Did you switch sides? paedobaptist/credobaptist

[Afterthought]

Recognizing the implications of Genesis 17 for the matter, and I Cor 7. Those were the key texts. The key work for me was Samuel Rutherford's Covenant of Life Opened, though I read a lot of other works and articles at the time when I was studying it too.

 

[No Other Name]

The Baptist idea that the sign of the covenant is only for the truly redeemed is contrary to the way covenant signs were administered throughout the Bible.

Lightheartedness aside, herein this portion lies another of many hinges in our differences. No, the 1689 Baptist idea that the sign of the Covenant is only for the truly redeemed is not at all contrary to the way covenant signs were administered throughout the Bible.
[automerge]1774783505[/automerge]

Yep, exactly why I am a credobaptist

I was actually making this very post when I read his reply before I noticed you beat me to it

 

[Northern Crofter]

the... idea that the sign of the Covenant is only for the truly redeemed is not at all contrary to the way covenant signs were administered throughout the Bible.

Could you flesh out a few examples of this?

 

[No Other Name]

Could you flesh out a few examples of this?

Flesh out a few examples? We have the same Bible, my friend. If a paedobaptist says that the rainbow was a sign to all of creation, the just and unjust alike, we say yes and amen. Not only were babies circumcised on the eighth day, but both Isaac and Ishmael were circumcised, again we say yes and amen. Everyone in the nation of Israel was expected to observe the sabbath, and yet again, guess what we say? Yes and amen

Now if a paedobaptist has an explanation that does not differentiate the physical promises from the spiritual and merely reasons thusly: "because the promise is for you and your children" we do not agree that it means what you say it means. Ok, I believe we had reached that point where we agree to disagree.

But that is not what @En Kristo did. He took our difference farther. He said: "The Baptist idea that the sign of the covenant is only for the truly redeemed is contrary to the way covenant signs were administered throughout the Bible."

Is it? Or is it contrary to the way paedobaptists view the way covenant signs were administered? One of these claims is not like the other. One acknowledges the historical differences in systems of covenant theology between confessions. The other claim is more definitive and - if true - would beg the follow-up question of why credobaptists would be allowed to be here at all? Why we should not just be dismissed from the Board along with Lutherans, Anglicans, Arminians, et al.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Is it? Or is it contrary to the way paedobaptists view the way covenant signs were administered? One of these claims is not like the other. One acknowledges the historical differences in systems of covenant theology between confessions. The other claim is more definitive and - if true - would beg the follow-up question of why credobaptists would be allowed to be here at all? Why we should not just be dismissed from the Board along with Lutherans, Anglicans, Arminians, et al.

Now that is a good question.

 

[No Other Name]

Essentially, what I am saying is in these discussions, things get overextended into a certain lack of charity and view of the confessional differences. We "confuse the sign with the thing signified" but we really do not. Now we do confuse the sign with the thing signified by your definitions of these things, but often our definitions are dismissed without engagement by some here in posts here like the one I replied to.
[automerge]1774871575[/automerge]

Now that is a good question.

If they boot us, it was a pleasure.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Could you flesh out a few examples of this?

I second that. Please do flesh out a few examples of this.

 

[No Other Name]

I second that. Please do flesh out a few examples of this.

No thanks. There are other threads, and I don't feel like performing on demand in this one.

My only purpose was for all those paedobaptist posters who handwave dismissively the Baptist covenant theology because it fails WCF's definition of "sign" and "thing signified" and never consider the evaluation outside of that framework in discussion between views. When this happens, we are so "obviously wrong" and "obviously" unbiblical that - reading these types of posts - I am surprised there is not a petition to remove 1689 from allowable confessions at all.

 

[alexanderjames]

Having come from an unbelieving family, when I came to faith as an adult I thought I needed to get baptised because I had believed the gospel and didn't really think about the fact that I had been "christened" as a baby. Not having any church over me or any other information (I had entered into the faith alone through online means), and probably concerned by passages like Mark 16:16, I tried baptising myself in the bath. It was not for several years before I genuinely felt settled that my infant baptism is the one I consider valid in God's sight, in spite of the abuse of the sacrament with it being administered to someone without believing parents. What mercy that God should bring such a one as me into the people of God, I cannot fathom.

 

[Northern Crofter]

...things get overextended into a certain lack of charity and view of the confessional differences....

...all those paedobaptist posters who handwave dismissively the Baptist covenant theology because it fails WCF's definition of "sign" and "thing signified" and never consider the evaluation outside of that framework in discussion between views.

