# Conditionality in the Davidic Covenant



## JTB.SDG (Jan 29, 2019)

Psalm 132:12 says: "If your sons will keep My covenant and My testimony which I will teach them, their sons also shall sit upon your throne forever."

David seems to refer to this in 1 Kings 2:1-4, where he urges his son Solomon to obey the Lord in light of the fact that the Lord had said: "If your sons are careful of their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel." (v4).

Here it's conditional. But elsewhere, the perpetuity of David's throne is an unconditional promise (2 Samuel 7:16). How are we to understand the difference in requirement between these texts (conditional vs unconditional)?

And how are we to understand the specific nature of this condition in the Davidic Covenant? And then especially, seeing that this covenant belongs to the Covenant of Grace, what are the inferences and applications for us?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 29, 2019)

The unconditional belongs to the Promised Seed alone. Man strives and fails. Only God Strives (y'Isra-El) and succeeds.

In effect, the primary kingly line does experience failure, on account of the exile. They failed to keep that covenant. However, as Luke's genealogy shows, David has by then multiple lines of attestable descendants of the blood, in addition to the legitimate royal succession line recorded in Matthew. The continuation of the latter (even outside the presence of an actual throne) and the former, is a consequent necessity of fulfilling the Promise. David still gets his forever-Heir _in spite of _the apparent failure of the throne to maintain the covenant.

David's physical sons sit on the throne--both the good ones and the bad--because God in his mercy means to bring a Savior-King into the world by it. In the end, it's all of grace, even for those sons deemed to have "walked in the ways of David, his father." Only the One True Heir fulfills the covenant, and is entitled to the "sure mercies of David."

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## brandonadams (Jan 29, 2019)

> How are we to understand the difference in requirement between these texts (conditional vs unconditional)?
> 
> And how are we to understand the specific nature of this condition in the Davidic Covenant?



In my reading, the Westminster view would see the conditional element as representing the conditional nature of every administration of the Covenant of Grace. It is simply man's required restipulation and everything that involves. For example, Obadiah Sedgewick quotes Ps 89:31-33 to explain the concept of fatherly chastisement in the Covenant of Grace. https://books.google.com/books?id=Z...ick covenant&pg=PA368#v=onepage&q=rod&f=false (Keep in mind they understood the national aspect to continue today). The unconditional promise is salvation in Christ.

Personally I don't hold that view. I know you're asking for a Westminster answer, so I don't want to hijack the thread, but if you are interested (in case it may still be of help to you), I see the conditional aspect of the Davidic Covenant related to the typological kingdom of Israel. National Israel's tenure in the land becomes conditioned not merely on the obedience of the entire nation, but upon the obedience of the king as representative of the entire nation. David is promised that he will have a son sit on this typological throne in the land of Canaan forever, upon the condition that they continue to hold fast to and obey Mosaic law. If they do not, they will lose the kingdom. This is precisely what happened. The kingdom was torn in two. Judah was spared, but after a few generations the Davidic throne was lost and never regained. So many of the reiterations of the Davidic promise, like Ps 132, have that part in view. 2 Sam 7:12-15 has this typological kingdom in view, as David understood (1 Chron 28:7). However, v16 goes on to say that even when David's son sins (thus breaking the condition of an ongoing throne in Canaan forever), David's throne will still be established forever. Thus David saw a promise of Christ's anti-typological throne that would be established in spite of his immediate son(s) disobedience (and thus loss of the throne). I unpack the argument for that here if you're interested https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2018/06/13/the-sure-mercies-of-david/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 30, 2019)

JTB.SDG said:


> Psalm 132:12 says: "If your sons will keep My covenant and My testimony which I will teach them, their sons also shall sit upon your throne forever."
> 
> David seems to refer to this in 1 Kings 2:1-4, where he urges his son Solomon to obey the Lord in light of the fact that the Lord had said: "If your sons are careful of their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel." (v4).
> 
> ...



For what my thoughts are worth, not as well-studied as others, it looks to me rather similar to the covenant with Abraham--it is established graciously in Genesis 15 upon no conditions at all, then reiterated in Genesis 17 with an injunction to be holy. But even in Genesis 17, it's not in Abraham's power to keep the Law but in God being El-Shaddai, the all-powerful one who can and will deliver all that Abraham needs. I don't think it stops the covenant from being originally gracious.

Not even the New Covenant avoids conditional language. "If by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the body you will live." "Pursue holiness without which none will see the Lord." The reason is that the pathway to heaven is a pathway of holiness, not because the New Covenant is only effective if we obey. It's that no man has any right to expect any blessing from God if he will not be holy. Pilgrim was converted, but if he did not walk the appointed way, he was not going to reach heaven, because the New Covenant pathway to heaven was no other path than a way of holiness.

So even if the conditional language was not used, would it still make sense to say that if David was not a holy man, nor any of his sons (taking Christ out of the picture for a moment), that the line would be established anyway?

My own thoughts, but I'd like to learn and understand more myself too.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 30, 2019)

Harley said:


> For what my thoughts are worth, not as well-studied as others, it looks to me rather similar to the covenant with Abraham--it is established graciously in Genesis 15 upon no conditions at all, then reiterated in Genesis 17 with an injunction to be holy. But even in Genesis 17, it's not in Abraham's power to keep the Law but in God being El-Shaddai, the all-powerful one who can and will deliver all that Abraham needs. I don't think it stops the covenant from being originally gracious.
> 
> Not even the New Covenant avoids conditional language. "If by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the body you will live." "Pursue holiness without which none will see the Lord." The reason is that the pathway to heaven is a pathway of holiness, not because the New Covenant is only effective if we obey. It's that no man has any right to expect any blessing from God if he will not be holy. Pilgrim was converted, but if he did not walk the appointed way, he was not going to reach heaven, because the New Covenant pathway to heaven was no other path than a way of holiness.
> 
> ...


Harley,

I like where you're going with it. I think that's definitely a biblical truth. Obedience is the path that leads to life; it doesn't save you but you can't be saved without it. Genesis 17 I see as a tad bit different, since in the original there's no "If". That particular Scripture doesn't seem to be a condition per se, but just a command: "Abraham, I've saved you; now then, walk in My ways." But there is the "If" language in other Scriptures, like the one you quoted in Romans, that do speak to this truth that the path of obedience is the path of life; godliness holds promise for life.

I think that's definitely true. Is that what Scripture is getting at though here with David? The Scriptures I can think of that speak to the truth you're referring to are set in the language of "If you, then you." Whereas here with David, it seems a little more nuanced/complicated. "If your SONS do such and such, then I will do what I've promised to YOU" (1 Kings 2:4); or "If your SONS do such and such, then THEIR sons will sit upon your throne."

Here is my best stab at it; I'd love feedback on this. I think what Bruce said is the overarching principle; the promise is unconditional as it speaks of Christ, the Heir; though it is conditional to a degree as it speaks of David's heirs (lower case), and in this way in particular: If David's sons hold fast to the Lord (this is an evangelical command--faith in Christ as expressed in and through a holy life), then, along with the Lord doing what He had promised unconditionally--namely, causing the Messiah to come forth from David and exalt His singular throne forever (the kernel)--then the Lord will also allow David's more earthly physical kingdom (the husk) to be the platform by which that gospel is administered; IE, the Lord will continue to allow His gospel to be administered on earth in and through David's throne. But if David's sons forsake the Lord, the Lord will abolish David's (earthly) throne at Jerusalem, which is of course exactly what He did in the exile.

Here's where I think it connects with the new covenant: It's the same principle that we see in Revelation 2-3, where Christ speaks to the churches: If a church continues to remain true to the Lord, He will cause it to flourish and grow; but if it falls into apostasy, He will remove the lampstand (Rev. 2:5) and cast it out of His presence, as He did with Judah at the exile. Tying in with all this, Leviticus 14 talks about what to do when an entire house is infected with leprosy--if the leprosy is chronic it must be torn down and thrown to an unclean place outside the city (vv40-42). The house of David had developed leprosy that wasn't going away--it seemed to just get worse and worse. So that the Lord was forced to tear it down and cast it away to Babylon. But again, the same principle is there for us--this is one of the warnings in seed-form INCLUDED in the Covenant of Grace: that if God would not spare the house of David because of ongoing unrepentance, He will not spare dealing in the same way with any church in the new covenant either.

Thoughts?


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jan 31, 2019)

JTB.SDG said:


> Harley,
> 
> I like where you're going with it. I think that's definitely a biblical truth. Obedience is the path that leads to life; it doesn't save you but you can't be saved without it. Genesis 17 I see as a tad bit different, since in the original there's no "If". That particular Scripture doesn't seem to be a condition per se, but just a command: "Abraham, I've saved you; now then, walk in My ways." But there is the "If" language in other Scriptures, like the one you quoted in Romans, that do speak to this truth that the path of obedience is the path of life; godliness holds promise for life.
> 
> ...



I like how you explained it here. Hadn't thought of the churches in Revelation 2-3 in that manner either. The church will not fail and so the CG will never fail, and Christ's mediation will never fail, although individuals and congregations may fail. Individuals and churches too per Romans 11. Hebrews needs no mention as confirmation of this idea. The Father has sworn by His own word that the elect will never fall away and that the promise to us in the AC through Christ "to be God to [us]" would not fail. 

So the New Covenant hasn't become conditional--the rule applies here that has applied through all time in all ages: Psalm 5, "Evildoers thou dost hate, liars thou wilt bring to nought." Repentance isn't embedded in the NC as the qualifier for the merits of Christ or the thing which brings the blessings to us, but it's embedded in the nature of God that He must eventually fully deal with impenitence. If God cannot spare it in the wicked, much less can He spare it in His children, and an exhortation in every single covenant---Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, New--- is all the more applicable for us being His children. God let the Amorites get by for 400 years before destroying them; chastisement came to Israel almost immediately when they left Egypt, and the NC church in Corinth was getting dangerously close to a more severe chastisement than what they already had, namely people dying from unworthily partaking of the Supper. So, if God cannot bless the wicked, He _cannot_ and _will not_ bless us in a way of wickedness. As Gary Hendrix from Mebane NC had said in a sermon, there is _no _covenant protection anywhere for a man who chooses to continue to live in sin.

Concerning Abraham's covenant, if I asserted that there was a conditional aspect, it's not from there being an "if... then" clause, but that funny little vav that gets translated "_that_ I may establish my covenant with you." So, conditional is meant here in a very loose sense. As much as fire can't abide in the rain, God's blessing can't abide where there is sin. Though I think Genesis 15, by all that's promised an all that happens makes it so plain that this is a gracious unconditional covenant. Even the name El Shaddai, meaning it would be by not the power of Abraham but the power of God that all things in the covenant would come to pass. It would be all the power of God; but conditional or unconditional there was no way Abraham's line would be established if he refused to obey God's command to sacrifice Isaac.

I hope I've been of some help, but I think this is all so say I agree with the outlook, so maybe something in here will help you develop your ideas further.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 31, 2019)

Harley said:


> God cannot bless the wicked, He _cannot_ and _will not_ bless us in a way of wickedness.


This is a very important truth. It is illustrated to the people of God way back in Genesis 27-28. Jacob sought the spiritual, covenant blessing of his father; and stooped to carnal, wicked means--deceit and thievery--to obtain it. Of course, it was God's intent that he should be the one blessed, and not Esau.

But Jacob did not wait on the Lord (as later, see the example of David vs. Saul). I suppose at that moment he was yet a man of little or no true faith in the God of his father Abraham, the Fear of his father Isaac. And for his spiritual chastisement and development, he was sent into Exile, away from the Promised Land, until he should learn that spiritual blessings are not to be sought, and they will surely not be given, when the means chosen to get them are sinful.

Jacob's exile was filled with all kinds of carnal abuses he suffered. At the same time, it was also filled with the grace and the hand of God, who turned all his adversity into blessing. Jacob grew in his understanding of waiting on the Lord and listening to his Spirit. Jacob's amateur deceit was more than matched by his ruthless uncle. Laban only understood Jacob's blessing in carnal terms, and he interpreted Jacob's God in terms of his idol gods. By dominating Jacob, the blessings would roll to him. And so it seemed to go for a while.

But the Lord is *nothing* like Laban's idols (ironically stolen out of his house). Jacob prospered in spite of his uncle, by relying on the wisdom of God. Jacob escaped with his family and property--not a hoof left behind (Ex.10:26), departing from there when the Lord told him it was high time, a presage of Israel escaping Egypt. Jacob returned to the Land a very different man--not just in very different circumstances (Gen.32:10).

Jacob's story would be very different, if God had simply overlooked the elect son's self-chosen path. Jacob twice proved he was the *stronger* brother, pursuing a "theology of glory" (Luther). When he met Esau again, he presented himself only in the humility of a "theology of the cross."

Esau got him his own kingdom, a "successful" pursuit of earthly glory. He got it without either the blessing or the birthright, by the strength of his own arm (and whatever part of his brother's inheritance he used while it was wholly under his management). He broke off his brother's yoke, the bonds of the covenant. He gained the whole world, and lost his soul.

Jacob continued a pilgrim, as were his fathers, looking for a better city. He obtained what could only be gained by grace through patience and godly hope.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 12, 2019)

I have been reflecting on these comments here as someone who has been in Reformed Baptist churches at various times. The Reformed Baptist argument is that the New Covenant cannot fail (Christ is mediator of the NC). Hence we baptise only believers. But I see a problem. We are still the yet/not yet. We don't know infallibly who is in the New Covenant. Thus the paedobaptist position is better here. Just like there is conditionality in the Davidic Covenant, s there is conditionality in the external aspect of the New Covenant. Did I get that right?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 12, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> The Reformed Baptist argument is that the New Covenant cannot fail (Christ is mediator of the NC). Hence we baptise only believers. But I see a problem. We are still the yet/not yet. We don't know infallibly who is in the New Covenant.Thus the paedobaptist position is better here. Just like there is conditionality in the Davidic Covenant, s there is conditionality in the external aspect of the New Covenant. Did I get that right?



