# What made me a Paedobaptist? The Nature of the New Covenant and Warnings.



## ACBRown (May 25, 2010)

Here recently my wife and I celebrated our daughter's baptism. If you'd like to see my blog post on it, which has her picture and a funny, but interesting fact about the Macarthur Study Bible, go here and scroll down to the halfway point to the post entitled, "Credobaptism vs Paedobaptism." 

http://www.soundofdoctrine.com/

Her baptism caused me to reflect again on what moved me away from credobaptism. Ultimately, it came down to two issues. One was theological, one was existential. I thought I would share the theological reason here. Maybe others will find it helpful. Back at the website, this is posted under the link (at the top) entitled, "Theoblogical." 


*Warnings, Baptism and the Nature of the New Covenant*

A key point in the credo/paedo baptism debate is the question of the New Covenant. The issue is whether all covenant members are regenerate. Or might there be a mixture of regenerate and unregenerate? Credobaptists affirm the former, paedobaptists the latter. While this may not seem at first glance terribly pertinent to the discussion, much hinges upon it. For if the credobaptists are right, then infants shouldn’t receive the sign of the covenant. Why? Because they’re not regenerate. So if the nature of the New Covenant is such that it is a registry of regeneration, then the paedobaptist position is effectively ruled out from the start. 

In order to address this question, two issues take center stage. First, the Credobaptist will turn to the eighth chapter of Hebrews and argue that the text explicitly teaches that the New Covenant is an unbreakable covenant comprised solely of regenerate people. 

To quote Greg Welty, he states, “First, the New Covenant is an unbreakable covenant… 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.”

The other issue, by way of response, is the warning passages found throughout the New Testament. Paedobaptists will cite texts demonstrating that the New Covenant is not only conditional, but that unregenerate individuals comprise it. 

My purpose here is to address the warnings as they relate to the New Covenant. I will make a few observations.

*Observation one*

We must recognize the group Paul has in mind when he, or any other apostle for that matter, warns his readers that they must continue in the faith or else be damned. Take a passage like Colossians 1:21-23. 

It reads, “And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.”

When he writes, he writes to the saints of a certain locality. So to state it simply, Paul warns a local church, or a cluster of churches. That is his target audience. This means that saints are the subjects of the warnings. They fall within the purview. They must persevere or else. 

This alone should make one rub their chin when they hear Baptists assert that the New Covenant is unconditional. For clearly, if these warnings are taken at face value, believers must continue in the faith. And if they must continue, then that is a condition. 

For many this will raise all kinds of questions, but this isn’t the place to defend and unpack the concept. Suffice it to say that Thomas Schreiner, quite possibly the leading defender of believer’s baptism today, agrees with what I have outlined. He agrees that Christians, real Christians, must continue or else (See his excellent book, “The Race Set Before Us.”). 

He argues that the warnings are means. God uses them to spur His sheep on. Christ’s sheep listen to His voice, and when they are warned, they heed His warnings (by grace, no doubt). So in sum, he grants that the warnings possess full Arminian force, in the sense that they really do warn us that we must continue in order to be finally saved. 

Something important to point out is that Dr. Schreiner is a firm Calvinist. So he doesn’t believe that any sheep will be lost. I totally agree. Just because you warn someone about the dangers of a certain action, it doesn’t follow that they will commit the error. I can tell my son that if he doesn’t clean his room he’ll be grounded. But pronouncing the warning doesn’t mean that he will fail to clean his room. It’s just telling him what will happen if he doesn’t. The same is true with the biblical warnings. 

Now I think this is all right and good. Dr. Schreiner and I couldn’t agree more on this point. Where we diverge, however, will be the plain when we talk about the status of the unregenerate.

*Observation two*

So what about those who fall away? Were they regenerate? No. We agree that they weren’t regenerate. Well then what was their relationship to the church, if any?

Here the paedobaptist believes that when a person is baptized, they are set apart and receive the sign of the covenant. God’s name is placed on them. There is an objective shift in status, even if their heart isn’t right. This is to say that they’re saints externally, even while unregenerate. They haven’t been born again. But they are members of the church. As such, they share a relationship with the New Covenant. 

But what might a Credobaptist say about the unregenerate among them? If the unregenerate aren’t saints, then it would seem that their relationship to the church is merely one of proximity. In other words, do they just happen to stand in the same room as Christians on Sunday morning? Sing the same songs that Christians sing? Mimic the movements of real Christians? 

