Did you switch sides? paedobaptist/credobaptist

[No Other Name]

The problem with Collins' teaching on baptism (which is one of the reasons it is relatively obscure even amongst Particular Baptists today?) is that it contains glaring error. For example, when he states "circumcision was limited to such a family, the family of Abraham, all others, though believers, were excluded; also
limited to such a day, the eighth..." he is opposed by those places in Scripture which make it clear that those brought physically into Israel (an enslaved captive, for example) or by spiritual conversion had to receive circumcision (Genesis 17, cf Exodus 12.48). Circumcision from the beginning was not limited to 8-day old male descendants of Abraham - that was the ordinary and primary way to enter into the covenant, but it was not the only one.

Missing the forest for a tree here. In the OT there are plenty of people saved and not circumcised like Adam, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Job and non-sojourning Gentile potential converts like maybe Naaman? maybe Nebuchadnezzar? Who knows how many?

The point is that circumcision is not a sign and "seal" for all covenants. But the Holy Spirit's ministry is the same today, yesterday and forever from day one after the Fall to forever in eternity.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Have you listened to the reformed forum critique of 1689 federalism? I forget if I have recommended it to you or not. I think it would interest you. The very first segment includes taxonomy of several particular Baptist’s thoughts on the Abrahamic & the ritual of circumcision. There are common themes that get identified.

I have not heard of it - I will check it out as I am definitely interested in the topic (though I am more of a reader than a listener).
[automerge]1775605863[/automerge]

Missing the forest for a tree here. In the OT there are plenty of people saved and not circumcised like Adam, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Job and non-sojourning Gentile potential converts like maybe Naaman? maybe Nebuchadnezzar? Who knows how many?

The point is that circumcision is not a sign and "seal" for all covenants. But the Holy Spirit's ministry is the same today, yesterday and forever from day one after the Fall to forever in eternity.

It's a pretty big tree!

 

[MW]

It's a pretty big tree!

Especially when we consider all the covenant children who have been nurtured under it. "For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him."

 

[No Other Name]

I have not heard of it - I will check it out as I am definitely interested in the topic (though I am more of a reader than a listener).
[automerge]1775605863[/automerge]

It's a pretty big tree!

Only if you presume all fleshly-circumcised males (natural-born or sojourners notwithstanding) were in the CoG in the first place. Your "opposition" in Scripture comes only from the preset reading of those verses that visible members are factually members of the CoG. You cannot even imagine seeing the verses in light of the 1689 system.

This is the problem with this "debate".

Baptists either give answers or quote historical answers and are inevitably met with objections based on Scriptures locked into the Westminster interpretation.

And of course, you will - no must - interpret the Bible with the lens of your confessional convictions, that is not the problem per se.

The problem is that the actual debate lies between our respective confessional and covenantal systems, and until that discussion happens, this whole circle gets repeated:

Paedo: "How do you credos account for x?"

Credo: "We account by this y interpretation of Scripture in our 1689 system"

Paedo: "But y interpretation is opposed by z interpretation"

Credo: "No it factually isn't. It is only opposed if one presumes Westminster is true. The y interpretation is entirely consistent and coherent in 1689 system"

Paedo: "Who cares about 1689 system being coherent and consistent? The y interpretation doesn't match the z interpretation the Westminster system holds which is not only consistent and coherent but correct."

on and on and on.

 

[Christodulus]

Only if you presume all fleshly-circumcised males (natural-born or sojourners notwithstanding) were in the CoG in the first place. Your "opposition" in Scripture comes only from the preset reading of those verses that visible members are factually members of the CoG. You cannot even imagine seeing the verses in light of the 1689 system.

I don’t think that’s fair. The problem is that the application of the covenant sign presumes covenant membership in and of itself. The act of water baptism is performed not by the Lord immediately upon the soul but mediately through the Church upon the body, which means it is impossible for us to baptize on any basis other than visible qualities. We all constantly presume actual membership in the covenant of grace by visible members, this is called the judgment of charity. We’re doing it right now just by having this conversation. The problem is with the Baptist idea that the basis of baptism and membership in the visible Church is invisible spiritual gifts like regeneration and faith, which is the denial of the existence of the visible Church. I suppose I do find it impossible to interpret verses which describe a visible Church in light of a system which denies a visible Church.

