Why I am now a Baptist

[Jerusalem Blade]

Ken, you said in post #43,

Were the children present baptized with the fathers? No doubt.

Could you elaborate on the 'no doubtedness' of this statement?

Are you saying that the Jews immediately recognized that baptism was the new 'token' of the covenant? Are you assuming that there was some further teaching to this effect by Peter that is not recorded? It would seem to me that there would need to be some explaining done especially in light of the 'token' now being offered to females.

I am willing to accept your conclusion, but I don't understand how you can claim that there is 'no doubt'.

Yes, it was so preached to them by Peter, that if they would be saved in the new covenant of Messiah, it would be through obediently receiving the new sign of baptism. “Repent, and be baptized every one of you…” (Acts 2:38) They didn’t falter. And yes, there is much that Peter said we do not have recorded: “And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this untoward [perverse] generation.’ ” (2:40). Earlier he had included “sons and daughters...servants and handmaidens” (2:17, 18) in the manifesting of the Spirit of God among them. No doubt (there I go again!) he made it clear to them in the sermon we do not have that it was so to be – women were now to receive the mark of the covenant.

You are right, though, Ken, that some will doubt. I suppose my use of that expression is rhetorical – and I used it loosely, thinking of those with paedo leanings! Or perhaps I thought too highly of the (supposed) inexorable logic of my argument!

I suppose also that I was assuming the understanding that there would be a mixed crowd that day during the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), per Deuteronomy 16:11, where it is written of this feast,

And thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is in thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you, in the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to place his name there.​

It was to be a festive occasion, a family day, if you will, rejoicing in the goodness of God not only in giving them a good harvest, but in delivering them from Egypt (v. 12) – the which was also typical of the great deliverance from the world the Savior had now obtained for them in Him.

But thanks for calling me on that!

Steve

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Paul, thanks for that link. It is a great resource, and I would highly recommend it for baptism issues in great detail. Being a Methodist he will certainly fail of the Reformed standards in other respects.

-------

Randy, the lead sentence in your quote, “Circumcision was an ordinance of the old covenant and pertained to the law and therefore directly bound its subjects to a legal obedience...” sounds a lot to me like New Covenant Theology, which posits a radical discontinuity between the two covenants, including Abraham’s. This is certainly far from Reformed, and even from Reformed Baptist!

Jesus said that circumcision was not of Moses, but of the fathers (John 7:22). Later in your quote of Coxe he says that the old was “abolished” – but that refers to the Mosaic, not the Abrahamic – for the Abrahamic was not abolished (as was the Mosaic) per Paul saying that we are Abraham’s spiritual seed and heirs of the promise of his covenant.

I don’t have time now to take apart his remarks – I mean, how much time can one give to this stuff!

I must sign off for a while, as I have other things to attend to.

And Randy, I'll be praying for the operation.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Zenas, you said,

"I think a cage match free-for-all would be much more entertaining. Or better yet, king of the ring. 1v1 until one drops out, then another takes his place. The last party standing is the winner."​

Baptists are the tough-guys of the Faith -- they don't give up, they die of illness or natural causes or martyrdom -- so it wouldn't pay to get in a cage with one. No, the way to co-exist with Baptists is to agree to disagree agreeably. There is no other way. And some paedos are cut of the same cloth. You keep such as these out of cages, they'd just go on and on till they depart for glory!

That's the beauty of having moderators -- they turn it off after a while.

I have a great story about the toughness of Baptists -- but it'll have to wait till tomorrow, and I find the book.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

To your comment, I think most can assent to the theoretical possibility of thousands of immersions temporally, logistically, etc. Practically possible, politically possible, ... ? I think those are legitimate areas to bring questions to bear. Perhaps a realistic reenactment of the whole event by 3000 baptists would settle the pragmatic question once and for all?

This was after all a drinking supply as well. I don't suppose the others around the Temple that weren't convinced (including the leaders of the Temple) would mind too much that 3000 dusty people were fouling the water supply.

But it's still theoretically possible.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Paul, thanks for that link. It is a great resource, and I would highly recommend it for baptism issues in great detail. Being a Methodist he will certainly fail of the Reformed standards in other respects.

-------

Randy, the lead sentence in your quote, “Circumcision was an ordinance of the old covenant and pertained to the law and therefore directly bound its subjects to a legal obedience...” sounds a lot to me like New Covenant Theology, which posits a radical discontinuity between the two covenants, including Abraham’s. This is certainly far from Reformed, and even from Reformed Baptist!

Well this isn't New Covenant Theology. It is a view that Reformed Baptists hold to. The New is New. To understand our position you would have to look at how John Owen views the differences between the Mosaic and the New Covenant. Check out his view by reading his Hebrews chapter 8 commentary.

The New Covenant is not like the Old Covenant. (Jeremiah 31:31,32) There are elements of continuity and discontinuity. We all think that is true. The Reformed Baptist and Reformed Community just disagree on what is continued and what isn't. Circumcision is one of those areas. We believe that sometimes some people are trying to put New wine into Old wineskins. Better Covenant Better Promises. Might I add that the Promises in the New are better. Therefore they are not the same.

(Jer 31:31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

(Jer 31:32) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:



(Heb 8:6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

(Heb 8:7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

(Heb 8:8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

(Heb 8:9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

(Heb 8:10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

(Heb 8:11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

(Heb 8:12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

(Heb 8:13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

And I believe Nehemiah Coxes first statement is biblical. Circumcision did bind the Jews to the law and condemnation. Is that not what St. Paul said in Galatians? Circumcision was mandatory for those who wanted to dwell with Abraham also. If you were born under his household and were not circumcised you were to be cut off. There is a binding in circumcision.

(Gal 5:3) For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

This is not New Covenant Theology. If it is than John Owen is a New Covenant Theologian. New Covenant Theology usually denies the Covenant of Works. It also denies the Old Testament law as a guide for the Christians life. They say if it isn't in the New Testament it doesn't apply to the Christian. We don't hold to that view.

Yes we believe the Old is fulfilled in Christ's coming and that he instituted the New Covenant and is the Head of it. New Head, New Covenant. The Promises in the Previous Covenants are fulfilled in Christ and He is made the Head of a better Covenant as per what Hebrews says.

Jesus said that circumcision was not of Moses, but of the fathers (John 7:22). Later in your quote of Coxe he says that the old was “abolished” – but that refers to the Mosaic, not the Abrahamic – for the Abrahamic was not abolished (as was the Mosaic) per Paul saying that we are Abraham’s spiritual seed and heirs of the promise of his covenant.