No, not quite, sad to say.

Reformed Baptists are well aware that we cannot know _infallibly_ who is in the New Covenant. We are well aware that there are false professors who are among us but are not of us, and shall one day go out from us. We do not "baptize only believers". That's impossible.

Rather, we baptize those who make a _profession of faith_, because we believe that this is the rule given by Christ in scripture to determine who is to be baptized.

Being baptized upon a profession of faith and joining the visible church as a member is _not _the same thing to us as being a member of the New Covenant. Only actual, repentant, regenerated members of God's elect are in the New Covenant. Those who walk among us as professing Christians who will nevertheless wind up in hell may be "visible saints", but they are no more "members" of the New Covenant than an illegal alien with a fake birth certificate is a citizen of the United States. They are liars and frauds.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 12, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Reformed Baptists are well aware that we cannot know _infallibly_ who is in the New Covenant.


Yes. I did a week long school of theology based on the 1689 Baptist confession a few years ago, so I am well aware of this issue.


SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Rather, we baptize those who make a _profession of faith_, because we believe that this is the rule given by Christ in scripture to determine who is to be baptized.


Our Lord had Judas as a disciple. Was our Lord not telling us about the yet/not yet aspect of eschatology?



SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Being baptized upon a profession of faith and joining the visible church as a member is _not _the same thing to us as being a member of the New Covenant.


Agreed. But does this not mean the Reformed Baptist position on the New Covenant does not have an 'advantage' over the paedobaptist position?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 12, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Those who walk among us as professing Christians who will nevertheless wind up in hell may be "visible saints", but they are no more "members" of the New Covenant than an illegal alien with a fake birth certificate is a citizen of the United States. They are liars and frauds.


The analogy works... up to a point. But what you end up saying is that 1) every citizen--every last one--is a formal-oath-taking naturalized citizen who first owns a foreign registry before repudiating it; and 2) every single one of those, who ends up departing the fellowship--voluntarily, involuntarily, under discipline; anything less than his death--came in lying to deceive, with willful malicious intent.

I realize that some parents tell their children: they may be their blood, but spiritually they are something like street urchins living under their roof, until they show a desire to follow from the heart the path the parents earlier chose (each for him/herself). Obviously, you can't tell your child _inclusively_, "WE are Christians," when ecclesially the little ones are certainly NOT (under this rule). Not like you can say to them, "We are Americans."

But then too, not every American who turns a traitor began (self-consciously) to lie about his allegiance. You may blame a deep-founded fault, buried under the crust for his eventual denial of his first-claimed identity, but you surely can't say that in reality he began as a foreign agent. Nor can you say he was a man without a country, before he chose once and chose again.

So, does every man who proves him a false-professor have his fingers _knowingly_ crossed behind his back? The objective difference between Jim and Bob on day one of their professions may be indiscernible to anyone, including themselves. So then, one is toting false naturalization papers, a forged new-birth certificate? Who gives him that token?

Again, if the Holy Spirit is the sole Agent of administration of the New Covenant, then nothing the church says or does is technically "official," in any meaningful sense. If they gave him a baptismal certificate, but he isn't really a child of God, then WHO is responsible for his carrying around false papers? Note, I'm not saying that he isn't a traitor--he IS. Or that he isn't an interloper taking advantage of the trust others accord the tokens he bears. But whence the tokens?

Calling him an "illegal alien," and his passport a forgery, makes the church that issued such a notice hardly different from the forger, or a one-hour copier shop doing a print job, or a newspaper just broadcasting the latest statistics. Baptismal notices are like a press-release; definitely not an official identification. And if the argument follows: _Well, it IS official, when the man really means it,_ then what's really being said is that the arbiter of official activity is the individual.

But that's tantamount to saying" _My paperwork is legit, if I say it is. _Right? Because the database with the ultimate facts is only accessible to the Holy Spirit. And because the man can invalidate the paperwork by ripping it up, or owning it as worthless. It can't be just one way, can it? It can't be that he has authority to invalidate his claim, but lacks the authority to validate it. That's incoherent.

I guess, you might be right to say I'm being pedantic, to find more disanalogy than analogy in the comparison. What I'm asking for is a tightening of the language of the comparison. It seems to break down as soon as you find the source of his documents isn't a back-street peddler, or the office copying machine after hours.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 12, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Yes. I did a week long school of theology based on the 1689 Baptist confession a few years ago, so I am well aware of this issue.



Then I am unsure why you said the things you said if you already knew this.

If I am missing something or misunderstood you, please accept my apology.



> Our Lord had Judas as a disciple. Was our Lord not telling us about the yet/not yet aspect of eschatology?



What is there about Judas being a disciple of Jesus that you think is so damaging to the RB view of the nature of the New Covenant, vis a vis the "already / not yet" distinction?



> Agreed. But does this not mean the Reformed Baptist position on the New Covenant does not have an 'advantage' over the paedobaptist position?



The position that is correct and accurately reflects the truths of scripture has an advantage over the position that is incorrect and does not accurately reflect the truths of scripture.

Since I am a Reformed Baptist, I suppose it should come as no shock that I think the RB position is correct and the PB position is not.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Feb 12, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The analogy works... up to a point.



That's the nature of _all_ analogies. Mine is certainly no special case.

Here's my favorite meta-analogy: "Analogies are like rubber bands. They break if you stretch them too far."

The relationship between a believer (or an unbeliever) and the New Covenant is _kinda like_ the relationship between a true citizen (or an illegal alien) and a country, but it's not _exactly _like it, and I never wanted to suggest otherwise. Mainly because there is no other thing like the New Covenant than the New Covenant.

Nevertheless, please forgive me for not responding to the rest of your post in detail, brother. I certainly mean no slight or disrespect to you (or the amount of effort you put into typing it), but I do believe that most of what you said is a byproduct of stretching the analogy until it breaks.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 12, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> That's the nature of _all_ analogies. Mine is certainly no special case.
> 
> Here's my favorite meta-analogy: "Analogies are like rubber bands. They break if you stretch them too far."
> 
> ...


I accept your letting-it-go, without any of that attendance I'd like to see. And no slight or disrespect to you, either. Each of us has a valuable store of time.

On the other hand, it is because I think the citizenship analogy is actually helpful, whether we're talking about naturalized or confirmed citizens--one or the other or both--that I think it's worth using the best language, no matter what stance we take on what is proper.

The Kingdom of God is Jesus' terminology. It has roots in the national concept of Israel, the chosen people. Citizen of heaven is Pauline language, Php.3:20; cf. Eph.2:19. So, I imagine we'd expect a robust analogy stretching forth, and not (I think) a weak, thin rubber band type. Why not scrounge for a more precise expression in the same vein, and strengthen the _biblically rooted _analogy? 

I think the Presbyterian view deserves a good challenge, a clearly stated alternative, perhaps even a rebuttal to his contention. Peace.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 12, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Then I am unsure why you said the things you said if you already knew this.


Just rethinking my position.


SeanPatrickCornell said:


> The position that is correct and accurately reflects the truths of scripture has an advantage over the position that is incorrect and does not accurately reflect the truths of scripture.


I am not sure you got the nuance of my argument. This thread is about the conditionality in the Davidic covenant. My argument was it seems to me paedobaptists better understand the yet/not yet argument. I have read James White's article "the newness of the New Covenant" where I think he misses the yet/not yet tension. For White to be consistent he has say all who are baptized are in the New Covenant to make the "newness" aspect of the New Covenant to work. But he cannot say that. Thee is a 'not yet' aspect.

I am simply saying the argument is simply more nuanced than the argument I often hear from Baptists.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 13, 2019)

JTB.SDG said:


> Psalm 132:12 says: "If your sons will keep My covenant and My testimony which I will teach them, their sons also shall sit upon your throne forever."
> 
> David seems to refer to this in 1 Kings 2:1-4, where he urges his son Solomon to obey the Lord in light of the fact that the Lord had said: "If your sons are careful of their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel." (v4).
> 
> ...


God promise to David to have one of His own always setting upon the throne of Israel was unconditional, as that final and Ultimate fulfillment was King Jesus, but until Him, the Kings would be dependent upon how they obeyed the Lord and His revealed ways...


----------



## deleteduser99 (Feb 14, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> What is there about Judas being a disciple of Jesus that you think is so damaging to the RB view of the nature of the New Covenant, vis a vis the "already / not yet" distinction?



I hope Stephen won't mind me replying concerning Judas. I have many thoughts on it because the mediation of Christ in the NC was probably the very strongest argument for credobaptism in my mind and the one I struggled with the most, and it's not an argument to take lightly either. The salvific mediation of Christ must be very strictly guarded to prevent the preaching of a false Gospel. And FYI I'm in the busy season of my work, so if I reply little or at all please take it as no disrespect brother. This may be worth splitting into another thread.

Judas is an interesting case because if there could have been any case where Jesus could have made it clear that the NT church on earth is for the regenerate only, and false believers have no part in the visible church regardless their temporary outward conformity, it would have been in the expulsion of Judas from the apostleship. After all his baptism was invalid because there was no real faith mixed with it. This was the place to demonstrate that Christ gives absolutely no New Covenant mediation or blessing at all--spiritual or outward--to the unconverted.

However, it's entirely the opposite: not only does Jesus take Judas at his word despite knowing Judas' heart and knowing he was a son of destruction, Jesus even trains him for the very highest office in the New Testament church. Christ as the head of the church and mediator of the New Covenant gives to Judas a degree of discipleship and teaching that none of us will ever have in this life. Christ in His mediation prophesies to Judas through teaching, and as Mediator He acts as king over Judas putting him under His own governance and training him as a governor. I fully grant that there is no priestly mediation to Judas or he would have been saved, though I also hold that any deliverance of the will of God and governance of professors of faith in the visible church is managed, mediated, directed by Christ--ie. He directs all the New Testament ordinances (and Old, but that's another discussion), spiritually and outwardly, in true churches including how and to whom they will be delivered. 

So is Judas not really a member of the visible church because he's false? If so, that's not how Jesus is treating him. Judas teaches, preaches, heals just like any of the other 12, all which power came from Jesus. Are only the regenerate disciples? Then It's a mystery why he is called a disciple. Was he not really part of the church? Ps 109:8, "Let another take his office." The remaining disciples perceived an office vacancy after his suicide.

Now when I was a Baptist I held that the unregenerate must be rebaptized if they've been baptized before (I was baptized three times, second one was by a person not called to eldership and I wonder if I was still unconverted then). I said that the church is only for the regenerate, but since we don't know who are truly regenerate we go based upon profession. Christ does not have that problem and knew Judas was a devil. So if the unregenerate need to be rebaptized, why doesn't Jesus call Judas to repent, believe, and be rebaptized, rather than let Judas be part of the professing church until the last 24 hours of his life? But Christ in establishing the governance of the visible NT church does not do it.

So for the visible/invisible distinction, if none exists in the NT church, why did Christ treat Judas as a church citizen under its governance? It can't be in virtue of Judas being an Israelite if the church is not the continuation of Israel (don't know if this is your view). But if they weren't in the NT church until the outpouring of the Spirit, then what's this in-between transitional organization, and why wouldn't it be setup the way that the NT church would be? It'd be very strange to say Christ wasn't doing it as head of the church; but if not, I'm not sure in what other capacity Christ would disciple Judas.

I do hope none of this comes off as combative, forums can be too impersonal for discussions, but I sincerely do want to know your response too. And again it's my busy season, so don't be surprised if my participation is minimal. God bless brother.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 14, 2019)

Harley said:


> I hope Stephen won't mind me replying concerning Judas. I have many thoughts on it because the mediation of Christ in the NC was probably the very strongest argument for credobaptism in my mind and the one I struggled with the most, and it's not an argument to take lightly either. The salvific mediation of Christ must be very strictly guarded to prevent the preaching of a false Gospel. And FYI I'm in the busy season of my work, so if I reply little or at all please take it as no disrespect brother. This may be worth splitting into another thread.
> 
> Judas is an interesting case because if there could have been any case where Jesus could have made it clear that the NT church on earth is for the regenerate only, and false believers have no part in the visible church regardless their temporary outward conformity, it would have been in the expulsion of Judas from the apostleship. After all his baptism was invalid because there was no real faith mixed with it. This was the place to demonstrate that Christ gives absolutely no New Covenant mediation or blessing at all--spiritual or outward--to the unconverted.
> 
> ...


Baptists assume that there shall be both wheat and tares in the pews on every Sunday in any local church, but the belief is just that those who have received Jesus as Lord through faith are included under the NC proper.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 14, 2019)

Harley said:


> I hope Stephen won't mind me replying concerning Judas. I have many thoughts on it because the mediation of Christ in the NC was probably the very strongest argument for credobaptism in my mind and the one I struggled with the most, and it's not an argument to take lightly either.


Thank you Harley. You have actually been a big help and I do appreciate your gracious approach.

I have been thinking in much the same lines so you have helped my thinking on the relationship between Christ's mediation and Judas.



Harley said:


> This may be worth splitting into another thread.


Agreed - especially if others want to continue the discussion.



Harley said:


> Judas is an interesting case because if there could have been any case where Jesus could have made it clear that the NT church on earth is for the regenerate only, and false believers have no part in the visible church regardless their temporary outward conformity, it would have been in the expulsion of Judas from the apostleship. After all his baptism was invalid because there was no real faith mixed with it. This was the place to demonstrate that Christ gives absolutely no New Covenant mediation or blessing at all--spiritual or outward--to the unconverted.


Again I agree I used to argue that ch 7 of the 1689 Confession had some real strengths from a confessional Reformed position. 7:1 agrees with the WCF. But 7:2 and 7:3 are very unique. The 1689 confession seems to give better development than the WCF re the pactum salutis, the historia salutis and the ordo salutis. This logically leads to believers baptism. Further the Historic-Redemptive approach of 7:2 and 7:3 suggests the 1689 Confession was Vossian before Vos arrived. Lane @greenbaggins would be astonished I would use such an argument 

But when I thought more deeply I realised Reformed Baptists do not baptise believers. They baptise professing believers. The argument unravels that point. What if they baptised Judas? Was he a disciple or a professing disciple? This is where my thinking ties in wth yours I think.