Second, there is something you are presupposing here, which is that the old covenants were different according to substance from the new covenant, the former being temporal covenants of works made with the natural seed of Abraham and the latter an eternal covenant of grace made with his spiritual seed alone. The problem I take with this idea is that it is flatly contrary to Romans 4 and Galatians 3.

 

[No Other Name]

The problem is that the application of the covenant sign presumes covenant membership in and of itself.

Well sure but membership in what covenant? For what obligation(s) and what promise(s)?

Second, there is something you are presupposing here, which is that the old covenants were different according to substance from the new covenant, the former being temporal covenants of works made with the natural seed of Abraham and the latter an eternal covenant of grace made with his spiritual seed alone.

I would not reduce it to the bolded as you have presumed on the 1689 system, but yes, I have reached a conclusion about covenantal systems. As have you and others here in an opposing position as well.

The problem I take with this idea is that it is flatly contrary to Romans 4 and Galatians 3.

In Westminster's system? if you say so but it is not at all flatly contradictory within the 1689 system of Biblical interpretation. Not according to Gill, Collins,Coxe, Keach, Haldane, et al.

If you have evidence of 1689 being inconsistent or incoherent within itself as a system, I would love to have that conversation.

But until then, your contribution here is just more rinsing and repeating.

 

[DNM300]

The problem is that the actual debate lies between our respective confessional and covenantal systems, and until that discussion happens, this whole circle gets repeated:

Lead the way, brother.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

I've found all the contributions here helpful. It's illuminating to see repeated, from both positions and in different wording, the defense and support of Particular Baptism and Paedobaptism.

 

[No Other Name]

Lead the way, brother.

I might one day, but I am way too busy now and will likely be too busy for the next 2 months or so.

 

[Christodulus]

In Westminster's system?

No, in the books of Romans and Galatians.

if you say so but it is not at all flatly contradictory within the 1689 system of Biblical interpretation. Not according to Gill, Collins,Coxe, Keach, Haldane, et al.

If you have evidence of 1689 being inconsistent or incoherent within itself as a system, I would love to have that conversation.

But until then, your contribution here is just more rinsing and repeating.

Is it possible to make a valid exegetical argument against 1689 federalism? Or is this a tradition which scripture must be read in light of?

 

[DNM300]

I might one day, but I am way too busy now and will likely be too busy for the next 2 months or so.

Copy that. For the record, I’m being sincere!

 

[No Other Name]

No, in the books of Romans and Galatians.

Sans Westminster covenant theology? Prove it.

Is it possible to make a valid exegetical argument against 1689 federalism? Or is this a tradition which scripture must be read in light of?

Now who's being unfair? Sola Scriptura, not sola 1689.
[automerge]1775655358[/automerge]

Copy that. For the record, I’m being sincere!

Oh I knew you were.

 

[Christodulus]

Sans Westminster covenant theology? Prove it.

Sure, Lord willing I’ll post some exegetical argumentation later.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Baptists either give answers or quote historical answers and are inevitably met with objections based on Scriptures locked into the Westminster interpretation.

Collins states "...circumcision was limited to such a family, the family of Abraham, all others, though believers, were excluded; also limited to such a day, the eighth...." It doesn't require a Westminster interpretation to see how that is contrary to Scripture:

"He that is born in thine house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised" (Genesis 17.13)

"But if a stranger dwell with thee, and will observe the passover of the Lord, let him circumcise all the males, that belong unto him, and then let him come and observe it, and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for none uncircumcised person shall eat thereof." Exodus 12.48).

The only people I have ever heard claim that circumcision was exclusively limited to the physical descendants of Abraham on the 8th day are adherents to the 2LBC.

If you have evidence of 1689 being inconsistent or incoherent within itself as a system, I would love to have that conversation.

