnic or familial ties. Jesus says that he came to divide families, and Paul denigrated the Jewish necessity of circumcision as having any bearing on salvation. 

4. Paedobaptism seems to remove personal faith from the golden chain of election to glorification by placing the sign of the covenant on those who have yet to exercise personal faith. The outstanding question I have is: if you believe that baptism is a sign of salvation through union with Christ, how do you affirm this in an infant who has not yet exercised faith? The only way I see PBs doing this is by claiming that there is something intrinsically salvific about being born in a certain family. Ever heard of the saying, "God has no grandchildren!" ? PBs seem to deny this.

Dennis.

-----Added 11/9/2009 at 02:38:49 EST-----



Ron said:


> *5.* God never abrogated the Old Testament precept regarding who was to receive the sign of entrance into the Old covenant
> 
> *6.* The sign of entrance into the New Covenant is water baptism
> 
> *7.* God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive the sign of entrance into the New Covenant (3, 4 and 5)
> 
> *8.* God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive water baptism (6, 7)
> 
> *Now, of course you will want to disagree with point 5, but in doing so, please prove point 5 wrong rather than just point to Jer. 31 without any logical commentary.* Believe it or not, the problem I have found with most Baptists is that they do not arrive at the their conclusions using rigerous logic based upon premises derived from Scripture. Here's your opportunity to prove me wrong.
> 
> Ron



I reread point 5, and had a bone to pick... Are you saying that _circumcision was never abrogated as a means of entering the Old Covenant_?

Say it ain't so.

What do you mean by Old covenant, anyway? If you're talking about Abraham, then the NT is clear what that's about: Faith.


----------



## Ron

steadfast7 said:


> I think my question regarding "child of God" in the OT and NT is still a valid one. Many, if not most, of the references of the people of God in the OT refer to national Israel, as a whole without distinguishing the elect, within the elect (ie "true" Israel).



That’s the point, Dennis. God had an elect people to whom he *promised* _"I *will* be your God"_. This included the Isaacs and Jacobs, etc. and did not include the Ishmaels and Esaus (of the world). God made a covenant _promise _only to his elect, but the prophets were to address all of the visible people of God as the elect. Not all Israel was Israel but nonetheless God treated the visible people of God organically – “as a whole” as you put it “without distinguishing” the elect from the non-elect. Under both testaments, the visible people of God are treated as God’s only people – his spiritual elect. 



steadfast7 said:


> the NT almost always speaks of God's children as those who are fully elected unto salvation.



Paul treats all the saints at Galatia, for instance, as brethren even though many who received the instruction may have not been elect. That is the exact same _modus operandi_ that we see in the Old Testament. 



steadfast7 said:


> I don't see the absurdity in distinguishing circumcision administered nationally and ethnically, from baptism administered to those of faith.



First and foremost, circumcision had spiritual significance. (Romans 4) Moreover, circumcision preceded national Israel by 400 years, again accentuating that its primary significance was not ethnic but spiritual. Get this - God always had a covenant people that he so happened to form into a nation. Accordingly, upon the advent of the nation, the spiritual people were to be equated with the nation; so to refer to the one was to refer to the other. Notwithstanding, the promise was to the elect, which is why the promise did not become null and void upon the expiration of the nation. 

The “absurdity” of only administering baptism to those with a credible profession is due to the fact that God’s precept of administering the sign to all within a professing household was never abrogated.



steadfast7 said:


> 2. From what I observe from the PB position, there is no definitive link between the administration (sign) and the establishment (reality) of the covenant.



Correct. The sign being administered to an infant (or adult) does not imply that the recipient will ever possess what the sign contemplates. (The same goes for the Baptist position.) 



steadfast7 said:


> You are emphatic that the covenant in both testaments is established with spiritual Israel only, but administered to ethnic Israel.



Genesis 17, Galatians 3 and Romans 9 all teach this. I won’t rehearse the verses again. The premise is irrefutable. 



steadfast7 said:


> I'm sure you would agree that baptizing generations upon generations of Christian families does not ensure or signify their salvation (?). Baptists at least make the attempt to bridge the covenant sign with actual salvation.



Yes, Baptists make an attempt at something that God would not have them do, which is exclude infants of professing believers from the appellation “Christian disciple”. 



steadfast7 said:


> Paedobaptism therefore perpetuates a dual-view of election: a general election down genetic lines (like national Israel); and a specific election of individuals destined for salvation. The NT clearly de-emphasizes any claim of election based on ethnic or familial ties. Jesus says that he came to divide families, and Paul denigrated the Jewish necessity of circumcision as having any bearing on salvation.



Dennis, with all due respect you are back to pure rhetoric without any logical progression of thought based upon premises justified with scriptural proofs. Please _argue_ something. I already know what you would like to assert. 



steadfast7 said:


> 4. The outstanding question I have is: if you believe that baptism is a sign of salvation through union with Christ, how do you affirm this in an infant who has not yet exercised faith?



My brother, that is not an argument let alone a refutation of the argument that is before you. All you are doing is begging crucial questions. You require one to be able to give a spoken evidence of their conversion in order to bear the sign of the covenant. However, that is not a stipulation we find in Scripture. It’s a stipulation born out of baptistic theology. Again, please deal with the arguments. 



steadfast7 said:


> I reread point 5, and had a bone to pick... Are you saying that circumcision was never abrogated as a means of entering the Old Covenant?



Circumcision was abrogated, but the principle of applying the sign of the covenant to infants of professing believers was not! 



steadfast7 said:


> What do you mean by Old covenant, anyway? If you're talking about Abraham, then the NT is clear what that's about: Faith.



The old covenant principle goes back to the beginning. For instance, God established his covenant with Noah but his entire family was saved in the ark.

Brother, I'm not going to be able to deal with posts like this last one of yours in the future. For some reason you clearly have not grasped the challenge that is before you. You might just have to think a bit harder, or you might simply have a presupposition (that you cannot find in Scripture) that is clouding your reasoning. 

Most sincerely,

Ron


----------



## Robert Truelove

William Price said:


> Questions. According to paedobaptists, infants are baptized into the covenant, but what if one was not baptized as an infant? Can this individual be baptized into the covenant upon conversion? What is the difference between infant baptism into the covenant and an adult who God has converted being baptized? Is one greater than the other?



This thread has several discussions going on at once so this is likely to get lost in the shuffle but I wanted to comment on this...

A correction needs to be made. The Reformed paedobaptist position does not believe that infants of believers are "baptized into the covenant". We baptize them because they ARE in the covenant.

Consider Genesis 17:14...

"Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

The child is to receive the sign of the covenant because they ARE already in; else how can God say of the uncircumcised Jew that he has "broken my covenant"?

I'm not going into details here but this is a very important distinction.


----------



## MW

timmopussycat said:


> Now Scripture tells us that the probable presence of regeneration and conversion may be known by known by certain indicatiors on the part of the professor (confession with the mouth Rom 10:9, and a turning from iniquity to following Christ).



Scripture states that baptism is the "indicator." That seems to be the real point at issue here, whether one accepts the biblical prescription of baptism as "sign" or feels liberty to replace it with a sign or indicator of their own devising. You may have the final word; we are just repeating ourselves now.


----------



## timmopussycat

armourbearer said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now Scripture tells us that the probable presence of regeneration and conversion may be known by known by certain indicatiors on the part of the professor (confession with the mouth Rom 10:9, and a turning from iniquity to following Christ).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture states that baptism is the "indicator." That seems to be the real point at issue here, whether one accepts the biblical prescription of baptism as "sign" or feels liberty to replace it with a sign or indicator of their own devising. You may have the final word; we are just repeating ourselves now.
Click to expand...


Scripture doesn't so state. While it is clear that wb is a Dominically required act of obedience, and perhaps even the first act so required after entering the Christian life, recognizing that reality is is not the same thing as proving that wb is *the sole* biblically mandated grounds for determining whether or not someone is entitled to recognition as a brother and fellow member of the visible church. It is only when one can provide proof that Scripture provides no grounds beside wb upon which one may be Scripturally proved to be a child of God, that one may rightly deny that cb's can recognize pb's as fellow brethren in the visible church without doing violence to the LBC. I have demonstrated that Scripture does in fact provide additional ground besides wb to recognize someone as a child of God. You have failed to break the demonstration. So if you want to withdraw from the discussion, isn't it only fair that you also withdraw your charge until and unless you can support it with satisfactory evidence?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Ron said:


> *I sincerely hope this post is read by all. It can save us all a lot of time because the arguments are now distilled. There are actual proofs put forth for both positions that are easy to follow and interact with.*
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, now when did God abrogate the principle that children _are_ to be regarded as His children? Please, no more pointing to Jer. 31, as if that answers any questions. Once and for all, actually put forth a deductive argument with a valid form and then we'll go step by step examining each premise and the exegesis that goes along with its justification. Fair enough?
> 
> Ron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, first off. Can we examine this principle that you are putting forth, with scripture? And, can we be sure that being a child of God in the OT, means the same thing as being a child of God in the NT? You are already beginning to assume that they mean the same thing, but that first needs to be established.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't be serious. Of course we can examine the principle from Scripture and if you don't think these terms have been established, then I don't think you're trying as hard as you could; yet allow me to review the bidding just the same.
> 
> As I've said multiple times on this thread, the covenant was *ESTABLISHED* with the Seed of Abraham, which was the incarnate Christ and all who are elected in him. _Genesis 17; Galatians 3_
> 
> Although the covenant of promise was *ESTABLISHED* with the elect in Christ alone, it was to be *ADMINISTERED *to those within a professing believer's houshold. That is to say, those who were to received the adminstration of the covenant (i.e. households) were to also be regarded as spiritual children of God.
> 
> Paul reminded his audiance in Romans 9 of the Old Testament principle that ONLY the children of PROMISE were truly counted as the seed, which was to say that not all Israel was Israel - (i.e. not all those of physical decent were spritual children of God - yet they were to be regarded as such!). Yet notwithstanding, when God's judgements and blessings came upon Israel, God was treating Israel as an organic whole. The visible church was to be considered the true people of God, even though not all Israel was Israel. Baptist theology agrees with that! Moreover, even today, Baptist pastors will rightly treat all their baptized members as the church - even though not all the church is the church - since there are again unbelievers on the roles. _There is no debate over how we are to treat the visible church._ We are to treat its members as disciples of the Lord. *The question is, who is to be regarded as being in that church?*
> 
> Since nobody has cared to put forth an actual argument, let me get the ball rolling.
> 
> *Here is what I see the Reformed Baptist argument to be:*
> 
> *1.* In the older economy the covenant was established with professing believers and their households (whether elect or not)
> 
> *2.* It should be ensured as best as possible to place the mark of the covenant upon those with whom the covenant is established
> 
> *3.* Therefore, the mark of circumcision was to be placed upon professing believers and their households (whether they would ever believe or not)
> 
> *4.* The new covenant is established only with the elect
> 
> *5. *Given (2 and 4), we should therefore wait until someone makes a profession of faith before admitting them to baptism
> 
> *Now if you think I have misrepresented the Baptist argument, then I by all means I invite you to actually put forth an argument rather than just using your rhetoric skills. *
> 
> *The Baptist argument has many problems:*
> 
> 1 is False: The old covenant was only established with the elect.
> 
> 2 is False: God required that the sign and seal of the covenant be placed upon those who had not demonstrated election by making a credible profession of faith.
> 
> 3 is True: The premise follows from two preceding false premises making the premise unsound, although the premise is true
> 
> 4 is True
> 
> 5 is False: Premise 2 is false, which is why 5 is false.
> 
> *I've showed you yours, now I'll show you ours.*
> 
> *A sound Paedobaptist argument:*
> 
> *1.* An Old Covenant precept was that whenever possible the sign of entrance into the covenant was to be placed upon all who were to be regarded as God’s people
> 
> *2.* Children of professing believers were to be regarded as God’s people under the Old Covenant
> 
> *3.* Children of professing believers whenever possible were to receive the sign of entrance into the Old Covenant by way of precept (1, 2)
> 
> *4.* God’s precepts may not be abrogated without explicit instruction or good and necessary inference
> 
> *5.* God never abrogated the Old Testament precept regarding who was to receive the sign of entrance into the Old covenant
> 
> *6.* The sign of entrance into the New Covenant is water baptism
> 
> *7.* God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive the sign of entrance into the New Covenant (3, 4 and 5)
> 
> *8.* God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive water baptism (6, 7)
> 
> *Now, of course you will want to disagree with point 5, but in doing so, please prove point 5 wrong rather than just point to Jer. 31 without any logical commentary.* Believe it or not, the problem I have found with most Baptists is that they do not arrive at the their conclusions using rigerous logic based upon premises derived from Scripture. Here's your opportunity to prove me wrong.
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


Ron, this is a great post. 
I would only offer one clarification. I would substitute "Old Covenant" with "Abrahamic covenant" or simply covenant of grace. Hebrews 8:9 clearly identifies the "old covenant" as the Mosaic administration which did become obsolete (Heb 8:13, 2 Cor 3:7-11). But the Abrahamic covenant continues on (Gal 3:17), which is why the same covenant promise and sign are given to believers and their children today(Gen 17:7, Acts 2:39).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Wow, You go away for a few days and it reverts to this. Let me just post a link to Richard Barcellos's Exegetical Appraisal of Colosian 2:11,12



> http://www.reformedreader.org/RBTRII...cellos.RPM.doc



The greek font shows up in the aforementioned link. Not in this post.



