# Question on Baptist Covenant Theology



## Particular Baptist (Oct 18, 2010)

Brothers,

Recently, I've been seeing the Abrahamic Covenant and the Covenant of Circumcision as being one covenant rather than separate covenants. This, of course, is different from traditional Reformed Baptist covenant theology, as espoused by Nehemiah Coxe, who saw the covenant of grace given to Abraham in Gen. 12 as being different from the covenant of circumcision given in Gen. 17. I've read other views on this topic and most others, even dispensational ones such as John MacArthur, see Chapters 12, 15, and 17 as renewals of the same covenant, although I would disagree with MacArthur on the strictly physical blessing and his definition of who is the church and Israel. 

But, that being said, I've also started a study in Hebrews, guided by A.W. Pink's Commentary on the book, and come across those passages which speak of Moses and Jesus being over the same house, as well as the fact that good news was spoken to Israel under the Mosaic administration. This has caused me to question all of the covenant theology that Coxe espouses and, if I'm correct, even Michael Horton to an extent, as well as my whole view of the covenant of grace throughout history. And, again, it's caused me to question my credobaptist beliefs. But, at the same time, I can't see any way to fit paedobaptism into the New Testament. 

Are there any Baptists who view Chapters 12, 15, and 17 as being all one covenant of grace? Also, are there any others who see the OC, the Mosaic Covenant, as being a dispensation of the covenant of grace who still hold to credobaptism? Or, is it even possible to hold to such a viewpoint and be theologically consistent within a covental framework?

I would love feedback from both paedobaptist and credobaptist brothers, even if it doesn't exactly pertain to one of the questions I've listed above. 

Thanks,
Spencer


----------



## Herald (Oct 18, 2010)

Brother, when I have time I'll provide an answer later today.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Oct 18, 2010)

Great, Spencer! 

You are starting to see the unity of the covenant of grace contra. Baptistic theology on the one hand and Klineanism on the other hand. 

You said,



Particular Baptist said:


> And, again, it's caused me to question my credobaptist beliefs. But, at the same time, I can't see any way to fit paedobaptism into the New Testament.



I would answer that the one proves the other. If Genesis 17 is an administration of the covenant of grace, as you are beginning to see, and the New Covenant is the eschatological fulfillment of the covenant of grace, then there is no warrant to remove the covenant sign from the children of the covenant. If the covenant sign belongs to the children of believers in Genesis 17, then it also belongs to the children of believers in Acts. The covenant is the same, only the outward sign has changed. Circumcision has been changed to baptism. 

Colossians 2:11-12 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 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. 

If the covenant fits, the covenant sign "fits". Then the question is not, where is the text that proves this in the New Testament?--but rather, where is the text which takes the covenant sign away from children in the New Testament. The assumption is continuity rather than discontinuity. It would take a proof text explicitly removing the covenant sign from the children of believers in the New Testament in order for this covenant command (Genesis 17) to be abrogated.


----------



## MichaelLofton (Oct 18, 2010)

Hello Particular Baptist,

I believe these resources will help your understanding of Covenant and how paedobaptism fits into the New Testament. These two resources were the very things that changed me from being a Reformed Baptist to a paedobaptist (Presbyterian). I hope they help.

Read these lectures by Ligon Duncan: INDEX of covenant theology lectures

Also read this article by Richard Pratt: http://old.thirdmill.org/newfiles/ric_pratt/TH.Pratt.New.Covenant.Baptism.pdf


----------



## Andres (Oct 18, 2010)

Particular Baptist said:


> it's caused me to question my credobaptist beliefs. But, at the same time, I can't see any way to fit paedobaptism into the New Testament.



Many people note the absence of specific references to paedobaptism in the NT and use this as their reasoning to reject it (paedobaptism). However, references to familial or household baptism are implied to include paedobaptism. I have heard it argued that paedobaptism was the norm, so the writers did not feel the need to specify or distinguish between credo and paedo.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 18, 2010)

Spence,
To be precise, Moses was servant OF Jesus, in His house, Heb.3:5; and so I would say he was over "the same house" as Christ, indeed, but as the steward rather than the lord, for a certain time until the Lord entered.

As for the baptism thing, I would not even spend time thinking on that topic until you have settled your conception of covenant. Whatever you end up thinking about covenant should influence you in your understanding of such related topics. But I think that you should try to get as much settled on the more fundamental issue of covenant and its bearing on biblical reading and interpretation. Reading Scripture with a covenant grid impacts not just one area but all areas. Just as you see dispensationalism does. Just as Pentecostalism does.

Frankly, there is a "sacramental" grid also, several actually, on a spectrum that includes Roman catholic, or Lutheran, and Anglican, all the way through our circles over to Baptist. Everyone has an initial hermeneutic (a set of basic assumptions by which they begin to read and understand the Bible), even when it isn't well defined, or even especially well constructed, or self-consciously chosen.

This is why I say, figure out what you think is the clearest understanding of _how to read the Bible,_ and I think that a proper covenant-conception is going to be vital to that preparation.


----------



## Particular Baptist (Oct 18, 2010)

Great advice, Rev. Buchanan, thank you!


----------



## nnatew24 (Oct 18, 2010)

Particular Baptist said:


> although I would disagree with MacArthur on the strictly physical blessing and his definition of who is the church and Israel.



Just a side note here: despite where exactly you come down on the covenants, I'd encourage you to further consider whether inclusion of physical children is another error --just like MacArthur's Dispensationalism-- of confusing physical types with spiritual realities. To the Baptist, paedobaptism makes the same mistake as MacArthur.


----------



## steadfast7 (Oct 18, 2010)

No doubt there is much between the testaments that are unified, and we naturally want to seek out the single unifying theme. But there are significant divergences too. I'm a novice at best with these issues, but Rev. B's comments are astute and helpful. I don't see why someone could not have a fully orbed covenantal perspective and still practice bellievers-only baptism. The thing that must be resolved in my mind is whether baptism replaces circumcision, which I'm yet to be convinced of. I personally think paedobaptism takes covenant theology to a conclusion that scripture doesn't sufficiently address, whereas credobaptism preserves certain distinctions between old and new.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 18, 2010)

The Covenant of Grace is administered in the Covenant of Circumcision by promise. It is fulfilled in the seed. I am not so sure you are reading Coxe correctly. You might be. But the Covenant of Circumcision ended in the fulfillment of Christ. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Covenant of Promises given to Abraham in the promised seed (Christ). The Covenant of Circumcision is abrogated now as St. Paul writes in Galatians. It avails nothing now that Christ's work is finished and the Cup of the New Covenant has replaced it by fulfillment. The Covenant of Grace is present in all the Covenants after the Covenant of Works. It is administered and apprehended by faith as the scriptures testify, "the just shall live by faith." You can not separate the Covenant of Grace from the Covenant of Circumcision nor the Mosaic. The Covenant of Grace is the core of the Covenants of Promise. It is the premier Covenant.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 18, 2010)

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

Yes all the covenants are related to one another. They are all covenants (plural) of the promise(singular). Even the Abrahamic Covenant can't be completely detatched from the Mosaic (Old) Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant from the New covenant.

