# Baptism should be administered to the true seed of Abraham, the elect in Christ



## AV1611

Paul manata said:


> what good reason is there for me to assume that one must only be baptised/receive the sign of covenant membership upon profession, especially given that in the OT infants and adults were given the sign almost immediately after inception into the covenant.



Hopefully I am not derailing the thread here. There is one covenant of grace/redemption, peace &c. which was made in eternity but which is administered in time in various economies and is the " the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ" (Gal 3:17). One administration begins with Abraham and so the Abrahamic Covenant is one administration of the covenant of grace. With the coming of Christ the New Covenant replaced the Abrahamic or more precisely the Abrahamic was fulfilled in the New:

_"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." (*Gal 3:16*)_

The New Covenant is a new administration of that one covenant of grace. Now circumcision was the sign and seal of the covenant of grace as administered through the Abrahamic Covenant whilst baptism is the sign and seal of the covenant of grace as administered through the New Covenant.

What then am I trying to say? Well simply that there is unity between the one administration and the other but there are also differences and one difference is that whilst in the Abrahamic Covenant infants (the typical seed of Abraham) were circumcised now in the New Covenant only professors (the true seed of Abraham) are baptised.

Genesis 17 is clear, God declares:

_I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 

I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. 

I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 

I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God._

Now this should, I believe, be interpreted in two ways. Firstly in a literal and physical way and secondly in a spiritual way. 



> "That the covenant with Abraham," says Dr. Carson, "has a letter and a spirit, is not a theory formed to serve a purpose. It is consonant to every part of the Old Dispensation, and is the only sense that can harmonize it with the New Testament. The temple was the house of God, in the letter; believers are so in the spirit. To call any house the house of God, is as much below the sense which the same phrase has when it is applied to the church of Christ, as to call the nation of Israel the people of God, is below the sense which that phrase has when applied to the spiritual Israel. Besides, there are many things spoken about the house of God in the letter, in terms that can only fully suit the spirit. "I have surely," said Solomon, "built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide forever." The incongruity of supposing him, whom ?the heaven of heavens cannot contain,? to dwell in a house forever, as a settled habitation, is removed only by referring it to the spirit." "Christ?s body is the only temple of which this is fully true. God did not dwell in the temple built by Solomon forever." That temple ceased to exist twenty five centuries ago. "But in the spirit it is accomplished, in its utmost extent." In another place, the same distinguished writer observes : -"For the accomplishment of the grand purpose that all nations should be blessed in Abraham, he had three promises. First, a numerous posterity; which was fulfilled in the letter, to the nation of Israel. It was fulfilled in the spirit, by the divine constitution that makes all believers the children of Abraham." "The second was, that he would be a God to him, and his seed; which was fulfilled in the letter, by his protection of Israel in Egypt, his delivering them from bondage," and his subsequent dealings with that nation. "This promise is fulfilled in the spirit, by God?s being a God to all believers, and to them alone, in a higher sense than he ever was to Israel" as a nation. "The third promise was of the land of Canaan; fulfilled in the letter to Israel; and in the spirit fulfilled to the true Israel, in the heavenly inheritance," the possession of the Canaan above. "In accordance with this double sense of the covenant," "the typical ordinances, which exhibit the truths of the gospel in a figure, form one of the most conclusive evidences of Christianity, and present spiritual things to the mind, in so definite and striking a manner, that they add the greatest lustre to the doctrines of grace." by R.B.C. Howell, _PHILOLOGY OF THE COVENANTS_



So what does God mean by "and to thy seed after thee"? Simple; _1stly_ God was the God of the nation of Israel as their covenant God who were the typical people of God in the OT. _2ndly_ this promise is fulfilled in the seed of Abraham therefore we must ask who precisely are the seed of Abraham?

_"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."_ (*Gal 3:16*)

So Christ is the true seed of Abraham. But more:

_"if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (*Gal 3:29*)_

The elect are the true seed of Abraham _in Christ_. What then does this mean for baptism. Well as circumcision was administered to the seed of Abraham in typical form so now in the blossom of redemptive history baptism should be also administered to the _true_ seed of Abraham, the elect in Christ. How do we know who they are? Well their covenant head as their surety possesses all spiritual blessings which he mediates to them in time and two are repentance and faith. Therefore those who repent and believe ought to be baptised.

_"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (*Galatians 3:26-29*) _


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Moved to new thread. Richard, this post in the thread you responded to is really a whole new topic. Don't have the energy for it right now. Late here.

I'm sure you'll find others willing to take it up.

Blessings,

Rich


----------



## AV1611

SemperFideles said:


> Moved to new thread. Richard, this post in the thread you responded to is really a whole new topic.



No problem, I thought there was a chance it was a little off topic.



SemperFideles said:


> Don't have the energy for it right now. Late here.



Such is the time difference...I posted at 09:55 AM


----------



## AV1611

Paul manata said:


> can he prove that the one difference needed is that God has told us our children, whom he put in, are now out. Doesn't matter if "the administration changed," what matters is if God removed classes of people he had previously allowed in:



Into what covenant did God place the children of believers? Into the covenant of grace? Head for head? This is blatantly false for as the WLC teaches in question 31 that "The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed." It goes on to say that " The covenant of grace was not always administered after the same manner, but the administrations of it under the Old Testament were different from those under the New...The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the passover, and other types and ordinances, which did all foresignify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation." (Questions 33 & 34)

Genesis 17 is not the covenant of grace proper but rather one administration of it and which is called the "covenant of circumcision" in Acts 7:8. Now into this "covenant of circumcision" infants were included but you and I are not under it. As Gill writes, "Nor can this covenant [of circumcision] be the same we are now under, which is a new covenant, or a new administration of the covenant of grace, since it is abolished, and no more in being and force."

Now you assert above that it "Doesn't matter if "the administration changed,"" but I beg to differ. The fact is that the administration has changed and so it is up to you to show me that the new administration includes placing the sign upon infants. 

When the Major administration gave way to the Blair administration in the 1997 general election somethings changed and some things stayed the same. So it was with the change from the old administration to the new, we must therefore find from Scripture what has stayed the same and what has changed.



Paul manata said:


> Wait, this was a bit fast. How'd you get here? As you say above:



In Genesis 17 God declares that the seed of Abraham are to receive the sign and seal of the covenant. In the OT the seed of Abraham was his fleshly decendants and these received circumcision. In the NT the seed of Abraham is the elect in Christ and these ought receive baptism.



Paul manata said:


> So, baptism is for "covenant members." Now, where have you shown that *only elect* are *covenant members* and therefore worthy of the sign of baptism? Here's your argument then:
> 
> P1. Baptism is only for new covenant members.
> 
> P2. The new covenant consists, by necessity, of only the elect.
> 
> _________
> 
> C1. Therefore, baptism is for the elect.
> 
> Where has P2 been shown? No where.



I thought it was fairly obvious that only the elect are in the covenant:

*1.* " The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed." (_WLC Question 31_)

*2.* Jeremiah 31:31-4 and Ezekiel 36:25-8 

*Jer 31:31-4* "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." 

*Eze 36:25-28* Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God."

*3.* Greg Welty in _A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism_:



> *1)* Jeremiah 31:31-34 "'The time is coming,' declares the LORD, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,' declares the LORD. 'This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,' declares the LORD. 'I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD," because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,' declares the LORD. 'For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.'"
> 
> Jeremiah's statement is central, not peripheral, to identifying the relationship between the New Covenant and previous historical administrations of the one covenant of grace. Jeremiah's words are quoted in Hebrews 8:8-12, in Hebrews 10:16-17, and alluded to by our Lord in John 6:45. They speak directly to the issue of continuity and discontinuity between the covenant administrations. Three implications clearly follow from Jeremiah's description of the New Covenant.
> 
> First, *the New Covenant is an unbreakable covenant. *The very reason why God established this New Covenant with his people is because they broke the old one (v. 32). And if the New Covenant is an unbreakable covenant, then the paedobaptists have failed to recognize an important discontinuity between the New Covenant and the previous covenant administrations. The covenant as administered to Abraham and to Moses was breakable. "Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant" (Genesis 17:14). "They broke my covenant" (Jeremiah 31:32; cf. Deuteronomy 28, 29:19-25). But according to Jeremiah, the covenant as administered in the New Covenant is not breakable by the covenantees.
> 
> Second, *the New Covenant is made with believers only*. This of course is the exact reason why the New Covenant is unbreakable, for only believers will persevere to the end without breaking God's covenant. Three blessings are spoken of with respect to the New Covenant: law written on the heart--"I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts" (v. 33); personal knowledge of God--"No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest" (v. 34a); and forgiveness of sins--"For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more" (v. 34b). Now the contrast between the Old and the New is not that these three blessings will be experienced for the first time in redemptive history by the people of God! That would be to succumb to radically dispensational assumptions. The elect in every age have experienced these blessings, including the elect under the Old Covenant--law written on the heart (Psalm 37:31, 9:10, 76:1); personal knowledge of God (1 Samuel 2:12, 3:7); the forgiveness of sins (Psalm 32:1-2). Rather, the true contrast between the Old and the New Covenants is that now under the New Covenant, all who are covenant members experience these peculiar blessings. The fact that not all covenant members experienced these blessings under the Old Covenant is part of the divine motivation for readministering the covenant under the New! (v. 32: "It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers . . . because they broke my covenant.")
> 
> Third, *the New Covenant is made only with the elect*, with those who have experienced these blessings. It is not made with those who have not experienced these blessings. This is simply a restatement of the first two implications already mentioned. Thus in accordance with the covenant as newly administered in Christ, baptists do not give the New Covenant sign to those who give no evidence of being in the New Covenant. While recognizing the proper Old Testament distinction between an external covenant (elect and non-elect) and an internal covenant (elect only), baptists understand this external/internal distinction to be abolished in the New Covenant. No one is in covenant with God who is not a believer. Thus when paedobaptists speak of their "covenant children" as "breaking covenant" (i.e. becoming apostate by rejecting the faith), baptists rightly respond, "What covenant are you talking about? Obviously not the New Covenant! Only those who have the law of God written on their hearts, who know the Lord, and who have their sins forgiven, are in the New Covenant! Your 'covenant children' were never in the New covenant, and so never should have received the New Covenant sign!"





Paul manata said:


> Now, on my view, a profession gets you into the covenant, hence you receive the sign. And, so does being born to professing parents. And, even though we can presume that both are elect, the profession and birth get you into the covenant, which, say I, has elect and non-elect members, still (see Hebrews 10:29-31, I Cor. 5, John 15, &c.). Hence I don't need to worry about probability calculus since the probability, on my view, that one is in covenant with God (externally at least) is 1 (not low, .4, or high, .7, or inscrutible).



Profession does _not_ get you into the covenant nor does being born to professors. Rather profession (true repentance and faith) are evidences of already belonging in the covenant.


----------



## Kaalvenist

A few thoughts...

1. I believe you should more carefully distinguish between the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption. I believe that modern-day Reformed Baptist arguments tend to confuse or conflate the two. The covenant of redemption is between God the Father and Christ the God-Man, representing His children (the elect). The covenant of grace is between God and the believer, representing his children. Likewise, baptism as a *visible* ordinance, is given to the *visible* church, not the *invisible* church. But you seem to argue otherwise.

2. Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 do not seem (to me, anyway) to _define membership in the new covenant._ They are not establishing terms of church communion (such as regeneracy, or evidence thereof).

3. I cannot see that the declarations in these chapters preclude infants from being in the covenant, as is polemically maintained by Reformed Baptists. (1.) The texts themselves do not exclude infants. (2.) Other OT passages, which likewise refer to the "newness" of the new covenant (even making mention to the regeneracy of those in that covenant), also explicitly include infants and children. See, e.g., Isa. 54:1-3, 10-13; 59:20, 21; 61:6-9; Jer. 32:36-40; Jer. 33:19-26; Ezek. 37:24-28. (3.) The new covenant is here made, not with "believers" or "the elect," but with "the *house* of Israel" and "the *house* of Judah" (cf. Ezek. 34:23-31). This, I would argue, necessitates the inclusion of their children, as certainly as the above passages explicitly mention their children, seed, etc.

4. Covenants naturally have the concept of representation (usually, but not always, on generational lines). All covenants made between God and men have had this element; namely, (1.) the covenant of redemption (made, as I said, between God the Father and Christ the God-Man, representing His elect children); (2.) the covenant of works, made between God and Adam, representing his children (all mankind); and, (3.) the covenant of grace, in ALL of its administrations, made between God and the believer, representing his children. The fact that the covenant of redemption and covenant of works included this principle confirms paedobaptism more than anything else, in my eyes. This demonstrates that this principle was not a ceremonial element of the administrations of the covenant of grace under the OT; since those covenants predate the covenant of grace, and the fall of man into sin, and therefore predate all types and ceremonies. Indeed, the covenant of redemption is from eternity past; meaning that the principle of "covenanters and their children" is a principle as eternal as God Himself. Why, then, on the basis of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 (which mention neither infants, nor baptism) should we conclude that infant baptism is unscriptural?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Well....that about sums it up well!


----------



## Davidius

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Well....that about sums it up well!





Now come on back, Richard!


----------



## AV1611

Paul manata said:


> It is certainly unfortunate that Richard opted to totally ignore one of my arguments which showed that, even if he is correct, his position does not give him a reason to baptise only professors. Hence, even if Richard is correct, which he's not, he still has not provided any reason to not baptise children.



Your argument for the baptism of infants upon the grounds that they are born to believing parents and therefore we are able to assume their election is somewhat beside the point. 

From my own position if we are going to baptize those who are in the new covenant then the only way to know if they are in the covenant is to assume that those who bring for the fruits of that covenant are elect. Therefore since both repentance and faith are fruits of electing grace then, because there is no way for me to be completely sure whether they are truly elect or not, I baptize them upon their profession. 

However what grounds have I to assume that the children of believing parents are elect? No more that if I was to assume that the children of unbelieving parents are elect because election is not hereditary Cf. Ishmael and Esau. Therefore if you were to be consistent Paul you should baptize all infants regardless of their parental standing. But you would, rightly, be loath to do this because you are fully aware that the sign and seal is to be administered to those _in the covenant_ and those alone.

The issue then is not election but covenant membership. Therefore the key question is just who is included in the New Covenant? Well the most obvious method to discern who is in the New Covenant is to look at what the blessings of it are at relating to the now. We can discern that the blessings of the NC include a new heart, and a new spirit, they will have the Spirit of God living within them, they shall possess true knowledge of God having been taught by him, having the law of God in their inward parts written upon their hearts, they will have God as their God and they shall be his people, their sins forgiven being sprinkled by the blood of Christ, their stony heart replaced by a heart of flesh. The members of the New Covenant possess all of these spiritual blessings including regeneration bringing forth repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. Now it is to these that baptism is to be administered and that _even by your own logic._ Why? Because we both agree that the sign and seal is to be administered to those in the covenant and those alone.

The only way we know who are in the New Covenant is through their bringing forth the fruits of the New Covenant. The issue is not so much as do infants belong in the New Covenant but rather do infants bringing forth the fruits of the New Covenant? If they do not then they have no part in it and are not to be baptized. 

Am I saying that we know for certain that Mr X and Mrs Y who say that they possess repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ are elect? In no wise, but we must go with their profession of faith in a judgment of charity because we know that such is a fruit of election. We must say with Philip “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest” (*Acts 8:37*).



Paul manata said:


> Well, since Richard believes that the children of believers were in *a* covenant, and I assume he believes that there have been only *two* covenants (laying aside a third, CoR), then our choice is pretty simple. Which covenant did God place children in:
> 
> 1) CoW
> or
> 2) CoG
> 
> (1) and (2) are the only options. We should note that *administrations* of (1) and (2) are not *different* covenants, but administrations of *the* covenants.
> 
> So, if God did not place any children in (2) then he placed them all in (1). Thus since there are only two options, and since Richard admits that some chiildren were in the Abrahamic adminstration of (2), then Richard must agree that some children, at least, were placed in (2).



This is a nice attempt at logic but unfortunately Paul fails to prove anything of importance. Children were never included in the Covenant of Grace as children but only as being elect in Christ. Furthermore whilst the covenant of circumcision undoubtedly included children there is no reason to presume that the New Covenant does also, and why? Simply because the NC is the fulfillment of the covenant of circumcision in that the latter was typical of the former. As Gill notes:

“and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you: of the promise of God to Abraham, that he should be the father of many nations. The apostle explains it, Ro 4:11; to be a seal, or what gave assurance to Abraham, or was a sure token to him, that righteousness would be wrought out by Christ, by his obedience, and the shedding of his blood, which is received by faith; and that this was imputed to him while he was uncircumcised, Ge 15:6; and that this also would "be in the uncircumcision", or uncircumcised Gentiles that should believe as he did, and be imputed to them, as to him, and so he would appear to be the father of them all. Moreover, this was a sign or token of that part of the promise or covenant, which gave to his seed the land of Canaan: this was a seal of the lease of that land, which was made while Abraham was in it, and which the Israelites were obliged to submit to, upon entrance into it in Joshua's time, as a token of it; and which they were to observe while in it until the Messiah's coming, and by which they were distinguished from other nations, and kept a distinct nation, that it might appear he came of them: and to use the words of Tacitus, this rite was instituted "_ut diversitate noscantur_", that they might be distinguished and known from others; it was typical of Christ, the end of it, who submitted to it, that it might appear he was really man, a son of Abraham, and a minister of the circumcision, and was made under the law, and so laid under obligation to fulfil it; and that he was to satisfy for the sins of men by the effusion of his blood, and endure pains and sufferings, signified thereby: it was also an emblem of spiritual circumcision, or circumcision of the heart, which ties in the putting off the body of sin, in renouncing man's own righteousness, and in his being by the grace of God, and blood of Christ, cleansed from the impurity of his nature, propagated by carnal generation, in which the member circumcised has a principal concern.”

