# Argument for Paedo and Credo-Baptism from the Nature of the New Covenant



## Semper Fidelis

I've been told that once one settles the constituents of the New Covenant then this is the fulcrum upon which the issue is settled. Settle that New Covenant membership includes the elect alone and the Credo-baptist position naturally follows. In this thread, we had a couple of arguments that (after a bit of tightening) led to the Credo-Baptist conclusion.

I want to demonstrate where this Premise can also lead given another line of argumentation. This is a thought experiment. Assuming that the first premise is true, we can deduce a different conclusion:

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the elect alone. (Jer 31)
P2: The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15)
P3: Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
P4: Sacraments are immediately instituted by God to visibly mark out those that are in the Church. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48)
P5: There is a spiritual relation between the sign and the grace signified in a sacrament. (Gen 17:10, Matt 26:27-28)
P6: The grace signified in a sacrament is granted by the Spirit to the elect alone. (Matt 3:11, 1 Co 12:13)
P7: Baptism is a sacrament. (Matt 28:19)
P8: God has commanded, in His Word, the baptism of those that do actually profess faith and obedience to Christ. (Mar 16:15-16)
P9: God has commanded, in His Word, the baptism of the children of believing parents. (Gen 17:7, Acts 2:38)
C: Those who profess faith and obedience to Christ as well as the children of believers are to be baptized by the Church. 

Now, obviously as before, the premises may be in dispute but my point is to demonstrate that one can begin with P1 and arrive at a different conclusion.

Consequently, there is no ruthless logic that jumps from P1 to the antipaedobaptist conclusion. That has to be established by other premises.

There's more to an argument than simply inferring a boatload of hidden premises from a single verse and assuming your conclusion is patently obvious.


----------



## eqdj

Hidden Premise A: The Covenant of Circumcision is the foundational (inauguration) of The Covenant of Grace.

Hidden Premise B. Once a sacrament is instituted, it remains an abiding principle of every administration of the Covenant of Grace.

Hidden Premise C: There will be no new administrations of the Covenant of Grace.

Hidden Conclusion A: Therefore, the Covenant of Grace includes the elect and their children.

Hidden Conclusion B: The eschaton will consist of the elect and their children ("They must remain (in the Covenant) until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out'").


----------



## steadfast7

I'm still new to this stuff, and am not as sharp as you were in analyzing the premises in the last exercise, but if I may observe the lack of connection between:
P3: Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
P4: Sacraments are immediately instituted by God to visibly mark out those that are in the Church. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48)
- the link between 1) the sign and its right application and 2) the covenant of grace and membership in the church is not obvious (at least not to me) in neither the flow of logic or the prooftexts.

Also, I'm really not sure that P9: God has commanded, in His Word, the baptism of the children of believing parents. (Gen 17:7, Acts 2:38) is actually a true statement. This might be an area where you have assumed something that is not patently obvious to many.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

eqdj said:


> Hidden Premise A: The Covenant of Circumcision is the foundational (inauguration) of The Covenant of Grace.


Neither hidden nor existent. There is no "covenant of circumcision" to speak of. None exists and I don't have to list every administration of the CoG to make one valid argument that deals with the NC. Circumcision is an example of a _sacrament_ not a covenant.



> Hidden Premise B. Once a sacrament is instituted, it remains an abiding principle of every administration of the Covenant of Grace.


That does not need to be stated as a premise for the argument to be valid. You may haggle as to whether the premise is True but the argument is valid. I also think you meant to state that once the parties in the external administration of the COG are established, that this remains valid unless otherwise abrogated. Again, not needed for the argument to be valid but most people call the contrary "bait and switch".



> Hidden Premise C: There will be no new administrations of the Covenant of Grace.


Again, the premise is not needed to make the argument valid.



> Hidden Conclusion A: Therefore, the Covenant of Grace includes the elect and their children.


Not a hidden conclusion. P3-P6 establish the relationship between a sacrament and the Covenant. P4 establishes that they are signs to visibly separate members of the Church from the world. P5 and P6 note that, although some may receive a sacrament who are not elect, the spiritual benefits are only conveyed to the elect. P8 and P9 establish, by divine command, who are to receive the sacrament whether or not they are elect. The Conclusion, then, does not bear on whether or not professors or children of believers are elect but whether it is commanded, whether what is commanded is a sacrament, whether the sacrament bears any relationship to the elect or the NC. All have been established.



> Hidden Conclusion B: The eschaton will consist of the elect and their children ("They must remain (in the Covenant) until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out'").


 
Invalid conclusion, never inferred. Neither professors or their children in this argument are presumed to be in the New Covenant. The conclusion only notes that the most one can say is that they are to be baptized and, in so doing, they are visibly separated into the Church apart from the world. They may or may not receive the thing signified but that's not necessitated by the premises. A sacrament is a _sign_ and does not make one a member of the NC in this argument. Read it again.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nova said:


> I'm still new to this stuff, and am not as sharp as you were in analyzing the premises in the last exercise, but if I may observe the lack of connection between:
> P3: Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
> P4: Sacraments are immediately instituted by God to visibly mark out those that are in the Church. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48)
> - the link between 1) the sign and its right application and 2) the covenant of grace and membership in the church is not obvious (at least not to me) in neither the flow of logic or the prooftexts.


1) The link between the sign and its right application is not established in P4 but P8 and P9.
2) The link between the covenant of grace and membership in the church is that sacraments are signs and seals of the COG and that God has instituted sacraments to visibly mark out the Church. The sacrament forms the bridge argument.



> Also, I'm really not sure that P9: God has commanded, in His Word, the baptism of the children of believing parents. (Gen 17:7, Acts 2:38) is actually a true statement. This might be an area where you have assumed something that is not patently obvious to many.


 
Please exercise more care in reading the original post before responding. This is another exercise designed to show that a _valid argument_ can be formed.

I have no intention of arguing over every premise but have demonstrated that a paedobaptist could theoretically adopt P1, which is said (by some) the issue by which the paedobaptist position stands or falls. I have demonstrated a valid argument from this premise to show otherwise.

I obviously don't believe the argument is *true* as I reject P1 but that's not the point of the thread.


----------



## eqdj

Rich,



> the premises may be in dispute


The way the OP is laid out, P9 is a non sequitur. There must be either be some necessary presuppositions or some differing definitions of words used to get to P9. I was just trying to help you get to P9.



> I have no intention of arguing over every premise


That's fine.



> my point is to demonstrate that one can begin with P1 and arrive at a different conclusion.





> I have demonstrated a valid argument from this premise to show otherwise.


As the OP stands, until some behind the scenes assumptions have been brought out, this has not been demonstrated.


----------



## steadfast7

An aside, please help me understand. If we're not attempting to establish the truth of the premises, what's the point of putting it in the form of a valid argument?

1. All cats are reptiles
2. Bugs Bunny is a cat
3. Bugs Bunny is a reptile

Please don't take offence as I am not trying to be fecitious. I only use this cheeky example to illustrate something. In gratitude, the exercises have been helpful in teaching what a valid argument is and how it's formed, but I don't see how it advances the debate if the premises are not being checked for truthfulness. 
thanks.

---------- Post added at 08:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 AM ----------

the above arugment is valid and airtight. However, because one or more of its premises are untrue, I cannot use this argument to make any propositions about cats, reptiles, or Bugs Bunny. 

Rich, likewise, your argumentation may be valid, but because the premises have not been demonstrably verified, you cannot use the argument to make statements about the topics of baptism, covenant theology and the like. But you have done this, ignoring the potentially untrue premises, you proceed to make a statement about the paedobaptist position. I think this is fallacious.


----------



## Hilasmos

> P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the elect alone. (Jer 31)
> P2: The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15)
> P3: Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
> P4: Sacraments are immediately instituted by God to visibly mark out those that are in the Church. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48)



The P3 to P4 connection was challenged already above, but I am still not following. If I reverse it to see if P4 can arrive at P1, it doesn't appear to be the case unless you establish that the "church" is the elect alone. Sorry if I do not follow rightly.

