1689 and the Covenant

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vic, thank you for your response. I don't have time to read it carefully at the moment, but I will do later this evening.
 
Randy,

Without appearing too ambiguous, I would like to say it's about both. There is a big mental disconnect for me in that 7.3 refers to what it seems can only be the revelations of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants as "farther steps" by which "the covenant is revealed in the gospel."

Thus, this first step I'm trying to wrap my mind around is summarized:
1. These ordinances (farther steps) reveal the gospel; this is their purpose.
2. Even if they are typological, their substance then is still the substance of Christ and the Covenant of Grace.
3. These are the means by which the gospel and covenant were revealed, and the means by which men were brought thereunto and guided therein.

How, then, can it be said that these Abrahamic and Mosaic ordinances are anything but an administration of the Covenant of Grace? And, as these (the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations) contained externally by command certain who were surely reprobates, then does it not follow that we can say there is an external administration of the Covenant which includes, de jure, certain reprobates? Perhaps I'm too obtuse, but I just can't see how the gospel/covenant can be administered by something without that thing being called an administration thereof.

-----Added 3/19/2009 at 01:11:02 EST-----

One more thing. If we get back to the first question about 7.3. I believe we are discussing the Covenant of Redemption it this phrase.
and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect
And this would only include the elect.

Absolutely: founded upon, but I don't think this has to mean "coextensive with."

I will have to address the first part later since I am leaving for Lewie Ville in about 15 minutes. On the second part it says founded in, and not upon.
and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect
Doesn't that make a difference? Also it concludes with the phrase "about the redemption of the Elect." This is a prelapsarian Covenant that is being discussed. I believe it is the Covenant of Redemption. And the Elect are only a part of it.
 
Randy,

I hope your trip goes well to "Lewie Ville."

For what it's worth, I absolutely agree with that. The Covenant of Redemption being there spoken of pertains only to the elect, and the Covenant of Grace is therein or thereupon founded.
 
I am not sure what you mean be 'associate'. 29:1 says that Baptism is a 'sign'.

But it is a sign of fellowship with Christ in His redemptive work and benefits. There is no mention of "covenant" or "federal" relations or standings.

Historically, there is no connection between covenant and baptism in Baptist thought. This is clear from its absence in the first London Confession, which has been consciously followed by the second 1677/89 London Confession.
 
But it is a sign of fellowship with Christ in His redemptive work and benefits. There is no mention of "covenant" or "federal" relations or standings. Historically, there is no connection between covenant and baptism in Baptist thought. This is clear from its absence in the first London Confession, which has been consciously followed by the second 1677/89 London Confession.
Huh?

In Puritan Baptist thought Christ's redemptive work and benefits are not distinct from but inseparably bound to the biblical and theological concepts of federal headship and covenant. Indeed, to be in "saving fellowship with Christ in His redemptive work and benefits" (of which Baptism is a "sign") is to be in "covenant" with Christ:
Touching His office, Jesus Christ only is made the Mediator of the New Covenant, even the everlasting covenant of grace between God and man, to be perfectly and fully the Prophet, Priest, and King of the Church of God for evermore (1st LBCF 1644, Art. X).

That all believers are a holy and sanctified people, and that sanctification is a spiritual grace of the New Covenant, and effect of the love of God, manifested to the soul, whereby the believer is in truth and reality separated both in soul and body, from all sin and dead works, through the blood of the everlasting Covenant, whereby he also presseth after a heavenly and evangelical perfection, in obedience to all the commands, which Christ as Head and King in this New Covenant has prescribed to him (1st LBCF 1644, Art. XXIX).

All believers through the knowledge of that justification of life given by the Father, and brought forth by the blood of Christ, have this as their great privilege of that New Covenant, peace with God, and reconciliation .... (1st LBCF 1644, Art. XXX).

