# Baptism and the Regulative principle



## ReformedBaptist

This was originally posted in the wading pool but I was asked to post it here to get more 

Hey guys n gals! As a Baptist who is into reformed theology I have been wrestling with infant baptism. Before I ask this question I would like to state that I in no way mean this offensively, I am honestly curious. How do Presbyterians consolidate infant baptism and the regulative principle of worship, as infant baptism isn't found in scripture( as far as I know)?


----------



## ReformedBaptist

I know this is a lot to ask but would you mind walking me through the logical steps from Gen 17 to baptism as the new circumcision?


----------



## Jack K

Baptists are often taught to think of withholding baptism from believers' children as Scripture's default position... so that without a specific command about baptizing children or an example of it happening it feels (to many a Baptist) like an only-do-what's-clearly-regulated mindset would oppose such baptisms.

BUT...

What if including children in covenant membership were Scripture's default position? In that case, it would require a specific command to withhold baptism or an example of it being delayed for that same mindset to conclude that children of believers must not be baptized. Do you see? The regulative principle could lead you to _either_ conclusion depending on how you view baptism and covenant membership from the rest of Scripture.

We baptize our kids because God has clearly commanded that we ought to raise them as disciples and as a part of the covenant community. There is no command in Scripture that baptism ought to wait until discipleship has gone on for several years; rather, much evidence that baptism must take place at the beginning of a life of discipleship. Likewise, there is no command in Scripture that the church should be a mix of those who've been baptized and those who have not; rather, much evidence that all who are part of the church community must be baptized.


----------



## Logan

This was one area that I struggled with when I first began attending a Reformed Presbyterian Church. It certainly was not easy to see, coming from a "proof text this" background. Some things that were helpful to me:

1. Understanding God's covenants and how he has dealt with his people throughout the ages. I.e., are we really a new group or are we grafted into the same tree they were part of? (Rom 11)
2. Understanding circumcision not just as an ethnic thing (others nations in the day practiced both male and female circumcision), but as something pointing toward the need for cleansing of the heart. It couldn't have been just ethnic since the foreigner wanting to join them was also to submit to circumcision.
3. Understanding baptism not just as a sign of following Christ, but signifying the need for cleansing of the inner man.
4. Seeing the connection between baptism and circumcision (note Col 2:11--14 where Paul connects them and their meaning).

I also found Randy Booth's "Children of the Promise" to be helpful, and would be happy to share this portion on the similarities between baptism and circumcision:

Baptism and Circumcision both:
1. Are initiatory rites (Gen 17:10–11;Mat 28:19; Act 2:38–39; 8:12–13)
2. Signify an inward reality (Rom 2:28–29; Col 2:11–12; Phi 3:3)
3. Picture the death of the old man of sin (Rom 6:3–7; Col 2:11–12)
4. Represent repentance (Jer 4:4; 9:25; Lev 26:40–41; Act 2:38)
5. Represent regeneration (Rom 2:28–29; Tit 3:5)
6. Represent justification by faith (Rom 4:11–12; Col 2:11–14)
7. Represent a cleansed heart (Deu 10:16; 30:6; Isa 52:1; Act 22:16; Tit 3:5–7)
8. Represent union and communion with God (Gen 17:7; Exe 19:5–6; Deu 7:6; Heb 8:10)
9. Indicate citizenship in Israel (Gen 17:4; Gal 3:26–29; Eph 2:12–13; 4:5)
10. Indicate separation from the world (Exe 12:48; 2Co 6:14–18; Eph 2:12)
11. Can lead to either blessings or curses (Rom 2:25; 1Co 10:1–12; 11:28–30)

Ultimately, I found that every objection I had to baptizing children, would have been an equal objection for circumcising children. I think Henry said well that if children of believers were included in the first covenant, why would they be excluded in the second? Peter seems to anticipate this in Acts 2 when he says that the promise is for you and your children (echoing the same language spoken to Abraham regarding circumcision). 