Brother, I was just asking if you could provide an example of a passage (particularly in the previous dispensation) where you see the sign of the Covenant being only for the truly redeemed. I'm trying to understand your point of view - I don't believe that is uncharitable or dismissive. Who knows, you might convince me!

 

[No Other Name]

Brother, I was just asking if you could provide an example of a passage (particularly in the previous dispensation) where you see the sign of the Covenant being only for the truly redeemed. I'm trying to understand your point of view - I don't believe that is uncharitable or dismissive. Who knows, you might convince me!

I referred to the post I was replying to, not you. We have been down this road with the very definition of the Covenant of Grace which is just as extant in the Old as the New.

Why is everyone acting as if I am being unreasonable here? I replied and am referring to Post # 88 where if what is claimed is indeed objectively true and proveable, then my question would be why would 1689 be allowed at all? Why wouldn't it be disallowed with the Lutheran and Anglican confessions?

My implication is that 1689 has an "error" according to WCF that is not the same category as the errors of Lutheranism or Anglicanism or Arminianism.

Yet the same category of error is charged by some eg, "Baptists confuse what is descriptive in the New Testament with what is normative." (Post 88)

^ Now I - of course - disagree not only with the conclusion but disagree with the framing behind the statement.

My question - which is somehow eluding so many here - is this statement could be said of the Arminian as well, yes?

And if one truly was convinced of the conclusion, one must pause and wonder why one is allowed here and not the other.

OR pause and wonder if the conclusion is even reasonable in the first place given the differences in the confessional coventantal systems (which is what I was endeavoring to subtly suggest).

 

[YeshuaFan]

Yep, exactly why I am a credobaptist

Is it not the outward sign testifying to the inward work of salvation already been accomplished?

 

[paranymph]

Is it not the outward sign testifying to the inward work of salvation already been accomplished?

It is the sign of the new covenant. I would not put it quite the way you did, as we know that we sometimes give the sign unwittingly to those who are not converted.

 

[MW]

The other claim is more definitive and - if true - would beg the follow-up question of why credobaptists would be allowed to be here at all?

They keep the discussion alive, which gives us an opportunity to present the truth for inquiring minds.

Seriously, though, the "Calvinist revival" connected with Banner of Truth and other organisations had forged a kind of united front against Arminianism. So there is a shared space in the Calvinist world where we recognise salvation issues are more important than baptism issues. The problem, though, is that infants are people too, and they must be saved. That is where I prefer to direct the conversation. If infants are saved it is because they are in the covenant. But in discussions of this kind they are often presumed to be excluded from the covenant, as if they are not saved along with the rest of God's people.

 

[No Other Name]

The problem, though, is that infants are people too, and they must be saved. That is where I prefer to direct the conversation. If infants are saved it is because they are in the covenant. But in discussions of this kind they are often presumed to be excluded from the covenant, as if they are not saved along with the rest of God's people.

If that is all to the main issue of debate here, then maybe we can head into a season of peace.

I feel confident that every 1689 Baptist on this thread would agree wholeheartedly to the following statements:

1) Infants are human beings, knit in the womb by God, bearing His image and have souls in the fullest sense of the meaning of that word and its qualia.

2) Infants are born into the fall of Adam and need salvation.

3) If infants are saved, they are in the Covenant of Grace. We 1689 Baptists affirm Perkins' Golden Chaine and that the color coding of the elect on the left side of that diagram comes from God and God alone.

4) In no post ever has it ever been presumed by myself nor any other credobaptist that infants are excluded from the Covenant of Grace. We affirm their inclusion specifically. (1689 10.3)

5) While we differ on the means and methodology of infant salvation with our brothers adhering to Westminster, we acknowledge their error here is of secondary importance to the primary issues of the Gospel of Christ, and again affirm Westminster churches and 3 Forms churches (and any others I cannot think of right now) are true churches of Christ and brothers in the faith in every sense of that word and its qualia.

 

[John Nyberg]

If that is all to the main issue of debate here, then maybe we can head into a season of peace.

Yes, and Amen! May the Holy Spirit illuminate our minds to see the preciousness of our unity in Christ.

Psalm 133:

“Behold, how good and pleasant it is
when brothers dwell in unity!
It is like the precious oil on the head,
running down on the beard,
on the beard of Aaron,
running down on the collar of his robes!
It is like the dew of Hermon,
which falls on the mountains of Zion!
For there the Lord has commanded the blessing,
life forevermore.”

While we differ on the means and methodology of infant salvation with our brothers adhering to Westminster, we acknowledge their error here is of secondary importance to the primary issues of the Gospel of Christ, and again affirm Westminster churches and 3 Forms churches (and any others I cannot think of right now) are true churches of Christ and brothers in the faith in every sense of that word and its qualia.