I believe Nehemiah Coxe is just using the language of Hebrews chapter 8 if I am not mistaken. We are children of Abraham in that we have like precious faith with this Father of the faith. With that we agree. It was promised to him and when the seed came the promise was fulfilled. Part of the Abrahamic was transformed into the New Covenant. The Spiritual part not the physical. The physical is done away with.

(Heb 8:13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

and 2 Cor. 3

And Randy, I'll be praying for the operation.

Thanks for the prayers JB. BTW, I love reading your responses. They edify me greatly.

I am not as concerned about the immersion debate even though I hold that immersion was the practice of he Early Church as a norm.

 

[staythecourse]

I've been laughing about an assembly-line baptism throughout the day.

I have to say, the tone of this thread has been humble, gentle and loving despite the topic and the zeal of adherents.

I am a baptist but I always admire my Presbyterian brothers argument even though I, and it will always be the case, can't see the switch from circumcision to baptism. I will say, being single and childless plays a part in my opinion I am certain.

If I could see the children getting baptized in the text (Acts 2 (gesundheit)) I would say, "you guys were right!"

 

[Iconoclast]

You are correct. In fact it says strangers from the Covenants (plural) of Promise.

But Paul declares he was a child of wrath with them. I don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace that would be considered a child of wrath.

Randy,

Actually you should modify this statement to state that you don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace. You know that the Elect are but you only know of external professors who may or may not be members of the CoG.

At best you can speak theoretically of the CoG but, practically, you can't speak of visible individuals as participating in it.

Rich,
We have been here before. But let me ask you a question? How can we have elders or deacons? With your reasoning we cannot know anyone is saved, Confession or profession is always doubtful! We cannot rejoice when an adult professes faith, we cannot see the work of the Spirit.
We can only "know" That Jesus saves some persons called the elect.His work was perfect, but it might not be for any of us?
Brother, if you are comfortable with this so be it.
I believe this is not the pattern described in the Nt. I am not claiming some special ability to see the heart {that is God's domain} What I do see is 1Jn saying he writes these things that we may know we have eternal life.
Jn 5;24 says the person believing has eternal life.
The fact that the church has false professor's among it, does not stop it from being the church , that is God's called out people. The false professor's were never part of it,their apostasy shows it.
Even with your view of the church- visible/invisible, out ward administration of the covenant, you have to come to grips with the same issues.

I do want to thank you, Bruce , Matthew, Rob , and the other's who continue to faithfully hold to your convictions. Many times you men will take the time to try and instruct and take a stand for the truth of God. If we all agreed all the time we would not have as much need for this forum,and online fellowship. Last week Bruce offered up some really good verses in one of the posts and I never got to thank him, some time the little thank you box is not there to press it?
Rich, I do understand to some extent what you men are getting at even if I do not share that view . I had posted earlier about a sermon from sermonaudio, by Hal Brunson

All sermons by:
Hal Brunson, Ph.D.

422 sermons




MP3 Downloads:
100+


What is a Covenant Child?
» 7/9/2006 (SUN) » Hebrews 2; Acts 2

Sermon ID 7906141921 » Sunday - AM | Upload Media




Available FREE Media © All media is copyrighted. Blog-This | Help

(no preview or announcement clips)


Play Audio! (Streaming) · 16kbps | 46 min. [3]



Download MP3 (5.5MB) • Batch downloads • How

I know you are vey busy, but if any of you padeo brethren can give it a listen, I would like to hear what you think on it, also he has two recent sermons where he commented on the fact, that the word's for sprinkle, or pour were not used in any of the baptism contexts.

Baptism Part 2
Hal Brunson, Ph.D. • New Members Class • 44 min.
First Baptist Church of Parker Play! | MP3

SUN 05/18/2008
Sunday - AM





2 Baptism Part 1
Hal Brunson, Ph.D. • New Members Class • 38 min.
First Baptist Church of Parker

Also I just picked up the book by Nehemiah Coxe, have not had a chance to work through it yet. Have you read it?

 

[bookslover]

The text reads, Covenants (plural) of promise (singular).

In fact, Matthew, doesn't the Greek text read "covenants of the promise"? I think that, of all the modern translations, only the NIV (ironically enough) preserves the definite article in its rendering.

Richard, it certainly does; not that I would make too much of it because the Greek tends to prefer the article on certain nouns, so its inclusion is not necessarily an indication of definiteness. But in connection with the singular it at least substantiates the point that a specific promise is in view here, namely, the promise of Christ; which runs counter to the claim that circumcision was merely a national sign concerned with temporal promises.

Matthew, I've often wondered if Paul deliberately included the definite article at that place for theological reasons, not just for grammatical ones. He's in the middle of a very important theological argument there; perhaps he wanted to emphasize the importance of the basic covenantal promise - thus, his inclusion of the definite article.

If that be true, perhaps more translations should translate the definite article there...

 

[MW]

If that be true, perhaps more translations should translate the definite article there...

Perhaps; or it could make a translation look something other than English to have "the" inserted before most nouns which are already definite by nature. If you look on Eph. 6:2 it will be seen why the definite article is required with such nouns. The absence of the article is an indicator of indefiniteness, but its presence does not necessarily mean what is definite is referring to a specific or well known object.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

You are correct. In fact it says strangers from the Covenants (plural) of Promise.

But Paul declares he was a child of wrath with them. I don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace that would be considered a child of wrath.

Randy,

Actually you should modify this statement to state that you don't know of anyone who is in the covenant of Grace. You know that the Elect are but you only know of external professors who may or may not be members of the CoG.

At best you can speak theoretically of the CoG but, practically, you can't speak of visible individuals as participating in it.

Rich,
We have been here before. But let me ask you a question? How can we have elders or deacons? With your reasoning we cannot know anyone is saved, Confession or profession is always doubtful! We cannot rejoice when an adult professes faith, we cannot see the work of the Spirit.
We can only "know" That Jesus saves some persons called the elect.His work was perfect, but it might not be for any of us?
Brother, if you are comfortable with this so be it.
I believe this is not the pattern described in the Nt. I am not claiming some special ability to see the heart {that is God's domain} What I do see is 1Jn saying he writes these things that we may know we have eternal life.
Jn 5;24 says the person believing has eternal life.
The fact that the church has false professor's among it, does not stop it from being the church , that is God's called out people. The false professor's were never part of it,their apostasy shows it.
Even with your view of the church- visible/invisible, out ward administration of the covenant, you have to come to grips with the same issues.

