# Another view of paedobaptism?



## VanVos (Dec 1, 2005)

As a Credobaptist I believe the New Covenant is inviolable and irrevocable, consisting only of elect persons. 

So I was surprised to read this statement by John Robbins. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/horror_show.php?id=2 




> Friends,
> The February 2004 issue of Tabletalk, a monthly magazine published by Ligonier Ministries, contains a lethal misrepresentation of the Covenant of Grace. In its February 18 "devotional," we read these words:
> "The book of Hebrews uses this story [of ancient Israel] as a basis for warning Christians to persevere, thereby proving that the new covenant can be broken as well [as the Mosaic could]....
> 
> ...



If I understand Robbins correctly he seems to intrepret Hebrews 8 same way I do, but he himself is a paedobaptist. I upon further inquiry I discovered that he believes that a child can receive the sign of the covenant without actually being in the Covenant. (Listen to his closing 10mins of this lecture) http://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/AubAveTheo_Collection13.MP3

Have I misunderstood him here? Secondly, are there any paedobaptist on this board that agree with this position? 

VanVos


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 1, 2005)

I will not take any position on the _presentation_ either of Tabletalk's side or Robbins'. Robbins, while brash and earnest in contending for the faith once delivered, also has a well-deserved reputation of one lacking in due measure of charity, including using other people's words out of context and not letting them speak for themselves or qualify their comments. And I have not had occasion to peruse the Tabletalk for myself. Therefore, I am not in position to judge the statements, or their qualifications, from the excerpts provided.

The Covenant of Grace, in its implementation, is as old as the Fall, and was instituted to redeem the elect. It is distinguished principally from the Covenant of Works. Therefore, there is a real sense in which the "Covenant of Grace" and the "New Covenant" are not synonymous terms at all. Not when the Covenant of Grace includes the _Old_ Covenant, God's covenant administration going back to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David (as principal parties).

The New Covenant is indeed a superior covenant, superior to the whole Old Covenant adminstration. It is founded on better promises, on the finished work of Christ, etc. The question at issue is the matter of the external versus the internal workings of the New Covenant adminstration.

The Old Covenant adminstration had internals and externals also. The _saved_ were those who were members of (not the New Covenant, but) the Covenant of Grace, genuinely. In other words, have both the external marks of covenant inclusion (with the occasional exception--Nebuchadnezzar, after his conversion comes to mind; as does Naaman, the Syrian) *and* more importantly the internal work of the Spirit, which was always necessary to bring about the New Birth. This is simply Jesus' instruction to the rabbi Nicodemus, who being a teacher in Israel should have known these things.

The question of the New Covenant is: does it have an external, visible expression? And can people be connected to it externally (as they were in the OT) without the internal reality? We say "of course!" The external presentation of the New Covenant is the church. And the reality is that many people, even adults (or older children) who profess faith and are baptized later in life, fall away, apostatize.

Were they in covenant? Yes and no (this is not novel theology, folks). They were inside the New Covenant _visibly adminstered,_ though not (if they utterly fall away) ever, NOT EVER, in the New Covenant _spiritually_ or _invisibly_ administered. No more than under the Old Covenant was the _reality_ experienced by the non-elect for a moment of time.

Simply put, the New Covenant has aspects both visible and invisible, as every other covenant, God with man, has ever had. This I believe, without having the privilege of reading the TT mag, is what I expect is being expressed by the authors/editors.

[Edited on 12-2-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## VanVos (Dec 1, 2005)

> The question of the New Covenant is: does it have an external, visible expression? And can people be connected to it externally (as they were in the OT) without the internal reality? We say "of course!" The external presentation of the New Covenant is the church. And the reality is that many people, even adults (or older children) who profess faith and are baptized later in life, fall away, apostatize.
> 
> Were they in covenant? Yes and no (this is not novel theology, folks). They were inside the New Covenant visibly adminstered, though not (if they utterly fall away) ever, NOT EVER, in the New Covenant spiritually or invisibly administered. No more than under the Old Covenant was the reality experienced by the non-elect for a moment of time.
> 
> Simply put, the New Covenant has aspects both visible and invisible, as every other covenant, God with man, has ever had. This I believe, without having the privilege of reading the TT mag, is what I expect is being expressed by the authors/editors.