There is sometimes a strong contrast in the New Testament between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant

(a) Because at the time of Moses a legal-typological cast was added to the Covenant, in God's grace to sinful people (the Israelites) not to morally perfect human beings like Adam, to help a Church which was underage. Apart from any moral principles and practical and spiritual and ecclesiastical lessons, this fell away at the time of the New Covenant, like stabilisers coming off a child's bike, like a stick used to keep a young plant upright, like the cocoon of a moth or butterfly, like the peculiar parental discipline and picture books of a young child.

(b) Because most of the Jews had turned the Old Covenant of Grace into a covenant of works, just as many Christians turn the New Covenant of Grace into a covenant of works. Those Jews often indicated this vis-a-vis Christianity and the teaching of the Apostles by insisting that not only the Pharasaic additions to the Old Covenant must be adhered to, but that things peculiar to the Old covenant must be adhered to now that Christ had come as necessary for salvation.


----------



## eqdj (Oct 18, 2010)

It seems like there's a thread here every week that makes me want to create a "Frequently Asked Questions" on my site.

Spencer,
Nehemiah Coxe holds to one view of CT. You can find a list of other Covenantal Baptist views here
Covenant Theology & Baptism | Covenantal Baptist


----------



## brandonadams (Oct 19, 2010)

> But, that being said, I've also started a study in Hebrews, guided by A.W. Pink's Commentary on the book, and come across those passages which speak of Moses and Jesus being over the same house, as well as the fact that good news was spoken to Israel under the Mosaic administration. This has caused me to question all of the covenant theology that Coxe espouses and, if I'm correct, even Michael Horton to an extent, as well as my whole view of the covenant of grace throughout history. And, again, it's caused me to question my credobaptist beliefs. But, at the same time, I can't see any way to fit paedobaptism into the New Testament.



First of all, Pink agreed with Owen and Coxe that the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works made with an entire nation. So reading Pink shouldn't dissuade you of that  Make sure you read his excellent work "Divine Covenants"
Pink on Moses (& Republication) « Contrast
Pink and NCT « Contrast

Second - Of course the good news was spoken to Israel under the Mosaic "Administration" - but in no way does it necessarily follow that the Mosaic Covenant is the Covenant of Grace/New Covenant. The good news was spoken by all kinds of types and shadows. The good news was spoken by the bronze serpent. That doesn't mean the bronze serpent was Christ.



> Are there any Baptists who view Chapters 12, 15, and 17 as being all one covenant of grace?



Yes, see A. W. Pink's "Divine Covenants":


> The grand promises of the Abrahamic covenant, as originally given to the patriarch, are recorded in Genesis 12:2, 3, 7. The covenant itself was solemnly ratified by sacrifice, thus making it inviolable, in Genesis 15:9-21. The seal and sign of the covenant, circumcision, is brought before us in Genesis 17:9-14. The covenant was confirmed by divine oath in Genesis 22:15-18, which provided a ground of "strong consolation" (Heb. 6:17-19). There were not two distinct and diverse covenants made with Abraham (as the older Baptists argued), the one having respect to spiritual blessings and the other relating to temporal benefits. The covenant was one, having a special spiritual object, to which the temporal arrangements and inferior privileges enjoyed by the nation of Israel were strictly subordinated, and necessary only as a means of securing the higher results contemplated.
> PART FOUR: THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT



Pink sees a dual fulfillment of the single Abrahamic Covenant: one earthly, one spiritual. 
Jeffrey D. Johnson expounds a similar view in his recent book The Fatal Flaw
Owen has a helpful essay elaborating a similar view in the intro to his commentary on Hebrews: The Oneness of the Church – John Owen « Contrast
Meredith Kline also held a similar view (Two-Level Fulfillment) http://www.upper-register.com/papers/two_level_fulfillment.pdf



> Also, are there any others who see the OC, the Mosaic Covenant, as being a dispensation of the covenant of grace who still hold to credobaptism? Or, is it even possible to hold to such a viewpoint and be theologically consistent within a covental framework?



Yes.
Walter Chantry 
Baptist and Covenant Theology, Walter J. Chantry | The Reformed Reader
http://www.chapellibrary.org/pdf-english/cove.pdf

Sam Waldron
numerous writings, but in particular the section on Chapter 7 in his "Exposition of the London Baptist Confession of Faith"

Greg Welty
Founders Ministries | A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism

I believe Fred Malone as well. 
Founders Ministries | A String of Pearls Unstrung

There are many others but this is off the top of my head.

Hope that helps!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 19, 2010)

I have a problem saying the Mosaic was a Covenant of Works. It is not fashioned like the first covenant in all ways. There is the grace of sin covering preached by the sacrificed lamb and repentance called for. It differs from the Covenant of Works in that. If you are going to insist it is a Covenant of Works the first offence would lead to death. It does expose the death of the (so called) innocent. Yes, there are elements in the Mosaic that lead to cutting off and death. But it is not purely a Covenant of Works. There was a call to repentance which implies a Covenant of Grace and renewal unlike the Covenant of Works. It is a mingled Covenant as I see it.


----------



## MW (Oct 19, 2010)

brandonadams said:


> Sam Waldron
> numerous writings, but in particular the section on Chapter 7 in his "Exposition of the London Baptist Confession of Faith"


 
7.2, 3, compared with 10.3, makes it impossible to exclude elect infants from the covenant of grace in any administration of it. Waldron's exposition of 10.3 makes it clear that the modern Baptist understanding of the covenants struggles to connect infant salvation with the covenant of grace.