I do come to grips with the same issues. In classic Reformed theology there is a visible/invisible distinction that covers this.

The point I'm making is that when a Baptist talks about the CoG it has to be done apart from actual baptism. The subject is on a different order: the things invisible only. Because the CoG only consists of the elect, Reformed Baptist theology acknowledges that baptism only confers admission into the visible Church but even the visible Church is distinct from the actual New Covenant that consists only of the Elect.

Hence, it doesn't do much good to have a discussion on the actual identity of those in the New Covenant in a discussion about the administration of the ordinance of baptism from a Baptist perspective. Why? Because that topic is distinct from the decision to baptize.

What I was pointing out to Randy is that he wanted to go to that discussion (as Baptists are wont to do) to state that the CoG cannot consist of somebody who is not Elect. OK, fine. If I grant that point, then it still doesn't bear upon the decision to Baptize.

As I have noted repeatedly, when Baptists get into discussions about the subjects of baptism, invariably they begin talking about an invisible people that they cannot name and move, actually, away from the topic of who is the proper subject of the administration of a visible ordinance. I was trying to pull Randy (and others) back to the discussion of who one would baptize since the composition of the New Covenant says nothing about who to baptize from a Reformed Baptist perspective.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I know you are vey busy, but if any of you padeo brethren can give it a listen, I would like to hear what you think on it, also he has two recent sermons where he commented on the fact, that the word's for sprinkle, or pour were not used in any of the baptism contexts.

Here is a context where a baptism is spoken of and the word pour is utilized:

Acts 2:33

Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.

Acts 10:45

And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

In fact, the only actual mode that is ever clearly identified is pouring with respect to the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Pilgrim]

i find it sad that people who agree whole heatedly on the DoG and other reformed issues practically come to blows on this one issue.

Obviously, then, they don't agree wholeheartedly on the doctrines of grace, otherwise they could agree on something so basic as to whom the covenant of grace is to be administered without practically coming to blows. Let's be clear -- the Baptist insistence on the excommunication of believers' children is as important as the excommunication of any individual from the church of God.

And let's be equally clear that Baptists cannot excommunicate those who never were in (as in "part of") the church of God to begin with. You have to be in something in order to be put out of it. Hence, the age old argument between Baptists and Presbyterians.

Of course I agree with Randy and Bill here.

Also, doesn't excommunication relate largely to who can come to the table? If so, then it seems that the confessional Reformed are guilty of keeping these baptized church members from the table as well. That is of course the charge of the FV paedocommunion advocates, that the traditional Reformed position in effect excommunicates baptized children since they are not allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper unless they have made a profession of faith. Indeed Peter Leithart's book was entitled Daddy, Why Was I Excommunicated. I haven't read the book, but I don't think it was aimed at Baptists.

Where in the Bible do we find an example of someone who is baptized but who doesn't partake of the Lord's Supper as well?

 

[Pilgrim]

And Chris (wherever you are), look what you so efficiently started and then said you didn't want to participate in!

Well, I don't have any problem participating. I just don't have time to spend hours on the board now the way I did in the past, which is a good thing. Iron sharpens iron and as Randy (I think it was) noted, we haven't had a good baptism debate in a while on the PB. My concern was that it would degenerate into ad hominem attacks, insults, whining, etc. and would in general generate more heat than light the way some more recent baptism threads have.

 

[Pilgrim]

i find it sad that people who agree whole heatedly on the DoG and other reformed issues practically come to blows on this one issue.

Obviously, then, they don't agree wholeheartedly on the doctrines of grace, otherwise they could agree on something so basic as to whom the covenant of grace is to be administered without practically coming to blows. Let's be clear -- the Baptist insistence on the excommunication of believers' children is as important as the excommunication of any individual from the church of God.

Just because I love my Baptist brethren doesn't mean that I believe we're completely on the same page with respect to the DoG. The paedo and credo debate cuts at the heart of what the nature of a disciple is. In fact, I was musing over this in the AM today while I was working out and I came to the conclusion that, primarily, it is my understanding of the nature of discipleship within a Covenant that convinces me of Reformed theology against a credo perspective. Baptism is an initiation into visible discipleship (among other things) and I cannot divorce the concept of "disciple" from the notion of training in the fear and admonition of the Lord as Baptists are wont to do.

I'll never understand, perhaps, how a concept of an invisible New Covenant allows one to rend away all the Covenant nurture and training that is rich and exhaustive throughout the Law, the Psalms, the Proverbs, and the Prophets that are the means of grace that God has ordained for His elect. The debates on baptism unfortunately stay in a very theoretical framework and have difficulty in translating and describing what, precisely, a Baptist father is doing on a daily basis with a Baptist son. I can't jump the rail to think in those terms I suppose. Somehow Baptists do it but it would take an entire sea change in my understanding of visible discipleship and the nature of the CoG to make that leap.

This aspect opens up a whole other dimension to the argument. Some Baptists have also noted that where you come down on this issue has some effect on soteriology as well. A former pastor of mine says infant baptism leads to "backdoor Arminianism" because of the common (though not universal) idea that God is somehow more obligated to save the "covenant child." In the recent book Believer's Baptism SBTS Professor Shawn Wright argues that the Reformed teaching on paedobaptism implicitly undermines sola fide.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Obviously, then, they don't agree wholeheartedly on the doctrines of grace, otherwise they could agree on something so basic as to whom the covenant of grace is to be administered without practically coming to blows. Let's be clear -- the Baptist insistence on the excommunication of believers' children is as important as the excommunication of any individual from the church of God.

Just because I love my Baptist brethren doesn't mean that I believe we're completely on the same page with respect to the DoG. The paedo and credo debate cuts at the heart of what the nature of a disciple is. In fact, I was musing over this in the AM today while I was working out and I came to the conclusion that, primarily, it is my understanding of the nature of discipleship within a Covenant that convinces me of Reformed theology against a credo perspective. Baptism is an initiation into visible discipleship (among other things) and I cannot divorce the concept of "disciple" from the notion of training in the fear and admonition of the Lord as Baptists are wont to do.

I'll never understand, perhaps, how a concept of an invisible New Covenant allows one to rend away all the Covenant nurture and training that is rich and exhaustive throughout the Law, the Psalms, the Proverbs, and the Prophets that are the means of grace that God has ordained for His elect. The debates on baptism unfortunately stay in a very theoretical framework and have difficulty in translating and describing what, precisely, a Baptist father is doing on a daily basis with a Baptist son. I can't jump the rail to think in those terms I suppose. Somehow Baptists do it but it would take an entire sea change in my understanding of visible discipleship and the nature of the CoG to make that leap.