From my part I am still thinking through the implications of this. Some of the 1689 Federalist arguments are quite robust. Eg, https://contrast2.wordpress.com/


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 15, 2019)

Harley said:


> not only does Jesus take Judas at his word despite knowing Judas' heart and knowing he was a son of destruction, Jesus even trains him for the very highest office in the New Testament church. Christ as the head of the church and mediator of the New Covenant gives to Judas a degree of discipleship and teaching that none of us will ever have in this life.





Harley said:


> Are only the regenerate disciples? Then It's a mystery why he is called a disciple. Was he not really part of the church? Ps 109:8, "Let another take his office." The remaining disciples perceived an office vacancy after his suicide.


I must have skimmed over these comments before. You make some important points. More for me to reflect on


----------



## deleteduser99 (Feb 15, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I must have skimmed over these comments before. You make some important points. More for me to reflect on



Quick thought, and I appreciate your words, I could see it being argued that this was an unique time in redemptive history, and Jesus was modeling what He would have us to do, and in my points we are talking about things which only Jesus Himself would be able to do. But even so, Jesus still treats Judas as a member of the church, and even as a potential officer of the NT church, and gives gifts accordingly. That's merciful and frightening all at once, that the kindness and longsuffering of Christ should have led Judas to repentance but did not.

I think I owe a debt to Dr. James White too for his arguments on the mediation of Christ. He did send a clear message in his debate with Strawbridge that whatever our covenant theology, whatever our view of the church, the nature of the work of Christ for His elect and the comfort of Christ's intercession must be zealously guarded. So though I might disagree with him on outward administration, his arguments have guarded me against conflating the visible with the invisible, Christ's administration of outward ordinances with administration of inward realities, and thus commiting the Roman Catholic error.


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 15, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> This logically leads to believers baptism. Further the Historic-Redemptive approach of 7:2 and 7:3 suggests the 1689 Confession was Vossian before Vos arrived. Lane @greenbaggins would be astonished I would use such an argument



I realize that you are trying to be a bit light-hearted here, but I do think some clarification is needed. Seeing redemptive-historical progression in Scripture is indeed something Vos is famous for expounding. However, when it comes to covenant theology, Vos plainly sees the development as coming in an overall context of the continuity of the covenants of grace, which can also be described as iterations of the same covenant of grace from the promise to Adam onwards. If you have the collection of essays _Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation_, read his article on the history of covenant theology (worth the price of admission, in my opinion).

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 18, 2019)

Harley said:


> I think I owe a debt to Dr. James White too for his arguments on the mediation of Christ. He did send a clear message in his debate with Strawbridge that whatever our covenant theology, whatever our view of the church, the nature of the work of Christ for His elect and the comfort of Christ's intercession must be zealously guarded.


Agreed.

But I think James White helped me to 'weaken' my RB convictions. He brought it back to the New Covenant. However, if Reformed Baptists do not infallably baptise those in the New Covenant as I noted earlier, I cannot see the advantage of his argument.

Where I still battle is looking at the clear statements of the New Testament. The WCF states that "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament". Every statement in the New Testament tells us to believe and be baptised. It seems that repentance and faith come before Batism. Still thinking it through. Any thoughts appreciated.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 18, 2019)

greenbaggins said:


> If you have the collection of essays _Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation_, read his article on the history of covenant theology (worth the price of admission, in my opinion).


Yes I have this work and have read this essay with great profit. If you have the new biography on Vos, you may note that the biography argues that his essay on the Priesthood of Christ contains Vos most mature thoughts on the Covenant.

I noted earlier these important aspects of the covenant:



Stephen L Smith said:


> the pactum salutis, the historia salutis and the ordo salutis.


It seems to me that the way Vos argues for this in his essay creates some common ground for Reformed Paedobaptists and Reformed Baptists.


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 18, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Agreed.
> 
> But I think James White helped me to 'weaken' my RB convictions. He brought it back to the New Covenant. However, if Reformed Baptists do not infallably baptise those in the New Covenant as I noted earlier, I cannot see the advantage of his argument.
> 
> Where I still battle is looking at the clear statements of the New Testament. The WCF states that "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament". Every statement in the New Testament tells us to believe and be baptised. It seems that repentance and faith come before Batism. Still thinking it through. Any thoughts appreciated.



Interesting. I agree with you about James White. The problem here is the idea of the continuity of the covenants, and the overly-realized eschatology of all Baptist positions. No Baptist I have ever read argues that the New Covenant is of a piece with the Old Testament covenants with regard to administration, and this is the fundamental issue, from the perspective of the paedo-baptist. Is there only progression to the point of discontinuity, or is there continuity of covenants? I see 1689's argue that salvation occurs in the same way from OT to NT. But that really isn't the issue under discussion here. I don't see how Galatians 3 and Romans 4 can be understood in any other way than that there is a continuity of covenant between the Abraham iteration of the covenant of grace and the New Covenant. 

So, for instance, although the WCF does indeed say that baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, this does not preclude OT antecedents in the way of types and foreshadowings. A couple of obvious examples: 1 Corinthians 10, which says that all the forefathers were baptized into Moses (by the way, a CLEAR example of baptizo being used of people, many of whom were infants at the time). 1 Peter 3 speaks of Noah's flood as a type of baptism. If there are types and foreshadowings of baptism, then this points to a continuity of covenant, not discontinuity. 

With regard to the overly-realized eschatology, Pratt's article on Jeremiah 31 shows us that the New Covenant promises are already and not yet. We are not at the point where no one needs a teacher. We all still need teachers. So Jeremiah 31:34 shows us that there is a telescoping of the benefits of the New Covenant. So, going back to the problem with James White, this is the nub of the issue, and what you are feeling as to the lack of conviction with regard to his arguments. You feel that he has overly-realized the benefits of the New Covenant. Most Baptists actually do know this in some form. After all, they tend to realize that we can't have "regeneration goggles" so as to know who is saved, and that there are false professors within the visible church. All the same, from the paedo perspective, there is a certain inconsistency here, since (again, from the paedo perspective) Baptists tend to argue that only the regenerated can be baptized, but there is no way of knowing that for sure. This results in saying that a baptism is genuine until it isn't. It's genuine as long as the person baptized continues to act like a Christian, but then becomes illegitimate as soon as the person apostatizes. And so, the legitimacy of the baptism depends on the person baptized, and not on the Baptizer (who, from the paedo perspective, is God himself). From the paedo perspective (and read John Fesko's book for these insights), baptism has two sides. It is blessing and grace when received by faith, and brings covenant curses when rejected out of unbelief. Either way, it is still a genuine baptism, because the genuineness of baptism doesn't depend on human beings at all. 

One last point that bears mentioning here and is often a turning point for Baptists when they realize it. One of the main sticking points for Baptists is that they fear paedos are closet Roman Catholics in supposedly holding to a form of baptismal regeneration. The Federal Vision controversy did not help matters in this regard. The classical paedo position, however, is that baptism marks inclusion in the _visible_ church, not the _invisible_ church. Therefore, the grace associated with baptism _points to_ salvation, as do all the ordinances of the visible church (prayer, preaching, the Lord's Supper). But that grace does not come automatically at all. Only when faith is present is the sacrament complete. 

From the paedo position, Baptists are inconsistent on the matter of the visible/invisible church. Baptists either tend to collapse the distinction (which is, oddly enough, something that Rome also does), or try to ignore it theoretically, while still understanding that it is a practical necessity, if they are to understand apostasy. But if there is a legitimate distinction between visible/invisible church (and the apostasy passage in Hebrews 6 make MUCH more sense with this idea in view), then the New Covenant has this in common with all the OT iterations of the covenant of grace. Not all Israel are of Israel.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 19, 2019)

Lane, thank you again for the helpfulness and clarity of the argument. It is helping me to think things through with more clarity.


greenbaggins said:


> It's genuine as long as the person baptized continues to act like a Christian, but then becomes illegitimate as soon as the person apostatizes.


So it it depends on the act of the person; is that closet Armianism?



greenbaggins said:


> read John Fesko's book for these insights


I was thinking of getting Fesko. Do you think he is one of the best on the subject?



greenbaggins said:


> The classical paedo position, however, is that baptism marks inclusion in the _visible_ church, not the _invisible_ church.


Yes, I was recently reading Nettles fine biography of CH Spurgeon where Spurgeon claimed Paedobaptists need Baptists to keep tabs on them to stop them going Roman Catholic  Spurgeon, no doubt, confused the invisible church and the visible church.


----------



## Von (Feb 19, 2019)

This thread is displaying the PB at its finest: Edifying and Informative. Thanks guys!

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 19, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Lane, thank you again for the helpfulness and clarity of the argument. It is helping me to think things through with more clarity.
> 
> So it it depends on the act of the person; is that closet Armianism?
> 
> ...



You're welcome. 

As to the act of the person, I am not sure it would be closet Arminianism. More like a weird version of Donatism, maybe. Donatism said that the validity of the baptism depended on the personal holiness of the one administering it. Maybe we could say that if the validity of the baptism depends on the one receiving it, then it is a sort of reverse Donatism? 

Fesko's book is not primarily a controversial book, but a constructive book laying out the theology of baptism. He does have good arguments in favor of paedo-baptism, but I would not say that is his primary aim. The book is fantastic at what it does. I would highly recommend it. And if you read it, you might find a familiar name in the credits at the beginning. If you're looking for the best paedo books that directly address the recipients of baptism, then I would point you to Pierre Marcel's _The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism_, and the collection of essays edited by Gregg Strawbridge entitled _The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism_. 

As to Spurgeon's quotation, I would not agree, naturally. It implies that there is a sort of naturally-occurring slippery slope from paedo-baptism to Romanism. I would deny the existence of said slippery slope, with great respect given, however, to the great Spurgeon.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 19, 2019)

greenbaggins said:


> Pierre Marcel's _The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism_, and the collection of essays edited by Gregg Strawbridge entitled _The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism_.


I don't have it on me at present, but Fred Malones book "Baptism of Disciples alone" (revised ed) reviews both books in his book. He argues that when you separate baptism and repentance (he defines this in Baptist terms), you open the door to the Federal Vision. (He also has a discussion of the Federal Vision in his book). I did note the misnomer in the title that he baptises disciples alone 

Anyway, I woul be keen to see a review or response from a Paedobaptist on the Puritan board (or perhaps a OPC review) to Sam Renihans book "From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)". It is a substantial work and I have been told it would be good enough to kee me a Reformed Baptist  He also has a Baptist essay here where he seeks to ground his Baptist covenant theology in the Covenant of Redemption etc.


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 19, 2019)

Stephen, I would answer Fred Malones's arguments with this reply: a Presbyterian theology of baptism NEVER separates baptism and repentance. On Baptist principles, we do separate them, because we distinguish different times at which they can occur. However, on Presbyterian principles, they are never separated. Here is the theology as I would lay it out. 

1. A sacrament can be defined more broadly and more narrowly. The broader definition (which is the rarer definition) includes the physical sign (water), the thing to which it points (salvation), and the sacramental union between the sign and thing signified (Spirit-given faith). On this broader definition, only when a baptized person has God-given faith does he have the complete sacrament. It must be noted here that the mere possession of the sign ]by no means guarantees possession of the thing signified. Only when the sacramental union is _also_ present does the person have the whole thing. This is what prevents the true Presbyterian doctrine from EVER being RCC or FV. Both RCC and FV leave out or minimize the sacramental union, and, in effect, argue that the sacrament works _ex opere operato_. An analogy I use is a road sign that says "Chicago 30 miles." Only a stupid person would equate seeing the sign with being in Chicago. You have to travel the road (the sacramental union) believing that the sign is telling you the truth. Once you have travelled the road to Chicago, then you have what the sign pointed you towards: a location in Chicago. Similarly, baptism has three parts. The water, the blood of Christ to which the water points, and the Spirit-given faith that connects the water to the blood. Once a person has all three, they are fully connected. But it is the Spirit-given faith that makes a person possessor of the blood of Christ. The person who does not believe is the person who stops at the road sign "Chicago 30 miles," and goes no further, or goes in a different direction. What happens? They don't get to Chicago! The sign turns into a curse, because it told them where to go, but they refused to go. The unbeliever is the one who separates repentance from the sign! The result is spiritual suicide. 

2. The more narrow and more common definition of a sacrament is simply the sign-act all by itself. Much confusion results from imprecise use of the term "baptism," without specifying what is included and what is left out. I think this is why so many Baptists accuse Presbyterians of being crypto-Catholic. They don't understand how we see the sacrament in paragraph 1. 

3. From the foregoing, it becomes evident that Presbyterians have no slippery slope at all, either going towards RCC or towards the FV. The only thing we are saying is that it does not matter what the order of events is. If a person has the sign first, and the sacramental union of God-given faith comes after, then faith is what connects the sign to the thing signified. The person who comes to faith before they receive the sign have the thing signified already, and they have the sacramental union. They just don't have the sign yet. So when they have the sign, then they have the complete sacrament. 

4. The problem with the Baptism version of this, which claims that the faith and repentance must come before the sign, is that, again as I said before, if a person claims to have faith, but deceived himself, was baptized, but then later found out he wasn't in fact saved, then he has to be baptized again, because his previous baptism wasn't valid, even though the church _said it was valid before_. When it happens the first time, the Baptist churches never, to my knowledge, claim that this is a baptism pending confirmation of the fruit in a person's life. They just say it is a a baptism. So the Baptist churches are constantly in this tension with regard to the validity of a given baptism. And, its validity is therefore made to depend on the one baptized. In effect, the person baptizes himself in terms of efficacy. This falls foul of the grammar of baptism in the NT, because NOWHERE does a person baptize himself. It is always a passive verb if the baptized person is the subject of the sentence. If the verb is active, then the person baptized is the direct object of the verb. In both cases, no baptized person ever baptizes himself. Not even Jesus baptized himself. John, and more ultimately, God Himself, pronounced the effective word of pleasure in Jesus. So also, it is God who baptizes through the minister. Paul says that there is only one baptism. The Apostles Creed says we believe in only one baptism. This means that the efficacy is still in place even if the person does not have faith. If a baptized person has no faith, then the efficacy of baptism is exercised in judgment on that person as long as they have no faith. As soon as they have faith, however, that judgment turns to blessing, and they have the whole package deal.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 19, 2019)

greenbaggins said:


> This means that the *efficacy *is still in place even if the person does *not have faith*.