But I don't think that's what Robbins is exactly saying. Although I believe Table Talk is saying that. It seems that Robbins views the New Covenant as consisting of the elect only. But that we still are to give children of believers the sign of the covenant. Some what like credobaptist position on a baptized person who receives the sign (water baptism) but is not truely saved i.e. in the New Covenant.



[Edited on 12-2-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## Dan.... (Dec 1, 2005)

Hmm... I wonder what Mr. Robbins says about WLC Question 166:



> Q166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?
> A166: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him,[1] *but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant*, and to be baptized.[2]



Oh no!! The WLC is teaching false doctrine!!! (Not...)



[Edited on 12-2-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> As a Credobaptist I believe the New Covenant is inviolable and irrevocable, consisting only of elect persons.
> 
> So I was surprised to read this statement by John Robbins. http://www.trinityfoundation.org/horror_show.php?id=2
> ...



Wow...Robbins sounds like John Owen and Reformed Baptist theologians.


----------



## VanVos (Dec 1, 2005)

I know it's amazing. Us reformed baptist are not alone.


----------



## Mocha (Dec 3, 2005)

VanVos said:



> If I understand Robbins correctly he seems to intrepret Hebrews 8 same way I do, but he himself is a paedobaptist. I upon further inquiry I discovered that he believes that a child can receive the sign of the covenant without actually being in the Covenant. (Listen to his closing 10mins of this lecture)
> 
> Have I misunderstood him here?




You're right. That's what he seems to be saying. Here's his actual words:



> We baptize children of believers because we're commanded to do so by Scripture. But that doesn't mean that the children are in the covenant of grace...so we cannot conclude from the fact that a person bears the sign of the covenant, that he is in the covenant. It simply doesn't follow.



He says that bearing the sign of the covenant does not mean that one is in the covenant. Maybe he means:

1) one is not in the "internal covenant"

OR

2) the sign is only a "prospective" one

I tend to think that the second one is the better way to interpret it. James Bannerman seems to take this view:



> In the case of the infant, *it is a prospective seal* in connection with the faith which he has not at the moment, but which he may have afterwards...The full enjoyment of the benefits of the ordinance the infant cannot experience at the moment of its administration, in virtue of his incapacity of faith; but *it may be experienced afterwards, when, in consequence of his newly formed faith in Christ, he too is made partaker of the covenant*, and can look back in believing confidence on his former Baptism as a seal. (James Bannerman, "The Church of Christ", 2:116-117)



Bannerman sees the baptized infant as being a "prospective" partaker of the covenant. When does he become an "actual" partaker of the covenant? For Bannerman, it's when there is faith in Christ.

What do you think about this idea, with regard to, the sign of the covenant being a "prospective" one (for infants) and not necessarily indicating that one is "actually" in the covenant?

Mike

Mike


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 3, 2005)

> We baptize children of believers because we're commanded to do so by Scripture. But that doesn't mean that the children are in the covenant of grace...so we cannot conclude from the fact that a person bears the sign of the covenant, that he is in the covenant. It simply doesn't follow.


Remove the phrases _children of believers_ and _children_ and replace them with _adult confessors_. Based on his theology what conclusions would be different?



> In the case of the infant, it is a prospective seal in connection with the faith which he has not at the moment, but which he may have afterwards...The full enjoyment of the benefits of the ordinance the infant cannot experience at the moment of its administration, in virtue of his incapacity of faith; but it may be experienced afterwards, when, in consequence of his newly formed faith in Christ, he too is made partaker of the covenant, and can look back in believing confidence on his former Baptism as a seal. (James Bannerman, "The Church of Christ", 2:116-117)


Again, change the word _infant_ to _adult confessor_. Does the statement mean anything different if the adult is, in fact, a false brother?

Such statements seem meaningful or synthetic but don't really say anything except that only the elect are saved. OK....

It seems like a terrible waste of time for the author of Hebrews to be writing an entire Epistle just to reaffirm that the Elect are Saved. Can the warnings be to the reprobate members of the Church? Not really because they are not in any Covenant with God anymore according to Robbins. Can the warnings be to the Elect. Not really because it's not possible for them to fall away since they are Elect and will, by the Grace of God, persevere.