But if that is the case, then how can the warnings apply to them, if there isn’t some kind of covenantal relationship? Remember, Paul addresses the saints in his letters. If the baptized unregenerate aren’t saints, then what is the ground for warning them? 

Here an example will prove helpful. Imagine warning a bachelor to remain faithful to his wife. Suppose someone walks up to him and says, “If you commit adultery, your wife will divorce you.” Now that warning may be true, but since the bachelor isn’t married, he isn’t in a covenantal relationship. And since he’s not in a covenantal relationship, it doesn’t make sense to warn him as though he were. A covenantal bond hasn’t been established. No vows were made. He’s a bachelor. [Here we might also point out that the heart has little to do with making marriage vows. There have been plenty of losers marry someone without taking seriously their vows, even while they're making them. But this doesn’t mean that a covenant hasn’t been established.]

Or take this example. Suppose the Los Angelis Lakers are warned by the athletic commission that if they get into a fight they’ll be kicked out of the game and fined. Now imagine going up to some guy that has no affiliation with the NBA and warning him that if he gets into a fight while playing with the Lakers, he’ll get a double-technical and kicked out of the game. Again, the warning is true and real, so far as the warning goes, but it only applies to those for whom it is designed. 

At the end of the day, saints are warned. Those outside the pale of the covenant cannot be properly warned because the grounds for doing so don’t exist. The legal conditions simply don’t obtain. 

Now someone may want to argue that we don’t have infallible knowledge of who is really a saint and who isn’t. Therefore we warn all those hanging out in the church who need warned. 

There is an element of truth to this. But consider this: Wouldn’t it be strange for Paul to warn saints that they must continue, but then, when someone in the church does falls away, he doesn’t interpret the falling away in accordance with the warnings not to fall away? That’s a mouthful, I know. But think about it. Basically there appears to be a disconnect between the warnings and those who fall prey to the warnings.

Now granted someone could turn around and say, “So why don’t you interpret those falling away as losing their salvation?” The answer, of course, is because the Scriptures are very clear on two fronts. One, it clearly teaches that God will keep all His sheep. And two, it consistently views those who fall away as not having been born again. 

So this leaves us with a third category: Those who fall away are saints, externally speaking, but they have not been born again. As such, they are covenant breakers. This allows us to not only take seriously the warnings, like Dr. Schreiner, but it allows us to genuinely warn all the members of a local church, regardless of whether they are regenerate or not. Moreover, this allows us to say that something has been really lost. Something has been broken. They have fallen away. Just think about that language. They fell away. Fell from what? From hanging out with Christians? Well, no, more than that. They fell from their position as members of the church. They rejected what their baptism symbolized (and they partook of the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner, which likewise carries with it covenant blessings and curses. See 1 Cor 11:30-31). 

*Observation Three*

Several passages of Scripture, according to their most natural reading, appear to support this conclusion. We will examine two of the clearest. 

The first passage is Hebrews 10:28-31. It reads,

“Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

Richard L Pratt comments as follows,

“The passage makes it plain that until Christ returns, it is possible for the new covenant to be broken. The writer of Hebrews acknowledges that covenant breakers under Moses were executed for capital offenses (Hebrews 10:28) and then argues, from the lesser to the greater (‘how much more’ in v.29), that even more severe punishment is deserved by people who have ‘trampled the Son of God under foot… treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified [them]… and… insulted the Spirit of grace” (v.29). The three objects in focus- the Son of God, the blood of the covenant, and the Spirit of grace- are features of the new covenant. Flagrant violation of these new covenant realities is quite possible and leads to severe punishment.

In fact, the writer to the Hebrews applies the warning that ‘the Lord will judge his people’ from Deuteronomy 32:36- a warning to the covenant people under the Mosaic covenant- to this new covenant situation, thus equating the circumstances of the new covenant prior to the return of Christ to the situation that Israel faced under the old covenant. Judgment was and is possible for both the old and the new covenant communities, and judgment flows from covenant breaking, not from covenant keeping. If judgment is a possibility under the new covenant, then so is the covenant breaking that leads to that judgment.” (Cited from, “Infant Baptism in the New Covenant.” 

Dr. Schreiner may want to argue that this is still a projected warning, telling us what will happen if you commit apostasy, but the parallels drawn between the old covenant and the new, in the sense of breakability, are striking and convincing.

The second passage of Scripture is Romans 11:17-24. It reads, 

“But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.” 

This is a striking passage of Scripture. Here Gentile Christians can see what will happen if they do not fear and turn to unbelief. They can look down and see the broken branches scattered about their feet. So this is no mere hypothetical warning! The evidence is all around them. 