This aspect opens up a whole other dimension to the argument. Some Baptists have also noted that where you come down on this issue has some effect on soteriology as well. A former pastor of mine says infant baptism leads to "backdoor Arminianism" because of the common (though not universal) idea that God is somehow more obligated to save the "covenant child." In the recent book Believer's Baptism SBTS Professor Shawn Wright argues that the Reformed teaching on paedobaptism implicitly undermines sola fide.

Interesting. It's funny how one's perspective is shaped by the side of the fence you sit on. In my estimation, Baptist theology either tends toward hyper-Calvinism or a self-determining Arminianism.

Why do I say this?

Because, as I noted above, it is not on the basis of the person's actual participation in the New Covenant that you actually baptize the professor but you baptize on the basis of the profession itself. That means that the chief arbiter for determining who is going to participate in your Church (not to be confused with the New Covenant) is the decision of the individual to express faith. Hence, baptism in the Church is intrinsically based upon the individual profession and not upon Promise. This is why I've even heard it repeated here that baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality.

Baptism then becomes less a matter of a Promise of God for the visible Church at large and a sign of the New Covenant and more of a sign that relates to the individual profession (decision). I think this naturally leads to the notion that it was the decision itself that procures the salvation because the sign itself was applied upon basis of profession.

Understood correctly, the paedo position does not postulate that there is any halfway mode of salvation for the children of believers but simply recognizes that for any member, including a professor, baptism is applied to those who are to be trained in the fear and admonition of the Lord. An adult disciple, no less than a child, is to be trained in such things and the Church has no infallible visible information for either category. The sign marks both out as visibly connected to the institution where catechesis in the things of God occurs and the sign promises salvation to those who lay hold of the Promise by evangelical faith that is born and nurtured by the means of Grace therein.

The whole nonsense, in fact, that a person would argue that you wouldn't say "know the Lord" to a person in your Church assumes that those in your Church are of the NC but that presumes you know they are elect upon profession according to a Credo. How silly to assume this when baptism was intended to be the means to bring them regularly near the means of grace. Many professors baptized are not converted and the means of grace may yet convert them if we don't foolishly presume that they are all converted already: professor or child.

The Spirit of God then blows where it may. Neither the child nor the professor is said to be in any position to presume upon election but both are called to strive to enter the narrow path and the Church administers the means of Grace that might convert either. Baptism cannot be viewed by either professor or child in the Reformed schema to point within them but is always a sign external to them to the Promise of God. It is an external promise in both cases of child and professor and avoids the pitfall that the Baptist schema contains that places the nexus of the significance of actual baptism within the individual himself. It's all God in our schema - Promise and means - the individual must respond in evangelical faith born from above.

 

[Herald]

Interesting. It's funny how one's perspective is shaped by the side of the fence you sit on. In my estimation, Baptist theology either tends toward hyper-Calvinism or a self-determining Arminianism.

Why do I say this?

Because, as I noted above, it is not on the basis of the person's actual participation in the New Covenant that you actually baptize the professor but you baptize on the basis of the profession itself. That means that the chief arbiter for determining who is going to participate in your Church (not to be confused with the New Covenant) is the decision of the individual to express faith. Hence, baptism in the Church is intrinsically based upon the individual profession and not upon Promise. This is why I've even heard it repeated here that baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality.

Rich, I am more concerned here with your extreme view of Baptists.

First, let's differentiate between confessional Baptists and the majority Arminian-leaning Baptist churches. When Baptists are referred to on this board we should have in mind the former, not the latter. Confessional Baptists are first in line to point out the many deficiencies of their wayward brethren. It has been my experience on the PB that confessional Baptists are given ownership (by paedos) of what the majority Baptist churches believe. For the sake of discussion the word "majority" applies to unconfessional Baptist churches.

Some of what you say (above) is accurate, although a bit of a mischaracterization. We do baptize on the basis of profession. "Believe and be baptized." You do the same with adult converts, so the practice itself is not foreign to paedos. The underlying cause of the disagreement is the matter of who is in the covenant. That we know. But believers baptism is not a reprehensible practice for the paedo when it comes to adult converts.

You are making the accusation that Baptists separate local church membership with New Covenant inclusion. Rich, I have to ask, which Baptists? Confessional Baptists like Randy, Chris and myself; or Baptists of the kind you are used to at Central Baptist Church? Confessional Baptists do not separate local church membership with New Covenant inclusion. A profession of faith is really a confession by the individual that they are a believer. Entrance into the New Covenant is on the basis of faith alone. Baptism is a sign of the New Covenant but does not initiate the New Covenant. In other words, Baptism is not the key that turns on the engine of the New Covenant. The confessional Baptist believes the New Covenant is entered into by faith and then is signified by baptism. That local church membership is predicated on both a credible profession of faith and its corresponding sign is logically consistent. How does this differ from the paedo practice with adult converts? Do you baptize an adult convert on the basis of the promise without ascertaining whether the person believes? It almost seems that there is a categorical difference between infants and adults when it comes to the qualifications for baptism. I know, I know. It stems from your view of the covenant. But does baptizing the adult believer stem from that same view or from "believe and be baptized"?

Baptism then becomes less a matter of a Promise of God for the visible Church at large and a sign of the New Covenant and more of a sign that relates to the individual profession (decision). I think this naturally leads to the notion that it was the decision itself that procures the salvation because the sign itself was applied upon basis of profession.

An absoulte, "Yes!" to the first part of this charge. Baptism is a promise of nothing, or at least nothing positive for the visible church, inasmuch that the visible church does not guarantee inclusion in the New Covenant. The credible profession (decision) is a confession by the individual that they believe. So how can you say that we believe the decision itself procures salvation, or were you referring to unconfessional Baptists? You must have because you know that confessional Baptists do not believe that. The decision does not procure salvation. Salvation is on the basis of faith. The decision is a confession of that faith. Truthfully, I hate the word decision in this context. It makes me think of the evangelists who scream, "Have you made your decision for Christ?!" Those Finney-type preachers would be the accurate recipients of your charge. For the confessional Baptist, baptism is the sign of the New Covenant administered to a person who confesses faith in Christ. We must assume that the person has been saved based on their confession. Neither paedos or credos can know with certainty that a person is saved. You baptize infants on the assumption they are part of the covenant unless they prove otherwise as they grow up. But you baptize adults on basis that they have believed. You certainly wouldn't baptize one who said they didn't believe. Therefore you appply the sign to adults on the basis of their profession, but I wouldn't think for a moment that you do so for any other reason than you believe the person has come to faith in Christ. So it is on the basis of faith, not profession. Profession is simply a confession of saving faith.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, I am more concerned here with your extreme view of Baptists.