----------



## brandonadams (Oct 19, 2010)

> I have a problem saying the Mosaic was a Covenant of Works. It is not fashioned like the first covenant in all ways.



Martin, neither I, nor any of the men I mentioned above, claim that the Mosaic Covenant is _the_ Covenant of Works that was made with Adam. They simply recognize that it was a _a_ covenant of works - meaning it was based upon a works inheritance principle. Yes, God was also merciful (different than grace) in allowing a sacrificial system, forgiving sins, and delaying the final curses, etc, etc. But it cannot be based upon works and grace. Its either/or (Rom 4:4; 11:6).

---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------

Matthew, I don't follow what you're trying to get at. Of course elect infants are not excluded from the covenant of grace. Waldron never suggests otherwise. However, that's an entirely different issue from whether or not all infants of believers are in the covenant of grace or even if all infants of believers dying in infancy are elect.


----------



## MW (Oct 19, 2010)

brandonadams said:


> Of course elect infants are not excluded from the covenant of grace. Waldron never suggests otherwise.


 
Please consult Waldron on 10.3, where he expresses regret at the positive assertion made by both Confessions.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 19, 2010)

I do also.

P.S. You won't mess with a more confessional man than Rev. Winzer. I pretend not to have his knowledge. I admire his gift as most recognized. It isn't from himself as he would assert. But I don't agree with him either. Be careful when treading the Rev. Winzer knowledge. Just my humble opinion. LOL He is the man.


----------



## brandonadams (Oct 19, 2010)

Matthew, I did consult Waldron before I commented. I honestly still do not know what you are getting at or how it is relevant to this thread. Waldron does not say anything in his comments on 10.3 about the covenant of grace one way or the other. He simply, and wisely, notes that the Bible does not address the salvation of infants, so neither should a confession. If that's your biggest objection to baptist covenant theology, then I am quite happy.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 19, 2010)

I like the last the last post. It is reformed.


----------



## MW (Oct 19, 2010)

brandonadams said:


> Waldron does not say anything in his comments on 10.3 about the covenant of grace one way or the other. He simply, and wisely, notes that the Bible does not address the salvation of infants, so neither should a confession.



Yes, but this is consciously recognised to be contrary to the Confession he is expounding. My point is that Waldron's exposition of the Confession is at variance with the Confession on the subject of covenant membership and therefore cannot be accepted as presenting the confessional position.

Please allow me to show the problem with Waldron's exposition of the Confession. Waldron's comments on 7.2, 3, in accord with the Confession, are, "It is by this covenant with Christ that all who have ever been saved are saved" (p. 110). He further notes, "This covenant between God the Father and Christ the Redeemer is fully revealed in the New Covenant" (ibid., emphasis added). Now compare this with his objection to the Confession on 10.3. The first point he makes relative to infant salvation is, "the Bible is silent on this issue" (p. 150). But it can only be regarded as being silent on this issue if his previous teaching on the salvation of the elect is ignored. His second point is to draw attention to three general truths contained in Scripture -- the character of God, the sinfulness of mankind, and the saving purpose of God (ibid., 150, 151); but these three truths are all presented by the Confession in the context of covenant theology. His final point is to suggest that it is not wrong for God's children to believe that God frequently embraces their children in his saving purposes (p. 151). On what basis could they believe this if the Bible does not lead them to believe it or God's covenant of grace makes no promise to this effect? I submit that the Confession more consistently reflects its own federal teaching and that Waldron's exception should be duly noted.


----------



## brandonadams (Oct 20, 2010)

> Yes, but this is consciously recognised to be contrary to the Confession he is expounding.



Where are you getting these ideas from? The LBC does not say anything about covenant membership in 10.3. Bringing up 10.3 is a complete red herring. It is irrelevant to what we are talking about. Yes, of course, 10.3 refers to the covenant of grace, and covenant membership, insofar as it mentions the elect. All elect are members of the covenant of grace. Waldron does not deny that. Neither does he object to that in his comments. Our discussion is about whether or not the non-elect, and whether or not all infants of believers, are members of the covenant of grace, or more specifically, the New Covenant.



> The first point he makes relative to infant salvation is, "the Bible is silent on this issue" (p. 150). But it can only be regarded as being silent on this issue if his previous teaching on the salvation of the elect is ignored.



You're missing Waldron's point. All that Waldron means is that the Bible does not talk about or mention the salvation of infants. The fact that all who are saved are saved by the Covenant of Grace does not change the fact that the Bible does not talk about or mention the salvation of infants.



> His final point is to suggest that it is not wrong for God's children to believe that God frequently embraces their children in his saving purposes (p. 151). On what basis could they believe this if the Bible does not lead them to believe it or God's covenant of grace makes no promise to this effect?



On the exact basis that Waldron mentions: God's mercy and goodness to believers. On the basis of God's goodness and mercy to believers, we can believe that God might often save their infants dying in infancy - for the sake of the believing parent's. Waldron is simply saying that God may save the infants of believers who die in their infancy, and that it is ok for Christians to believe that God might do that for their child. Waldron is not arguing that all Christians who lose a child in infancy are warranted in being certain that their child is saved.



> but these three truths are all presented by the Confession in the context of covenant theology.



Right. And so _if_ an infant is saved, they are saved through covenant. Again, that's irrelevant to the issue at hand.



> My point is that Waldron's exposition of the Confession is at variance with the Confession on the subject of covenant membership and therefore cannot be accepted as presenting the confessional position...I submit that the Confession more consistently reflects its own federal teaching and that Waldron's exception should be duly noted.



What precisely do you believe the London Baptist Confession teaches about membership in the covenant of grace? Are you suggesting that Waldron's and others' view that the New Covenant consists of the elect alone is a "modern deviation" from historic Reformed Baptist theology?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 20, 2010)

I think Rev. Winzer thinks there's a difference between being "silent on the issue," and simultaneously stating that (under the Old Testament, anyway) salvation was most certainly claimed for _some_ infants, as evidenced by their being considered fit-recipients for the covenant-sign, which was a spiritual testimony. Rev. Winzer is simply taking Rev. Waldron at his word in one section and in another.

I don't know which permutation on covenant-theology Rev. Waldron takes, or even if it matters, when he has clearly stated that the (or some) covenant with Abraham is the eternal covenant of grace. The sign he was given was a testimony to him--and to other believers of the same stripe--of the righteousness he had by faith, which is the case even if one finds a multiplicity of covenants in the Abrahamic narrative. They end up connected symbolically, through the sign, even if they are sundered into so many separate arrangements.