Lane,
You should save the language of "efficacy" (4) to speak of the fullness of the three-fold reality brought about by *faith.* It is faith that makes a sacrament efficacious, as you point out above (1).

You are talking (in 4) about whether the ecclesiastical action is true, real, or valid. Did the (properly ordained) minister a) intend, and b) accomplish, a baptism? Yes, but by using the term "efficacy" a second time in a different sense (from WCF 27:3 or 28:6), it merely clouds the issue once more from where you just cleared it.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 20, 2019)

I hear you Bruce, but if Fesko is correct, then there are two efficacies, if you will. The one efficacy has to do with the three-fold reality you mentioned. But the other efficacy has to do with the sacrament becoming a curse for the person who rejects faith and the thing signified. I don't know what one would call the second efficacy, so I used the same word, at the risk of minor confusion. Hope this clears it up.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 20, 2019)

greenbaggins said:


> I hear you Bruce, but if Fesko is correct, then there are two efficacies, if you will. The one efficacy has to do with the three-fold reality you mentioned. But the other efficacy has to do with the sacrament becoming a curse for the person who rejects faith and the thing signified. I don't know what one would call the second efficacy, so I used the same word, at the risk of minor confusion. Hope this clears it up.


I follow that reasoning, however I think we need alternative language. We may well be in complete agreement on the matter.

Though we were to say, "brings about" (a curse), I think that is preferable language to saying that baptism is efficacious (accomplishing something) unto him who finally lacks faith. I think "efficacy" is a term that implies _purpose._

If I am a notary public, and I affix the state seal over a forged signature; when exposed, it constitutes evidence against a fraudulent claim. It will be used against him in a court of law, the invocation of the seal being an exacerbation of the crime. It is an official "de-sealing," stripping away the acknowledgement, that is additionally painful.

A seal properly affixed draws favor. That's its intent. That it may draw _unwarranted _favor, that unjustified positive attribution entailing revocation of favor--_with prejudice. _Still, it rings false to me to use the same term for the _thrust _of the seal to also describe the stroke that _reverses _the favor granted.

It is not the _*purpose *_of baptism to increase judgment upon them who repudiate it. But that is a result of what amounts to an individual's execration of his original claim. It is the private curse, the mockery of baptism, that is answered in the end with a public repudiation and derision, "I never knew you."

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 20, 2019)

Bruce, I think we are in complete agreement on this as to substance. it certainly wouldn't hurt the cause of clarity to use a different term for the judgment side of baptism than for the tripartite positive side.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 21, 2019)

greenbaggins said:


> This is what prevents the true Presbyterian doctrine from EVER being RCC or FV. Both RCC and FV leave out or minimize the sacramental union, and, in effect, argue that the sacrament works _ex opere operato_.


Yes, I can see that now


greenbaggins said:


> An analogy I use is a road sign that says "Chicago 30 miles." Only a stupid person would equate seeing the sign with being in Chicago.


I had to do a chuckle Lane, my country uses Kilometers not miles. Actually New Zealand is over 8,000 miles from Chicago. But I get your point. 



greenbaggins said:


> From the foregoing, it becomes evident that Presbyterians have no slippery slope at all, either going towards RCC or towards the FV.


Agreed. Where I see a problem in some Reformed Churches in NZ is they 'presume' because the infant has been baptized, he/she is a Christian. This, I think, gives Baptists reason to link Infant Baptism with the RCC or FV, unfortunately. I think this is the reason Bavinck wrote his book "saved by grace". [I must read that fully to help me link all this together].

Therefore it seems to me it is wise for Presbyterian pastors to keep emphasising 2 Cor 13:5 "Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test!" and 2 Pet 1:10-11 "Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."



greenbaggins said:


> So the Baptist churches are constantly in this tension with regard to the validity of a given baptism.


Yes I can see that.

Thanks again Lane. Trying to put all this together.

Some feedback for the moderators - Given that the confessional standards of the Puritan Board are the Westminster Standards, and given that the issue of Infant Baptism and Covenant Theology often come up, it may be helpful if all the arguments for Paedobaptism, scattered throughout the Puritan Board were brought together on one convenient page. I'm sure it will help many working through the issue.


----------



## greenbaggins (Feb 22, 2019)

Stephen, the confessional standards of the PB have more options than just the WS. We have Baptist mods. They subscribe to the 1689. One could also subscribe to the 3FU.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Feb 27, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Agreed.
> 
> But I think James White helped me to 'weaken' my RB convictions. He brought it back to the New Covenant. However, if Reformed Baptists do not infallably baptise those in the New Covenant as I noted earlier, I cannot see the advantage of his argument.
> 
> Where I still battle is looking at the clear statements of the New Testament. The WCF states that "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament". Every statement in the New Testament tells us to believe and be baptised. It seems that repentance and faith come before Batism. Still thinking it through. Any thoughts appreciated.



I don't think White's argument has an advantage, though his challenge did keep me from an unbiblical conflation. But even reading Ezekiel 36 recently I am stunned at how the prophet runs his prophetic needle through two covenants--the Abrahamic and the New--as though they are one and the same and joins them as one cloth. A broad study of the Scriptures on the New Covenant will reveal the same pattern concerning the AC and the NC, whether you look in the OT or NT. But that's another discussion.

I for one do not believe that a profession of faith would have/should have been absent if an outsider joined Israel. To even join Israel was some act of repentance even if external (assuming they were not in a time of severe downgrade and apostasy), because you were coming into a covenant relationship with God that demanded that you "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind." That already demands that you believe the Gospel, as you can't obey without faith in Christ. They came into a nation who declared daily by the sacrifices that all men are unholy, that only the pure can approach Him, and the only way that a man may approach God is by the death and righteousness of another. These are not subliminal meanings hidden under a Pelagian-style covenant, but the whole message of every act of circumcision, every sacrifice, every law, is that the Israelite man is a hopeless needy sinner, and needs another man to be righteous for him or he will die, but the benefits of the promised Messiah to come may belong to that man right then, right there, and only the believing and repentant may abide with God. The purpose of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants were yes, to make way for the Messiah, but also prepare the elect born in that time for eternal heaven with their God.

Looking at Israel's history, what man in his right mind would want to join Israel if he still loved and cleaved to his sin? There has been one judgment after another in Israel's history both for sins internal and sins external. Famines, plagues, exiles, spiritual hardness, invasion of enemies, it's all happened because of sin. No sin-loving man would want to approach a God who incinerated his own priests, stoned its adulters, and by "you shall have other Gods before me" excluded any possibility of having another God upon pain of death. A command which, when you dig down into it, demands you believe in the Savior if you do not wish to provoke Him. It's clear incentive for Israel to be the gatekeepers and inspect who comes in as God has judged the nation for the sake of a few men as in the case with Achan. Why give citizenship to the impenitent unless you are desperate to be judged? God was never indifferent to the presence of an Achan, Saul, Hophni, Phineas or Doeg in Israel. The message both to the Israelites and to the outside world is, "I will be sanctified by those who draw near to me."

As for the impenitent He says in Psalm 50, "What right do you have to take my covenant on your lips?

And also, Abraham himself. With Abraham we have believer's circumcision, with it being given as a seal of the righteousness he had by faith. Why assume that Abraham is not the pattern for foreign adult proselytes? He was an adult, he believed and repented, and circumcision was given to him to preach the Gospel of a foreign righteousness. If the Israelites followed the pattern of the covenant in the circumcision of male infants, then they were to follow the pattern of God in that covenant in the admission of adults. With Abraham, it was by faith and repentance.

But in no case, whether the Abrahamic or Mosaic or Davidic or the New Covenant, God cannot--and will not--suffer the wicked to live. Every covenant demands that its beneficiaries live in that light.

So, the pattern of "repent and believe" in the New Testament before many of the baptisms in the NT is no argument at all that the children of believers are necessarily excluded.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Feb 28, 2019)

Harley said:


> So, the pattern of "repent and believe" in the New Testament before many of the baptisms in the NT is no argument at all that the children of believers are necessarily excluded.


Yes I get that. It comes down to, I guess, the difference between "good and necessary inference" WCF 1:4, and "necessary contained" 1689 Confession 1:4


----------



## deleteduser99 (Mar 1, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Yes I get that. It comes down to, I guess, the difference between "good and necessary inference" WCF 1:4, and "necessary contained" 1689 Confession 1:4



I don't think there is much difference. If the Scriptures force us to a certain conclusion even if it is not explicitly stated, we are to believe that implication, and if an act is implicitly commanded, we are to carry it out. Continuance of the Sabbath, for example, and changing from Saturday to Sunday. I think that can be called under either heading, necessarily contained or good and necessary consequence.

But brother, if you want an example of good and necessary consequence in the Baptist camp, say the word "household baptism" and watch how the reasoning goes. Baptist interpretations include that 1) no infants were in the households, or 2) if there were infants they were not baptized, or 3) because of other passages in Scripture we know that only those who professed faith were baptized, and if everyone was baptized it's because everyone professed, or 4) household can just mean the "majority" and not every single individual. But the interpretation is ruled by the interpretation of other passages:

- In the other baptism cases there is faith and repentance coming prior, so they must have happened here too
- Faith and repentance were not required prior to circumcision--only descendancy from Abraham or some kind of external conformity
- No one was sustained in the prior covenants except in terms of their own meriting obedience, which is opposite of the New Covenant
- The household principle of the Old Testament has nothing to say to membership in the New Testament church because there is too much discontinuity in the covenants
- The New Covenant has no unregenerate members, therefore no unregenerate members are allowed in the church, therefore baptism should only be given to those who show visible fruits of regeneration
- The Abrahamic Covenant went away with the Mosaic Covenant

It's remarkable too the shift in Reformed Baptist thinking as well. If you listen to one older Reformed Baptist series on baptism the argument comes down to, "There's no mention of infants being baptized anywhere. That's enough." It's almost like little else is needed but is investigated anyway just because Presbyterians argue from inferences from other places. However, Federalism is a big shift in thinking, and I think in it is, among other things, an honest realization that you can't just say that no infants are clearly marked out as baptized--much more witness from the Scripture is needed to condemn the practice because the issues involved are more than what is said in the direct baptism passages (which need clarifying themselves in some cases), and so there's a great amount of labored pored out on the nature of the covenants, the church, Israel, etc. In short, I think it's finally been accepted that the old "Show me a baptized infant" argument just doesn't work, and rightfully not. And maybe too because, upon reflection, Baptists put a huge amount of stress on a text that mentions nothing of baptism--Hebrews 8.

I'm not sure it makes much difference to call this "good and necessary consequence" or "necessarily contained in Scripture." But I would think that, were it not for those inferences, you would just say "A household is a household, Luke calls them households for a reason, so we should take up the cue and baptize the children and infants too."

(Edited 3/1 @ 2:48 PM)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 1, 2019)

Hello Harley. I do appreciate this dialogue. Brother, if I disagree it is just I am still learning and trying to piece this together.



Harley said:


> But brother, if you want an example of good and necessary consequence in the Baptist camp, say the word "household baptism" and watch how the reasoning goes. Baptist interpretations include that 1) no infants were in the households, or 2) if there were infants they were not baptized, or 3) because of other passages in Scripture we know that only those who professed faith were baptized, and if everyone was baptized it's because everyone professed, or 4) household can just mean the "majority" and not every single individual. But the interpretation is ruled by the interpretation of other passages:


A Baptist would reply this is an argument from silence. Besides when some household texts give descriptions of who was baptised, it is always believers. For example see Acts 18:8. A close friend of mine who wants me to remain a Reformed Baptist comments on Malones work on this and other points he thinks build a covenantal Baptist position https://www.rbc.org.nz/reviews/MaloneReview.pdf

Where I think the argument becomes unstuck is the yet/ not-yet aspect of the new covenant as previously discussed. Baptists do not baptise believers. They baptise professing believers so they don't infallibly know who believers are. In other words I don't think their 'new covenant' interpretation of household baptisms holds.



Harley said:


> The Abrahamic Covenant went away with the Mosaic Covenant


I don't know of a Reformed Baptist who would say this?


----------



## deleteduser99 (Mar 2, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Hello Harley. I do appreciate this dialogue. Brother, if I disagree it is just I am still learning and trying to piece this together.
> 
> 
> A Baptist would reply this is an argument from silence. Besides when some household texts give descriptions of who was baptised, it is always believers. For example see Acts 18:8. A close friend of mine who wants me to remain a Reformed Baptist comments on Malones work on this and other points he thinks build a covenantal Baptist position https://www.rbc.org.nz/reviews/MaloneReview.pdf
> ...



Thank you for clarifying Steve, and forgive me the fervency, but be sure there's no frustration with you. And I had better be nice to you, as I haven't been PB that long. . I enjoy the discussion and am glad to have a few minutes here and there to jump in. If anything, we do get to know God's Word betterf.

I had read Malone's book, and frankly, I didn't care for it. A lot of his arguments began with "paedobaptists don't agree on this point", then he'd ram quotes by paedobaptists against one another, and made that his stronghold in some cases, eg. John's baptism where one page of that three-page chapter was "Paedobaptists don't agree." But maybe now that there is a difference between vanilla Reformed Baptists and 1689 Federalists on covenant theology and other related issues they'll stop doing this.

Agreed on household baptism not being undermined by the NC . It's all a matter of underlying framework.