Bill,

Your concern stems from the fact that you completely missed the nature of my interaction with Chris. If you follow the argument, I am interacting with Chris' assertion that Calvinism's baptism of infants is a "gateway drug" into Arminianism. I was demonstrating that this is a misunderstanding of the nature of the sign on the one hand but also attempting to demonstrate how credo-baptism's formulation tends to elevate decision to the center in the life of the Church and lead to Arminianism. You really need to read my argument much more carefully to note where I jump to a "...this could lead to this..." as opposed to "...this is what Reformed Baptists Confess." I understand what your Confession reads. I also know that Chris knows full well what our Confession reads but that did not mean that he might not attempt to state that paedo-baptism might undermine what we confess. I didn't presume to tell him that he had a warped view of our Confession but argued against the slope he was arguing for and presented my argument for the natural pressure that exists within the credo schema to fly apart.

We do baptize on the basis of profession. "Believe and be baptized." You do the same with adult converts, so the practice itself is not foreign to paedos. The underlying cause of the disagreement is the matter of who is in the covenant. That we know. But believers baptism is not a reprehensible practice for the paedo when it comes to adult converts.

Nor did I ever state that baptism upon profession in the case of adult converts was unwarranted.

You are making the accusation that Baptists separate local church membership with New Covenant inclusion. Rich, I have to ask, which Baptists? Confessional Baptists like Randy, Chris and myself; or Baptists of the kind you are used to at Central Baptist Church? Confessional Baptists do not separate local church membership with New Covenant inclusion. A profession of faith is really a confession by the individual that they are a believer. Entrance into the New Covenant is on the basis of faith alone. Baptism is a sign of the New Covenant but does not initiate the New Covenant.

Do you see what you just did?

You stated that I erroneously stated that Baptist separate local Church membership from New Covenant membership. I actually stated that local Church membership is not to be confused with participation in the New Covenant and you confirmed my very words above.

You stated very clearly that Baptism does not initiate into the New Covenant. Yet, Bill, how do you know who your local Church members are? Are they not the baptized in your congregation? Hence you do make a class distinction where local Church membership is not to be confused with New Covenant membership or else you would have to say that all baptized are in the New Covenant, which you have repudiated above.

In other words, Baptism is not the key that turns on the engine of the New Covenant. The confessional Baptist believes the New Covenant is entered into by faith and then is signified by baptism. That local church membership is predicated on both a credible profession of faith and its corresponding sign is logically consistent. How does this differ from the paedo practice with adult converts? Do you baptize an adult convert on the basis of the promise without ascertaining whether the person believes?

You are confusing again between the things invisible, acting as if they are visible to you, then stringing the visible things with it and acting as if your Church is baptizing upon the basis of the two things put together. I know that's confusing so let me explain. You state that the New Covenant is entered into by faith (invisible) and that is signified by baptism (visible). You see, what you did? You continue the argument as if you had warrant to jump from the thing that only God knows and then because you know that some profess you think the Church has some warrant to apply the sign by connecting the two.

Why not construct the same argument by saying that some people have a false faith that doesn't join them to the New Covenant (invisible), the Church thinks they have real faith, and that is signified by baptism. You could have just as easily made that connection.

The difference, again, is that the Reformed Confessions are able to keep the sign as pointing to the Promise of God and administer it to a professor without trying to say that we're saying something about the individual's faith when we baptize. You see how you desire to state something about the individual's faith above but all you really know is a profession. We say we are not saying anything about the individual's faith at the time of Baptism but that does not change the nature of the Promise that holds out the thing signified if the person has faith. Time of administration or nature of the faith of the individual at administration is immaterial. The Promise of God is timeless.

It almost seems that there is a categorical difference between infants and adults when it comes to the qualifications for baptism. I know, I know. It stems from your view of the covenant. But does baptizing the adult believer stem from that same view or from "believe and be baptized"?

Well, there is a categorical difference. One is a child and the other an adult. From one standpoint, however, there is no difference with respect to the Church's knowledge of the election of the individual. Baptists try to convince themselves otherwise by stating that profession is the key but that is not a guarantor of election.

Baptism then becomes less a matter of a Promise of God for the visible Church at large and a sign of the New Covenant and more of a sign that relates to the individual profession (decision). I think this naturally leads to the notion that it was the decision itself that procures the salvation because the sign itself was applied upon basis of profession.

An absoulte, "Yes!" to the first part of this charge. Baptism is a promise of nothing, or at least nothing positive for the visible church, inasmuch that the visible church does not guarantee inclusion in the New Covenant.

Well, of course one must state this if New Covenant = Elect. What I actually stated though is that, by your reckoning, Baptism is stripped of its visible Promissary value (which you heartedly agree to). This is actually sad because you actually agree that Baptism becomes less about what God Promises in terms of His salvific and elective activity and becomes more about the individual, which confirms my assessment of the Baptist view of the ordinance.

The credible profession (decision) is a confession by the individual that they believe. So how can you say that we believe the decision itself procures salvation, or were you referring to unconfessional Baptists? You must have because you know that confessional Baptists do not believe that. The decision does not procure salvation.

Again, you missed the original point of my post to demonstrate how a slide might occur from the Confessional to an Arminian view here. Re-read what I originally wrote.

In one sense, though, you have already confirmed your agreement that there is no real objective visible Promissary value to the sign so the sign tends to attach itself to the individual in your view (it only has value if the individual has faith in other words). Baptism, then, visibly says much about the profession and elevates profession (decision) to a primary position in your scheme. I deliberately used the word "decision" provocatively because it is not a huge leap to move from profession to decision since that is how we existentially understand a profession in our own minds. Thus, because profession takes center stage in all the Baptist ordinances, in one sense decision takes center stage in the ordinances and it is not the Promise of God that is central.

It is not that the Presbyterian would state that the profession of a man is immaterial but the significance of baptism is not tied up visibly in the profession of the individual but remains grounded in the Promise of God and never loses its mooring in God's Elective purposes. Hence, I maintain that the Paedo position both invisibly and visibly remains Calvinistic from start to finish while the Credo position invisibly does but visibly does not.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Randy & Co., I want to stay with the quote of Coxe you gave in your post #125 for a while. He said (in part),

Circumcision was an ordinance of the old covenant and pertained to the law and therefore directly bound its subjects to a legal obedience. But baptism is an ordinance of the gospel and (besides other excellent and most comfortable uses) directly obliges its subjects to gospel obedience. Therefore it is in this respect opposed to, rather than substituted in the place of, circumcision.