I do indeed agree that children were included in the Abrahamic Administration of the CofG but I deny that that implies infants, as infants, are included in the CofG.



Paul manata said:


> Furthermore, Richard notes that infants received the sign of the CoG in the Abrhamic administration, so there is nothing prima facie wrong with assuming children of believers can get the sign of a particular administrations sacrament (or ordinance). But he doesn't think infants should continue to get the sign. Why?



Simple, because whilst in the covenant of circumcision infants were included in the covenant and so received circumcision, in the new covenant only those who bring forth the fruit of the blessings of the new covenant are in the new covenant and so because the covenant sign is to be administered to those in the covenant and to those alone it stands to reason that infants being unable to bring forth the fruit of the new covenant, whether they will in the future or not, they should not be baptized. 



Paul manata said:


> Therefore, since it is *possible* that someone could break the new covenant, it is *impossible* that the new covenant is unbreakable.



I would openly dispute this for the new covenant is unbreakable. 

_“Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ. Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” (*Phil 1:6; 2:11, 12*)_

Furthermore the blessings of the new covenant as pointed out above are sure.

Let us look at the verses you produce for your assertion;

*Hebrews 10:30*: On this Gill notes:

“*And again, in De 32:36 the Lord shall judge his people;* such as are truly so, his chosen and covenant people, his redeemed and called ones; these he judges by chastising them in a fatherly way, that they may not be condemned with the world; and by governing and protecting them; and by vindicating and pleading their cause, and avenging them on their enemies: or else such as are only his people by profession; on these he will write a "Lo-ammi"; he distinguishes them from his own, and judges between them and his people, and will condemn them; nor will their profession screen them from his wrath and vengeance.”

*1 Corinthians 5:13*: This points out the fact that if someone who said that they had faith was baptized and brought into the local church fellowship then lived a life unbecoming of a saint he should be excommunicated from the church until he repents. It bears not on the case in hand.

One problem for Paul is that in his insistence that the children of believing parents are in the covenant he seemingly ignores a most obvious statement to the contrary: 

_“But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.” (*Genesis 17:21*)_

This suffices for now


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Good post Paul.

Paul you wrote:


> But how does this even *remotely* counter my argument. All this is, is a *reassertion* of his original position. There's no "answer" here. And, a restatement of a refuted position is still refuted. It doesn't matter how many times one restates it.



Precisely what I thought when I read Richard's response.

Honestly Richard, you might as well have just re-posted your intitial post 3 times. You haven't actually interacted with any arguments here but simply re-asserted what you initially posted without giving support for it or countered any arguments that undermine it.

Simply restating...


> From my own position if we are going to baptize those who are in the new covenant then the only way to know if they are in the covenant is to assume that those who bring for the fruits of that covenant are elect. Therefore since both repentance and faith are fruits of electing grace then, because there is no way for me to be completely sure whether they are truly elect or not, I baptize them upon their profession.



...three or four times may make a nice security blanket to hide under so you don't have to deal with the fact that you haven't established it by didactic principle from the Scripture makes your position seem desparate.

Again, you can argue all you want, until you're blue in the face, that the New Covenat is with the elect but after you've exhausted yourself on that subject and have no energy left to establish that profession meets your accepted bar of "proving election", it does nothing to advance the notion you were hoping to prove in the first place.

It reminds me of the movie _Night at the Museum_ that I saw with my kids the other day. Owen Wilson is this tiny little wax figure that comes to life at night. He's in a scene of the West in a mining town and is trying to blow the mountain so he can expand his territory. He sets up his "dynamite" after a fever of activity and yells "Fire in the hole!" After pushing the plunger down, a tiny amount of smoke puffs up with no sound and no explosion. Undeterred, he goes back to setting up his "dynamite" again so he can blow apart the mountain.

You're simply going have to do better than re-asserting the unbreakability of the New Covenant because all we see is a small puff of smoke when you try to use this idea to prove that you know how you're going to go about baptizing the elect and how you figured out how to identify them when God told us that only He knows who they are.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

One other thing that keeps nagging me:

Richard: What was the "...fruit of election..." that Simon the Sorcerer displayed?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Richard,

I keep reading your confusion about an "Abrahamic administration of the Covenant of Grace" as if God has changed the promise made to Abraham. I would like to ask you to explain how you think the Covenant of Grace has changed in light of this passage (emphasis mine so you can explain how God has modified this promise):



> Galatians 3
> 
> 6Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."[a] 7Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. *8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham:* "All nations will be blessed through you."* 9So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
> 
> 15Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed,"[g] meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. *


*

So, Richard, this promise spoken of above. Has God ever not kept this promise to Abraham? I don't mean after Christ, I mean has God ever failed to keep this promise to Abraham from the time He made it to Him?*


----------



## AV1611

You all raise some interesting points. I will get around to these but weekdays I have very little free time...so will reply when I have some answers


----------



## AV1611

Paul,

Some prelim questions before I respond tomorrow:

*A.* On what grounds do/would you baptise an adult?
*B.* Are all the infants of believers in the covenant head for head? What do you base this upon if "yes"?
*C.* What is the Covenant of Grace as you understand it?
*D.* What did circumcision typify?


----------



## G.Wetmore

> From my own position if we are going to baptize those who are in the new covenant then the only way to know if they are in the covenant is to assume that those who bring for the fruits of that covenant are elect. Therefore since both repentance and faith are fruits of electing grace then, because there is no way for me to be completely sure whether they are truly elect or not, I baptize them upon their profession.



This is exactly the problem. On the one hand, you are willing to take people's profession as a sign that they are in the covenant. You take them at their word. But you are not willing to take God at his when he promises to save our children as well as us. On the one hand you have a profession of faith, on the other the promise of God, the profession is no more grounds for assurance than the covenant promises.


----------



## ServantOfKing

Gabriel,
That is one of the most succinct, well-put explanationss I have heard on this topic! Thanks! 
Ashley


----------



## Theoretical

ServantOfKing said:


> Gabriel,
> That is one of the most succinct, well-put explanationss I have heard on this topic! Thanks!
> Ashley


 - Well said, Gabriel.


----------



## AV1611

G.Wetmore said:


> But you are not willing to take God at his when he promises to save our children as well as us.



How do I respond? 

*1. *Nowhere does God _promise_ to save our children, although I readily grant that he will save those which are included in the CofG but they are the elect,
*2. *Are you saying that we ought baptise the infants of believers because God has promised to save the seed of believers?
*3.* I am arguing that because baptism is the seal of the New Covenant it must be administered to those who are included within the New Covenant. As I pointed to Paul, the blessing of the NC are those which characterise the elect and so we know that the NC includes the elect alone. I then attempted to point out however, tha my argument is not that we baptise the elect, but rather we baptise the members of the NC. How do we know if x and y are in the NC? The Scriptural method to go by is to go by repentance and faith which are themselves fruits of electing grace and covenant blessings.


----------



## G.Wetmore

AV1611 said:


> How do I respond?
> 
> *1. *Nowhere does God _promise_ to save our children, although I readily grant that he will save those which are included in the CofG but they are the elect,
> *2. *Are you saying that we ought baptise the infants of believers because God has promised to save the seed of believers?
> *3.* I am arguing that because baptism is the seal of the New Covenant it must be administered to those who are included within the New Covenant. As I pointed to Paul, the blessing of the NC are those which characterise the elect and so we know that the NC includes the elect alone. I then attempted to point out however, tha my argument is not that we baptise the elect, but rather we baptise the members of the NC. How do we know if x and y are in the NC? The Scriptural method to go by is to go by repentance and faith which are themselves fruits of electing grace and covenant blessings.



I am saying that the children of believers are members of the covenant by birth, and that membership is afterward ratified by baptism. Baptism confirms the place that the child is already in. 


John Calvin said:


> The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the covenant of eternal life. Nor are they brought into the church by baptism on any other ground than because they belonged to the body of the Church before they were born. He who admits aliens to baptism profanes it. . . . For how can it be lawful to confer the badge of Christ on aliens from Crhist. Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire; and this salvation is afterwards ratified by Baptism.



Earlier you said


> From my own position if we are going to baptize those who are in the new covenant then the only way to know if they are in the covenant is to assume that those who bring for the fruits of that covenant are elect. Therefore since both repentance and faith are fruits of electing grace then, because there is no way for me to be completely sure whether they are truly elect or not, I baptize them upon their profession.



To this Calvin respond's:


> This objection may be answereed without any difficulty by saying that they [infants of believers] are baptized into future repentance and faith; for though these graces have not yet been formed in them, nevertheless by secret operation of the Spirit, the seed of each of these is latent in them. By this answer, once and for all, is overthrown every argument they hurl against us, derived from the signification of baptism.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Paul, good stuff! I wouldn't dare attempt to add to it, it would be like mixing muddy water with fine wine!



> This is exactly the problem. On the one hand, you are willing to take people's profession as a sign that they are in the covenant. You take them at their word. But you are not willing to take God at his when he promises to save our children as well as us. On the one hand you have a profession of faith, on the other the promise of God, the profession is no more grounds for assurance than the covenant promises.



Bingo! What the “believer’s only” position boils down to when all is said and done is nothing more complicated than a, “hath God really said…”, even twisting the Scripture to sustain it. A flat out denial of the Gospel in the covenant which is most precious to the children/people so baptized. 

A child clinging to their baptism as an infant rooted in the promise of God to save them, among others Acts chapter, “…for the promise is to you and your children…”, quoting the Old Testament no less (continuity) - is approached by a “clever” believers only who seeks to up root the promise of God, the Gospel in Baptism, FOR THEM/ON THEM/TO THEM (the Gospel is NOT really the Gospel until the crucial FOR YOU/TO YOU is there, as Calvin says the Word promises and the sacraments deliver TO THE MAN) by implying they’ve not been IN the church nor properly baptized. The conscience of the dear little one is vexed that Christ is not for him/her until NOW he/she DOES something to EARN the merit of believer’s baptism, the now merit badge of faith. No longer can they praise or glory in the sovereignty of God’s work on them for them even when they could do NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, because the believers only has convinced them now they must work to earn it. 

It is no small connection that Jesus says that children, NOT adults, but children are to be suffered (passively passionately allowed) to come unto Him.” Why” For of such are of the kingdom of God and adults are to become like them or else they will NOT so much as enter into it. Children MOST picture the Gospel of Christ in that they can, above all else, do absolutely NOTHING but receive it as gift. They most picture the Gospel. Yet, believers only would have us believe it is adults that picture the kingdom, contra-Christ.

Juxta position an infants baptism with an adults in any believers only church. The emphasis on the former is PURE Gospel as the infant receives passively. The emphasis on the later is glorying in “so and so” who “made a decision” or “actively displays a profession of faith”.



L


----------



## Kevin Lewis

*Thoughtful insights Richard*

Richard,

I appreciate your thoughtful insights. You bring up several key points that I had not considered before. Excellent posts on your part. Bravo


----------



## AV1611

Paul manata said:


> Actually, still waiting for anything resembling a substantive refutation.... mere assertions and pious hopes aside.



I am waiting for you to provide some answers asked here so I can write one.


----------



## AV1611

G.Wetmore said:


> I am saying that the children of believers are members of the covenant by birth



*1. *Which covenant? 
*2. *So you are saying that the children of believers are elect by birth? 

What is your Scriptural precedence? Was Ishmael in the covenant by birth? Scripture saith "No":

*Gen 17:20* And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. 
*Gen 17:21 *But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year. 

Ishmael was never included in the Covenant of Grace, oh he was included in the covenant of circumcision but the two are not identical.


----------



## AV1611

Larry Hughes said:


> A child clinging to their baptism as an infant rooted in the promise of God to save them, among others Acts chapter, “…for the promise is to you and your children…”, quoting the Old Testament no less (continuity) - is approached by a “clever” believers only who seeks to up root the promise of God, the Gospel in Baptism, FOR THEM/ON THEM/TO THEM (the Gospel is NOT really the Gospel until the crucial FOR YOU/TO YOU is there, as Calvin says the Word promises and the sacraments deliver TO THE MAN) by implying they’ve not been IN the church nor properly baptized. The conscience of the dear little one is vexed that Christ is not for him/her until NOW he/she DOES something to EARN the merit of believer’s baptism, the now merit badge of faith. No longer can they praise or glory in the sovereignty of God’s work on them for them even when they could do NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, because the believers only has convinced them now they must work to earn it.





Larry Hughes said:


> It is no small connection that Jesus says that children, NOT adults, but children are to be suffered (passively passionately allowed) to come unto Him.” Why” For of such are of the kingdom of God and adults are to become like them or else they will NOT so much as enter into it. Children MOST picture the Gospel of Christ in that they can, above all else, do absolutely NOTHING but receive it as gift. They most picture the Gospel. Yet, believers only would have us believe it is adults that picture the kingdom, contra-Christ.



To both of these I can do no better than quote John Gill:

The minister in the dialogue before me, being pressed by his neighbor to declare what were the numerous texts of scripture he referred to, as proving the continuance of children’s privileges under the gospel-dispensation, meaning particularly baptism, mentions the following.

_1st, _The passage in Acts 2:39, For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. This scripture is often made use of by our author, and seems to be his dernier resort on all occasions, and the sheet-anchor of the cause he is pleading for. The promise spoken of, he says, undoubtedly, was the covenant made with Abraham; and was urged as a reason with the Jews, why they and their children ought to be baptized; and as a reason with the Gentiles, why they and their children, when called into a church-state, should be also baptized [p. 11, 12]. He makes use of it, to prove that this promise gives a claim to baptism, and that an interest in it gives a right unto it [p. 15, 16, 18, 29, 30].

*1. *It is easy to observe the contradictions, that such are guilty of, that plead for infant-baptism, from the covenant or promise made with Abraham, as this writer is. One while, he tells us, that persons are by baptism brought into the covenant of grace; and what a dreadful thing it is to renounce baptism in infancy; whereby the covenant is vacated, and the relation to the glorious God disowned, they were brought into by baptism [p. 4]. And yet here we are told, that interest in this promise gives a right and claim to baptism; but how can it give a previous right and claim to baptism, when it is by baptism, according to this writer, that persons are brought into this covenant?

*2. *The promise here observed, be it what it will, is not taken notice of, as what gives a claim and right to baptism, but as an encouraging motive to persons pricked in the heart, and in distress, both to repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins, and as giving them hope of receiving the holy Ghost, since such a promise was made; wherefore repentance and baptism were urged, in order to the enjoyment of the promise; and, consequently, can be understood of no other than adult persons, who were capable of repentance, and of a voluntary subjection to the ordinance of baptism.

*3. *The children, here spoken of, do not design infants, but the posterity of the Jews, and such, who might be called children, though grown up: And nothing is more common in scripture,[62] than the use of the phrase in this sense; and, unless it be so understood in many places, strange interpretations must be given of them: wherefore the argument, from hence, for Paedobaptism, is given up by some learned men, as Dr. Hammond, and others, as inconclusive; but some men, wherever they meet with the word children, it immediately runs in their heads, that infants must be meant.

*4.* The promise, be it what it will, is restrained to as many as the Lord our God shall call, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, as well as to repenting and baptizing persons; and therefore can furnish out no argument for infant-baptism, but must be understood of adult persons, capable of being called with an holy calling, of professing repentance, and of desiring baptism upon it; and of doing this, that their faith might be led to the blood of Christ, for the remission of sin,

*5.* It seems clear from the context, that not the covenant made with Abraham, but either the promise of the Messiah, and salvation by him, the great promise made in the Old Testament to the Jews, and their posterity; or the particular promise of remission of sins, a branch of the new covenant made with the house of Israel, and mentioned in the preceding verse, and which was calculated for comfort, and pertinently taken notice of; or of the pouring out of the holy Ghost, which is last mentioned: And indeed all may be included in this promise, and used as a means to comfort them under their distress, and as an argument to encourage them to do the things they are pressed to in the foregoing verse.

_2dly, _To the former is added another scripture in Matthew 19:14. Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven. Upon which, it is asked, how, and which way, should we bring our little children to Christ, but in the way of his ordinances? If they belong to the kingdom of heaven, they must have a right to the privileges of that kingdom, p. 20. To which I answer,

*1.* These little children do not appear to be new-born babes; the words used by the evangelists do not always signify such, but are sometimes used of such as are capable of going alone, yea, of receiving instructions, of understanding the scriptures, and of one of twelve years of age (Matthew 18:2; 2 Tim. 3:15; Mark 5:39, 42). Nor is it probable that children just born, or within the month, should be had abroad. Moreover, these were such as Christ called unto him (Luke 18:16), and were capable of coming to him of themselves, as these words suppose; nor does their being brought unto him, or his taking them in his arms, contradict this; since the same things are said of such as could walk of themselves (Matthew 12:22; 17:16; Mark 9:36).

*2.* It is not known whose children these were, whether the children of those that brought them, or of others; and whether their parents were believers in Christ, or not, or whether their patents were baptized or unbaptized; and if they were unbelievers and unbaptized persons, the Paedobaptists themselves will not allow that their children ought to be baptized.