P4 Sacraments are immediately instituted by God to visibly mark out (serve as a sign and seal?) those that are in the church.
P3 Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
P2 The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15)
P1 The New Covenant is made with and consists of the elect alone. (Jer 31)

Wouldn't your "church" here be the elect alone since the "sign" which serves to mark them out is the same sign to mark out the COG which is an administration of the NC consisting of the elect alone?

EDIT: I guess I should have just asked before posting the above. When you use the word "church" in P4 what does that word mean?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

eqdj said:


> Rich,
> 
> The way the OP is laid out, P9 is a non sequitur. There must be either be some necessary presuppositions or some differing definitions of words used to get to P9. I was just trying to help you get to P9.


No, if P9 is a non sequitur then so is P8. They both state the same thing: God has commanded them in His Word. I could have just made P8 say "...and the children of believers..." but broke it out into two sentences.



eqdj said:


> As the OP stands, until some behind the scenes assumptions have been brought out, this has not been demonstrated.


What hasn't been demonstrated? That the argument is in a valid form? I haven't seen evidence to the contrary yet. Every word used in the sentence has a "hidden assumption". I suppose I could have defined every term as you seem to be demanding but I didn't demand that of anybody else. It's when we get into evaluating individual premises that we need to start examining "...what do you mean by X"?



Nova said:


> An aside, please help me understand. If we're not attempting to establish the truth of the premises, what's the point of putting it in the form of a valid argument?
> 
> 1. All cats are reptiles
> 2. Bugs Bunny is a cat
> 3. Bugs Bunny is a reptile
> 
> Please don't take offence as I am not trying to be fecitious. I only use this cheeky example to illustrate something. In gratitude, the exercises have been helpful in teaching what a valid argument is and how it's formed, but I don't see how it advances the debate if the premises are not being checked for truthfulness.
> thanks.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 08:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 AM ----------
> 
> the above arugment is valid and airtight. However, because one or more of its premises are untrue, I cannot use this argument to make any propositions about cats, reptiles, or Bugs Bunny.
> 
> Rich, likewise, your argumentation may be valid, but because the premises have not been demonstrably verified, you cannot use the argument to make statements about the topics of baptism, covenant theology and the like. But you have done this, ignoring the potentially untrue premises, you proceed to make a statement about the paedobaptist position. I think this is fallacious.


Frankly, this is sort of obvious isn't it? By definition, I believe every Baptist argument that shows that children are outside the Covenant is fallacious. It has the equivalent kind of form as above (or may not even be logically valid). You did read what I said the purpose of this thread is, correct? You do know what a thought experiment is? 


Hilasmos said:


> P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the elect alone. (Jer 31)
> P2: The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15)
> P3: Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
> P4: Sacraments are immediately instituted by God to visibly mark out those that are in the Church. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The P3 to P4 connection was challenged already above, but I am still not following. If I reverse it to see if P4 can arrive at P1, it doesn't appear to be the case unless you establish that the "church" is the elect alone. Sorry if I do not follow rightly.
> 
> P4 Sacraments are immediately instituted by God to visibly mark out (serve as a sign and seal?) those that are in the church.
> P3 Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
> P2 The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15)
> P1 The New Covenant is made with and consists of the elect alone. (Jer 31)
> 
> Wouldn't your "church" here be the elect alone since the "sign" which serves to mark them out is the same sign to mark out the COG which is an administration of the NC consisting of the elect alone?
> 
> EDIT: I guess I should have just asked before posting the above. When you use the word "church" in P4 what does that word mean?
Click to expand...

 
Church consists of those who have been visibly marked out of the world by Sacraments that were instituted by God. (P4 in reverse). If I intended to say this was the elect then I would have said that the Elect have an E appear on their forehead so we know they're elect but as I omitted that piece, I assumed it was pretty clear. 

I don't understand your confusion between P3 and P4. I'm simply giving full expression to the aspects of what a Sacrament are.

I would agree that my argument could be presented to be "cleaner" so it's more of a "if this then this" but I've provided all the pieces needed to connect Sacrament to the COG to the Elect as well as Sacrament to the visible Church to the Baptized. God is in the middle here where Sacraments have a relation to hidden things (P2, P6) as well as revealed things (P4, P8, P9).


----------



## steadfast7

> Frankly, this is sort of obvious isn't it? By definition, I believe every Baptist argument that shows that children are outside the Covenant is fallacious. It has the equivalent kind of form as above (or may not even be logically valid). You did read what I said the purpose of this thread is, correct? You do know what a thought experiment is?


Whatever a thought experiment is, you obviously have an agenda and proposition to make that attempts to say something true about the topic in question. I'm arguing that given the parameters of the exercise it cannot be done soundly or persuasively. As long as the jury is still out regarding the truth of the given premises and has not been established beyond reasonable doubt, the argument, though valid, remains unsound. I recognize that truth is not your concern in this thread, but even so the truth of the premises must be demonstrated first for you to make your point regarding paedo vs. credo; and this, only by exegesis In my humble opinion.
But thanks for the exercise. It has been helpful and you have served us. Thanks for taking the time.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

In Suk,

Here's what I say in the OP:


> I want to demonstrate where this Premise can also lead given another line of argumentation. This is a thought experiment. Assuming that the first premise is true, we can deduce a different conclusion:



Every other premise, except for P1, is pulled from the Westminster Confession of Faith. In other words, in my "thought experiment", a theoretical paedobaptist could be a paedobaptist who arrives at the conclusion by using a credobaptist P1 and then arriving at C from other premises he derives that don't really deal with composition of the NC.

Of _course_ every premise has to be sustained. That goes without saying. Every time a Baptist uses Matt 28:18-20 and speaks confidently that only professing believers are disciples has the same burden of proof.

It just seems odd to me that you're pointing this out because this is how valid arguments are made all the time and you're pointing out the obvious.

My intent was not "hidden" at all. I emblazened it in the OP telling everybody what I was showing and any claims of hidden agenda would have to come from those who did not read what I said I was doing very carefully.


----------



## Hilasmos

> Church consists of those who have been visibly marked out of the world by Sacraments that were instituted by God. (P4 in reverse). If I intended to say this was the elect then I would have said that the Elect have an E appear on their forehead so we know they're elect but as I omitted that piece, I assumed it was pretty clear.



P1 Sacraments are instituted by God to mark out the elect and non-elect existing within the Church
P2 Sacraments are signs and seals of the covenant of Grace
P3 The NC is an administration of the CoG
C Therefore, the NC is with the elect alone

Is this a valid argument? If not, that is why it is not clear to me. This is how I am reading your P1-P4 (apparently I am not reading it right though). Anyways, thanks for these exercises, I have enjoyed thinking through these.


----------



## steadfast7

Ok Rich. As long as you are saying that your argument accords with the WCF, then that is fine. But doesn't that mean that those who confess the LBC need not agree with your argument? That's all I was saying. The points of difference between the two positions can only be worked out by exegesis.

Also, I did not mean to accuse you of a "hidden" agenda. My apologies if that's what came across. Cheers!


----------



## Herald

Semper Fidelis said:


> I've been told that once one settles the constituents of the New Covenant then this is the fulcrum upon which the issue is settled. Settle that New Covenant membership includes the elect alone and the Credo-baptist position naturally follows. In this thread, we had a couple of arguments that (after a bit of tightening) led to the Credo-Baptist conclusion.
> 
> I want to demonstrate where this Premise can also lead given another line of argumentation. This is a thought experiment. Assuming that the first premise is true, we can deduce a different conclusion:
> 
> P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the elect alone. (Jer 31)
> P2: The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15)
> P3: Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
> P4: Sacraments are immediately instituted by God to visibly mark out those that are in the Church. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48)
> P5: There is a spiritual relation between the sign and the grace signified in a sacrament. (Gen 17:10, Matt 26:27-28)
> P6: The grace signified in a sacrament is granted by the Spirit to the elect alone. (Matt 3:11, 1 Co 12:13)
> P7: Baptism is a sacrament. (Matt 28:19)
> P8: God has commanded, in His Word, the baptism of those that do actually profess faith and obedience to Christ. (Mar 16:15-16)
> P9: God has commanded, in His Word, the baptism of the children of believing parents. (Gen 17:7, Acts 2:38)
> C: Those who profess faith and obedience to Christ as well as the children of believers are to be baptized by the Church.
> 
> Now, obviously as before, the premises may be in dispute but my point is to demonstrate that one can begin with P1 and arrive at a different conclusion.
> 
> Consequently, there is no ruthless logic that jumps from P1 to the antipaedobaptist conclusion. That has to be established by other premises.
> 
> There's more to an argument than simply inferring a boatload of hidden premises from a single verse and assuming your conclusion is patently obvious.