But what about the natural branches that had been broken off? Did they fall from election? No. God keeps all His elect. So this isn’t an election tree. Then what is it? It’s a covenantal tree, if you will. The natural branches were snapped out of the covenant community, the Israel of God. And believing Gentiles have been grafted in. But again, note that these Gentiles are warned to keep faith, lest they be broken off as well. (Think about John 15 in this regard. And think about Judas in light of Jesus’ words). 

Conclusion

It would appear, given all that has been said about the warnings, that the paedobaptist conception of the new covenant is more faithful to the biblical data regarding sainthood and apostasy. The new covenant appears to have an external administration that includes both regenerate and unregenerate members, for the time being. And this, it must be stressed, provides a vital link in the chain of arguments supporting the doctrine of paedobaptism.

Austin Brown


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 25, 2010)

Austin,

A very good summary. Let me add a couple of things.

1. I think it is also important to note that there is a positive aspect to these warnings and injunctions as well. It's not as if the warnings only serve to condemn those in visible fellowship but also to convert those who are:

Heb 3:13-15


> 13But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
> 
> 14For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
> 
> 15While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.



In other words, Today may be the day that a man, convinced he was converted all along, is actually converted by the Word. Fundamentally, the problem I have with the credobaptist notion is the confidence that, with baptism, we are declaring to the individual: "We believe you're already converted, now be ye baptized."

The Church's role is to encourage and exhort that, even those who are visible members, do not stop coming expectantly to the Word and, for some, even being converted years after many might have expected. The Church places the accent on God saving through means at His appointed time and those means include the encouragement and exhortation of the Word. I've heard some argue that a minister no longer needs to tell believers to "know the Lord" because (per their reading of Jer 31), a New Covenant member no longer needs to hear that. Of course, those theoretical New Covenant members are completely unknown to the minister, if New Covenant means elect, but that's my next point.

2. I've noted repeatedly that the assertion that the New Covenant consists of true believers (as Welty argues), actually says nothing about the subjects of baptism. It's a theoretical discussion about the composition of the New Covenant. Without the mind of God, the identity of the elect is hidden from every man and the decision to actually baptize a man standing next to you is done with no reference to his participation in the New Covenant according to a credo-baptist position.


----------



## ACBRown (May 25, 2010)

Thanks, Rich.

As for the warnings possessing a positive quality, I heartily agree. Thanks for adding that point!


----------



## Scott1 (May 25, 2010)

It has also been helpful to understand that the reason infants are baptized is in recognition of the fact that promises were made to the seed of believers.

They are born into a "holy" position in that they have been given a position of privilege having at least one believing parent and a covenant community of believers. Those are means through which the child is raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and through which the ordinary means of grace come.

The infant child of an unbeliever does not have such a position of privilege.


----------



## Cato (May 25, 2010)

Austin, Are you now prepared to go out and convert the heathen Credo-baptist?


----------



## Peairtach (May 25, 2010)

The credo-baptists don't understand the nature of the Covenant of Grace which has internal and external aspects as it does.

Of course many Presbyterians won't understand this too, but it's not enshrined in their Confessions.

The New Covenant is unbreakable in the sense that God is not going to divorce His New Covenant Church as He did with His Old Covenant Church on at least two occasions - 586 B.C. and 70 A.D.

What does suspension of the right and privilege to sit at the Lord's Table involve but a recognition that certain conditions of the Covenant have been broken to some extent by the believer/non-believer (we can't infallibly say which) in the Covenant of Grace.

Other people than the individual themselves cannot _infallibly_ tell who is elect or non-elect and who is regenerate or unregenerate.

Therefore they can only baptise not the elect or regenerate but those that have a credible profession of faith and their children.

All these baptised people are in the Bond of the Covenant and the Visible Church. Hopefully some of them are regenerate or will (soon) become regenerate.

Those who show temporary or permanent signs of not having a credible profession of faith, must be pruned out temporarily or permanently from the Visible Church, for its health.

The fact that baptists seem to think they know who the elect are, or feel they need to know who the elect/regenerate are, may be a pointer as to why hyper-Calvinism seemed to be associated with some English Sovereign Grace Baptist Churches (?)

Of course Kirk Sessions can go the other way and not take enough care in seeking a credible profession of faith for baptism.

According to Dr Kennedy the standard of evidence for the Lord's Table is higher, an accredited profession of faith, and I think I agree with him in the light of the NT.


