DNM300
Puritan Board Freshman
You are asserting this, now several times. It would be helpful for the discussion if you would argue this point - that is, seek to establish it demonstratively.
Credobaptist objection
- Thread starter bnjam
- Start date
- Status
DNM300
Puritan Board Freshman
This line of reasoning does not sound good. If you believe that’s what the apostles were doing (confirming election), then argue that point.
But we are not to reason this way: “why not do what seems right in our eyes?” I trust that you don’t really mean this but there’s overlap I think.
Where is the argument? You are only asserting the position. We have already determined that baptism represents salvation, not profession; indeed, that salvation itself requires possession of faith, not profession. So where are you getting profession of faith from. Certainly not Scripture.
Why doesn't visible church suffice? To be born in Israel sufficed for circumcision. The visible church obviously has a central role in Scripture. Who is man to lay it aside?
[automerge]1770408805[/automerge]
Yes, and baptism represents that for an elect infant as much as for an adult. One will not find the infant-adult dichotomy of antipaedobaptist reasoning in Scripture. It is being imported from elsewhere.
But we have already established that elect infants are saved by Christ. They are believers. Whatever you say about adults applies equally to them.
Elect infants are actually saved and redeemed. Your antipaedobaptist reasoning is not helping you to articulate a position that accords salvation to infants. This demonstrates something is definitely amiss. Instead of salvation informing your doctrine of baptism, it seems you practice of baptism is interfering with your doctrine of salvation and taking it in an Anabaptist direction. This is not Reformed.
Last edited:
Its reformed Baptist position, as we do not see water baptism to be done except towards those who are now actually part of the new Covenant of faith Community, which requires them to be able to profess/confess Jesus as Savior and Lord
[automerge]1770412107[/automerge]
Where does it state though in the scriptures that only some children are of the elect, instead of all children being in such a state due to the choosing by God to have them saved by the Cross of Christ?
[automerge]1770412235[/automerge]
The direct evidence everything someone was water baptized was that they had confessed Jesus as Lord, while Infant baptism would be based upon implication and assumption ,based upon seeing that water baptism would be the equivalent to circumcision under the Old testament period
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
Romans 9.11-14 is pretty explicit.
Infants are a "part of the new Covenant of faith Community." This is what you are failing to deal with. Call it "Reformed Baptist" or whatever you please. It is not Reformed. The Reformed have a distinct doctrine of salvation that includes infants whereas you exclude them. You allow your practice of baptism to affect the way you think about infants. And so whenever you make statements like what is quoted above, you exclude infants, which is basically an Anabaptist soteriology.
Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated, before they had done anything good or bad. Election and reprobation are inclusive of infants.
There is no such direct evidence. You are placing into a specific relationship things that appear in connection with each other in the Scriptures in the case of a certain class of people. The Scriptures never set this down as an exclusive condition for baptism. It is something you are adding to the Scriptures. And you do so because you make baptism a sign of profession of faith rather than of salvation, contrary to the Scriptures.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Good morning,
Reformed Baptists affirm OT Israel is indeed the Church. We are not dispensationalists. (Although many
"progressive" Baptist covenantalists will split the definition, deny the 4th Commandment and still call themselves "Reformed Baptists" because they think "Calvinistic doctrines of grace" = "Reformed".
We affirm OT Israel is the visible Church. We do have a different definition of "visible Church" from Scripture than you do, but that split in our theologies is downstream from the definition of what is the "seal" of the New Covenant per WCF vs. 1689.
1689owen
Puritan Board Freshman
I would say, this needs some clarifications. I thought, @brandonadams was the typical RB position, when he writes: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/is-1689-federalism-dispensational/
See also: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/israel-and-the-church-see-the-difference/
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
If @NorthernCrofter wants to say it needs clarification particularly in the context of the seal of the Old Covenant vs. the seal of the New Covenant then I will answer him accordingly. Articles by Adams or anyone else can only muddy things here right now. That is the primary deficiency of 1689 adherents on this board generally: lobbing articles at others instead of discussing things with them. (I count myself chief offender in the past and am trying to amend my ways and approach).
1689owen
Puritan Board Freshman
I can understand this sentiment.
So, please help *me* sorting this out. I genuinely do not understand, how a 1689fed could not have the view (Israel not being the Church) described by Adams; but I am no expert on this.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
One needs to define terms carefully. When you say "Israel" do you mean the nation, or before the nation was formed as in Jacob's new name? Or before that? Or after that? The remnant huddled and working quietly in Babylon? Or later still? the remnant returned and building the wall? Or all iterations in history?
When you say "Church" what do you mean? Visible? Invisible? Those sealed into the Covenant of Grace by saving faith born of the Spirit? Or those circumcised in flesh only?