Okay Rich, let's say that a credobaptist and a paedobaptist have never really studied their respective positions. I can see where a syllogism exercise can challenge them to study their position logically. However, for those who are studied in their position I wonder how helpful a syllogism is to challenging or affirming what they believe. I agree with you that either side can take P1 and come up with both of the orthodox conclusions on baptism. But how is this different than a polemic argument in relation to the conclusion? It's quite possible that I don't appreciate nor understand syllogisms very well. What I do observe is the sharp edges at the end of each proposition that lead to the seemingly neatly packaged conclusion.

As an observation, P9 seems to expose a huge disconnect with P1. Are we to conclude that children (P9) actually profess faith and obedience to Christ (P8), and are, therefore, part of the administration of the New Covenant (P1)? It seems to me that P1 became diluted as your premises evolved. I'm not going to pick on that point too much; as I don't believe the paedo position fails because of a syllogism. The same for the credo argument. This is why a polemic argument is necessary In my humble opinion. 

So I ask, what is the value of a syllogism in this instance? I may simply be missing it's value in moving the dialog further down the road. What am I missing?


----------



## Hilasmos

Let me clarify the post I made above further. To make it clearer to myself I re-worded your P2-P4, but did not change the meaning, I think:

P1: ? 

P2: The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15)
P3: The Covenant of Grace is signified and sealed with sacraments. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
P4: Sacraments are instituted by God to signify and mark out all that are in the Church [as part of the Covenant of Grace]. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48)

Here is my addition, but it seems to follow necessarily from the prior premises if you concur the Church does not equal just the elect

P5: This marked out/sealed Church consists of both elect and non-elect 
P6: Elect and non-elect, therefore, belong belong to the CoG
P7: The CoG administers the New Covenant to its members

C: Therefore, the New Covenant contains elect and non-elect

My thought in this is that C is a necessary conclusion to P5-P7, and P5-P7 is a necessary outworking of P2-P4, and therefore the exclusivity of your P1 cannot head up your P2-P4


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> Are we to conclude that children (P9) actually profess faith and obedience to Christ (P8), and are, therefore, part of the administration of the New Covenant (P1)?


 
I think the point is that there are "elect infants," so referring to the new covenant as made with the elect alone does not help the discussion. Rich's two threads indicate that antipaedobaptists may not claim the first premise "necessarily" leads to their distinctive conclusion.


----------



## Iconoclast

If a padeo starts with this;
P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the elect alone. (Jer 31)

The padeo then must argue that the church they speak of is not in the New Covenant!

We are told that the "church" consists of elect and non elect in the Padeo scheme.

Therefore it[the church] cannot be said to be in the NC. as p1 states the NC consists of the elect alone.

If p1 is true......no one said to be in the NC. can be lost,because none of the elect are ever lost. Your view of Covenant, and Church is not valid,but rather inconsistent.

I think this is a valid syllogism.


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> I think this is a valid syllogism.


 
It misses the point that the first premise is being conceded merely for the sake of the argument. Taking the first premise at face value there is nothing to discriminate against infants because "confessional reformed baptists" hold that there are elect infants.


----------



## Iconoclast

armourbearer said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a valid syllogism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It misses the point that the first premise is being conceded merely for the sake of the argument. Taking the first premise at face value there is nothing to discriminate against infants because "confessional reformed baptists" hold that there are elect infants.
Click to expand...

 
No, I understand that in this exercise p1 is being conceded for the sake of argument[Rich admitted as much and was just trying to further the exercise.] RB do hold that there can be elect infants, it mentions those elect infants that die in infancy. It does not address the living ones one way or another. In other words...elect infants would grow up and remain in that state. Non elect infants grow up also.
How long do you leave non elect infants, who turn into non elect teenagers, who turn into non elect adults, on your membership role?
In this exercise P1 does not allow for these persons,who you would say are [external]covenant church members
However, I think you would be hard pressed to be consistent with your ecclesiology if you attempt to maintain p1.
Your "church" is not defined as a called out assembly of believers,but rather a mix of regenerate and unregenerate members as you state that no one can know who is who.
You believing in a breakable new covenant,does not allow for p1, or you would have elect persons perishing as covenant breakers. P1 does not allow for it, in this exercise. {i am not even commenting on p3 -p9}
I think that when you try to hold your distinctives and covenant continuity with virtually no change.... you must re-define the church of God,dividing it into visible and invisible, believer and unbeliever mixed multitude, to account for all the people that pass through the doors of the building.
I know that the 1689 uses similar language,but I did not write it. I know that some of these distinctions can be helpful to explain what happens [false professors/apostates] and several verses can be seen to support your view of the biblical paradigm.
Just not sure if this is what the bible says is true in the NT.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Hilasmos said:


> Church consists of those who have been visibly marked out of the world by Sacraments that were instituted by God. (P4 in reverse). If I intended to say this was the elect then I would have said that the Elect have an E appear on their forehead so we know they're elect but as I omitted that piece, I assumed it was pretty clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P1 Sacraments are instituted by God to mark out the elect and non-elect existing within the Church
> P2 Sacraments are signs and seals of the covenant of Grace
> P3 The NC is an administration of the CoG
> C Therefore, the NC is with the elect alone
> 
> Is this a valid argument? If not, that is why it is not clear to me. This is how I am reading your P1-P4 (apparently I am not reading it right though). Anyways, thanks for these exercises, I have enjoyed thinking through these.
Click to expand...

You've left out some other premises that lead to the conclusion. Again, the problem is that you're trying to make an argument only proceed from one premise to build to another. There are other kinds of propositional statements that exist beside an "if that then this" kind of proposition.

Some of the propositions are definitional. That is, there are a couple that talk about Sacraments. You left out the part about the spiritual benefits of Sacraments being applied by the Holy Spirit sovereignly. I never formed my proposition to move from the Church (a visible function that Sacraments serve) to the composition of the New Covenant. I moved from the NC to Sacraments and noted that Sacraments have a visible and invisible function. God visibly uses them for the Church but He also invisibly attends to them Sovereignly. You can't ignore that bridge and then build a false set of premises and ignore these propositional elements.



Herald said:


> Okay Rich, let's say that a credobaptist and a paedobaptist have never really studied their respective positions. I can see where a syllogism exercise can challenge them to study their position logically. However, for those who are studied in their position I wonder how helpful a syllogism is to challenging or affirming what they believe. I agree with you that either side can take P1 and come up with both of the orthodox conclusions on baptism. But how is this different than a polemic argument in relation to the conclusion? It's quite possible that I don't appreciate nor understand syllogisms very well. What I do observe is the sharp edges at the end of each proposition that lead to the seemingly neatly packaged conclusion.
> 
> As an observation, P9 seems to expose a huge disconnect with P1. Are we to conclude that children (P9) actually profess faith and obedience to Christ (P8), and are, therefore, part of the administration of the New Covenant (P1)?


I don't know how many times I have to answer this question before it sinks in. I never stated that P8 depends on P9. There is no statement in P9 that says "because God has commanded the baptism of those who visibly profess that children of believers have to do so." The statements are equivalent to this:

P8: God has commanded husbands to love their wives.
P9: God has commanded children to obey their parents.

P9 does not require that children be husbands that love their wives. It is simply a propositional statement that stands on its own. As I stated earlier I could have omitted P9 and simply wrote:

P8: God has commanded, in His Word, the baptism of those that do actually profess faith and obedience to Christ as well as the children of believers.

Instead, I broke it out into two sentences. I didn't say in P8: "And not the children of believers".