In the Old Testament, an entire household would be circumcised, all the servants, children, etc., everyone whom the head was responsible for. They were brought into the "church", that decision was made for them. In practice, your children have been born into the "church" in some way. You don't expect them to act like heathen, you train them as Christians. In baptism we symbolize their need for cleansing, and their affiliation with the people of God, that we expect them to follow after God, and that we trust God will be their God too. Yes, in God's providence that doesn't happen in every instance, but the same was true with some circumcised Israelites. We realize that they may not be part of the invisible church yet, but we can hold onto the blessed promise that God will be a God to us and our children after us, just like Abraham could.


----------



## Marrow Man

Keep in mind that there is a subtle difference between the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith with regard to Scripture and how this relates, for instance, to the RPW.

WCF 1:6 -- "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, *or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture* ..."

LBC 1:6 -- "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down *or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture*..."

While the phrasing is similar, I don't believe that "good and necessary consequence" is viewed in the same way as "necessarily contained" by Baptists.

Good and necessary consequence is important, however. Calvin, in his _Institutes_, argues that there is no direct command in Scripture that women may participate in the Lord's Supper (i.e., it must be deduced; since it also deals with a sacrament/ordinance, this is particularly relevant to how one views WCF/LBC 1:6). Similarly, we could say something similar about the Lord's Day being now observed on the first day of the week -- no direct command, but a good and necessary consequence deduction of what we read in Holy Scripture. Since I don't know of many Christians groups that observe a Seventh Day Sabbath or who bar women from the Lord's Supper, we need to ask the reason why these views are held.

Here is a good little book on the phrase that I would recommend: By Good and Necessary Consequence: Ryan M. McGraw: 9781601781826: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Hemustincrease

Jack K said:


> Baptists are often taught to think of withholding baptism from believers' children as Scripture's default position



I have to disagree with this statement. Baptists are taught to think Scripturally about Baptism.  
We begin with Scripture, not with the traditions of men. That leads us to baptize those whom the Lord commands us to baptize. Baptists are not often taught to consider whom we must withhold this ordinance from. Rather we are taught Biblically, who must (as a matter of obedience to Christ) be baptized. The focus is upon the positive command (who is the command to be baptized given to) not upon who must be kept from obedience to that command.


----------



## ReformedBaptist

I really appreciate your responses! Great stuff! And you all made a good point in that my upbringing was really affecting my point of view. I did think of a question though. It was mentioned here and I've seen it elsewhere that infant baptism is symbolizing God's promise of salvation. My question is what if God doesn't save them? In my very limited and humble understanding of this, it would make God look like a liar?


----------



## Hemustincrease

Might I recommend a book?

‘Abrahams Four Seeds’ John Reisinger

“It is the authors desire that this book would be of benefit to those who desire to understand “What does the Scripture say?”. May the watchword _Sola Scriptura _have real meaning in the church!” John Reisinger

I


----------



## Logan

ReformedBaptist said:


> In my very limited and humble understanding of this, it would make God look like a liar?



As I noted in my earlier post, I had a similar objection but if true, that would hold as an objection against circumcision of children as well.


----------



## JML

Hemustincrease said:


> Might I recommend a book?
> 
> ‘Abrahams Four Seeds’ John Reisinger
> 
> “It is the authors desire that this book would be of benefit to those who desire to understand “What does the Scripture say?”. May the watchword _Sola Scriptura _have real meaning in the church!” John Reisinger
> 
> I



I would not recommend this book. Reisinger is a proponent of New Covenant Theology.


----------



## MW

ReformedBaptist said:


> How do Presbyterians consolidate infant baptism and the regulative principle of worship, as infant baptism isn't found in scripture( as far as I know)?



Infants are saved by Christ. Baptism is a sign of salvation by Christ. Therefore infants are baptised. The alternative is to exclude infants from the gift of salvation, which is contrary to the covenant of grace as administered in both the Old and New Testaments.


----------



## Logan

armourbearer said:


> Infants are saved by Christ. Baptism is a sign of salvation by Christ. Therefore infants are baptised. The alternative is to exclude infants from the gift of salvation, which is contrary to the covenant of grace as administered in both the Old and New Testaments.