----------



## ACBRown (May 25, 2010)

Steve, aka, Cato the Elder,

Na, I'm not looking to call down fire on the credobaptists. I totally understand their rationale. And honestly, there is much to commend their position (like Dr. Schreiner's position). 

It's funny, but my father-in-law, a pastor in the Christian and Missionary Alliance, attended the event (The C&MA is credobaptistic). He shed many tears, not because he formally disagrees with the practice, but because when it is done right, it is moving. Of course, his granddaughter played a significant role in his heightened emotions, but still, I think Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians can get along quite well, even if they don't see eye to eye on this issue.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 25, 2010)

Slightly off topic, but engendered by S-F's post above, I preached Sunday AM on Heb.10:19-30, in conjunction with the L.S. celebration, and near the end of the message pointed out that the warnings can be (and should be) a source of encouragement to the one who is able to hear them, and respond. When the warnings are becoming dim(!), then they must be most urgently heeded.

Paul seems to use the text of Dt.32:35-36 to heartily warn the church, "We know the one who has said, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay...'" (Heb.10:30). And yet, when we go to the passage quoted, look at the whole of Dt.32:36


> 36For the LORD will vindicate [judge] his people
> *and have compassion on his servants,*
> when he sees that their power is gone...


The ultimate emphasis is less on the nature of the _justice,_ (retributive or restorative?) and more on being _his people._


----------



## Iconoclast (May 25, 2010)

QUOTE][/QUOTE]Hello Austin,
An enjoyable part of posting here on the PB,is that you set out your beliefs and compare and contrast with other's who do not always see the same things you do. This might be one of those occasions
You have presented some ideas for consideration,lets take another look at them. you said:
1]


> For if the credobaptists are right, then infants shouldn’t receive the sign of the covenant. Why? Because they’re not regenerate.


 We do not know if they are regenerate or not. We see that those who profess belief are the subjects of baptism. We baptize when someone professes that God has saved them from their sins,and by the Spirit they can call on Jesus as their Lord and the one who has saved them.
When they confess that these gospel truths are true in their life,then we baptize. 
2]on the warning in col 1;


> This means that saints are the subjects of the warnings. They fall within the purview. They must persevere or else.


 Warnings are indeed given to all who assemble with the saints. There are signs of grace,as their are signs of apostates. Continuance in the faith is evidence of the faith..... you said they must *perservere or else*??
I believe the scripture speaks of the perserverance of the saints in terms of God working in us a faith that works. 
You allude to such a few times in your post. Those who are slacking off need to examine themselves; 2cor 13:5 as to if they are in the faith, lest they are reprobate. The scripture warns if any man that is *called* a brother,drift into sin he is subject to church discipline.
3]


> believers must continue in the faith. And if they must continue, then that is a condition.


 Austin.....all believers do continue.Jesus will lose none of His,Jn. 6:37-44 I suppose you could say it is a settled condition. They continue because the covenant keeping God,keeps them, or in the language of Hebrews 2:9-16 he takes hold of the seed of Abraham.
4]


> So what about those who fall away? Were they regenerate? No. We agree that they weren’t regenerate. Well then what was their relationship to the church, if any?


 agreed, lets take a look at that.
5]


> Here the paedobaptist believes that when a person is baptized, they are set apart and receive the sign of the covenant. God’s name is placed on them. There is an objective shift in status, even if their heart isn’t right. This is to say that they’re saints externally, even while unregenerate. They haven’t been born again. But they are members of the church. As such, they share a relationship with the New Covenant.


 Austin....if we are discussing the blood bought church, that is for whom did Christ die would you describe them as;
those persons....even if their heart isn’t right. 
.... they’re saints externally, even while unregenerate. 
....They haven’t been born again
.....They haven’t been born again. But they are members of the church. 
......As such, they share a relationship with the New Covenant ???????
While you are presenting the padeo position somewhat accurately I see this when I look at the position. I am more comfortable to struggle with the verses containing warnings, then to describe the blood bought church in the above terms.
6]


> But what might a Credobaptist say about the unregenerate among them?


 We could say that they are in the flesh,not the Spirit. We could say they are false brethren, tares, goats, spots in your love feasts, false teachers, false prophets,thorns and briers,reprobates,apostates.gone the way of balaam,,clouds without water. The Nt uses these terms of them.
7]


> If the baptized unregenerate aren’t saints, then what is the ground for warning them?