Again, yes and amen! While we share a bond with true believers regardless of tradition (and this is not a superficial unity), we should rejoice even more in our shared confessionalism.

 

[YeshuaFan]

It is the sign of the new covenant. I would not put it quite the way you did, as we know that we sometimes give the sign unwittingly to those who are not converted.

true, for only God knows their true state of someone fully, but we are still to apply and administer that water baptism towards just those who have professed faith in Jesus as their savior and lord, correct?
[automerge]1774969229[/automerge]

They keep the discussion alive, which gives us an opportunity to present the truth for inquiring minds.

Seriously, though, the "Calvinist revival" connected with Banner of Truth and other organisations had forged a kind of united front against Arminianism. So there is a shared space in the Calvinist world where we recognise salvation issues are more important than baptism issues. The problem, though, is that infants are people too, and they must be saved. That is where I prefer to direct the conversation. If infants are saved it is because they are in the covenant. But in discussions of this kind they are often presumed to be excluded from the covenant, as if they are not saved along with the rest of God's people.

Would not the covenant relationship with God though be based upon god election and predestination towards them and not any rite?
[automerge]1774969304[/automerge]

If that is all to the main issue of debate here, then maybe we can head into a season of peace.

I feel confident that every 1689 Baptist on this thread would agree wholeheartedly to the following statements:

1) Infants are human beings, knit in the womb by God, bearing His image and have souls in the fullest sense of the meaning of that word and its qualia.

2) Infants are born into the fall of Adam and need salvation.

3) If infants are saved, they are in the Covenant of Grace. We 1689 Baptists affirm Perkins' Golden Chaine and that the color coding of the elect on the left side of that diagram comes from God and God alone.

4) In no post ever has it ever been presumed by myself nor any other credobaptist that infants are excluded from the Covenant of Grace. We affirm their inclusion specifically. (1689 10.3)

5) While we differ on the means and methodology of infant salvation with our brothers adhering to Westminster, we acknowledge their error here is of secondary importance to the primary issues of the Gospel of Christ, and again affirm Westminster churches and 3 Forms churches (and any others I cannot think of right now) are true churches of Christ and brothers in the faith in every sense of that word and its qualia.

Would not the covenant relationship with God for children though be based upon God election and predestination towards them and not any rite?

 

[MW]

4) In no post ever has it ever been presumed by myself nor any other credobaptist that infants are excluded from the Covenant of Grace. We affirm their inclusion specifically. (1689 10.3)

That is what I have pointed to from time to time. There is still the category of elect infants. But there is no "sign" of it. This is what stands out like a sore thumb to the Reformed.
[automerge]1774986613[/automerge]

Would not the covenant relationship with God though be based upon god election and predestination towards them and not any rite?

That is true for all the elect. But why should some of the elect be excluded from the covenant sign? It doesn't fit within the Reformed view of the sacraments.

 

[No Other Name]

That is what I have pointed to from time to time. There is still the category of elect infants. But there is no "sign" of it. This is what stands out like a sore thumb to the Reformed.

This is what I have responded to from time to time. Election is always sealed by God and man can do nothing to encourage God to seal nor discourage God not to seal. (I know you agree here even if we do not see this statement the same exact way)

In the Old, the sign is for the visible members of the Covenant and so it is with the New. (I know you agree here even if we do not see this statement in the same exact way)

Yes, we disagree on the nature of the visible membership but we do not disagree on the invisible membership and who it is that seals them to eternal life.

Nor do we disagree on whether an elect infant is elect - even if the "sign" is not even implemented in every case. (eg. while we do have theological differences of definitions, there is no practical difference between us in how a minister counsels grieving parents who are believers in cases of miscarriage/stillbirth/death by vehicular accident on the way to infant baptism etc).

 

[Northern Crofter]

...there is no practical difference between us in how a minister counsels grieving parents who are believers in cases of miscarriage/stillbirth/death by vehicular accident on the way to infant baptism etc

I'm not sure that is accurate. We see the child of a professing parent as a member of the covenant before baptism. The bolded part has no bearing in the Reformed view. We baptise them as a sign and seal of what they already possess. This, I believe, is the crux of the difference between the Reformed and Particular Baptist. In practice, I believe that gives us more hope.

 

[BroughtToYouByNewEngland]

I've been a paedobaptist for as long as I've had an opinion on the subject, but I have changed my mind about baptismal regeneration since becoming Reformed. That is, I once believed it and now I do not. I think Romans 2 paired with Acts 2:39 color baptism in such a way that it must be interpreted covenantally, insofar as it is the circumcision into the people of God within the New Covenant in Christ.