To this Church He has made His promises, and given the signs of His Covenant presence ...." (1st LBCF, Art. XXXIV). [Note: Article XL identifies baptism as one of the "signs" of this "covenant."]
The wording of many of these articles is nearly identical to that of the 1596 True Confession, whose primary author was, apparently, Henry Ainsworth, a separatist congregationalist. The First London Baptist Confession also drew much of its language and phraseology from William Ames's The Marrow of Sacred Divinity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In Puritan Baptist thought Christ's redemptive work and benefits are not distinct from but inseparably bound to the biblical and theological concepts of federal headship and covenant.

Certainly Christ and His benefits to the elect are inseparably bound to the everlasting covenant, but baptism is not considered as administering the covenant, admitting one into the covenant, or as a token that one is in covenant with God in Baptist thought; otherwise you would have temporary professors in the new covenant, which is anathema to the "reformed baptist" system.

The wording of many of these articles is nearly identical to that of the 1596 True Confession, whose primary author was, apparently, Henry Ainsworth, a separatist congregationalist.

The True Confession speaks very clearly to the point that the baptised are "made pertakers of the signe of Gods Couenant," and this includes infants. The removal of both the application to infants and of the tie to covenant membership is the more pronounced in the First London Confession given that it reflects or relies on the True Confession at various points.
 
Certainly Christ and His benefits to the elect are inseparably bound to the everlasting covenant, but baptism is not considered as administering the covenant, admitting one into the covenant, or as a token that one is in covenant with God in Baptist thought; otherwise you would have temporary professors in the new covenant, which is anathema to the "reformed baptist" system.
Matthew this is correct when speaking of water baptism. Unless one is Spirit baptized nothing else matters. If a false professor gets wet,lives a lie, goes to the white throne, then goes into the second death, in what way was he ever in the COG? The padeo distinction between the Cov,of redemption[Father ,Son, Spirit] before creation/ said to be made only among the persons of the Godhead- and the Cog made with men after works cov.failed.
with an outward/inward administration allows for this idea using Ot Israelites who turned from the covenant as the model.

The credo view does not draw as sharp a distinction between the cov of redemption,and the covenant of grace as we do not speak of two categories of personsinthe covenant of grace, ie outward+visible / inward+invisible.

If we were all agreed on this point we would have only one confession.
Because of the truth and reality of Spirit baptism placing everyone of the elect in Christ, we see believer's baptism of a believer
as the only accurate identification of the truth of the Spirit's work.
Both grow together until the harvest.
Tares among the wheat.. Not wheat that turn into tares.
This is the heart of the matter. In what way are people said to be [ in] the covenant of grace, but some of them are not saved. Ot.Israelites who were covenant breakers were physically born, in a physical nation. The covenant sign was given to any male born in Israel as we know, yet not all were actually covenant keepers. The covenant breaker's are described as not having faith
2For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
Did they have salvation and lose it?
or
Did only those among Physical Israel have a God given faith mixed with the promise?
8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello Anthony, We are agreed on the point of difference between paedobaptists and antipaedobaptists, and the various ways assurance and apostasy are construed within the two schemes. I was only answering an historical question and don't really see any point trampling over the same old ground. As noted previously, as far as I can see, the antipaedobaptist denies the connection of baptism with covenant standing or that the non-elect are in covenant with God, which means there is no subjective assurance or apostasy in the antipaedobaptist scheme; all that is left is the objective belief that God knows them that are His.
 
Matthew,
Yes we have discussed this,and I am still working at it.:um: I guess I am still trying to figure out in what sense is it considered grace, if it is not saving grace?
i see this in Romans3
1What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

2Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
Here having the oracles of God was said to be a great advantage
I see that. But without being mixed with faith they perished.