 That they would overcome and repent like those in the letters to the seven churches.
8]


> treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified [them]…


 the text does not say [them] it says;will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which *he* was sanctified.......as in He Jesus The elect servant of Isa,42,49,52,53.
9]


> In fact, the writer to the Hebrews applies the warning that ‘the Lord will judge his people’ from Deuteronomy 32:36- a warning to the covenant people under the Mosaic covenant- to this new covenant situation


 The covenant curse from Deut 28-33 is coming upon apostate Israel as Jesus said it would in Mt.20-25. It actually was coming to pass as Hebrews is written. 70ad is right around the corner.
10]


> Now someone may want to argue that we don’t have infallible knowledge of who is really a saint and who isn’t. Therefore we warn all those hanging out in the church who need warned.
> 
> There is an element of truth to this.


 we agree here.
11]


> Now someone may want to argue that we don’t have infallible knowledge of who is really a saint and who isn’t. Therefore we warn all those hanging out in the church who need warned.


 Those who fall away from a profession are like those in the Ot who said all that you [Moses]have said we will do.They vowed they would follow the commandments of the Lord but did not. That is why Hebrews 8 said ,*but finding fault with them*
12]


> It’s a covenantal tree, if you will. The natural branches were snapped out of the covenant community, the Israel of God. And believing Gentiles have been grafted in


 Unbelievers were broken off/believers grafted in by God not believers and their children in unbelief.
Gentiles warned not to despise Jews.
This might lead to some more discussion, just a feeling I have


----------



## ACBRown (May 25, 2010)

Iconoclast,

Thank you for your interaction. It's evident to me that the main thrust of your stated concerns center around the warnings themselves. I wish I could have taken more time to develope that point more fully in the original article, but for the sake of space, I had to limit myself. Can I recommend something? Go to my website www.soundofdoctrine.com and scroll down to the post entitled, "How to understand the Warnings," by Dr. Schreiner. I think his handling of the promises and the warnings is very helpful.

It seems to me that you want to shy away from making the warnings prospective, actually warning real Christians that they must continue in the faith. If you agree, then we have no disagreement. And if you agree that God will lose none of His sheep, then again, we have no disagreement. Nevertheless, when we talk about God preserving His sheep, we must ask, "Preserving from what?" Loss of reward only? No. From discipline? More than that. I believe He preserves us from the very warnings themselves, and the warnings speak of damnation. 

Towards the end of your post, you said, "Unbelievers were broken off/believers grafted in... not believers and their children."

That is good question. It is true that Paul doesn't mention anything about the offspring of believers in that section of Scripture. But neither does he necessarily say anything that would exclude the idea. So it seems to me that larger threads of biblical thought must determine the issue. And that basically means exploring the whole debate. For myself, I think there's enough evidence to warrant the conclusion. If you don't, well, I'm not going to club you  But I do think the warnings, when carefully considered, provide the necessary prerequisite conditions for paedobaptism. And given that, the debate shifts, I think, in favor of my position.


----------



## Cato (May 25, 2010)

Austin, On first blush it occoured to me to present my Testinony on how I was converted from Paedo to Credo but felt that might be construed as contensious so I reconsidered. There are many here who value their Baptistic beliefs as Biblical & could even take offense. Very well this is a WC Forum & so in the interests of Christian Brotherhood I will shut up & allow the more tactful to express themselves. Of course I wouldn't consider that course if you were in a Baptist forum. Bottom Line is "Life's simpler when you plow around the stump"


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 25, 2010)

Steve,

The Baptism forum allows for debate on the issue. In lieu of being "offended" at another's understanding, you could present an alternative view consistent with your own Confession.


----------



## ACBRown (May 25, 2010)

Cato, it's all good. If you want to interact, feel free. Really. Like I said, though, I think this issue is very complicated. And a good Reformed Baptist argument can be presented. For myself, the warnings and a few existential arguments (life issues with children) push me over the edge.


----------



## Cato (May 25, 2010)

Sorry Colonel, But thats like E-9 & O-5 Drinking Beer Together.


----------



## Iconoclast (May 25, 2010)

Hello Austin,
I think it is sometimes an easier fit for the warning passages in the NT. in the padeo framework as the teaching of an outward administration with a non saving and breakable covenant can easily be seen as a match for many of the passages.
Because it is easier to reconcile many of these passages with that view, in and of itself does not necessarily make it biblically so. I offered somewhat of an alternate answer although I am still looking at Hebrews 3-4 quoting from psalm 95 for several months now.
Pastor David Silversides makes a strong case on sermonaudio on this section of scripture. 
Some of the brethren here on the PB have chimed in on this section along with 1cor 10, and the letters to the seven churches, and Romans 11.
I do not claim to have this area down pat. I have learned how to see and respond to these sections but when I see other more gifted persons see it different I take time to keep examining and looking at the sections over and over.
I prefer face to face fellowship and discussion with open bibles, as it cuts down on mis-understandings. This is a positive alternative though.
The apostle Paul said he examined himself lest he be reprobate...disapproved.....castaway.
This obviously is a crucial area of study, prayer, and an ongoing diligence to make our calling and election *sure*.