 

[YeshuaFan]

This is what I have responded to from time to time. Election is always sealed by God and man can do nothing to encourage God to seal nor discourage God not to seal. (I know you agree here even if we do not see this statement the same exact way)

In the Old, the sign is for the visible members of the Covenant and so it is with the New. (I know you agree here even if we do not see this statement in the same exact way)

Yes, we disagree on the nature of the visible membership but we do not disagree on the invisible membership and who it is that seals them to eternal life.

Nor do we disagree on whether an elect infant is elect - even if the "sign" is not even implemented in every case. (eg. while we do have theological differences of definitions, there is no practical difference between us in how a minister counsels grieving parents who are believers in cases of miscarriage/stillbirth/death by vehicular accident on the way to infant baptism etc).

If the infant was one of the very elect, would they not be saved even without no water baptism until their had a Believers water baptism then?
[automerge]1775058422[/automerge]

That is what I have pointed to from time to time. There is still the category of elect infants. But there is no "sign" of it. This is what stands out like a sore thumb to the Reformed.
[automerge]1774986613[/automerge]


That is true for all the elect. But why should some of the elect be excluded from the covenant sign? It doesn't fit within the Reformed view of the sacraments.

If the infant was one of the very elect, would they not be saved even without no water baptism until their had a Believers water baptism then?

 

[No Other Name]

The bolded part has no bearing in the Reformed view. We baptise them as a sign and seal of what they already possess.

That was presumed and taken into account in my post.

In practice, I believe that gives us more hope.

If you say so. Congrats.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Do you agree with this Reformed statement: "Since we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy" (Dort 1.17)?

If not, how can you say you have equal (or more) hope?

 

[No Other Name]

I don't know Dort like I know 1689. But I don't believe there is Biblical warrant to equate the ground of election with the ground of their parents' covenant status as that quote seems to do.

As for hope, the same Biblical basis you have in your Chapters 3, 5, and 8 for your confession are the same as mine. His decree and mercy is a free gift to all the elect (Rom. 5:18)

 

[DNM300]

Do you agree with this Reformed statement: "Since we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy" (Dort 1.17)?

If not, how can you say you have equal (or more) hope?

I believe Dort is drawing upon a certain exegetical tradition of 1 Cor. 7:14. Those who would follow, Dr. Gill or John Tombes on this passage would not grant the federal-holiness of children. The passage means something different to them. (I am not bashing; I’m drawing attention to an important divergence.)

 

[Northern Crofter]

I don't know Dort like I know 1689. But I don't believe there is Biblical warrant to equate the ground of election with the ground of their parents' covenant status as that quote seems to do.

As for hope, the same Biblical basis you have in your Chapters 3, 5, and 8 for your confession are the same as mine. His decree and mercy is a free gift to all the elect (Rom. 5:18)

I believe Dort is drawing upon a certain exegetical tradition of 1 Cor. 7:14. Those who would follow, Dr. Gill or John Tombes on this passage would not grant the federal-holiness of children.

I agree that the WCF and 1689 agree. But there is a larger Reformed tradition which gives more hope than the Particular Baptist tradition. There was a season in life in which I found great comfort and hope in the belief that "godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy." Is there anything similar in the Particular Baptist tradition?

 

[No Other Name]

Is there anything similar in the Particular Baptist tradition?

Not on the basis of family relations nor parental status in the covenant nor parental actions nor parents' faith, no.

 

[MarrowMan]

The difference in our understanding of “I will be God to you and to your children after you” is significant in terms of grounding hope concerning the eternal welfare of our children.” Those who hold to IB are not looking for reasons why that promise holds true for our children, but for reasons it does not (I.e. a rejection of the promise). When our children die in infancy, we have no reason to believe that God was not God to them.

 

[Slave-to-the-Light-777]

We could apply exactly the same logic to believer’s baptism. Would the elect adult be saved without receiving believer’s baptism? I’m assuming that you would say yes, because you don’t believe baptism is necessary for salvation. So if the elect person would be saved without believer’s baptism, then by your own logic, believer’s baptism is also unnecessary. The problem with this argument is that you’ve applied a standard to infant baptism that you wouldn’t apply to your own practice. That’s just special pleading.

And it doesn’t stop there. Would the elect person be saved without ever hearing the gospel? God is sovereign. He could, in principle, regenerate someone without the instrumentality of preaching. Does that make preaching optional or unnecessary? The answer is obviously no, because God has ordained means, and His people are obligated to use them, and He works through them, and to despise or neglect them is to treat God’s own appointments with contempt.