*3. *Certain it is, that they were not brought to Christ, to be baptized by him; for the ends for which they were brought are mentioned; Matthew says, they brought them unto him, that he should put his hands on them, and pray; that is, for them, and bless them; as was usual with the Jews to do (Gen. 49:14-16); and it was common with them to bring their children to venerable persons, men of note for religion and piety, to have their blessing and their prayers; and such an one the persons that brought these children might take Christ to be, though they might not know him to be the Messiah. Mark and Luke say, they were brought to him, that he would touch them (Mark 10:13; Luke 18:15); as he sometimes used to do, when he healed persons of diseases; and probably some of these children, if not all of them, were diseased, and were brought to be cured; otherwise it is not easy to conceive what they should be touched by him for; however, they were not brought to be baptized: If the persons that brought them had their baptism in view, they would not have brought them to Christ, but to his disciples; seeing not he but they baptized the persons fit for it; they might have seen the disciples administer that ordinance, but not Christ; and from hence it is certain, that they were not baptized by Christ, since he never baptized any.

*4. *This passage concludes against Paedobaptism, and not for it; for it seems, by this, that it had never been the practice of the Jews, nor of John the Baptist, nor of Christ and his disciples, to baptize infants; for had this been then in use, the apostles would scarcely have rebuked and forbid those that brought these children, since they might have concluded they brought them to be baptized; but knowing of no such usage, that ever obtained in that nation, neither among those that did or did not believe in Christ, they forbad them; and Christ’s entire silence about the baptism of infants at this time, when he had such an opportunity of speaking of it to his disciples, had it been his will, has no favorable aspect on such a practice.

*5. *This writer’s reasoning upon the passage, is betide the purpose for which he produces it; if he brings it to prove any thing respecting baptism, it must be to prove that infants were brought to Christ, in order to be baptized by him, and not to him in the way of his ordinance, or in the way of baptism: the reason our Lord gives why they should be suffered to come to him, for of such is the kingdom of heaven, is to be understood of such as were comparable to little children, for modesty, meekness, and humility, and for freedom from rancor malice, ambition, and pride (Matthew 18:2). And so the Syriac version is, who are as these; and the Parsic version, which is rather a paraphrase, shewing the sense, who have been humble as these little children; and such are the proper subjects of a gospel church-state, sometimes called the kingdom of heaven, and shall inherit eternal happiness. If the words are to be literally understood of infants, and of their belonging to the kingdom of heaven, interpreted of the kingdom of grace, or of the gospel church-stare, according to this author’s reasoning, they will prove too much, and more than he cares for; namely, that belonging to that kingdom, they have a right to the privileges of it, even to all of them, to the Lord’s supper, as well as to baptism; but the kingdom of glory seems to be designed: And we are not unwilling to admit the literal sense, for the eternal salvation and happiness of infants dying in infancy, is not denied by us; and, according to this sense, our Lord’s reasoning is strong, that seeing he thought fit to save the souls of infants, and introduce them into the kingdom of heaven, why should they be forbid being brought to him, to be touched by him, and healed of their bodily diseases? The argument is from the greater to the lesser; but furnishes out nothing in favor of Paedobaptism.​
From _The Divine Right of Infant-Baptism, Examined and Disproved._

Further in his commentary he states

*Acts 2:39

Ver. 39* *For the promise is unto you,....* Either of the Messiah, and salvation by him, which was particularly given forth to the people of the Jews; or of the remission of sins, which was a branch of the covenant made with the house of Israel, in a spiritual sense, even the whole household of God; or of the pouring forth of the Spirit: and this promise was not only to them, but to theirs, even to as many of them as belonged to the election of grace; and whom the Lord their God would effectually call by his grace, as the last and limiting clause of the text, and which is to be connected with every part of it, shows:

*and to your children:* this is the rather mentioned, because these awakened, and converted souls, were not only in great concern about themselves, for their sin of crucifying Christ, but were in great distress about their children, on whom they had imprecated the guilt of Christ's blood, as upon themselves; the thought of which cut them to the heart, and made their hearts bleed, within them: wherefore to relieve them, and administer comfort to them in this their distress, the apostle informs them, that the promise of Christ, and of his grace, was not only to them, who were now called, but it was also to their children; to as many of them as the Lord God should call; and who are the children of the promise, which all the children of the flesh were not, Ro 9:6 and to these the promise should be applied, notwithstanding this dreadful imprecation of theirs:

*and to all that are afar off;* either in place, as those that were dispersed, among the several nations of the world; and so carried in it a comfortable aspect on the multitude of Jews, that were of every nation under heaven; or in time, who should live in ages to come; or else the Gentiles are intended, who were afar off from God and Christ, and the way of life and salvation by him; see Eph 2:12 even as many as the Lord our God shall call: not externally only, by the ministry of the word, but internally, by his grace and Spirit; with that calling, which is according to the purpose and grace of God, and is inseparably connected with eternal glory; the promise is to all such, and is made good to all such, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, fathers, or children, greater or lesser sinners. The Syriac version reads, "whom God himself shall call".


*Matthew 19:14

Ver. 14. But Jesus said, suffer little children.... *This he said to show his humility, that he was not above taking notice of any; and to teach his disciples to regard the weakest believers, and such as were but children in knowledge; and to inform them what all ought to be, who expect the kingdom of heaven; for it follows;

*and forbid them not to come unto me,* now, or at any other time;

*for of such is the kingdom of heaven; *that is, as the Syriac renders it, "who are as these" or as the Persic version, rather paraphrasing than translating, renders it, "who have been humble as these little children": and it is as if our Lord should say, do not drive away these children from my person and presence; they are lively emblems of the proper subjects of a Gospel church state, and of such that shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: by these I may instruct and point out to you, what converted persons should be, who have a place in my church below, and expect to enter into my kingdom and glory above; that they are, or ought to be, like such children, harmless and inoffensive; free from rancour and malice, meek, modest, and humble; without pride, self-conceit, and ambitious views, and desires of grandeur and superiority. Christ's entire silence about the baptism of infants at this time, when he had such an opportunity of speaking of it to his disciples, had it been his will, has no favourable aspect on such a practice. It is not denied that little children, whether born of believers or unbelievers, which matters not, may be chosen of God, redeemed by the blood of Christ, and have the passive work of the Spirit on their souls, and so enter into heaven; but this is not the sense of this text. It was indeed a controversy among the Jews, whether the little children of the wicked of Israel, abh Mlwel Nyab, "go into the world to come": some affirmed, and others denied; but all agreed, that the little children of the wicked of the nations of the world, do not. They dispute about the time of entrance of a child into the world to come; some say, as soon as it is born, according to Ps 22:31 others, as soon as it can speak, or count, according to Ps 22:30 others as soon as it is sown, as the gloss says, as soon as the seed is received in its mother's womb, though it becomes an abortion; according to the same words, "a seed shall serve thee": others, as soon as he is circumcised, according to Ps 88:15 others, as soon as he can say "Amen", according {z} to Isa 26:2 All weak, frivolous, and impertinent.

{z} T. Bab. Sanhedrim, fol. 110. 2.


----------



## AV1611

Paul manata said:


> Well, if you don't know the answers, let's lessen the bravado about "refuting" paedobaptism since, obviously, you can't refute what you don't understand.



_Firstly_, I understand the case for paedobaptism;
_Secondly_, I have shown no "bravado about 'refuting' paedobaptism".



Paul manata said:


> At any rate, what you don't seem to get is that my posts were negative, i.e., they refuted *your* arguments.



In your mind may be but as your whole probability argument which sounds good but actually fails to deliver because I am not arguing on ground of probability. My argument is simple:

*a.* Only covenant members are to be baptised,
*b.* Only the elect are covenant members,

You here start sidelining my srgument with what you perceive is mine about probability etc which is not what I say. 

*c.* the fruits of election are covenant blessings which include repentance and faith
*d.* Scripture teaches those that repent and believe are to be baptised
*e.* So ultimately the elect are baptised.

this is the model, obviously it is not perfect.



Paul manata said:


> So, at best, even if you could refute my position, that does nothing to save your refuted position. Thus, in this thread, I'd say you have all the answers you need.





Paul manata said:


> You began a thread attemtping to prove a positive claim.



Actually I did not start a thread " attemtping to prove a positive claim" rather I offered an answer to a question.



Paul manata said:


> You will also notice, and I'm a bit surprised you didn't catch it, I used *your own* premises and showed that you have no reason not to baptise children.



Well you must be far more intelligent than I.



Paul manata said:


> That's what was so interesting about my argumentation. So, perhaps you'd like to re-read the thread and offer a rebuttal. If not, I'll just assume my points stand....



I will certainl reread it


----------



## AV1611

Paul manata said:


> (P.S. To be honest, I find how "hard core" you are about credobaptism a bit too strange for my blood. You just converted, but seem to be like you'veheld to credoism your entire life. And, add to that your ignorance of paedobaptist theology, and I sense something funny. Now, I'm not saying thsi is you, but you do know that we've had a history of credobaptists from teh UK coming in here and lying or pretedning to be people who they weren't, just to get their baptist views out. I find it odd that you come here and within a couple weeks make a big post about how you've now turned credo. Again, just a weird feeling. Not saying anything about you for sure, just that I find some of the detailes quite odd. I usually sense a sort of humbleness when someone changes positions. They usually wait for quite some time before they jump back in again. You jumped in with all the credo quotes and misrepresentations of paedos in hand. I find it odd that a former paedobaptist doesn't understand paedobaptism and seems to understand his "new found belief" better than some credos who have been here, and better than his former, *longer held* paedobaptist beliefs.)



_1stly_, if there has been any arrogance on my part I appologise,
_2ndly_, I was asked by Joshua to post my reason(s) for switching,
_3rdly_, I still find the paedobaptist position credible I just find the credo position more credible. 
_Finally_, If you could show me where I have provided "misrepresentations of paedos" I would appreciate it.


----------



## B.J.

> a. Only covenant members are to be baptised,
> b. Only the elect are covenant members,



Isn't this saying that all Baptised persons are elect?


----------



## terry72

> Quote:
> a. Only covenant members are to be baptised,
> b. Only the elect are covenant members,
> Isn't this saying that all Baptised persons are elect?



This is exactly what these premises lead to. If you work it out on a Venn Diagram you see exactly that conclusion, i.e. All baptized are elect. So all one has to do is show one non-elect baptized person and the argument fails because it proves to much.

Blessings,
Terry


----------



## AV1611

...My reply to Paul...


----------



## AV1611

B.J. said:


> Isn't this saying that all Baptised persons are elect?



Not at all. There are two starting points, _1._ you could say that only the elect are to be baptised and I am going to only baptise the elect or _2._ you could say I am going to baptise covenant members and then two questions naturally arise;

*A.* Who are the members of the New Covenant? and,
*B.* How can we discern the members of the New Covenant.

I would argue that the answers are that the elect are members of the NC and they are made manifest through repentance and faith.

Of course in just baptising upon profession it is quite possible that you baptise someone who either lies about having faith in Christ or one who has natural faith but not a saving faith in that whilst they say they believe they later come not to which obviously means they never did in the first place. Now paedobaptists do not somehow escape this predicament becaue they also baptise upon profession but not only that they baptise the infants of that professor so whereas a Baptist would baptise one person with "faith" the paedobaptist could baptise greater than one person with "faith".

Another doubt is why have two criteria of covenant admission one purely by spirtual conditions the other by natural generation?



terry72 said:


> This is exactly what these premises lead to. If you work it out on a Venn Diagram you see exactly that conclusion, i.e. All baptized are elect. So all one has to do is show one non-elect baptized person and the argument fails because it proves to much.
> 
> Blessings,
> Terry



No, the Baptist is aiming for the statement that "all the elect (covenant members) are baptised" whilst recognising that "not all the baptised are elect (covenant members)".

The paedobaptist must say "all covenant members some of whom are reprobate are baptised, some on the condition of faith and others through being born" although I will admit that Hoeksema refused to teach that the reprobate are in the covenant rather he held that the elect alone were in the covenant but that the reprobate could be in the sphere of the covenant, see: http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_7.html I shared HH's position but now I see the that his argument in section one "One People: of the Old and New Dispensation" is strongly leads to the "Reformed" Baptist position. I.e. 

"I offer, that the Word of God knows only of one seed of Abraham, the spiritual, the elect, the children of the promise. This is true both of the old and of the new dispensation. It is not correct to say that in the old dispensation the Jews were the seed of Abraham, while in the new dispensation believers are this seed. The Jews never were the seed of Abraham. It is correct to say, that for a time the seed of Abraham were found exclusively among Abraham's descendants, as they are found now among all nations. But Scripture never identifies Abraham's descendants with the seed of Abraham. The latter, the children of the promise, are at all times only the believers. In the times of the Old Testament they are found in the generations of Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham Israel. In the new dispensation they are among all nations, there being no difference anymore between Jew and Gentile. But wherever they are found the children of the promise, named after Abraham as the father of believers, are always the true children of God, the believers. These and these only are the seed of Abraham."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Richard,

I notice you are very heavy on quoting others but very light on showing proper understanding of the position you said you left.

You told Paul that you understand the Paedo view. I've seen no indication that you have a mature grasp. Your assertion that "Oh, I understand it..." does not indicate otherwise.

You've been asked a number of questions that you refused to answer. You do not need additional answers from us in order to answer the questions asked of you. If you want answers to the questions you asked then you can read the WCF and the Three Forms of Unity.


----------



## AV1611

SemperFideles said:


> You told Paul that you understand the Paedo view. I've seen no indication that you have a mature grasp.



My "matured" understanding is found in this:



> *Why Baptise Infants?
> 
> 
> By Richard Sherratt*​
> Article 27 of our Articles of Religion states that “The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.” Because of this there will be times, I am sure, that we shall be asked by someone to give an account of this and explain why as Christians we baptize infants. I am convinced that in responding we ought to found our position squarely upon the eternal covenant of God.
> 
> *The Covenant of God*
> It is a glorious truth indeed that our God is a covenant God. In Genesis 17:7 God declares of himself “I will establish My covenant”. This gracious covenant that God establishes is founded in eternity and realised within history. It was made with Christ and with all the elect in him and is a relation of the most blessed communion and intimate friendship between the triune God and his chosen people in Christ Jesus (Revelation 3:20; 21:3). It is this unconditional covenant, this relation of friendship, that God establishes and he does so with believers and their children. Hence God says in Genesis 17:7 that “I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you”.
> From the Old Testament we find that God has established his covenant with believers and their seed or, as Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Hoeksema puts it, ‘in the line of continued generations’ and that infants are included in the covenant of God. This is found in Genesis 17:7 in the phrase “I will establish my covenant between me and…your seed after you in their generations”. So as we look back into the Old Testament we find God’s covenant being realized in an unbroken line from Adam to Christ through Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Israel, Judah and David. This continues in the New Testament hence St. Peter declares in Acts 2:39 that “the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call.”
> 
> *The Covenant Sign*
> Whilst God has established his covenant he has also instituted a sign and seal of this covenant so that those with whom the covenant is established are marked out as being in a covenant relation with God. These signs of the covenant have two parts as our Catechism teaches. Firstly an “outward and visible sign” and secondly “an inward and spiritual grace” signified thereby. Under the old dispensation the sign and seal of the covenant was circumcision and so when God established his covenant with Abraham and his seed he commanded “Every male child among you shall be circumcised” (Genesis 17: 10). This sign of circumcision, we are taught in Romans 4:11, was “a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised” i.e. that God justifies through faith alone. But if we look through the Scriptures we find circumcision signified much more that just this. It symbolised regeneration and confession of sin (Leviticus 26:40, 41), sanctification (Deuteronomy 10:16; Jeremiah 4:4) and the work of God in the heart filling it with love for God (Deuteronomy 30:6). Finally circumcision was a sign of God’s covenant to be the God of believers and their seed as is taught in Genesis 17:7-14 that “it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.” The covenant sign of circumcision signified a spiritual grace and was properly a sacrament.
> 
> However Christ has taken away all bloody ordinances and circumcision has been fulfilled in baptism so now under the new dispensation baptism has replaced circumcision as the covenantal sign and seal. There is a direct parallel between circumcision and baptism. Titus 3:5 and 1 Peter 3:21 teach that baptism signifies regeneration and cleansing. Romans 6:4 teaches that it symbolises sanctification and Galatians 3:27-29 teaches that baptism signifies our being in the covenant of God as circumcision once did. Further Colossians 2:11-13 offers clear proof that circumcision and baptism are essentially the same in meaning.
> 
> This teaching is taught in both the Belgic Confession of 1561 and the Heidelberg Catechism of 1563. The Belgic Confession states that
> 
> We believe and confess that Jesus Christ, who is the end of the law, has by His shed blood put an end to every other shedding of blood that one could or would make as an expiation or satisfaction for sins. He has abolished circumcision, which involved blood, and has instituted in its place the sacrament of baptism. By baptism we are received into the Church of God and set apart from all other peoples and false religions, to be entirely committed to Him whose mark and emblem we bear. This serves as a testimony to us that He will be our God and gracious Father for ever…Because baptism has the same meaning for our children as circumcision had for the people of Israel, Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ.
> 
> The Heidelberg Catechism asks “Should infants, too, be baptized?” replying:
> 
> Yes. Infants as well as adults belong to God's covenant and congregation…Therefore, by baptism, as sign of the covenant, they must be grafted into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers. This was done in the old covenant by circumcision, in place of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant.
> 
> Here we find it taught explicitly that “baptism has the same meaning for our children as circumcision had for the people of Israel” and so we safely conclude that the sign and seal of the covenant has changed from circumcision to baptism.
> 
> *A Covenant People and a Covenant Sign*
> That God has established a covenant has been shown above as has his institution of a sign of that covenant. God has commanded that those with whom he has established his covenant are marked with the covenant sign. This can be seen in Genesis 17:7-11 “I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after…Every male child among you shall be circumcised…and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.” Because God establishes his covenant with believers and their seed so believers and their seed ought be marked out by the covenant sign. Therefore the argument that we maintain is that infants ought to be baptised because they are included in the covenant of God and baptism being the sign of the covenant it should be administered to infants.
> 
> *The Church of England and the Covenantal Argument*
> The question must now be asked as to how this covenantal position fits in with the teaching of the Church of England.
> 
> 1.	I showed previously that the covenant sign of circumcision signified a spiritual grace and as such was a sacrament. This is taught in the homilies saying that “And so was circumcision a Sacrament, which preached unto the outward senses the inward cutting away of the foreskin of the heart, and sealed and made sure in the hearts of the Circumcised the promise of GOD touching the promised seed that they looked for.”
> 2.	Our liturgy and Articles teach that through baptism infants become members of the visible covenant community. In the baptismal liturgy the minister urges the congregation to pray unto God that the infant that is to be baptized will be “received into Christ's holy Church” and after baptism the minister declares “We receive this Child into the congregation of Christ's flock” and that the infant has been “grafted into the body of Christ's Church”.
> 3.	Archbishop Cranmer linked baptism with circumcision arguing, “the baptism of infants is proved by the plain scriptures. First, by the figure of the old law, which was circumcision. Infants in the old law were circumcised; ergo, in the new law they ought to be baptized. Again: infants pertain to God, as it is said to Abraham, “I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed after thee.”” Notice here that Cranmer parallels baptism with circumcision and then argues along covenantal lines from Genesis 17.
> 
> We see here then that the covenantal case for infant baptism is consistent with the teaching of the Church of England.
> 
> *A Final Word*
> I began by asking how we should respond to someone asking why we should baptise infants. My answer has been that we show them that infants are included in the covenant and baptism is the sign of the covenant and it should therefore be administered to infants. In closing there are three brief points I wish to make:
> 1.	We baptize infants not because they have faith or because we presume them to be regenerate but rather because of the promise of God to believers that he will be their God and the God of their children.
> 2.	Whilst God has established his covenant with believers and their seed the covenant is truly made with believers and their elect seed only as St. Paul teaches in Romans 9:6.
> 3.	Baptism does not justify rather it acts as a visible word testifying of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. It reminds us that we are, as our Catechism teaches, “by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath” and that it is only by the sovereign grace of God that we are saved.