I know that the outward administration teaching gives an explanation with this in mind, and all the apostasy warning verses in Hebrews ,can plug into this. I can see how the model can work. Just not certain that it is the model that best fits and remains consistent with the doctrines of grace.
I am hoping to re-study Hebrews again, and will look to get a copy of Dickson as you had recommended. For now I am going to try to work through Gouge"s commentary and try to read it thinking of both models.:book2:
 
In Puritan Baptist thought Christ's redemptive work and benefits are not distinct from but inseparably bound to the biblical and theological concepts of federal headship and covenant.

Certainly Christ and His benefits to the elect are inseparably bound to the everlasting covenant, but baptism is not considered as administering the covenant, admitting one into the covenant, or as a token that one is in covenant with God in Baptist thought; otherwise you would have temporary professors in the new covenant, which is anathema to the "reformed baptist" system.

Matthew,

You say, "But baptism is not considered as administering the covenant." What do you mean by "administering the covenant"? The verb "administer" means "to manage; have executive charge of" or "to bring into use or operation." I can't see baptism as "managing" the New Covenant. I, as a Reformed Baptist, do not believe water baptism brings the New Covenant into effect or operation. Christ inaugurated the New Covenant 2000 years ago, and the Holy Spirit brings the blessings of the New Covenant into effect via regeneration.

You say, "But baptism is not considered as ... admitting one into the covenant." Well, we do believe water baptism is a sacrament or ordinance that admits one into the visible church, which is also the visible New Covenant community. But we do not believe water baptism ex opere operato admits one into the redemptive blessings proffered by the New Covenant.

You say, "But baptism is not considered as ... as a token that one is in covenant with God." I say, the NT does intend water baptism to serve as a token or sign of our saving fellowship in the benefits of Christ's redemptive work which are the core of the NC blessing-sanctions. Are you suggesting that Baptists believe that one may enjoy the blessings of the New Covenant and yet not be "in covenant with God"? I don't follow your logic. Instead, I see it as follows:
Major premise: The Puritan Baptists viewed baptism as a sign of one's "saving fellowship with Christ in His redemptive work and benefits."
Minor premise: The Puritan Baptists viewed "saving fellowship with Christ and His redemptive work and benefits" as the essential blessings proffered in the New Covenant.
Conclusion: The Puritan Baptists viewed baptism as a sign (an outward sign intended to portray an inward reality) of the New Covenant.
You say, "Temporary professors in the new covenant ... is anathema to the 'reformed baptist' system." That's not quite accurate. Reformed Baptists acknowledge the existence of "temporary professors" in the visible NT church, which is the visible NC community. These spurious believers are members of the New Covenant community de facto but not de jure. They don't really belong in the NC community and have no claim to its blessings. That's why the punishment for them will be more severe than that under the Old Covenant (Heb. 10:26-29). To be born into the Old Covenant and then to apostatize was a bad thing. But it's a much more severe crime to profess repentance and faith in Christ, receive the NC sign of baptism, be admitted into the NC community, and then to turn your back on the NC Mediator.

The wording of many of these articles is nearly identical to that of the 1596 True Confession, whose primary author was, apparently, Henry Ainsworth, a separatist congregationalist.

The True Confession speaks very clearly to the point that the baptised are "made pertakers of the signe of Gods Couenant," and this includes infants. The removal of both the application to infants and of the tie to covenant membership is the more pronounced in the First London Confession given that it reflects or relies on the True Confession at various points.

That water baptism is a sign of the New Covenant and a rite of admittance into the NC community I've affirmed above and believe the Puritan Baptists would have affirmed the same. That they excluded infants as the proper recipients of this sign is, of course, understandable given their view of the New Covenant. In fact, I suspect that the rationale for their wording of the Confession (stressing the blessing-sanctions of the NC) was to highlight the impropriety of infant baptism. How dare a pastor or parent communicate to a child that he is a partaker of New Covenant blessing when he has not professed repentance and faith in Christ and is not, therefore, of the true seed of Abraham! They found no positive warrant, clear biblical precedent, or good and necessary inference to warrant such a practice. So though they embraced much of the covenant theology of their Paedo-Baptist brothers, they could not follow the extended reasoning and strained logic that insisted on making infants of believers members of the NC.
 