I wonder how many Reformed Baptists here on PB will subscribe to this statement? Consider what David Kingdon in his, Children of Abraham (pp. 27, 28), says:

“Circumcision was enjoined on Abraham and his family before ever Israel became a nation. It was not a legal ordinance, but the sign in Abraham’s flesh of God’s gracious covenant with him and his seed...It is my considered opinion that Baptists must recognize the analogy between circumcision and baptism.”​

I will grant that, in Hanko’s words, “the administration of the covenant in the old dispensation was in close connection with the law and the principle of the law....[and] Circumcision was inseparably connected to this administration of the law” (We and Our Children, p. 21), and thus had to be replaced as a sign of the covenant when the law was made obsolete. In essence, however, both signs were of the covenant of grace.

The hermeneutical issue involved here pertains not, primarily, to infant baptism, its proofs or lack thereof, but to how the covenant is understood. And in this context, what is the relation of Old Testament Israel to the New Testament church? Is there a unity between them in essence (though not in administration and outward governance)? And is there a unity in the covenants peculiar to each despite outward differences?

The way I understand it, this is the crux of the disparity between the respective paradigms, Reformed and Reformed Baptist. Infant baptism is but symptomatic of the underlying systemic differences.

(Those who desire to have an in-depth analysis of and interaction with the Reformed Baptist view vis-à-vis the Reformed I would recommend Herman Hanko’s excellent, We And Our Children: The Reformed Doctrine of Infant Baptism. In this he responds in great detail to Kingdon and his book. I will agree with the Baptists, there is much confusion and division within the Presbyterian and Reformed teachings on this subject, which I have not found in Hanko & company.)

Reformed Baptists (Kingdon included) will assert that the primary significance of the Covenant of Grace (the Abrahamic) in the Old Testament pertains to Israel’s national and natural status, not its spiritual, and thus, when the covenant comes to its fulfillment in Christ and His spiritual kingdom, the “national and natural” aspects of the covenant – notably its inclusion of infants into it – are annulled.

The Reformed, to the contrary, affirm that the primary significance of the covenant with Abraham – and his progeny, Israel – is spiritual, to the extent that the people of God in the Old Testament are identical (in essence) with the church of the New. The Baptists are loath to acknowledge this, despite Stephen (by the Holy Spirit) denominating it so in Acts 7:38. And in Galatians 6:16 the church is called Israel.

So part of the disparity between Reformed and Baptists concerns the nature of the church. Was it because of the abuses of Rome that they moved to their view of a “pure church” comprised only of regenerate individuals?

This discussion then involves the nature of the church, and the people of God up through the ages, from Adam till now.

 

[JM]

Brothers and Sisters,

I came to credobaptist convictions three weeks ago. Here (with slight modifications to remove personal references) is what I recently sent to my OPC pastor and the pastor of the PCA church we had been planning to join my relocation and planning to join explaining why I am now attending a Baptist church:

Until Saturday night I would have told you that I was a convinced paedobaptist and Presbyterian. I was even prepared to sell most of my Baptist books, even including several ones by and about Spurgeon. However as I had told you in our first meeting, I have always struggled with Acts 2:41 and never thought that passage taken as a whole was nearly as favorable to paedobaptism as many think. No paedo has ever been able to answer it completely to my satisfaction. Whenever I have asked the question (including several times on the PB) I usually get stony silence. Others will respond with some kind of snide comment like "Baptists just don't get it". Others will try to argue that there were no children there that day. If I recall correctly that day you responded with something like "we shouldn't get hung up on one verse" or "we shouldn't allow one verse to determine things." However, I suppose I just ignored my concerns up until now. But I read it in context Saturday night and it hit me like a ton of bricks:

Acts 2:41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Some will argue that the reference to "breaking of bread" in Acts 2:42 is not necessarily a reference to the Lord's Supper. It is used as a proof text in the Westminster Standards at WCF 21.5, 21.6, 26.2, WLC 63, 108, 154, 174, 175 and WSC 50 and 88. Several of these are general references to the means of grace but Acts 2:42 is used in other instances as a proof text specifically for the Lord's Supper. I interpret these verses to teach that, first of all, those who received Peter's word that day were baptized (i.e. only those personally professing faith) and that this same group continued steadfastly breaking bread which typically included in those days the celebration of the Lord's Supper. These two verses, in my opinion, throw the Reformed teaching of paedobaptism and credo communion into serious doubt. It appears that the two choices that do justice to the unity expressed here are adopting Baptist views or adopting paedocommunion. Unfortunately, many in Reformed churches are opting for the latter. This is why we see so many who come from Baptist backgrounds like Doug Wilson, Gregg Strawbridge and Randy Booth adopting paedocommunion soon after becoming paedobaptists. A whole lot more NT evidence can be marshaled against paedobaptism than can be brought to bear against
paedocommunion. Once one has explained away all of the "believe and be baptized" verses in favor of an overarching concept of covenant theology that is imposed upon the scriptures, why let 1 Cor. 11 get in the way of practicing paedocommunion? I am glad that churches like the PCA have up until this point held the line against paedocommunion. But I believe at this point that the teaching of the Westminster Standards on this subject is inconsistent and am thinking that those who have argued that the western church abandoned paedocommunion after the adoption of transubstantiation because of concerns that the child would throw up the elements have a point. Of course the eastern church has never abandoned paedocommunion and will force alcoholic wine down the throat of children who are barely more than infants.

I re-read it and thought one more thank you was deserved.

 

[Pilgrim]

I simply don't see Acts 2:41 as something that would knock down that whole edifice and find the historical narratives to be, at best, vague to establish a principle either way. For every verse where you might want to definitively create a "this must speak of adults only" you'll have the same wrestling process with those that we believe militate in the opposite way. You've obviously built some sort of super-structure beside this single verse or it would not have hit you like a ton of bricks.

I am looking forward to seeing the superstructure. If I just started the paedo-credo research and saw someone reverse their theology on this verse I would say the reasoning looks shaky, too.

However, I believe there has been much more thought than the tip of this iceberg.

So please, Chris, when you have time, explain more thoroughly your thoughts.

There's a 5 second rule for candy that hits the floor and a 2 week rule for massive theological changes.