And the fact is that God promises to be God to him and to his children in the same context as he is instructed to apply that sign to sons 8-days old. If one of those sons dies in his faithful parents arms, are we to believe they do not have a promise on which to hope?

If they have a hope, so much for silence on the issue. Because salvation is only according to election unto faith. Rev. Winzer further noted that God's saving intents are, according to that Confession, "...more fully revealed" in the New Covenant. Ergo, if salvation (hence, election) of some infants was revealed in the Old Testament, then such a truth must be "more fully revealed" in the New Covenant.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW (Oct 20, 2010)

brandonadams said:


> Our discussion is about whether or not the non-elect, and whether or not all infants of believers, are members of the covenant of grace, or more specifically, the New Covenant.



The word "all" is irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is relative to "elect infants" not "all infants of believers." According to the earlier section of the Confession all elect are members of the covenant of grace. The Confession recognises elect infants as a biblical concept whereas Waldron rejects it. The Confession therefore contains an explicit reference to elect infants as members of the covenant of grace. Modern Baptists might find this difficult to reconcile with their reconstructed covenant theology but it cannot be denied that this was part of the original framework.



brandonadams said:


> You're missing Waldron's point. All that Waldron means is that the Bible does not talk about or mention the salvation of infants. The fact that all who are saved are saved by the Covenant of Grace does not change the fact that the Bible does not talk about or mention the salvation of infants.



You keep reverting to a statement of what the Bible teaches whereas I am looking at the subject in terms of historical comparison. If you would like to discuss what the Bible itself teaches I would simply point you to Paul's exposition of covenant theology and election in relation to "the children" in Romans 9. But my only concern is to show what the Baptist Confession teaches in conformity with the Westminster Confession and contrary to Waldron's exposition.



brandonadams said:


> Waldron is simply saying that God may save the infants of believers who die in their infancy, and that it is ok for Christians to believe that God might do that for their child.



He is undoubtedly saying precisely that, but my point is that both the Westminster and Baptist Confessions tie such belief to revelation, not to speculation. In fact, 14.2 requires the authority of God's word for belief.



brandonadams said:


> Right. And so _if_ an infant is saved, they are saved through covenant. Again, that's irrelevant to the issue at hand.



The covenant membership of elect infants in THE issue at hand.


----------



## brandonadams (Oct 20, 2010)

Bruce, your opinion about the Abrahamic Covenant and its sign is irrelevant as to whether or not Waldron is contradicting his own confession. Please stop importing your own assumptions into other people's system of belief and then calling them inconsistent for not agreeing with you.



> The Confession recognises elect infants as a biblical concept whereas Waldron rejects it.



Matthew, you have plenty of other things to argue about. Stop making an issue where this is not one. WALDRON DOES NOT REJECT THE CONCEPT OF ELECT INFANTS!



> The Confession therefore contains an explicit reference to elect infants as members of the covenant of grace. Modern Baptists might find this difficult to reconcile with their reconstructed covenant theology but it cannot be denied that this was part of the original framework.



I honestly do not believe you know what you are talking about. Once again, I will ask you to state precisely what you believe the LBC teaches about the membership of the covenant of grace. Who is a member of the covenant of grace according to the LBC?

Please also include primary baptist sources that espouse the view you are attributing to the LBC.

If LBC 10.3 was based upon a view that the promise to Abraham included their children, they would have cited that as a reference. They did not. They only cited John 3:8. Their point is simply that it is possible for an infant to be regenerated and therefore to be saved. That is all LBC 10.3 says. It does not say there is any special promise to believers to include their children in the Covenant of Grace.



> The covenant membership of elect infants in THE issue at hand.



No its not. Stop making problems where there are none. Stick to where there are actual disagreements and we'll all save ourselves a lot of trouble.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 20, 2010)

Brandon,
I was so far over on the side of letting a Baptist-covenantalist be himself, that I had to say practically three times as much as I needed to say. So, please, drop the condescension.

My one regret is not simply letting Matthew clarify his own point.


----------



## nnatew24 (Oct 20, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> The Confession therefore contains an explicit reference to elect infants as members of the covenant of grace. Modern Baptists might find this difficult to reconcile with their reconstructed covenant theology but it cannot be denied that this was part of the original framework.



Rev. Winzer - as Brandon pointed out, the Confession doesn't appear to link elect infants with believing parents. So my question to you would be: what Confessional evidence do we have to assert that only infants of believers are possibly elect? Do we have any evidence to suggest that an infant of unbelieving parents cannot possibly be one of the elect?

Of course, even when we answer these questions one way or another, we will still disagree on whether or not to apply the baptism to an infant whom we cannot know is elect or not.


----------



## Bethel (Oct 20, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> Circumcision has been changed to baptism.


 
I'm relatively new to the reformed faith, so I'm in the same boat as Particular Baptist as I wrestle with paedo versus credo baptism. I understand the argument very concisely stated by Willem van Oranje above, but if that's the case, then I'm troubled with the conflict over circumcision in Acts 15. The apostles don't implicitly or explicitly state that circumcision has been changed to baptism. That would have been the ultimate reason to end all of the discussion about whether or not the new Gentile believers needed to be circumcised. Instead they talk about how it would bind them to the law of Moses which even the Jews couldn't do. These are just my thoughts as I study the Scriptures regarding infant baptism. If anyone can shed some light on this for me, I would greatly appreciate it!

Blessings,


----------



## brandonadams (Oct 20, 2010)

> I was so far over on the side of letting a Baptist-covenantalist be himself, that I had to say practically three times as much as I needed to say.



How humble of you.

Matthew, I would still appreciate a precise statement regarding what you believe the LBC teaches about membership in the covenant of grace. Your accusation that modern baptist views of the covenant of grace are deviations from historic particular baptist views is a serious charge that you have failed to backup. Until you do, I consider it nothing more than slander.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 20, 2010)

Bethel said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> > Circumcision has been changed to baptism.
> ...