You might need to expound on that a little more? Do you mean _all_ infants?


----------



## MW

Logan said:


> You might need to expound on that a little more? Do you mean _all_ infants?



So far as the Scriptural doctrine of baptism is concerned it suffices to say that infants are saved. That salvation is ultimately restricted to "elect infants" is irrelevant seeing as baptism is the sign of salvation and not salvation itself.


----------



## ReformedBaptist

So why would you baptize them symbolizing their salvation if they might be a reprobate?


----------



## MW

ReformedBaptist said:


> So why would you baptize them symbolizing their salvation if they might be a reprobate?



Why are adults baptized symbolizing their salvation if they might be reprobate? Whether an individual is elect or reprobate is known only to God. It does not enter into the question as to whom should be baptised.


----------



## GloriousBoaz

Listen to R.C. Sproul debate John MacArthur on paedo baptism.


----------



## Goodcheer68

ReformedBaptist said:


> So why would you baptize them symbolizing their salvation if they might be a reprobate?



The same might be said of those who profess faith. How many times have adults professed faith and were baptized, only to walk away from the faith they professed?


----------



## ReformedBaptist

My church does not baptize adults unless they claim to be saved and can give testimony


----------



## ReformedBaptist

True but infants cannot make that decision at all


----------



## Gforce9

ReformedBaptist said:


> True but infants cannot make that decision at all



Where does a "decision" factor into this? Are you speaking of a verbal profession? Also, ones "claim" to be saved does not make it so, as has already been established. I'm pretty sure there are dead people in Baptist churches who claim to be "saved" and have made a "decision".....that is a side issue to the discussion. The issue is in how one looks at who was and who now should be included in the covenant. To argue baptism apart from covenantal understanding is to argue over shingles and siding and not the foundation and structure that allows the shingles and siding to stay in place.


----------



## Gforce9

Double post......


----------



## Jack K

ReformedBaptist said:


> True but infants cannot make that decision at all



Many evangelical-minded churches these days make a big deal of "The Decision." An individual's public decision to "accept Christ" is seen as the all-important, defining moment in the Christian life. Where such a mindset dominates, it's hard to conceive of baptism coming before The Decision.

The question is whether that Decision-ism (with its emphasis on what the believer does to get saved) is biblical doctrine and practice. Although saving faith does include volitional choices, I'm not convinced the decisionist mindset is right. Rather than speak of a _decision_ to be made, it's far more biblical to speak of _faith_.

So let's examine baptism in relation to faith rather than decisions. A Baptist might argue that baptism ought to follow professed faith, not come before it. Well, a good Presbyterian does too. A good Presbyterian church will not baptize a baby unless that baby's parent professes faith first. The issue that divides is not whether faith should be expressed first, but rather whether the parent's professed faith and membership in the church makes the child part of the church as well and therefore someone to be baptized. Remember that Timothy's faith dwelt first in his grandmother and mother. We recognize such faith. With our hope focused on God's work and his grace to families rather than on an individual's apparent decision, we baptize children based on a parent's profession of faith.


----------



## ReformedBaptist

I was partly trying to see if one could accept infant baptism and still hold to covenant theology. But in acts 2:38 Paul says to repent and be baptized. But I agree their are many false confessions


----------



## David Pope

John Murray's book "Christian Baptism" is a great resource for Baptists struggling to interpret baptism in a covenantal framework.


----------



## Cymro

If children are not to young to partake of the sin of the first Adam, they are not 
too young to partake of the grace of the second. Baptism is a sign and seal of the promise of God,
that he will be a God to us and our children. Purely parental love is insufficient grounds to pray
for our children, rather the solid grounds of the covenant promise provides a greater assurance 
and hope for their salvation. The unity of the covenant must be maintained, so what is true of
children in the old , must pertain in the new.
" But unto them that do Him fear
God's mercy never ends;
And to their children's children still
His righteousness extends."