First, do you believe (a) Collins is correct and (b) Collins' statement above is in agreement with the 2LBC?

 

[No Other Name]

The only people I have ever heard claim that circumcision was exclusively limited to the physical descendants of Abraham on the 8th day are adherents to the 2LBC.

Try to extend fairness in reading those opposed to you belief system. Collins nowhere claimed circumcision was exclusively limited to the physical descendants of Abraham on the 8th day. In context to the Q, he was answering if NT believers should baptize infants and answered in the negative splitting the spiritual nature of the Abrahamic covenant from the physical nature so that sojourners added would be added to both natures in the OT under those previous headings.

The one line you love quoting is set up to proceed to show how the one-to-one correlation of physical circumcision does not hold all the way even in Westminster since you will baptize girls as well as boys and not on the 8th day after birth. You are being pedantic when you try to reach and cast Collins as denying the inclusion of male servants not born in the physical nation et al when you yourself said that

Circumcision from the beginning was not limited to 8-day old male descendants of Abraham - that was the ordinary and primary way to enter into the covenant, but it was not the only one.

And when I added amen, circumcision was not even existing from the beginning, you ignore that and act as if Collins is not allowed to address the issue of infant baptism from the view that 8-year-old male descendants of Abraham was the ordinary and primary way to enter into the covenant so he can point out you all deviate from that ordinary and primary way on those specific points.

Do I agree? I don't agree that Collins "dropped a mic" on you all per se, rather he opens an avenue of questioning of what exactly you insist is continuous from Abraham's covenant and what is not and why.

But then again, I find it curious and interesting that you yourself think you are "dropping a mic" on Collins here.

Fascinating replies from you guys over the last few weeks.

 

[YeshuaFan]

I will say it again: including elect infants. Once more, it is clear that your line of reasoning is prejudicial to God's elect. Why is that? Because the whole way of thinking comes from another tradition that is not Reformed. It requires you to think instinctively of a person doing something to get into the grace of God. And as I have noted on numerous occasions this tradition is Anabaptist. Call it Reformed Baptist if you please; but It is not Reformed.

Its Particular Baptist view, as being the reasoning contained with the 1689 Confession of the faith
[automerge]1775659098[/automerge]

Try to extend fairness in reading those opposed to you belief system. Collins nowhere claimed circumcision was exclusively limited to the physical descendants of Abraham on the 8th day. In context to the Q, he was answering if NT believers should baptize infants and answered in the negative splitting the spiritual nature of the Abrahamic covenant from the physical nature so that sojourners added would be added to both natures in the OT under those previous headings.

The one line you love quoting is set up to proceed to show how the one-to-one correlation of physical circumcision does not hold all the way even in Westminster since you will baptize girls as well as boys and not on the 8th day after birth. You are being pedantic when you try to reach and cast Collins as denying the inclusion of male servants not born in the physical nation et al when you yourself said that



And when I added amen, circumcision was not even existing from the beginning, you ignore that and act as if Collins is not allowed to address the issue of infant baptism from the view that 8-year-old male descendants of Abraham was the ordinary and primary way to enter into the covenant so he can point out you all deviate from that ordinary and primary way on those specific points.

Do I agree? I don't agree that Collins "dropped a mic" on you all per se, rather he opens an avenue of questioning of what exactly you insist is continuous from Abraham's covenant and what is not and why.

But then again, I find it curious and interesting that you yourself think you are "dropping a mic" on Collins here.

Fascinating replies from you guys over the last few weeks.

Has not the primary way into the Kingdom of God, into salvation been by grace alone received through faith alone in both Ot/NT eras?

 

[MarrowMan]

Only if you presume all fleshly-circumcised males (natural-born or sojourners notwithstanding) were in the CoG in the first place. Your "opposition" in Scripture comes only from the preset reading of those verses that visible members are factually members of the CoG. You cannot even imagine seeing the verses in light of the 1689 system.

This is the problem with this "debate".

Baptists either give answers or quote historical answers and are inevitably met with objections based on Scriptures locked into the Westminster interpretation.