I agree that one shouldn't go into print immediately with massive theological changes. That's why I posted the OP in this thread 3 weeks after my change in views.

Those who are awaiting some "superstructure" will likely be disappointed. It is the paedobaptist covenant theologian who needs a "superstructure" to account for his views since they cannot be found in the NT, as has been noted by many paedos on this board and elsewhere. As Louis Berkhof wrote, "Infant baptism is not based on a single passage of Scripture, but on a series of considerations." The Baptist view is based on a plain reading of the Scriptures and needs no such superstructure in order to reach its conclusions. But this does not satisfy some, especially those who may be dissatisfied with certain aspects of Baptist life and may be looking over the fence at what appears to be greener pastures on the confessional Presbyterian side, as was the case with me several years ago. I'll be the first to admit that the Reformed paedobaptist system is internally consistent and often appears persuasive compared to what sometimes appear to be simplistic Baptist arguments. I recall Dr. R. S. Clark posting on here about remembering Dr. Al Martin repeating (maybe it was shouting) over and over that the Bible says "believe and be baptized!" I think this was shortly before RSC became confessionally Reformed. Apparently the lack of superstructure offered by Al Martin was eventually found wanting. I don't think I can do any better than Al Martin did.

The "superstructure" can be found in the 2nd London Baptist Confession and any number of Baptist works like the aforementioned "String of Pearls Unstrung" by Fred Malone, Alan Conner's "Covenant Children Today", Greg Welty's "Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism," John L. Dagg's "Manual of Theology" and many others.

Acts 2:41 says that those who gladly received his word were baptized. It doesn't say those who received his word and their children. This is in the context of a key passage of the paedos. Other credo sounding verses can possibly be explained away in various ways. But v. 41 specifically states who was baptized, and it was those who received Peter's word i.e. those who personally repented and professed belief.

To be perfectly frank in my opinion someone who doesn't see that this passage, and especially v. 41, teaches the baptism of disciples alone is probably already on the road to being paedo or at best is deliberately trying to maintain a stance of objectivity prior to studying the issue. Or am I just having a continual dense moment for these past 3 weeks?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Chris, you said,

"It is the paedobaptist covenant theologian who needs a 'superstructure' to account for his views since they cannot be found in the NT..."​

This view you state is due to our different hermeneutic. Paedos say that a "superstructure" runs plainly though both the Old and the New, that God's people are one, His covenant of grace is one, His salvation is one, His promise is one, albeit constantly being unfolded / expanded throughout redemptive history. The Old and New Testaments (Covenants) are also one unity, although reflecting different administrations. We do not posit a disunity between the Old and New Testament Scripture.

What you say about Acts 2:41 might be a "plain [21st century] reading", but it does seem to ignore the mindset of the Jew listening to Peter's sermon, which mindset is full of the "superstructure" of God's dealing with His people for millennia. Given the "historical-grammatical" approach to exegesis, should not how Peter was understood by his listeners be taken into account?

"Or am I just having a continual dense moment for these past 3 weeks?"​

I won't bite at that one, though I perceive humility in it!

Steve

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It is the paedobaptist covenant theologian who needs a "superstructure" to account for his views since they cannot be found in the NT...

...The "superstructure" can be found in the 2nd London Baptist Confession and any number of Baptist works like the aforementioned "String of Pearls Unstrung" by Fred Malone, Alan Conner's "Covenant Children Today", Greg Welty's "Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism," John L. Dagg's "Manual of Theology" and many others.

Do you need a superstructure or not Chris?

...I recall Dr. R. S. Clark posting on here about remembering Dr. Al Martin repeating (maybe it was shouting) over and over that the Bible says "believe and be baptized!" I think this was shortly before RSC became confessionally Reformed. Apparently the lack of superstructure offered by Al Martin was eventually found wanting. I don't think I can do any better than Al Martin did.

I don't know why this strikes me in such a way but it reminds me of Martin Luther pounding the table "This is my Body! This is my Body!"

I still remember the first time I was exposed to Reformed Baptist theology around 8 years ago. I didn't even know the species existed having only been Reformed for a couple of years but I became friends with James White after reading his interactions with Dave Hunt and thanked him for his interaction.

I remember asking him for information as to why he believed in credo baptism having been exposed to Covenant Theology. He pointed me to a couple of sermons he had delivered on Hebrews 8.

I remember thinking at the time: "What does the New Covenant being only with the Elect have to do with who is baptized?"

I'm still wondering.

It's funny that you state that the Reformed Baptist position is this simple presentation of "Believe and be baptized" but the plain fact is this: When was the last time a Reformed Baptist simply stuck to that argument and argued simply that we are baptizing on this plain issue and nothing more? In fact, I have never seen a debate like that. What is the debate always about? It is an elaborate presentation trying to prove to all that the New Covenant consists of the Elect alone. In the end, however, the discussion of who to baptize is completely left on another table. The issue that you consider is simple, that one must repeatedly pound the table upon, is scarcely scratched.

I'm sorry, Chris, I just don't really think anyone who has witnessed these arguments (even in this thread) can really agree that "Believe and be baptized" has really carried the water for the Baptist presentation. The superstructure for the Baptist is the insistence that the NC is with the Elect alone but, again and again, I'm still wondering what this has to do with the decision to baptize since Baptism does not confer membership into the New Covenant once this is admitted.

Off to bed!

 

[JonathanHunt]

Calling All Babdists

CALLING ALL BABDISTS!!!!

Enlist for your duty!

The Pentecost Re-enactment Society seeks 3000 babdists to prove once and for all that it is possible to immerse 3000 folks in one day. To those who are concerned that this might lead to them being baptised twice, just remember, as the good book says 'you can't have enough of a good thing' (Hezekiah 4.1).

Apply now, and if in doubt, just ask yourself...

 

[MOSES]

3000 Immersed

Concerning the immersion of the 3000:

I apologize in advance if my following point has already been mentioned here and I missed it.

It would be an inmodest display to immerse 3000 people that day. Not only inmodest, but possibly pornographic! Look at the cultural dress of the people in those days. Women did not wear bras, panties, etc. (neither did the men...). Dunking a women of that type of dress in water, then having her walk around the city would be extremely inmodest. I don't think I need to go into details do I? A 3000 person wet t-shirt contest in front of the whole city does not seem to be consistent with Christian modesty.

 

[VictorBravo]

Concerning the immersion of the 3000:

I apologize in advance if my following point has already been mentioned here and I missed it.