> AN EXEGETICAL APPRAISAL OF COLOSSIANS 2:11-12
> 
> By Richard C. Barcellos*
> 
> Used here by permission of Author
> 
> 
> “and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” (Col. 2:11-12)
> 
> Colossians 2:11-12 is a text used by paedobaptists to justify their practice of baptizing infants. This text is used to display the relationship between OT circumcision and NT baptism. The conclusion drawn is that what circumcision was, baptism is. As John Murray puts it, “baptism is the circumcision of the New Testament.” Simply put, in paedobaptist thought baptism replaces circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant. Since infants were circumcised in the OT, infants should be baptized under the NT. A replacement theology between circumcision and baptism is argued by this understanding of the text.
> It must be admitted that a prima facie glance at the text seems to give credibility to such an interpretation. Our purpose in this article, however, is to examine Col. 2:11-12 in the Greek text to determine its meaning in context and to compare our findings with the claim that it is a proof text for infant baptism. The approach will be as follows: first, to set the text in its context; second, to examine its syntactical structure and provide exegesis of its contents; third, to compare our conclusions with arguments used in The Case For Covenantal Infant Baptism; and fourth, to draw some pertinent conclusions.
> 
> Colossians 2:11-12 in Context
> 
> Colossians 2:11-12 comes in a larger context where Paul is exposing error and giving its remedy (Col. 2:4-3:4). In the immediate context, Paul warns the Colossians: “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ” (2:8). Verses 9-15 give the reasons why they are not to be led astray in ways not according to Christ.
> Verses 9 and 10 give two (possibly three) reasons why Christ is the remedy against error. “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head of all rule and authority” (2:9-10). The first reason is Christ’s deity (2:9). The second reason is the completeness that Christians have in Christ (2:10). A third reason may appear in the final clause of v. 10: “and He is the head over all rule and authority.” This is surely added due to the complex heresy Paul is combating. Paul assures the Colossians that Christ is head of all rule and authority. T.K. Abbott adds:
> 
> He is the head of all those angelic powers to whose mediation the false teachers would teach you to seek. As they are subordinate to Christ, ye have nothing to expect from them which is not given you in full completeness in Christ.
> 
> Christ is God and provides everything the Colossians need for their souls.
> Verses 11-15 present the means by which completeness in Christ has come. The first means occurs in vv. 11-12 (see the syntactical and exegetical discussion below). Christians are complete in Christ by means of being “circumcised with a circumcision made without hands.” Christ performs this circumcision or it is Christ’s circumcision in that it belongs to Him as Christian or New Covenant circumcision (see below). The second means by which completeness in Christ has come to the Colossians is found in vv. 13-15. It is due to what God did to them while they were “dead in [their] transgressions and the uncircumcision of [their] flesh.” He made them “alive together with Him,” that is, with Christ. This making “alive together with Him” was effected by God the Father. The verb sunezwopoi,hsen (“made you alive together”) implies a subject other than the “Him” of su.n auvtw/| (“with Him”). Christ, therefore, is not the subject of the verb. This would be a cumbersome tautology indeed. Taking o` qeo.j (“God” the Father) as the implied subject does away with the tautology and is supported by the parallel passage in Eph. 2:4-5.
> The Colossians were told that Christ alone was not enough. Paul argues against such anti-Christian teaching by highlighting Christ’s deity and the completeness Christians have in Him.
> 
> Syntactical Structure and Exegesis of Colossians 2:11-12
> 
> Having set the verses in context, we are now prepared to uncover the relationship and meaning of their parts. As we move through the text, the completeness Christians have in Christ will become clearer.
> The first question is the meaning and function of the first three words in the Greek text, evn w-| kai., translated “and in Him” (NASB), “In Him …also” (NKJV), and literally “in [or “by”] whom also” (KJV). The “whom” (w-|) refers back to Christ in v. 10. Some commentators take this to mean union with Christ. For instance, John Eadie says:
> 
> …the formula evn w-| has its usual significance–union with Him–union created by the Spirit, and effected by faith; and, secondly, the blessing described in the verse had been already enjoyed, for they were and had been believers in Him in whom they are complete. Through their living union with Christ, they had enjoyed the privilege, and were enjoying the results of a spiritual circumcision.
> 
> On the face of it, Eadie’s comments seem appropriate. Upon further examination, however, problems arise. Notice that he is arguing that the union under discussion is vital, experiential union with Christ “created by the Spirit, and effected by faith.” Commenting further, Eadie adds, “It is plain that the spiritual circumcision is not different from regeneration.” Assuming a causal order in Col. 2:11 (which will become clearer below), Eadie’s position would imply that the Spirit creates and faith effects union with Christ, thus, evn w-| kai,. which is then followed by spiritual circumcision or regeneration. Eadie understands union with Christ here in terms of a vital union (i.e., communion) “created by the Spirit, and effected by faith.” If this is so, then causally, faith precedes circumcision of the heart or regeneration. Communion with Christ through faith precedes regeneration by the Spirit. As we will see below, in this passage faith comes as a result of spiritual circumcision or regeneration (Col. 2:13; cf., Jn. 3:3-8) and is the means through which believers are personally united to Christ (i.e., vital union and communion).
> Can Paul be alluding to union with Christ by evn w-| kai.? The answer is yes, but not without crucial qualification. To understand union with Christ here as commonly understood in the realm of the application of redemption effected by faith is unnecessary for several reasons. First, the idea of faith is not found in the text until the end of v. 12. Second, faith itself is a result of the “circumcision made without hands” (see the discussion below). Third, the concept of union with Christ is not limited to the application of redemption effected by faith elsewhere in Paul. John Murray says, “It is quite apparent that the Scripture applies the expression ‘in Christ’ to much more than the application of redemption.” Eph. 1:4, for instance, indicates that Christians were chosen “in Him before the foundation of the world.” This indicates a pre-temporal union with Christ apart from faith and void of communion with Christ. Vital union (i.e., communion with Christ), the type of union experienced in space and time, unites us to Christ in such a way that we experience personally the spiritual benefits of being saved (i.e., justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification). Fourth, assuming a causal sequence in the text and assuming evn w-| kai. refers to vital union, we would have an ordo salutis as follows: union with Christ by faith then spiritual circumcision (i.e., regeneration). Again, as we shall see, faith that unites one vitally to Christ is a product of the “circumcision made without hands” and proceeds from it, not the other way around. It may be better to paraphrase evn w-| kai. as “through your relation to Him” understanding union with Christ here in a non-vital manner. This would allow for a union apart from faith that corresponds with the broader meaning of union with Christ in many other places in Paul. Richard Gaffin argues for a “broader, more basic notion of union” in his Resurrection and Redemption. He lists three types of union: predestinarian, redemptive-historical, and existential.
> There are at least two other ways to understand evn w-| kai.. It could be understood like the evn auvtw/| (“in Him”) of Col. 1:17. The evn (“in”) would function like a dative of sphere. It would be paraphrased as “in the sphere of Christ’s activity you were circumcised.” Or it could be translated “by whom also.” The evn (“by”) would function like a dative of means or agency. Paul uses evn w-| 26 times in the Greek text. The NASB translates it “by which” in Rom. 7:6; 8:15 [“by whom” NKJV]; 14:21; and Eph. 4:30. He uses evn w-| kai. seven times in the Greek text. Though the NASB does not translate it “by whom also,” the NKJV does in 1 Pt. 3:19a and Clarence B. Hale suggests this translation for Eph. 2:22 (i.e., “…by whom you also are being built together…”). It would be translated as “by whom also you were circumcised.”
> The union with Christ in Col. 2:11 may be understood best either as a union based on election “in Him” (Eph. 1:4) and true of all the elect prior to the personal application of redemption in space and time or in one of the last two ways suggested above. Either of these views fits the context of Col. 2:11ff. and is syntactically and theologically consistent with Paul’s usage elsewhere. And either view will allow for the causal relationship between circumcision and union with Christ effected through faith, which is clear in the passage (see the discussion below).
> The evn w-| kai. refers back to Christ and our being complete in Him (v. 10). Verses 11 and 12 go on to describe just how Christians are complete in Him. The verb perietmh,qhte (“you were circumcised”) indicates a past action in which the Colossians were passive. They were acted upon by an outsider. They did not circumcise themselves. Someone else was the subject, the circumciser, and they were the objects, the recipients of circumcision. The rest of vv. 11 and 12 are subordinate to this verb and explanatory of it.
> The first thing Paul tells us about this circumcision is its character or nature. It was peritomh/| avceiropoih,tw| (“a circumcision made without hands”). It was performed without human hands, unlike the circumcision of the OT and the type being promoted by Judaizers in the first century. John Eadie says, “The circumcision made without hands is plainly opposed to that which is made with hands.” It is a spiritual circumcision, a circumcision of the heart (cf., Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Ezek. 44:7; Rom. 2:28-29; Phil. 3:3). Harris says, “It is spiritual surgery performed on Christ’s followers at the time of their regeneration.” The Colossians are complete in Christ due to being circumcised without hands.
> The second thing Paul tells us about this “circumcision made without hands” is its effect. This spiritual circumcision was evn th/| avpekdu,sei tou/ sw,matoj th/j sarko,j (“in the removal of the body of the flesh”). “[T]he body of the flesh” (tou/ sw,matoj th/j sarko,j) is also spiritual. Since the circumcision under discussion is spiritual, then its effect must be spiritual. The preposition evn (“in”) is best understood epexegetically (NASB). It could be stated as “consisting of the removal of the body of the flesh.” It exegetes or explains the “circumcision made without hands.” The effect of the spiritual circumcision was a spiritual “removal of the body of the flesh.” But what does Paul mean by “the body of the flesh”? The noun avpekdu,sei (“removal”) has a double prepositional prefix (avpo and e`k) which intensify the noun so that it can be translated “completely off from.” The “removal of the body of the flesh” was a radical and spiritual act effected by the “circumcision made without hands.” The “body of the flesh” is what is stripped off or radically affected. As noted above, “the flesh” (th/j sarko,j) is best taken as spiritual. In this case, sarko,j (flesh”) is used in an ethical sense. It refers to the sinful natures of the Colossians (cf., Col. 2:18; Rom. 8:5-7; 13:14; and Eph. 2:3 for similar uses). Eadie says, “Flesh is corrupted humanity.” The fleshly body (i.e., the entirety of their sinful natures) was radically altered by this spiritual circumcision. Abbott adds, “The connexion requires it to be understood passively, not ‘ye have put off,’ but ‘was put off from you.’” The sinful souls of the Colossians were radically changed. The body of the flesh was put off from them. This is a description of the radical effects of heart circumcision upon the soul within the complex of the grace of regeneration (cf. Tit. 3:5). Discussing regeneration, Murray says:
> 
> There is a change that God effects in man, radical and reconstructive in its nature, called new birth, new creation, regeneration, renewal–a change that cannot be accounted for by anything that is in lower terms than the interposition of the almighty power of God. . . . The governing disposition, the character, the mind and will are renewed and so the person is now able to respond to the call of the gospel and enter into privileges and blessings of the divine vocation.
> 
> Regeneration involves both cleansing from sin (Tit. 3:5) and new life (Jn. 3:3-8). Paul is saying that the Colossians have experienced regeneration. They were complete in Christ because of the radical alteration of soul effected by the “circumcision made without hands.”
> The third thing Paul tells us about this “circumcision made without hands” is its author or owner. This is indicated by the words evn th/| peritomh/| tou/ Cristou/ (“by the circumcision of Christ”). This phrase has three possible meanings. The primary issue revolves around the function of the genitive tou/ Cristou/ (“of Christ”). One option takes it as an objective genitive and translates as “the circumcision performed on Christ” or “experienced by Christ.” This would refer either to Christ’s physical circumcision or “to his death when he stripped off his physical body.” This is strained. Paul has been talking about what has happened in and to the Colossians not for them. Paul discusses what Christ did for the Colossians in vv. 13b and 14. Verses 11 and 12 discuss what happens in the Colossians and to them. Callow says:
> 
> Ingenious though this view is, it seems rather far-fetched to take circumcision as figuratively referring to Christ’s death. There is no suggestion of this in such passages as Rom. 2:28f. or Phil. 3:3. And in the nearer context of Col. 2:15, it is not said that Christ put off his body of flesh, but the powers and authorities. Further, in the ethical application of the teaching here which is given in chapter 3, Paul says (3:9) that the Colossians have “put off” the old man with his (evil) deeds, a statement which is very similar to the one used here.
> 
> Another option takes the genitive as subjective and translates as “a circumcision effected by Christ.” The NIV reads “done by Christ.” This makes Christ the circumciser of the Colossians’ hearts.
> The last option sees the genitive as possessive. It is “Christ’s circumcision” or “Christian circumcision.” It is a circumcision that belongs to Christ. Either of the last two options fits the context better than the first option. The genitive of possession view, of course, does not preclude Christ from performing the circumcision, especially if we translate evn w-| kai. (2:11a) as “by whom also.”
> In Tit. 3:5-6, God is said to have “saved us…by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Regeneration is by the Holy Spirit and through Jesus Christ and all is connected to God’s act in saving us. The Holy Spirit is the effective agent of regeneration; however, He is, nonetheless, the Spirit of Christ and God. In the economy of redemption, He convicts of sin and glorifies Christ by bringing the fruits of His redemption to the souls of elect sinners. And He does this as Christ’s emissary. The application of redemption is God’s act through Christ by the Spirit. Therefore, the genitive of possession option can be viewed in a way that encompasses the subjective genitive contention. It is Christ’s circumcision, as opposed to Moses’, the fathers’, or anyone else’s. It is Christian or New Covenant circumcision because it is under the authority and administration of Christ. He commissions the Holy Spirit to perform it, yet can be viewed as the author. As God uses means to save us, so Christ uses means to circumcise us.
> An important observation to make at this point is that Christian circumcision, the circumcision of the heart, is the counterpart to physical circumcision. Harris says:
> 
> . . . v. 11 presents spiritual circumcision, not baptism, as the Christian counterpart to physical circumcision. A contrast is implied between circumcision as an external, physical act performed by human hands on a portion of the flesh eight days after birth and circumcision as an inward, spiritual act carried out by divine agency on the whole fleshly nature at the time of regeneration.
> 
> Just as everyone who was physically circumcised under the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants became covenant members, so all who are spiritually circumcised become members of the New Covenant. Physical circumcision is replaced by spiritual circumcision under the New Covenant.
> The fourth thing Paul tells us about this “circumcision made without hands” is its subsequent, spiritual concomitant or attendant. We are introduced to v. 12 by an aorist, passive participial clause, suntafe,ntej auvtw/| evn tw/| baptismw/| (“having been buried with Him in baptism”). The participle, suntafe,ntej (“having been buried”), finds as its antecedent verb perietmh,qhte (“you were circumcised”) of v. 11. It indicates a further and subordinate explanation of the “circumcision made without hands.” Wallace calls this a dependent, adverbial, temporal participle. Wallace defines this type of participle as follows:
> 
> In relation to its controlling verb, the temporal participle answers the question, When? Three kinds of time are in view: antecedent, contemporaneous, and subsequent. The antecedent participle should be translated after doing, after he did, etc. The contemporaneous participle should normally be translated while doing. And the subsequent participle should be translated before doing, before he does, etc. This usage is common.
> 
> The antecedent option would translate Col. 2:12a as “you were circumcised after being buried with Him in baptism.” This would make the “circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ” causally dependent upon baptism and, therefore, a result of it. This would argue for post-baptismal (whether water or spiritual baptism) regeneration in the case of the Colossian believers. This seems far-fetched in light of our discussion thus far.
> The contemporaneous option would translate Col. 2:12a as “you were circumcised while being buried with Him in baptism.” This would argue either for baptismal regeneration or that burial with Christ in baptism is synonymous with and epexegetical of the circumcision made without hands. This should be discarded for the reasons mentioned in connection with the antecedent option above. As we shall see, aorist participles subordinate to aorist main verbs are not always contemporaneous. And equating circumcision and baptism is not warranted from this text as we have noted and will become more evident as our discussion proceeds.
> The subsequent option would translate Col. 2:12a as “you were circumcised before being buried with Him in baptism.” This view is best for the following reasons. First, according to Dana and Mantey, aorist participles subordinate to aorist verbs can express subsequent action. Second, the burial referred to in this verse is subsequent to the death of the old man in v. 11, effected by circumcision. Eadie says, “It is plain that the spiritual circumcision is not different from regeneration, or the putting off of the old man and putting on the new.” Though Paul does not use the same terminology as Eadie in this text, “the removal of the body of the flesh” effected by the “circumcision made without hands” does transform the old man into a new man, and thus implies the death of the old man (Col. 2:20; Rom. 6:6-7; Tit. 3:5). Third, this view maintains the death, burial, and resurrection motif of other Pauline texts (Col. 2:12, 20; 3:1, 3; Rom. 6:3-8). Fourth, this view comports with the rest of the verse, which sees faith as the means through which resurrection with Christ is effected (see the discussion below). Fifth, this view does not get one into the difficulties mentioned above in the other views. This argues for a causal relationship between circumcision and burial with Christ in baptism. The burial with Him in baptism was brought about causally subsequent to the circumcision. The subsequent, spiritual concomitant or attendant to spiritual circumcision, therefore, is burial with Christ in baptism. Burial with Christ in baptism came to the Colossians after being “circumcised with a circumcision made without hands.”
> The application of redemption is a complex of interrelated and interdependent divine redemptive acts. Our text has shown this to be the case thus far with the relationship between heart circumcision and burial with Christ. This leads us, however, to another question. What does Paul mean by burial with Him in baptism? Lightfoot takes the position that Paul is referring to physical, water baptism.
> 
> Baptism is the grave of the old man, and the birth of the new. As he sinks beneath the baptismal waters, the believer buries there all his corrupt affections and past sins; as he emerges thence, he rises regenerate, quickened to new hopes and a new life.
> 
> Commenting on suntafe,ntej auvtw/| evn tw/| baptismw/| (“having been buried with Him in baptism”), A.S. Peake says:
> 
> This refers to the personal experience of the Christian. The rite of baptism, in which the person baptized was first buried beneath the water and then raised from it, typified to Paul the burial and resurrection of the believer with Christ.
> 
> Peake makes a crucial distinction that is necessitated by the flow of our discussion thus far. He does not equate burial with Him in baptism with water baptism, as did Lightfoot. He says, “The rite of baptism [i.e., water baptism], in which the person baptized was first buried beneath the water and then raised from it, typified to Paul the burial and resurrection of the believer with Christ (emphases added).” Lightfoot links regeneration with emerging from baptismal waters. Peake says that water baptism typifies burial and resurrection with Christ. We have seen that the “circumcision made without hands” is the presupposition of and causal prerequisite to burial with Christ in baptism. On this ground we must reject Lightfoot’s view. The baptism in view here, though typified by water baptism, is not to be equated with it.
> Another important and related question also arises at this point. Since the circumcision the Colossians underwent was “without hands,” was the burial in baptism they underwent and their being “raised up with Him” also without hands? In other words, is the baptism Paul refers to here water baptism or that which water baptism signifies – burial and resurrection with Christ or union with Christ in His burial and resurrection? From our discussion thus far, it seems obvious that it must be the latter. Paul is not teaching that burial with Christ in water baptism was immediately preceded by their “circumcision made without hands.” How could he know that? How could he know that they were water baptized immediately upon their regeneration? He could not. However, he could know that all who are circumcised of heart are buried with Christ in spiritual baptism and raised with Him spiritually, typified by their water baptism, effected through faith (see the discussion below). We must agree with Ross, when he says:
> 
> It is important to say at this point that in both verse 11 and verse 12 Paul is not speaking of any physical rite or ceremony. The baptism in view in verse 12 is just as spiritual as the circumcision in verse 11. The physical rite of baptism signifies and seals that believers are raised up with Christ by faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead, but water baptism in and of itself does not accomplish this.
> 
> Paul could know that the Colossians were buried with Christ causally subsequent to their “circumcision made without hands” because he knew that all regenerate persons immediately express faith and are vitally united to Christ in His burial and resurrection. Murray gives eloquent comment to this:
> 
> …there is an invariable concomitance or co-ordination of regeneration and other fruits of grace. …As we shall see later, this is a very significant emphasis and warns us against any view of regeneration which abstracts it from the other elements of the application of redemption.
> 
> We must not think of regeneration as something which can be abstracted from the saving exercises which are its effects. …The regenerate person cannot live in sin and be unconverted.
> 
> There are numerous other considerations derived from the Scripture which confirm this great truth that regeneration is such a radical, pervasive, and efficacious transformation that it immediately registers itself in the conscious activity of the person concerned in the exercise of faith and repentance and new obedience [emphasis added].
> 
> Paul knew that regeneration was logically and causally prior to faith and is its immediate precondition. He knew that those circumcised of heart immediately expressed faith in the Son of God. This is why he tells the Colossians that upon being spiritually circumcised they expressed faith that united them vitally to Christ. This view is further substantiated when we understand the function of the next clause in the text.
> The next issue is what to make of the evn w-| kai. clause, translated “in which you…also … (NASB)” of v. 12. Is it to be viewed as a second, parallel clause with the one in v. 11? If so, the Colossians’ completeness in Christ is argued first from their “circumcision made without hands” and second from their being “raised up with Him.” This view seems strained for several reasons. First, a general rule of the Greek language is that clauses and phrases modify the nearest antecedent, unless there is good reason in the text to go further afield. There is no compelling reason to go further than the immediate antecedent evn tw/| baptismw/| (“in baptism”). While some argue that the evn w-| kai. clause of v. 12 is grammatically parallel with the evn w-| kai. clause of v. 11 (that’s the only apparently substantial argument for this view), grammatical (formal) parallels are not necessarily syntactical (functional) parallels. A second reason why this view is strained is because the evn w-| kai. clause of v. 12 continues with language normally connected to what precedes it. Paul continues, evn w-| kai. sunhge,rqhte (“in which you were also raised up with Him”). Paul is completing his thought begun in the beginning of the verse. The fact that Paul often speaks of burial, baptism, and resurrection with Christ together leans us in the direction that this clause is subordinate to evn tw/| baptismw/| (“in baptism”). Just as the Colossians were buried with Christ in baptism, so they were raised with Him in baptism.
> The rest of v. 12, then, is subordinate to tw/| baptismw/| (“baptism”). Paul says that in spiritual baptism sunhge,rqhte dia. th/j pi,stewj (“you were also raised up with Him through faith”). The prepositional phrase dia. th/j pi,stewj (“through faith”) indicates the means through which the Colossians were raised with Christ. Meyer says:
> 
> Paul is describing the subjective medium, without which the joint awakening, though objectively and historically accomplished in the resurrection of Christ, would not be appropriated individually… The unbeliever has not the blessing of having risen with Christ, because he stands apart from the fellowship of life with Christ, just as also he has not the reconciliation, although the reconciliation of all has been accomplished objectively through Christ’s death.
> 
> Clearly, the faith here is that expressed by the Colossians. This is the first mention of human response in the text and this response comes as a result of being circumcised “without hands.” Those who already possess the circumcision “made without hands” experience this complex of spiritual events, being buried and raised with Christ in baptism through faith. This is another reason why Paul cannot be speaking of water baptism in the text. For many who are water baptized do not have faith. But the ones described here exercised faith as a means or instrument through which they were united to Christ in His burial and resurrection. Commenting on Eph. 2:5ff and Col. 2:12, Gaffin says, “being raised with Christ is an experience with which faith is associated in an instrumental fashion.” Being raised with Christ, as with being buried with Him, is causally dependent upon being “circumcised with a circumcision made without hands.” As the Colossians’ circumcision was without hands, so was their burial and rising with Christ.
> The final words of v. 12 are subordinate to dia. th/j pi,stewj (“through faith”). There are two ways to understand the words th/j evnergei,aj tou/ qeou/ (“in the working of God”). The question concerns the function of the genitive tou/ qeou/ (“of God”). Either it is subjective or objective. If subjective, then Paul is saying that their faith is the effect of God’s working in them. God gave them faith. God worked faith in them. If objective, then their faith was in the power exercised by God in the resurrection of Christ. The working of God’s power in the resurrection of Christ, according to this view, is the object of their faith. The final participial clause of v. 12, tou/ evgei,rantoj auvto.n evk nekrw/n (“who raised Him from the dead”), is subordinate to tou/ qeou/ (“of God”). God is the one who raised Christ from the dead by His power. Though it is certainly true that faith is the effect of God’s working in the soul, it is best to understand th/j evnergei,aj tou/ qeou/ (“in the working of God”) here as objective, as the thing believed or the content of their faith. One reason for this view is that “the genitive after pi,stij [“faith”], when not that of the person, is always that of the object.” Also, elsewhere Paul makes the resurrection of Christ effected by God the object of saving faith (cf., Rom. 10:9).
> Christians are complete in Christ because they have received a circumcision made without hands – regeneration. Regeneration produces faith that vitally unites souls to Christ in the efficacy of His burial and resurrection. This vital union with Christ in burial and resurrection is a spiritual baptism. Vital union brings believing sinners into the orbit of redemptive privilege and power. Every sinner circumcised in heart immediately expresses saving faith in God’s power in raising Christ from the dead. Burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism cannot be abstracted from its causal prerequisite – regeneration. If one has been buried and raised with Christ in baptism, it is only because one has been circumcised “without hands.” The result of regeneration, faith, is the instrumental cause of union with Christ. And the union with Christ of Col. 2:12 ushers the believer experientially into the complex of redemptive privileges purchased by the Lord Jesus Christ for the elect. In other words, this is the experience of all believers, though not of all those water baptized. All of this may be typified by water baptism, though it is not effected by it. Christians are complete in Christ because of regeneration and its effects in the soul.
> 
> Colossians 2:11-12 in The Case For Covenantal Infant Baptism
> 
> The Scripture index to The Case For Covenantal Infant Baptism contains 17 entries for Col. 2:11-12. Space does not permit us to discuss every entry. However, we will examine a few of the uses in light of the exposition above.
> Mark Ross, in his chapter “Baptism and Circumcision as Signs and Seals,” says:
> 
> It is imperative that we look more closely at this verse in the Greek text. Colossians 2:12 is a continuation of verse 11, which itself is a continuation of the sentence begun in verse 9. Verse 12 is a series of participial phrases, all of which are related to the main verb in verse 11, “you were circumcised.” Thus, in verse 12 Paul is explaining more fully just how it is that the Colossians have been circumcised in this circumcision made without hands. They were circumcised, “having been buried with [Christ] in baptism.” Thus, verse 12 explains how the Colossians were “circumcised.”
> 
> Colossians 2:12 in fact contains only two participles. The first, suntafe,ntej (“having been buried with”), is the first word of the verse and is immediately subordinate to the main verb perietmh,qhte (“you were circumcised”). The second is tou/ evgei,rantoj (“who raised [Him from the dead]”) and is immediately subordinate to tou/ qeou/ (“of God”). Though it is remotely related to the main verb, it is not in an immediate, adverbial relationship to it. Ross’ statement makes it appear so but it is not. He oversimplifies the syntax. Further, he claims that the participle suntafe,ntej (“having been buried with”) begins Paul’s explanation of “how the Colossians were ‘circumcised.’” However, we have seen that Paul already explained how the Colossians were circumcised before he got to v. 12. They were “circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ” (v. 11). Verse 12 reveals to us the subsequent, spiritual concomitant of their circumcision, not “how the Colossians were ‘circumcised.’” It tells us when the Colossians were buried and raised with Christ in baptism.
> On the next page, Ross says, “The baptism of Colossians 2:12 can only be the reality of the Spirit’s working to regenerate the heart and free the soul from the dominion of sin.” But, as we have seen, v. 12 speaks of a spiritual, vital union with Christ effected through faith. This presupposes regeneration (v. 11). If both verses are describing regeneration, then Paul could be paraphrased as saying, “You were regenerated when you were regenerated.” This would certainly be a cumbersome tautology and does not respect the syntax of the text. The Bible uses other words and phrases to describe regeneration that Paul could have used here (i.e., born from above). However, it is clear from the exposition above that Paul is not speaking about regeneration in v. 12. He is speaking about the fruit of regeneration – union with Christ in burial and resurrection, effected through faith.
> Cornelis Venema, in his chapter “Covenant Theology and Baptism,” says:
> 
> …it is not surprising to find the apostle Paul treating baptism as the new covenant counterpart to circumcision (Col. 2:11-13). …Baptism now represents the spiritual circumcision “made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh” (Col. 2:11).
> 
> Venema offers no exegesis, only assertions. Our exegesis above has made it clear that Col. 2:11-12 does not warrant such statements. The New Covenant counterpart to physical circumcision is spiritual circumcision. Venema’s claim, in essence, is that water baptism represents regeneration. The baptism of Col. 2:12, however, is spiritual baptism that represents vital union with Christ. Regeneration is presupposed and effects burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism through faith. Venema is assuming that baptism has replaced circumcision by this statement. Our exegesis has shown this to be an unwarranted implication of the text.
> In a context discussing the household baptisms of the New Testament, Joel Beeke and Ray Lanning say:
> 
> Similarly, children of believing parents are addressed as members of churches at Ephesus (Eph. 6:1-4) and Colossae (Col. 3:20). These children were also baptized, as Paul affirms in Colossians 2:11-12, where he calls baptism “the circumcision of Christ.”
> 
> This appears to claim that Paul is speaking of water baptism in Col. 2:11-12. If this is what the authors are claiming, it contradicts what we have seen Ross claim later in the book, where he says, “It is important to say at this point that in both verse 11 and verse 12 Paul is not speaking of any physical rite or ceremony. The baptism in view in verse 12 is just as spiritual as the circumcision in verse 11.” Also, we have already seen that all who are spiritually circumcised are spiritually buried and raised with Christ, effected through faith. Beeke and Lanning’s statement would then imply that all the children Paul was addressing were also regenerated. But, of course, they do not advocate that. The main problem with their statement comes in its final sentence. “These children were also baptized, as Paul affirms in Colossians 2:11-12, where he calls baptism ‘the circumcision of Christ.’” They equate circumcision with baptism. But, as we have seen clearly, Paul does not do this.
> 
> Pertinent Conclusions
> 
> Baptism does not replace circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant. We have seen clearly that spiritual circumcision, not baptism, replaces physical circumcision. Baptism in Col. 2:12 (i.e., vital union with Christ) is a result of spiritual circumcision. Burial and resurrection with Christ is not equivalent to but causally subsequent to spiritual circumcision. Physical circumcision has been replaced by spiritual circumcision under the New Covenant. The correspondence between the two, however, is not one-to-one. Paul tells us this by saying that New Covenant circumcision is “a circumcision made without hands.” Though physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision are related they are not equivalent. One is physical and does not affect the heart; the other is spiritual and does not affect the body. Both are indications of covenant membership. But only the circumcision of the heart guarantees one’s eternal destiny, for all the regenerate express faith and “are protected by the power of God through faith” (1 Pet. 1:5).
> We must take issue with those who argue from this text that baptism replaces circumcision. The Lutheran scholar Eduard Lohse asserts, “Baptism is called circumcision here… The circumcision of Christ which every member of the community has experienced is nothing other than being baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ.” We have seen, however, that the only replacement motif in this text is between physical circumcision and spiritual circumcision. Spiritual circumcision is not equivalent to baptism. Baptism (i.e. union with Christ) is the sphere in which burial and resurrection with Christ occurs, which is effected through faith, and a result of spiritual circumcision.
> The Reformed commentator William Hendriksen says:
> 
> Evidently Paul in this entire paragraph magnifies Christian baptism as much as he, by clear implication, disapproves of the continuation of the rite of circumcision if viewed as having anything to do with salvation. The definite implication, therefore, is that baptism has taken the place of circumcision. Hence, what is said with reference to circumcision in Rom. 4:11, as being a sign and a seal, holds also for baptism. In the Colossian context baptism is specifically a sign and seal of having been buried with Christ and of having been raised with him [emphasis Hendriksen’s].
> 
> We take issue with Hendriksen’s view on several fronts. First, Paul is not magnifying Christian baptism in this text. He is magnifying Christian circumcision. This is evident by the fact that “you were also circumcised” is the regulating verb to which the rest of vv. 11 and 12 are subordinate. Second, there is not a “definite implication …that baptism has taken the place of circumcision.” Our exegesis has shown us this clearly. Third, it is not true that “what is said with reference to circumcision in Rom. 4:11, as being a sign and a seal, holds also for baptism.” This is so because Paul is not arguing for a replacement theology between physical circumcision and water baptism and because the seal of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13; 4:30). Fourth, Paul says nothing in Col. 2:11-12 about baptism being “a sign and seal of having been buried with Christ and of having been raised with him.” He does say that the subsequent, spiritual concomitant of spiritual circumcision is spiritual burial and resurrection with Christ in baptism effected through faith. There is no hint of baptism being a sign and seal as argued by Hendriksen. It is of interest to note one of Hendriksen’s footnotes to these statements. Notice the concession he makes.
> 
> I am speaking here about a clear implication. The surface contrast is that between literal circumcision and circumcision without hands, namely, the circumcision of the heart, as explained. But the implication also is clear. Hence, the following statement is correct: “Since, then, baptism has come in the place of circumcision (Col. 2:11-13), the children should be baptized as heirs of the kingdom of God and of his covenant” (Form for the Baptism of Infants in Psalter Hymnal of the Christian Reformed Church, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1959, p. 86). When God made his covenant with Abraham the children were included (Gen. 17:1-14). This covenant, in its spiritual aspects, was continued in the present dispensation (Acts 2:38, 29; Rom. 4:9-12; Gal. 3:7, 8, 29). Therefore the children are still included and should still receive the sign, which in the present dispensation, as Paul makes clear in Col. 2:11, 12, is baptism [emphases Hendriksen’s].
> 
> Hendriksen’s concession that “The surface contrast is that between literal circumcision and circumcision without hands” surely sheds doubt over his initial claim of “speaking here about a clear implication.” Again, we have seen that Paul is not arguing that water baptism replaces physical circumcision as a sign and seal of the covenant. It does not follow, then, that “the children should be baptized as heirs of the kingdom of God and of his covenant.” Paul does not say or imply that the sign of the covenant is baptism. Instead, the sign of the covenant is regeneration. All who are spiritually circumcised are immediately buried and raised with Christ in baptism, effected through faith. Colossians 2:11-12 is about the application of redemption to elect souls and does not imply infant baptism, some of which are not elect. If it implies anything about water baptism, it implies that it ought to be administered to those who have been circumcised of heart and vitally united to Christ through faith as a symbol of these spiritual blessings.
> All who are circumcised of heart are buried and raised with Christ through faith immediately subsequent to their heart circumcision. Regeneration cannot be abstracted from its immediate fruits. All regenerate souls are immediately untied to Christ through faith. This is what Col. 2:11-12 clearly teaches. Our exegesis argues for an ordo salutus as follows: regeneration, then union with Christ through faith. And this experience is that of all the regenerate and has nothing to do with the act of water baptism in itself.
> This text neither teaches baptismal regeneration nor implies infant baptism. In context, it is displaying the completeness believers have in Christ. It does not apply to unbelievers or to all who are baptized by any mode and by properly recognized ecclesiastical administrators. It has to do with the spiritual realities that come to souls who are Christ’s sheep. It has to do with the application of redemption to elect sinners. It has to do with regeneration, faith, and experiential union with Christ. These are the aspects of completeness in Christ Paul highlights here. We should gain much encouragement from these things. They were revealed to fortify believers against error. They were written to strengthen saints already in Christ. They were not revealed as proof for the subjects of baptism. They were not revealed to teach us that water baptism replaces physical circumcision as the sign and seal of the covenant. God gave us Col. 2:11-12 to display this fact: When you have Jesus, you have all you need!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> 5. God never abrogated the Old Testament precept regarding who was to receive the sign of entrance into the Old covenant.