----------



## Poimen

ReformedBaptist said:


> I was partly trying to see if one could accept infant baptism and still hold to covenant theology. But in acts 2:38 Paul says to repent and be baptized.



_“Water Baptism: What Saith The Scriptures?”_ by Thomas Swan: 

"Faith and repentance are necessary to baptism. These do not apply to infants. Therefore infants are not to be baptised. That is the argument. Let us apply it to circumcision. That infants were circumcised is a fact beyond dispute. Circumcision of infants eight days old was commanded by God (Genesis 17:12). Is there anything said about circumcision that does not apply to infants? If we turn to Acts 15:4, we shall see that certain Jews maintained that the Gentiles “must be circumcised and keep the law.” The Apostle testified that every man that is circumcised is a debtor to keep the whole law (Galatians 5:3). And in Romans 2:25, he says, “Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the law; but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.” Can an infant become a debtor? Can an infant keep the law? Certainly not. Then, according to this argument, infants should not have been circumcised. According to the Scripture it was right for infants to be circumcised; but according to this argument it was wrong. Our Baptist friends cannot blame us if we prefer the Scriptures, and decide that their argument is wrong."


----------



## Logan

Just a note that the OP seemed to want information on what paedobaptists believe, not get into a debate. Some of the posts here seem defensive.


----------



## Romans922

ReformedBaptist said:


> I was partly trying to see if one could accept infant baptism and still hold to covenant theology. But in acts 2:38 Paul says to repent and be baptized. But I agree their are many false confessions



You need to keep reading.


And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. *For/Because* the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself. 

This is the same language of Gen. 17 given to Abraham concerning covenant of circumcision. 

The promise is to all believers and their children --> Believers and children are circumcised.
The promise is to all believers and their children --> Believers and children are baptized.

The promise being: *If you believe* you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, your heart will be circumcized, you will be cleansed of your sin, you will be saved.


----------



## Hemustincrease

John Lanier said:


> I would not recommend this book. Reisinger is a proponent of New Covenant Theology.



Have you read the book which I recommended? Are you able to refute what he presents?

He is a teacher of Biblical truth. New Covenant Theology is the theology found in Scripture. It is the theology Christ taught. It is the theology Paul and the other Apostles taught. It is not ‘new’ in some post modern way. It is ‘New’ because God said so in His Word. 

What Reisinger does *not *do:
1. Exalt traditions/confessions of men over the Word and then try and fit it all together by taking verses out of their context.
2. Teach lawlessness
3. Teach theology based on a confession.

What he does do:
1. Teach truth from Scripture with nothing added and nothing taken away.
2. Expose the errors within other positions, by Scripture alone, not by pitting one tradition of man against another.
3. Exalt the Word of God over and above any written code or confession or tradition of men. 
4. Teach the exact same theology that Christ and the Apostle Paul taught. He is NOT teaching anything ‘new’. 

However, you are of course entitled to your opinion. I just wanted to make sure others (who have not already studied these things out) would not be lead (wrongly) into considering ‘New Covenant Theology’ to be something heretical. The exact opposite is in fact true.

I have my body armour on as I write and will now hide behind the sofa.


----------



## Romans922

Jo-Anne, I am not a moderator, but espousing New Covenant Theology here I believe goes against the Standards that is to be held here at the Puritanboard. I have provided a link by the PB owner about the rules you agreed to when signing up on the PB: http://www.puritanboard.com/f58/what-reformed-board-24779/#post304386 and here: http://www.puritanboard.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_forumrulesfaq

This doctrine teaches that the 10 Commandments are abrogated or changed (depending on the view). That view is just plain false. 

I'm sure you could not espouse your view, but rather first start asking people for their thoughts on New Covenant Theology before coming here and saying that it is absolutely true. Especially since it is in fact a 'new' doctrine (at the very least a 'new name'). 

And it is true that if we are to come to a right thinking about baptism (OP) then we must first understand the theology of the covenants.


----------



## JML

Hemustincrease said:


> Have you read the book which I recommended? Are you able to refute what he presents?