 
Beth,
Speaking as a paedo-baptist (a strange way to define myself, in my opinion, but old adjectives like Reformed and covenantal have been expropriated for wider use),

the reason why it would have been a *bad* argument for the church in Act.15 (to say: _baptism replaces circumcision_), is that the crucial question posed by the Judaizers would be diverted, not confronted. The answer to the charge "You need to become a Jew to be a true Christian" is not to point off to another ritual, one appropriate to the new era, and say "This one, not that one." Such a statement would not meet the charge at its fundamental point. The issue wasn't _merely_ circumcision, but circumcision as the door to a whole slew of "obediences" that would be a necessary accompaniment of faith, for proving oneself unto God.

[BIBLE]Galatians 5:3 [/BIBLE]shows that the issue was seen by Paul as one that went far beyond the entrance-ritual. Hence, simply to posit a new ritual _in place of_ circumcision would, at best, be a diversionary tactic. The Judaizers would have been only too happy to give up insisting on circumcision if they could get concession on the deeper issue they fought for (whole law-keeping, complete adherence to Moses) by just substituting the entrance-ritual. Adding law to grace was not just a matter of one little cut, but devotion to the rest of the practices that the cut implied.


----------



## brandonadams (Oct 20, 2010)

> The issue wasn't merely circumcision, but circumcision as the door to a whole slew of "obediences" that would be a necessary accompaniment of faith, for proving oneself unto God.



Ah, so it seems circumcision and baptism are not equal after all then. If baptism did replace circumcision, then there would be no problem in saying so, regardless of the situation. The fact that circumcision was associated with more than what baptism is proves there is not a 1:1 relationship. Galatians 5:3 is an excellent reference to show this difference.

Beth, your instincts are right.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 20, 2010)

brandonadams said:


> > I was so far over on the side of letting a Baptist-covenantalist be himself, that I had to say practically three times as much as I needed to say.
> 
> 
> 
> How humble of you.


 
Condescending. As before.
How long are we going to keep this up? I am quite aware of the points of agreement and disagreement between covenant theology proper, and its various strands of development, and divergence. I am because I've made it a point to study the issue to the point of being able to sympathetically express the other side. There are at least 10 posters on this board who have educated me profoundly on the Baptist position. Go ahead and ask folks who disagree with me if I have not played fair with them. I'm ready to be judged and accept whatever the verdict is.

That's not pride, that's effort.
Now, a sympathetic understanding doesn't limit me to only and always speaking without a critical bent. There seems to be a plain inconsistency in two affirmations by the good Rev. Waldron. In attempting to clarify that, it isn't wrong to press on it, either to show its incompatibility, or to have it removed in one way or another. All you've done is bitterly oppose even the suggestion that there is disconnect between one strand of Sam's analysis, and another.

I would never suggest that I myself had never crossed up my own analysis of any two things. So, criticizing someone who's gone into print is not illegitimate. It may be a bad analysis, but then you just keep up the effort of showing how bad it is. Drop the ad hominem, and dissect the sentences.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 20, 2010)

brandonadams said:


> > The issue wasn't merely circumcision, but circumcision as the door to a whole slew of "obediences" that would be a necessary accompaniment of faith, for proving oneself unto God.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Beth,
Study the text to draw from it what IS present, rather that insisting that it SHOULD have said something. Act.15 can in no way be said to _contradict_ the position that one sign has given way to another.

Brandon,
Where is your comparative analysis between the "more" that circumcision was associated with, vis a vis "what baptism is"? I'd be interested in learning what you think, and then comparing your analysis of the biblical data with my own (available on the PB homepage), so that if possible, I might correct some flaws in my reasoning.

Thanks!


----------



## brandonadams (Oct 20, 2010)

Bruce, have you ever read anything from Sam Waldron? Specifically, have you read what he has written about covenant theology? If not, then you should commit to listening on this thread instead of contributing (as you said, it would have been better for you to simply let Matthew speak for himself). Your entire argument rested upon your view of the Abrahamic covenant and what circumcision meant. If Waldron rejects your view, then he is not inconsistent. That was my point. All you have done is show how Waldron is inconsistent with your personal view of covenant theology, not his. If you can show where Waldron says salvation was most certainly claimed for some infants _because_ they were circumcised, then you may demonstrate his inconsistency. Until then, you're not helping anything.

Here is what Waldron says:


> The Bible, however, never uses the word 'covenant' to refer to an overarching covenant of grace which spans the whole of human history. Each use of the term to refer to a divine covenant in the Bible refers to a covenant made by God at some specific historical epoch. None of these covenants may simply be equated with what the Confession describes as 'the covenant of grace'. Presbyterians have often spoken as if the covenant with Abraham were the covenant of grace, but this identification ignores its typical elements and its beginning in the lifetime of Abraham, not immediately after the Fall (note chapter 29). The New Covenant has sometimes been equated with the covenant of grace. As the Confession remarks, 'the full discovery' of the covenant of grace 'was completed in the New Testament'. However, it is clear that the New Covenant was inaugurated in the events surrounding the first advent of Christ (Jer. 31:31; Heb 8:13). Thus it is crucial to maintain a clear distinction between the covenant of grace and the biblical, divine covenants. The divine covenants undoubtedly suggested this terminology, but no one of them ought to be equated with it.



Personally, I don't 100% agree with Waldron's construction of the covenants, so I'm not here to defend that.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 20, 2010)

brandonadams said:


> Bruce, have you ever read anything from Sam Waldron? Specifically, have you read what he has written about covenant theology? If not, then you should commit to listening on this thread instead of contributing (as you said, it would have been better for you to simply let Matthew speak for himself). Your entire argument rested upon your view of the Abrahamic covenant and what circumcision meant. If Waldron rejects your view, then he is not inconsistent. That was my point. All you have done is show how Waldron is inconsistent with your personal view of covenant theology, not his. If you can show where Waldron says salvation was most certainly claimed for some infants _because_ they were circumcised, then you may demonstrate his inconsistency. Until then, you're not helping anything.
> 
> Here is what Waldron says:
> 
> ...


 
Thanks, Brandon. It's helpful to have a subject under discussion in his own words. And yes, per my regretful admission, I was and am sorry for not listening instead of contributing, and for adding heat rather than light. Now, in fact what rested my argument upon is _*what Paul says that circumcision meant to Abraham*_, Rom.4:11 (even if one is committed to the idea that it meant such to him alone). And "I will be God to your descendants" is a covenant-statement in the immediate context to which Paul refers.