That depends on who you think the Covenant head is and who you think Covenant Children are. 

Covenant Head and Covenant Children - The PuritanBoard


I believe there are different Covenant Heads and who their Children are. This a different Covenant and a different head. 

Is the New Covenant really New. - The PuritanBoard


I have posted quite a few blogs for reference because I have debated this stuff so much on the Puritanboard. It seems ad nauseum. It is tiring. 

I also recommend you guys go look at Matthew Winzer's discussion between the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace in the Mosaic and Abrahamic Covenants that we have had.


----------



## Ron

PuritanCovenanter said:


> 5. God never abrogated the Old Testament precept regarding who was to receive the sign of entrance into the Old covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on who you think the Covenant head is and who you think Covenant Children are.
Click to expand...


PC,

Certainly you are not going to deny the Old Testament precept that children of professing parents were to receive the mark of the covenant. Accordingly, the task that is before you is to _prove_ (not just assert but prove!) that this Old Testament precept was abrogated. Will a Baptist please put together a series of premises from Scripture in which the conclusion of credo-only membership follows with logical necessity? 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> *I believe *there are different Covenant Heads and who their Children are. This a different Covenant and a different head.



That is quite a riddle to me. Frankly, I'm not terribly concerned about what you _believe._ I'm more interested in what you can _argue_.

RWD


----------



## steadfast7

Ron said:


> That’s the point, Dennis. God had an elect people to whom he *promised* _"I *will* be your God"_. This included the Isaacs and Jacobs, etc. and did not include the Ishmaels and Esaus (of the world). God made a covenant _promise _only to his elect, but the prophets were to address all of the visible people of God as the elect. Not all Israel was Israel but nonetheless God treated the visible people of God organically – “as a whole” as you put it “without distinguishing” the elect from the non-elect. Under both testaments, the visible people of God are treated as God’s only people – his spiritual elect.



See, this is where I get tripped up with your logic. You are saying:
1. There is a distinction between the Isaacs/Jacobs (spiritual elect), and the Ishmaels/Esaus (hereditary elect). 
2. All are given the covenant sign of circumcision.
3. All the visible people of God (the circumcised) are elect, without distinction

I note an apparent contradiction here, not sure if anyone else sees it. The only way to harmonize it is to opt for a dual view of election: general and specific. This may very well be the case in the Old Testament scheme. But you have not shown why this scheme must _necessarily _be carried over to the New Covenant age. Simply because it hasn't been abrogated? Any positive reason why? My argument, which you are quick to avoid responding to, is that the New Covenant is sealed in Christ's "limited atoning" blood - reserved for the spiritual elect alone. It is neither ethnic nor racial. Therefore it seems that a general administration of the sign can, and should be, excluded.



> Paul treats all the saints at Galatia, for instance, as brethren even though many who received the instruction may have not been elect. That is the exact same _modus operandi_ that we see in the Old Testament.



For Paul to call the church brethren, holy, saints, and children is different from what the bible teaches IS a child of God. Paul speaks to them organically because: 1. he expects his main audience to be elect; or 2. he simply does not know who is elect; or 3. he's not a hyper-calvinist. However, in those passages that teach who is and is not God's child, it is clear that it refers to the elect alone.



> First and foremost, circumcision had spiritual significance. (Romans 4) Moreover, circumcision preceded national Israel by 400 years, again accentuating that its primary significance was not ethnic but spiritual. Get this - God always had a covenant people that he so happened to form into a nation. Accordingly, upon the advent of the nation, the spiritual people were to be equated with the nation; so to refer to the one was to refer to the other. Notwithstanding, the promise was to the elect, which is why the promise did not become null and void upon the expiration of the nation.



So while it had a spiritual significance, you would admit that it did not necessarily attest to any spiritual reality ie. it did not actually signify that the individual was actually in the covenant.




> Circumcision was abrogated, but the principle of applying the sign of the covenant to infants of professing believers was not!


It may not have been abrogated, but this does not mean a new pattern in the NT has not been described. As I have demonstrated earlier, each case of household baptism was connected to belief, commitment to service (or tongues speaking) on the part of the recipients - things which infants could have performed.



> Brother, I'm not going to be able to deal with posts like this last one of yours in the future. For some reason you clearly have not grasped the challenge that is before you. You might just have to think a bit harder, or you might simply have a presupposition (that you cannot find in Scripture) that is clouding your reasoning.



Not sure how to respond to your intimidating words. I'm here more as an inquirer with questions and observations, not an apologist seeking a battle. I'm not even a member of a baptist church! If the frustration is too much to bear, feel free to leave the thread, and I'll interact with the other contributors.

blessings,

Dennis.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Ron said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5. God never abrogated the Old Testament precept regarding who was to receive the sign of entrance into the Old covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on who you think the Covenant head is and who you think Covenant Children are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PC,
> 
> Certainly you are not going to deny the Old Testament precept that children of professing parents were to receive the mark of the covenant. Accordingly, the task that is before you is to _prove_ (not just assert but prove!) that this Old Testament precept was abrogated. Will a Baptist please put together a series of premises from Scripture in which the conclusion of credo-only membership follows with logical necessity?
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I believe *there are different Covenant Heads and who their Children are. This a different Covenant and a different head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is quite a riddle to me. Frankly, I'm not terribly concerned about what you _believe._ I'm more interested in what you can _argue_.
> 
> RWD
Click to expand...



Why don't you read the links I posted to find out the answers. They have the answers. Christ is the Second Adam and Covenant head of the New Covenant. Abraham is a member in that covenant but not the Covenant head. In the Abrahamic Covenant the seed was promised and fulfilled. Christ and His Offspring are the members of the New Covenant. That point is made very specifically in the link I provided. He will see His offspring. (Isaiah 53:10) Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me. (Isaiah 8:18 in Hebrews 2:13)

Covenant Head and Covenant Children - The PuritanBoard

The Covenant of Circumcision as Stephen called it in Acts has been abrogated. Galatians 5:6 and 6:15. Paul himself said in Galatians that Circumcision availed nothing now. 

Circumcision and Baptism Colosians 2:11-12 A.W. Pink - The PuritanBoard



> http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/51-does-baptism-replace-circumcision.html
> Circumcision was an ordinance of the old covenant and pertained to the law and therefore directly bound its subjects to a legal obedience. But baptism is an ordinance of the gospel and (besides other excellent and most comfortable uses) directly obliges its subjects to gospel obedience. Therefore it is in this respect opposed to, rather than substituted in the place of, circumcision.
> 
> Certainly it is safer to interpret one text according to the general current of Scripture and in full harmony with it, than to force such a sense on many texts (which they will in no way admit) to bring them into a compliance to a notion with which our minds are prepossessed. It is plain that the notion I have insisted on fully agrees with other places where circumcision is discussed according to its immediate and direct use in the old covenant. For there can be no contradiction in ascribing a different and seemingly opposite use and end to the same thing, if it be done in a different respect. What circumcision was directly and in its immediate use is one thing; what it was as subordinate to a better covenant and promise that had precedence to it, is another. It is easy to conceive that it might be that to the father of the faithful in its extraordinary institution, what it could not be to the children of the flesh or carnal seed in its ordinary use.
> 
> To conclude: if circumcision and baptism have the same use and are seals of the same covenant, I can hardly imagine how the application of both to the same subjects should at any time be proper. Yet we find those that were circumcised in their infancy were also baptized on the profession of faith and repentance even before circumcision was abrogated. Yes, according to the opinion that has been argued against, the Jews that believed before Christ suffered were at the same time under a command both of circumcising and baptizing their infant seed. But if the principles that this discourse is built upon are well proved by Scripture, as I take them to be, there must be allowed a vast disparity between circumcision and baptism. The old covenant is not the new; nor that which is abolished, the same with that which remains. Until these become one, baptism and circumcision will never be found so far one that the law for applying the latter should be a sufficient warrant for the administration of the former to infants.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Rob,
One more thing. You seem to be equating the Covenant of circumcision with the Covenant of grace. That simply is not the case. In Genesis 17 Ishmael is not included in the Everlasting Covenant. There are promises made concerning him in the Abrahamic Covenant that were fulfilled by God. There are also other promises in the Abrahamic Covenant that have no bearing on the Covenant of Grace. As a side note there were other members who were outside of the Abrahamic Covenant that were members of the Covenant of Grace and not members of the Abrahamic. King Melchisedec and some in his Kingdom are outside of the Abrahamic. 