But I love the underlying assumption of "well if you had really understood paedobaptism you would never have accepted credo-baptist you complete and utter ignoramous!"


----------



## AV1611

We _both_ agree that only covenant members ought be baptised.



Paul manata said:


> So, children can be elect, can't they? This proves nothing against infant baptism, even on your premises.



Yes some infants are elect but not all are which is why Prof. Engelsma argues that all infants of believers are baptized _for the sake of the elect_. These premises were not to disprove infant baptism _per see_ but rather to set up my argument.

o	If the child is elect and is included in the Covenant of Grace,
o	They will be given the gift of repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ,
o	Therefore we ought wait until they manifest their election by bringing forth the fruits of it so demonstrating that they belong to the covenant and then baptize them.



Paul manata said:


> How do you know (c) ?



Are you seriously asking me to prove that repentance and faith are fruits of electing grace and are covenant blessings? The WCF calls faith the “grace of faith” and states that “Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace”. The Canons of Dordt teach that “men are chosen to faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, and so on. Election, therefore, is the fountain of every saving good, from which flow faith, holiness, and other saving gifts, and finally eternal life itself, as its fruits and effects.” (Canons I, 9) And “For this was the most free counsel of God the Father, that the life-giving and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect. It was His most gracious will and intent to give them alone justifying faith and thereby to bring them unfailingly to salvation. This means: God willed that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which He confirmed the new covenant) should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and tongue all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and were given to Him by the Father. God further willed that Christ should give to them faith, which, together with other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He acquired for them by His death; that He should cleanse them by His blood from all sins, both original and actual, both those committed after faith and before faith; and that He should guard them faithfully to the end and at last present them to Himself in splendour without any spot or wrinkle.” (Canons II, 8) 

Scripture declares that all graces were given us in Christ before the foundation of the world and so I posit that repentance and faith are graces which flow from the covenant of grace made between the Trinity in eternity. Gill notes well that “the covenant of grace was made with Christ, and with his people, as considered in him, from everlasting; for so early was Christ set up as the mediator of it; the promise of eternal life in it was before the world was; and those interested in it, were blessed with all spiritual blessings and grace before the foundation of it”.

*2 Timothy 1:9* “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,”



Paul manata said:


> Do all professors go to heaven?



No



Paul manata said:


> Are all professors elect?



No but then this issue does not strengthen your case. Why? Simply because you also baptize professors.



Paul manata said:


> I agree with (d). Too bad for you, Scripture doesn't include the *only* part which is what you need for credoism.



Scripture does not need to include the only. The four key baptismal texts are found in Romans 6, Galatians 3, Colossians 2 and 1 Peter 3.

*Romans 6:3-6* “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.”

*Galatians 3:27* “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

*Colossians 2:11, 12* “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”

*1 Peter 3:20, 21* “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”

_1stly, _the first three teach clearly that baptism signifies death and resurrection and so regeneration and sanctification.
_2ndly,_ the last one teaches clearly that the ordinance of baptism is “the answer of a good conscience toward God” which is manifested through repentance and faith (inward) accompanied with baptism (outward). 
_3rdly, _none of these teachings can in any way be applied to infants.

But more, in the Scriptures, which “is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”, there are only three instances of households being baptized. These are Lydia, the jailor and Stephanus. Of these Dr. John Gill notes that “There are but three families, if so many, who are usually instanced in: the first is that of Lydia and her household (Acts 16:14, 15), but in what state of life she was is not certain, whether single or married, whether maid widow or wife; and if married, whether she then had any children, or ever had any; and if she had, and they living, whether they were infants or adult; and if infants, it does not seem probable that she should bring them along with her from her native place, Thyatira to Philippi, where she seems to have been upon business, and so had hired a house during her stay there; wherefore her household seems to have consisted of menial servants she brought along with her, to assist her in her business: and certain it is, that those the apostles found in her house, when they entered into it, after they came out of prison, were such as are called "brethren," and were capable of being "comforted" by them; which supposes them to have been in some distress and trouble, and needed comfort. The second instance is of the jailor and his household, which consisted of adult persons, and of such only; for the apostles spoke the word of the Lord to "all" that were in his house, which they were capable of hearing, and it seems of understanding; for not only he "rejoiced" at the good news of salvation by Christ, but "all" in his house hearing it, rejoiced likewise; which joy of theirs was the joy of faith; for he and they were believers in God, Father, Son, and Spirit; for it is expressly said, that he "rejoiced, believing in God with all his house;" so that they were not only hearers of the word, but rejoiced at it, and believed in it, and in God the Saviour, revealed in it to them (Acts 16:32-34), all which shows them to be adult persons, and not infants. The third instance, if distinct from the household of the jailor, which some take to be the same, is that of Stephanus; but be it a different one, it is certain it consisted of adult persons, believers in Christ, and very useful in the service of religion; they were the first fruits of Achaia, the first converts in those parts, and who "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints," (1 Cor. 16:15) which, whether understood of the ministry of the word to the saints, which they gave themselves up unto; or of the ministration of their substance to the poor, which they cheerfully communicated, they must be adult persons, and not infants.” (Body of Practical Divinity, Book 3, Chapter 1)

So just where are your examples of infants being baptized in the New Testament? The pattern as established by the New Testament is “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ” and “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest”.



Paul manata said:


> Lastly, (e). if my child is elect, then an elect was baptised.



If, well I would posit an alternative which I mentioned earlier:

o	If the child is elect and is included in the Covenant of Grace,
o	They will be given the gift of repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ,
o	Therefore we ought wait until they manifest their election by bringing forth the fruits of it so demonstrating that they belong to the covenant and then baptize them.



Paul manata said:


> But, on my view, the probability assigment is 1. For adults, profession gets you into the covenant, and so does being born to at least one professing parent. Hence, I never mistake who to baptise.



This is where I believe your argument breaks down;

*A.* _“profession gets you into the covenant” – _ If this is true then what about Simon? He was baptized and was not in the covenant of grace therefore you would be forced to conclude that the covenant is made with the reprobate as well as the elect. You here are saying that any professor, true or false, is made a member of the covenant of grace! Furthermore, we were in the covenant of grace from eternity and so when did you enter it then by believing if you did not exist? Far better I believe to say that profession gives evidence of our already having an interest in the covenant and so covenant membership does not come about through spiritual regeneration but rather spiritual regeneration is an evidence of our covenant membership.

*B.* _“being born to at least one professing parent” “gets you into the covenant” - _ Now things get very murky indeed on your part, you argue that covenant membership comes about through physical generation (typical of spiritual regeneration) but then when has this ever actually been true? Neither Ishmael nor Esau had any part in the covenant:

*Gen 17:20, 21* “And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.”

*Gen 28:1-4, 10-15* “And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan. Arise, go to Padanaram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother's father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother's brother. And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people; And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham….And Jacob went out from Beersheba, and went toward Haran. And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep.And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it. And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.”

Should an unbeliever be baptised? No, because he has no place in the covenant being reprobate, so I ask why should reprobate infants be baptised? Your reply is confusing, you argue that they are in the covenant of grace yet Scripture teaches that the elect are in the covenant. Was Ishmael circumcised? yes, but he was not a member of the covenant of grace and so membership of the covenant was not the reason he was circumcised! 

Indeed Gill notes:

Whether the covenant made with Abraham, so far as it was a covenant of grace, was made with all Abraham’s seed, according to the flesh? Which must be answered in the negative. For,

*1. *If it was made with all the natural seed of Abraham, as such, it must be with his more immediate offspring; and so must be equally made with a mocking and persecuting Ishmael, born after the flesh, the son of the bond-woman, as with Isaac, born after the Spirit, and the son of the free woman; and yet we find, that Ishmael was excluded from having a share in spiritual blessings, only temporal ones were promised him; and, in distinction and opposition to him, the covenant was established with Isaac (Gen. 17:19, 20, 21). Again, if this was the case, it must be equally made with a profane Esau, as with plain-hearted Jacob; and yet it is said, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated (Mal. 1:1, 2).

*2.* If it was made with all Abraham’s seed according to the flesh, it must be made with all his remote posterity, and if and good to them in their most corrupt state; it must be made with them who believed not, and whole carcasses fell in the wilderness, and entered not into rest; it must be made with the ten tribes, that revolted from the pure service of God, and who worshipped the calves at Dan and Bethel; it must be made with the people of the Jews in Isaiah’s time, when they were a sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, children that were corrupters; whole rulers are called the rulers of Sodom, and the people the people of Gomorrah (Isa. 1:4, 6, 10), it must be made with the Scribes and Pharisees, and that wicked, adulterous, and hypocritical generation of men in the time of our Lord, who were his implacable enemies, and were concerned in his death; who killed him, persecuted his apostles, pleased not God, and were contrary to all men. What man, that seriously considers there things, can think that the covenant of grace belonged to these men, at least to all; and especially when he observes, what the apostle says, they are not all Israel, which are of Israel; neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children? (Rom. 9:6, 7). Yea,

*3.* If it was made with all that are the seed of Abraham according to the flesh then it must be made with Ishmaelites and Edomites, as well as with Israelites; with his posterity by Keturah, as well as by Sarah; with the Midianites and Arabians; with the Turks, as well as with the Jews, since they descended and claim their descent from Abraham, as well as these. But,

*4.* To shut up this argument; this covenant made with Abraham, be it a covenant of grace, seeing it could be no more, at most, than a revelation, manifestation, copy, or transcript of it, call it which you will; it can never be thought to comprehend more in it than the original contract, than the eternal covenant between the Father and the Son. Now the only persons interested in the everlasting covenant of grace, are the chosen of God and precious; whom he has loved with an everlasting love; gave to his Son to be redeemed by his blood; for whom provision is made in the same covenant for the sanctification of their nature, for the justification of their persons, for the pardon of their sins, for their perseverance in grace, and for their eternal glory and happiness: So that all that are in that covenant are chosen to grace here, and glory hereafter, and shall certainly enjoy both: they are all secured in the hands of Christ, and are redeemed from sin, law, hell, and death, by his precious blood; and shall be saved in him with an everlasting salvation; they have all of them the laws of God put into their minds, and written on their hearts; they have new hearts and new spirits given them, and the stony heart taken away from them; they have the righteousness of Christ imputed to them; they have their sins forgiven them for his sake, and which will be remembered no more; they have the fear of God put into their hearts, and shall never finally and totally depart from him; but, being called and justified, shall be glorified (Jer. 31:33, 34; 32:40; Ezek. 36:25-27; Rom. 8:30).

Now if this covenant was made with all Abraham’s natural seed, and comprehends all of them, then they must be all chosen of God; whereas there was only a remnant among them, according to the election of grace (Rom. 11:5): they must be all given to Christ, and secured in his hands; whereas there were some of them, that were not of his sheep, given him by his Father, and so did not believe in him (John 10:26); they must be all redeemed by his blood; whereas he laid down his life for his sheep, his friends, his church, which all of Abraham’s seed could never be said to be: In a word, they must be all regenerated and sanctified, justified and pardoned; must all have the grace of God, and persevere in it to the end, and be all eternally saved; and the same must be said of all the natural seed of believing Gentiles, if they also are all of them in the covenant of grace. But what man, in his senses, will affirm there things? And, upon such a principle, how will the doctrines of personal election, particular redemption, regeneration by efficacious grace, not by blood or the will of man, and the saints’ final perseverance, be established? This Gentleman, whole pamphlet is before me, is said to have written with some success against the Arminians; but sure I am, that no man can write with success against them, and without contradiction to himself, that has imbibed such a notion of the covenant of grace, as this I am militating against.

_2dly,_ The other part of the question is, whether the covenant made with Abraham, so far as it was a covenant of grace, was made with all the natural seed of believing Gentiles? which also must be answered in the negative: For,

*1.* It will be allowed, that this covenant respects Abraham’s spiritual seed among the Gentiles; even all true believers, all such that walk in the steps of his faith; for he is the Father of all them that believe, whether circumcised or uncircumcised, Jews or Gentiles (Rom. 4:11, 12, 15); but not the natural seed of believing Gentiles. They, indeed, that are of the faith of Abraham, are his children in a spiritual sense, and they are blessed with him with spiritual blessings, and are such, as Christ has redeemed by his blood; and they believe in him, and the blessing of Abraham comes upon them: But then this spiritual seed of Abraham is the same with the spiritual seed of Christ, with whom the covenant was made from everlasting, and to them only does it belong; and to none can spiritual blessings belong, but to a spiritual seed, not a natural one. Let it be proved, if it can, that all the natural seed of believing Gentiles, are the spiritual seed of Abraham, and then they will be admitted to have a claim to this covenant. But, though it appears, that believing Gentiles are in this covenant, what clause is there in it, that respects their natural seed, as such? Let it be shown, if it can; by what right and authority, can any believing Gentile pretend to put his natural seed into Abraham’s covenant? The covenant made with him, as to the temporal part of it, belonged to him, and his natural seed; and with respect to its spiritual part, only to his spiritual seed, whether Jews or Gentiles and not to the natural seed of either of them, as such.

*2.* The covenant made with Abraham, and his spiritual seed, takes in many of the seed of unbelieving Gentiles; who being called by grace, and openly believing Christ, are Abraham’s spiritual seed, with whom the covenant was made: That there are many among the Gentiles born of unbelieving parents, who become true believers in Christ, and so appear to be in the covenant of grace, must be allowed; since many are received as such into the communion of the Paedobaptists, as well as others; and, on the other hand, there are many born of believing Gentiles, who do not believe in Christ, are not partakers of his grace, on whom the spiritual blessings of Abraham do not come; and so not in his covenant. Wherefore, by what authority do men put in the infant seed of believing Gentiles, as such, into the covenant, and restrain it to them, and leave out the seed of unbelieving Gentiles; when, on the contrary, God oftentimes takes the one, and leaves the other?

*3.* That all the natural seed of believing Gentiles cannot be included in the covenant of grace, is manifest, from the reason above given, against all the natural seed of Abraham being in it; shewing, that all that are in it are the elect of God, the redeemed of Christ, are effectually called by grace, persevere to the end, and are eternally saved; all which cannot be said of all the natural seed of believing Gentiles: And if all the natural seed of Abraham are not in this covenant made with him, as it was a covenant of grace, it can hardly be thought that all the natural seed of believing Gentiles should.

*4. *Seeing it is so clear a case, that some of the seed of unbelieving Gentiles are in this covenant, and some of the seed of believing Gentiles are not in it, and that it cannot be known who are, until they believe in Christ, and so appear to be Abraham’s spiritual seed; it must be right to put off their claim to any privilege supposed to arise from covenant interest, until it appear that they have one.​


Paul manata said:


> Further, I refuted your claims about only the elect are in the covenant.