Does the Waldron excerpt, in your opinion, Brandon, reflect his own conviction/construction of covenant theology, or does it express the LBC construction, and the convictions of its framers? It seems that question is one of the reasons behind the present exchange. In other words,, the commentary may not always represent a "pristine" view, but incorporate elements of developments in theology, which is what I presumed Rev. Winzer to be arguing for. 

And with that, I will step away from the conversation entirely.


----------



## brandonadams (Oct 20, 2010)

> Does the Waldron excerpt, in your opinion, Brandon, reflect his own conviction/construction of covenant theology, or does it express the LBC construction, and the convictions of its framers? It seems that question is one of the reasons behind the present exchange. In other words,, the commentary may not always represent a "pristine" view, but incorporate elements of developments in theology, which is what I presumed Rev. Winzer to be arguing for.



It reflects his own personal construction. However, you may be surprised as to how that is so. (Matthew is way off in left field, which is why I want him to provide evidence for his claim about the "original framework") The view of the LBC is actually much closer to equating the New Covenant with the Covenant of Grace. This is what Waldron has in mind when he says "The New Covenant has sometimes been equated with the covenant of grace. As the Confession remarks, 'the full discovery' of the covenant of grace 'was completed in the New Testament'." I asked him about this and he confirmed that he had the LBC in mind, as well as Owen.

So yes, Waldron's comments do reflect his own conviction/construction, but his personal construction is much more influenced by his tremendous affinity for John Murray. Waldron's construction is actually a move further towards your view and away from the "original framework" of the LBC - not the other way around.


----------



## Bethel (Oct 20, 2010)

Rev. Buchanan,

Thank you very much for helping me step back and seeing the whole conflict of grace vs. works in Acts 15 rather than focusing on the specific issue of circumcision. Those verses take on a whole new light now.

In your post below, you suggest to the OP to settle his conception of covenant. That's probably good advice for me too. Do you (or anyone else) have any resources to help?

Blessings,


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 20, 2010)

Beth,
Some resources have been proposed above, notably brandonadams in #13, coming from the credo-baptist stance.

I'm partial to what is fairly termed the more traditionally Reformed and covenantal perspective. I think there is some excellent work by Thomas Boston,for example:
A view of the covenant of grace from ... - Google Books

See other sections of his works (I really wish this page had vol.12 on it, but it seems elusive)
http://www.puritanboard.com/f29/works-thomas-boston-online-28411/ , see volume 11, and the table of contents for a treatise on the covenant of Works


Let me explain what I'm talking about, though. The deep issue of covenant-theology, in my judgment, is not simply a matter of a particular way of understanding God's "method" of his dealings with mankind. It's not really a "structural" issue, as far as the literary nature of Scripture. It's is not a construct for defending some practice we like, or for finding a practice. It's possible that covenant theology can serve one or more of those interests legitimately, however, none of them get to the essence of covenant-theology.

The _employment_ of a "covenantalistic" idea, motif, or template can be done by all sorts of people who are not beginning with what I identify as the base principle. And that fact goes a long way to explaining why there can be quite a few competing expressions of "covenant-driven" theology. Let me also state, that although I think one _ought_ to start at the base principle which historically brought Covenant-Theology into being, I deny that simply being at this root makes it (ipso facto) the root of good theology. It is theoretically possible that such was a "back door" into a good interpretive idea, and the root of good theology lies elsewhere. But I don't think that's the case, which is why I defend it.

Covenant-theology describes, fundamentally, a wholistic method of reading, interpreting, and understanding the Bible. It begins with the assumption that the historical conditioning of the Bible, centered on a particular people, time, and place--the ancient Hebrew culture that forms and is formed by this sacred collection--that historic conditioning is _accidental_ to the _substantive_ message of the Bible, which is both unified and universal. Scripture begins by presenting a version of HUMAN history, from its beginning, and describing the universal sinful human condition in need of redemption. The purpose of salvation is presented initially as universal in scope, and not limited to the particular people to whom special revelation has been given--they as the means for realizing this end.

The universalistic impulse for Man's salvation comes to grand expression in the death and resurrection of Christ, the Promised One, when _immediately_ that gospel-message is proclaimed to the whole world, an accomplished fact worthy of hope by any and all to whom word of it comes. The center of everything in Scripture is demonstrated to be God's self-revelation as it pertains to Christ. So, for example, national Israel is important only so far as they are the protective and illustrative vehicle by which Christ is to come into the world (and by whose lawless, rejecting hands he will die for the sins of a world of elect people, not just those from among the Israelites). Once this has been finished, there is no remaining purpose for retaining the "dividing wall" between Jew and Gentile, and it is broken down and removed forever.

More can and should be said, but I have to go for now.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 20, 2010)

Contra_Mundum said:


> See other sections of his works (I really wish this page had vol.12 on it, but it seems elusive)
> Works of Thomas Boston Online , see volume 11, and the table of contents for a treatise on the covenant of Works



You can get them here in Libronix format: The Works of Thomas Boston - PBB Format | Truth is Still Truth

A link to get Libronix for free: Nelson Ministry Services Department: ''


----------



## MW (Oct 20, 2010)

brandonadams said:


> Matthew, I would still appreciate a precise statement regarding what you believe the LBC teaches about membership in the covenant of grace. Your accusation that modern baptist views of the covenant of grace are deviations from historic particular baptist views is a serious charge that you have failed to backup. Until you do, I consider it nothing more than slander.


 
I have already stated the difference and shown it from two principal documents -- the Confession and its Exposition. As matters stand we have the Confession stating that infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ and we have Waldron claiming otherwise. If you consider that to be "nothing more than slander" then obviously you are not prepared to deal with my posts in good faith and we have no basis for a profitable discussion.


----------



## MW (Oct 20, 2010)

nnatew24 said:


> Rev. Winzer - as Brandon pointed out, the Confession doesn't appear to link elect infants with believing parents. So my question to you would be: what Confessional evidence do we have to assert that only infants of believers are possibly elect? Do we have any evidence to suggest that an infant of unbelieving parents cannot possibly be one of the elect?


 
I'm gathering in context that this question is relative to the Baptist Confession, not Westminster. As far as the Baptist Confession is concerned infants as a class dying in infancy are elect. Westminster is more particular in its qualification of "elect infants." My concern is simply to show that primitive Baptist theology had a specific place for infants in its covenant theology. Modern antipaedobaptist polemic has been concerned with showing the differences of the new covenant in terms of covenant membership. As far as I can see there has been an alteration in the doctrine of infant salvation. As "Reformed Baptists" have been concerned to stress their "Reformed" commitment to covenant theology they have been constrained to provide a covenant rationale for their practice of excluding the infants of believers. It is this rationale which I believe has created a disconnect with past thought.