If you look at Galatians you will see that there were two Covenants in Abraham. One was of Bondage. The other was of the Free. 



> (Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
> 
> (Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
> 
> (Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
> 
> (Gal 4:25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
> 
> (Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.



These are different Covenants. The Abrahamic and Mosaic are not purely the Covenant of Grace as the New Testament is. Its Covenant Children are different. Both unregenerate and regenerate have promises met in those Covenants. But in the New Covenant only the New Covenant Child has promises that pertain to themselves. That being in Union with Christ.


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> My argument, which you are quick to avoid responding to, is that the New Covenant is sealed in Christ's "limited atoning" blood - reserved for the spiritual elect alone. It is neither ethnic nor racial. Therefore it seems that a general administration of the sign can, and should be, excluded.



Well, that's all well and good. I'm waiting to hear your proposal on how we should positively identify those who were purchased by Christ. All you are getting from an adult is a profession of faith, not proof of faith. We baptize converts upon profession, and their children are baptized too. We don't know if they or their parents are really elect, but unless they leave the Church (or are excommunicated) we treat them as "in". What else can we know?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Austin, That is why we depend upon a Confession of faith based upon Romans 10:9,10. 

A friend of mine put it this way. Circumcision and Baptism by Stephen Owen - The PuritanBoard


> So one was brought into the old covenant by one’s first birth, and received the sign shortly thereafter. One is brought into the new covenant by the second birth, regeneration. The sign should follow as soon as that birth becomes apparent. Of course, mistakes are made and unregenerate people are baptized. This is regrettable, but also inevitable; we are not infallible judges in this matter. It happened in the time of the Apostles, and the words of Peter to Simon Magus apply. “You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God” (Acts 8:8:21). Simon was not a covenant breaker, he was never in the covenant and the same applies to unregenerate people who are baptized today. Baptism is the sign of the new covenant, but not the seal which is the Holy Spirit. ‘None genuine without this seal.’ Does this invalidate Believers’ Baptism? Not in the slightest. ‘But when they believed……… both men and women were baptized’ (Acts 8:12). That is the Biblical example and that is what should be followed.


----------



## au5t1n

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Austin, That is why we depend upon a Confession of faith based upon Romans 10:9,10.
> 
> A friend of mine put it this way. Circumcision and Baptism by Stephen Owen - The PuritanBoard
> 
> 
> 
> So one was brought into the old covenant by one’s first birth, and received the sign shortly thereafter. One is brought into the new covenant by the second birth, regeneration. The sign should follow as soon as that birth becomes apparent. Of course, mistakes are made and unregenerate people are baptized. This is regrettable, but also inevitable; we are not infallible judges in this matter. It happened in the time of the Apostles, and the words of Peter to Simon Magus apply. “You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God” (Acts 8:8:21). Simon was not a covenant breaker, he was never in the covenant and the same applies to unregenerate people who are baptized today. Baptism is the sign of the new covenant, but not the seal which is the Holy Spirit. ‘None genuine without this seal.’ Does this invalidate Believers’ Baptism? Not in the slightest. ‘But when they believed……… both men and women were baptized’ (Acts 8:12). That is the Biblical example and that is what should be followed.
Click to expand...


Aren't believers' children going to be professing the faith for, at minimum, the first few years after they learn to speak? Even the ones who will not continue in the faith are going to be professors for a time. So to be consistent, you would end up having to baptize all believers' children because they all profess at some point, early on. My question is, if they are raised in a believing household, why wait until they profess what they are definitely going to profess? Are they not raised in the faith? Baptized paedobaptist children and baptized credobaptist children both leave. This should be an unexpected thing - Christians, ideally, are supposed to raise Christians, although only the Lord knows the heart.

Don't get me wrong, I understand your position. I would not have addressed it the same way Ron did, since I know you have had many baptism discussions on here and have dealt with these issues. But I still feel like baptizing households (even infants) is just as much profession-based as the credo model, since they are to be raised in a believing household and taught everything from early on. I will have to explore the threads you referenced some more.


----------



## steadfast7

austinww said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My argument, which you are quick to avoid responding to, is that the New Covenant is sealed in Christ's "limited atoning" blood - reserved for the spiritual elect alone. It is neither ethnic nor racial. Therefore it seems that a general administration of the sign can, and should be, excluded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's all well and good. I'm waiting to hear your proposal on how we should positively identify those who were purchased by Christ. All you are getting from an adult is a profession of faith, not proof of faith. We baptize converts upon profession, and their children are baptized too. We don't know if they or their parents are really elect, but unless they leave the Church (or are excommunicated) we treat them as "in". What else can we know?
Click to expand...


But doesn't this assume that baptism is meant solely to identify the elect? I don't think it needs to be seen in this way. Baptism is merely one's own identification with Christ and his gospel, appropriated through faith. Rather than an ordinance meant for the church, it's an ordinance meant for the believer. There can remain a sense in which children of believers are "in", which is not destroyed by CB. They can still be called blessed, holy, and Christian without having yet undergone baptism. 

Again, what I notice is that for PBs, baptism is ecclesiastical; for CBs, soteriological. Now, I ask, What emphasis we find in NT teaching? Is it more tightly linked with salvation, or with church membership?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Conversation of life and Profession go hand in hand by most of our standards. We have discussed this at length on the PB also Austin. While children are that young they mostly mimic their parents. To mimic is not necessarily a confession. The practice of the Early Church was not to baptize children but to raise them up in the admonition of the Lord. I am glad I personally waited for my Children to grow up some. They had little understanding of what faith and sin were when they were wee lads. They had knowledge but it hadn't truly developed into what it should. I have seen a lot of so called covenant Children mimic only to walk away from the faith. So the sign didn't have any meaning to them. It wasn't attached to them because of their birth in Christ. The sign was insignificant and meant nothing in the long run. It wasn't attached in reality. Where as in the Old Covenant the sign was attached in reality whether or not they were of faith or not. The New Covenant sign is different.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

steadfast7 said:


> But doesn't this assume that baptism is meant solely to identify the elect? I don't think it needs to be seen in this way. Baptism is merely one's own identification with Christ and his gospel, appropriated through faith. Rather than an ordinance meant for the church, it's an ordinance meant for the believer. There can remain a sense in which children of believers are "in", which is not destroyed by CB. They can still be called blessed, holy, and Christian without having yet undergone baptism.
> 
> Again, what I notice is that for PBs, baptism is ecclesiastical; for CBs, soteriological. Now, I ask, What emphasis we find in NT teaching? Is it more tightly linked with salvation, or with church membership?




I do believe that baptism is meant to be a means of identifying oneself in union with Christ. That is soteriological btw. Even in an Ecclesiatical sense it can be salvific. There is no salvation outside of the Church is there?


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> But doesn't this assume that baptism is meant solely to identify the elect?



That was the assumption you were using. You used limited atonement as proof of credobaptism, which is what I was responding to.

-----Added 11/10/2009 at 11:51:43 EST-----



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Conversation of life and Profession go hand in hand by most of our standards. We have discussed this at length on the PB also Austin. While children are that young they mostly mimic their parents. To mimic is not necessarily a confession. The practice of the Early Church was not to baptize children but to raise them up in the admonition of the Lord. I am glad I personally waited for my Children to grow up some. They had little understanding of what faith and sin were when they were wee lads. They had knowledge but it hadn't truly developed into what it should. *I have seen a lot of so called covenant Children mimic only to walk away from the faith. So the sign didn't have any meaning to them. It wasn't attached to them because of their birth in Christ. The sign was insignificant and meant nothing in the long run. It wasn't attached in reality.* Where as in the Old Covenant the sign was attached in reality whether or not they were of faith or not. The New Covenant sign is different.



This is true in the credobaptist system as well, if they are baptized between, say, 5 and 15, especially. Do you wait longer than that to baptize them?


----------



## Osage Bluestem

You can smak me if this has already been brought up because I haven't read the whole thread as it is long.

But isn't the main point of contention who's responsibility baptism is? In other words the paedo-baptist believes that he is sinning by not fullfilling his duty to the Lord by baptizing his children into the covenant. The credo-baptist believes he is sinning if after he has professed faith he doesn't arrange to have himself baptized in a rite of obediance.

So the question is who is responsible to initiate the sacrament of baptism, individuals or parents.

Most Paedo-baptists see baptism as the same mark of the covenant as circumcision so they see that God was angry with Moses (EX 4:24-26) and almost killed him when he didn't circumcise his children so they feel that baptism is equally the christian duty of the parents.

I think that is really the core issue.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

austinww said:


> This is true in the credobaptist system as well, if they are baptized between, say, 5 and 15, especially. Do you wait longer than that to baptize them?



Actually I have seen better results in the Reformed Baptist tradition. But that is very subjective. And not because I have attended more Reformed Baptist Churches. I have been a member in more Presbyterian Churches than in the RB camp. I have seen some deny that rite of baptism to youngins if things don't line up. I have seen some children turned away till they were more capable. Now if you are referring to an arminian paedo / credo falling away, I would agree more whole heartedly with you. Their professions are lacking in much understanding. I would also say that a mind is more stayed upon ones baptism and its challenges if it is done and based upon ones confession than by just being inducted without a cognizant ability to hold to it. 

Also Austin the decision of baptism for a child is to be made by the parents and Elders. It will vary for each child as to when and what their confession is. The Elders of the Church are the ones who are to examine the conversation of a life and to what that conversation is. 

The Elders and Parents were probably most likely to be a bit more serious in this examination in the earlier church due to the heavy persecution that took place. You see this in the changing teachings concerning Baptism in the early church concerning catechumens and other weird practices that developed like exorcisms (which did not mean the same thing as it does now) during the time of the early church concerning baptism.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

armourbearer said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> To do so is to concede a critical point to the FV folks, among other issues. No, there isn't _now_ another sort of "election" which we may speak of regarding the visible church. No, the New Testament drops the language of "election" with respect to any visible estate. Paul doesn't speak thus, Peter, James, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul uses it in Colossians 3:12, Peter uses it in 1 Peter 5:13, John uses it in 2 John 1, 13, and James effectively uses it when he addresses the visible church as the twelve tribes and does not flinch at calling them adulterers and adulteresses who should humble themselves and draw near to God.
Click to expand...


Matthew,
I don't want to divert the thread. I'm not sure my precise concern is yours. Suffice that I would contend your first reference is just the judgment of charity (cf. 1Ths.1:4), and allow the main point of all the latter, all being greetings (therefore ideal, heavenly), and James most certainly connecting the church at present with the church of old--but he doesn't use the term, _election,_ which is precisely my concern to protect.

The OT national election was indeed a special election, and rightly identified as such. Since there is no more such national divine election, all we are left with in the NT is special election of the invisible church (also present in, and without distinction from the OT). Along with the _occasional allusions_ to our solidarity as the visible church with the same visible church of the OT.

My point is, OT national Israel had an election which WAS earthly, and temporary. God openly rejected them in apostasy. The heavenly church is the church of the elect, and is so represented here on earth. But the church (militant) is not elected, except where she reflects the eschatological church. Which means we may speak of her idealized, as Peter and John do, or Paul offering the judgment of charity.

As I said, my concern is the difference between the OT and the NT on this point. And I think it is real enough to demand great care in articulating it, especially in the current climate.

As always, I appreciate your own care and precision, no less this time than any other.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Wow, You go away for a few days and it reverts to this. Let me just post a link to Richard Barcellos's Exegetical Appraisal of Colosian 2:11,12



And I believe I have responded to Rev.Barcellos (http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/Paul-circumcision-mosaic-covenant-10002/#post133706), and demonstrated that he takes Wallace, and "puts him to service" by taking his possibilities, allowances, or occasional usages, and presenting them as if they are reasonable conclusions anyone could come to from the passage. With all due respect to Rev.Barcellos, he never presents a case as to WHY exceptional reading of the text is warranted, why it should be taken in the manner he presents, except that his point is an "in house" *defense*, meant to give the ReformedBaptist a plausible reading on his own terms.

As someone who had Wallace on his own shelf, and who immediately went to the text to read it for myself, I was a bit perurbed by the manner in which he was employed as a witness for the *defense*, so for the *prosecution* I offered Wallace himself against the defense.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, You go away for a few days and it reverts to this. Let me just post a link to Richard Barcellos's Exegetical Appraisal of Colosian 2:11,12
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I believe I have responded to Rev.Barcellos (http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/Paul-circumcision-mosaic-covenant-10002/#post133706), and demonstrated that he takes Wallace, and "puts him to service" by taking his possibilities, allowances, or occasional usages, and presenting them as if they are reasonable conclusions anyone could come to from the passage. With all due respect to Rev.Barcellos, he never presents a case as to WHY exceptional reading of the text is warranted, why it should be taken in the manner he presents, except that his point is an "in house" *defense*, meant to give the ReformedBaptist a plausible reading on his own terms.
> 
> As someone who had Wallace on his own shelf, and who immediately went to the text to read it for myself, I was a bit perurbed by the manner in which he was employed as a witness for the *defense*, so for the *prosecution* I offered Wallace himself against the defense.
Click to expand...


I just sent Rich your comments. I don't think I have done that yet. I still believe there is some good understanding in the article as a whole. And when you commented I responded concerning whether or not it was a feasible understanding. That was a few years ago. LOL. Boy have we been down that road a few times. 

I also posted some new blogs by Stephen Owen who also participated in that thread on my blog today concerning Covenant Theology, and on Circumcision and Baptism. 

Circumcision and Baptism by Stephen Owen - The PuritanBoard
The PuritanBoard - PuritanCovenanter


----------



## Puritan Sailor

DD2009 said:


> You can smak me if this has already been brought up because I haven't read the whole thread as it is long.
> 
> But isn't the main point of contention who's responsibility baptism is? In other words the paedo-baptist believes that he is sinning by not fullfilling his duty to the Lord by baptizing his children into the covenant. The credo-baptist believes he is sinning if after he has professed faith he doesn't arrange to have himself baptized in a rite of obediance.


Not quite. We (pb's) baptize children because the children are ALREADY members of the covenant community/visible church by virtue of their believing parents, and therefore they require the covenant sign. God has set them apart to be raised in his covenant community. 

The contention is, are children still considered members of the visible church in the NT as they were in the OT? If not, when did that change? Gal 3:17 states the Abrahamic covenant still continues. We are saved by faith, just like Abraham was. And that is how salvation has always worked, even under the OT. Romans 4:12-13 clearly states that circumcision alone did not gaurantee the promise. They had to believe just like Abraham did. But believers and their children were still both given the covenant sign, and the condition to inherit the promise by faith was all suppose to be part of their instruction as covenant children. 

If the covenant continues, then why not continue giving the children the covenant sign? The covenant sign has changed, but the covenant has not, nor are we told anywhere to stop including children. 



> So the question is who is responsible to initiate the sacrament of baptism, individuals or parents.
> 
> Most Paedo-baptists see baptism as the same mark of the covenant as circumcision so they see that God was angry with Moses (EX 4:24-26) and almost killed him when he didn't circumcise his children so they feel that baptism is equally the christian duty of the parents.
> 
> I think that is really the core issue.



It's hard to identify a core issue as the thread progress (or lack thereof) indicates. 

Perhaps there's three main problems: 
1) Defining the role of the Abrahamic covenant within the covenant of grace
2) Defining the meaning and role of circumcision and baptism as covenant signs and seals.
3) Explaining the role that children have/don't have in the visible church today. 

We can't agree on how to define the first two, so too often we talk passed each other trying to explain the third.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Puritan Sailor said:


> Not quite. We (pb's) baptize children because the children are ALREADY members of the covenant community/visible church by virtue of their believing parents, and therefore they require the covenant sign. God has set them apart to be raised in his covenant community.



If we were to not baptize our children who are already members of the covenant and give them the covenant sign would we be sinning against the Lord?

I thought that the reason that we did it was out of obedience because to not baptize our children is sinful.

Also the creedo-baptist thinks that to not be baptized after he has come to faith is sinful because he doesn't feel he is being obedient.

Is it not true that to refuse to baptize children in a Presbyterian Church is gravely sinful or to refuse to be baptized in a Baptist Church is gravely sinful? So we are at odds on what is and is not sin in regards to baptism, right?


----------



## Ron

"_3. All the visible people of God (the circumcised) are elect, without distinction_"

Dennis,

The above quote is yours and it is an attempt to represent a premise I endorse. Your quote merely demonstrates that you have no idea what this discussion is about, let alone what the proof before you actualy states. I would never call the circumcised the elect. It is the baptists who have introduced the equivocal language of calling the circumcised "elect" in the same breath as discussing the spiritual elect, which is the only elect I have spoken about. Accordingly, every bit of what you wrote that built upon that false premise is unsound. The rest of what you wrote to me had nothing to do with the proof that you were to have been dealing with. For your own sake, go back and try comprehend (for the first time) what has been so clearly stated in this thread. 

Ron


----------



## Puritan Sailor

DD2009 said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. We (pb's) baptize children because the children are ALREADY members of the covenant community/visible church by virtue of their believing parents, and therefore they require the covenant sign. God has set them apart to be raised in his covenant community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we were to not baptize our children who are already members of the covenant and give them the covenant sign would we be sinning against the Lord?
> 
> I thought that the reason that we did it was out of obedience because to not baptize our children is sinful.
> 
> Also the creedo-baptist thinks that to not be baptized after he has come to faith is sinful because he doesn't feel he is being obedient.
> 
> Is it not true that to refuse to baptize children in a Presbyterian Church is gravely sinful or to refuse to be baptized in a Baptist Church is gravely sinful? So we are at odds on what is and is not sin in regards to baptism, right?
Click to expand...


Yes, we are at odds over who is sinning. That's why we are in seperate denominations. Jesus commands us to baptize. We both agree we must do it. But we disagree over who should be baptized and why. The OPC (and I believe the PCA too) has identified that it is sinful to neglect baptism, but they also recognize there is an issue of conscience and so allow Baptists to become members, leaving those issues to the discretion of the local session. 