Herald said:


> It seems to me that P1 became diluted as your premises evolved. I'm not going to pick on that point too much; as I don't believe the paedo position fails because of a syllogism. The same for the credo argument. This is why a polemic argument is necessary In my humble opinion.
> 
> So I ask, what is the value of a syllogism in this instance? I may simply be missing it's value in moving the dialog further down the road. What am I missing?



As I've noted over and over, it is because there is an over-weaning confidence by some to simply assert P1 and then say: "That settles the question." I'm not merely inferring this but I've been told, flat out on many occasions that all the RB has to do is establish P1 and the paedo position falls like a deck of cards. I'm demonstrating that much more work has to be done. It might cause those who might unthinkingly jump the rail to think twice in the future and realize that more exegetical work has to be done to establish their conclusion.



Hilasmos said:


> Let me clarify the post I made above further. To make it clearer to myself I re-worded your P2-P4, but did not change the meaning, I think:
> 
> P1: ?
> 
> P2: The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15)
> P3: The Covenant of Grace is signified and sealed with sacraments. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
> P4: Sacraments are instituted by God to signify and mark out all that are in the Church [as part of the Covenant of Grace]. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48)
> 
> Here is my addition, but it seems to follow necessarily from the prior premises if you concur the Church does not equal just the elect
> 
> P5: This marked out/sealed Church consists of both elect and non-elect
> P6: Elect and non-elect, therefore, belong belong to the CoG
> P7: The CoG administers the New Covenant to its members
> 
> C: Therefore, the New Covenant contains elect and non-elect
> 
> My thought in this is that C is a necessary conclusion to P5-P7, and P5-P7 is a necessary outworking of P2-P4, and therefore the exclusivity of your P1 cannot head up your P2-P4


As before, re-arranging propositions and leaving out key definitional propositions about the nature of Sacraments doesn't adequately deal with all the data that is present in my argument.



Iconoclast said:


> If a padeo starts with this;
> P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the elect alone. (Jer 31)
> 
> The padeo then must argue that the church they speak of is not in the New Covenant!
> 
> We are told that the "church" consists of elect and non elect in the Padeo scheme.
> 
> Therefore it[the church] cannot be said to be in the NC. as p1 states the NC consists of the elect alone.
> 
> If p1 is true......no one said to be in the NC. can be lost,because none of the elect are ever lost. Your view of Covenant, and Church is not valid,but rather inconsistent.



You do realize that you're describing your own position here? Do you suppose I wasn't aware that this is the case with Reformed Baptist theology? I've noted for some time that baptism actually only bears upon local Church membership in your theology and that, because of your view of the NC, the Church stands as a visible institution apart from the NC that may contain both elect and reprobate. If the view of the Church in my argument is "inconsistent" then what are you saying about your own view? Again, I'm not buying into this theology but I'm just noting that P1 doesn't get the Conclusion you want without the cost of establishing other Biblical arguments for it.

By the way, if you're not sure that the thing we call "the Church" consists of elect and unelect, what exactly do you call the body of elect and reprobate people that you meet with in worship every week?


----------



## MW

Iconoclast said:


> Your "church" is not defined as a called out assembly of believers,but rather a mix of regenerate and unregenerate members as you state that no one can know who is who.


 
A Presbyterian church is defined as a called out assembly. That is what a church is. But "called out" of what? and "called into" what? The visible church is called out of the world, not out of reprobation. The visible church is called into profession, not election. Mixture of regenerate and unregenerate men is a fact which is found in your own understanding of the church, as you acknowledged in the previous thread. And, as you have acknowledged in the past, the mixture was a reality of the church in the NT, as is clear from the warning passages.


----------



## Iconoclast

Rich, and Matthew,
Thanks for your responses.
Rich you asked:


> By the way, if you're not sure that the thing we call "the Church" consists of elect and unelect, what exactly do you call the body of elect and reprobate people that you meet with in worship every week?



Rich in the 1689 ...26:3 it states this;


> 3._____ The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.


 When it says this,and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan, I take that to mean that false professors,goats, spots in the love feasts, do not add to or are no real part of the God called church even if their name might appear on a membership role.
In the letters to the seven churches the overcomers are the real church.
The overcomers are the God called church....we are told that there were false apostles, liars,those of the synaguoge of Satan,those who held the false teaching of Balaam, false prophetess, fornicators,etc. These persons may walk in through the door and assemble with *the church*, but being devoid of the Spirit they cannot be rightly said to be a part of the church of God if they remain in that condition.

Matthew,
You asked this:


> A Presbyterian church is defined as a called out assembly. That is what a church is. But "called out" of what? and "called into" what?


 Matthew I would ask the questions "called out" *By Whom*. Is the church called out by God ,or by men? Are sinners called out of the world,sin and death by Spirit Baptism,,,,or by water baptism,men, parents ? If indeed the *church* is God called he is not going to call the ungodly who remain ungodly as part of His actual body.


> The visible church is called out of the world, not out of reprobation. The visible church is called into profession, not election.,,,,


 It is the elect who are called by God out of sin and darkness. They are effectually called because they are sheep to a saving belief and confession. Jn 10:26.....goats cannot do this, they cannot receive the word effectually 1cor2:14.


> Mixture of regenerate and unregenerate men is a fact which is found in your own understanding of the church, as you acknowledged in the previous thread. And, as you have acknowledged in the past, the mixture was a reality of the church in the NT, as is clear from the warning passages.



That the mixture takes place in the physical, visble ,world that we see no one deny's.
4And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat? 

5We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick: 

6But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes. 

That the scripture mentions a *mixed multitude* implies that their is a difference,their soul loathed the manna.

If i am given counterfeit money at the store and mix it in my wallet it does not change what is real and what is counterfeit.
If I go to deposit it at the bank, the bank teller will weed out the counterfeit. It does not mean the the true money was ever counterfeit,or they were the same at any time.
For a short time,false professors assemble among the church, but really are never God called persons.

If I take pure apple jelly and mixed vegamite into it, it does not add to the jelly,but dilutes and distorts it. [why would anyone do this?]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> Rich, and Matthew,
> Thanks for your responses.
> Rich you asked:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, if you're not sure that the thing we call "the Church" consists of elect and unelect, what exactly do you call the body of elect and reprobate people that you meet with in worship every week?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich in the 1689 ...26:3 it states this;
> 
> 
> 
> 3._____ The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When it says this,and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan, I take that to mean that false professors,goats, spots in the love feasts, do not add to or are no real part of the God called church even if their name might appear on a membership role.
Click to expand...

 
You're misreading your own confession. It says that the _purest_ of Churches are subject to _mixture_ and that only _some_ have so denigrated to become synagoguges of satan. Why did you skip past the very first part of the sentence about the purest of Churches and get the the least pure.

Now, as I said before, if you're going to disagree with your own confession about the fact that the church is subject to mixture, why does your signature line have the name Hope Reformed Baptist *Church*? In your understanding, Church=Elect Members Alone. (sidenote: I want to point out that my argument does not conflate the two.)

I imagine you will say: "Yeah, but Rich, if someone is found to be a false professor then we'll put him out of the Hope Reformed Baptist {_insert word here other than church_} because he's *never* been part of the *Church*.

I get it.

What I'm wondering is what word to insert into the title of your mixed assembly that you worship with as I'm charitably assuming it is the purest of {_insert word here other than churches_}.


----------



## Hilasmos

Semper Fidelis said:


> Hilasmos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Church consists of those who have been visibly marked out of the world by Sacraments that were instituted by God. (P4 in reverse). If I intended to say this was the elect then I would have said that the Elect have an E appear on their forehead so we know they're elect but as I omitted that piece, I assumed it was pretty clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P1 Sacraments are instituted by God to mark out the elect and non-elect existing within the Church
> P2 Sacraments are signs and seals of the covenant of Grace
> P3 The NC is an administration of the CoG
> C Therefore, the NC is with the elect alone
> 
> Is this a valid argument? If not, that is why it is not clear to me. This is how I am reading your P1-P4 (apparently I am not reading it right though). Anyways, thanks for these exercises, I have enjoyed thinking through these.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've left out some other premises that lead to the conclusion. Again, the problem is that you're trying to make an argument only proceed from one premise to build to another. There are other kinds of propositional statements that exist beside an "if that then this" kind of proposition.
> 
> Some of the propositions are definitional. That is, there are a couple that talk about Sacraments. You left out the part about the spiritual benefits of Sacraments being applied by the Holy Spirit sovereignly. I never formed my proposition to move from the Church (a visible function that Sacraments serve) to the composition of the New Covenant. I moved from the NC to Sacraments and noted that Sacraments have a visible and invisible function. God visibly uses them for the Church but He also invisibly attends to them Sovereignly. You can't ignore that bridge and then build a false set of premises and ignore these propositional elements.
Click to expand...