And of course, you will - no must - interpret the Bible with the lens of your confessional convictions, that is not the problem per se.

The problem is that the actual debate lies between our respective confessional and covenantal systems, and until that discussion happens, this whole circle gets repeated:

Paedo: "How do you credos account for x?"

Credo: "We account by this y interpretation of Scripture in our 1689 system"

Paedo: "But y interpretation is opposed by z interpretation"

Credo: "No it factually isn't. It is only opposed if one presumes Westminster is true. The y interpretation is entirely consistent and coherent in 1689 system"

Paedo: "Who cares about 1689 system being coherent and consistent? The y interpretation doesn't match the z interpretation the Westminster system holds which is not only consistent and coherent but correct."

on and on and on.

Meh. I embraced paedo before Westminster. Many of us do. Looked into both 1689 and Westminster in light of Scripture and found 1689 wanting. I don't hold that 1689 is internally inconsistent, but I do hold it to be inconsistent with Scripture.

I did try to get to the nitty gritty of covenantal systems here just recently, but engagement is wanting and I ran out of time for the moment. I'm pretty much in the boat of "I don't really care about convincing, just setting forth my position for people's benefit (if it is so)."

We all get frustrated, I would imagine it's more frustrating for credo on a board like this.

 

[No Other Name]

Meh. I embraced paedo before Westminster. Many of us do. Looked into both 1689 and Westminster in light of Scripture and found 1689 wanting. I don't hold that 1689 is internally inconsistent, but I do hold it to be inconsistent with Scripture.

I did try to get to the nitty gritty of covenantal systems here just recently, but engagement is wanting and I ran out of time for the moment. I'm pretty much in the boat of "I don't really care about convincing, just setting forth my position for people's benefit (if it is so)."

We all get frustrated, I would imagine it's more frustrating for credo on a board like this.

Ditto for me across the board. Cedo before 1689 and my views on the consistency of Westminster.

Posting here definitely has its ups and downs. Far more ups than downs.

For a while I was down, yeah. Wondering if it was a huge mistake stepping out and posting on covenants and baptismal issues but on the whole, it has been a very worthwhile experience and a couple of paedos and I have actually gotten closer as a result. Thanks be to God for this board and all of you.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Try to extend fairness in reading those opposed to you belief system.

The one line you love quoting...

Brother, I was trying to read Collins charitably and fairly (I found the original, and read before and beyond the excerpt you provided a link to). I understood that he was dealing separately with the spiritual and physical aspects of the Abrahamic covenant and there is much that I found problematic - but most of that has been discussed already (like stating that the sign/distinguishing mark has switched from outward circumcision to faith/inward circumcision) so I opted for what seemed to be new material.

I don't agree that Collins "dropped a mic" on you all per se, rather he opens an avenue of questioning of what exactly you insist is continuous from Abraham's covenant and what is not and why.

But then again, I find it curious and interesting that you yourself think you are "dropping a mic" on Collins here.

I'm sorry this is how you seem to see this thread going. I worked up a further response to Collins' work but I don't see any point and deleted it - I really can't respond if you are going to take every post so defensively and read with such angst and judging of motives instead of just responding to what seems to otherwise be a charitable back-and-forth. I also don't find Collins very useful - I'm partial to the WLC not only because it is what I believe, but also because it is concise - no First, Second, Second 1st, 2ndly, 3rdly. A catechism should make things simple and clear. It should answer questions, not leave the door open to more inquiry because it either over-explained or stopped short in explaining things.

I genuinely want to understand the Particular Baptist view because I have a lot of good friends in that "camp" - I do in general by recognizing the incompatible view of the covenants (nothing new or surprising there). But it is tiresome to always be told I don't really get it (because if I did I'd switch "camps" of course!). I feel like all of these threads simply exist to help the undecided decide - which is fine! (To be clear, I don't believe Particular Baptists "just don't get it," but I do think it is important for my Particular Baptist brethren to acknowledge that it is not the "Westminster view" - it is the view of all the Reformed systems (the other major one being the Dutch).