As for the AC, I've discussed it with one pastor who I understand to be a Federalist, and I asked him, "What do you do with the fact that the NT speaks of the Mosaic as passing away but the Abrahamic as continuing?" His answer was that the Mosaic took control of the AC, implication being they both went out together for that reason. But in the Federalist literature it's made very plain that the AC was temporal, meritorious, and strictly for the physical people of Israel, not of the substance nor an administration of the CG. So, I have to take that to mean that the AC has _no_ connection to the believer today, provides no benefits, gives no privileges, can impose no conditions. After all, the New Covenant is so new that the prior covenants do not determine benefits or participation, and each covenant is to be strictly interpreted by its own covenant document. I can see old school RBs acknowledging some continuance, but I don't see where it's possible in Federalism.

I'm also thinking of a quote from either Sam or Michael Renihan where the Jewish state was simply the scaffolding around the building. The scaffolding has a purpose while the building is under construction, but once the building is done, the scaffolding is taken away. So, if the AC was just to give physical children to Israel, to give the land of Caanan, and to bring the Messiah from his loins, and the Mosaic was to regulate that covenant, and there are no spiritual blessings promised in these covenants, there's no need for them to continue: Christ is here, He's inaugurated the New Covenant in His blood, the Jews served their purpose, Abraham got all he was promised in the AC, and the New Covenant is the only covenant in which any participation is available, and to go to the AC to prove participation in the NT church is to go back to types and shadows and even the Law (if you hold the MC regulates the AC)!

Maybe there's a Federalist view that the AC does continue in some aspect into the NT, and I've just not come across it.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 5, 2019)

Harley said:


> Thank you for clarifying Steve, and forgive me the fervency, but be sure there's no frustration with you. And I had better be nice to you, as I haven't been PB that long. . I enjoy the discussion and am glad to have a few minutes here and there to jump in. If anything, we do get to know God's Word betterf.


Harley I have enjoyed this discussion and I can say you have been patient and gracious with me, a learner. Thank you brother.



Harley said:


> I had read Malone's book, and frankly, I didn't care for it. A lot of his arguments began with "paedobaptists don't agree on this point", then he'd ram quotes by paedobaptists against one another, and made that his stronghold in some cases, eg. John's baptism where one page of that three-page chapter was "Paedobaptists don't agree."


I have seen disagreement with paedobaptists. Joel Beeke argues we need to bring the gospel to covenant children. Others say we should assume our baptised children are christians. This diversity of thought perplexes me a little. That said, I have seen a theological maturity in the Dutch theologians here - especially Bavinck and Vos. I have Bavinck's "saved by grace" and I have been meaning to read it; I understand he deals with this in a mature way.



Harley said:


> But maybe now that there is a difference between vanilla Reformed Baptists and 1689 Federalists on covenant theology and other related issues they'll stop doing this.


Agreed.


Harley said:


> As for the AC, I've discussed it with one pastor who I understand to be a Federalist, and I asked him, "What do you do with the fact that the NT speaks of the Mosaic as passing away but the Abrahamic as continuing?" His answer was that the Mosaic took control of the AC, implication being they both went out together for that reason. But in the Federalist literature it's made very plain that the AC was temporal, meritorious, and strictly for the physical people of Israel, not of the substance nor an administration of the CG. So, I have to take that to mean that the AC has _no_ connection to the believer today, provides no benefits, gives no privileges, can impose no conditions. After all, the New Covenant is so new that the prior covenants do not determine benefits or participation, and each covenant is to be strictly interpreted by its own covenant document. I can see old school RBs acknowledging some continuance, but I don't see where it's possible in Federalism.


From a Reformed Baptist perspective, I have understood that Abraham had two seeds - the carnal seed (Ishmael and Esau), and the spiritual seed. Galations makes clear Abraham is the Father of believers, so New Covenant believers have a clear lin to the AC. Some of the most mature Baptist treatment I have read is Pink's Divine Covenants [Abrahamic Covenant last two sections].


Harley said:


> and to bring the Messiah from his loins, and the Mosaic was to regulate that covenant, and there are no spiritual blessings promised in these covenants, there's no need for them to continue: Christ is here


I am troubled a little by 1689 Federalist view that the MC is a covenant of works. Dr Venema argues if you take that view, you undermine the perpeturity of the moral law see http://www.midamerica.edu/uploads/files/pdf/journal/venema21.pdf

Harley, I will be on holiday for the next 12 days with limited Internet access. But will take an interest in this thread where I can, and may make responses when get back home 

I am taking a bit of Vos away with me to read - Vos is good paedobaptist covenant theologian

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 5, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Harley I have enjoyed this discussion and I can say you have been patient and gracious with me, a learner. Thank you brother.
> 
> 
> I have seen disagreement with paedobaptists. Joel Beeke argues we need to bring the gospel to covenant children. Others say we should assume our baptised children are christians. This diversity of thought perplexes me a little. That said, I have seen a theological maturity in the Dutch theologians here - especially Bavinck and Vos. I have Bavinck's "saved by grace" and I have been meaning to read it; I understand he deals with this in a mature way.
> ...



Have a great holiday! Vos is great on this subject in his systematics Volume 2.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 7, 2019)

JTB.SDG said:


> Have a great holiday! Vos is great on this subject in his systematics Volume 2.


Thank you! Don't have Vos' RD but enjoying the Vos quotes in the 'Ruin and Redemption' teaching site.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Mar 7, 2019)

Oh good!


----------



## deleteduser99 (Mar 8, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Harley I have enjoyed this discussion and I can say you have been patient and gracious with me, a learner. Thank you brother.
> 
> 
> I have seen disagreement with paedobaptists. Joel Beeke argues we need to bring the gospel to covenant children. Others say we should assume our baptised children are christians. This diversity of thought perplexes me a little. That said, I have seen a theological maturity in the Dutch theologians here - especially Bavinck and Vos. I have Bavinck's "saved by grace" and I have been meaning to read it; I understand he deals with this in a mature way.
> ...



May have some thoughts  Where are you headed? Limited internet... rest and relaxation indeed.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Mar 8, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Harley I have enjoyed this discussion and I can say you have been patient and gracious with me, a learner. Thank you brother.
> 
> 
> I have seen disagreement with paedobaptists. Joel Beeke argues we need to bring the gospel to covenant children. Others say we should assume our baptised children are christians. This diversity of thought perplexes me a little. That said, I have seen a theological maturity in the Dutch theologians here - especially Bavinck and Vos. I have Bavinck's "saved by grace" and I have been meaning to read it; I understand he deals with this in a mature way.
> ...



There is indeed a range of ideas in the paedobaptist camp, and granted it's intimidating, but I think it's dishonest to begin every argument with "paedobaptists don't agree." I listened to one Baptist Sunday School series where the teacher made this argument frequently, but didn't think twice when he presented two or three different Baptist interpretations on "suffer the little children" and what is meant by "holy" in 1 Corinthians 7. Examples of other places of disagreement between Baptists:


Does baptism replace circumcision? Jeffrey Johnson of Fatal Flaw will contend that it does not. One older RB friend of mine who is studying for the ministry believes it does.
Is it one substance and two administrations, or is it two substantiae, distinct administrations? This needs no comment, as Federalism wouldn't be distinct if there were agreement here.
The sign of the NC, is it baptism or the Holy Spirit? This is not agreed. I've seen both argued.
Acts 2:39, "As many as the Lord will call," general call or specific? Not all Baptists agree here.
Is John's baptism Christian baptism? Again, there are differences among Baptists here. Some say it is, some say it isn't.
Is there a visible/invisible distinction in the church on earth? Again, this is not universally agreed among Baptists.
Should there be rebaptism upon a false profession? I seem to remember seeing disagreement on this too though I don't remember where.
I seem to also remember that not all Baptists agree on whether Israel was the church. I was sympathetic to this idea myself as a Baptist.
Should those baptized as infants be rebaptized? John Bunyan would not have done it, and neither does John Piper.
At what age do you baptize? Poythress advocates as young as 2 or 3, with MacArthur it is age 11 at a minimum, Owensboro RB baptizes preteens, and other RB churches with rare exception baptize no earlier than age 16.
Some would say none of the former differences matter because the one thing necessary is to see that no infants were explicitly identified as baptized and that settles the matter--but this burden of proof is not agreed on either, or there wouldn't be two trains of thought among Covenantal Baptists.

Many of these touch at key arguments for the credobaptist position, and these aren't everything that could be listed. Do these make Baptists wrong? Not necessarily. The only thing that disagreement within the camp proves is that we are fallen men trying to think the thoughts of a great God, and we're struggling to do it despite our best efforts. If God says "For as high as the heavens are above the earth, so are my thoughts above yours", it's no wonder it takes a divine ladder to help us attain unto them. Which is why we need the Spirit.

I'll leave my own thoughts on the Mosaic open to criticism, but my own view is that it's a gracious covenant, with echoes of the Covenant of Works, and a ceremonial aspect.

As for the Ten Commandments, in one Federalist podcast I listened to the interviewee said he is hesitant with the idea of saying that Moses comes to us as a Christian with the 10 Commandments. Same podcast also says that the 10C were given as a Covenant of Works to rule life in the land of Caanan. But a meritorious view of the Mosaic doesn't even take the law as seriously as Moses did. What does it mean to have no other gods before Him? "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." If you go read the Westminster Larger Catechism, there's an inexhaustible number of way to both break and keep this commandment. Or the seventh commandment, Christ Himself said whoever looks upon a woman to lust has already committed adultery in his heart, and I'd be surprised if there were a man or woman in all Israel who had not committed adultery in that sense within the next 24 hours. It took no time at all to break the First Commandment. But no matter, the keeping of the Law extends to every thought, gesture, frame and disposition, and that is the true, faithful, real understanding of the First and Seventh Commandments in addition to the other eight, and they were imposed on Israel that day. Moses himself then, as godly as he was, lived as a perpetual covenant breaker. "He who does these things shall live by them." In the Covenant of Works there is no allowance for sins due to hardness of heart.

So if it is a Covenant of Works, why doesn't it bear the same strictness as the original? A world of allowances is given to the godly and the ungodly in this period. But for this reason I also assert that such a view of the Mosaic as being meritorious is at least semi-Pelagian--it is meritorious, but not as meritorious as the original Covenant of Works, which is what legalistic penitents try to make the Covenant of Grace to be--a softer, easier law by which you can be righteous. And of course, if you sincerely repent, then you are forgiven, and you are restored to the covenant promises, just as God promised that repentance would result in a reverse of the covenant curses. That's Baxterian. _There is no provision of repentance, forgiveness or restoration in the original Covenant of Works, but there is in the Mosaic_, which provides a mighty hint of the Covenant's true intention. This Neonomianism is what the Marrow Men fought against in defending the Gospel, this is what Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for espousing, and it's hard to believe that such a covenant could possibly advance the well-being of the elect in Israel. I'd be confused out of my mind were I a converted Israelite! If God came to me with a covenant conditioned on my conformity to the Decalogue I'd have to say, "I'm a dead man. I'm in a conditional covenant and far less able to keep it than Adam and Eve, and those Ten Commandments pierce down to my very soul, especially that first one! What hope do I have of getting this land or staying in it?"

Yet despite many periods of unfaithfulness God brings them into the land, keeps them in the land for a protracted period of time despite wicked men, wicked kings, continuous lawbreaking, open and manifest unfaithfulness, over centuries of time. He blesses them profusely in Solomon's time. So were they righteous people after all? After all, God brought about every promised blessing, and not one failed to come to pass. Entirely wrong effect if the purpose was to show them they had no hope of keeping the Law and could not bring about God's blessing by their works.

This forbearance and blessing is not consistent with a strict republication of the original Covenant of Works and the full force of its terms. So it's either Baxterian / Neonomian, or it's something else. Neonomian is more viable than a tit-for-tat republication, but another alternative is this: it's a gracious covenant, God already owning the people of Israel as His people (preface to the 10C "I am the Lord thy God"), and his forbearance is because despite "my covenant [which] they broke" millions of times before the exile He forebears He says "I was a husband to them" says Jeremiah 31--and for the love of Israel His church He makes the New Covenant with the household of the Church.

But in the end, what's a covenant about? God swearing to bless His people. He swore to bless David, and David stayed in that blessing by continuance in faith even though he sinned so horridly, showing that it is only by the kindness of God that anyone is blessed. Interesting to think... David didn't seem to think he was a sinner only in respect to his sin with Bathsheba and against Uriah, but he was a thorough sinner. By his remaining sin David lived in perpetual violation of God's Law. The decalogue ruling him was broken in every part by him, and he had long broken the terms to stay in the land of Caanan even well before becoming king.

For these reasons, it makes tremendous sense to say that the obedience which "conditioned" the Mosaic and Davidic covenants are those which "condition" the New Covenant: Sincere obedience out of gratitude for the free mercy given, which is the "holiness without which no man will see the Lord."

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## brandonadams (Mar 8, 2019)

Since this has derailed from the original post and turned into a free-for-all about baptist covenant theology and ecclessiology, I'd like to offer the following resources to both answer above questions for those who want to dig deeper, and correct some misunderstandings. I don't intend to get into a prolonged discussion, as time will likely not allow.



Contra_Mundum said:


> not every American who turns a traitor began (self-consciously) to lie about his allegiance.





Contra_Mundum said:


> So, does every man who proves him a false-professor have his fingers _knowingly_ crossed behind his back?



Whether or not the false professor is intentionally being deceptive or is himself deceived is irrelevant. The point is that Satan, the enemy, has sown them as a tare to attack the kingdom.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Again, if the Holy Spirit is the sole Agent of administration of the New Covenant, then nothing the church says or does is technically "official," in any meaningful sense... And if the argument follows: _Well, it IS official, when the man really means it,_ then what's really being said is that the arbiter of official activity is the individual.