I have just gone someway to show that only the elect are in the covenant but I proceed,

In his sermon _Covenant Blessings_ Spurgeon states:

Our text is a portion of that delightful rendering of the Covenant of Grace which is given us by Ezekiel, and we will, for a single moment, ask you to remember the persons with whom the covenant of Grace was made. An early version of the Covenant of Grace was given to Abraham and this in Ezekiel is a repetition, expansion, or explanation of the same. This Covenant, and that form of it made with Abraham, concern the same individuals. Let us, then, remind ourselves that the Covenant was not made with the fleshly seed of Abraham. If it had been, it would have run in the line of Ishmael as well as that of Isaac—but it was not made with Ishmael, for what says the Scriptures—“Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.”​
The Covenant of Grace was not made with the children who are born after the flesh as was Ishmael, but with those who are born according to the promise as was Isaac—who was not born by virtue of the energy of the flesh, for of Abraham it was said that he was as good as dead, and as for Sarah that she was long past bearing. But Isaac, the child of laughter, the child of joy, the heir of the promise, was born according to the power of God and not after the energy of nature. Isaac evidently typifies not the man of works but the man of faith. The man of works is born after the flesh. He has reformed himself. He has done his best—he continues to do his best. He is the child of his own energy. He is the result of human power. He is under the Law—he tries to save himself by the Law—he is, therefore, the son of Hagar the bondwoman and he is under bondage. His destiny may be learned from the words, “Cast forth the son of the bondwoman, he shall not be heir with my son.” But the man of faith has received his faith supernaturally. It has been worked in him by the Holy Spirit. It is not the fruit of the creature’s power, it is the gift of God—it is the child of promise and it is the child of joy and laughter to him—it is a fresh spring of joy within his soul. The man of faith, therefore, is the heir of the promise and the partaker of the Covenant since he believes in Jesus, whom God raised from the dead. The man who rests upon the Grace of God and believes in God as holy Abraham did—he is a faithful man and, consequently, he is one of the sons of the father of the faithful. Let every man, therefore, who believes in Jesus Christ this morning know assuredly that every word of this text belongs to him and shall be fulfilled in him. (http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols16-18/chs1046.pdf)​
The blessings spoken of the New Covenant are blessings that are particular to the elect as I have shown in previous posts. These include “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts”, “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” and “they shall all know me”. Moreover “I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean” which Christ alludes to in John 3, “I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you”, “I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh” and “I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them” and “ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers” that heavenly Canaan. These covenant blessings are specific to the elect (in promising regenaration/New Birth) and so I posit that only the elect can be New Covenant members.

Now you would agree with me that in the Old Testament the physical sets forth spiritual truths under shadow and type. 

Calvin turns to the five differences. First, the Old Testament differs from the New in that it contains physical, earthly and temporal benefits which foreshadowed and mirrored spiritual, heavenly and eternal blessings (2.11.1-3, pp. 449-453). Second, the Old Testament "in the absence of the reality … showed but an image and shadow in place of the substance [whereas] the New Testament reveals the very substance of truth as present" (2.11.4, p. 453).

The third and fourth differences particularly pertain to the Mosaic covenant under which the law was given. Here Calvin, following Jeremiah and Paul in Jeremiah 31 and II Corinthians 3 respectively, "consider nothing in the law except what properly belongs to it" (2.11.7, p. 456). He explains,
For example: the law here and there contains promises of mercy; but because they have been borrowed from elsewhere, they are not counted part of the law when only the nature of the law is under discussion. They ascribe to it only this function: to enjoin what is right, to forbid what is wicked; to promise a reward to the keepers of righteousness, and threaten transgressors with punishment; but at the same time not to change or correct the depravity of heart that by nature inheres in all men (2.11.7, pp. 456-457).​The third difference is that while the Old Testament law is literal (considered as in its own nature and engraved on stone), the New is spiritual, written in our hearts by the Holy Spirit (2.11.7-8, pp. 456-457). The fourth difference, as Calvin notes, "arises out of the third" (2.11.9, p. 458). The Old Testament, considered from the distinctive idea of "law," is one of "bondage," whereas the New Testament is one of "freedom" through the gospel (2.11.9-10, pp. 458-460).

The fifth and last of Calvin’s differences applies to the covenants with Abraham, Moses and David, and not to those in Genesis 1-11: in the Old Testament God’s covenant of grace was with one people, the Jews, but in the New Testament, the church is catholic, embracing believing Jews and Gentiles (2.11.11-12, pp. 460-462). In former days, God "lodged his covenant, so to speak, in [Israel’s] bosom; he manifested the presence of his majesty to them; he showered every privilege upon them" but in the fullness of time elect Jews and Gentiles are "reconciled to God and welded into one people" by the blood and Spirit of Christ (2.11.11, pp. 460, 461).” (http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/calvinscovenanttheology1.htm)​
Let us look closer at Genesis 17. This should be interpreted in a physical and spiritual way so;

*Verse 2 - *Speaks spiritually of the spiritual seed of Christ the true Israel, that “great multitude, which no man could number”.
*Verse 4 - *Speaks spiritually of the elect drawn of from “all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues”. “That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
*Verse 6 - *Speaks spiritually of Christ the seed of David.
*Verse 7 -* Speaks spiritually of the spiritual seed, those who are in Christ to whom it is said “if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. “ “Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.” 
*Verse 8 -* Speaks spiritually of the heavenly Canaan, heaven
*Verses 9-11 - *Speaks spiritually of spiritual regeneration which is what circumcision typifies.

So here in type we have a picture of the people of God regenerated, ruled over by King Jesus and dwelling in heaven. In the NT we have tis reality and the type of circumcision gives way to its reality of regeneration which is pictured in baptism and so all thos who are regenerated are to be baptised. I have quoted Spurgen before and I see no reason whi I should not again:

It is often said that the ordinance of Baptism is analogous to the ordinance of circumcision. I will not controvert that point, although the statement may be questioned. But supposing it to be, let me urge upon every Believer here to see to it that in his own soul he realizes the spiritual meaning both of circumcision and Baptism, and then consider the outward rites—for the thing signified is vastly more important than the sign....“Well,” says one, “a difficulty suggests itself as to your views”—for an argument is often drawn from this chapter, “that inasmuch as Abraham must circumcise all his seed, we ought to baptize all our children.” Now, *observe the type and interpret it not according to prejudice, but according to Scripture*. *In the type the seed of Abraham are circumcised.* *You draw the inference that all typified by the seed of Abraham ought to be baptized, and I do not quibble at the conclusion*. *But I ask you, who are the true seed of Abraham? *Paul answers in Romans 9:8—“They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” As many as believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, whether they are Jews or Gentiles, are Abraham’s seed. Whether eight days old in Divine Grace, or more or less—every one of Abraham’s seed has a right to Baptism. But I deny that the unregenerate, whether children or adults, are of the spiritual seed of Abraham. The Lord will, we trust, call many of them by His Grace—but as yet they are “heirs of wrath, even as others.” At such time as the Spirit of God shall sow the good seed in their hearts, they are of Abraham’s believing seed—but they are not so while they live in ungodliness and unbelief, or are as yet incapable of faith or repentance. *The answering person in type to the seed of Abraham is, by the confession of everybody, the Believer. And the Believer ought, seeing he is buried with Christ spiritually, to prove that fact by his public Baptism in water, according to the Savior’s own precept and example.*​


----------



## Semper Fidelis

...and so you go in another long ellipse and end up back where you start.

1. You establish that the New Covenant is with the elect.
2. You actually further establish that baptism does not admit one to New Covenant membership.
3. You admit that profession is no guarantee that the one baptized is in the New Covenant.

All of which are supposed to get us to come to the conclusion that baptism is for mature professors.

But both baptism and profession don't admit to the New Covenant.

So, what difference does all the lengthy talk about the unbreakability of the New Covenant achieve? It's really an awful lot of energy that has nothing to do with the subject.

Even if baptism is an answer to a good conscience, you don't know who's got a good conscience.

You're left with no criteria in the end with which to baptize that are meaningful and, as we've repeatedly demonstrated, you can merely say that it is more probable that a professor is elect.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

AV1611 said:


> My "matured" understanding is found in this:
> 
> 
> 
> But I love the underlying assumption of "well if you had really understood paedobaptism you would never have accepted credo-baptist you complete and utter ignoramous!"



No, the underlying assumption is that you refuse to interact with arguments and questions and then post a bunch of basic "...what do you mean by the Covenant?" questions.

If you want to blog on your beliefs on Baptism where you don't have to answer objections you're welcome to do so elsewhare. If you post here expect to debate and discuss.


----------



## AV1611

SemperFideles said:


> ...and so you go in another long ellipse and end up back where you start.



Good because the purpose of the long exercise was to explain the theology behind what I hold



SemperFideles said:


> 1. You establish that the New Covenant is with the elect.



Which if I did nothing else am happy to have done 



SemperFideles said:


> 2. You actually further establish that baptism does not admit one to New Covenant membership.



True because baptist is the culmination of the conversion "process" and is a visible word testifying to the invisible grace of regeneration.

*Question 69
Q. *How does holy baptism signify and seal to you that the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross benefits you?
_A. _In this way: Christ instituted this outward washing[1] and with it gave the promise that, as surely as water washes away the dirt from the body, so certainly His blood and Spirit wash away the impurity of my soul, that is, all my sins.[2]
[1] Mat_28:19. [2] Mat_3:11; Mar_16:16; Joh_1:33; Act_2:38; Rom_6:3-4; 1Pe_3:21. 



SemperFideles said:


> 3. You admit that profession is no guarantee that the one baptized is in the New Covenant.



As does the paedobaptist



SemperFideles said:


> All of which are supposed to get us to come to the conclusion that baptism is for mature professors.



It is meant to show that the NT pattern is that baptism follows faith. Can you show me where baptism did not follow faith in the NT?



SemperFideles said:


> But both baptism and profession don't admit to the New Covenant.



No they testify that one is already in.



SemperFideles said:


> So, what difference does all the lengthy talk about the unbreakability of the New Covenant achieve? It's really an awful lot of energy that has nothing to do with the subject.



The point was to show that only the elect are in the New Covenant and therefore because only covenant members are to be baptised it is wrong to baptise those who do not profess faith.



SemperFideles said:


> Even if baptism is an answer to a good conscience, you don't know who's got a good conscience.



But that did not stop Peter teaching that baptism is " the answer of a good conscience toward God".



SemperFideles said:


> You're left with no criteria in the end with which to baptize that are meaningful and, as we've repeatedly demonstrated, you can merely say that it is more probable that a professor is elect.



I am amazed that you do not see how this argument completely undermines the presbyterian case for baptising adults as well. I am arguing that we baptise upon profession...you say that I should not because they may be reprobate like Simon, I reply that the Biblical pattern is that baptism follows repentance and faith which Paul agrees with.


----------



## AV1611

SemperFideles said:


> No, the underlying assumption is that you refuse to interact with arguments and questions and then post a bunch of basic "...what do you mean by the Covenant?" questions.



Well the issue of what someone means by the covenant is very important. Some Reformed men such as Bavinck teach that the reprobate are in the covenant of grace, others such as Hoeksema do not. Why is that? Because Bavinck believes that the Covenant of Grace began in Genesis 3:15 whilst Hoeksema believes that the Covenant of grace began in eternity and was only made manifest in time in Genesis 3:15. Why the difference? Because Bavinck find 3 covenants, the CofR, CofG and CofW whilst Hoeksema sees only two, the CofG and CofW. 

Let me illustrate some more with Gill. I believe that there are only two and so merge the CofR and the CofG and therefore see that the CofG is made with the elect alone. If Paul sees them as separate then we will be talking at cross purposes regarding the CofG and so it is essential that I know where e is at before I can reply coherently answering his position. 

I believe that "The covenant of grace is a compact or agreement made from all eternity among the divine Persons, more especially between the Father and the Son, concerning the salvation of the elect." 

and agree with Gill when he teaches:

It [the covenant of grace] is by some divines called, "the covenant of redemption"; and very truly, because the redemption of God’s elect is a principal article in it: the Father proposed to the Son, that he should raise up, restore, redeem Israel, his chosen ones; the Son agreed to it, and hence he was declared and promised, and expected as the Redeemer, long before he came into this world to do this service; Job knew him as his living Redeemer, and all the Old Testament saints waited for him as such, having had a promise of it, which was founded on this covenant agreement; for as it was proposed to him, and he agreed to it, to be the Redeemer, so it was promised him, that upon the condition of giving himself, the redemption and ransom price for the elect, they should be delivered from all their sins, and the effects of them, and out of the hands of all their enemies; see (Isa. 49:5, 59:20; Job 33:24). But then,

*3e*. This covenant is the same with the covenant of grace; some divines, indeed, make them distinct covenants; the covenant of redemption, they say, was made with Christ in eternity; the covenant of grace with the elect, or with believers, in time: but this is very wrongly said; there is but one covenant of grace, and not two, in which the Head and Members, the Redeemer and the persons to be redeemed, Christ and the elect, are concerned; in which he is the Head and Representative of them, acts for them, and on their behalf. What is called a covenant of redemption, is a covenant of grace, arising from the grace of the Father, who proposed to his Son to be the Redeemer, and from the grace of the Son, who agreed to be so; and even the honours proposed to the Son in this covenant, redounded to the advantage of the elect; and the sum and substance of the everlasting covenant made with Christ, is the salvation and eternal happiness of the chosen ones; all the blessings and grants of grace to them, are secured in that eternal compact; for they were blessed with all spiritual blessings in him, and had grace given them in him before the world was; wherefore there can be no foundation for such a distinction between a covenant of redemption in eternity, and a covenant of grace in time.​
So I accept what Gill teaches in his "Of the Acts of the Grace of God, Towards, and Upon His Elect in Time":

"I have considered the covenant of grace in a former part of this work, as it was a compact in eternity, between the three divine persons, Father, Son, and Spirit; in which each person agreed to take his part in the economy of man’s salvation: and now I shall consider the administration of that covenant in the various periods of time, from the beginning of the world to the end of it."

Therefore when we look at "the administration of that covenant in the various periods of time" if Paul does not agree with me on the above we will go in different but similar paths hence I find circumcision typical and baptism new but similar, whilst Paul sees circumcision as continued in the NT via baptism. I would say that whilst baptism and circumcision are similar they are not identical and can not see where the Nt teaches tha baptism has replaced circumcision.

Hence why I wanted to know what Paul's understanding of the covenant was.

May be this will help:

http://www.reformedbaptist.co.uk/Covdiag.htm

http://www.reformedbaptist.co.uk/A4covdiag.pdf

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Divine_Covenants/divine_covenants_04.htm


----------



## Semper Fidelis

AV1611 said:


> I am amazed that you do not see how this argument completely undermines the presbyterian case for baptising adults as well. I am arguing that we baptise upon profession...you say that I should not because they may be reprobate like Simon, I reply that the Biblical pattern is that baptism follows repentance and faith which Paul agrees with.



Richard,

Quickly, what I'm amazed at is how you multiply words but you can't seem to grasp very simple defeaters.

If you understood Presbyterianism you would understand that you've done nothing of the sort. You also seem to miss where I am using your own conclusions to show that the conclusions self-defeat what you are attempting to assert.

Again, let me state this very simply (using your conclusions not mine):

1. You believe the New Covenant is for the Elect
2. You believe Baptism does not make a person a member in the New Covenant
3. You believe profession is not a guarantee that a person is in the New Covenant

Thus, New Covenant membership is quite immaterial to who you baptize. Profession is quite immaterial to who is in the New Covenant. Baptism and profession may be related but you don't spend much time relating them. You're more interested to speak extensively on the nature of the New Covenant, which gives you little "who shall we baptize" information on profession or the visible administration baptism.

Thus, all your words about the New Covenant don't do anything to support the credo or the paedo position. They defeat the idea that we can baptize ANYONE! You haven't established in the least who ought to be baptized _on the basis of the fact that only the Elect are in the New Covenant_.

Let me make this plainer yet: I don't agree that New Covenant membership is only with the Elect. Whatever else you are misunderstanding, I hope this is apparently clear to you as it is to the casual observer.


----------



## terry72

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by terry72 View Post
> This is exactly what these premises lead to. If you work it out on a Venn Diagram you see exactly that conclusion, i.e. All baptized are elect. So all one has to do is show one non-elect baptized person and the argument fails because it proves to much.
> 
> Blessings,
> Terry
> 
> 
> No, the Baptist is aiming for the statement that "all the elect (covenant members) are baptised" whilst recognising that "not all the baptised are elect (covenant members)".



I think it is obvious that in "reality" you must say this, but that is not the point. The point is your argument as it is framed says more than you are willing to admit. It is simply a bad argument. It proves more than you are allowing, therefore it fails to establish your position. Here is your premises again:



> In your mind may be but as your whole probability argument which sounds good but actually fails to deliver because I am not arguing on ground of probability. My argument is simple:
> 
> a. Only covenant members are to be baptised,
> b. Only the elect are covenant members,



From the premises stated above it necessarily follows that - all elect are to be baptized. So all that needs to be shown to defeat the argument is just one baptized non-elect.

Blessings,
Terry


----------



## JM

SemperFideles, I think I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, forgive me for asking...

"Let me make this plainer yet: I don't agree that New Covenant membership is only with the Elect."

Can the New Covenant be broken? 

Peace,

~JM~


----------



## Larry Hughes

> “To both of these I can do no better than quote John Gill…”



Miserable weapons at best attempting to yank the Gospel out of baptism…can’t be done not even by the best of earthly minds. The sum total of which states, “hath God really said…”. Am I to trust John Gill or Christ Jesus, the later even unto death and torture. Over quoting and not being able to answer in your own words betrays a lack of understanding.

Gil’s commentary is nothing more than a massive machine going to great lengths to say, “hath God really said…”. It really is that simple. Once you see Christ, the Gospel in baptism (and the Lord’s Supper), no miserable weapon of man can steel it from you, simply none. The blessing of suffering steels a man’s grasp of the cross of Christ in Word and Sacrament, this is why Paul says faith grows by suffering, not intellect and not works, but suffering. 