Here's a link to the OPC's discussion on that. 
Refusing to Present Children for Baptism


----------



## Ron

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on who you think the Covenant head is and who you think Covenant Children are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PC,
> 
> Certainly you are not going to deny the Old Testament precept that children of professing parents were to receive the mark of the covenant. Accordingly, the task that is before you is to _prove_ (not just assert but prove!) that this Old Testament precept was abrogated. Will a Baptist please put together a series of premises from Scripture in which the conclusion of credo-only membership follows with logical necessity?
> 
> 
> 
> That is quite a riddle to me. Frankly, I'm not terribly concerned about what you _believe._ I'm more interested in what you can _argue_.
> 
> RWD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you read the links I posted to find out the answers. They have the answers. Christ is the Second Adam and Covenant head of the New Covenant. Abraham is a member in that covenant but not the Covenant head. In the Abrahamic Covenant the seed was promised and fulfilled. Christ and His Offspring are the members of the New Covenant. That point is made very specifically in the link I provided. He will see His offspring. (Isaiah 53:10) Behold, I and the children whom God has given Me. (Isaiah 8:18 in Hebrews 2:13)
> 
> Covenant Head and Covenant Children - The PuritanBoard
> 
> The Covenant of Circumcision as Stephen called it in Acts has been abrogated. Galatians 5:6 and 6:15. Paul himself said in Galatians that Circumcision availed nothing now.
> 
> Circumcision and Baptism Colosians 2:11-12 A.W. Pink - The PuritanBoard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? - The PuritanBoard
> Circumcision was an ordinance of the old covenant and pertained to the law and therefore directly bound its subjects to a legal obedience. But baptism is an ordinance of the gospel and (besides other excellent and most comfortable uses) directly obliges its subjects to gospel obedience. Therefore it is in this respect opposed to, rather than substituted in the place of, circumcision.
> 
> Certainly it is safer to interpret one text according to the general current of Scripture and in full harmony with it, than to force such a sense on many texts (which they will in no way admit) to bring them into a compliance to a notion with which our minds are prepossessed. It is plain that the notion I have insisted on fully agrees with other places where circumcision is discussed according to its immediate and direct use in the old covenant. For there can be no contradiction in ascribing a different and seemingly opposite use and end to the same thing, if it be done in a different respect. What circumcision was directly and in its immediate use is one thing; what it was as subordinate to a better covenant and promise that had precedence to it, is another. It is easy to conceive that it might be that to the father of the faithful in its extraordinary institution, what it could not be to the children of the flesh or carnal seed in its ordinary use.
> 
> To conclude: if circumcision and baptism have the same use and are seals of the same covenant, I can hardly imagine how the application of both to the same subjects should at any time be proper. Yet we find those that were circumcised in their infancy were also baptized on the profession of faith and repentance even before circumcision was abrogated. Yes, according to the opinion that has been argued against, the Jews that believed before Christ suffered were at the same time under a command both of circumcising and baptizing their infant seed. But if the principles that this discourse is built upon are well proved by Scripture, as I take them to be, there must be allowed a vast disparity between circumcision and baptism. The old covenant is not the new; nor that which is abolished, the same with that which remains. Until these become one, baptism and circumcision will never be found so far one that the law for applying the latter should be a sufficient warrant for the administration of the former to infants.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


PC,

I have to conclude that either you don't know how to put forth a deductive argument or you do and you simply won't. I'll make a standing deal with you though. *Put forth a deductive argument* that begins with God regarding infants of professing believers as part of the covenant people and concludes with their losing that status. Then we'll have something to discuss. Until then, I'll continue to regard you as one who is long on assertions but short on argumentation. 

Ron


----------



## Hebrew Student

PuritanCovenanter,



> One more thing. You seem to be equating the Covenant of circumcision with the Covenant of grace. That simply is not the case. In Genesis 17 Ishmael is not included in the Everlasting Covenant. There are promises made concerning him in the Abrahamic Covenant that were fulfilled by God. There are also other promises in the Abrahamic Covenant that have no bearing on the Covenant of Grace.



I think that is questionable. Go back to Genesis 17:1-2 where the Abrahamic covenant is first discussed. Here we have two imperatives in verse 1 _hithallek_ [walk], and _weyeh_ [be]. However, this is followed by _we'etna_, which is a simple waw with cohortative. When you have a string of cohortative+waw+imperative, the net result in semitic languages is a purpose clause. In fact, Waltke/O'Connor list this as a clear example of a purpose clause [§34.6]. The commentaries of Waltke [p.259], Matthews [v.2 p.201], and Wenham v.2 p.20] notice this very same thing. Hence, verses 1-2are generally translated:

1. When Abram was ninety nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said, "I am El Shaddai. Walk before me, and be blameless,
2. _*so that*_ I will confirm my covenant between me and between you, and I will multiply you exceedingly."

What this implies is that he confirming of the covenant is dependent upon Abram walking before God and being blameless. Now, obviously, Abram cannot do his of his own power; he needs the regenerating grace of God.

The interesting thing is that, we actually have land grants from this time period. It is true that there is a geneological aspect to them. However, even in the eternal land grants, if there was unfaithfulness to the king who was lending out the land amongst any of the successive descendents, the land would go back to the king.

Abraham seems to recognize this when he says the following:



> Genesis 17:17-18 Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, "Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?" 18 And Abraham said to God, " _*Oh that Ishmael might live before You*_!"



In trying to disbelieve that his wife could conceive, and trying to set up Ishmael as his heir, Abraham recognizes that he must "live before" God, in order to have the promises of the covenant.

Now, what of verse 20? I think it is important to note that it begins with a disjunctive waw. Because of the topicalizing nature of the disjunctive waw throughout this passage, it appears Ishmael is being spoken of in different terms with Isaac. In other words, even though Ishmael is not going to be the covenant child, because of Abraham's intercession, he will be given these blessings.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Osage Bluestem

Puritan Sailor said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite. We (pb's) baptize children because the children are ALREADY members of the covenant community/visible church by virtue of their believing parents, and therefore they require the covenant sign. God has set them apart to be raised in his covenant community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we were to not baptize our children who are already members of the covenant and give them the covenant sign would we be sinning against the Lord?
> 
> I thought that the reason that we did it was out of obedience because to not baptize our children is sinful.
> 
> Also the creedo-baptist thinks that to not be baptized after he has come to faith is sinful because he doesn't feel he is being obedient.
> 
> Is it not true that to refuse to baptize children in a Presbyterian Church is gravely sinful or to refuse to be baptized in a Baptist Church is gravely sinful? So we are at odds on what is and is not sin in regards to baptism, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, we are at odds over who is sinning. That's why we are in seperate denominations. Jesus commands us to baptize. We both agree we must do it. But we disagree over who should be baptized and why. The OPC (and I believe the PCA too) has identified that it is sinful to neglect baptism, but they also recognize there is an issue of conscience and so allow Baptists to become members, leaving those issues to the discretion of the local session.
> 
> Here's a link to the OPC's discussion on that.
> Refusing to Present Children for Baptism
Click to expand...


Yes. I believe the PCA and the OPC agree on this issue. Personally I learned it from the WCF which is the confession of my denomination the PCA:

WCF Chapter 28 4&5

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]

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

Link: Westminster Confession of Faith

I believe all who hold to the WCF confess that it is a sin to not baptize their children.


----------



## au5t1n

PuritanCovenanter,

I don't have a response to your last response to me at the moment. I will have to mull it over and read some more. I don't know if I will post on this thread again or not, but thank you for your insights. I appreciate them.



Ron said:


> PC,
> 
> I have to conclude that either you don't know how to put forth a deductive argument or you do and you simply won't. I'll make a standing deal with you though. *Put forth a deductive argument* that begins with God regarding infants of professing believers as part of the covenant people and concludes with their losing that status. Then we'll have something to discuss. Until then, I'll continue to regard you as one who is long on assertions but short on argumentation.
> 
> Ron



Ron, just my , but I think this is a little bossy. PC has been on the PB a long time and there have been many baptism discussions. I can imagine it is not enjoyable laying out one's entire argument every time someone starts a baptism thread (or every time one of us new guys comes along and demands it). I recommend searching for past baptism debates on here.


----------



## Brian Withnell

steadfast7 said:


> The only way to harmonize it is to opt for a dual view of election: general and specific. This may very well be the case in the Old Testament scheme. But you have not shown why this scheme must _necessarily _be carried over to the New Covenant age. Simply because it hasn't been abrogated? Any positive reason why?



While nearly anything else might be said, I think this is a most telling point. For the most part, I think might be the single biggest distinction. For credo (not all, but at least you Dennis) it appears that it is "okay" to through out anything that is necessarily carried forward, while for paedo, anything that is not specifically abrogated is necessarily carried forward (though not if abrogated as a class).

A paedo would say if there is *any* reason to say that something is in fact carried forward, then there is absolutely no way to say it is abrogated (the general rule being that those principles that are not abrogated are part of the continuing testimony of the gospel).

The PB would say that of necessity, lack of abrogation is of necessity carry forward. Once God has given a command with an underlying principle, then it need not be repeated, and it always holds true unless specifically abrogated; God need not repeat himself on what he has already made clear.

It seems the CB would say that much of what has already been established has to be re-established in order to carry forward. While this is a side note, I would think this is more aligned with those that reject the 4th commandment.


----------



## Peairtach

The fact that children were included - at least outwardly - in the Covenant was established long before the Old Covenant period (Moses to Christ).

This fact plus the fact that we have no word from God in the New Testament Scriptures that children are not in the Covenant, means that we need no specific word from the Lord in the New Covenant that children are.

The Baptist position would also mean that all the promises of the Bible regarding the children of believers are null and void as they are for children after the flesh, and must instead be transferred wholly to the spiritual children of believers i.e. those who are converted by a Baptist's testimony, whether his/her own children after the flesh that believe, or others that are converted through his/her evangelism.

Therefore I find the Baptists' arguments wholly without cogence and an incipient form of Dispensational interpretation. 

I mean that in love, Baptist brethren.


----------



## MW

Contra_Mundum said:


> As I said, my concern is the difference between the OT and the NT on this point. And I think it is real enough to demand great care in articulating it, especially in the current climate.



Bruce, this is my concern also, which leads me to ask, Is your New Testament church something other than the Old Testament church, i.e., elect? It seems to me that a denial of visible election entails a difference in "substance" between Old and New Testaments. If "substance" is permitted to change, then so also could infant inclusion in visible church membership.


----------



## Peairtach

The Baptists have two points against infant baptism

(a) New Covenant children of professing believers are in no sense in the New Covenant and visible Church,

or

(b) New Covenant children of believers are in some sense the New Covenant and visible Church but still shouldn't be baptised.

I dealt with (a) above.

The only reason for (b) would be the baptist worry that there will be confusion between who is a true believer and Christian and who is not, if babies who may or may not be saved are baptised.

In a properly ordered church it is no problem. And an examination of the Scriptures shows it to not be a problem down through the ages. Those who are unsaved among the Covenant people show their true colours sooner or later.

(a) In the Patriarchal Period, Ishmael, Esau, and Joseph's brothers showed their true colours.

(b) In the time of Moses, most of the people over twenty yearsb showed their true colours.

(c) In the Psalms the Psalmists have little difficulty in identifying the wicked and the righteous among God's Covenant people.

(d) Neither does Solomon in the Proverbs.

(e) Neither do the Prophets which address the Covenant people.

(f) When we come to the Gospels the goodies among the Covenant people are Simeon, Anna, and those who wait for the kingdom of God, John the Baptist and his followers, Jesus and his followers. The baddies among the Covenant people are the Pharisees, apart from those who turn to Christ, the Sadducees, the Herodians and the Scribes.

In the New Covenant Administration those who profess faith in Christ and their children should be baptised, but that is never enough to tell you who is really baptised in their hearts.

This is also true of baptist churches. Those who profess faith are baptised, but they are not always baptised in their hearts.


----------



## Herald

Richard Tallach said:


> The Baptists have two points against infant baptism
> 
> (a) New Covenant children of professing believers are in no sense in the New Covenant and visible Church,
> 
> or
> 
> (b) New Covenant children of believers are in some sense the New Covenant and visible Church but still shouldn't be baptised.
> 
> I dealt with (a) above.
> 
> The only reason for (b) would be the baptist worry that there will be confusion between who is a true believer and Christian and who is not, if babies who may or may not be saved are baptised.
> 
> In a properly ordered church it is no problem. And an examination of the Scriptures shows it to not be a problem down through the ages. Those who are unsaved among the Covenant people show their true colours sooner or later.
> 
> (a) In the Patriarchal Period, Ishmael, Esau, and Joseph's brothers showed their true colours.
> 
> (b) In the time of Moses, most of the people over twenty yearsb showed their true colours.
> 
> (c) In the Psalms the Psalmists have little difficulty in identifying the wicked and the righteous among God's Covenant people.
> 
> (d) Neither does Solomon in the Proverbs.
> 
> (e) Neither do the Prophets which address the Covenant people.
> 
> (f) When we come to the Gospels the goodies among the Covenant people are Simeon, Anna, and those who wait for the kingdom of God, John the Baptist and his followers, Jesus and his followers. The baddies among the Covenant people are the Pharisees, apart from those who turn to Christ, the Sadducees, the Herodians and the Scribes.
> 
> In the New Covenant Administration those who profess faith in Christ and their children should be baptised, but that is never enough to tell you who is really baptised in their hearts.
> 
> This is also true of baptist churches. Those who profess faith are baptised, but they are not always baptised in their hearts.



Richard,

The fact that some who are baptized may be false professors is not problematic to the Baptist schema. We look at the evidence of faith as a baptized professor progresses in their Christian life. If that evidence is lacking it does not invalidate the ordinance itself or impugn the minister who administered it. Neither the Presbyterian nor the Baptist possesses perfect knowledge, therefore we are on a level playing field in that regard.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

In my opinion Covenant Paedo's flatten out the Covenants too much to make them all appear as they are administrations of the Covenant of Grace.

We credo only Baptists believe that the Covenants of Grace and Works are both administered in the Abrahamic and Mosaic. Neither are purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace nor the Covenant of Works. 

There are two Covenants seen in the Abrahamic Covenant as laid out in Galatians. 



> (Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
> 
> (Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
> 
> (Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
> 
> (Gal 4:25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
> 
> (Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.



These Redemptive, Historical Covenants reveal the Coming Messiah and salvation, as well as the condemnation of those who are not holding to faith in the Messiah, by Progressive Revelation .

The path narrows to more specific revelation concerning God and His people and more clearly defined boundaries are illumined in redemptive history.

We are Children of Abraham by faith. We have like precious faith that was born in Abraham before us. There are those of faith and those who are just his offspring by posterity. There were promises given concerning both in the Abrahamic Covenant. 

The Seed is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. Abraham rejoiced to see His day. He is the Chief Cornerstone, Second Adam, Head of a Better Covenant as laid out in Corinthians and Hebrews Chapter 8. 

His Covenant Children are not a mixture of unelect and elect. This is a better Covenant. His Children are defined as those given to Him by the Father. Anyone outside of this is not in a Covenant Relationship with Him as in Him all things are Yes. And He has redeemed His Offspring as I noted in an earlier post.


2) Covenant Children are defined differently between the Abrahamic and New Covenant. Their markers and identication are set up in scirptures differently. The Church of the New Covenant is not defined as a mixture even though *we are warned of those who creep in unawares and wish to spy out our liberty*. They are not true members of the Church. We are of Mount Zion, they are of Mt. Sinai. Both proceeded from Abraham's Covenant and both had promises. This is not so with Christ and His Church. We are of Zion, His offspring are redeemed and brought into the fold and make up His Covenant Children. St. John wrote of those who appeared to be one with us but aren't.



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



There are markers that we look for. Repentance is one of them. A cognizant Confession is another. Repent and believe upon Christ and be Baptised is a command the Aposltes handed down. 

I have written this quickly and you can now poke holes in it if you wish. But I hope you come away understanding the Credo only side a bit better. 

Be Encouraged,
Randy


----------



## Ron

austinww said:


> Ron, just my , but I think this is a little bossy. PC has been on the PB a long time and there have been many baptism discussions. I can imagine it is not en*joy*able laying out one's entire argument every time someone starts a baptism thread (or every time one of us new guys comes along and demands it). I recommend searching for past baptism debates on here.



Bossy or not, it's hardly unreasonable to expect someone to actually defend his assertions with an actual argument that utilizes a valid form and premises that can be verified by Scripture. If one has done this in the past, then it should not be too tedious to produce such an argument here. One might even think that it would be a _joy_ to do so - _if _, that is, he wanted his position to be subject to scrutiny. 

Ron


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Ron said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ron, just my , but I think this is a little bossy. PC has been on the PB a long time and there have been many baptism discussions. I can imagine it is not en*joy*able laying out one's entire argument every time someone starts a baptism thread (or every time one of us new guys comes along and demands it). I recommend searching for past baptism debates on here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bossy or not, it's hardly unreasonable to expect someone to actually defend his assertions with an actual argument that utilizes a valid form and premises that can be verified by Scripture. If one has done this in the past, then it should not be too tedious to produce such an argument here. One might even think that it would be a _joy_ to do so - _if _, that is, he wanted his position to be subject to scrutiny.
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


Ron,

Bossy is a problem. Others behind the scenes thought so. I wasn't around when they did. I have no problem being scrutinized. If I did I wouldn't be around here. I did respond with links and quotes to address some of our discussion because I have been busy and not as capable to respond as I wish I could have. I hoped you would have read some of them and responded by asking for clarification or discussion. I did give some references in quotes that you didn't respond to. I did try to show you that the Covenant with Abraham was not so clearly identified with the CofG as you seemed to want to make it sound. I did this by bringing in the passage in Galatians and asking others to look at *John Tombes on Genesis 17* which does deal with premise and conclusion. It is in the following post I gave a shotgun blast because of my time restraints and not feeling well.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/paedo-vs-credo-main-point-contention-54965/index5.html#post712825

The fact is that I am one of the few Particular Baptists on the board that will even venture into this forum. And it doesn't give me much satisfaction. I am in the minority when this part of the board is referenced in relation to the Presbyterians or Covenant Paedo Baptists. I tire of it and tire of having to repeat the same old arguments over and over again as I mentioned somewhere else, ad nauseam. Plus, at this time I am not at my full potential. I haven't been feeling up to par. So I have been popping on trying to give some kind of reference. 

If my assertions are so bad then why not interact with them. BTW, I don't believe they are mere assertions as I tried to provide information to back them up through links and recommendations to go do a search. I make my arguments from scripture and from historical understanding. I don't just rely upon my own understanding. I think I have presented the historical understanding of the text based upon scripture, Pastors, and Confessors of the LBCF. If you don't want to go look at the information then so be it. 

Others thought you were rude. It does matter. So please be careful.