Jo-Anne,

I have not read Reisinger's book nor do I really wish to read it. I have, however, read Richard Barcellos' book _In Defense of the Decalogue_ which refutes his position as does the Scripture. I have also interacted on numerous occasions with proponents of NCT so I am very aware of the teaching.



Hemustincrease said:


> However, you are of course entitled to your opinion. I just wanted to make sure others (who have not already studied these things out) would not be lead (wrongly) into considering ‘New Covenant Theology’ to be something heretical. The exact opposite is in fact true.



You are certainly entitled to your opinion as well but as noted by Pastor Barnes, this is a confessional board and New Covenant Theology is not confessional nor is it Scriptural. Your account states that you subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. This confession clearly teaches against NCT.



> 19. The Law of God
> 
> God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.
> 
> The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the ten commandments, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.
> 
> Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away.
> 
> To the people of Israel He also gave sundry judicial laws which expired when they ceased to be a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation, but their general equity continue to be applicable in modern times.
> 
> * The moral law ever binds to obedience everyone, justified people as well as others, and not only out of regard for the matter contained in it, but also out of respect for the authority of God the Creator, Who gave the law. Nor does Christ in the Gospel dissolve this law in any way, but He considerably strengthens our obligation to obey it.*


----------



## ReformedBaptist

Logan said:


> Just a note that the OP seemed to want information on what paedobaptists believe, not get into a debate. Some of the posts here seem defensive.



Yes! I meant no offense to anyone, just trying to see both sides clearly.


----------



## sevenzedek

To the original OP:

I haven't been following all the posts because I first noticed this thread in the wading pool.

It would be helpful to your understanding to combine circumcision and baptism under the same rubric—namely, the covenant sign of the covenant of grace. Under the old administration, circumcision was commanded to be the sign; under the new, baptism. Seen in this way, baptism is commanded for the un-confessing children of believers just as much as circumcision was commanded for the same. The command? Yes. Believers are commanded to apply the sign to their children. For me, it makes no difference that the sign changed. The substance still applies.

We don't need a patently revealed example of baptized infants in the NT because, as the sign was commanded previously, the sign is commanded now. Obversely, I would personally need to see an explicit command in the NT to now stop applying the sign of the covenant of grace to my children in order to revert back to my Baptist understanding.

It's kind of like this: If I told you to apply ointment to you face, the nature of the command does not change when the ointment, according to my command, is changed. One must still apply the ointment I prescribe. Well, God has not told us to stop applying the ointment to our children. The change of the sign does not change the substance of what it signifies. The substance of the sign is God's promise to save those who have faith in Christ. Furthermore, the promise is to us and our children, and as many as the Lord will call. Through baptism, our children are invited to partake of the promise of grace.


----------



## Hemustincrease

Romans922 said:


> Jo-Anne, I am not a moderator, but espousing New Covenant Theology here I believe goes against the Standards that is to be held here at the Puritanboard. I have provided a link by the PB owner about the rules you agreed to when signing up on the PB: What?! This is a Reformed Board?! and here: The PuritanBoard FAQ
> 
> This doctrine teaches that the 10 Commandments are abrogated or changed (depending on the view). That view is just plain false.
> 
> I'm sure you could not espouse your view, but rather first start asking people for their thoughts on New Covenant Theology before coming here and saying that it is absolutely true. Especially since it is in fact a 'new' doctrine (at the very least a 'new name').




OK. Thanks for pointing that out. (The forum rules that is.) I respect your own certainty that New Covenant theology cannot be espoused, but I am equally as certain that it can be. 




John Lanier said:


> You are certainly entitled to your opinion as well but as noted by Pastor Barnes, this is a confessional board and New Covenant Theology is not confessional nor is it Scriptural. Your account states that you subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. This confession clearly teaches against NCT



Obviously I would have to disagree with your belief that New Covenant Theology is not Scriptural. However, if the board is founded upon confessions rather than ‘Sola Scriptura’ I guess I’m out on my ear.  I can agree with the LBCF so far, but I cannot hold it over and above Scripture.