----------



## Cato (May 25, 2010)

Austin........Kids & Life.........Understand completely (boy do I) LOL


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 26, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> The credo-baptists don't understand the nature of the Covenant of Grace which has internal and external aspects as it does.
> 
> 
> The New Covenant is unbreakable in the sense that God is not going to divorce His New Covenant Church as He did with His Old Covenant Church on at least two occasions - 586 B.C. and 70 A.D.



We can argue these points. There is no Divorce in the New Covenant. We can discuss this more indepth if you want. I have stayed away from the baptism threads. 

Covenant Theology to me starts like this....


So, Can you receive a blessing and sacrament from the church that won't condemn and hurt you if you don't understand it? I do not believe you can. Yes, the oracles of God were given to Isreal. But they will be the condemnation or gift of life for her. You baptize someone and claim a providence over them for their good and it isn't fulfilled will ultimately destroy them even worse in the long run. I have allowed my kids to come to cognizance before they condemn themselves. I don't believe Genesis 17 applies the New Covenant as some Presbyterians do such as F. N. Lee. 
Covenant of Redemption. Between the Father and Son and their Election and Work prescribed.

Covenant of Works. God in his grace condesends to Adam's level but requires something and Adam fails as Federal Head. There is merit. Even under this level of condescension which is not the Covenant of Grace. Any time God even is willing to reveal himself is gacious but is it not grace as we know it under the New Covenant. 

Covenant of Abraham. There is a covenant made with Abraham which has a few different distinctions. One to Isaac and one to Ishmael. Even though Abraham pleaded for Ishmael he is excluded from one of the Covenant blessings even though God blessed him with other covenantal blessings. These were not spiritual blessings and even ended up being a curse to Isaac's descendants. 

How can that be? Read Hodge herehttp://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/hodge-abrahamic-covenants-479/. We do not believe in mono-covenantalism as the Federal Vision and others do. 

There still is much to discuss in this debate. The Covenant of Grace is for the elect only. I believe the New Covenant is purely designated for those who are in Christ. 



> Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.



Anyone sneaking in over the wall or otherwise should not be allowed to be deceived. They are not New Covenant members. 

As I have posted before.....

Covenant Head and Covenant Children


----------



## ACBRown (May 26, 2010)

Thanks for the thoughts, Iconoclast. Yeah, talking one on one is much better isn't it? And thanks for the recommendation on Hebrews 3 and 4. For myself, I've been chewing on this for a long time as well, and I think I'm incurable at this point (but not closed minded, I trust). 

Peace,

Austin


----------



## DAW (May 26, 2010)

I am a Congregationalist and therefore by definition am a paedobaptist. There are some people who call themselves Congregationalists but yet are credo-baptists. Without exception, I have found these people to be individuals who come from baptistic background and have yet to shed that view. Congregationalists are historically paedobaptist.


----------



## Peairtach (May 26, 2010)

Thanks for the thoughts Randy.

Like I said elsewhere, the administration of the Covenant of Grace for the good of children of believers, has other important aspects to it - apart from whether baptism should be administered to those with a credible profession of faith and their children, or only those that have a credible profession of faith.

Such as the doctrine of Covenant Succession, the improvement of baptism by those who are baptised or not, the administration of the Lord's Supper, church discipline and sanctions, church attendance, Christian education, family worship, and relations between believing parents and their children.


----------



## Particular Baptist (May 30, 2010)

Maybe this doesn't pertain much to the subject at hand, but it is something that I've long wondered about the paedo position, and I'm being very sincere here. How come paedobaptists use Genesis 17 as the basis for giving the sign of baptism to their children, yet don't apply the same principles to the Lord's Supper? Shouldn't one use the same principles and insert the Lord's Supper for the Passover as one replaces Baptism for circumcision. Why not use Exodus 12 as the building block for how the Lord's Supper should be administered? Wouldn't this lead to paedo communion if one did follow this principle, but we know that only those who are of the ability to comprehend what the Lord's Supper represents should participate in the sacrament.