----------



## steadfast7

Brian Withnell said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way to harmonize it is to opt for a dual view of election: general and specific. This may very well be the case in the Old Testament scheme. But you have not shown why this scheme must _necessarily _be carried over to the New Covenant age. Simply because it hasn't been abrogated? Any positive reason why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While nearly anything else might be said, I think this is a most telling point. For the most part, I think might be the single biggest distinction. For credo (not all, but at least you Dennis) it appears that it is "okay" to through out anything that is necessarily carried forward, while for paedo, anything that is not specifically abrogated is necessarily carried forward (though not if abrogated as a class).
> 
> A paedo would say if there is *any* reason to say that something is in fact carried forward, then there is absolutely no way to say it is abrogated (the general rule being that those principles that are not abrogated are part of the continuing testimony of the gospel).
> 
> The PB would say that of necessity, lack of abrogation is of necessity carry forward. Once God has given a command with an underlying principle, then it need not be repeated, and it always holds true unless specifically abrogated; God need not repeat himself on what he has already made clear.
> 
> It seems the CB would say that much of what has already been established has to be re-established in order to carry forward. While this is a side note, I would think this is more aligned with those that reject the 4th commandment.
Click to expand...


What I see is not a simple silence which leads to a conclusion of non-abrogation. If there was silence on some subject, then by all means, we have the warrant to carry over. But it seems that we have in the New Testament a brand new pattern for applying a brand new sign. I see a pattern of repentance, faith, then baptism.

Ron:


> That’s the point, Dennis. God had an elect people to whom he promised "I will be your God". This included the Isaacs and Jacobs, etc. and did not include the Ishmaels and Esaus (of the world). God made a covenant promise only to his elect, but the prophets were to address all of the visible people of God as the elect. Not all Israel was Israel but nonetheless God treated the visible people of God organically – “as a whole” as you put it “without distinguishing” the elect from the non-elect. Under both testaments, the visible people of God are treated as God’s only people – his spiritual elect.



I am getting what you're saying Ron. My apologies if I have been misrepresenting your position. Here's what I think you are essentially saying:

Under the older form of the covenant, the sign of circumcision is applied to everyone within the lineage of Abraham, regardless of their faith and spiritual standing before God. While the sign is administered to everyone, the establishment of the actual covenant is made by God with his spiritual elect. The same concept is thus carried over in New Testament church.

I get the argument, I just can't admit the implications:

1. There is no effective correlation between the sign and the reality
2. Personal faith is removed from the equation
3. Covenant inclusion is reckoned on account of family lineage, not justification by faith.
4. God reckons some persons as his covenant people, as his peculiar people, as his visible church, whom he has not actually elected and whom he may not ultimately save. This is a big problem for me. the PBs repeatedly assert that it is not only the church, but _God himself_, who reckons children of Christians as his covenant people. So, if one baptised infant of believing parents apostasizes, what are we to say of God's reckoning, and of his faithfulness?

If it were just a matter of the church identifying persons as a part of the visible church, then I don't have a problem with PB. But the argument is that God himself includes everyone into a covenant which he will only uphold for some. What, then, is the point of being marked as being IN the covenant?


----------



## JTB

Why is it rude or "bossy" to ask for someone to articulate a deductive argument?

Posting an article to defend your own position isn't entirely different from telling someone to read the Bible: it can be helpful, quite helpful, but it isn't an argument.

Arguments require clearly defined premises with secondary, tertiary, and even further supportive claims.

Ron put forth a deductive argument several days ago, with which no one seems to have interacted with directly. And by interacted, I do mean sought to undermine one of his premises with clearly defined premises and supporting claims. I've seen a few assertions, and a few recommended readings, but not much argumentation.

Those who have sought to argue (steadfast) have come up short of representing Ron's argument accurately. However, failing to understand and argument is a less greivous fault than not arguing at all, while all the while claiming to have done so.

Perhaps Ron's persistence is a put off, but persistance in demanding that one "show his work" in demonstrating his position is neither bossy, nor rude. As Ron said, if you have a valid proof, one would think it a joy to produce it for everyone to see in its pristine simplicity. After all, if one possesses the ability to demonstrate a truth, it shows that he has thought God's thoughts after Him.

For what it is worth, perhaps it would be better to spend some time away from the thread formulating a deductive argument, in order that you may have it for all future engagements, instead of reproducing circumlocutions time and time again.


----------



## Herald

Joshua, how a thing is said shows respect or a lack thereof to a brother in Christ.


----------



## JTB

Herald said:


> Joshua, how a thing is said shows respect or a lack thereof to a brother in Christ.



Would you please point out where exactly in Ron's wording there has been demonstrated a lack of respect?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JTB said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua, how a thing is said shows respect or a lack thereof to a brother in Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you please point out where exactly in Ron's wording there has been demonstrated a lack of respect?
Click to expand...


 Move along folks. Back to the discussion at hand. We are not here to discuss how to learn discernment.


----------



## Ron

steadfast7 said:


> I am getting what you're saying Ron....
> 
> I get the argument, I just can't admit the implications:
> 
> 1. There is no effective correlation between the sign and the reality
> 2. Personal faith is removed from the equation
> 3. Covenant inclusion is reckoned on account of family lineage, not justification by faith.
> 4. God reckons some persons as his covenant people, as his peculiar people, as his visible church, whom he has not actually elected and whom he may not ultimately save. This is a big problem for me.



Dennis,

All you have noted in those four points is what you don't _prefer._ Since when does preference dictate biblical _precept_? 



> So, if one baptised infant of believing parents apostasizes, what are we to say of God's reckoning, and of his faithfulness?



We have a very simple and biblical answer for such contexts. We would then say with the apostle Paul, only the children of promise are counted as the seed. And we would say with the apostle John, they went out from us because they were not really of us. 



> If it were just a matter of the church identifying persons as a part of the visible church, then I don't have a problem with PB.



That's all any church can do - Baptist or Paedobaptist. What you want is more assurance that one is actually saved; hence your credo-only position. But again, this debate is not a matter of preference but biblical _precept_. 



> But the argument is that God himself includes everyone into a covenant which he will only uphold for some. What, then, is the point of being marked as being IN the covenant?



I can give several reasons but they would all be irrelevant (and get us off the subject at hand) because we're to be talking about what God _requires _and not whether something satisfies our sense of wisdom.

Best wishes,

Ron


----------



## Peairtach

PuritanCovenanter said:


> In my opinion Covenant Paedo's flatten out the Covenants too much to make them all appear as they are administrations of the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> We credo only Baptists believe that the Covenants of Grace and Works are both administered in the Abrahamic and Mosaic. Neither are purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace nor the Covenant of Works.
> 
> There are two Covenants seen in the Abrahamic Covenant as laid out in Galatians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
> 
> (Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
> 
> (Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
> 
> (Gal 4:25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
> 
> (Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These Redemptive, Historical Covenants reveal the Coming Messiah and salvation, as well as the condemnation of those who are not holding to faith in the Messiah, by Progressive Revelation .
> 
> The path narrows to more specific revelation concerning God and His people and more clearly defined boundaries are illumined in redemptive history.
> 
> We are Children of Abraham by faith. We have like precious faith that was born in Abraham before us. There are those of faith and those who are just his offspring by posterity. There were promises given concerning both in the Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> The Seed is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. Abraham rejoiced to see His day. He is the Chief Cornerstone, Second Adam, Head of a Better Covenant as laid out in Corinthians and Hebrews Chapter 8.
> 
> His Covenant Children are not a mixture of unelect and elect. This is a better Covenant. His Children are defined as those given to Him by the Father. Anyone outside of this is not in a Covenant Relationship with Him as in Him all things are Yes. And He has redeemed His Offspring as I noted in an earlier post.
> 
> 
> 2) Covenant Children are defined differently between the Abrahamic and New Covenant. Their markers and identication are set up in scirptures differently. The Church of the New Covenant is not defined as a mixture even though *we are warned of those who creep in unawares and wish to spy out our liberty*. They are not true members of the Church. We are of Mount Zion, they are of Mt. Sinai. Both proceeded from Abraham's Covenant and both had promises. This is not so with Christ and His Church. We are of Zion, His offspring are redeemed and brought into the fold and make up His Covenant Children. St. John wrote of those who appeared to be one with us but aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, *but they were not of us*; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are markers that we look for. Repentance is one of them. A cognizant Confession is another. Repent and believe upon Christ and be Baptised is a command the Aposltes handed down.
> 
> I have written this quickly and you can now poke holes in it if you wish. But I hope you come away understanding the Credo only side a bit better.
> 
> Be Encouraged,
> Randy
Click to expand...


Thanks for that, Randy.

I'm trying to understand the credo position better. But I think it's slightly ironic that in connection with your quotation from Galatians Abraham was told to circumcise his whole family including Ishmael. Ishmael must have been in the Covenant in some sense otherwise God would not have told Abraham to circumcise him. Instead of telling Abraham which (male) members of his family would believe God in His wisdom - knowing that they would not all be children of promise - as regards administration tells Abraham to do it this way.

We may ask why, not only about paedobaptism but also about OT circumcision, but this is the way we all agree God did it in the OT. Why did God not make a clearer and "more spiritual" distinction in the OT aswell as in the NT if what baptists say is correct?

I don't find the paedobaptist position if accompanied with appropriate discipline and care to be unspiritual or less spiritual or carnal. All the promises to the children of believers are yea and amen in Christ unless the New Covenant is less gracious than the Old Covenant or the Abrahamic Covenant. 

If Ishmael was blessed by having these promises conditionally (on condition of personal faith) signed and sealed to him by circumcision, surely in the more gracious, or as gracious, New Covenant these conditional promises, privileges and responsibilities should be signed and sealed to New Covenant babies, who cannot be less than those babies born in the Abrahamic and Old Covenants.

Are these babies less?

Are the Abrahamic and Old Covenants more gracious in this respect than the New?

Your brother in Christ,
Richard.


----------



## Ron

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Ron,
> 
> Bossy is a problem.



PC,

I hope I wasn't being bossy. Bossy is indeed a problem. In all humility, so is evasiveness, whether intentional or not. 



> I have no problem being scrutinized. If I did I wouldn't be around here.



Then I would only ask that you please put forth an actual argument with a valid form wherein the conclusion follows from the premises with necessity. 



> I did respond with links and quotes to address some of our discussion because I have been busy and not as capable to respond as I wish I could have.



What I'm asking for should take seconds. 



> I hoped you would have read some of them and responded by asking for clarification or discussion.



To have done that would have been to get off track. I believe it is best to deal with one's distilled _argument_, for reasons I cite below.



> I did try to show you that the Covenant with Abraham was not so clearly identified with the CofG as you seemed to want to make it sound.



I don't believe I referenced the CoG in my formal proof. What I simply noted was that God's _promise_ (to Abraham) was_ established_ with the _elect_ seed and that the sign of that covenant promise was to be _administered_ to households of professing parents. That a premise from my argument resembles the CoG is not germane to any _sound_ argument against the position that is before you. Accordingly, to argue against the paedo position by pointing to anomalies found within the CoG is simply fallacious. For some reason, that seems to have been a stumbling block for you. 



> The fact is that I am one of the few Particular Baptists on the board that will even venture into this forum. And it doesn't give me much satisfaction.



I can only imagine. 



> I tire of it and tire of having to repeat the same old arguments over and over again as I mentioned somewhere else, ad nauseam.



In all sincerity, if you get the energy to put forth an argument, then please try to reach me by private message and I should get an email notification. For what it's worth, I already put forth on this thread in a multi-step proof the best Baptist argument I can come up with. I don't believe you ever claimed it as being the same as yours, nor have you commented on why it is not a fair representation of what you believe. 



> If my assertions are so bad then why not interact with them.



Too often I have taken badly stated arguments and placed them in the best possible light with some semblance of form. Then after performing a _reductio_ on that argument, the one holding to the opposing position to mine would deny that the argument I just refuted was his. Accordingly, it is much more efficient to deal with arguments formed by those I am interacting with rather than my trying to reform assertions that I find disjointed. I have found no logical progression of thought from any Baptist on this site. The only logical progression I have seen for a Baptist argument is, frankly, the one I put forth in this thread, which was merely an attempt to give us some visible template to interact with for the sake of making some progress. 

PC, I am more than happy to put this matter to rest without making any progression in the least, let alone toward touching our differences with a pin. Please feel no need to respond to anything I wrote.

I truly hope you will find rest for your weary soul. 

Kindly intended,

Ron


----------



## VictorBravo

Ron said:


> I don't believe I referenced the CoG in my formal proof. What I simply noted was that God's _promise_ (to Abraham) was_ established_ with the _elect_ seed and that the sign of that covenant promise was to be _administered_ to households of professing parents. That a premise from my argument resembles the CoG is not germane to any _sound_ argument against the position that is before you. Accordingly, to argue against the paedo position by pointing to anomalies found within the CoG is simply fallacious. For some reason, that seems to have been a stumbling block for you.



Ron, as I recall, the thread started out in the paedo-only forum and went that way for a couple of pages. Many of us credo-types don't follow such threads because we aren't supposed to post in them. I'm guilty of that. Can you point out in these 8 pages of discussion where this argument is? Just a link to the post would be fine.



> For what it's worth, I already put forth on this thread in a multi-step proof the best Baptist argument I can come up with. I don't believe you ever claimed it as being the same as yours, nor have you commented on why it is not a fair representation of what you believe.



Same request for this multi-step proof, please.



> *I have found no logical progression of thought from any Baptist on this site. *The only logical progression I have seen for a Baptist argument is, frankly, the one I put forth in this thread, which was merely an attempt to give us some visible template to interact with for the sake of making some progress.



I'm presuming that the lack of logical progression of thought refers to the baptism debate, not every single discussion on this *site*. Not that I like to be nit-picky, but such slips of expression lead to distraction. 

But having been distracted and then contributing to it, I'm really interested in the primary positive argument you referenced, and then the Baptist counter argument you presented.

The original post asked what appeared to be a straightforward question. the range of discussion shows that it cannot be answered easily. I think the reason for this is because it cannot be boiled down to a simple and single difference: there is no one issue from which all dissention flows. I'm hoping to compile all the issues and related arguments into some kind of summary to facilitate an actual give-and-take. 

Of course, it probably will take time. It may up being a book for all I know, but I hope not.


----------



## MW

Ron said:


> The only logical progression I have seen for a Baptist argument is, frankly, the one I put forth in this thread, which was merely an attempt to give us some visible template to interact with for the sake of making some progress.



If the fish aren't biting maybe you should use different bait.

Just a friendly reminder -- this is a discussion not a debate forum.


----------



## Osage Bluestem

armourbearer said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only logical progression I have seen for a Baptist argument is, frankly, the one I put forth in this thread, which was merely an attempt to give us some visible template to interact with for the sake of making some progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the fish aren't biting maybe you should use different bait.
> 
> Just a friendly reminder -- this is a dicussion list, not a debate forum.
Click to expand...


Just a side question because that caught my eye, how do you determine the distinction between discussion and debate? Because if two people disagree the discussion generally becomes debatish or something.


----------



## Herald

DD2009 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only logical progression I have seen for a Baptist argument is, frankly, the one I put forth in this thread, which was merely an attempt to give us some visible template to interact with for the sake of making some progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the fish aren't biting maybe you should use different bait.
> 
> Just a friendly reminder -- this is a dicussion list, not a debate forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a side question because that caught my eye, how do you determine the distinction between discussion and debate? Because if two people disagree the discussion generally becomes debatish or something.
Click to expand...


David, while a vigorous exchange of ideas occurs in almost all baptism threads, the venue is not that of a formal debate. The normal protocol that is observed during a moderated debate is not being employed. The typical baptism discussion has ebbs and flows that can take a 180 degree turn at any moment. For that reason it is difficult to insist that your "opponent" follow accepted debate rules.


----------



## steadfast7

Ron said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am getting what you're saying Ron....
> 
> I get the argument, I just can't admit the implications:
> 
> 1. There is no effective correlation between the sign and the reality
> 2. Personal faith is removed from the equation
> 3. Covenant inclusion is reckoned on account of family lineage, not justification by faith.
> 4. God reckons some persons as his covenant people, as his peculiar people, as his visible church, whom he has not actually elected and whom he may not ultimately save. This is a big problem for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis,
> 
> All you have noted in those four points is what you don't _prefer._ Since when does preference dictate biblical _precept_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if one baptised infant of believing parents apostasizes, what are we to say of God's reckoning, and of his faithfulness?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have a very simple and biblical answer for such contexts. We would then say with the apostle Paul, only the children of promise are counted as the seed. And we would say with the apostle John, they went out from us because they were not really of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were just a matter of the church identifying persons as a part of the visible church, then I don't have a problem with PB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all any church can do - Baptist or Paedobaptist. What you want is more assurance that one is actually saved; hence your credo-only position. But again, this debate is not a matter of preference but biblical _precept_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the argument is that God himself includes everyone into a covenant which he will only uphold for some. What, then, is the point of being marked as being IN the covenant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can give several reasons but they would all be irrelevant (and get us off the subject at hand) because we're to be talking about what God _requires _and not whether something satisfies our sense of wisdom.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


OK Ron, let's talk about _precept_ ie. what God has commanded his church to do. Here are my opinions ...

1. The NT is more relevant than the OT in seeking instruction about baptism.
2. Short of the command to "be baptised", there are few (if any) prescriptive NT commands about the who, when, and how of baptism.
3. There are no explicit commands to baptize or not baptize infants.
4. The NT is repleat with _descriptions _of baptism.
5. The NT pattern links baptism with faith. 
6. Households (whatever that means) were baptized.

With which do you disagree?

If we're concerned with precept, then I think the argument stands or falls on the word "household" and what the authors meant when they said that. i have shown earlier that for household to mean _every man woman and child under the roof_, this is problematic in cases where the household is described as believing, speaking in tongues, or committing themselves to service (I have yet to interact with anyone on this, btw).

PBs in this instance would require that households include all, but we know (as good Calvinists) that "all" does not always mean "all." 

So, in light of the above impasse, we are left to derive our precept from the OT teaching on circumcision ie. mark everyone as elect, include them in a covenant, and let God establish his REAL covenant with his chosen ones (kind of like a "shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out" idea) 

Now, actions produce theology, and here's what PB seems to say: 
In the OT age, covenanting with God by association with Abraham did not necessarily save.
In the NT age, covenanting with God by association with Jesus likewise does not necessarily save.

I hope you don't so quickly dismiss this as my problem of "preference". It's a genuine problem that requires a satisfactory response.

thanks.


----------



## Herald

> ...God's promise (to Abraham) was established with the elect seed and that the sign of that covenant promise was to be administered to households of professing parents.



This is true insofar as the promise made to Abraham would ultimately be fulfilled spiritually (Rom. 4:3-25) through Christ (Rom. 5:1). But while the promise had a spiritual reality it also has a physical component, the circumcision of flesh which pointed to Christ, and provided a national identity to those who would be circumcised in the like manner of Abraham. Faith was a not a requisite requirement for the sign of circumcision. One simply had to be born a male into Abraham's household, and later into the nation of Israel. This is why Reformed Baptists posit a discontinuity between the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant and that of the New Covenant. The sign of the Abrahamic Covenant was not applied on the basis of faith, even though it pointed to faith in Yahweh, and ultimately Christ. 