----------



## nicnap

Hemustincrease said:


> Obviously I would have to disagree with your belief that New Covenant Theology is not Scriptural. However, if the board is founded upon confessions rather than ‘Sola Scriptura’ I guess I’m out on my ear.



Jo-Anne, we Reformed folk are those who understand _Sola Scriptura_--you are seeking to redefine it. Perhaps it is you who might need to read a book: _The Creedal Imperative_, by Carl Trueman would be a good place to help you gain an understanding of what it means to be confessional. No one here holds a confession over the Scripture, and your insinuations as such (in posts #31 & #36) need to be retracted.


----------



## Hemustincrease

nicnap said:


> No one here holds a confession over the Scripture, and your insinuations as such need to be retracted.



I was referring to the board rules, not to any individual. I was graciously referred to those rules precisely because my speaking of New Covenant Theology was outside the confessions of this board. Not sure why that needs to be retracted?


nicnap said:


> o-Anne, we Reformed folk are those who understand Sola Scriptura--you are seeking to redefine it.



So I’m outside the royal ‘we’ now? Just joking!
Clearly, with hindsight, it was not the wisest thing to do, to recommend a book which stands against the confessions of this board. My bad! Having read the forum rules again now, I know the boundaries and won’t overstep them again. I apologize for posting in ignorance of them (my fault again for not reading them more carefully) and hope no long lasting offense was caused.


----------



## nicnap

I understand that you might have been speaking to the board rules---however, the men who put those rules in place are confessional men, and they do not hold confessions over Scripture. They (along with those who affirm the the rules) hold to _sola scriptura_. Such a position demands a statement of doctrine that can be tested by Scripture, and is drawn from Scripture---_sola scriptura_ * does not* mean "me & my Bible alone" or "no creed but Christ." 



Hemustincrease said:


> So I’m outside the royal ‘we’ now? Just joking!



I was referencing 1689ers as well...though some might not include them. No--no longstanding offense was caused to me personally. I just wanted you to see that your definition of _sola scriptura_ was faulty, that is if you are in the, "me & my Bible alone" and "no creed but Christ" camp.


----------



## Loopie

In reference to the OP, I would also recommend Greg Nichols' book _Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants_. 

As one who holds to credo-baptism, I don't typically utilize the 'individual decision' argument as a central argument to defending credo-baptism. I honestly believe that there is a covenantal way to defend the credo-Baptist position. The core argument of that position (articulated by Nichols) is that the covenant sign is given to the covenant representative and the progeny of that representative. Noah and Noah's physical descendants receive the covenant sign of the rainbow. Abraham and Abraham's physical descendants receive the covenant sign of circumcision. Christ, being the covenant representative of the New Covenant, does not have physical children, but has spiritual children, and so the covenant sign is only rightfully received by those who are his spiritual children. Of course, we are not made privy as to who the elect are, and so baptism is to be administered upon a credible profession of faith. 

Certainly there is much more that could be discussed, but that is the core argument at least from my understanding of Nichols' work.


----------



## MW

Loopie said:


> Christ, being the covenant representative of the New Covenant, does not have physical children, but has spiritual children, and so the covenant sign is only rightfully received by those who are his spiritual children. Of course, we are not made privy as to who the elect are, and so baptism is to be administered upon a credible profession of faith.



Thankfully infants are among the spiritual children of Christ, otherwise those dying in infancy would be damned. The argument from "physical" to "spiritual" children simply does nothing to support an antipaedobaptist position. The requirement of "a credible profession of faith" is not new to the New Testament, as both Noah and Abraham were required to respond in faith, Hebrews 11, and in the case of Abraham this is specifically stated to have been prior to the giving of the sign, Romans 4. The idea that "a credible profession of faith" must be prerequisite in all cases to the administration of the covenant sign is arbitrarily created by the antipaedobaptist's assumption. It has no basis in the salvific doctrine of holy Scripture.