Andrew's concern is he does not see the difference between 1689 federalism and dispensationalism. On the level of dispensationalist claims re: their definition of "Israel" vs. "the Church" we can agree with Westminster against them for they deny not only the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace but the Covenant of Redemption as well. We do not deny these. We affirm them.
1689owen
Puritan Board Freshman
Thank you, I probably should take some time to think about this deeper.
One question for now: What did you mean by "for" in this sentence? I don't see the logic, for the definition of the church is not only tied to which covenants one subscribes to, but also how one understands the covenants and their memberships.
One question for now: What did you mean by "for" in this sentence? I don't see the logic, for the definition of the church is not only tied to which covenants one subscribes to, but also how one understands the covenants and their memberships.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Here "for" would be used the same way as "because".
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
Is this affirmed officially in a document/standard?
All of OT Israel according to the flesh or only those making a profession of faith?
I don't think you have a different definition - the entire phrase was replaced in the RB Confession with a completely different concept: "visible saints." The contrast in Chapter 26 of the 2LBC is made between "The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect," (26.1) and "All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints." (26.2)
I believe what I said is that the former has often led to the latter. I specifically stated that:
DNM300
Puritan Board Freshman
I would assume some do but… this is news to me.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
If by OT Israel is meant those whose faith is counted to them for righteousness, then all affirm that I know of. Yet if OT Israel is meant by all physical seed of Abraham, then (as I understand) no one does, but Israel works as a type.
[automerge]1770657103[/automerge]
For the "visible" qualifier: according to the flesh.
Last edited:
DNM300
Puritan Board Freshman
Good clarification. This is what I meant: “The whole congregation of Israel, physically and visibly considered.”
JvMill
Puritan Board Sophomore
Brad,
I’m having a hard time tracking between these two statements. Can you clarify? Specifically the ‘visible church’ in the OT and how that relates to your view of Israel as the physical seed of Abraham.
Thanks.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
According to the flesh via natural descent from Abraham or according to the flesh via circumcision (which would include non-Abrahamic proselytes)? Either way, why in your system are children according to the flesh part of the visible Church in the previous dispensation but not now?
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Ugh, so many quotes of my posts:
The visible Church is made up of all people professing faith in Christ and obedience unto God not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, and the invisible is tied to justification which is same Old and New, for while the justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament (Gal. 3:9; Rom. 4:22-24), this does not rule out only God gives the grace of regeneration to anyone - naturally born or proselytizing.
[automerge]1770662770[/automerge]
No thanks.
The visible Church is made up of all people professing faith in Christ and obedience unto God not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, and the invisible is tied to justification which is same Old and New, for while the justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament (Gal. 3:9; Rom. 4:22-24), this does not rule out only God gives the grace of regeneration to anyone - naturally born or proselytizing.
[automerge]1770662770[/automerge]
No thanks.
Last edited:
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
So you are saying that the visible Church is made up of all people professing faith in Christ and obedience unto God according to the flesh? In other words, the visible Church are those who profess faith and live a life outwardly consistent with that profession? Additionally, are saying that in the Old Testament, the visible Church consisted only of those Israelites who professed faith and outwardly kept the law?
1689owen
Puritan Board Freshman
I don't get what @No Other Name says; and I never heard a 1689fed making it that complicated. But I may be immature in my understanding. Will silently follow for some time.
It seems to me that you are much closer to the Presbyterian view than your regular antipaedobaptist. I think that is a good thing. You are not allowing your practice of baptism to drive your theology in a particular direction. The theology should inform the practice. But some of the reasons why antipaedobaptists will tend to go in different directions, is, (1) infants were included under this professing church of the OT. I don't think anyone denies that fact. This is why antipaedobaptists recede from the idea that there is continuity between the OT and NT "church," or between the old and new "covenant," as they term it. And (2) elect infants were still justified by faith in Christ. If it is the same now, and they were given the sign of ingrafting into Christ THEN, what rationale leads to denying them the sign of ingrafting into Christ NOW? Hopefully by putting it in this way you can see the internal logic whereby the rejection of infants becomes a driver of the theological conclusions.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
It's really not that complicated. OT Israel was a type of the NT Church. Nevertheless, regenerate, elect, OT saints were members of the Universal Church because they had the blessings of the New Covenant.
Last edited:
What does "they were a type of the Church" mean. In non abstract terms.
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Graduate
Good question.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
It prefigured the Church. Type / Anti-Type relationship.
Which made them what, practically speaking? I'm not being obtuse or inflammatory. It's a serious question to forward discussion. If they are a type of the Church, what were they? Type seems to mean here something other than, what is that other than?
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
A theocratic nation defined in relationship with God as defined by prior covenants to the New Covenant. Since many of us believe the New Covenant is in substance different from prior covenants, those who belong to the New Covenant are a different kind of group than Israel.
Ok. Are they a kind of Church, but not THE Church?
- Status