If someone professes faith in Christ, the Church's acceptance of them based on that profession does not mean that they actually have faith in Christ. In that sense, you are correct, the Church does not ultimately ("officially") determine the matter. But no, that does not mean the arbiter of "official" activity is the individual. It means the arbiter of "official" activity is God, who alone sees the Church as it truly is. God has simply given us means to fallibly live together with other believers in this world - which means that sometimes we are mistaken as to who is truly part of the Church.

Hodge put it this way "If, then, the Church is the body of Christ; if a man becomes a member of that body by faith; if multitudes of those who profess in baptism the true religion, are not believers, then it is just as certain that the external body consisting of the baptized is not the Church, as that a man’s calling himself a Christian does not make him a Christian." (The Visibility of the Church)



> _The Kingdom of God is Jesus' terminology. It has roots in the national concept of Israel, the chosen people. Citizen of heaven is Pauline language, __Php.3:20__; cf. __Eph.2:19__. So, I imagine we'd expect a robust analogy stretching forth, and not (I think) a weak, thin rubber band type. Why not scrounge for a more precise expression in the same vein, and strengthen the biblically rooted analogy? _
> 
> _ I think the Presbyterian view deserves a good challenge, a clearly stated alternative, perhaps even a rebuttal to his contention. Peace._



The nation of Israel was not the Kingdom of heaven/Christ. It was a type of it. If we try to understand the kingdom of heaven through national Israel, an earthly kingdom, we will misunderstand it. Again, Hodge:
"[T]he parables in question were not intended to teach us the condition of membership in the kingdom of heaven, they cannot decide that point. In one place Christ asserts didactically, that regeneration by the Holy Spirit is essential to admission into his kingdom; shall we infer, in direct opposition to this assertion, that his kingdom includes both the regenerate and unregenerate, because he compares it to a net containing fishes, good and bad? Certainly not...
Whenever the kingdom of God means the same thing as the church, it is expressly taught that admission into it depends on saving faith, or an inward spiritual change, and not on external rites or profession. The ancient prophets having predicted, that after the rise and fall of other kingdoms the God of heaven would set up a kingdom, the establishment of that kingdom became to his ancient people an object of expectation and desire. They were, however, greatly mistaken both as to its nature and the terms of admission into it. They had much the same notion of the kingdom of God that ritualists now have of the church. They expected it to be, in its essential character, an external organization, and the condition of membership to be descent from Abraham, or the rite of circumcision. Our Lord did not simply modify this conception by teaching that his kingdom, instead of being a visible organization with kings and nobles, was to be such an organization with cardinals and bishops; and that, instead of circumcision, baptism was to secure membership. He presented a radically different idea of its whole nature. He taught that it was to be a spiritual kingdom,—that it was to have its seat in the heart,—its Sovereign being the invisible God in Christ,—its laws such as relate to the conscience,—-its service the obedience of faith,—its rewards eternal life." (The Idea of the Church)



Harley said:


> So is Judas not really a member of the visible church because he's false? If so, that's not how Jesus is treating him. Judas teaches, preaches, heals just like any of the other 12, all which power came from Jesus. Are only the regenerate disciples? Then It's a mystery why he is called a disciple. Was he not really part of the church? Ps 109:8, "Let another take his office." The remaining disciples perceived an office vacancy after his suicide.





Harley said:


> So for the visible/invisible distinction, if none exists in the NT church, why did Christ treat Judas as a church citizen under its governance?



The visible/invisible Church distinction is a matter of perspective: our fallible perspective vs God's infallible perspective. The visible Church, strictly speaking, is the company of true believers on earth who profess faith. An unbeliever is not part of the visible Church. ("The unconverted are not members of the external, visible church. Believers only constitute the true church." - a Brakel)

So why did Jesus, who is omniscient, treat Judas as part of the visible Church? Because that is how the Church is to function here on earth: We treat people according to their profession. You answered your own question when you said "Christ in establishing the governance of the visible NT church does not do it." He's not acting according to his omniscience.



Harley said:


> Now when I was a Baptist I held that the unregenerate must be rebaptized



I don't believe I've come across that teaching in a 2LBC church.



Stephen L Smith said:


> But when I thought more deeply I realised Reformed Baptists do not baptise believers. They baptise professing believers. The argument unravels that point. What if they baptised Judas? Was he a disciple or a professing disciple? This is where my thinking ties in wth yours I think.





greenbaggins said:


> Most Baptists actually do know this in some form. After all, they tend to realize that we can't have "regeneration goggles" so as to know who is saved, and that there are false professors within the visible church. All the same, from the paedo perspective, there is a certain inconsistency here, since (again, from the paedo perspective) Baptists tend to argue that only the regenerated can be baptized, but there is no way of knowing that for sure. This results in saying that a baptism is genuine until it isn't. It's genuine as long as the person baptized continues to act like a Christian, but then becomes illegitimate as soon as the person apostatizes.



The Reformed Baptist position on this point of baptism is no different than the Reformed view of the Lord's Supper. Who may worthily participate in the Lord's Supper? Only believers. Who may lawfully participate in the Lord's Supper? Only those who make a credible profession of saving faith. Likewise, Who may worthily be baptized? Only believers. Who may lawfully be baptized? All who make a credible profession of saving faith. So rebaptism is not necessary because it was lawfully administered the first time. If the person was excommunicated from a church, then he is to be reinstated, but he does not need to be rebaptized. Here is Ursinus' commentary on Heidelberg 81

"The questions who ought to come, and who ought to be admitted to the Supper, are distinct and different. The former speaks of the duty of communicants; the latter of the duty of the church and ministers. The former is more restricted; the latter is broader, and more general: for, as touching the former, none but the godly ought to come to the Supper; whilst, as it respects the latter, not only the godly, but hypocrites also, who are not known to be such, are to be admitted by the church. Hence all that ought to come, ought also to be admitted; but not all who ought to be admitted, ought to come: but only those, 1. Who acknowledge their sins, and are truly sorrowful for them. 2. Who trust that their sins are forgiven them by and for the sake of Christ. 3. Who earnestly desire to have their faith more and more strengthened, and their lives more holy: that is, those only ought to come to the Lord’s supper, and they alone are worthy guests of Christ, who live in true faith and repentance."

Witsius actually makes the same point about baptism.
"In the meantime, let it be observed that if we take the strictest view of baptism, it is in its true nature and in the judgment of God suited only to the elect, because it is always agreeable to truth. For since baptism is a sign and seal of that covenant in which God has made over to his covenanted people the benefits of saving grace and whatever has a sure connection with eternal life, it follows that those who neither have nor ever will have any right to the benefits of the covenant, in like manner have no right before God’s tribunal to the seal of the covenant. The ministers of religion, indeed, who, in regard to individuals, must be guided by the judgment of charity, cannot distinguish elect from non-elect, and thus they do not sin although they should occasionally sprinkle with the baptismal water those whom in strictness they ought not."

The difference between Witsius and ourselves is simply whether or not being born to professing parents itself constitutes a profession of saving faith. Ursinus said
"ay our [Anabaptist] opponents, the church ought to be satisfied with a profession of faith. This we admit, and would add, that to be born in the church, is, to infants, the same thing as a profession of faith. Faith is, indeed, necessary to the use of baptism with this distinction. Actual faith is required in adults, and an inclination to faith in infants… nfants have the Holy Ghost, and are regenerated by him… In as much now as infants are fit subjects for baptism, they do not profane it as the Anabaptists wickedly affirm."

Likewise Hodge
"by the clear teaching of the Scriptures, regeneration in the case of adults is assumed to precede baptism... A man had, therefore, to profess to be regenerated before he could be baptized... Those incapable of such profession, may be visibly members of the Church by virtue of God's revealed covenant or promise to be their God. This is precisely the case with infants and the ground of their baptism. But in either case, membership in the visible Church is founded on a presumptive membership in the invisible..."



greenbaggins said:


> The classical paedo position, however, is that baptism marks inclusion in the visible church, not the invisible church. Therefore, the grace associated with baptism points to salvation, as do all the ordinances of the visible church (prayer, preaching, the Lord's Supper). But that grace does not come automatically at all. Only when faith is present is the sacrament complete.



It depends on which "classical" paedo position you have in mind. The view just outlined above is different from the Westminster view (which does not entail any presumption/judgment of charity that all in the visible church are also in the invisible).



greenbaggins said:


> From the paedo position, Baptists are inconsistent on the matter of the visible/invisible church. Baptists either tend to collapse the distinction (which is, oddly enough, something that Rome also does), or try to ignore it theoretically, while still understanding that it is a practical necessity, if they are to understand apostasy. But if there is a legitimate distinction between visible/invisible church (and the apostasy passage in Hebrews 6 make MUCH more sense with this idea in view), then the New Covenant has this in common with all the OT iterations of the covenant of grace. Not all Israel are of Israel.



We don't ignore or deny the visible/invisible Church distinction, we simply hold that the distinction is a matter of perspective: our's vs God's. We agree with the understanding expressed in the Continental reformed confessions, and defended by men like a Brakel, Jean Claude, James Currie, Charles Hodge, and John Murray. We would agree with a Brakel that it is actually your view of the visible/invisible Church that is inconsistent.

"As one person cannot be divided into an invisible and a visible person, one may not divide the church into a visible and invisible church, for then it would seem as if there were two churches, each being a different church. One may also not divide the church into a visible and invisible church as far as the members themselves are concerned, as if the one had different members from the other... This is, in our opinion, an erroneous view, generating many confusing thoughts and expressions concerning the church... this distinction is founded upon a false supposition — as if the unconverted are truly members of the church with equal right, that is, in its external and visible gathering, and therefore have a right to use the sacraments, something which we deny expressly below. If the unconverted are not members of the church, even when she is visible, the aforementioned distinction is of necessity irrelevant.
Thirdly, such a distinction infers the existence of two churches which are essentially different from each other... From this proposition it must be concluded that there are two churches, which is contrary to the Bible... If one understands the differentiation between the external and internal church to be but a twofold view and perspective of one and the same church, and does not hold to a twofold membership relationship, all is well and our proposition is confirmed: The differentiation between an external and internal church on the basis of membership and relationship is not good. One and the same church, consisting of true believers only, can either be viewed in reference to her internal spiritual condition, or in reference to her external manifestation in the world. This is what we have stated."

Please do read the above links to excerpts from those men. I think it would go a long ways towards reconciling some of the issues in this thread.




greenbaggins said:


> With regard to the overly-realized eschatology, Pratt's article on Jeremiah 31 shows us that the New Covenant promises are already and not yet. We are not at the point where no one needs a teacher. We all still need teachers. So Jeremiah 31:34 shows us that there is a telescoping of the benefits of the New Covenant.



With regards to Pratt's under-realized eschatology, see Waldron's response in RBTR (I think it's also an appendix in The Reformed Baptist Manifesto) 
First, Calvin correctly notes that "Now, by the days which the prophet mentions, all agree that Christ’s kingdom is signified; it hence follows, that the old covenant was changed by the coming of Christ.” Heb 8 is dealing with that time, not Christ's return. The author of the letter specifically quoted that section of prophecy for a reason. If it was not relevant to the issue at hand (it only had relevance at Christ's return) then he had no reason to quote it. Thus Augustine said "“And they shall no more teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least even unto the greatest of them.” Jer. xxxi. 34. Now, the present is certainly the time of the New Testament, the promise of which is given by the prophet in the words which we have quoted from his prophecy."
and Owen
"Howbeit some learned men have been so moved with this objection, as to affirm that the accomplishment of this promise of the covenant belongs unto heaven, and the state of glory; for therein alone, they say, we shall have no more need of teaching in any kind. But as this exposition is directly contrary unto the design of the apostle, as respecting the teaching of the new covenant and the testator thereof; when he intends only that of the old, and exalts the new above it; so there is no such difficulty in the words as to force us to carry the interpretation of them into another world"

Yes, there are aspects of the New Covenant that are "not yet" but regeneration is not one of those. Not needing a teacher does not refer to theological instruction. It refers to saving illumination of the Holy Spirit (See Owen's full comments for a further explanation on this point). It's the same point John makes in 1 John 2:27.

Finally, make careful note of how Jesus interprets this prophecy as a reference to the conversion and salvation of all the elect: John 6:45; cf Is 54:10, 13; Jer 31:34; 1 Jn 2:20 etc)



greenbaggins said:


> I don't see how Galatians 3 and Romans 4 can be understood in any other way than that there is a continuity of covenant between the Abraham iteration of the covenant of grace and the New Covenant.



See if this series helps you at least see another reading of those passages

Kline’s Abrahamic Covenant of Works 6: 1689 Federalism
Kline’s Abrahamic Covenant of Works 5: Glory Cloud Podcast
Kline’s Abrahamic Covenant of Works 4: Contradiction
Kline’s Abrahamic Covenant of Works 3: Royal Grant Proposal
Kline’s Abrahamic Covenant of Works 2: Typological Merit
Kline’s Abrahamic Covenant of Works 1: Murray and Shepherd
Galatians 3:16
Galatians 3:17
Galatians 3:18
If you've made it this far, thanks for reading


----------



## deleteduser99 (Mar 9, 2019)

@brandonadams, you've said your time is limited so I'll keep my responses limited.

Concerning your comment about rebaptism in reply to me, at Grace Immanuel Reformed Baptist Church not even five minutes from where I attend right now snd where I was an attneant beginning 2010, member 2011-2012, I've witnessed one rebaptism of someone who was baptized while unconverted. He was first baptized at GI, and was rebaptized years later by the same minister. I myself was baptized three times, the third in a Reformed Baptist church after explaining that in my first baptism I was unconverted, my second baptism I was possibly unconverted too and I was baptized by my unordained father. So, at the advice of my elders at my RB church in Dallas I was baptized for the third time. Others on this board hold to rebaptism of those who make false professions. So, rebaptisms--or if you don't call it rebaptisms, considering null and invalid the first or second baptism--do happen in 2LBC churches.