----------



## sevenzedek

Loopie said:


> In reference to the OP, I would also recommend Greg Nichols' book _Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants_.
> 
> As one who holds to credo-baptism, I don't typically utilize the 'individual decision' argument as a central argument to defending credo-baptism. I honestly believe that there is a covenantal way to defend the credo-Baptist position. The core argument of that position (articulated by Nichols) is that the covenant sign is given to the covenant representative and the progeny of that representative. Noah and Noah's physical descendants receive the covenant sign of the rainbow. Abraham and Abraham's physical descendants receive the covenant sign of circumcision. Christ, being the covenant representative of the New Covenant, does not have physical children, but has spiritual children, and so the covenant sign is only rightfully received by those who are his spiritual children. Of course, we are not made privy as to who the elect are, and so baptism is to be administered upon a credible profession of faith.
> 
> Certainly there is much more that could be discussed, but that is the core argument at least from my understanding of Nichols' work.



MODERATORS AND PRESBYTERIAN ELDERS: Correct me if I am wrong.


While Christ does have spiritual children, Jeremiah says the everlasting, new covenant is made with believers and their children as well.

Jeremiah 32:39-40
39 then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them *and their children after them*. 40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with *them,* that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me.

Ezekiel speaks of this covenant in Ezk 37:24-26. We know, according to his words, that this everlasting covenant of which Jeremiah speaks is the new covenant.

Ezekiel 37:24-26
“David My servant [Christ] shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. 25 Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever. 26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an *everlasting covenant* with *them*; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore.

What happens to Nichols' premise when seen in the light of the passages above? It fails because, in Jeremiah 32:40, God says that he will make an everlasting covenant with "them." Who is them? "Them" refers to those mentioned in the previous verse; Jeremiah 32:39, "them and their children after them." It is with these that God makes this everlasting covenant (also known as the new covenant), as Ezekiel 37:26 also emphasizes.

Note Clavin on Jeremiah 32:40:

"He first says, I will strike with them a perpetual covenant. We must notice the contrast between the covenant of the Law, and the covenant of which the Prophet now speaks. He called it in the thirty-first chapter a new covenant, and gave the reason for it, because their fathers had soon fallen away after the Law was proclaimed, and because its doctrine was that of the letter, and deadly, and also fatal. But he now calls it a perpetual covenant."

That Christ will have only spiritual children heaven does not affect the administration of His covenant before its final consummation in heaven in the way that Nichols would have it. The Bible evidences clearly the already accomplished aspects of the new covenant while emphasizing the interim aspects of not yet being complete. It is at this point where the paedobaptists and baptists take their fork in the road. This is where baptists over-emphasize the spiritual aspect of the covenant of grace and demand credo-baptism only. This is where paedobaptists hold to the aspects of the new covenant that are not yet complete that allow us to baptize those who may never be included in heaven's assembly.

One thing that must be understood toward what I consider to be a proper view of the new covenant is that God not only incorporates in it the drawing of his people according to his sovereign control in changing men's hearts, but also one of unilateral promise conditioned upon covenant compliance—if you trust Christ (again, a condition that God unilaterally fulfills). The covenant is not merely a promise that guarantees the state of believers, but also one that invites the children of believers to participate according to conditions of the covenant—if you do this, you will receive that. In other words, the covenant not only guarantees the state of its recipients when the conditions are fulfilled by God working in us the willing and doing of it, but is also a means of creating and growing faith.

This is important because we do not have a window into God's decrees concerning salvation. All we have is his promise that he will not turn away from doing us good according (Jeremiah 32:40) only if we turn to Christ.

If we understanding the covenant without regard to both important aspects of understanding I mentioned above, we may come out believing the promise of the new covenant is only one of guarantee and not one of means. If we do this, our surety of the new covenant becomes a contingent upon our decision rather than a surety of God's promise. How? The promise becomes divorced from the source of its means—God. Again, how? According to the baptist understanding of baptism, the promise that comes through baptism is turned into one of the recipient's decision rather than one of God's unilateral promise—baptism becomes a way to signify a profession of faith rather than a way to signify God's promise. With one eye toward our decisional participation and one eye towards God's promise, baptism becomes a way of recommending and evidencing our faith to God and man rather than a way of receiving God's unilateral promise of salvation. (I know—worms.) This is harmful to faith, but thanks be to God that, while he has tied us to means, he has not tied himself to means.