Your final question asks for "evidence." It is at this point where genuine reformed sacramentology speaks of the promissory sign as providing evidence and the importance of church ministry for dispensing the means of grace.


----------



## brandonadams (Oct 20, 2010)

> As matters stand we have the Confession stating that infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ



No we don't. We have the Confession saying that elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ. Waldron does not disagree that God can save infants.



> As far as the Baptist Confession is concerned infants as a class dying in infancy are elect.



Is it fair to say this is the source of your confusion? See here Frequently Asked Symbolics Questions: Elect Infants | The Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies
Waldron addresses this in his Exposition and he correctly quotes the Confession in his book as well, so I'm not sure where your confusion came from.
I stand by my statement that you do not know what you are talking about and you should not be making statements about what 17th century particular baptists believed, much less accusing modern baptists of deviation.


----------



## MW (Oct 20, 2010)

brandonadams said:


> > As matters stand we have the Confession stating that infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ
> 
> 
> 
> No we don't. We have the Confession saying that elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ. Waldron does not disagree that God can save infants.



On the textual question, if there has been an omission of "elect," I'm happy to accept the original; it is itself immaterial to the point I am making. The fact is that "elect" is omitted from the text as expounded by Waldron. And the fact remains the same that Waldron does not believe the Bible teaches what the Confession proposes.



brandonadams said:


> I stand by my statement that you do not know what you are talking about and you should not be making statements about what 17th century particular baptists believed, much less accusing modern baptists of deviation.


 
And I stand by my statement that you lack good faith.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 20, 2010)

Brandon,

As I see it, this is the root of the issue:


armourbearer said:


> His final point is to suggest that it is not wrong for God's children to believe that God frequently embraces their children in his saving purposes (p. 151). On what basis could they believe this if the Bible does not lead them to believe it


If, on the one hand, Waldron says that the "Bible is silent on this issue" regarding the salvation of infants then how can he come to a conclusion that it is "not wrong" for God's children to believe that God frequently embraces their children in his saving purposes?

Is this speculation on Waldron's part or does he ground this in Scripture?


----------



## brandonadams (Oct 20, 2010)

Rich,

I appreciate the attempt to mediate here. Let me first say that whatever Waldron is or is not saying, it is irrelevant as to the claim of modern baptist covenant membership deviation - and that is my primary concern here.

Second, it is speculation on Waldron's part based upon "general, biblical perspectives", as he himself implies.

---------- Post added at 06:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 PM ----------




> The fact is that "elect" is omitted from the text as expounded by Waldron.



What edition of Waldron's book are you referencing? My 2005 edition includes "elect" and Waldron discusses the issue of those who later removed "elect" in his comments on 10.3.



> Modern antipaedobaptist polemic has been concerned with showing the differences of the new covenant in terms of covenant membership. As far as I can see there has been an alteration in the doctrine of infant salvation.



1. 17th century antipaedobaptist polemic had the exact same concern. 17th century particular baptists also argued that only the elect are members of the new covenant. So there is no deviation here either.
2. You are incorrect in claiming there has been alternation regarding infant salvation, as demonstrated.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 20, 2010)

brandonadams said:


> Second, it is speculation on Waldron's part based upon "general, biblical perspectives", as he himself implies.


 
I guess what the point is that if one can only draw conclusions on the basis of God's Word then it is, in fact, "wrong" for God's children to believe that God frequently embraces their children for His saving purposes. Speculation would be ruled out of bounds for a basis of any knowledge concerning right or wrong according to the Confession.

It seems to me, at least, to be a departure on that point because the framers of the LBCF seemed to believe they had direct warrant, from the Word, to include infants dying in infancy among the elect and, by extension, in the CoG.


----------



## brandonadams (Oct 20, 2010)

> I guess what the point is that if one can only draw conclusions on the basis of God's Word then it is, in fact, "wrong" for God's children to believe that God frequently embraces their children for His saving purposes.



That's fine. But again, it's irrelevant to what is being asserted by Matthew. The confession does not state that believers should "believe that God frequently embraces their children for His saving purposes." So whether or not Waldron's position is tenable is separate from whether or not he is deviating from 17th century particular baptist views on infant salvation and covenant membership.



> they had direct warrant, from the Word, to include infants dying in infancy among the elect



Please see above. The LBC does not asset that infants dying in infancy will be saved. All the statement says is that it is possible, if an infant is elect, for them to be saved the same way we are.



> and, by extension, in the CoG.



And as I said previously, I agree that if an infant is elect they are saved and they are part of the CoG - and Waldron does not disagree. All the Confession says is that the Spirit moves how He wishes and if He wishes, He can regenerate an infant and save them.


----------



## MW (Oct 20, 2010)

brandonadams said:


> What edition of Waldron's book are you referencing? My 2005 edition includes "elect" and Waldron discusses the issue of those who later removed "elect" in his comments on 10.3.



My edition is 1989. There he states, "In the Westminster Confession the word 'elect' is present, while it is deleted in the 1689 Confession" (p. 149). It appears further light on the original wording of the Confession has led to revision in a later edition of his Exposition. Fair enough! But the extract you have provided from the new edition makes the same assertion which is in the 1989 edition, namely, an exception to the claim of the Confession relative to "elect infants."

The point here revolves around the question as to whether there are infants in the new covenant. The Confession is clear as to how "elect infants" are saved, that is, by Christ. As far as paedobaptist polemic is concerned this means there is a fixed truth that Baptists cannot dismiss, namely, that elect infants are members of the covenant of grace. On the basis of Waldron's Exposition, however, it is not possible to fix this truth precisely because it has been dismissed. If infants are saved, according to Waldron, it is on the basis of God's character and general considerations of God's saving purpose. The paedobaptist is now left without any certain knowledge as to how a particular Baptist conceives of the salvation of elect infants. It is at this juncture that a clear difference is detected.


----------



## brandonadams (Oct 20, 2010)

> The point here revolves around the question as to whether there are infants in the new covenant.



I understand that is what you are attempting to make it about. But Waldron does not deny that infants can be in the new covenant/CoG. So once again, you have created a problem where there is none.