As you had said, Christ not acting according to His own omniscience but acting as a pattern for us, and counting Judas as part of the visible church on earth, we follow His example and do the same. If Christ the Mediator treats Judas so, and considers him so, then it's warrant for us to do the same. My view is conformed to His practice. Denial of the visible/invisible distinction was actually the first CovenantalBaptist domino to topple for me when I switched my view on baptism.

Thanks for the aBrakel article, though there are Baptists who agree with me on the visible/invisible distinction too as the "1689 Federalism Revisited" thread plainly shows. There are Covenantal Baptists who will likewise agree with us in our constructs of covenant, church, etc., and some are inches away from paedobaptism in all but their actual practice. Like I said, I'm not up for the "paedos don't agree" or "some of your great theologians believe what we believe" game. Trying to wield paedos against each other or trying to use them in favor of the Baptist side or using them to make it look like we're barely keeping together our string of pearls was actually a great turnoff when I started rethinking the issue.

edited 3/9/18 2:48 pm

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 10, 2019)

Harley said:


> Where are you headed? Limited internet... rest and relaxation indeed.


Auckland NZ. You are doing a good discussion on this so I will follow and learn


----------



## brandonadams (Mar 11, 2019)

Thanks for sharing your experience with 2LBC churches. My experience is limited to my experience 



Harley said:


> If Christ the Mediator treats Judas so, and considers him so, then it's warrant for us to do the same.



Baptists agree that those who profess faith should be treated as having faith, so this is a non-issue.



Harley said:


> Like I said, I'm not up for the "paedos don't agree" or "some of your great theologians believe what we believe" game.



I think you have misunderstood my intention. It's not a game. I was answering questions or objections raised regarding the kingdom of God and the church and I used paedobaptists who articulated our answer well (because if I quoted baptists the same statement would be more easily waved off or dismissed). Of course that doesn't inherently make baptists right. I wasn't suggesting it did. One paedobaptist can be right and another wrong. I never argued that disagreement between them meant they're both wrong on baptism. I was simply explaining our perspective while at the same time pointing out that it's not a baptist invention.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Mar 11, 2019)

brandonadams said:


> Thanks for sharing your experience with 2LBC churches. My experience is limited to my experience
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Understood, and I believe your assertions concerning yourself and your intentions; and forgive any apparent grouchiness in my last post. No excuses.

But if aBrakel et al prove that your interpretations are not exclusive to the Baptist camp, then it weighs for us that of our doctrines and outlooks are not exclusive to the Paedobaptist camp. I've seen it numerous times in Baptist books, Sunday School audios and in private conversations that many Baptists are convinced we've chosen our tradition and then made up our interpretations (not saying this is your view). May they likewise see there are Baptists who do not share our theological incentives who agree with us on key issues, making it all the more likely that our understanding of covenants, church, and baptism are true, faithful, honest and God-fearing interpretations of Scripture, and not to be waved off or dismissed either.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 1, 2019)

@greenbaggins @Harley Friends, Puritanboard informs me I have now done 1689 Posts. 1689 is inextricably linked to an esteemed Particular Baptist confesion. I did wonder if this is a *sign* that I should remain a Baptist, or that I should better *seal* Paedobaptist arguments to my mind? 

I have been reading Vos' majestic "The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology". I have read it many times and found it a great summary of confessional Covenant Theology.

The first 75% of the essay is a clear articulation of the Pactum Salutis, the Historia Salutis and the Ordo Salutis. The WCF and the 1689 Confessions (both ch 7) would agree in principle with these concepts.

However, in the last 25% of Vos' essay, Vos seeks to bring in Infant Baptism into his theology.

When discussing the Covenant of Redemption Vos says:
" A Pactum Salutis, a Counsel of Peace, a Covenant of Redemption, could then be spoken of. ... In the dogma of the counsel of peace, then, the doctrine of the covenant has found its genuinely theological rest point. Only when it becomes plain how it is rooted, not in something that did not come into existence until creation, but in God's being itself, only then has this rest point been reached and only then can the covenant idea be thought of theologically. ... But the covenant of redemption also has meaning for the application of salvation. It provides the guarantee that the glory of God's works of redemption shall be impressed upon the consciousness of the elect and be actively expressed through their lives. This can happen only when the application of Christ in its entirety occurs because of and in union with Christ. Only when the believer understands how he has to receive and has received everything from the Mediator and how God in no way whatever deals with him except through Christ, only then does a picture of the glorious work that God wrought through Christ emerge in his consciousness and the magnificent idea of grace begin to dominate and to form in his life. For the Reformed, therefore, the entire ordo salutis, beginning with regeneration as its first stage, is bound to the mystical union with Christ. There is no gift that has not been earned by Him. Neither is there a gift that is not bestowed by Him that does not elevate God's glory through His bestowal. Now the basis for this order lies in none other than in the covenant of salvation with Christ. In this covenant those chosen by the Father are given to Christ. In it He became the guarantor so that they would be planted into His body in order to live in the thought-world of grace through faith. As the application of salvation by Christ and by Christ's initiative is a fundamental principle of Reformed theology, this theology has correctly viewed this application as a covenantal requirement which fell to the Mediator and for the fulfilling of which He became the guarantor. In this way Reformed theology simply showed that here too it would be content with nothing but its one all-embracing slogan: the work of grace in the sinner as a mirror for the glory of God."

Now the reason I am having trouble reconciling the first 75% of his essay with his later comments on infant baptism is that Vos makes it clear to be in the Covenant of Redemption is to be elect, to be truly united with Christ, and that the Father gave to the Son a people that Christ would die for and be united to. It seems to me that this is all Baptist sounding language and that Infant Baptism does not quite fit this language.

Do you have insights that would reconcile this particular issue?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 2, 2019)

Here, prior to discussion of two and then three broadly historical slants on subsidiary issues growing out of one unified Reformed view of IB, Vos expresses the covenant-relation to the sacraments in general:

Hence, in back of Word and sacrament he places the covenant as the strongest expression of how the unbroken work of grace from generation to generation rests, as all grace, on the sovereign pleasure of God. The church does not abide because we baptize or work regeneration by baptism; rather *because God establishes His covenant from generation to generation, therefore the church remains and we baptize*. Since it is God's Covenant and not man's, it is appropriate for the Christian to recognize this goodness of God in quiet gratitude and in faith and to be strengthened by its sealing. Here again the concept of the covenant requires that faith will react freely and actively to this pronouncement of God. The same thing holds true for the covenant as it binds generations together, as holds true for the covenant as it binds the individual to God. The other side of the promise is an appreciative faith. That faith must also live in the church in regard to its continuation in the generations to follow. *It must not be like the desert, which does not respond when blessings come upon it; rather, it must be as a watered garden, whose flowers seek the face of the sun and whose leaves unfold to catch the drops of God's rain of grace*. It is evident how strongly the idea of the covenant makes itself felt here, and how it elevates itself above all idolatrous worship of the sacraments.​(*emphasis *mine)

The whole issue is in the tricky work of relating the historical dimension to the decretal. A bit later he writes, "When that infant later enters into covenantal consciousness by active faith, this faith sums up all that is included in the covenant, so that the wide, rich world of God's works of grace is opened up to his sight, *a perspective looking backwards and forward*." (emphasis mine)

If you do not understand what he's getting at here, perhaps I can answer a more pointed question. But it is an undeniable fact that the Baptist side cannot evade similar issues, as one of the authors quoted by Vos writes, 

We do not need to respond to those who object and ask whether the minister is deceived, whether perhaps the infant is in truth no child of the promise, of divine election and mercy. Similar diatribes could be adduced with regard to adults, for we do not know whether they come deceptively, whether they truly believe, whether they are children of election or perdition, etc." (Peter Martyr, _Loci Communes, _IV, 8, 7).​There is no presumption of quality or purity of faith that holds in preference of the Baptist's insistence on a prior personal asseveration. Are the Baptist churches a purer lot? Doubtful, and therefore we are simply driven back to the exegetical question of: "Which parties are entitled to baptism, and on which grounds?"

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 2, 2019)

In addition to what Bruce wrote, I would add a couple of things. 

1. Vos assumes and argues for the fundamental continuity of the covenant of grace through its various administrations. 

2. When Vos speaks of covenant and election, it must be kept in mind that he agrees with all Reformed authors who are not FV in saying that the substance of the covenant of grace has to do with the elect. The essence of the covenant is salvation. Baptism as a sign points to that essential nature of the covenant. This does not imply, however, that the sign must only be given to believers. If that were true, it could never be given to anyone unless we had regeneration goggles. The actual giving of the sign itself is part of the administration of the covenant, not the essence, notwithstanding the fact that it points to the essence of the CoG. The preaching of the word does the same thing, in that not all those who hear are regenerated either. In Reformed theology, the sacraments and the Word work in VERY similar ways. Both proclaim the gospel, the former in ways appealing to the senses other than hearing, the word appealing to the hearing. Both are given to a broader audience than the regenerate. But both have enormous positive significance for the elect. Both have negative significance for the non-elect. I would venture to say that meditating on the parallel and highly similar function of Word and sacrament will go a long ways towards making the Reformed view intelligible. They both do very similar things: the difference is that preaching is aural and the sacraments appeal mainly to the other senses (and hearing, too, since the Word is never disconnected from the sacraments). 

3. The way in which God brings the elect to himself is through the covenantal administration, which includes word and sacrament given in inter-generational patterns. The goal is always the bringing in of the elect. The question is how are the elect gathered? Well, word and sacrament preach the gospel. Neither, of course, will do a thing unless the Holy Spirit gives faith to the recipient. But when that does happen, the recipient, in the case of the sacraments, has the whole sacrament: sign, thing signified, and the sacramental relationship (Spirit-given faith) that connects the sign to the thing signified. The administration of the covenant of grace is the normal doorway for the elect.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 3, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The whole issue is in the tricky work of relating the historical dimension to the decretal. A bit later he writes, "When that infant later enters into covenantal consciousness by active faith, this faith sums up all that is included in the covenant, so that the wide, rich world of God's works of grace is opened up to his sight, *a perspective looking backwards and forward*." If you do not understand what he's getting at here, perhaps I can answer a more pointed question.


Thanks Bruce. Could you expand the Vos argument a little more, particularly the bit in bold "a perspective looking backwards and forward".



Contra_Mundum said:


> Are the Baptist churches a purer lot? Doubtful,


Covenantal Baptist pastor, Fred Malone, argues in his book "The Baptism of Disciples alone" [the title is a misnomer after what you wrote in your post!], that because Paedobaptist pastors 'presume' their baptised infants are Christians - unless they actually apostatise in adulthood - Baptist churches keep a higher proportion of Christians in the church over the decades. I am not sure how he proves this argument but does it not show the wisdom of pastors continually calling the attendees of the church to faith and repentance? 2 Corinthians 13:5; 2 Peter 1:10-11


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 3, 2019)

greenbaggins said:


> The way in which God brings the elect to himself is through the covenantal administration, which includes word and sacrament given in inter-generational patterns. The goal is always the bringing in of the elect. The question is how are the elect gathered? Well, word and sacrament preach the gospel. Neither, of course, will do a thing unless the Holy Spirit gives faith to the recipient.


Appreciated your insights Lane. Just a question regarding your comment 'inter-generational patterns'. I have heard the argument from some Reformed Baptists that paedobaptism undermines Unconditional Election because the Paedobaptist pastor gives the covenant promise to the child in baptism *conditional* on the faith of the parent.

Would you argue that the argument is invalid because the paedobaptist internal vs external Church distinction preserves the true doctrine of unconditional election, and that the bigger issue is God's promise to be a God to you and your children which transcends the Old and New Covenants?


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 3, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Covenantal Baptist pastor, Fred Malone, argues in his book "The Baptism of Disciples alone" [the title is a misnomer after what you wrote in your post!], that because Paedobaptist pastors 'presume' their baptised infants are Christians - unless they actually apostatise in adulthood - Baptist churches keep a higher proportion of Christians in the church over the decades. I am not sure how he proves this argument but does it not show the wisdom of pastors continually calling the attendees of the church to faith and repentance? 2 Corinthians 13:5; 2 Peter 1:10-11



Unfortunately for Rev. Malone, this is not what paedos believe, at least not what most of us do. There are occasionally Kuypers who do believe in presumptive regeneration, but they are the exception, not the rule. We do not presume one way or the other. We admit the _possibility_ of regeneration in the womb. But we do not presume that our babies are already saved. The child needs the gospel from day one. This would, I think, vitiate Rev. Malone's entire argument. 



Stephen L Smith said:


> Appreciated your insights Lane. Just a question regarding your comment 'inter-generational patterns'. I have heard the argument from some Reformed Baptists that paedobaptism undermines Unconditional Election because the Paedobaptist pastor gives the covenant promise to the child in baptism *conditional* on the faith of the parent.
> 
> Would you argue that the argument is invalid because the paedobaptist internal vs external Church distinction preserves the true doctrine of unconditional election, and that the bigger issue is God's promise to be a God to you and your children which transcends the Old and New Covenants?



Your second paragraph addresses part of how I would answer it. There is another key part to it. The argument fails to make a key distinction that paedos make. Paedos have never, to my knowledge, believed that babies are saved because of the faith of the parents. Paedos do believe that children of believing parents are positionally holy (1 Corinthians 7:14b). That is, they are set apart from the world, and are therefore not to be treated as pagans, but as part of the visible church. The nature of the promise is that salvation will come to the child if and when that child puts his faith and trust in Jesus. That promise is true for anyone in the world, of course. However, the promise is made much more likely to happen in a covenantal context, where the child is receiving the regular means of grace. There is something about growing up in a Christian family which makes the salvation of the child much more likely. That is the nature of the inter-generational aspects of the covenant of grace. 

Election of a child does not depend at all on the faith of the parents. Faith in a child is still a supernaturally direct work of the Holy Spirit, not dependent on anything in the child or in his relationship to his parents.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 3, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Thanks Bruce. Could you expand the Vos argument a little more, particularly the bit in bold "a perspective looking backwards and forward".


