# paedobaptism & covenants



## soakland (Jul 8, 2009)

Hello -

I've just begun studying the issue of paedobaptism and wanted to ask if someone can confirm some of the elements of the covenants. Please forgive me if these seem foolish but I am just beginning the study:

1 - Am I correct that in covenant theology, the over-arching covenant of grace which includes Abraham and continues into the NT? Those in this covenant consist of saved individuals in all ages.

2 - Also, the old covenant of Moses and the new covenant in Christ are two covenants that both include saved and unsaved.

3 - This explains He. 10 as well as the warning passages contained in Hebrews..

4 - The sign of circumcision Abraham received after faith, and his son received it prior to faith. Correspondingly, baptism occurs AFTER someone possesses faith, and their children receive the covenant sign of baptism BEFORE faith. Am I correct that they are both in the covenant of grace and the corresponding Old & New Covenant?

I know I must have at least some of this wrong, so please correct me accordingly. I realize this is just a sketchy-sketch.

Also, can any of you recommend the best books on the subject?

Thanks for any help,
Scott


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 8, 2009)

soakland said:


> Hello -
> 
> I've just begun studying the issue of paedobaptism and wanted to ask if someone can confirm some of the elements of the covenants. Please forgive me if these seem foolish but I am just beginning the study:
> 
> ...



Rev. Oakland,

Excellent questions!

1. Yes, the Abrahamic covenant is, for substance, the same covenant of grace as that administered during the times of the gospel, though under different economies, or administrations (dispensation is a great word if it didn't have so much baggage). Technically, this covenant of grace was instituted as soon as man fell, but was formalized under Abraham, Moses and David.

2. Yes, with this proviso; it is one covenant of grace under two _dispensations_.

3. It does help to explain this, as well as how Moses is said to have "preached the gospel" to the Hebrew children, and forsook Egypt for Christ, etc.

4. Yes, this would be the argument from Genesis 17, Romans 4, and Galatian's use of Isaac as an example of a "child of promise".

I'm sure that others will be able to offer excellent book recommendations, but I would say that (despite his recent faulterings), the book Standing on the Promises by Doug Wilson is good.

Godspeed,


----------



## christianhope (Jul 8, 2009)

As for book recommendations on the subject, the classic on the subject is:

The economy of the covenants between God and man by Herman Witsius 

- Though this is a long read. J.I Packer pronounced this work to be on the same level as John Owen, which is very high praise. 

For shorter works I know of:

Introducing Covenant Theology by Michael Horton

and

The Christ of the Covenants by O. Palmer Robertson


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 8, 2009)

The important thing to remember is that baptism is an ecclesiological thing with paedo-baptists, not a soteriological thing. Baptism marks a person as belonging to the visible church, not the invisible church. You seemed to hint at it, but it might be helpful simply to put it out there in the open: the covenant has an inner and an outer aspect, a substance and an appearance, an essence and an administration. This marks the distinction between the visible and the invisible church. Baptism belongs to the visible church, and is the mark of belonging to the visible church. It does not mark belonging to the invisible church. That mark is faith, which is faith in the thing pointed to by baptism. So the people in Hebrews 6 and other places are members of the visible church but were never members of the invisible church. They were baptized, but never came to faith.


----------



## Grimmson (Jul 9, 2009)

soakland said:


> I've just begun studying the issue of paedobaptism and wanted to ask if someone can confirm some of the elements of the covenants. Please forgive me if these seem foolish but I am just beginning the study:
> 
> 1 - Am I correct that in covenant theology, the over-arching covenant of grace which includes Abraham and continues into the NT? Those in this covenant consist of saved individuals in all ages.


Yes, you are correct. But in the Mosaic covenant, you still find that covenant of works applied. Where if they do not hold to the covenant, they will surely die. Still, you find elements of God’s grace through the sacrificial system; however it should be looked at in my option as a mixed system of grace and works. 


soakland said:


> 2 - Also, the old covenant of Moses and the new covenant in Christ are two covenants that both include saved and unsaved.