It really boils down to seeing baptism (and the other sacrament) as Law or Gospel. Gift or merit badge. Even more fundamentally the error stems from an error in the understanding of faith. Luther stated it this way, if you only baptize adults, then baptism ceases its witness as Gospel and to the Cross of Christ. Calvin said it similarly in different instances. This is truly proven as evidenced by the plethora of Christ denying Gospel-less re-baptisms. This for example is why men such as J. Smyth upon dying panicked and desired yet one more dip (not baptism I mean here), trying to work his way to heaven. You parallel that with say Luther’s last words, “This is true we are beggars all”. If you think and ponder that long enough you will begin to see what faith is not and what faith REALLY is. This is why faith can be so easily had by the simple and the “nothings” of the world. The less a man is, the better his faith grasps Christ crucified for him. This is the massive strength of the Gospel in both Reformed and Lutheran churches which no one can rob them of, Rome didn’t do it, the Anabaptist didn’t do it and neither did nor will the later Baptist do it. For me to move back to “believers only” would be for me to deny Christ. Believer’s only is nothing more or less than a legal strain in the Sacraments.

It’s one thing to correct the view of the Sacraments against Rome from Scripture, entirely another to develop yet another error on the other side of the fence that boils down to nothing more than an anti-Roman position in and of itself an error. 

The common link between Rome’s view and “believers only” view is both are legal views when all is said and done, and both prove themselves upon the consciences of those within those camps by the insidious indulgences, and other works to ‘maintain’ salvation and strive for assurance (Rome), and then the insidious rebaptisms, rededications, and protestant indulgences on the believers only side. However, on the Reformed and Lutheran side these are means of Grace given and one goes back to them because God promised His name in them and to give grace through them as visible word.

A simple way to explain the true efficacy of the sacraments for the faith, hope and love of the saints: 

There are three fundamental points of view (this is fundamental not detailed):

1.	Ex opera operato, doing the work performs the work. Rome. In this view man is doing the work of the sacrament/ordinance. Ergo, for example baptism becomes a law and meritorious. If it’s meritorious it is law and vice versa, if it is law then it is meritorious. The Lord’s Supper becomes a fresh sacrifice dependant upon man to do. Communication is from earth to heaven, hence law.
2.	Symbol only, no means of grace. All other non-sacramental views. In this view man is still doing the work of the sacrament/ordinance, it’s just not viewed as giving anything. Ergo, baptism becomes a law and secondarily meritorious, only the believer “can have it” and thus earns its badge. It over throws true saving faith. This too ends up being meritorious albeit not in the immediate sense of Rome, but rather after the fact, a kind of ‘good boy’ badge or ‘team hat’. The Lord’s Supper becomes not a “fresh sacrifice” offered up by the hands of men that is immediately salvific, but a work ‘worked up’ pleasingly, as if to offer a mob boss his due and prove loyalty and simultaneously quell the conscience. This is done by the sentiment and mind of the one receiving it. The effort lay clearly upon the recipient and nothing comes from heaven, hence it is anti-sacramental/anti-means of grace. Communication is from earth to heaven, hence law.
3.	Sacramental/means of grace. Here the view is purely God doing the work by the means of instruments, man and elements. They are means of grace as they are visible Gospel. Only by the Gospel are they means of grace, not by ex opera operato and not by working up by one’s memory or imaginative or emotional or affectional capacities, nor are they “good boy” badges or “team hats”. Communication is from heaven to earth, hence grace.

Rome says doing the work does the work (ex opera operato). Non-sacramentalist say there is no “power” in the ordinances per their confessions. Both are wrong, both empty them from any meaning or power and make them pointless vain actions upon the consciences of the receivers. The “wrong” is not a matter of law but of gospel. The “wrong” is not unto a legal thing needing correction unto another legal thing but a self imposed starvation of the living water that nourishes the saints (Rome and believers only). The wrong is mostly at the level of a self inflicted wound. Here “a law” view actually holds them in bondage and away from grace. By way of analogy; to not eat a luscious meal prepared FOR ONE is not a problem because if you don’t eat you will be punished, but rather if you don’t eat you are starving yourself to death at worst or at best subsisting on much much much less than you are given, so please eat. The appeal is not unto law, but unto gospel. There is power in the sacraments and scripture is clear about it. This is food for faith. How?

Paul says in Romans 1:16 clearly that the Gospel is the power for life and no less than the very power of God, that is God’s power, authority and influence. What does this mean? Well, it all hinges on the “Gospel” or “good news” to which God has assigned power and authority, and at that Jesus Christ Himself Who is that power and life. The goodness of the GOOD news is what gives life and has power and authority to live eternally. Wherein does this lay? In the Gospel proclamation of Christ and Him crucified FOR YOU. The Gospel is in the FOR YOU by the work of Christ in His life FOR YOU, His death FOR YOU, His resurrection FOR YOU, and His ascension FOR YOU. In short His dying FOR YOUR sins and His life of righteousness FOR YOU - everything that Jesus did, He did FOR YOU. Therein lay the Good News, in the “for you”, and this is unto eternal life and indeed is the very power of God for that eternal life. This is the work of the Holy Spirit, to actually hear and thus receive the FOR YOU of what Christ did and THIS is the testimony of the Spirit TO YOU, “that we ARE sons of God”. The Spirit’s testimony, if it is really the Holy Spirit and not a false lying spirit it is most crucial in the TO/FOR YOU of what Christ did, “The Spirit testifies to our spirit that we are sons of God” thus. The FOR YOU is the crucial element. This point needs to be belabored and over taught to the point of utter redundancy for herein is where the Gospel is MOST obscured within the church broadly speaking. Therein the “FOR YOU” Christ is crucified and is the power of life. Paul explicitly says the Gospel is the power and there it is. Behind this, the negative aspect, is “nothing you do”, indeed in spite of “what you do”, even more “to the contrary of what you do” and ultimately “before you even have faith”, while you were YET enemies of God, Christ died for the ungodly. It is utterly objective and outside of you. The “For You” is against all and every thing “I/we do” – this is the difference between merit and grace, law and Gospel, true Christ and false christs, true Spirit and lying spirits, the true faith and false faiths, all other religions and Christianity.

Now, how is this applied to the sacraments? Does the ink in a pen or the pen itself have power unto eternal life? No. What about the electrons used to form the very text we read at this moment? No again. What about this, “Christ was crucified FOR YOU”? Did that sentence using electrons suddenly have power? Yes, it is Gospel proclamation and to those whom the Spirit gives life, they just heard it again, having ears to hear and eyes to see. It has power and is where the Holy Spirit has promised to be, in message proclaimed by means, this is man’s part, God’s instruments. What about water? Water is just water unless the Word of Gospel are added to it just as much as; ink is just ink, electrons are just electrons and a human voice is just a sound generator agitating air molecules by compression, decompression and modulation to produce purposed sound out of otherwise none sense. The Gospel uses elements/mediums to communicate this, to proclaim it. When they are formed into the Gospel, the message from heaven, heard and visible Gospel, they become power unto life - the means used – in fact here is where the Holy Spirit works like brooding over the creation to operate and work as He pleases. He gives eyes and ears to hear the message proclaimed, but the message CANNOT be altered, not the heard message and not the visible message (sacraments). Thus, when words formed by ink, electrons or voice proclaim, “Christ crucified FOR YOU”, it is the very power of God, it is uncommon use not common use, sacred use not secular use, it is holy use not profane use of the elements as means as God has taken them up into His hands, as it where. Because the message is real, true and FOR YOU for God cannot lie. 

Thus, when water is picked up by the hand of the pastor in order to baptize into the name of God it is taken up unto holy use and is no longer mere water “that a cow drinks”, in which a bird baths or in which a fish swims, but truly holy water for holy use – the writing of God’s name. It is like when Jesus made mud of dirt with His spittle and opened the eyes of the blind man. Normally it was just dirt, but picked up immediately by God in this case it is a holy instrument now and it heals. The blindness being healed pointed to the eyes of faith being opened unto Christ crucified FOR YOU (all the miracles point this way and not unto themselves or signify anything else but Jesus crucified for you). 

So, the efficacy of the sacraments lay not within themselves or the work being done its self, rather within the visible Gospel proclamation given and attached to them formed into the message. Primarily and most explicitly in the name of “Jesus” into whom one is baptized, the name written upon you, your body, in the waters of baptism, Whose name specifically means, “He will save them from their sins”. It has nothing to do with the faith of the recipient other than it creates, sustains and strengthens that very faith. Word and sacrament are the Gospel MOMENTS in which the Spirit moves and works giving Christ. This is why reason will NEVER get you there. It has nothing to do with who is doing it but again its power lay within the Gospel alone. It has nothing to do with “how much or if one can intellectually understand it”…it is purely within the Gospel and the name of God, otherwise they remain as utterly vain and profane elements and nothing more than water, bread and wine. It has power by the Gospel and it particularly goes “onto you” and thus captures and sets forth the crucial “FOR YOU” that IS the GOOD NEWS. If it happens before or after faith it is irrelevant for its power and reality lay in the Gospel not the faith it creates, sustains and strengthens, but the Gospel and name of God it itself. One cannot “get the cart (faith) before the horse (the means of grace/Gospel), one cannot see (faith) before the sight to behold (Christ crucified) pre-exists this seeing, Word or Sacrament. Which is greater, Gospel or faith? Obviously, Gospel for Gospel has the power of life and is the power of God (Rom. 1:16) calling into being faith itself, that is utter trust in Christ alone. Thus, baptism is holy because it is Gospel and not faith, and exalted not because its on a true believer but is ITSELF the witness of the very NAME of God. If baptism lay in the work done (Rome) or be based upon the faith of the one receiving it (believers only view), it is ultimately nothing and not just lesser but infinitely lesser. The item on display is not “the faith” of one, but Christ and Him crucified FOR YOU. There is absolutely no power or life in another’s faith unto you, another’s faith is nothing FOR YOU nor to himself. If I believe, so what is that TO YOU? There is no gift or giving TO YOU. But Christ crucified FOR YOU, IS the power of God. If Christ is crucified for you, then it is eternal life. The difference is between eternal life and nothing on display and being given. This is why seeing our babies baptized is so powerful, it is the Gospel of Christ right before our very eyes.

Ink is just ink, even more just color yielding elements due to molecular energy levels reflecting back at us certain light frequencies (the specific color of light), primarily metal elements, in a liquid medium of some kind to cause the transfer to another medium (paper). The medium is that which is the means of transfer and communication of the color for the purpose of communicating something (e.g. writing in ink). If left just sitting around, a colored fluid is nothing but a part of the creation just like raw iron ore. But if Bill Gates takes a quill feather and dips it in the colored liquid and signs his authorizing name to a check that authorizes one billion dollars be paid specifically to Mr. me/you, then that other wise element of creation, that we could have cared less about ten minutes ago, becomes used for something that he is both able to and willing to authorize. And thus becomes, on an earthly level, a form of life or earthly good news to you (money in the world does afford things of life, albeit in the fallen world finite and will fade away). The feather, it too another element of creation otherwise for something else, becomes a pen and an instrument in the authors hand and the ink becomes the medium for sealing and inscription (hence the link of physical baptism with the Holy Spirit promised, the Seal for us). On the grander infinite scale, a pastor, deacon, elder or even laymen in necessary circumstances (because who is not so important here, contra-Rome) who picks up water and baptized anyone in the name of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit unto Christ crucified for them is in reality nothing more than a quill feather pen in the hands of God being dipped into water (the ink), and the name of God is then written upon the forehead or body of the one baptized, adult or child. This is saying, “God’s”, God’s name and all that is IN that name for you is now yours. The authority for this comes from many places but most explicitly in the Great Commission to give the Gospel, and in other areas such as Acts 2 in which children are explicitly mentioned in the context of Holy baptism, the giving of God’s name. When God writes His name on the forehead/body, and in particular the name of “Jesus” which means “He will save them from their sins”, this is both the name of God and the Gospel. The fact that it is specifically written upon a particular person, I am baptized as opposed to another, gives the final FOR YOU crucial to it being Gospel. To push the point home, this “FOR YOU” (the application particularly and specifically to/on you) is in turn the very very essence of the Gospel and thus as Paul says in Romans 1:16 is the POWER unto life, the POWER of God. This is contra Rome and all non-sacramental views. This is why rebaptism is vain and utterly worthless, this is why not even a John Gill can rob us of Christ. We simply knock John Gill aside and say, “Out of my way I am beholding my Lord and Saviour, away with your trifling words, you are nothing but a fly bugging me.”

It is even MORE clearly and explicitly seen in the sacrament of Lord’s Supper to which Jesus immediately and explicitly states, “This (bread) is MY body broken FOR YOU…this is My blood in the New Covenant…for the forgiveness of YOUR SINS”. Bread is just bread and wine is just wine, elements of creation otherwise, but the “this is my body/blood FOR YOU”, what Jesus did FOR YOU, makes it Gospel, and the “TOO YOU/FOR YOU”, you specifically and particularly do “eat and drink it”, is again the very very essence of the Gospel and once again is as Paul explicitly says in Romans 1:16 is the POWER unto life and of God. This, again, even more explicitly, over throws ANY thing taught to the contrary. Nothing more explicitly overthrows the delusional slight of hand of the devil in Rome’s view and non-sacramental views. It should be noted that though Rome uses the term “sacramental”, she is not sacramental for she has redefined the term so as to be in utter error by making it the work of man.

As a side note it is not insignificant that in most baptisms, especially in the early church where some form of sprinkling, ladling or anointing upon the head of the adult or baby was performed, like the oil anointing and sprinklings of blood and/or water in the OT. This is not at all insignificant or incidental. Why? In the book of Revelation the number of the beast (666, meaning man trying to be like God but always falling infinitely short – 7 is the number of perfection and completion. Also, mocking the Trinity by the three repetitions of “6”) is given unto the forehead or right hand. This sign is a satanic sign of ownership and authority in opposition to baptism. It may or may not be visible to the eye after it is done, like the baptismal ceremony. The beast, thus, promises and can promise the temporary protection of his in this temporary rule on earth from his persecutions but cannot protect them from the eternal wrath to come in the fullness of the Kingdom of God. Contra wise to this is Holy Baptism in which God in Christ does not promise us no suffering in this life, while we wander among the temporary earthly kingdom(s) of the devil. Thus, the saints are persecuted here and now – but God does seal and guarantee salvation unto eternity from the wrath to come when Christ’s Kingdom comes in full and final advent. We see here a point counter point among the warring kingdoms, with ultimate eternal victory unto Christ and His people/nation/church – the KING set upon the hill by God to which the nations war with fury under and by the beast/devil.

As another thing to remember: In baptism, the signature is still there visible in the eyes of God as a witness well after we are baptized and it is not visible to us beyond that first time but retained by faith alone. Here is one thing MANY miss: God’s elements which He creates will openly bear witness in the end when He calls them forth from time and space to do so. We see this in the OT when rocks for example were piled up as a witness. They may not be there today as they were set forth some 1000s of years ago, but on the day of judgment God will call them forward as witnesses to a trial to give testimony. Time and space are not a hindrance to the Creator of the same. In essence even a rock and water, bread and wine can be called forward to testify in the Court of God – and they cannot lie. Think about that when you/me ponder our secret sins! Recall “Abel’s blood crying from the very ground to God”. For the heathen even the very air they breathe and ground upon which they stand will be a witness against them. So too will the one baptism of that holy water, God does not forget His signature.

Back to the number of the beast and the issue of why the “head and hand”: What is the significance of the number/sign in the head or hand? The head is the seat of the mind and of all the control of the person. The beast’s people receiving it on their head means that the beast will control all their thoughts and thus all they do. The significance of the “hand” is that in Scripture the hand is always the thing which works and does works. Thus, the sign on the hand means that all the work they do they do FOR the beast and ultimately the devil – be it outwardly immediately evil works or good works (from the source is the work truly defined not the work itself). The sign of the beast, 666, invisible or visible, shows ownership both of the mind and the works by the earthly king the devil and his authorizing to do them (buying and selling). Just as holy Baptism anoints God’s people as HIS, for His name is given/signed upon them and in particular our heads. 

Being baptized upon the head is significant for when the adult or baby is thus baptized it means Christ will govern all they think and do. Now we begin to really see the tie in the Great Commission, make disciples (learners) of the nations. How? By baptizing them first, then teaching them all that I (Jesus) have taught. For example when our children were baptized the water was put upon their heads, thus all that they are mind and soul belong to God, and thus they are raised and taught not as outsiders “needing to be saved” but as of the kingdom of God (Jesus explicitly states this as does Peter in Acts 2 and Paul in 1 Corinthians). As Luther said when you baptize a baby you make him/her a great enemy of the devil (the earthly kingdom), and the devil will begin his assault immediately, and a great friend of God (the heavenly kingdom, “for of such are the kingdom of God) to which all the resources of His name can be called upon by them. This is why children can pray the Lord’s prayer and say, “Our Father…”, a heathen cannot claim to say “Our Father”. The continual battle between the two seeds/two kingdoms ensues on earth this way.

This, the efficacy of the sacraments, is easily proven by Scripture and their power is in the Gospel which particularly communicates the “FOR YOU” of Christ crucified. To deny the efficacy of the sacraments is to in reality deny the Gospel IN them point blank. However, to deny Rome’s version of efficacy, just because the work is performed, is proper because they blaspheme and deny God’s Gospel and efficacy. But to deny efficacy in them at all is to also deny that same Gospel in them. Rome gives false efficacy, believers only gives not efficacy (not substantially different from Rome’s false efficacy for in the end neither are efficacious).