Paedobaptists argue that there is no explicit command in the New Testament abrogating the application of the New Covenant sign outside of covenant families. Reformed Baptists are not willing to concede that point (Gal. 5). If the abrogation of the application of the sign is not dealt with directly, it certainly is inferred. Inference is certainly an accepted method of deduction in theology if scripture supports it. Reformed Baptist believe it does in regards to the application of the sign of the New Covenant. To post all the scripture references that support "believe and be baptized" would be redundant given what has been shared on numerous posts in this and like threads. 

I suppose I'm not really making a debate point. The object is not to convince paedobaptists as much as it is to explain.


----------



## Ron

steadfast7 said:


> 1. The NT is more relevant than the OT in seeking instruction about baptism.



Dennis, 

I regret to say this but that assertion is rather simplistic (and misleading) and if you actually put forth a baptistic argument for the credo-only position, you might readily see why that must be so. Let me explain. First off, there is such a thing as a valid Baptist argument. Such an argument would employ a logical form, which would in turn necessitate a conclusion from the premises. Such arguments, though valid, would not be sound due to the falsity of one or more of the premises. Having said that, any valid argument for the credo-only position would have to establish that God instituted a _change_ in the covenant status of children. In order to establish such a point, both testaments would have to be considered; for it is impossible to prove that a _change_ in precept has taken place in the New Covenant unless the Old Covenant principle can first be established. Accordingly, in order to prove a New Covenant change in administration, we must first need to know what the Old Covenant status was in the first place. 



> 2. Short of the command to "be baptised", there are few (if any) prescriptive NT commands about the who, when, and how of baptism.



Only God can abrogate his precepts. Accordingly, if children are no longer to receive the mark of the covenant under the New Covenant administration, then we must be able to conclude by good and necessary inference that God abrogated his Old Covenant precept. That is precisely the reason why I keep asking for proof that children of professing believers have lost the status of inclusion in the covenant administration. 



> 3. There are no explicit commands to baptize or not baptize infants.



Correct. Both sides argue from silence. Now in order to determine whether an argument from silence is fallacious or not, a burden of proof must first be established. With respect to establishing the burden of proof, first we must acknowledge that whenever possible, under the older economy children of professing parents were to receive the covenant mark of inclusion. You believe that this OT principle has been abrogated. I do not. However, it would be a hermeneutical nightmare if we were to arbitrarily presuppose discontinuity without being able to show good and necessary inference for an alleged abrogation of precept. Accordingly, the burden of proof is obviously upon the Baptist to show by good and necessary inference that God changed the status of covenant children. 



> 4. The NT is repleat with _descriptions_ of baptism.



And none of those prescriptions leads us to the logical conclusion that infants are not to receive baptism. 



> 5. The NT pattern links baptism with faith.



I’m not sure what you mean by “links” but it is certainly false that we have good and necessary inference that faith is a prerequisite for baptism. Even the Great Commission doesn’t imply that; for if you press the order of the commands as prescriptive, then of course baptism becomes a prerequisite for salvation. Moreover, we have no idea who had faith in many of the household baptisms. 




> 6. Households (whatever that means) were baptized.



That is a true statement. 



> If we're concerned with precept, then I think the argument stands or falls on the word "household" and what the authors meant when they said that. i have shown earlier that for household to mean every man woman and child under the roof, this is problematic in cases where the household is described as believing, speaking in tongues, or committing themselves to service (I have yet to interact with anyone on this, btw).



Even if those households only contained professing believers, how would that logically necessitate the precept that infants within another household were not to be baptized?



> PBs in this instance would require that households include all, but we know (as good Calvinists) that "all" does not always mean "all."



It is not in the least bit critical to the Paedobaptist position whether the households included infants or not. Now if we knew that there were infants in those households that were not baptized, then we would have a problem. 



> Now, actions produce theology, and here's what PB seems to say:
> In the OT age, covenanting with God by association with Abraham did not necessarily save.
> In the NT age, covenanting with God by association with Jesus likewise does not necessarily save.



I have been careful to use two terms: God _establishes_ and God _administers_. I don’t say what you just said PB’s say. Let me improve upon your statements. 

In the OT age, God established his covenant with the elect alone. Accordingly, God’s promise was a promise to save. 

In the NT age, God established his covenant with the elect alone. Accordingly, God’s promise is a promise to save. 



> I hope you don't so quickly dismiss this as my problem of "preference". It's a genuine problem that requires a satisfactory response.



You have not shown by any good and necessary inference that God changed his precept regarding the status of covenant children. Consequently, I must conclude that you have a preference for Baptistic theology but it is not one that Scripture requires of you. 

Dennis, we're simply not getting anywhere on this subject. Maybe we should put it to rest. 

Ron


----------



## MW

DD2009 said:


> Just a side question because that caught my eye, how do you determine the distinction between discussion and debate? Because if two people disagree the discussion generally becomes debatish or something.



What Bill said.


----------



## Ron

VictorBravo said:


> Can you point out in these 8 pages of discussion where this argument is? Just a link to the post would be fine.



Raymond,

This link: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/paedo-vs-credo-main-point-contention-54965/index6.html#post713203 will take you to the post, which is on page six of this thread. The meat of that post is below. 

As I've said multiple times on this thread, the covenant was *ESTABLISHED* with the Seed of Abraham, which was the incarnate Christ and all who are elected in him. _Genesis 17; Galatians 3_

Although the covenant of promise was *ESTABLISHED* with the elect in Christ alone, it was to be *ADMINISTERED *to those within a professing believer's houshold. That is to say, those who were to received the adminstration of the covenant (i.e. households) were to also be regarded as spiritual children of God. 

Paul reminded his audience in Romans 9 of the Old Testament principle that ONLY the children of PROMISE were truly counted as the seed, which was to say that not all Israel was Israel - (i.e. not all those of physical decent were spiritual children of God - yet they were to be regarded as such!). Yet notwithstanding, when God's judgments and blessings came upon Israel, God was treating Israel as an organic whole. The visible church was to be considered the true people of God, even though not all Israel was Israel. Baptist theology agrees with that! Moreover, even today, Baptist pastors will rightly treat all their baptized members as the church - even though not all the church is the church - since there are again unbelievers on the roles. _There is no debate over how we are to treat the visible church._ We are to treat its members as disciples of the Lord. *The question is, who is to be regarded as being in that church?*

Since nobody has cared to put forth an actual argument, let me get the ball rolling. 

*Here is what I see the Reformed Baptist argument to be:*

*1.* In the older economy the covenant was established with professing believers and their households (whether elect or not)

*2.* It should be ensured as best as possible to place the mark of the covenant upon those with whom the covenant is established

*3.* Therefore, the mark of circumcision was to be placed upon professing believers and their households (whether they would ever believe or not)

*4.* The new covenant is established only with the elect

*5. *Given (2 and 4), we should therefore wait until someone makes a profession of faith before admitting them to baptism

*Now if you think I have misrepresented the Baptist argument, then I by all means I invite you to actually put forth an argument rather than just using your rhetoric skills. *

*The Baptist argument has many problems:*

1 is False: The old covenant was only established with the elect. 

2 is False: God required that the sign and seal of the covenant be placed upon those who had not demonstrated election by making a credible profession of faith.

3 is True: The premise follows from two preceding false premises making the premise unsound, although the premise is true

4 is True

5 is False: Premise 2 is false, which is why 5 is false.

*I've showed you yours, now I'll show you ours.*

*A sound Paedobaptist argument:*

*1.* An Old Covenant precept was that whenever possible the sign of entrance into the covenant was to be placed upon all who were to be regarded as God’s people

*2.* Children of professing believers were to be regarded as God’s people under the Old Covenant

*3.* Children of professing believers whenever possible were to receive the sign of entrance into the Old Covenant by way of precept (1, 2)

*4.* God’s precepts may not be abrogated without explicit instruction or good and necessary inference

*5.* God never abrogated the Old Testament precept regarding who was to receive the sign of entrance into the Old covenant

*6.* The sign of entrance into the New Covenant is water baptism

*7.* God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive the sign of entrance into the New Covenant (3, 4 and 5)

*8.* God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive water baptism (6, 7)



> I'm presuming that the lack of logical progression of thought refers to the baptism debate, not every single discussion on this *site*.



Yes, you presume correctly. Though the context might suggest what you correctly inferred, my words were poorly chosen and could have implied something I would not have wanted. Thank you! 



> The original post asked what appeared to be a straightforward question. the range of discussion shows that it cannot be answered easily.



I couldn't disagree more. I refuse to accept that God has made this subject difficult. A discussion over unconditional election with an Arminian or Justification with a Roman Catholic could also be never ending, but that does not mean that those doctrines are not plainly taught in Scripture. I think the correct doctrine of baptism is even more obvious. 



> I think the reason for this is because it cannot be boiled down to a simple and single difference: there is no one issue from which all dissention flows.



Again, I simply disagree. A _proper_ discussion of this subject has to do with whether God has provided good and necessary inference to abrogate a standing principle that was embedded into historical covenant thought. 



> I'm hoping to compile all the issues and related arguments into some kind of summary to facilitate an actual give-and-take.
> 
> Of course, it probably will take time. It may up being a book for all I know, but I hope not.



If it takes you as long as all that and ends up being a massive amount of information, then I suspect you have missed the simplicity of what is required of you to prove your position. 

Grace and peace,

Ron

-----Added 11/11/2009 at 07:49:21 EST-----



Herald said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the fish aren't biting maybe you should use different bait.
> 
> Just a friendly reminder -- this is a dicussion list, not a debate forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a side question because that caught my eye, how do you determine the distinction between discussion and debate? Because if two people disagree the discussion generally becomes debatish or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David, while a vigorous exchange of ideas occurs in almost all baptism threads, the venue is not that of a formal debate. The normal protocol that is observed during a moderated debate is not being employed. The typical baptism discussion has ebbs and flows that can take a 180 degree turn at any moment. For that reason it is difficult to insist that your "opponent" follow accepted debate rules.
Click to expand...


Brother,

Now I'm really confused. Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable to expect one to defend his position with a clearly stated, logical argument unless a _formal _debate is taking place? I can think of many things that are necessary for a formal debate that are not necessary for point-counter-point discussion. Logical argumentation is _not_ one of those things. 

Cheers,

Ron


----------



## MW

Ron said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> David, while a vigorous exchange of ideas occurs in almost all baptism threads, the venue is not that of a formal debate. The normal protocol that is observed during a moderated debate is not being employed. The typical baptism discussion has ebbs and flows that can take a 180 degree turn at any moment. For that reason *it is difficult to insist that your "opponent" follow accepted debate rules*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother,
> 
> Now I'm really confused. Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable to expect one to defend his position with a clearly stated, logical argument unless a _formal _debate is taking place? I can think of many things that are necessary for a formal debate that are not necessary for point-counter-point discussion. Logical argumentation is _not_ one of those things.
Click to expand...


I have emboldened what was said. You would find people more willing to interact with you if you did not insist on the way they must present their posts. Who knows, you might even learn a thing or two when people present themselves in a manner you don't expect.


----------



## Herald

Ron said:


> VictorBravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you point out in these 8 pages of discussion where this argument is? Just a link to the post would be fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raymond,
> 
> This link: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/paedo-vs-credo-main-point-contention-54965/index6.html#post713203 will take you to the post, which is on page six of this thread. The meat of that post is below.
> 
> As I've said multiple times on this thread, the covenant was *ESTABLISHED* with the Seed of Abraham, which was the incarnate Christ and all who are elected in him. _Genesis 17; Galatians 3_
> 
> Although the covenant of promise was *ESTABLISHED* with the elect in Christ alone, it was to be *ADMINISTERED *to those within a professing believer's houshold. That is to say, those who were to received the adminstration of the covenant (i.e. households) were to also be regarded as spiritual children of God.
> 
> Paul reminded his audience in Romans 9 of the Old Testament principle that ONLY the children of PROMISE were truly counted as the seed, which was to say that not all Israel was Israel - (i.e. not all those of physical decent were spiritual children of God - yet they were to be regarded as such!). Yet notwithstanding, when God's judgments and blessings came upon Israel, God was treating Israel as an organic whole. The visible church was to be considered the true people of God, even though not all Israel was Israel. Baptist theology agrees with that! Moreover, even today, Baptist pastors will rightly treat all their baptized members as the church - even though not all the church is the church - since there are again unbelievers on the roles. _There is no debate over how we are to treat the visible church._ We are to treat its members as disciples of the Lord. *The question is, who is to be regarded as being in that church?*
> 
> Since nobody has cared to put forth an actual argument, let me get the ball rolling.
> 
> *Here is what I see the Reformed Baptist argument to be:*
> 
> *1.* In the older economy the covenant was established with professing believers and their households (whether elect or not)
> 
> *2.* It should be ensured as best as possible to place the mark of the covenant upon those with whom the covenant is established
> 
> *3.* Therefore, the mark of circumcision was to be placed upon professing believers and their households (whether they would ever believe or not)
> 
> *4.* The new covenant is established only with the elect
> 
> *5. *Given (2 and 4), we should therefore wait until someone makes a profession of faith before admitting them to baptism
> 
> *Now if you think I have misrepresented the Baptist argument, then I by all means I invite you to actually put forth an argument rather than just using your rhetoric skills. *
> 
> *The Baptist argument has many problems:*
> 
> 1 is False: The old covenant was only established with the elect.
> 
> 2 is False: God required that the sign and seal of the covenant be placed upon those who had not demonstrated election by making a credible profession of faith.
> 
> 3 is True: The premise follows from two preceding false premises making the premise unsound, although the premise is true
> 
> 4 is True
> 
> 5 is False: Premise 2 is false, which is why 5 is false.
> 
> *I've showed you yours, now I'll show you ours.*
> 
> *A sound Paedobaptist argument:*
> 
> *1.* An Old Covenant precept was that whenever possible the sign of entrance into the covenant was to be placed upon all who were to be regarded as God’s people
> 
> *2.* Children of professing believers were to be regarded as God’s people under the Old Covenant
> 
> *3.* Children of professing believers whenever possible were to receive the sign of entrance into the Old Covenant by way of precept (1, 2)
> 
> *4.* God’s precepts may not be abrogated without explicit instruction or good and necessary inference
> 
> *5.* God never abrogated the Old Testament precept regarding who was to receive the sign of entrance into the Old covenant
> 
> *6.* The sign of entrance into the New Covenant is water baptism
> 
> *7.* God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive the sign of entrance into the New Covenant (3, 4 and 5)
> 
> *8.* God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive water baptism (6, 7)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm presuming that the lack of logical progression of thought refers to the baptism debate, not every single discussion on this *site*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you presume correctly. Though the context might suggest what you correctly inferred, my words were poorly chosen and could have implied something I would not have wanted. Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't disagree more. I refuse to accept that God has made this subject difficult. A discussion over unconditional election with an Arminian or Justification with a Roman Catholic could also be never ending, but that does not mean that those doctrines are not plainly taught in Scripture. I think the correct doctrine of baptism is even more obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I simply disagree. A _proper_ discussion of this subject has to do with whether God has provided good and necessary inference to abrogate a standing principle that was embedded into historical covenant thought.
> 
> 
> 
> If it takes you as long as all that and ends up being a massive amount of information, then I suspect you have missed the simplicity of what is required of you to prove your position.
> 
> Grace and peace,
> 
> Ron
> 
> -----Added 11/11/2009 at 07:49:21 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a side question because that caught my eye, how do you determine the distinction between discussion and debate? Because if two people disagree the discussion generally becomes debatish or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David, while a vigorous exchange of ideas occurs in almost all baptism threads, the venue is not that of a formal debate. The normal protocol that is observed during a moderated debate is not being employed. The typical baptism discussion has ebbs and flows that can take a 180 degree turn at any moment. For that reason it is difficult to insist that your "opponent" follow accepted debate rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brother,
> 
> Now I'm really confused. Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable to expect one to defend his position with a clearly stated, logical argument unless a _formal _debate is taking place? I can think of many things that are necessary for a formal debate that are not necessary for point-counter-point discussion. Logical argumentation is _not_ one of those things.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ron
Click to expand...


How many baptism threads have you acquainted yourself with on the Puritan Board? It may help if you do a general search on "baptism" and see how the dynamic of these discussions is always fluid. Because there are no formal rules of debate that are being followed the discussion is like a moving target. A person may gravitate to something you've said and respond specifically to that point. You may wind up spending more than a few posts trying to get an answer to the question that was important to you. It's just the nature of the beast and the basic difference between a true debate and a free for all discussion. 

Now, you may wind up in a dialog with an individual who argues in a similar fashion as you. In that case you may very well get answers to your questions in a logical and supported method. In either case you can't guarantee, or insist, how the discussion is going to track. Moderators (like moi) try to keep the thread on topic, but we can't police every jot and tittle.

I hope this explanation helps.


----------



## Ron

Herald,

I appreciate your candor. When I try to read your post in the most charitable light, I understand you to say is that you have not based your position upon what is meant by “good and _necessary_ inference”. You simply think it is more _reasonable_ to conclude a credo-only position. The problem with drawing such an inference is that the command to believe and be baptized is 100% consistent with the Paedobaptist position! That an adult convert on a mission field must believe before undergoing baptism is not peculiar to the Baptist position. It no less corroborates the Paedobaptist position than it does the Baptist position. In fact, every bit of corroborating evidence you can offer is consistent with the Paedobaptist position; for if the evidence was not consistent with the Paedobaptist position, then you would have proved the credo-only position by good and necessary inference! *In the final analyses, the evidence you base your position on is evidence that comports very nicely with the Paedobaptist position. Accordingly, you really have no rational basis for your position.*

*As for corroborating evidence, let's look at NT baptisms . *

*The Ehtiopian eunuch had no household. Paul had no household. Gaius and Simon we know little about. The rest of the five baptisms were household baptisms: Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Stephanas and Crispus*. Now obviously we don’t know whether there were any infants in those households, but nonetheless when we come to the NT with a covenant eye, we would expect to see _household_ baptisms, which is precisely what we see in a striking ratio. That does not prove the paedo position mind you, but it certainly serves as not only consistent but also _corroborating_ evidence. Now certainly you don’t want to argue that the only faith that we read about is the faith of adults; for how would we have heard about the faith of an infant?! Moving on, if the baptistic position were indeed biblical, we might expect to see alongside the ratio of household baptisms, maybe _one_ narrative of a covenant child coming to faith and then being baptized. That, of course, is absent from the NT narratives. *So when we only consider corroborating evidence, we see exactly what I would expect to see - household baptisms. And we do not see what I would not expect to see, any covenant children coming to faith and then being baptized. Again, these are not my arguments but the certainly counter anything that has been offered. My argument is simply that we have an abiding principle that not only was never abrogated; it is rather corroborated in all the NT has to say! *

Ron

-----Added 11/11/2009 at 08:55:09 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> Ron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> David, while a vigorous exchange of ideas occurs in almost all baptism threads, the venue is not that of a formal debate. The normal protocol that is observed during a moderated debate is not being employed. The typical baptism discussion has ebbs and flows that can take a 180 degree turn at any moment. For that reason *it is difficult to insist that your "opponent" follow accepted debate rules*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother,
> 
> Now I'm really confused. Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable to expect one to defend his position with a clearly stated, logical argument unless a _formal _debate is taking place? I can think of many things that are necessary for a formal debate that are not necessary for point-counter-point discussion. Logical argumentation is _not_ one of those things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have emboldened what was said. You would find people more willing to interact with you if you did not insist on the way they must present their posts. Who knows, you might even learn a thing or two when people present themselves in a manner you don't expect.
Click to expand...