----------



## Tyrese

Paedobaptist clearly confuse the physical and the spiritual in scripture. Is the term infant or babe relevant in Scripture? Of course it is. That's why Jesus told Nicodemus that he needed to be born again (hence his confusion of the matter). When we are BORN AGAIN (become spiritual infants) we receive the sign of baptism which is completly Spiritual. The physical flesh is of no value (which is why infant baptism is nowhere to be found in Holy Scripture). Also this whole idea that a profession of faith is completely worthless is a dangerous unscriptural position as we are plainly told to profess with our mouth. It's interesting that we can ignore a plain teaching in scripture and have a thread defending something that's not plain (of course it's plain in the WCF). That's not to say a profession means everything, it's just plain that we better be professing what Scriture commands us to profess.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Tyrese said:


> Also this whole idea that a profession of faith is completely worthless is a dangerous unscriptural position


I've been following this thread, and I missed this precise claim... Who made it? Where...? By itself, the referred-to statement is extreme, which leads me to first expect that there were probably qualifiers in the post (assuming an accurate reference), and possibly even a context of exchanges. Such facts alone aren't sufficient to justify such a statement, but with them this criticism from post#43 might not carry any weight at all.


Borrowing from the same post: "Is the term _____ relevant in Scripture?," insert _profession_ there, and we (Presbyterians) answer, "Yes." As a matter of fact we confess it, WSC95,


> Q. To whom is baptism to be administered? A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they *profess their faith in Christ*, and obedience to him; but infant of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized.



Now, if the particular criteria for admission to baptism as laid down in Scripture be differentiated for different _classes_ of persons--i.e. 1) those of age and able to speak for themselves, and 2) those not of age but belonging to them that are--then the Confessional statement is unobjectionable.

No surprise that the Baptist denies the hypothetical (if...then), particularly the leading premise (antecedent) that then obviates the consequent. But the Presbyterian affirms it, and the conclusion necessarily follows for him on the principle of biblical authority.

So its fairly tendentious to allege that we (for our part)


Tyrese said:


> ignore a plain teaching in scripture and have a thread defending something that's not plain.


Plainness is nothing more nor less that what is patent to a particular set of eyes. Moreover, the thread was started by a Baptist with a genuine query into why Reformed paedobaptists see (plainly) what it is they see, though it isn't or wasn't plain to him where the other side even began to get traction. So the defense isn't ironic in any sense.



> All things in Scripture are not alike *plain* in themselves, nor alike clear unto all... _WCF 1.7_


----------



## Peairtach

Tyrese said:


> Paedobaptist clearly confuse the physical and the spiritual in scripture. Is the term infant or babe relevant in Scripture? Of course it is. That's why Jesus told Nicodemus that he needed to be born again (hence his confusion of the matter). When we are BORN AGAIN (become spiritual infants) we receive the sign of baptism which is completly Spiritual. The physical flesh is of no value (which is why infant baptism is nowhere to be found in Holy Scripture). Also this whole idea that a profession of faith is completely worthless is a dangerous unscriptural position as we are plainly told to profess with our mouth. It's interesting that we can ignore a plain teaching in scripture and have a thread defending something that's not plain (of course it's plain in the WCF). That's not to say a profession means everything, it's just plain that we better be professing what Scriture commands us to profess.



This talk of "spiritual" and "physical" with respect to salvation becomes somewhat problematic for the Baptist when he remembers that our salvation is both spiritual and physical, as evinced e.g. by the resurrection of our Lord and our own resurrection.

Was the salvation of the OT believers, both spiritual and physical, whereas the salvation of NT believers is purely spiritual? I think not, but the topic would maybe furnish material for another thread in order to tease out the confusion that there is in this way of thinking and reasoning.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## christianrecon

I would highly recommend a book by Robert R. Booth to my Baptist brethren titled, Children of the Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism.


----------