Because covenant is larger/broader than the individual. When "active faith" (here, Vos seems to make room for the possibility of a "seed of faith"), which is the only discernible faith, takes in the reality of salvation--and _his _salvation--he views it in the covenant context. He takes in that ancient promise of God to his parents, and maybe his grandparents, and to a whole church replete with spiritual ancestors, and going all the way back to Abraham. "So, God has been interested in _*my *_salvation, ever since?"

He sees that the means of grace were faithfully applied, in varying degrees, since he was a child, an infant; and those means have born fruit in the faith he experiences today, because God works through means. He looks ahead, to what God is continuing to do in his life, applying the work of Christ to him not just on one day when he first believed, but all through the remainder of his life in this world. "For this God is our God for ever and ever: he will be our guide even unto death." Ps.48:14. God is working in the life of the whole covenant people. His promises cover our lives, and affect the children's children.

To adopt in faith a covenant perspective is to awake to see that individual salvation is a tiny (but not meaningless) piece of an unimaginably monumental painting or orchestral or some other multi-textured artwork, on a grand design. Untold individual themes combined in subthemes that are constituent in the main theme. God has chosen to do more than simply introduce one new random member after another, and bid them move forward. The saved man is one note in a symphony, which note, which instrumentation might seem to appear at some point de novo. And often his note begets more notes naturally, practically of necessity as it relates to the whole. Indeed, he himself might have been a note resuming a lost theme.



Stephen L Smith said:


> Covenantal Baptist pastor, Fred Malone, argues in his book "The Baptism of Disciples alone" [the title is a misnomer after what you wrote in your post!], that because Paedobaptist pastors 'presume' their baptised infants are Christians - unless they actually apostatise in adulthood - Baptist churches keep a higher proportion of Christians in the church over the decades. I am not sure how he proves this argument but does it not show the wisdom of pastors continually calling the attendees of the church to faith and repentance? 2 Corinthians 13:5; 2 Peter 1:10-11


I don't want to slight Mr. Malone, whose work I have not read, and whose intelligence I do not doubt. But, I understand he was a Baptist, who adopted Presbyterianism, and went back to his Baptist roots. Which is preferable to the direction some on that path have taken, who were not at all settled upon Presbyterianism.

Did he really think we "presume," did _he _presume regeneration of the children, when he was a Presbyterian? Surely, he must have known some who did not, even if _he _thought (at the time) such was the "most consistent" position. Many such who make that kind of transition also seek for "consistency" and dive into paedocommunion. What they demonstrate is that, so far from being consistent with the position they think they've joined, they are not yet decoupled from other aspects of their former mode of thought. Trying to wed those to the Reformed sacramentology leads them into the wilds.

I am very happy that Mr. Malone did not go there (or further, as some have gone to EO or Rome), but keeping his thought forms from his Baptist roots, went back to relatively safe ground. But I have to ask, To what _Baptist-and-Baptist-type _churches is he confining his sanguine judgments? Or, in the years since his book, would he revise such a sweeping claim, considering where the largely baptistic western-evangelical world is going right this minute in an all-fired hurry?

To the degree certain Baptist churches have maintained an old "revivalist" streak, and made the "altar call" a fixture of their services, you might be able to argue that those churches "continually called the attendees to faith and repentance," regardless of the typical sermon content. Did this help? That's the very point of contention, that assumes what must be proved.

I am a vanilla Presbyterian of the Old Side and Old School variety. In contradiction to the New Siders, the Old School maintained that the Great Awakening revivalist movement thoughtlessly denigrated the consistent application of the means of grace as the ordinary way of forming and growing Christians. I preach the gospel every single week (by God's grace), and every week summon the whole congregation to confession of sin under the Law, and offer them pardon for sin through repentance and faith in Christ. I'm not unusual within our stable and confessional tradition.

Are there churches, both of Reformed and Cov-Baptist stripes, that tend to leave the gospel preaching to the evangelists? Are there such churches that tend to _presume_ on the Perseverance of the Saints, and forget the weekly call to faith and repentance (the _means_ of perseverance). Sure, and that's evidently not merely a non-Baptist-type church problem.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 4, 2019)

greenbaggins said:


> Unfortunately for Rev. Malone, this is not what paedos believe, at least not what most of us do. There are occasionally Kuypers who do believe in presumptive regeneration, but they are the exception, not the rule. We do not presume one way or the other. We admit the _possibility_ of regeneration in the womb. But we do not presume that our babies are already saved.


I have wondered if there is some difference between the 'Dutch' Reformed and the Presbyterians on this point. I worship with the Reformed Churches of New Zealand who have a warm relationship with the OPC. There are some elders in some churches who would be comfortable with a presumptive regeneration position [I cannot be a member until I come a paedobaptist. Thus it is in my interest to become a paedobaptist but obviously a conviction has to arise from scrpture not convenience].


greenbaggins said:


> The child needs the gospel from day one. This would, I think, vitiate Rev. Malone's entire argument.


Perhaps this is why Joel Beeke's booklet is helpful "Bringing the *gospel* to *covenant* children"


greenbaggins said:


> Paedos do believe that children of believing parents are positionally holy (1 Corinthians 7:14b). That is, they are set apart from the world, and are therefore not to be treated as pagans, but as part of the visible church. The nature of the promise is that salvation will come to the child if and when that child puts his faith and trust in Jesus.


I have relected on Paedobaptist interpretations of this verse. Do you believe that they are holy in that they are set apart from the world, but if not actual Christians then still totally depraved.?


greenbaggins said:


> There is something about growing up in a Christian family which makes the salvation of the child much more likely.


A Reformed Baptist would agree with this too.


greenbaggins said:


> Election of a child does not depend at all on the faith of the parents. Faith in a child is still a supernaturally direct work of the Holy Spirit, not dependent on anything in the child or in his relationship to his parents.


Amen


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 5, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> To the degree certain Baptist churches have maintained an old "revivalist" streak, and made the "altar call" a fixture of their services, you might be able to argue that those churches "continually called the attendees to faith and repentance," regardless of the typical sermon content. Did this help? That's the very point of contention, that assumes what must be proved.


This would not apply to Reformed Baptists who generally have been influenced by Martyn Lloyd-Jones critique of the alter call.


Contra_Mundum said:


> I preach the gospel every single week (by God's grace), and every week summon the whole congregation to confession of sin under the Law, and offer them pardon for sin through repentance and faith in Christ. I'm not unusual within our stable and confessional tradition.


Amen


Contra_Mundum said:


> Because covenant is larger/broader than the individual. When "active faith" (here, Vos seems to make room for the possibility of a "seed of faith"), which is the only discernible faith, takes in the reality of salvation--and _his _salvation--he views it in the covenant context. He takes in that ancient promise of God to his parents, and maybe his grandparents, and to a whole church replete with spiritual ancestors, and going all the way back to Abraham. "So, God has been interested in _*my *_salvation, ever since?"


So do you think this statement from the 1689 Baptist Confession [7:3] is not really consistent with Vos' comment on the Covenant of Redemption?
"This covenant is based on the eternal covenant transaction between the Father and the Son concerning the redemption of the elect. Only through the grace of this covenant have those saved from among the descendants of fallen Adam obtained life and blessed immortality. Humanity is now utterly incapable of being accepted by God on the same terms on which Adam was accepted in his state of innocence."


----------



## Kinghezy (Apr 5, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I have wondered if there is some difference between the 'Dutch' Reformed and the Presbyterians on this point. I worship with the Reformed Churches of New Zealand who have a warm relationship with the OPC. There are some elders in some churches who would be comfortable with a presumptive regeneration position



I think you would find differences in subscription to the different standards, not a difference in the standards themselves.

For instance, I think the WCF is fairly clear on how we are to consider the Lord's Day. At my church, at least 3 of the 4 elders (maybe all 4) hold to the Continental* view of the Lord's Day. They take an exception** to the WCF, to hold this. I do not think they can point to one standard that details a different view of it.

In the PCA, we have a wide range of how churches do things (band or no band; wine, grape, or halfsies [right @Grant Jones]; women "deaconesses": Psalm singing; catechical instruction; frequence of communion; women speaking during service; etc; etc). These differences are within the same standard and even the same BCO.

* Not that I am convinced there being a continental view, but for sake of brevity I am using the term.

** I understand in your example, they may not be taking an exception, but it seems like they are not following the standard. That is my focus.


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 5, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I have wondered if there is some difference between the 'Dutch' Reformed and the Presbyterians on this point. I worship with the Reformed Churches of New Zealand who have a warm relationship with the OPC. There are some elders in some churches who would be comfortable with a presumptive regeneration position [I cannot be a member until I come a paedobaptist. Thus it is in my interest to become a paedobaptist but obviously a conviction has to arise from scrpture not convenience].



Dutch are not agreed on this point, but I think the majority would not be in favor of presumptive regeneration. 



Stephen L Smith said:


> I have relected on Paedobaptist interpretations of this verse. Do you believe that they are holy in that they are set apart from the world, but if not actual Christians then still totally depraved.?



Absolutely.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 5, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> This would not apply to Reformed Baptists who generally have been influenced by Martyn Lloyd-Jones critique of the alter call.


I understand, but as you presented FM's claim, it is a general one that "Baptist churches keep a higher proportion of Christians in the church over the decades." This assertion, minus marshaled evidence, he appears to credit to Baptists not "presuming" as much as Presbyterians--without addressing all the forms of Baptist-presumption out there.

If the churches he represents don't do altar calls or revivals, then how do they present the gospel, and how is it more and better than in Presbyterian churches? And if he be allowed to narrow his focus to those Baptist churches he considers more consistent, then why can't the other side do the same? It just sounds to me like Baptist-boilerplate: that somehow their procedure for recognizing members is logically superior, and obviously makes a better filter on the front end. [I'm not saying they aren't perfectly entitled to their own conviction]



Stephen L Smith said:


> So do you think this statement from the 1689 Baptist Confession [7:3] is not really consistent with Vos' comment on the Covenant of Redemption?
> This covenant is based on the eternal covenant transaction between the Father and the Son concerning the redemption of the elect. Only through the grace of this covenant have those saved from among the descendants of fallen Adam obtained life and blessed immortality. Humanity is now utterly incapable of being accepted by God on the same terms on which Adam was accepted in his state of innocence.​


I'm very tempted to deny my competence outright to answer this question. Here's what I'll offer: Vos most likely distinguishes between substance and administration, which is not (as I mean to fairly describe) part of the Baptist regard for the New Covenant or Covenant of Grace (proper). Baptists I've interacted with tend to equate the Spirit's exclusive administration of the New Covenant as one of the major differences between this and all previous administrations.

WCL 31 asks, "With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed."​
That's what Presbyterians confess. So, the covenant of grace is substantively confined to the elect, it always has been. Vos is writing, I'm confident, in complete agreement with this view. "All the elect" constitute a cross-temporal assembly, and not merely the act of individual selection. Cause-and-effect relationships are not excluded from the covenant idea. It is not 144,000 individual Covenants of Grace, with God on one side and a human on the other and Christ in between. It is one Covenant, and the saved individual awakens by faith entering onto one space in a grand design.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 5, 2019)

Contra_Mundum said:


> If the churches he represents don't do altar calls or revivals, then how do they present the gospel, and how is it more and better than in Presbyterian churches? And if he be allowed to narrow his focus to those Baptist churches he considers more consistent, then why can't the other side do the same? It just sounds to me like Baptist-boilerplate: that somehow their procedure for recognizing members is logically superior, and obviously makes a better filter on the front end. [I'm not saying they aren't perfectly entitled to their own conviction]


I think the Baptist argument is that they make a deliberate attempt to baptise confessng believers and not infants (who have not made a profession of faith) does lead the more likelihood of a pure church. I think this was what Rev F Malone was arguing. I do know that some Reformed Baptists preach theological sermons with little gospel preaching (Presbyterian pastor Rev Iain Murray made a criticism of this at a Banner of Truth conference some months ago). The point is where the gospel is clearly proclaimed and where sinners are urged to repent of their sins, maybe this original Baptist argument falters.



Contra_Mundum said:


> I'm very tempted to deny my competence outright to answer this question.


I am very sorry if my question was confusing. I am sincerely trying to nut this issue out. And with the rapid growth of Reformed Baptist literature over the past decade, to think through all the issues is a challange.


Contra_Mundum said:


> WCL 31 asks, "With whom was the covenant of grace made?
> A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed."
> That's what Presbyterians confess. So, the covenant of grace is substantively confined to the elect, it always has been. Vos is writing, I'm confident, in complete agreement with this view. "All the elect" constitute a cross-temporal assembly, and not merely the act of individual selection.


I love the WLC myself. A Reformed Baptist friend has made the argument that if Presbyterians took the WLC 31 consistently, they would hold a Baptist position. Indeed WLC 30-36 is all quite consistent with the 1689 Confession 7:2 and 7:3.

I guess I am still trying to this through how this relates to infant inclusion in the covenant. Working on it


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 5, 2019)

OK, brother, 
I'm not going to keep going 'round this tree. I think we're clear that no matter what Confession or Standards, pastors must ever lead gospel-centered worship, and ever preach gospel-infused messages. Or there won't be much of a church, worthy of the designation, having any degree of purity.



Stephen L Smith said:


> I love the WLC myself. A Reformed Baptist friend has made the argument that if Presbyterians took the WLC 31 consistently, they would hold a Baptist position.



Right. It's a Presbyterian statement, and_ ipso facto_ to hold it consistently is to be Presbyterian at that point. Those who composed the doctrinal standards well knew the theology they were synthesizing.

So, it's more likely that the friend has not the slightest idea how the statement could be written any different, so as to be "more consistent" with the Presbyterian position. If he honestly grasped what the other side believed and confessed, he would not speak in such an obtuse manner.

On the other hand, I suppose myself thankful that he, that _you _have affection for this catechism, you find it resonates with your theological understanding, expressing truth in language you can appreciate, even if you don't quite get how the same thoughts mesh in the mind of people thinking a bit differently from your own mode.

Peace.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