 

[No Other Name]

But it is tiresome to always be told I don't really get it

I did not say that. I said you sidestepped his point and acted as if the servant-and-stranger exceptions to the male births in the Abrahamic covenant not accounted for meant he denied these instances which is factually incorrect. You added the "exclusively limited" to his writing and did not address the point behind the specific mention of 8 day old male infants.

I really can't respond if you are going to take every post so defensively and read with such angst and judging of motives instead of just responding to what seems to otherwise be a charitable back-and-forth.

I really wasn't any of this, and am not now any of this.

 

[MW]

Its Particular Baptist view, as being the reasoning contained with the 1689 Confession of the faith

Your 1689 Confession explicitly affirms that elect infants are saved by Christ. Yet in your covenant theology, you consistently exclude infants from the covenant of grace, the visible administration of that covenant, the covenant signs, and the covenant promises. That is a contradiction. You affirm their salvation by Christ, but deny them any covenantal relation to Christ. That is not a minor inconsistency; it is a sign that the system has been retrofitted in ways that do not cohere. And why is that? Because you have adopted Reformed soteriology but maintain Anabaptist sacramentology.

 

[No Other Name]

Its Particular Baptist view, as being the reasoning contained with the 1689 Confession of the faith
[automerge]1775659098[/automerge]

Has not the primary way into the Kingdom of God, into salvation been by grace alone received through faith alone in both Ot/NT eras?

Keep reading, brother. And pay no attention to smear campaigns of Anabaptism from those who claim we have the power to deny or grant the Spirit to anyone. The hope of us as parents and our parents before them is that God will do what is right and his promises are yea and amen. This includes the promise that the prayers of the righteous availeth much, and salvation comes to those who confess with their mouths that Jesus Christ is Lord with a whole heart following after him and him alone.

It is low hanging fruit and anti-intellectual to point at us and assert Anabaptist trappings just as it is low hanging fruit and anti-intellectual to point at them and assert Romanist trappings.

 

[Slave-to-the-Light-777]

Keep reading, brother. And pay no attention to smear campaigns of Anabaptism from those who claim we have the power to deny or grant the Spirit to anyone. The hope of us as parents and our parents before them is that God will do what is right and his promises are yea and amen. This includes the promise that the prayers of the righteous availeth much, and salvation comes to those who confess with their mouths that Jesus Christ is Lord with a whole heart following after him and him alone.

It is low hanging fruit and anti-intellectual to point at us and assert Anabaptist trappings just as it is low hanging fruit and anti-intellectual to point at them and assert Romanist trappings.

he didn’t say that you are Anabaptists in every respect.

Article 34 of the Belgic Confession: “We detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, whom we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant.” The Confession identifies the Anabaptist error as precisely the condemnation of infant baptism. Particular Baptists condemn infant baptism. The logical relationship between those two facts is not complicated. Now, you can say that you aren’t an Anabaptist in the full historical sense, and I can happily grant that. But you cannot escape the fact that on this specific article, you hold what the Belgic Confession identifies as the Anabaptist error and explicitly condemns.

 

[John Nyberg]

It is low hanging fruit and anti-intellectual to point at us and assert Anabaptist trappings

Especially given that the 1689 was designed to show as much agreement as possible with Westminster, while completely disavowing the anabaptist’a cause.

 

[John Nyberg]

Article 34 of the Belgic Confession: “We detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, whom we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant.”

But you cannot escape the fact that on this specific article, you hold what the Belgic Confession identifies as the Anabaptist error and explicitly condemns.

I do not believe this should be used to label reformed baptists as “anabaptists.” They have always rejected that label, and have proven fealty to their confession and to the bible over the centuries. Again, let’s look at the lives and doctrine of Gill, Keach, Spurgeon, and even Voddie Bauchum and Al Mohler. Let’s look at those lives and pray that more baptists become confessional, rather than trying to pin their theology down to that of the “anabaptists.”