> Originally Posted by Hilasmos
> Let me clarify the post I made above further. To make it clearer to myself I re-worded your P2-P4, but did not change the meaning, I think:
> 
> P1: ?
> 
> P2: The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15)
> P3: The Covenant of Grace is signified and sealed with sacraments. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
> P4: Sacraments are instituted by God to signify and mark out all that are in the Church [as part of the Covenant of Grace]. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48)
> 
> Here is my addition, but it seems to follow necessarily from the prior premises if you concur the Church does not equal just the elect
> 
> P5: This marked out/sealed Church consists of both elect and non-elect
> P6: Elect and non-elect, therefore, belong belong to the CoG
> P7: The CoG administers the New Covenant to its members
> 
> C: Therefore, the New Covenant contains elect and non-elect
> 
> My thought in this is that C is a necessary conclusion to P5-P7, and P5-P7 is a necessary outworking of P2-P4, and therefore the exclusivity of your P1 cannot head up your P2-P4
> 
> 
> 
> As before, re-arranging propositions and leaving out key definitional propositions about the nature of Sacraments doesn't adequately deal with all the data that is present in my argument.[/
Click to expand...


Thanks Rich. I was drawing from your statement in the other thread:


> string true premises that logically connect to one another


Is there a particular type of syllogism that allows multiple propositions of definition or fact, without having to necessarily show its connection to its immediate syllogism? 

From what I understand we are trying to do: A syllogism derives a conclusion after its first two premises (by basic definition and format of a syllogism, P1, P2, C); secondly, the conclusion of this syllogism is to serve as the next premise in the argument if one is to make a a poly-syllogism, and therefore a linked argument (by basic definition and format of a polly-syllogism, which is P1, P2, C/P3, P4, C/P5 Polysllogism). Since this is the format of creating a "linked" argument, I do not see how the below is not the case unless the conclusions I am drawing are inaccurate, which I assume is a possibility. 

*P1:* The New Covenant is made with and consists of the elect alone. (Jer 31)
*P2: *The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15

The next premise needs to draw a conclusion of these two (which I have been just assuming its conclusion since it isn't stated in your argument).

P1 - *P3a*: [Therefore] The covenant of Grace is with the elect alone. 
P2 - *P3b*: Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7) (P2 of 2nd syllogism)

P1/C - *P4a* [Therefore] Sacraments are holy signs and seals for the elect alone. 
P2 - *P4b*: Sacraments are immediately instituted by God to visibly mark out those that are in the Church. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48) 

P1/C - *P5a* [Therefore] 

The syllogism breaks here, P4a and P4b cannot both be true to create P5a which will serve as the next premise to continue to your argument. So, unless the conclusions to the poly-sllyogism's subservient syllogims are mistated by me, then I don't see P1-P4 as a linked argument where you can move into P5. That's how I see it at least. Do you think the conclusions I stated, which have to be assumed in your argument since they are not-stated, are drawn incorrectly? If so, what conclusion would you draw from them differently than mine?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Will,

In order to avoid the complaint that mine wasn't a perfect syllogism, I never claimed my argument was in the form of a proper syllogism. It contains multiple propositions that may or may not bear a relationship to one another. Some propositions are defined by the conclusions that precede while others are simply defined with a direct appeal to the Word.

For instance, I could form an argument like this.

P1: Rich is a son.
P2: Rich is a father.
C: Rich is a son and a father. 

P3: Rich is married to Sonya.
P4: Rich is a Marine.
C2: Rich is a son, father, and is a Marine married to Sonya.

You seem to be losing track of the fact that some of the propositions are synthetic statements directly inferred by Scripture and I'm not trying to draw any conclusions from a preceding set of synthetic statements.

Let's look at it again:

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the elect alone. (Jer 31) 
P2: The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15) 
C1: The COG is made with and consists of the elect alone.

Don't have to break here but I will to show that we're now going to move to the full definition of what a Sacrament is and how it bears a relation to the COG and the Church.

P3: Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7) (Connection to C1 where CoG is introduced)
P4: Sacraments are immediately instituted by God to visibly mark out those who are in the Church. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48) (Synthetic statement: Sacraments are...)
P5: There is a spiritual relation between the sign and the grace signified in a sacrament. (Gen 17:10, Matt 26:27-28) (Synthetic statement: relationship between sign and grace signified...)
P6: The grace signified in a sacrament is granted by the Spirit to the elect alone. (Matt 3:11, 1 Co 12:13) (Synthetic statement: Grace is attended by the Holy Spirit to the elect alone)
C2: Sacraments serve a spiritual and visible purpose. On the one hand, they seal the grace signified to those who belong to the CoG *and* they visibly mark out the Church from the world. (Combination of P3-P6)

P7: Baptism is a sacrament. (Matt 28:19) (Connection to C2 where Sacrament is fully defined)
P8: God has commanded, in His Word, the baptism of those that do actually profess faith and obedience to Christ. (Mar 16:15-16) (Synthetic statement)
P9: God has commanded, in His Word, the baptism of the children of believing parents. (Gen 17:7, Acts 2:38) (Synthetic statement)
C3: Those who profess faith and obedience to Christ as well as the children of believers are to be baptized by the Church. (P8-P9 combined)

Other conclusions that could follow:

P10: Some who are baptized are elect.
C4: Some who are baptized are in the CoG but all are in the Church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

As I look back over this, the final conclusion could really be established by P8 and P9 alone.

My argument defines three things:

P1-P2: What is the composition of the NC an CoG?
P3-P6: What is the nature of a sacrament?
P8-P9: Who has God commanded to be baptized?

P7 bridges to P3-P6 while the nature of the Sacrament connects to the CoG. In other words, I've given enough propositions to draw a variety of conclusions and formed into a variety of syllogisms. One you cannot draw is this:



Hilasmos said:


> P1/C - *P4a* [Therefore] Sacraments are holy signs and seals for the elect alone.



Nowhere in the propositions need it be inferred or concluded that Sacraments serve _only_ this purpose. 
Going back to my example. Your logical inference looks like this:

P1: Rich is a son.
P2: Rich is a father.
C: A father is a son.

You're confusing P1 and P2 as analytic statements when they are synthetic statements.

You could have said:



> Sacraments are holy signs for the elect _and_ the grace exhibited is really granted to them by the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Hilasmos

Thanks Rich, I am not trying to be disagreeable, and this is really not about debating baptism for me (I am stil learning a lot in this area); I am just interested and fascinated by the art of constructing an argument since you introduced this to the forums.



> Some propositions are defined by the conclusions that precede while others are simply defined with a direct appeal to the Word.
> 
> For instance, I could form an argument like this.
> 
> P1: Rich is a son.
> P2: Rich is a father.
> C: Rich is a son and a father.
> 
> P3: Rich is married to Sonya.
> P4: Rich is a Marine.
> C2: Rich is a son, father, and is a Marine married to Sonya.



Apart from the conclusion basically being a truism, it can still be tested as valid by breaking it down into a poly format:

P1: Rich is a son.
P2: Rich is a father.
C: Rich is a son and a father.
P3: Rich is married to Sonya
C: Rich is a son and a father married to Sonya
P4: Rich is a Marine
C3: Rich is a son, father, and is a Marine married to Sonya 

What I would be interested to see is a valid argument that would not be valid when translated into formal poly format (apart from the one in the OP of course  ).