----------



## Peairtach (May 30, 2010)

Look for threads on paedocommunion, Spencer, to see why many Covenantal Baptists (paedobaptists), including those on this Board, and those that subscribe to the WCF oppose paedocommunion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 30, 2010)

Particular Baptist said:


> Maybe this doesn't pertain much to the subject at hand, but it is something that I've long wondered about the paedo position, and I'm being very sincere here. How come paedobaptists use Genesis 17 as the basis for giving the sign of baptism to their children, yet don't apply the same principles to the Lord's Supper? Shouldn't one use the same principles and insert the Lord's Supper for the Passover as one replaces Baptism for circumcision. Why not use Exodus 12 as the building block for how the Lord's Supper should be administered? Wouldn't this lead to paedo communion if one did follow this principle, but we know that only those who are of the ability to comprehend what the Lord's Supper represents should participate in the sacrament.


 
There was never a command for infants to participate in the Passover Feast:



> Exodus 23:14–17
> 14 “Three times in the year you shall keep a feast to me. 15 You shall keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread. As I commanded you, you shall eat unleavened bread for seven days at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in it you came out of Egypt. None shall appear before me empty-handed. 16 You shall keep the Feast of Harvest, of the firstfruits of your labor, of what you sow in the field. You shall keep the Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in from the field the fruit of your labor. 17 *Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the Lord GOD. *



Edersheim commenting on Luke 2:41...


> ONCE only is the great silence, which lies on the history of Christ’s early life, broken. It is to record what took place on His first visit to the Temple. What this meant, even to an ordinary devout Jew, may easily be imagined. Where life and religion were so intertwined, and both in such organic connection with the Temple and the people of Israel, every thoughtful Israelite must have felt as if his real life were not in what was around, but ran up into the grand unity of the people of God, and were compassed by the halo of its sanctity. To him it would be true in the deepest sense, that, so to speak, each Israelite was born in Zion, as, assuredly, all the well-springs of his life were there. It was, therefore, not merely the natural eagerness to see the City of their God and of their fathers, glorious Jerusalem; nor yet the lawful enthusiasm, national or religious, which would kindle at the thought of ‘our feet’ standing within those gates, through which priests, prophets, and kings had passed; but far deeper feelings which would make glad, when it was said: ‘Let us go into the house of Jehovah.’ They were not ruins to which precious memories clung, nor did the great hope seem to lie afar off, behind the evening-mist. But ‘glorious things were spoken of Zion, the City of God’—in the past, and in the near future ‘the thrones of David’ were to be set within her walls, and amidst her palaces.
> In strict law, personal observance of the ordinances, and hence attendance on the feasts at Jerusalem, devolved on a youth only when he was of age, that is, at thirteen years. Then he became what was called ‘a son of the Commandment,’ or ‘of the Torah.’ But, as a matter of fact, the legal age was in this respect anticipated by two years, or at least by one.d It was in accordance with this custom that, on the first Pascha after Jesus had passed His twelfth year, His Parents took Him with them in the ‘company’ of the Nazarenes to Jerusalem. The text seems to indicate, that it was their wont to go up to the Temple; and we mark that, although women were not bound to make such personal appearance,a Mary gladly availed herself of what seems to have been the direction of Hillel (followed also by other religious women, mentioned in Rabbinic writings), to go up to the solemn services of the Sanctuary.
> Edersheim, A. (1896). Vol. 1: The life and times of Jesus the Messiah (235–236). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.


In other words, only adult males were commanded to make the journey for the Passover and this is borne out in the life of Christ Himself.


----------



## Particular Baptist (Jun 7, 2010)

Hey guys, sorry I'm really late in responding back to this thread. I've been away from the internet awhile and haven't had the chance to post. About the infants partaking of the passover, I would say that the explanation offered would be in disagreement with Berkhof and Calvin, who both thought that this was one area of discontinuity between the Old Covenant and New Covenant. Looking at the whole of Exodus 12 seems to plainly intimate that infants were included in the meal just as were women. 

Exodus 12:3-4 states "Tell *all the congregation *of Israel that on the tenth day of this month every man shall take a lamb *according to their fathers’ houses*, a lamb for a *household*. And if the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his nearest neighbor shall take *according to the number of persons*; according to what each can eat you shall make your count for the lamb". If the only important partakers of the meal were men then why take the whole household into account? Also, it is clear that the only food prepared throughout the entire congregation was that which was prescribed for the sacrament, so how could an infant not participate in it?