> If infants are saved, according to Waldron, it is on the basis of God's character and general considerations of God's saving purpose.



And Waldron would absolutely affirm that this is accomplished through the New Covenant. If you believe otherwise, you have misread him. Waldron's discussion is entirely revolved around _our_ perspective. We cannot look to any covenantal promise that God will save our infants, but we can look to God's character, etc. That does not mean that an elect infant is not saved through covenant.


----------



## MW (Oct 20, 2010)

brandonadams said:


> We cannot look to any covenantal promise that God will save our infants, but we can look to God's character, etc. That does not mean that an elect infant is not saved through covenant.


 
"We admit also that baptism should be given to all who are members of the New Covenant" (p. 351, emphasis added).


----------



## brandonadams (Oct 20, 2010)

> "We admit also that baptism should be given to all who are members of the New Covenant"



So we should baptize elect infants who die in infancy?


----------



## MW (Oct 20, 2010)

brandonadams said:


> > "We admit also that baptism should be given to all who are members of the New Covenant"
> 
> 
> 
> So we should baptize elect infants who die in infancy?


 
Why are you asking someone whom, according to your opinion, doesn't know what he is talking about and has no right to point out divergent views amongst Baptists?


----------



## brandonadams (Oct 20, 2010)

> Why are you asking someone whom, according to your opinion, doesn't know what he is talking about and has no right to point out divergent views amongst Baptists?



Because you're continuing to persist in your unwarranted accusation and misrepresentation of reformed baptists. (Btw, the question was rhetorical)


----------



## MW (Oct 20, 2010)

brandonadams said:


> (Btw, the question was rhetorical)


 
Right; I should have known.

If you ever change your high-minded opinion, let me know and we might be able to discuss the subject to some advantage.


----------



## brandonadams (Oct 20, 2010)

> If you ever change your high-minded opinion, let me know and we might be able to discuss the subject to some advantage.



Likewise.

In case there is a need to clarify, the question was rhetorical because we cannot know which infants dying in infancy are elect, therefore we cannot know which to baptize.

Waldron's statement that we should baptize all members of the New Covenant was very obviously made from the standpoint of human knowledge and judgment. If Waldron knew which infants were elect, he would baptize them.


----------



## Bethel (Oct 21, 2010)

I wanted to thank you all for the links and discussion on this topic. I haven't had a chance to look at all of the information cited here yet, but I will take some time this weekend to do that. Much of this conversation is over my head, but hopefully, it will make more sense as I continue to study God's Word.

I also wanted to say that I believe God's word is infallible, so I didn't mean to imply that I think Acts 15 is lacking, nor am I insisting that it SHOULD have said something. My point was just that Acts 15 didn't say that circumcision replaced baptism when that chapter dealt specifically with the controversy of circumcision in the NT church.

I've thought about just letting the topic of baptism go since my youngest is 8, and we're way past the time to decide whether or not to baptize our babies, but then I remembered that we will have grandchildren one of these days...

So, what do paedo-baptists do with adult converts like myself? Do you allow for credo-baptism after the infant stage? I grew up in an unbelieving home, so there's no way that I would have been baptized as an infant, but I consider myself one of God's elect now. I apologize if the overly simplistic questions, but prior to a year ago, I thought that only Roman Catholics (and Episcopalians) baptized babies because it was a sacrament required for salvation. Paedo-baptism in the reformed faith as a non-salvation sacrament is a whole new ballgame for me.

I do adhere to the WCF, but I will admit that I struggle with Chapter 28 Of Baptism part IV which states that "infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized and part V which states "that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."

Blessings,


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 21, 2010)

Beth,
No one thinks ill of your questions. I did not think or say you thought Act.15 or any Scripture lacking.


Bethel said:


> So, what do paedo-baptists do with adult converts like myself? Do you allow for credo-baptism after the infant stage?


This might sound odd to someone with your background and knowledge base, but we believe no one should be baptized _again_ who was once baptized. Now, a Baptist will not think a baby was ever baptized--not by us or by the sacerdotalists (Rome, etc.). But that has to do at least in part with the order of things that is very important to the Baptist view of the ordinance.

Not everyone who has been so-called "baptized" (whether old or young) has really been baptized. We might not recognize many sects' and certainly not cults' baptisms. But the most vital thing is not WHO baptized or WHERE or HOW, but can we see it having any connection to the Christian church and the sacrament Christ instituted? And we believe in ONE baptism per person.

But a new believer? Yes, when he confesses his faith publicly--on his credo (Latin: "I believe"), he should be baptized. You should be baptized, if you never have been before.



Bethel said:


> I grew up in an unbelieving home, so there's no way that I would have been baptized as an infant, but I consider myself one of God's elect now. I apologize if the overly simplistic questions, but prior to a year ago, I thought that only Roman Catholics (and Episcopalians) baptized babies because it was a sacrament required for salvation. Paedo-baptism in the reformed faith as a non-salvation sacrament is a whole new ballgame for me.


Praise the Lord.

If I have any counsel for you based on this paragraph, it would not be "get more information on infant-baptism." No, it would be: When your assurance of election wanes (inevitably confidence ebbs and flows), look to the promises of God unto FAITH for sinners, and believe them. Election is a foundation under the house you live in by faith. You show your confidence in the foundation when you remain in the house, not because you can see what is buried in the hidden things of God. He told us the foundation is there. We can believe him on that as well.



Bethel said:


> I do adhere to the WCF, but I will admit that I struggle with Chapter 28 Of Baptism part IV which states that "infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized and part V which states "that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."


The first part you read is a part that a credo-baptist will not agree with.

The second part you have misread, I think. Note the NEGATIVE particle:


> 28.5. ... grace and salvation are *not* so inseparably annexed unto [baptism], as ... that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.


 In other words, the paragraph is actually stating the contrary to what you seem to have thought. We do not believe that every baptized person is most certainly, or shall be, a participant in the new birth.

Blessings.


----------



## Bethel (Oct 21, 2010)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The second part you have misread, I think. Note the NEGATIVE particle:
> 
> 
> > 28.5. ... grace and salvation are *not* so inseparably annexed unto [baptism], as ... that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
> ...



Rev Buchanan--You're quite right. I was definitely reading that through my presuppositions on infant baptism. You have been very helpful and patient as I think aloud.

Particular Baptist--My apologies for intruding on your thread.


----------