It would be an inmodest display to immerse 3000 people that day. Not only inmodest, but possibly pornographic! Look at the cultural dress of the people in those days. Women did not wear bras, panties, etc. (neither did the men...). Dunking a women of that type of dress in water, then having her walk around the city would be extremely inmodest. I don't think I need to go into details do I? A 3000 person wet t-shirt contest in front of the whole city does not seem to be consistent with Christian modesty.

Eh, I don't think that objection is very strong. Why would the numbers matter? One would be just as bad as 3000.

And, without doubt, there were immersions just a few centuries later. Did dress change that much in the intervening period? Doubt it.

 

[MOSES]

Eh, I don't think that objection is very strong. Why would the numbers matter? One would be just as bad as 3000.

And, without doubt, there were immersions just a few centuries later. Did dress change that much in the intervening period? Doubt it.

I think there is a big difference between someone who is properly dressed in a more private setting, then 3000 people who were suddenly immersed in front of the whole city.

Just my opinion.

 

[smhbbag]

I remember thinking at the time: "What does the New Covenant being only with the Elect have to do with who is baptized?"

I'm still wondering.

In reading the thread, it seems you don't recognize a principle that I assumed most baptists held, though now I wonder as nobody has brought it up in response to this critique.

The Elect-only New Covenant is relevant to baptism in this way:

1) We do view baptism as the sign of the NC, which is entered into by faith.
2) The NC is invisible, with no one having perfect knowledge of who is in it.

So your question remains...if genuine faith (invisible) enters us into the covenant, how can the composition of the NC be relevant to the real-world application of baptism (visible), when we don't know who is genuinely regenerate?

The last principle connects them:
3) All professions are taken as legitimate, without some serious I Cor. 5 justification against it, and we treat that individual as if we had perfect knowledge of their salvation.

This is simple belief in part of the classic invisible/visible distinction. We address all professors as if they are elect - until shown otherwise. That is why pastors can, and should, address their entire congregations - and each member - as holy, as saints, heirs of good promises, etc.

In fact, a professor's actual status in the NC is only for God to know, and is not relevant to church procedure/policy at all, except when their lack of faith manifests itself in ways deserving excommunication. We know there are wolves, but we don't know who they are. And all members are treated as "innocent" until they prove themselves guilty.

So, that all NC members are elect is entirely relevant.

If that is the case, and we assume a professor's faith is real, and treat him as if we had perfect knowledge that he is a covenant member, then we can apply baptism as a visible sign of the invisible NC and be entirely consistent.

It may turn out in eternity that he was no NC member - but that is on his head, and taking the NC sign without faith will only heap more judgment on him, and and so will his greater exposure to the gospel. The church will not, however, be judged in any way for applying baptism to a professor who showed no outward Biblical signs of being unregenerate. That is what we are to do. This is in the same way that a pastor who addresses a disguised wolf as a saint, holy, saved, etc. will not be judged for it.

Does that satisfy, at least to show that in our view, an all-elect NC actually is relevant to the physical application of baptism? I know you disagree with aspects of it - but we are not internally inconsistent or following non-sequitors.

 

[Herald]

Rich,

I should have read your post in context with your dialog with Chris. I don't know whether that makes a substantial difference in how I understood your post, only that it was more directed at Chris than to Baptists in general.

Yes, you did use provocative language. If it was to solicit a response it accomplished its intent. I only responded to your post because I believe it misrepresented confessional Baptists. Not so much on the facts but the conclusions. If it was simply a response in the never ending litany of baptism posts I would have withheld my opinion. Without tooting my own horn I believe you and I did a yeoman's job of alliterating the differences we face in regards to adult baptism, the nature of the covenant, the significance of the sign etc. Instead of continuing the ad infinitum/ad nauseam back and forth I am quite content to let our theological differences stand on their merits. To counter point my disagreements with your last post will only serve to have you counter in return and I believe that will be covering ground that has changed hands numerous times over many different discussions.

Blessings.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Eh, I don't think that objection is very strong. Why would the numbers matter? One would be just as bad as 3000.

And, without doubt, there were immersions just a few centuries later. Did dress change that much in the intervening period? Doubt it.

uurrrk.. {pssst..} Vic, I don't think you want to go there. It was mandatory that those baptisms were sans togs, of any kind. Not kidding, its part of the historical record.

 

[Iconoclast]

Rich,
I am enjoying this thread,and agree with Bill that you are doing a solid job with your responses and I think you are also seeking to present an accurate depiction of the RB view. I want to try and interact jut a bit more with your post #136 where in part you said this

The point I'm making is that when a Baptist talks about the CoG it has to be done apart from actual baptism. The subject is on a different order: the things invisible only. Because the CoG only consists of the elect, Reformed Baptist theology acknowledges that baptism only confers admission into the visible Church but even the visible Church is distinct from the actual New Covenant that consists only of the Elect.

In another post you added a similar thought

Because, as I noted above, it is not on the basis of the person's actual participation in the New Covenant that you actually baptize the professor but you baptize on the basis of the profession itself. That means that the chief arbiter for determining who is going to participate in your Church (not to be confused with the New Covenant) is the decision of the individual to express faith. Hence, baptism in the Church is intrinsically based upon the individual profession and not upon Promise. This is why I've even heard it repeated here that baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality.

Baptism then becomes less a matter of a Promise of God for the visible Church at large and a sign of the New Covenant and more of a sign that relates to the individual profession (decision). I think this naturally leads to the notion that it was the decision itself that procures the salvation because the sign itself was applied upon basis of profession.

Rich, the way I understand public water baptism, is not that it is a "sign" of a future promise [ although obviously glorification is still future} Public water baptism is the public "confession" that God has done a work already in the person. New Birth has taken place and the "promise" is received in full.
It is not a decision that the person has made.It is the person saying that God has brought them from death to life.
If this has taken place inside the person we cannot see it, true.
But we can see them publicly acknowledge Jesus as Lord and they give testimony with the fruit of their lips giving praise to Him.
It is not that the water baptism per se, has given the person admission into the church. It is that the person is declaring that God has placed Him into the body of Christ already, by the work of the Spirit- not the splash of the water.
Padeobaptists would agree with this with an adult baptism would'nt they?
Last week Bruce posted that the verses in Romans 6/ are not even an issue if we would understand baptism to be a sign, rather than the thing signified.
The thing is in the Nt. I do not think this is the order that God has set forth.
Believe #1 and be baptized #2 is the pattern, because the promise has already come. Ot.saints embraced the promise of a future reality, so a sign was given to them. Once the reality of the promise has come we do not go back as if we are OT saints.