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jun 7, 2010)

"Why? Because they’re not regenerate"

Point of clarification. Infants may be regenerate. Example: John the Baptist. I have never assumed that an infant of mine were either regenerate or unregenerate. It just isn't safe to assume something that belongs entirely to God.


----------



## Particular Baptist (Jun 7, 2010)

I'm not sure what you mean, Riley. What question are you addressing?


----------



## Grimmson (Jun 7, 2010)

ACBRown said:


> A key point in the credo/paedo baptism debate is the question of the New Covenant. The issue is whether all covenant members are regenerate. Or might there be a mixture of regenerate and unregenerate? Credobaptists affirm the former



Credos do recognize within the visible church there is that mixture. To say that we do not would be misrepresent of our position. The reason why we don’t baptize infants in relation to the new covenant is because they do not confess Christ, not because they may or may not be regenerate. The foundation of the credo position is on the confession, not on regeneration. There have been many unregenerate that have joined credo churches, who have later proved not to be one of us because they fell away in apostasy. We see the new covenant in relation to invisible distinction of God elect knowing God. Those who know God will confess God, because they are of God’s choosing. The problem here is we are not God and thus know who the elect are. All we have to go on is the person’s confession as a believer, which does not prove your of the New Covenant. The terms of the New Covenant, within the invisible and not visible church context, is fulfilled by God, and it is all the covenant members that receive that forgiveness of sins as we see in Hebrews 8:12. In the invisible church, there is only the regenerate because only the regenerate receives that full forgiveness of sins as a consequence of being regenerate by the preserving power and grace of God.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 7, 2010)

Particular Baptist said:


> Hey guys, sorry I'm really late in responding back to this thread. I've been away from the internet awhile and haven't had the chance to post. About the infants partaking of the passover, I would say that the explanation offered would be in disagreement with Berkhof and Calvin, who both thought that this was one area of discontinuity between the Old Covenant and New Covenant. Looking at the whole of Exodus 12 seems to plainly intimate that infants were included in the meal just as were women.
> 
> Exodus 12:3-4 states "Tell *all the congregation *of Israel that on the tenth day of this month every man shall take a lamb *according to their fathers’ houses*, a lamb for a *household*. And if the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his nearest neighbor shall take *according to the number of persons*; according to what each can eat you shall make your count for the lamb". If the only important partakers of the meal were men then why take the whole household into account? Also, it is clear that the only food prepared throughout the entire congregation was that which was prescribed for the sacrament, so how could an infant not participate in it?


 
You are failing to distinguish between the first Passover and the annual Feast that commemorated the same.

Even on the night of the first Passover, nursing infants were not force fed lamb, bread, and bitter herbs.

The bottom line answer to your question is that there is a difference between the ordinance that initiated one into the Covenant (Circumcision) and the "sacrament" that renewed and brought to mind the Covenant (Passover).


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jun 7, 2010)

The original post stated, as I quoted, that infants are not regenerate. That's what I was addressing. God may regenerate infants the same as adults. It is not based on age. We cannot know who is and is not regenerate, and shouldn't presume to say who is and who is not, whether infants or adults.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 7, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> ACBRown said:
> 
> 
> > A key point in the credo/paedo baptism debate is the question of the New Covenant. The issue is whether all covenant members are regenerate. Or might there be a mixture of regenerate and unregenerate? Credobaptists affirm the former
> ...


You have equivocated on what he stated and there is no basis to a charge of misrepresentation. A Reformed Baptist distinguishes between visible Church membership and membership in the New Covenant. It is axiomatic that the Reformed Baptists confess that members of the New Covenant are elect. They admit that there may be "false sheep" in a visible church but they would not admit that they are ever in the New Covenant.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 7, 2010)

The Passover Salvation Event itself must be distinguished from the Yearly Passover Commemoration, just as the Death of Christ itself must be distinguished from its Lord's Supper Commemoration.

There are distinctions to be kept in mind in both cases, some of which is relevant to the discussion of paedocommunion.


----------



## Scholten (Jun 14, 2010)

This is a very interesting post, Austin. I may be wrong, but I have taken a different approach than you have here. I am also a paedo-baptist. I have been persuaded by Dr. Schreiner concerning the new covenant (Jer. 31) being for believers only, rather that only believers are members of it. That still does not undermine infant baptism, because infant baptism is the sign (as was circumcision) of the _Abrahamic_ covenant. If you are interested, I have posted pages on my website dealing with Dr. Schreiner and Dr. Wright's book. You will find the page at:


Infant Baptism - Believer's Baptism - Christian Dialogue

I'd love to get your feedback on this!

Thanks,
Herb


----------