I once made an off handed comment to a RB brother during a conversation about covenants. I said “It seems like there is a little dispensationalism inherent in all Baptist theology.” This he vehemently denied and he gave a strong confessional response. I made me realize that I was being anachronistic, ahistorical, and a tad uncharitable.

Not saying you are being uncharitable, just confessing my own pride at the time.

 

[paranymph]

he didn’t say that you are Anabaptists in every respect.

Article 34 of the Belgic Confession: “We detest the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with the one only baptism they have once received, and moreover condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, whom we believe ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant.” The Confession identifies the Anabaptist error as precisely the condemnation of infant baptism. Particular Baptists condemn infant baptism. The logical relationship between those two facts is not complicated. Now, you can say that you aren’t an Anabaptist in the full historical sense, and I can happily grant that. But you cannot escape the fact that on this specific article, you hold what the Belgic Confession identifies as the Anabaptist error and explicitly condemns.

He said "It requires you to think instinctively of a person doing something to get into the grace of God. And as I have noted on numerous occasions this tradition is Anabaptist."
The issue is not baptism here but one's soteriology. We avow any notion that one must "do something to get into the grace of God."

Since we're on the Belgic, article 36 says: "Wherefore we detest the Anabaptists and other seditious people..." Do we really want to start throwing around this label? Sure, PBs and Anabaptists have one practice in common, which can be commonly rejected by the paedobaptists. But the Belgic Confession was condemning one special sort of people.

As @No Other Name said, paedobaptists have a practice in common with the RCC. Would it be beneficial to say that the logic of your practice is Romanist? No, that would not be fair, charitable, nor helpful in the discussion.

 

[Slave-to-the-Light-777]

He said "It requires you to think instinctively of a person doing something to get into the grace of God. And as I have noted on numerous occasions this tradition is Anabaptist."
The issue is not baptism here but one's soteriology. We avow any notion that one must "do something to get into the grace of God."

Since we're on the Belgic, article 36 says: "Wherefore we detest the Anabaptists and other seditious people..." Do we really want to start throwing around this label? Sure, PBs and Anabaptists have one practice in common, which can be commonly rejected by the paedobaptists. But the Belgic Confession was condemning one special sort of people.

As @No Other Name said, paedobaptists have a practice in common with the RCC. Would it be beneficial to say that the logic of your practice is Romanist? No, that would not be fair, charitable, nor helpful in the discussion.

[automerge]1775744917[/automerge]

He said "It requires you to think instinctively of a person doing something to get into the grace of God. And as I have noted on numerous occasions this tradition is Anabaptist."
The issue is not baptism here but one's soteriology. We avow any notion that one must "do something to get into the grace of God."

Since we're on the Belgic, article 36 says: "Wherefore we detest the Anabaptists and other seditious people..." Do we really want to start throwing around this label? Sure, PBs and Anabaptists have one practice in common, which can be commonly rejected by the paedobaptists. But the Belgic Confession was condemning one special sort of people.

As @No Other Name said, paedobaptists have a practice in common with the RCC. Would it be beneficial to say that the logic of your practice is Romanist? No, that would not be fair, charitable, nor helpful in the discussion.

The claim is that the principle governing your sacramental administration structurally builds a human demonstration requirement into the economy of the covenant sign, regardless of how gracious the stated soteriology is at the doctrinal level. You can hold a perfectly orthodox soteriology at the level of theological confession and simultaneously have a sacramental principle that contradicts it at the structural level. These are not the same question, and one does not automatically resolve the other.

Article 36 is about the civil magistrate. It is condemning the Anabaptist rejection of legitimate civil governmentt. That is a completely separate article addressing a completely separate cluster of errors. Article 34 has nothing whatsoever to do with sedition. You are just using Article 36 to deflect from what Article 34 actually says.
Rev Winzer’s original argument was never guilt by association. The claim is not “Baptists resemble Anabaptists in some practices, therefore they are Anabaptist. The claim is that the specific principle grounding the Baptist rejection of infant baptism is historically the Anabaptist principle, which is incompatible with reformed theology.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Keep reading, brother. And pay no attention to smear campaigns of Anabaptism from those who claim we have the power to deny or grant the Spirit to anyone. The hope of us as parents and our parents before them is that God will do what is right and his promises are yea and amen. This includes the promise that the prayers of the righteous availeth much, and salvation comes to those who confess with their mouths that Jesus Christ is Lord with a whole heart following after him and him alone.