The devil’s work is always the same, to rob the saints of the Gospel FOR THEM and thus drive them to other gods, works, and despair by leading them from the middle and narrow way unto one side of error or the other. Lest the devil set up yet another law to deceive and drive to despair, the teaching here is not unto another law, but a “here is food”, Christ FOR YOU, Gospel, don’t listen to the devil’s lies and thus deprive yourself or your family from the bread and water of life so desperately needed. It is FOR faith, assurance, hope and love not against it. The issue is not so much that one is not saved if one doesn’t have this understanding (making yet another law out of it), one already has the grace of God (Gospel), but rather drink MORE of the grace of God not less (more Gospel), more lushness of His kindness, grace and mercy, more of His richness over bounding and pouring and overflowing, more and more of the Gospel, not less - NO if you don’t your lost or will be lost (law). In short God GIVES you the Sacraments, just like the Gospel for they are Gospel, they are gifts – they are not law required. The real question is not, “must I understand them as means of grace”, but rather, “given they are given for means of grace, for me, for my faith’s life blood…why would I NOT want to have them as such.” Why turn down the feast of living water. A doctrine is not a true biblical doctrine just because it is against Rome’s lies, this could just lead to another false doctrine, a non-means of grace doctrine, it is so because it arise from the Word of God.

Blessings In Christ Alone,

Larry


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JM said:


> SemperFideles, I think I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, forgive me for asking...
> 
> "Let me make this plainer yet: I don't agree that New Covenant membership is only with the Elect."
> 
> Can the New Covenant be broken?
> 
> Peace,
> 
> ~JM~



Yes.

If I answer a Baptist according to his own conclusions then my point is that New Covenant membership has nothing to do with who you baptize based upon your own principles because:

1. You believe the NC cannot be broken.
2. You believe a person can be baptized and fall away - as with Simon above, you believe baptism doesn't make a person a member of the NC.
3. You believe a person can have what appears to be a true profession and fall away - as with Simon above, you believe profession doesn't make a person a member of the NC. (So much for "...evidences of the fruit of regeneration...")

Thus, Baptists have an imbalance in their argument for Baptism. It doesn't matter what we believe here and how you believe it applies to us. You must deal with your own conclusions. Starting with the argument for the unbreakability of the New Covenant you cannot get from there to believer's only baptism.

It can't be done. Richard has failed repeatedly. Doesn't matter how many times he quotes Gill and Spurgeon. They fail to make that leap as well.


----------



## Theoretical

Larry, that's an amazing description of the Reformed/Lutheran sacramental view as I've come to understand it. Very edifying!


----------



## AV1611

Larry Hughes said:


> The item on display is not “the faith” of one, but Christ and Him crucified FOR YOU. There is absolutely no power or life in another’s faith unto you, another’s faith is nothing FOR YOU nor to himself. If I believe, so what is that TO YOU? There is no gift or giving TO YOU. But Christ crucified FOR YOU, IS the power of God. If Christ is crucified for you, then it is eternal life. The difference is between eternal life and nothing on display and being given. This is why seeing our babies baptized is so powerful, it is the Gospel of Christ right before our very eyes.



So the gospel is that Christ died for you? So did Christ die for every infant of believing parents? This is covenant universalism. The picture of baptism is well taught by the Heidelberg Catechism 

*OF HOLY BAPTISM 
XXVI. LORD'S DAY.​
Question 69. How art thou admonished and assured by holy baptism, that the one sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is of real advantage to thee? 
Answer.* Thus: That Christ appointed [a] this external washing with water, adding thereto this * promise, that I am as certainly washed by his blood and Spirit from all the pollution of my soul, that is, form all my sins, as I am [c] washed externally with water, by which the filthiness of the body is commonly washed away. 

Question 70. What is it to be washed with the blood and Spirit of Christ? 
Answer. It is to receive of God the remission of sins, freely, for the sake of Christ's blood, which he [d] shed for us by his sacrifice upon the cross; and also to be renewed by the Holy Ghost, and sanctified to be members of Christ, that so we may more and more die unto sin, and [e] lead holy and unblamable lives. 

Question 71. Where has Christ promised us, that he will as certainly wash us by his blood and Spirit, as we are washed with the water of baptism? 
Answer. In the institution of baptism, which is thus expressed: [f] "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost [g]," "he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be damned." This promise is also repeated, where the scripture calls baptism the [h] washing of regeneration, and the washing  away of sins. 
[a]: Mat. 28:19; Acts 2:38
: Mark 16:16; Mat. 3:11; Rom. 6:3
[c]: Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3
[d]: Heb. 12:24; 1Pet. 1:2
[e]: John 1:33; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:11
[f]: Mat. 28:19
[g]: Mark 16:16
[h]: Tit. 3:5
: Acts 22:16*​*

The London Baptist Confession of 1689 teaches that "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life." Now Keach's Catechism was produced to explain in more detail the doctrine contained in the 1689 LBCF:

Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption? 
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation. 

Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation? 
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them. 

Q. 100. What is Baptism? 
A. Baptism is an holy ordinance, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, signifies our ingrafting into Christ and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's. 

In his FAQ Stan Reeves states:

Q. Is the sacrament of baptism a means of grace according to Reformed Baptist theology? 
A. Some Reformed Baptists prefer not to use the term "sacrament" due to some negative historical associations. However, Reformed Baptists fully affirm a Reformed view of the sacraments as a means of grace. 

The 1689 Confession is admittedly not as clear on this point as it could be. But Keach's Catechism, which was written to clarify the theology of the Confession, makes it pretty clear: 

Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption? 
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation. (Rom. 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Cor. 3:5; Acts 14:1; 2:41,42) 

Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation? 
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them. (1 Peter 3:21; 1 Cor. 3:6,7; 1 Cor. 12:13) 

Q. 99. Wherein do Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God? 
A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper differ from the other ordinances of God in that they were specially instituted by Christ to represent and apply to believers the benefits of the new covenant by visible and outward signs. (Matt. 28:19; Acts 22:16; Matt. 26:26-28; Rom. 6:4)​
Therefore, baptism is a means of grace in Reformed Baptist theology. 

Q. How can baptism be a means of grace in Baptist theology when Baptists assert that a person must already be saved to be eligible for baptism? 
A. It is too narrow a reading of the terms "means of grace" and "effectual to salvation" to limit them to the moment of conversion. Christ "communicates to us the benefits of redemption" in an ongoing way not only to regenerate and justify us initially but also to sanctify and preserve us throughout our Christian lives. When the Shorter Catechism (Q. 89) and Keach's Catechism (Q. 96) ask "How is the Word made effectual to salvation?", they do not limit the effect of the Word in salvation to the moment of conversion. In fact, they explicitly affirm in the answer that the Word is effectual to salvation both in conversion and in continuing the Christian life: 

A. The Spirit of God makes the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith unto salvation.​
The two catechisms have identical answers to this question. 

Some Reformed Baptists may be uncomfortable with this second response, but I'll state it anyway. Baptists have historically seen baptism as the culmination of the conversion experience. Among other things, it seals and confirms, both to the party being baptized and to others, that the party has engaged to be the Lord's and is now united with Him. Although no warrant is given to baptize someone with the goal of converting him, in many cases the person may exercise faith in Christ through the means either of contemplating or participating in baptism. Beasley-Murray in Baptism in the New Testament makes a very strong case that the conversion experience and the act of baptism need not be separated in our conception of the two, since the NT so often speaks of them in an interchangeable manner. This is true, in spite of the fact that the two can be separated for study or in one's experience. From the believer's perspective, baptism can be viewed as a visible prayer in which the believer "signifies [his] ingrafting into Christ and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and [his] engagement to be the Lord's." 

One could also theoretically benefit from a sacrament as a means of grace before being converted, as paedobaptists argue that infants do in baptism. The objection to infant baptism in this respect is twofold. First, infants are not eligible for baptism and thus have no divine warrant to participate in a means of grace that is not designed for them. Second, baptism is a means of grace at the moment of participation (as well as before and after) that requires the awareness and voluntary participation of the party baptized. If God chose to design a means of grace to be applied to the unconverted and/or to those who can't voluntarily participate, then we should have no problem imagining how they might benefit from it. But if the design includes the awareness and voluntary participation of the party baptized, then it is a perversion and a truncation of the sacrament to admit anyone else.​*


----------



## Semper Fidelis

AV1611 said:


> So the gospel is that Christ died for you? So did Christ die for every infant of believing parents? This is covenant universalism. The picture of baptism is well taught by the Heidelberg Catechism



It's these kinds of statements that convince me you're better at cutting and pasting than you are grasping Covenant Theology and the Reformed understanding of Baptism.


----------



## AV1611

SemperFideles said:


> 3. You believe a person can have what appears to be a true profession and fall away - as with Simon above, you believe profession doesn't make a person a member of the NC. (So much for "...evidences of the fruit of regeneration...")



*Theology:* The Canons teach that "election is the fountain of every saving good; from which proceed faith" therefore we know that the elect will have faith. 

*Practice:* When someone says that they have faith in Christ we take them at their word, as would a Presbyterian and a Reformed man, and baptise them.

That is what Peter, Paul, Phillip, John etc did.


----------



## AV1611

SemperFideles said:


> It's these kinds of statements that convince me you're better at cutting and pasting than you are grasping Covenant Theology and the Reformed understanding of Baptism.



Perhaps so, I mean all you need to know is "Ctrl+P", but that does not show how Questions 69-71 of the Heidelberg Catechism is applicable to infants.

Nor indeed:

*XXVII. LORD'S DAY. 

Question 72. Is then the external baptism with water the washing away of sin itself? 
Answer.* Not at all: for the [a] blood of Jesus Christ only, and the Holy Ghost cleanse us from all * sin. 

Question 73. Why then doth the Holy Ghost call baptism "the washing of regeneration," and "the washing away of sins"? 
Answer. God speaks thus not without great cause, to-wit, not only thereby to teach us, that as the filth of the body is purged away by water, so our sins are [c] removed by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ; but especially that by [d] this divine pledge and sign he may assure us, that we are spiritually cleansed from our sins as really, as we are externally washed with water.

[a]: Mat. 3:11; 1Pet. 3:11
: 1John 1:7; 1Cor. 6:11
[c]: Rev. 1:5; 1Cor 6:11
[d]: Mark 16:16; Gal. 3:27*


----------



## JM

Just a few points on the imbalance of paedobaptism:

1. paedobaptists must ignore that everyone in the NC has the law written upon their hearts [2 Cor. 3:3; Jer. 31:34; Heb. 811-12]
2. this would mean infants are not born NC members [Ps. 51:5] 
3. we cannot know without doubt that every confession of faith is a credible profession of true regeneration so the leap is made from a hyper covenantal approach "BAPTIZE BASED ON PHYSICAL SEED!"
4. paedobaptists willingly create covenant breakers by sprinkling every infant born of the physical seed
5. paedobaptists must ignore that circumcision is an ordinance for the _physical_ descendants of Abraham [John 8:31]
6. paedobaptists must ignore that baptism is for his spiritual descendants of Abraham [Gal 3:7 & 4:28] because “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” [Gal 6:15.]
7. paedobaptists must ignore who the children of Abraham are and “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” [Gal 3:27-29.] the physical seed is nothing, “if ye be in Christ” is what matters and makes you Abraham’s seed, paedobaptists must ignore that we are Abraham’s seed by faith, not birth. 

In closing, paedobaptists have an imbalance in their argument for baptism. You must deal with your own conclusions, starting with the argument for the physical seed being identical with the spiritual seed and children being born into the New Covenant.

Peace,

~JM~


----------



## Davidius

JM, 

What did circumcision represent?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

AV1611 said:


> *Theology:* The Canons teach that "election is the fountain of every saving good; from which proceed faith" therefore we know that the elect will have faith.
> 
> *Practice:* When someone says that they have faith in Christ we take them at their word, as would a Presbyterian and a Reformed man, and baptise them.
> 
> That is what Peter, Paul, Phillip, John etc did.



Umm, yeah. 

So you don't baptize because the New Covenant is with the elect. Exactly my point.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JM said:


> Just a few points on the imbalance of paedobaptism:
> 
> 1. paedobaptists must ignore that everyone in the NC has the law written upon their hearts [2 Cor. 3:3; Jer. 31:34; Heb. 811-12]
> 2. this would mean infants are not born NC members [Ps. 51:5]
> 3. we cannot know without doubt that every confession of faith is a credible profession of true regeneration so the leap is made from a hyper covenantal approach "BAPTIZE BASED ON PHYSICAL SEED!"
> 4. paedobaptists willingly create covenant breakers by sprinkling every infant born of the physical seed
> 5. paedobaptists must ignore that circumcision is an ordinance for the _physical_ descendants of Abraham [John 8:31]
> 6. paedobaptists must ignore that baptism is for his spiritual descendants of Abraham [Gal 3:7 & 4:28] because “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” [Gal 6:15.]
> 7. paedobaptists must ignore who the children of Abraham are and “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” [Gal 3:27-29.] the physical seed is nothing, “if ye be in Christ” is what matters and makes you Abraham’s seed, paedobaptists must ignore that we are Abraham’s seed by faith, not birth.
> 
> In closing, paedobaptists have an imbalance in their argument for baptism. You must deal with your own conclusions, starting with the argument for the physical seed being identical with the spiritual seed and children being born into the New Covenant.
> 
> Peace,
> 
> ~JM~



Jason,

Like Richard, your tact attempts to avert direct problems with your own theology. Remember, this thread is about what Richard has positively put forward. What he prefers to do is skate around direct contradictions. "Hey, look at the Pony!" Is your answer no more than "I'm all dorked up but so are you!"

I've taken up the challenge of defending my view in many threads directed at my position and I answer questions directly because I'm a man and that's what men do. Have the courage to defend your view against a direct attack. Your weak attempt to avert fails.


----------



## JM

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> JM,
> 
> What did circumcision represent?



Biblical circumcision? It was for the physical seed, males only, and is associated with Abraham's faith as stated in Romans 4:11. In Gen. 15:6 we see that faith came first then Abraham was circumcised.


----------



## JM

SemperFideles said:


> Jason,
> 
> Like Richard, your tact attempts to avert direct problems with your own theology. Remember, this thread is about what Richard has positively put forward. What he prefers to do is skate around direct contradictions. "Hey, look at the Pony!" Is your answer no more than "I'm all dorked up but so are you!"
> 
> I've taken up the challenge of defending my view and I answer questions directly because I'm a man and that's what men do. Have the courage to defend your view against a direct attack. Your weak attempt doesn't impress.



Semper, like you wrote this is Richard's thread, I'm not bound as Richard maybe to defend the op. Keeping in mind that what you posted as a defence is up for criticism just as what RJS posted was up for critique by you. I understand if you don’t want to talk about the contradictions in your own defence, but it’s not my op.

Here’s a little something to think about:



> Don't know who you're quoting but it seems a poor argument. Acknowledge the words "believe" "appears" and "seems" and his point seems to fall apart. Why post stuff like this?
> 
> It’s not hard to defend believer’s baptism even if occasional errors happen –that’s what church discipline is for. And baptism isn’t sign of the New Covenant for believers –that’s the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Baptism is a church ordinance consequent to the New Birth and regeneration. It neither confers nor confirms anything, it only “states”.
> 
> If congregations are admitting unbelievers then they are not defending the church. Easy believism, unbiblically low standards, poor doctrinal understanding, inadequate ecclesiology, poor leaders, greed for numbers, unqualified elders and so on will all give rise to a church that deserves to have its lampstand taken away. I'm not going to defend any of that.
> 
> What I would defend is independent baptist church practice. Mature Christians in leadership, seeking to honour God and obey his statutes will operate the church along the NT pattern church lines to the best of their understanding.
> 
> Independent Local churches are not that easy to join! There are no unscriptural barriers, but newcomers have to be known before they can become members. Admitting members from other churches using the Letter of Introduction system or "references" has been the downfall of many congregations. Better to require 6 months attendance at all meetings before membership can be discussed. Flexibility is permissible of course, but this would be the principle. In 6 months observation and discussion and fellowship, true colours can show reasonably clearly. And issues arising can be further discussed.
> 
> Baptism follows much the same process. Sometimes a year or three can pass when there is doubt. (Flexibility again).
> 
> To put it clearly if bluntly, If someone looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, lives like a duck, tells you they are a duck and they want to be a better duck while reading about ducks, studying duck, wanting to be with ducks and telling all their friends they should be ducks….well, you get the picture. Don’t you think we can take the scriptures at their word and recognise a “credible profession of faith”. I do.
> 
> What if….
> Yes, there are what ifs.
> What if a person is self-deluded? Perhaps a “stony ground” hearer who after a time falls right away from belief, or an enthusiast caught up in the moment without understanding. Well, if they have been baptised, their baptism was done in good faith and an error here that has to be addressed is not the unforgivable sin. Why make a huge deal of it? Explain to the church and get on with life –the individual is out of membership until they can credibly profess their belief.
> What if a person is deliberately deceptive? (Why this should be beats me). Elders weren’t born again yesterday (1 Tim 3.6) – their judgment is one of the qualities we look for in choosing them.
> When someone deserts their Christian walk then church discipline comes to bear. Remember that there are real excommunication sins and issues for the church. WE have to take these seriously.
> 
> So the fact that errors might occur, for whatever reason, doesn’t invalidate the aim to baptise believers only. How the paedobaptist camp reconcile their practice with scripture is really behond me.



I’m not sure what the posturing is about, “I’m a man that’s what men do,” because it’s really no different then "Hey, look at the Pony!" You machismo doesn’t impress me either.

Peace,

j


----------



## Davidius

JM said:


> Biblical circumcision? It was for the physical seed, males only, and is associated with Abraham's faith as stated in Romans 4:11. In Gen. 15:6 we see that faith came first then Abraham was circumcised.



[bible]Romans 4:11-13[/bible]

Circumcision was not a sign of Abraham's faith. It was a sign of the righteousness which he had _by faith_. There's a huge difference. One is subjective, the other objective. The righteousness which Abraham had, Christ's righteousness, exists independently of anyone's obtaining it by faith. 