----------



## Hilasmos

> Originally Posted by Hilasmos
> P1/C - P4a [Therefore] Sacraments are holy signs and seals for the elect alone.
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the propositions need it be inferred or concluded that Sacraments serve only this purpose.
> Going back to my example. Your logical inference looks like this:
> 
> P1: Rich is a son.
> P2: Rich is a father.
> C: A father is a son
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I don't follow:

P1: Rich is a son = P1: [Therefore] The covenant of Grace is with the elect alone. 
P2: Rich is a Father = P2: Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
P3: A father is a son = [Therefore] Sacraments are holy signs and seals for the elect alone.

In your C both the subject and what is predicated are the predicates of P1 and P2 (which makes it invalid); in my C the subject is the subject of P2 and predicates the predicate of P1.



> You could have said:
> 
> 
> Sacraments are holy signs for the elect and the grace exhibited is really granted to them by the Holy Spirit



Where does the second half of this proposition come from in the prior propositions?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Hilasmos said:


> What I would be interested to see is a valid argument that would not be valid when translated into formal poly format (apart from the one in the OP of course  ).


I probably clouded the first thread by giving an example that was in the form of a proper syllogism. I have noted that I'm only looking for a valid argument.

I'm not sure I have the time to put it into a polysyllogism. I've been too busy and, frankly, I don't claim to be an expert in such things. I'm just trying to note that propositions can build arguments and, if the argument is valid, and supported by propositions then it can be sustained.


Hilasmos said:


> Originally Posted by Hilasmos
> P1/C - P4a [Therefore] Sacraments are holy signs and seals for the elect alone.
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the propositions need it be inferred or concluded that Sacraments serve only this purpose.
> Going back to my example. Your logical inference looks like this:
> 
> P1: Rich is a son.
> P2: Rich is a father.
> C: A father is a son
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't follow:
> 
> P1: Rich is a son = P1: [Therefore] The covenant of Grace is with the elect alone.
> P2: Rich is a Father = P2: Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
> P3: A father is a son = [Therefore] Sacraments are holy signs and seals for the elect alone.
Click to expand...

You just did what I said was unwarranted and you should see how goofy the syllogism is by concluding that P1 and P2 are proposed to simply make the idea of Rich=father and Rich=son. In this way of looking at it, no information is added. Father is said to be true of Rich by definition as is son. We could reverse this by your logic and conclude:

A son is a father.

It does not follow because they were never proposed in a way to make the ideas communicable.

P1 is not an analytic statement and neither is P2. You've turned synthetic statements into analytic statements and this is the problem with your conclusion that Sacraments are for the elect alone when the synthetic statement in P2 does not exhaust the meaning of the word Sacrament.

Look at it this way:

P1: Rich is a Marine.
P2: Rich is a father.
C: A Marine is a father.

That's unwarranted when the first two propositions are synthetic and not analytic.




> You could have said:
> 
> 
> Sacraments are holy signs for the elect and the grace exhibited is really granted to them by the Holy Spirit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the second half of this proposition come from in the prior propositions?
Click to expand...

 
As I've said, it's not the _prior_ proposition but the synthetic statements that lead to what a Sacrament is.

A Sacrament:
a. Is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace.
b. Marks out the Church from the world.
c. Seals the grace signified to the elect alone by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Thus, when you look at all the synthetic statements you can find that grace is exhibited in the Sacrament but only actually granted by the Holy Spirit to the elect.


----------



## Hilasmos

> You just did what I said was unwarranted and you should see how goofy the syllogism is by concluding that P1 and P2 are proposed to simply make the idea of Rich=father and Rich=son. In this way of looking at it, no information is added. Father is said to be true of Rich by definition as is son. We could reverse this by your logic and conclude:
> 
> A son is a father.
> 
> It does not follow because they were never proposed in a way to make the ideas communicable.
> 
> P1 is not an analytic statement and neither is P2. You've turned synthetic statements into analytic statements and this is the problem with your conclusion that Sacraments are for the elect alone when the synthetic statement in P2 does not exhaust the meaning of the word Sacrament.
> 
> Look at it this way:
> 
> P1: Rich is a Marine.
> P2: Rich is a father.
> C: A Marine is a father.
> 
> That's unwarranted when the first two propositions are synthetic and not analytic.



Kind of lost me on this. I put them side by side to show how my P1-P3 is not similar at all to your P1-P3. If my conclusion is invalid, which it may be, I don't think it is because of form. For starters, I am not assigning (equaling "=") the predicate to the subject (meaning, I am not saying the CoG = the elect). Secondly, whenever you take a definite subject and assign to it an indefinite predicate, the reverse is invalid (if you were to make your predicates definite, then your syllogism would be valid). I am not assigning the predicates to the subject to begin with, but regardless, I was not thinking of my predicates as indefinite (which is why the two syllogisms are not parallel, which was my only point about that). I think my syllogism may be invalid, based on what you said, concerning what P2 does or does not say as truth. Anyways, moving beyond that... 



> You've turned synthetic statements into analytic statements and this is the problem with your conclusion that Sacraments are for the elect alone when the synthetic statement in P2 does not exhaust the meaning of the word Sacrament.



Whether a proposition is analytic or synthetic does not determine whether I can draw a certain conclusion or not. Analytic and synthetic only has to do with how we know something is true, not what that truth actually tells us, or what we can conclude from it.

P1 Bachelors are unmarried (analytic)
P2 John is a bachelor (synthetic)
C Therefore, John is not married

P1 Everyone in my house is married (synthetic)
P2 John is in my house (synthetic)
C Therefore, John is not a bachelor

P1 and P2 are synthetic statements, and they do not exhaust what is true about Everyone or John in the least bit; but based on the truth stated, the truth about marital status has been exhausted. I can rightly conclude C. 

Thus, your point about "Baptism is a sign and seal of the CoG" and being synthetic is not the issue, in my opinion. The issue is how we interpret this statement. I interprete "Baptism is a sign and seal of the CoG" as:

The sign and seal is not applied to the CoG (meaing, the CoG is not being baptized), thus there must be another assumed subject of the sign. So, Baptism is the seal, a "stamp" (a guarantee even), signifying the stampee's being owned by the CoG. So to paraphrase, Baptism is a sign and seal that _one belongs to_ the CoG. (if this is wrong then I concede). 

Moving along, my view point asks if this is true or not? Yes, it is synthetic, and the meaning of baptism is not exhausted in this, but if what it states is true (which the truth of the propositions are being assumed) then how exclusionary can we be with what is stated based on the proposition itself? When looking at the terminology used, and how I am reading it, when something is sealed (gauranteed, irrevocably decided) it seems to suggest an absolute (synthetic or not). Baptism is a public display (sign) and guarantee of the irrevocable truth (seal) of belonging to the CoG (and only the elect belong to the CoG). 

All that to say, I don't think the issue is analytic or synthetic (unless you mean something else by this), but how you are defining your terms differently than me to arrive at a non absolute statement (since synthetic statments can be absolutes) -- which, in turn, if you define sign/seal to allow a non-absolute, it allows your following propositions to not just be assertions of truth that end up contracting a former assertion truth.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

OK, good Will. Let me try to explain it this way then since you understand what a synthetic statement is:

P1: The United States consists of 50 states alone. (The New Covenant consists of the Elect Alone)
P2: The National Ensign is a symbol of the United States. (A Sacrament is a sign and seal of the CoG)
P3: The National Ensign is a symbol of United States Sovereignty flown on U.S Embassies throughout the world. (A Sacrament visibly marks out the Church from the world)

Now, you tell me, is the _only_ logical conclusion I can draw:

The National Ensign is a symbol of the 50 states alone.


----------



## Hilasmos

> *Semper Fidelis:*
> OK, good Will. Let me try to explain it this way then since you understand what a synthetic statement is:
> 
> P1: The United States consists of 50 states alone. (The New Covenant consists of the Elect Alone)
> P2: The National Ensign is a symbol of the United States. (A Sacrament is a sign and seal of the CoG)
> P3: The National Ensign is a symbol of United States Sovereignty flown on U.S Embassies throughout the world. (A Sacrament visibly marks out the Church from the world)
> 
> Now, you tell me, is the only logical conclusion I can draw:
> 
> The National Ensign is a symbol of the 50 states alone.