It is low hanging fruit and anti-intellectual to point at us and assert Anabaptist trappings just as it is low hanging fruit and anti-intellectual to point at them and assert Romanist trappings.

This seems to be going around just how really new was and is the new Covenant, as thinks Reformed Baptists would see salvation always and only was in the COG, in both Old and New Testaments, and faith in Jesus as promised messiah was entry way in, OT looking Forward, and NT as right now was here
[automerge]1775747206[/automerge]

Your 1689 Confession explicitly affirms that elect infants are saved by Christ. Yet in your covenant theology, you consistently exclude infants from the covenant of grace, the visible administration of that covenant, the covenant signs, and the covenant promises. That is a contradiction. You affirm their salvation by Christ, but deny them any covenantal relation to Christ. That is not a minor inconsistency; it is a sign that the system has been retrofitted in ways that do not cohere. And why is that? Because you have adopted Reformed soteriology but maintain Anabaptist sacramentology.

They have been elected by the sovereign grace of God being applied towards them, but that was not applied as effectual gracing in water baptism, but by God directly applying that saving grace towards them period, and they will then of course confirm it as adults later on and then receiving the water baptism based upon them confirming and professing salvation in the Lord Jesus now
[automerge]1775747349[/automerge]

Ditto for me across the board. Cedo before 1689 and my views on the consistency of Westminster.

Posting here definitely has its ups and downs. Far more ups than downs.

For a while I was down, yeah. Wondering if it was a huge mistake stepping out and posting on covenants and baptismal issues but on the whole, it has been a very worthwhile experience and a couple of paedos and I have actually gotten closer as a result. Thanks be to God for this board and all of you.

Question to me would be should we be viewing this discussion as being something to divide us, as to have the 'true Gospel" must hold to infant baptism? I would affirm no both questions

 

[No Other Name]

The claim is that the specific principle grounding the Baptist rejection of infant baptism is historically the Anabaptist principle, which is incompatible with reformed theology.

Actually our ground is Biblical and it inspired fretting that thee were some common traits with those heretics.

Again, one can say the Reformed paedobaptist grounds their rite in the same principle of covenantal continuity with Rome, but not only is that not fair, it would be ridiculous given who they are and how they view salvation as a whole.

 

[paranymph]

[automerge]1775744917[/automerge]


The claim is that the principle governing your sacramental administration structurally builds a human demonstration requirement into the economy of the covenant sign, regardless of how gracious the stated soteriology is at the doctrinal level. You can hold a perfectly orthodox soteriology at the level of theological confession and simultaneously have a sacramental principle that contradicts it at the structural level. These are not the same question, and one does not automatically resolve the other.

Article 36 is about the civil magistrate. It is condemning the Anabaptist rejection of legitimate civil governmentt. That is a completely separate article addressing a completely separate cluster of errors. Article 34 has nothing whatsoever to do with sedition. You are just using Article 36 to deflect from what Article 34 actually says.
Rev Winzer’s original argument was never guilt by association. The claim is not “Baptists resemble Anabaptists in some practices, therefore they are Anabaptist. The claim is that the specific principle grounding the Baptist rejection of infant baptism is historically the Anabaptist principle, which is incompatible with reformed theology.

Much can be said. I don't think you're getting the point regarding the use of the Belgic.

But, regarding the main point, let's turn it around:
"Paedobaptists (P&R) theologically confess the need for faith, but simultaneously have a sacramental principle that contradicts it at the structural level. It is a papist logic."

My point is not that I actually think that. My point is that the rhetoric is unhelpful.

As @No Other Name has pointed out, if this is really what people believe, why are Baptists on here? If we're not seen as Reformed, just see us out...