If circumcision was a sign of righteousness and baptism is also such a sign, then Abraham's physical descendants should not have been permitted to receive the sign as children (according to your premises). You are right in saying that faith came first _for Abraham_, but it was not so for Isaac and Ishmael (and all the other male members of Abraham's household).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JM said:


> Semper, like you wrote this is Richard's thread, I'm not bound as Richard maybe to defend the op. Keeping in mind that what you posted as a defence is up for criticism just as what RJS posted was up for critique by you. I understand if you don’t want to talk about the contradictions in your own defence, but it’s not my op.
> j


If you don't want to debate then you don't need to participate in a forum for debate and discussion.

Not machismo, just an observation that aversion is for those with weak arguments. If you have a strong argument then use it.


----------



## JM

SemperFideles said:


> If you don't want to debate then you don't need to participate in a forum for debate and discussion.
> 
> Not machismo, just an observation that aversion is for those with weak arguments. If you have a strong argument then use it.



Waiting for a reply on the pm, God bless brother.

j


----------



## Larry Hughes

Scott,

I'm thrilled it blessed you and hope it strengthens your faith.

Richard,



> “So the gospel is that Christ died for you? So did Christ die for every infant of believing parents? This is covenant universalism. The picture of baptism is well taught by the Heidelberg Catechism”



The parent must believe in no other way, this IS the essence of saving faith. To believe other wise would be to deny the promise of God which is neither save and in fact foolish. For one you are confounding particular and universal. The Gospel is communicated universally without caveats for the very sake of the elect, the particular. Any attempt to communicate it in particular way fails as Gospel, you loose the “for you” in all such attempts and end up in denying Christ altogether every time. 

Similarly, you also confuse the communication of the Gospel with the eternal election. This is what Luther would call a theology of glory, ascending into heaven trying to ‘see God in the nude’ to some how detect “the elect” or other wise eternal things your foolish eyes have neither been given to see or have permission from Scripture to seek out. All theologies of glory, as opposed to the theology of the Cross, pretend to see by the means of the things that are (living by sight) into the eternal realities of God (God in the nude). They in essence attempt to “poke at God like fumbling apes” through the veiled screen of His attributes, then grunt out their ideas of what God is like, thus honing their idol. The god men attempt to see by His eternal essences and realities becomes every single time, an idol, the fallen nature can do no other thing and the new nature is a pure man of naked (sightless) faith/trust alone. In Thesis 19 and 20 of Luther’s HD he sets forth the difference between ToG (fallen religion) and ToC (the Cross); “That a person does not deserve to be called a theologian who claims to see into the invisible things of God by seeing through earthly thing (events/works/etc…)” (e.g. trying to build a regenerate or ‘believers only church’ functions this very way. Contra wise: “But that person deserves to be called a theologian (of Cross) who comprehends what is visible of God through suffering and the cross.” In Thesis 21 he sums this up nicely; “The theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil, but the theologian of the Cross says what a thing is.”

Similarly, as Calvin said we are to behold our election in the Cross of Christ as if in a mirror, not nakedly. What a foolish and disobedient parent worthy of hell I would be to turn my children’s eyes to some “signs of faith” WITHIN THEM or some “measure of conversion” WITHIN THEM or some “experimental conversion” none sense WITHIN THEM so that they can earn the merit of baptism. Rather I point them to Christ FOR THEM to which their baptism gives FOR THEM Christ. FOR THEM is Christ given, it matters little when they or adults for that matter actually come to faith. One can cast off their baptism and then if dying so, not letting Christ have you entire sin nature (good and evil works), one only is condemned greater for the rejection of so great a gift. 

God suffers His gifts, like baptism and the Lord’s Supper, to be rejected such is the shear loving kindness of His Gospel. This is CENTRALLY apparent and explicit no less than at the very Cross of Christ in which all men rejected Him and to which Baptism and the Bread and the Wine all point, signify, seal and give. God suffers His gifts to be rejected, especially His Son and so the stupidity of fallen man is manifested most plainly. It is as Paul says in Romans ‘if men and women do not believe’ it is not as if the word of God has failed’. For God does not lie. 

In terms of what we are to do here and now we simply proclaim the universal offer of the Gospel, John 3:16 is in the sense of proclamation real. Eternal things I leave to God and dare not ascend like a giddy spirited fanatic into the heavens so as to “see God in the nude”, no man can behold him so and all such pretend beholdings are idols of God. In the end the only sin that damns is the sin of not allowing Jesus to take care of your sins for you.

There is not ONE single work nor life of works the devil cannot bring to bear the real Law of God upon so as to show a man that he has NO evidence of conversion and by extension baptized rightly in terms of “timing”. Even faith itself, the devil, when he attacks fully he will shred to pieces like nothing and with no effort. A man will be left with nothing. The devil then, under believers only baptism, snatches the sword of baptism from you as Gospel where it was the “Sword of the Spirit” FOR YOU, and will turn it on you as a weapon against you, e.g. the cries for rebaptism and such. Left naked he will devour one. Crying out, “I am elect”, will avail you nothing when the arch enemy comes, his mind is greater than you dream. He is the lawyer supreme! Leaving you in a whirlwind of doubt of “is it really for me”. 

It is as Calvin said that it is NO small issue that God has respect for one’s children for in this the parent TOO has a Gospel NO devil can rob from him/her. Baptism upon the child MOST shows forth the Gospel of God. This is why Lazarus exemplified the Gospel, a dead man called forth to live by faith, for he, like infants, could do NOTHING but receive. In a sense the baptizing of our children are a gift to us today since we only read of Lazarus but can see our children baptized so that we may see the realness of the Gospel in stark contrast…to wit…nothing of you but yet FOR YOU. This weapon no devil nor doctrine of man can rape from your hand. In fact one draws this Sword of the spirit and thrusts it into the belly of the enemy, devil or man or other doctrine and kills it. This is to suffer by faith, yet kill all enemies by nothing more than suffer to trust in another FOR ME. This is what the baptism of infants portrays to the congregation, the people of God, not the individuals of God. This is again why Jesus easily says “…for of such are the kingdom of God…” and “praise and worship are by them perfected”. Nothing worships God like the dead being raised (a type of receiving) and the babies receiving. The nothingness of their state declares His very power to call into being that which is not. NOTHING speaks of or bears witness of the total depravity of man and utter inability of man and the very power of the Gospel like the baptizing of infants. The baptism of adults are at BEST, a very very very poor second witness to which the stain of “trying to do” (make a profession) taints the entire reality of fallen man and grace of God.

May Christ bless you most deeply with His grace,

Larry


----------



## JM

As a wise man once posted: Is your answer no more than "I'm all dorked up but so are you!"

 

j


----------



## AV1611

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> You are right in saying that faith came first _for Abraham_, but it was not so for Isaac and Ishmael (and all the other male members of Abraham's household).



Was Ishmael in the covenant? Why was he circumcised?


----------



## AV1611

I wish to retract my statement that "Baptism should be administered to the true seed of Abraham, the elect in Christ" and confess that the Heibelberg Catechism is correct in teaching:

*Question 74
Q. Should infants, too, be baptized?
A.* Yes. Infants as well as adults belong to God's covenant and congregation.*[1] *Through Christ's blood the redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to adults.*[2]* Therefore, by baptism, as sign of the covenant, they must be grafted into the Christian church and distinguished from the children of unbelievers.*[3]* This was done in the old covenant by circumcision,*[4] *in place of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant.*[5]*
*[1] *Gen 17:7; Mat 19:14. 
*[2]* Psa 22:11; Isa 44:1-3; Act 2:38-39; Act 16:31. 
*[3]* Act 10:47; 1Co 7:14. 
*[4]* Gen 17:9-14. 
*[5]* Col 2:11-13.


----------



## JonathanHunt

You read all the way through to the end and then you discover the author has retracted...


----------



## AV1611

JonathanHunt said:


> You read all the way through to the end and then you discover the author has retracted...



I was thrown by reading a covenantal argument for credobaptism but after discussion with others and a study of the issue in more detail I believe I was too hasty in rejecting paedobaptism.


----------



## JonathanHunt

AV1611 said:


> I was thrown by reading a covenantal argument for credobaptism but after discussion with others and a study of the issue in more detail I believe I was too hasty in rejecting paedobaptism.



[yoda on] So close to enlightenment, you were. Returned to the dark side, you have. [yoda off]

Blessings, brother. 

JH


----------



## non dignus

Richard,

You're a good man.


----------



## Iconoclast

*Spirit/not water*



> SemperFideles said:
> 
> If I answer a Baptist according to his own conclusions then my point is that New Covenant membership has nothing to do with who you baptize based upon your own principles because:
> 
> 1. You believe the NC cannot be broken.
> 2. You believe a person can be baptized and fall away - as with Simon above, you believe baptism doesn't make a person a member of the NC.
> 3. You believe a person can have what appears to be a true profession and fall away - as with Simon above, you believe profession doesn't make a person a member of the NC. (So much for "...evidences of the fruit of regeneration...")
> 
> Thus, Baptists have an imbalance in their argument for Baptism. It doesn't matter what we believe here and how you believe it applies to us. You must deal with your own conclusions. Starting with the argument for the unbreakability of the New Covenant you cannot get from there to believer's only baptism.
> 
> It can't be done. Richard has failed repeatedly. Doesn't matter how many times he quotes Gill and Spurgeon. They fail to make that leap as well.



But Rich, It is not water baptism that saves, It is Spirit baptism that saves. you keep going back to this point,and assume that romans 6, col.2,,,,speak of water baptism. the NT. teaches believers baptism. In all cases they had the Holy Spirit first as most of the sign gifts attested too.
In most padeobaptist literature that I have seen,they want it both ways.They speak of the so called"covenant child" as if he was already quickened and in union with Christ. as if he were assured of regeneration.
Some I have heard get annoyed if someone suggests to their children that they must be born again. Well they are not saved unless Jesus saves them.
If The Spirit does not place them into the body,they are still without.
You can invent visible and invisible church if you want to, but The bible describes one true body of Christ,,,,with goats ,tares and others who attach themselves for a while,,,as both grow together until the harvest.
Jesus said every tree that My heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up. Bringing your child to a baptismal font, does not indwell them with the Holy Spirit. It does not give them faith. Are you saying that "all covenant children" somehow can recieve spirtual truth without having the Spirit quicken them? 1cor 2;14 eph 2;1-3 ,,,,,
I find it interesting that you do not see the Apostles using the language or arguments of padeo baptist theologians in Acts 15,,,,,,How easy it would have been to just say in response to the question about the place of circumcision in the NT.,,,oh well baptism has just replaced circumcision.
They did not do it,,,,,,,,because regeneration was the obvious fulfillment of the promise,,,so they identified those who professed belief,manifesting evidence of spiritual life,,,,,with believers baptism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> But Rich, It is not water baptism that saves, It is Spirit baptism that saves. you keep going back to this point,and assume that romans 6, col.2,,,,speak of water baptism. the NT. teaches believers baptism. In all cases they had the Holy Spirit first as most of the sign gifts attested too.
> In most padeobaptist literature that I have seen,they want it both ways.They speak of the so called"covenant child" as if he was already quickened and in union with Christ. as if he were assured of regeneration.
> Some I have heard get annoyed if someone suggests to their children that they must be born again. Well they are not saved unless Jesus saves them.
> If The Spirit does not place them into the body,they are still without.
> You can invent visible and invisible church if you want to, but The bible describes one true body of Christ,,,,with goats ,tares and others who attach themselves for a while,,,as both grow together until the harvest.
> Jesus said every tree that My heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up. Bringing your child to a baptismal font, does not indwell them with the Holy Spirit. It does not give them faith. Are you saying that "all covenant children" somehow can recieve spirtual truth without having the Spirit quicken them? 1cor 2;14 eph 2;1-3 ,,,,,
> I find it interesting that you do not see the Apostles using the language or arguments of padeo baptist theologians in Acts 15,,,,,,How easy it would have been to just say in response to the question about the place of circumcision in the NT.,,,oh well baptism has just replaced circumcision.
> They did not do it,,,,,,,,because regeneration was the obvious fulfillment of the promise,,,so they identified those who professed belief,manifesting evidence of spiritual life,,,,,with believers baptism.



Strange use of commas. Is your keyboard broken?

Did you read the actual argument that Richard originally posited and is now retracting? If you did, you would understand that your response is off-topic. I'm willing to take up your problems but it will need to be coherent and on topic with an original post.


----------



## Iconoclast

*my keyboard is just fine,this is not typing class*

Rich,
I was responding to your responses. It seems to me that many times your responses are ad hominem attacks, more than genuine responses,as if you are trying to win a philosophical debate rather than offer scriptural remedies.
Your smug comment about my use of comma's is an example.
I use the commas that way as if I were speaking to you in person. The more of them I use the more I would like you to pause and respond to the issue at hand. If it is too much for you to handle I will try to refrain when typing to you.
I am very slow on the computer. But maybe you might want to review some of your posts and see if my observation might have some truth there.
I am not thin skinned Rich. If you feel my response to you is in error,or I have missed something you can say so.
Many times I am on here after a long workday. I am trying to learn and look forward to some of the back and forth debate .
I will confess right now that my typing and spelling might be off a bit.
Rich can I ask you a question?,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,[some comma's for you]
If a visitor comes into your church,and mis-speaks a word are you the first one to correct his speaking,or are you glad he has come to worship?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

My observations above were in no way ad hominem. You didn't actually interact with my argument but with what you perceived the argument to be. I used Baptistic premises to show that, according to the Baptist Scriptural interpretation, they did not yield the conclusion.

Here is the OP: Only the elect should be baptized.

My response is very simple:

Premise: Only the elect ought to be baptized (according to the OP)
The Elect are known only by God
The visible Church does not know who the Elect are
Therefore, nobody should be baptized.

Thus, Baptists, by their own admision, are not baptizing on the basis of election.

Regarding your use of commas. You claim yourself to be a teacher and therefore are not ignorant. If you want to be received as somebody with some knowledge then you ought to learn to write properly.

I teach and interact with a broader diversity of ethnic and educational levels than you can imagine. I have no problem with the way people speak in the Church.

But this is a forum and the goal is to communicate thoughts clearly. Your strange use of commas and method of quoting others makes for very difficult reading. You are apparently thin-skinned about it but that's neither here nor there. I've asked you to be clearer in your presentation if you would like to interact meaningfully on the board. You also need to follow the flow of the argument so you know what you're arguing for and against.


----------



## Iconoclast

SemperFideles said:


> My observations above were in no way ad hominem. You didn't actually interact with my argument but with what you perceived the argument to be. I used Baptistic premises to show that, according to the Baptist Scriptural interpretation, they did not yield the conclusion.
> 
> Here is the OP: Only the elect should be baptized.
> 
> My response is very simple:
> 
> Premise: Only the elect ought to be baptized (according to the OP)
> The Elect are known only by God
> The visible Church does not know who the Elect are
> Therefore, nobody should be baptized.
> 
> Thus, Baptists, by their own admision, are not baptizing on the basis of election.
> 
> Baptists obey the teaching of scripture to baptize believer's.
> Your premise only the elect should be baptized is your own premise.
> Only the elect are Spirit baptized.
> We are nowhere told that we will know who the elect are until we all assemble on the last day.
> Baptists like they did in Acts,baptize those who believe.
> You also will not baptize an adult unless he says that he believes.
> If a single mother comes in your church with two teenager's and says she believes, do you administer the sign of the covenant to her teenagers even if they do not profess faith? what if they are 12,11,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1
> |Do you have a cut-off age for them? Or are you the same as the baptist?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> Baptists obey the teaching of scripture to baptize believer's.
> Your premise only the elect should be baptized is your own premise.


{sigh}

Seriously, this is very frustrating. Let me ask you to do something very simple. 

Stop what your doing, move your eyeballs to the top of the Screen and read the title of this thread. Let me bold what it says:

*Baptism should only be administered to the true seed of Abraham, the elect in Christ*

Do you understand what Richard was arguing for now?

Would you like to retract your false statement now that this was *my* premise?

I can stomach a lot of obtuseness but that simply takes the cake when you tell me this is MY premise. It's not my premise at all.

If you would simply pay attention to the argument and not import what you want then you would see that no ad hominems are being argued at all.

It's a horrible premise and so it yields a horrible conclusion. This thread should have ended long ago but it has a life because people can't follow the simple logic because they want to jump all over the place and forget what the OP was about.



> Only the elect are Spirit baptized.


Again, immaterial to the original post.



> We are nowhere told that we will know who the elect are until we all assemble on the last day.


Immaterial to the original post.


> Baptists like they did in Acts,baptize those who believe.


Immaterial to the original post.


> You also will not baptize an adult unless he says that he believes.


Immaterial to the original post.


> If a single mother comes in your church with two teenager's and says she believes, do you administer the sign of the covenant to her teenagers even if they do not profess faith? what if they are 12,11,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1
> |Do you have a cut-off age for them? Or are you the same as the baptist?


Immaterial to the original post.

You see it works like this on this forum: we read what others write and respond to the arguments they make. We then evaluate the arguments from Scripture and see if they yield what the original poster was arguing for.

I could just as easily throw out right now: Say, the Yankees stink at baseball because they have credo-baptist fans.

Might lead to an interesting argument but it has nothing to do with this thread.

After going in a large circle let me repeat what I said a few posts ago that rings ever true:



> Did you read the actual argument that Richard originally posited and is now retracting? If you did, you would understand that your response is off-topic. I'm willing to take up your problems but it will need to be coherent and on topic with an original post.


You would be advised to read the warnings carefully so you don't have to show that you have NOT read the original post as enjoined.

I'm not going to waste any more time bringing new issues into this thread. I will delete any posts or portions of the post that go off track.


----------