Further, to live out honestly the idea that the New Covenant is only the Elect, adherents must conclude they have no earthly idea who they are in Covenant with. They are promised assurance themselves in 1 John but know that others could be self-deceived according to Scripture. Thus, one can have assurance of his own participation in the New Covenant but nobody else's. 

It would be an ecclesiastical mess to live consistent with such a belief within the Church if it all boils down to the elect/reprobate question as the only way to perceive the New Covenant. Can somebody tell me of another way in which you are in Covenant with the folks you worship with on Sunday if you hold this view of the New Covenant?

[Edited on 12-3-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Steve Owen (Dec 3, 2005)

Robbins' position is the one of most paedo-baptists that I know in the UK. Whilst it is a little bit confused here and there, well, no one's perfect!

Rich wrote:-


> Further, to live out honestly the idea that the New Covenant is only the Elect, adherents must conclude they have no earthly idea who they are in Covenant with. They are promised assurance themselves in 1 John but know that others could be self-deceived according to Scripture. Thus, one can have assurance of his own participation in the New Covenant but nobody else's.


This really is an imaginary problem on your part, Rich. You have no absolute assurance that your next-door neighbour is not an axe-murderer, and that you aren't next on his list! But do you lie awake in bed all night worrying about it? Of course, if you find a blood-stained axe hanging up in his garage and he has an uncontrollable twitch every time he speaks to you, you might have cause for concern.

Likewise, every member of a Baptist church has made a voluntary confession of repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Unless you know that the Pastor is in the habit of baptizing the unrepentant, you may assume that they're all saved until they give evidence otherwise. If it is a Reformed church, you will usually find that unsaved people won't hang around too long because there is nothing for them. When they leave, you can say, *'They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us'* (1John 2:19 ).


> It would be an ecclesiastical mess to live consistent with such a belief within the Church if it all boils down to the elect/reprobate question as the only way to perceive the New Covenant.



I do not find it so.


> Can somebody tell me of another way in which you are in Covenant with the folks you worship with on Sunday if you hold this view of the New Covenant?


No. There are only two sorts of people, the saved and the lost. There is no 'third realm'. We are to join with the one and separate from the other. *'For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?...........Therefore, "Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord"'* (2Cor 6:14-15, 17 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 12-3-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 3, 2005)

I appreciate alot of what Robbins has to say, but I don't think that he is 100% on his Covenant Theology. To some degree, I think he might be reacting against the FV types who want to make everything outward. Here I see his CT as leaning more toward Baptist CT than historic Presbyterian CT.

See this thread for more on this issue.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Rich wrote:-
> 
> 
> ...


Yes. We both agree on that. My point is that you cannot say that you are in _Covenant_ with anyone because you base New Covenant participation on being elect. Since you can only biblically have assurance of your own salvation and none others (since some "...are not of us...") you can only have assurance that you are of the Elect. I don't have a problem with the category of the reprobate member of a Church because wheat and tares, sheep and goats, elect and reprobate exist within the visible Church. The Bible, however, speaks of us having communion and being in covenant with one another in Christ Jesus. 

With the concept that the New Covenant only includes the Elect, those that hold to this view must either set that aside to consider fellow churchgoers to be in Covenant with them or be consistent and conclude they're uncertain who they're in Covenant with. Sure, you're in Covenant with those in the invisible Church but it's not _in_visible because it can be seen.


> > Can somebody tell me of another way in which you are in Covenant with the folks you worship with on Sunday if you hold this view of the New Covenant?
> 
> 
> No. There are only two sorts of people, the saved and the lost. There is no 'third realm'. We are to join with the one and separate from the other. *'For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?...........Therefore, "Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord"'* (2Cor 6:14-15, 17 ).
> ...


Exactly, so to be consistent, you worship with and are dear friends to many in your Church but you cannot confidently say you are in Covenant with anybody at your Church since you do not know if any are Elect.

You don't find it to be a quandry but it doesn't seem to line up with the language that we _are_ in Covenant and not merely in an invisible sense.

[Edited on 12-4-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------