It really depends on how you look at the new covenant in relation to Jeremiah 31:33 and Hebrews 8:8-12. The covenant in the NT sense seems not to imply a mixture of the saved and unsaved, for all the saved know the Lord in this covenant; which really shows the weakness of the old. Therefore comparing the two covenants it is not a straight forward, “one covenant of grace under two dispensations” at least with the establishment the covenants. 



soakland said:


> 3 - This explains He. 10 as well as the warning passages contained in Hebrews..


I would say that Hebrews 10 is a warning passage for us not to continue to be living in sin and to keep to the new covenant, which offers a once for all payment for sin. Remember the Christian Jews, whom it was written to, were being tempted to go back to old covenant. By deliberating go back to that system you would be sinning and going against the new covenant. Giving this evidence to the fact you were never one of us and heaping condemnation on yourself by discrediting the blood of Christ for sins. Thus performing blasphemy of the Holy Spirit where by the Lord will judge you and repay vengeance. 


soakland said:


> 4 - The sign of circumcision Abraham received after faith, and his son received it prior to faith. Correspondingly, baptism occurs AFTER someone possesses faith, and their children receive the covenant sign of baptism BEFORE faith. Am I correct that they are both in the covenant of grace and the corresponding Old & New Covenant?


In the Presbyterian model that correct, but not in how Baptist see baptism as it relates to circumcision. In fact, it varies on how exactly baptism is the sign and seal as you look at the northern and southern Presbyterians ( which are closer to Baptists to some degree). 

I do not remember Herman Witsius in his section on baptism giving clear evidence to why it’s a sign and a seal. He just seems to want to go off his interesting definition of a sacrament in his first volume, but when he gets to baptism in the second volume he does not explain why it’s a seal. It is as if it was already assumed. And I think good case needs to be given on why baptism is the means of that seal of the Holy Spirit, as some say. I am not saying that the Holy Sprit does not seals your salvation, for scripture makes that fact quite clear that he does seal you. Overall his book is interesting, but I would not recommend it due to its length unless you have some free time.



soakland said:


> Also, can any of you recommend the best books on the subject?



I would recommend from a Baptist perspective, Infant baptism and the Covenant of Grace by Paul Jewett; at least in relation to question 4. 


Also I want to say that greenbaggins is right regarding the different being “ecclesiological thing with paedo-baptists, not a soteriological thing.” But that is only true within Presbyterian circles such as the PCUS, along with its future denominations) verses northern Presbyterians that included that soteriological component. I think one of them was the UPCUSA, but don’t hold me to that.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jul 13, 2009)

Grimmson said:


> soakland said:
> 
> 
> > I've just begun studying the issue of paedobaptism and wanted to ask if someone can confirm some of the elements of the covenants. Please forgive me if these seem foolish but I am just beginning the study:
> ...



David, so were the saints in the Old Covenant saved by a mixture of grace and works? Or, were they not saved?

Also, how does this square with the NT's assertions that Moses preached the gospel to the children of Israel, that they ate the same spiritual food, and drank the same spiritual drink, that Christ was with them, that Moses forsook Egypt for Christ, and a host of other similar assertions. What do you make of these?

Cheers,


----------



## DonP (Jul 13, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> David, so were the saints in the Old Covenant saved by a mixture of grace and works? Or, were they not saved?
> 
> Also, how does this square with the NT's assertions that Moses preached the gospel to the children of Israel, that they ate the same spiritual food, and drank the same spiritual drink, that Christ was with them, that Moses forsook Egypt for Christ, and a host of other similar assertions. What do you make of these?
> 
> Cheers,



Good job catching those who don't have a clear view. 

But #4 I would not say they were both in the Cov of Grace due to circumcision or baptism. The sign is of the visible covenant, church membership, being in Israel, but not necessarily converted. 

Now we are told Ab and Issac were elect so we know they are in the Cov of Grace, but this had little to do with baptism, other than God tends to work through familes and heads of households. But this is still visible or extrernal aspect of the covenant. 

Just as the promises of land and wealth and long life were temporal promises to the visible covenant people, the foreshadowed the reality of spiritual promised land, spiritual riches, new heaven and earth, and those would be inherited by the true believers, who were elect.

Some good info posted here in the debate 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/argument-against-classical-covenant-theological-paedobaptism-your-consideration-50515/#post650319


----------