Matthew,

What have you learned in this thread about the Baptist position? I can assure you that whatever it was, it must have made sense. 

Ron


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Herald said:


> ...God's promise (to Abraham) was established with the elect seed and that the sign of that covenant promise was to be administered to households of professing parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true insofar as the promise made to Abraham would ultimately be fulfilled spiritually (Rom. 4:3-25) through Christ (Rom. 5:1). But while the promise had a spiritual reality it also has a physical component, the circumcision of flesh which pointed to Christ, and provided a national identity to those who would be circumcised in the like manner of Abraham.
Click to expand...


Baptism also provides a national identity, the church is a "holy nation". And we will inherit the whole earth, as was promised to Abraham (Rom 4:13). The promise Abraham was looking forward to was not Canaan, but the city of God, and the better resurrection. The hope of Israel was not Canaan but Jesus and the kingdom of God (Acts 28:20). And Paul says in Gal 3:17 that the Abrahamic covenant continues. The promise has always been obtained by faith (Rom 4:12-13), even though the sign of the promise was given to believers and their children. 



> Faith was a not a requisite requirement for the sign of circumcision. One simply had to be born a male into Abraham's household, and later into the nation of Israel. This is why Reformed Baptists posit a discontinuity between the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant and that of the New Covenant. The sign of the Abrahamic Covenant was not applied on the basis of faith, even though it pointed to faith in Yahweh, and ultimately Christ.



The sign was applied on the basis of the parent's faith. If the child grew up and did not profess faith in the God of Israel, then he would refuse to have his children circumcised, and therefore his children would be cut off from the covenant (Gen 17:14). Professed faith in the God of Abraham was necessary to continue circumcision. 



> Paedobaptists argue that there is no explicit command in the New Testament abrogating the application of the New Covenant sign outside of covenant families. Reformed Baptists are not willing to concede that point (Gal. 5). If the abrogation of the application of the sign is not dealt with directly, it certainly is inferred. Inference is certainly an accepted method of deduction in theology if scripture supports it. Reformed Baptist believe it does in regards to the application of the sign of the New Covenant. To post all the scripture references that support "believe and be baptized" would be redundant given what has been shared on numerous posts in this and like threads.



Could you explain what bearing does Gal 5 have on this discussion? Paul's point has nothing to do with covenant children. He is rebuking the Galatian push toward legalistic observance of the law of Moses. He's rejecting their desire to inherit the promise by human effort, rather than by faith. That's the whole reason he brings in Abraham. Abraham inherited the promise by faith. God preached the gospel to him and he believed (Gal 3:6-10). He inherited the promise by faith just like we all do. Paul is turning the attention of the Galatians back to the covenant made with Abraham to refute their legalistic trust in the Mosaic covenant. And that covenant made with Abraham, the same covenant and promise which saves us today through faith, was made with believers and their children. If salvation is promised by the same covenant, and God does not change the place of believer's children, then we must still include them in the visible covenant community. 




PuritanCovenanter said:


> In my opinion Covenant Paedo's flatten out the Covenants too much to make them all appear as they are administrations of the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> We credo only Baptists believe that the Covenants of Grace and Works are both administered in the Abrahamic and Mosaic. Neither are purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace nor the Covenant of Works.
> 
> There are two Covenants seen in the Abrahamic Covenant as laid out in Galatians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
> 
> (Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
> 
> (Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
> 
> (Gal 4:25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
> 
> (Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Click to expand...


Randy, I don't see where Paul says there are two covenants in the Abrahamic covenant. Perhaps you can explain your position a little more. 

Paul clearly says that he is using the two women as an allegory, or figuratively, to illustrate not two aspects of the Abrahamic covenant but to illustrate the difference between the Mosaic Administration (Hagar=Sinai) and the Abrahamic covenant of promise (Sarah=Jerusalem above), reinforcing the point which he made in chapter 3. The child through Hagar was Abraham's attempt to obtain the promise through human effort (the same mistake the Galatians were now making through their reliance on the Mosaic law). The child through Sarah was the promise Abraham received by faith, which is how the Galatians first received salvation. 

It's the one covenant with Abraham, the covenant of promise, which was "confirmed" (Gen 17:2) with the covenant sign of circumcision. It is this Abrahamic covenant, the covenant of promise, which continues (Gal 3:17), and through which we inherit the promise of eternal life, when we believe like Abraham (Rom 4:9-13). That has always been the case in Israel (Rom 4:12). The true Jews were always those who were circumcised in the heart (Rom 2:28-29). In fact circumcision itself was pointing to that very reality (Col. 2:11-12). Jesus himself made it clear that the Jews who relied upon their Abrahamic pedigree rather than Him were not Abraham's children (Jn 8:39-40). 

If that covenant continues, which I think I've proven it does, and that covenant was made with both believers and their children (Gen 17:7), and God has nowhere told us to stop including children, then the same covenant promise is still made to belivers and their children and both must still receive the sign of that promise. 



> The Seed is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. Abraham rejoiced to see His day.


The Seed was not the only fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. The fulfillment of the covenant would come when all nations would be blessed though him (Gal 3:6-9). The promise, which the Gentiles obtained by faith in Christ, was the same promise in which Abraham believed. That's why we are blessed with him. 



> He is the Chief Cornerstone, Second Adam, Head of a Better Covenant as laid out in Corinthians and Hebrews Chapter 8.


True, Jesus is the second Adam and the head of a better covenant. But the author of Hebrews is not comparing the new covenant to the Abrahamic covenant but to the Mosaic covenant (Heb 8:9). It's the Mosaic covenant which is obsolete (Heb 8:13), not the Abrahamic covenant. 



> His Covenant Children are not a mixture of unelect and elect. This is a better Covenant. His Children are defined as those given to Him by the Father. Anyone outside of this is not in a Covenant Relationship with Him as in Him all things are Yes. And He has redeemed His Offspring as I noted in an earlier post.



But the NT does say that children of believers are in some kind of relationship to Him. Eph 6:1, children are to obey their parents "in the Lord". The children of believers are somehow changed from "unclean" to "holy" (1 Cor 7:14) not because of something they did, but because of the faith of one parent. You don't become "holy" without some kind of covenant provision to that effect.


----------



## Ron

Herald said:


> How many baptism threads have you acquainted yourself with on the Puritan Board?



Herald,

Possibly too many but certainly quite a few. 



> Because there are no formal rules of debate that are being followed the discussion is like a moving target.



I believe I appreciate that such threads can get off on tangents. That has not been my issue. My issue is that too many are not arguing their point when they_ are _ staying on track! They make assertions and then draw conclusions that go beyond the scope of the premises. Look, I'm not expecting everyone (or anyone) to be a skilled logician to the end that they might put forth formal step-by-step proofs. But as God's image bearers I do believe we are to draw conclusions in our informal, verbal discourse that logically follow from justifiable premises. There has been absolutely nothing that even comes close to resembling an argument, even informally. 



> A person may gravitate to something you've said and respond specifically to that point.



That would have been a delightful experience.



> You may wind up spending more than a few posts trying to get an answer to the question that was important to you.



I think I've lived that this week. 



> Moderators (like moi) try to keep the thread on topic, but we can't police every jot and tittle.



I certainly appreciate what you are trying to do. I really do. 

Best,

Ron

-----Added 11/11/2009 at 09:13:05 EST-----

Brothers,

I am going to bow out of this discussion now. I have to believe that I am unable to make the Paedobaptism case any more clear than I have. 

Ron


----------



## VictorBravo

Thanks, Ron.

I, for one, think that this thread has become too unwieldy to be of further use. I plan to close it in half an hour.

I am by no means stopping discussion. I'd like to work on what Ron provided to me at my late request, and I think there is plenty more to discuss (as always).

But it should be done with more narrowly focused threads. 

Clock starts ticking, get your last thoughts in if you want them here, otherwise, take a breather and gear up for another thread.


----------



## Herald

Ron said:


> I appreciate your candor. When I try to read your post in the most charitable light, I understand you to say is that you have not based your position upon what is meant by “good and _necessary_ inference”. You simply think it is more _reasonable_ to conclude a credo-only position.



Ron, actually it is quite the opposite. It is good and necessary inference, plus clear scriptural command, that leads me to a credo only position. And yes, I understand that paedobaptists follow the command of "believe and be baptized." The difference is that to Reformed Baptist's _only _those who profess repentance towards God and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ are to be baptized. 



> 1689 LBC 29.2 Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.



Ron, you wrote:



> Now certainly you don’t want to argue that the only faith that we read about is the faith of adults; for how would we have heard about the faith of an infant?! Moving on...



You don't mind if we don't move on, do you? Prey tell, please show me where an _infant _exercises _saving _faith? 



> Moving on, if the baptistic position were indeed biblical, we might expect to see alongside the ratio of household baptisms, maybe one narrative of a covenant child coming to faith and then being baptized. That, of course, is absent from the NT narratives.



This is completely superfluous to the Reformed Baptist position. The fact that, for example, the Acts 10 and 16 narratives (Cornelius and the Philippian jailer) do not mention the ages of those who were baptized in any way undermines the Reformed Baptist position. Luke writes, about those whom Peter preached to at Cornelius' house:



> Acts 10:47-48 47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" 48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.



Reformed Baptists see a specific salvific work of the Spirit in the above passage. 

And of the Acts 16 narrative:



> Acts 16:32-34 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.



The word of the Lord was spoken to all who were in his house. This presupposes that those who heard the word could understand it. Additionally, all who were baptized believed in God (vs. 34). The weight of this passage leans heavier on the side of baptism being administered only to those who believed. 

You do a great job of assuming the deficiency of your opponents point of view while assuming the superiority of your own. Unfortunately, you are making assumptions about the Reformed Baptist view that are not accurate. Additionally, your scripture proofs are inconclusive at best. I dealt with two of them (Cornelius and the Philippian jailer), and your explanation falls flat.


----------



## Herald

VictorBravo said:


> Thanks, Ron.
> 
> I, for one, think that this thread has become too unweildy to be of further use. I plan to close it in half an hour.
> 
> I am by no means stopping discussion. I'd like to work on what Ron provided to me at my late request, and I think there is plenty more to discuss (as always).
> 
> But it should be done with more narrowly focused threads.
> 
> Clock starts ticking, get your last thoughts in if you want them here, otherwise, take a breather and gear up for another thread.



Thread killer!


----------



## VictorBravo

Herald said:


> Thread killer!



Yup. Time's up. Thanks everyone.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

armourbearer said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, my concern is the difference between the OT and the NT on this point. And I think it is real enough to demand great care in articulating it, especially in the current climate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce, this is my concern also, which leads me to ask, Is your New Testament church something other than the Old Testament church, i.e., elect? It seems to me that a denial of visible election entails a difference in "substance" between Old and New Testaments. If "substance" is permitted to change, then so also could infant inclusion in visible church membership.
Click to expand...


The thread is closed, although Matthew I believe you have privileges to respond.

I want to answer your point. Of course, I see the church as one across administrations.

But allow me to illustrate my point.
_______________

OT age contained the following:
1) Personal election, looking something like this,

ooooiooooiiiooooooioiooioioooooiiooioooiooooioooo

where "i" stands for an elect person out of all "o" people.

2) Election of the nation Israel, looking something like this,

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

where "I" stands for Israel elected out of all "O" nations. Dt.7:6; 14:2; Ex.19:5.
_______________

NT age contains the following:
1) Personal election, looking something like this,

ooooiooooiiiooooooioiooioioooooiiooioooiooooioooo

there is no change here.

2) There is nothing comparable to the national election _*out of something already present*_, like nations.

One organization out of all possible organizations? One church out of all the churches? One religion out of all the religions? All these notions have major problems.

_______________

The church is elect _out of_ the world, but it is just here that it seems to me the NT draws up, and does not speak of the church as elect _in_ the world unless she is being viewed ideally, eschatologically. National Israel was elect *among* all the nations. Except in those formal addresses and OT allusions, it seems to me the NT writers are reluctant to carry over explicit terminology of a corporate or general election and apply it to the church.

The world-undifferentiated (and not the world-of-nations) is the corpus from which the eternal-church is drawn. This does not at all change the fact that the church militant is still composed of believers *and their families* (Mk.10:1-16). I don't believe my point is affected at all by this recognition.

In this age of the already/not yet, we look back at the national election and forward to the completed election, but should resist the impulse to equate membership in the church with election. Everyone in OT Israel should have noted the difference between his election within the nation, and his election to personal salvation. It is far simpler, today, to speak of "membership" in the church on earth, and "election" (which is most definitely a _membership_) in Christ/Israel/church-triumphant.

OT Israel has come down to One Person, namely Christ. He sums it up, and they and we also find our identity in Him. He is Israel, OT & NT. We are elect in him (Eph.1:4).

But we still identify ourselves (the church) with the previous national election, which also constituted the church, prior to the cross. My point was that it is the eschatological church that is spoken of in NT terms as elect. That church is chosen out of the world.


----------



## MW

Contra_Mundum said:


> OT Israel has come down to One Person, namely Christ. He sums it up, and they and we also find our identity in Him. He is Israel, OT & NT. We are elect in him (Eph.1:4).



Bruce, Doesn't this establish the validity and force of visible election? If Christ is elect Israel in OT (typologically) and NT (substantially), and we are elect in Him, then baptised Christians are visibly elect in Him in the same way that circumcised Israelites were visibly elect in Him. Otherwise Christ is not the same yesterday, and today, and forever.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Matthew,
I know I can say this to the gathered church:
"I know, brethren beloved by God, your election" (1Ths.1:4).

I know Christ is the same. I know the church is the same. We're being added to a people that is one, and distinct from the people of the world, who are also one (in a way). That's how I see it well enough to speak thus--with an eschatological frame of reference.

To say, as Richard did above that this amounts to "two" elections in the present age, is more than I can say for now.

Blessings. You always make me think deeply.


----------



## MW

Bruce, Well I wouldn't be comfortable calling it two elections either; sorry if I've given that impression. There is "one body," etc. I view it in terms of visible and invisible or internal and external aspects after the same manner as church and covenant.

I always enjoy talking with you too, even on a closed thread.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Puritan Sailor said:


> Randy, I don't see where Paul says there are two covenants in the Abrahamic covenant. Perhaps you can explain your position a little more.
> 
> Paul clearly says that he is using the two women as an allegory, or figuratively, to illustrate not two aspects of the Abrahamic covenant but to illustrate the difference between the Mosaic Administration (Hagar=Sinai) and the Abrahamic covenant of promise (Sarah=Jerusalem above), reinforcing the point which he made in chapter 3. The child through Hagar was Abraham's attempt to obtain the promise through human effort (the same mistake the Galatians were now making through their reliance on the Mosaic law). The child through Sarah was the promise Abraham received by faith, which is how the Galatians first received salvation.
> 
> It's the one covenant with Abraham, the covenant of promise, which was "confirmed" (Gen 17:2) with the covenant sign of circumcision. It is this Abrahamic covenant, the covenant of promise, which continues (Gal 3:17), and through which we inherit the promise of eternal life, when we believe like Abraham (Rom 4:9-13). That has always been the case in Israel (Rom 4:12). The true Jews were always those who were circumcised in the heart (Rom 2:28-29). In fact circumcision itself was pointing to that very reality (Col. 2:11-12). Jesus himself made it clear that the Jews who relied upon their Abrahamic pedigree rather than Him were not Abraham's children (Jn 8:39-40).
> 
> If that covenant continues, which I think I've proven it does, and that covenant was made with both believers and their children (Gen 17:7), and God has nowhere told us to stop including children, then the same covenant promise is still made to belivers and their children and both must still receive the sign of that promise.
> 
> 
> The Seed was not the only fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. The fulfillment of the covenant would come when all nations would be blessed though him (Gal 3:6-9). The promise, which the Gentiles obtained by faith in Christ, was the same promise in which Abraham believed. That's why we are blessed with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is the Chief Cornerstone, Second Adam, Head of a Better Covenant as laid out in Corinthians and Hebrews Chapter 8.
> 
> 
> 
> True, Jesus is the second Adam and the head of a better covenant. But the author of Hebrews is not comparing the new covenant to the Abrahamic covenant but to the Mosaic covenant (Heb 8:9). It's the Mosaic covenant which is obsolete (Heb 8:13), not the Abrahamic covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His Covenant Children are not a mixture of unelect and elect. This is a better Covenant. His Children are defined as those given to Him by the Father. Anyone outside of this is not in a Covenant Relationship with Him as in Him all things are Yes. And He has redeemed His Offspring as I noted in an earlier post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the NT does say that children of believers are in some kind of relationship to Him. Eph 6:1, children are to obey their parents "in the Lord". The children of believers are somehow changed from "unclean" to "holy" (1 Cor 7:14) not because of something they did, but because of the faith of one parent. You don't become "holy" without some kind of covenant provision to that effect.
Click to expand...


I am going to respond to Pats post. But just between him am and I, so we can understand each others position. This is part of the PM I sent to him.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> I forgot to post one passage along with the Galatians passage.
> 
> verse 21.... Consider what Paul is saying about Covenants in light of verse 21.
> 
> (Gal 4:21) Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
> 
> (Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
> 
> (Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
> 
> (Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
> 
> (Gal 4:25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
> 
> (Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
> 
> Here is just a part of Calvin on this....
> 
> 
> 
> Gal 4:24
> 24.These are the two covenants. I have thought it better to adopt this translation, in order not to lose sight of the beauty of the comparison; for Paul compares the twoδιαθὢκαι, to two mothers, and to employ testamentum, (a testament,) which is a neuter noun, for denoting a mother, would be harsh. The wordpactio (a covenant) appears to be, on that account, more appropriate; and indeed the desire of obtaining perspicuity, as well as elegance, has led me to make this choice. (76)
> The comparison is now formally introduced. As in the house of Abraham there were two mothers, so are there also in the Church of God. Doctrine is the mother of whom we are born, and is twofold, Legal and Evangelical. The legal mother, whom Hagar resembles,gendereth to bondage. Sarah again, represents the second, which gendereth to freedom; though Paul begins higher, and makes our first mother Sinai, and our second, Jerusalem. The two covenants, then, are the mothers, of whom children unlike one another are born; for the legal covenant makes slaves, and the evangelical covenant makes freemen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I do must admit that I am probably something new. But if you want to understand Genesis 17 according to a RB understanding which I hold to you can read the link above about John Tombes. Also I do and heartily recommend Nehemiah Coxe. I lean upon him and John Tombes heavily. This idea that the Abrahamic administers both the CofW and Grace is not new.
Click to expand...


I am not going to repost on this thread. You can have at it by making a new thread.


----------