No, that is not the only conclusion you can draw. However, in my opinion, in P3 you make a category shift which avoids the conflict. Consider the following:

P1: The United States consists of 50 states alone.
P2: The National Ensign is a symbol of the United States.
_[first granted conclusion: The National Ensign is a symbol of the 50 states alone]_
P3: The [U.S.] National Ensign is a symbol of North America marking it out from the rest of the world.

[conclusion two: we have a conflict in propositions]

I am viewing "Church" in a category of identity -- that is, _who_ is it that is marked out? 

This is why one of the first questions I asked was concerning the identity of the Church. That which corresponds to the elect are the U.S. 50 states. It stands to reason, then, that what should correspond to the non-elect would be other non-U.S. states/provinces/etc... 

Therefore, the marked out "Church" is North America, the grouping together of the U.S. States and the other geographically corresponding countries/provinces (or something like that). (Unless there is a connection of U.S. Sovereignty to the Church I am not seeing, to me Church is still in the category of National identity). Again, this demonstrates that being synthetic or not is a moot point, it is how you interprete the proposition that makes the difference.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Will,

I really don't have time to explain this any more than I have.

First of all, you keep changing the premises. I didn't write P3 as above.

Secondly, the Ensign is said to serve two functions:
1. Symbolize the _United States_
2. Symbolize the _Sovereignty of the Nation_

Within the US are 50 States. The Sovereignty of the Nation is a different _concept_ than the Nation itself. The Church is a different concept than the Covenant of Grace as defined. An embassy is a building that is not one of the 50 states. It is a non-State. Yet, under the National Ensign, it is marked out as under U.S. Sovereignty. A foreign national may, in fact, be free from the authorities breaking down the doors of that embassy if the embassy grants that foreigner sanctuary.

You keep making the error of assuming that if a Sacrament serves to signify and seal something for the CoG that it can do nothing else. I stated carefully and clearly that it serves a dual purpose. It signifies and seals things to the Elect and then signfies things that mark out the Church from the world.

I know you can read what I'm saying. I just put them into sentences and yet, when I put them under notation you continue to insist that this thought cannot be transmitted.

How do you propose I say this: A sacrament signfies and seals spiritual things to the elect alone and it ALSO signifies something visible to the world by marking out the Church therefrom.

Are you not able to read that sentence? Are you unable to make sense of it?

Is God not able to allow a sign to serve one purpose for a specific group and then allow it to serve as a sign more broadly to the community at large?

Am I not able to break that up into sentences that say the same thing without you trying to make them conflict with one another by saying that whatever I say about the purpose of a sign for one group MUST be true of how it serves for another?

I'm at loss on how to make this any clearer Will. If you're convinced that signs can only serve a single purpose then I have no idea how to overcome this as much as I've tried.

In fact, you seem to be denying a tenant of your own theology. What does circumcision signify in RB theology:
P1. Circumcision is a sign of the righteousness that Abraham had by faith.
P2. Circumcision is a sign of the ethnic nation from which the Seed would come.

Which is it Will? It clearly can't be _both_, can it?

Why of course not.

We MUST, in fact, conclude that the nation from which the Seed would come had the righteousness that Abraham had by faith.

What other choice do we have?


----------



## Iconoclast

Semper Fidelis said:


> What I'm wondering is what word to insert into the title of your mixed assembly that you worship with as I'm charitably assuming it is the purest of {insert word here other than churches}. ]



Rich,
When any local assembly,assembles it can be called by the name of the church in that location.
If even in the purest assemblies there is a mixture of true and false professors,that fact does not negate the reality the the church has also assembled in that location.

When your local church assembles, you might have visitors,guests, inquirers also meet with you. If a church vote was to be taken,you might it needful to ask these persons to step out because they are not members.

Now among the professed members of this "purest" of churches.......lets say 30 out of 160 are:
false professors , and truly deceived persons,devoid of the Spirit....
That they attend the weekly meetings does not change the reality that the church..[the 130 faithful,born from above,regenerate members] have assembled in that location.

I know my view is a bit off the path as far as the accepted writings go concerning visible/invisible church. These terms existed before I did,I try and use them, but am not comfortable with how they are mis-used.
My view is that as the blood bought church of God assembles visibly in a local assembly,.....others assemble among them who are not part of the church of visible saints that will visibly assemble on the last day.

In other words.....I acknowledge a mix can come together in a local place...but I maintain that the mixed multitude portion is in no way the church of God. To speak of the goats as the church,when the scripture speaks of them as false brethren,spots in our love feasts,etc. I just cannot do it.
When scripture gives warnings and tells us to *examine ourselves* whether we be *in the faith*, I think this clearly shows this distinction and that such a disctinction needs to be maintained.
When in love we try to encourage someone whose walk,or manner of life seems suspect we are concerned that they might be in danger of coming short of salvation rest. Not being able to see the heart of any other person we attempt to help them think out some of these self examination scriptures not as if we can take the place of the Holy Spirit, but in the sense of Gal 6;


> 1Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
> 
> 2Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.





> 16These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
> 
> 17But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
> 
> 18How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
> 
> 19These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
> 
> 20But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
> 
> 21Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
> 
> 22And of some have compassion, making a difference:
> 
> 23And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
> 
> 24Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,



Thats what I was trying to get at with the example of counterfeit money mixed with the true.
Mixing the false with the true,does not change the reality of the true, or make the false true.

We do not have to have a knowledge of the hidden things of God,just that which is revealed. 
p1] We know God has a called out people who are to assemble locally.

p2] We call those God called people who assemble,the church

p3] Others who assemble with them,guests, visitors, unsaved family members,if not yet called of God can not be rightly said to be the church.

p4] Persons who make a false profession, yet are not "called out" by the Spirit of God are in truth not the church of God.

5] if such persons manifest their reprobate condition,they are put out of the meetings of the church,as never having been actually a living part of it.

6] other such persons will be discovered on the last day in the language of Mt 7:21-24....depart from Me, *I never at anytime knew you*.

Thats what I mean by what I have posted.


----------



## Hilasmos

Rich, 

Thanks and I apologize for inducing you to spend time on this. I will end my contribution with this post, as we have obviously reached the end, please don't waste any more time as apparently we are not connecting. 



> First of all, you keep changing the premises. I didn't write P3 as above.



Yes, I know. I changed it to paint the picture of how I am viewing the situation differently than yours.



> You keep making the error of assuming that if a Sacrament serves to signify and seal something for the CoG that it can do nothing else...
> 
> Is God not able to allow a sign to serve one purpose for a specific group and then allow it to serve as a sign more broadly to the community at large?



I never asserted that it cannot serve two purposes. What I have been trying to get to the bottom of is the implications of the two purposes being a "both/and" and not an "either/or," although I have proceeded poorly. I clearly articulated and asked if my interpretation of P2 was correct (that baptism serves as a sign and seal of belonging to the CoG). Then I also ask, in P4, what does it mean for the Church to be marked out? 

The only responses I get is that I am confusing analytic with synthetic, and the issues I am dealing with are not addressed. 

Anyways, there is no need to respond or proceed from here. But, to try and clarify for anyone that reads the thread in general, a simplification of my point could be based on this: 



> *A.A. Hodge:* The sacraments being seals of the covenant of grace -- at once pledges of God's faithfulness to us and of our obligation to him -- they of course (1.) Mark us as the divine property, and bind, us to the performance of our duty; and hence are (2.) Badges of our profession, and, putting a visible difference between those who belong to the Church and the rest of the world...



Just because a sacrament also serves a second purpose of visibly marking out the Church does not mean the former truth of the sacrament sealing their obligation to God is negated. Those under obligation are under covenant. So, is the Church of P4 held to any covenant stipulations. If it is, than it is under the covenant (and, as the argument starts, this is with the elect alone). 

P1. U.S birth certificates are a sign indicating subjection to laws/regulations of the U.S.
P2. U.S birth certificates are a sign marking out Americans from the rest of the world.

Apart from some unknown exception, those marked out as Americans are still under the "covenant" of the United States, if P1 is true. Anyways, I am done and I apologize that I just can't get it, I will keep thinking about it on my own.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Hilasmos said:


> Just because a sacrament also serves a second purpose of visibly marking out the Church does not mean the former truth of the sacrament sealing their obligation to God is negated. Those under obligation are under covenant. So, is the Church of P4 held to any covenant stipulations. If it is, than it is under the covenant (and, as the argument starts, this is with the elect alone).


 
First, I apologize for getting exasperated. It was a long day when I replied. I had taught twice that day and was exhausted. In one sense my sin is compounded having taught on sin that very morning and I proved myself to be chief of sinners.

Next, I think our interaction has kind of moved beyond the point of the thread. What's difficult in this scenario is that I'm not working within paedobaptist theology in this case but a theoretical theology of a credobaptist reading of Jer 31 and Heb 8 (P1) and then making an argument for paedobaptism on the basis that the same person who concludes P1 also sees the command in P9.

That said, let's take you mind off of this particular problem for a second and look at what your own confession says as you really need to wrestle with the same question you just asked for your Confession:

P1: Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him;3 of remission of sins;4 and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.5 
3 Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27 
4 Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16 
5 Rom. 6:4

P2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.6 
6 Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36,37, 2:41, 8:12, 18:8

Notice the spiritual aspects in P1 that can only be true of the elect and the visible aspect of P2 with which the Church decides to baptize. (Incidentally, if you want to complete your syllogism in the other thread, this is the "regulative principle" that you would need to shore up your argument to make it valid).

Now, do you want to say this in conclusion by connecting the two:

Conclusion: Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, have fellowship with Christ, in his death and resurrection; are engrafted into him, have their sins remitted, and are given up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.

Do you see it?

In other words, in your own Confession, the ordinance serves as a "hinge". On the one hand the ordinance signifies everything in P1 for the party baptized and P2 notes that the ordinance belongs to credible professors.

We both understand, however, that the ordinance can serve a spiritual purpose for the elect (by the power of God) while the sign may be applied and the person baptized may possess none of those realities but he is baptized because, from all outward appearances, the Church makes the best spiritual judgment it can make.

As I noted as well, if we look at the way the Covenant of Circumcision operates in the 1689 LBCF (see especially the Appendix), circumcision serves a dual purpose. On the one hand, it is both a sign and a seal of the faith that Abraham had by faith while still uncircumcised AND it is said to be a national marker to separate out a people through which the Seed would come. It fulfills the "Two Nation" promise that the framers of your Confession envision in it.

Furthermore, if you look at the way the Sacrament operates in my arguments above notice something important:

1. It is a sign AND seal for the elect.
2. It is a sign to the rest of the world.

The benefits of the Sacrament are not sealed in the second aspect but it only serves a signatory function. I don't know if that helps but it is not operating at the same level in the visible marker category as it is for the elect with spiritual things. The connection is made sovereignly by the Holy Spirit to those He knows.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Iconoclast said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm wondering is what word to insert into the title of your mixed assembly that you worship with as I'm charitably assuming it is the purest of {insert word here other than churches}. ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich,
> When any local assembly,assembles it can be called by the name of the church in that location.
> If even in the purest assemblies there is a mixture of true and false professors,that fact does not negate the reality the the church has also assembled in that location.
> 
> When your local church assembles, you might have visitors,guests, inquirers also meet with you. If a church vote was to be taken,you might it needful to ask these persons to step out because they are not members.
Click to expand...

When your local "assembly" meets, what is the proportion of true to false professors?

How do you know that you're not the only elect person in the entire assembly?

If 51% of the assembly is false professors is it a Synagogue of Satan at that point? A lower percentage?

I think you really need to wrestle with what you're trying to get at. Quoting to me the fruits of a regenerated heart in terms of what is _expected_ out of an assembly that calls itself by Christ's name doesn't solve the dilemma. You can quote every text that talks about what you and everyone else _should_ be in your local assembly but if it is *not* then you have no way of knowing. You might be reasonably sure but if you were really consistent on this point then you really shouldn't have the name "Church" in your tagline regarding your local assembly. You might want to put an asterisk next to the name like:

Church*

*-As near as we can tell but, for all we know, they might all go out from Christ and they were really never of us.


----------



## Hilasmos

> P1: Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him;3 of remission of sins;4 and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.5
> 3 Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27
> 4 Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16
> 5 Rom. 6:4
> 
> P2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.6
> 6 Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36,37, 2:41, 8:12, 18:8
> 
> Notice the spiritual aspects in P1 that can only be true of the elect and the visible aspect of P2 with which the Church decides to baptize. (Incidentally, if you want to complete your syllogism in the other thread, this is the "regulative principle" that you would need to shore up your argument to make it valid).
> 
> Now, do you want to say this in conclusion by connecting the two:
> 
> Conclusion: Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, have fellowship with Christ, in his death and resurrection; are engrafted into him, have their sins remitted, and are given up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.



Thanks Rich. I completely understand your point above. And it was through the other credo exercise it was impressed upon me that the NC/elect argument doesn't work (at least from how I can formulate it now). 

This is why, in part, after making my syllogism I said I didn't like it. In order to arrive at my conclusion I didn't argue in line with what is stated in the LBCF (meaning, I didn't argue that baptism was a sign of belonging to the NC/union with Christ). I ended up saying baptism was nothing more than an external mode of confession/faith/appeal to God; or, the act of baptism itself is virtually synonymous with a confession of faith. I just used P1 as a point to get the ball rolling, but I could have arrived at the same conclusion with the same steps if the NC included elect and non-elect. Thus, even if my argument is valid, it doesn't prove anything. 



> Furthermore, if you look at the way the Sacrament operates in my arguments above notice something important:
> 
> 1. It is a sign AND seal for the elect.
> 2. It is a sign to the rest of the world.



Thanks again, this helps differentiate our two different modes of thinking. The original premise said it is a "sign AND seal of the CoG." Based on what you put above in (1.) are you saying that your original premise means: "It is a sign AND seal for the elect concerning the CoG?" Which, if that is the case, this is not how I was interpreting it at all, which resulted in my circles of argument.

My interpretation was: "It [to be baptized] is a sign AND seal for *the objects of Baptism* that they are under covenant" (not that grace is necessarily conferred). I guess I was reading it this way since nothing was established yet in regards to who are the objects of sacraments yet. 

So, if we say:

1. It is a sign AND seal for the *elect* that they are under the CoG.
2. It is a visible sign for professors marking them out from non-professors.

There can be two different objects of baptism to meet the two different purposes of baptism, and, therefore, they don't conflict.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I would modify 1. and 2. just a bit but you're closing in on it.

Remember, if you see above, the sealing is done by the Holy Spirit for those who are elect. It is a sign of all the benefits of the Covenant for everyone who witnesses it but the graces are only sealed to the elect. They only belong to them. Perhaps I could write it as this:

A sacrament:

1. Signfies the grace of the CoG to everyone who witnesses it and these graces are truly sealed to the elect alone by the Sovereign work of the Holy Spirit. (P3, P5, P6)
2. Marks out the visible Church from the world. (P4)

You can actually see the same idea communicated in the LBCF if you replace the word Sacrament with Ordinance.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Incidentally, at the risk of confusing you, one could point out that a Sacrament _is_ a sign of the Covenant of Grace to the non-elect but not a seal to them. I just want to make that clear. In other words, through a visible act it directs the attention of the receiver to something about the CoG, but that's different than saying that it is both a sign _and_ a seal for all who receive it.

Thus when we say that a Sacrament is a sign and a seal of the CoG, I think you were interpreting to mean that it is a sign and a seal _in every case it is adminstered_ when the sentence merely says that it is a sign and a seal where further propositions demonstrated in what ways (and to whom) it signified things and in what ways (and to whom) it sealed things.


----------



## Hilasmos

Thanks for clarifying, I was thinking by witnesses you should be able to include non-elect. Hopefully I am on the same page now that I understand the meaning of the premise, thanks again.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Phew! I'm glad we could finally understand one another. It definitely demonstrates how even seemingly obvious language isn't always so obvious.


----------