Anthony, It is interesting you bring up Romans 3, because I was studying this the other week, and noted something precious in the "advantage" which is not always apparent in commentaries. The Jews did not only possess the oracles of God, but there is something distinct in the privilege in connection with them being circumcised. To be circumcised meant they were regarded as God's covenant people, and the oracles specifically addressed them as enjoying this unique relationship which others did not enjoy. In other words,, to them belongs the oracles of God does not only mean they possessed the Scriptures, but that they were addressed by God with unique privileges and responsibilities. It is in this light that we can understand something of the "grace" involved in being a part of the church as a covenant community, albeit not all who are a part of that community are brought to a saving communion with God.
 
It is in this light that we can understand something of the "grace" involved in being a part of the church as a covenant community, albeit not all who are a part of that community are brought to a saving communion with God.
Concerning that part of the community who are not brought into saving communion with God, shall we view the "grace" as saving or common?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, we do believe water baptism is a sacrament or ordinance that admits one into the visible church, which is also the visible New Covenant community.

We are venturing onto a doctrinal discussion and leaving behind the historical question, but in the interest of clarity:

You say you ("Reformed Baptists") believe this, but the reality is that you ("Reformed Baptists") deny this when you come to explain what you mean by the new covenant. The new covenant consists of the elect. Baptism is sometimes "administered" to the non-elect even in Baptist ecclesiology. Hence baptism has no connection with new covenant membership according to the "Reformed Baptist" definition of terms.
 
It is in this light that we can understand something of the "grace" involved in being a part of the church as a covenant community, albeit not all who are a part of that community are brought to a saving communion with God.
Concerning that part of the community who are not brought into saving communion with God, shall we view the "grace" as saving or common?

For those individuals who are not brought to faith it proves to be "common," but for those who do believe it is the power of God unto salvation.
 
You say you ("Reformed Baptists") believe this, but the reality is that you ("Reformed Baptists") deny this when you come to explain what you mean by the new covenant. The new covenant consists of the elect. Baptism is sometimes "administered" to the non-elect even in Baptist ecclesiology. Hence baptism has no connection with new covenant membership according to the "Reformed Baptist" definition of terms.
Here's what I really say (again): The visible new covenant community consists of the elect and non-elect. There are no pure churches this side of glory, which is affirmed by the LBCF 1689. Only the elect, however, belong in the New Covenant community by legal right (John 1:12-13). Yes, baptism is sometimes "administered" to false professors (who are non-elect) in Baptist ecclesiology (no Baptist debates this). But your conclusion is a non sequitur because you fail to distinguish between de facto membership in the visible New Covenant community and de jure enjoyment of the New Covenant blessings, as do Reformed Baptists like myself. So baptism DOES IN FACT HAVE connection with new covenant membership according to the "Reformed Baptist" definition of terms.:cheers2:

-----Added 3/20/2009 at 12:27:29 EST-----

For those individuals who are not brought to faith it proves to be "common," but for those who do believe it is the power of God unto salvation.
Matthew,

Do you endorse the concept of "common grace"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's what I really say (again): The visible new covenant community consists of the elect and non-elect. There are no pure churches this side of glory, which is confirmed by the LBCF 1689. Only the elect, however, belong in the New Covenant community by legal right (John 1:12-13).

OK; now to connect this with baptism in the modern "reformed baptist" scheme of things-- does your "covenant baptism" apply to the "spiritual" or antitypical seed of Abraham, the elect, as the only true members of the new covenant, or to the "visible new covenant community" which "consists of elect and non-elect?" If the former, then baptism has nothing to do with covenant membership; if the latter, then you cannot rule out the continuity of the covenant as it applies to non-elect, and hence leave yourself with no basis for denying baptism to infants.

Do you endorse the concept of "common grace"?

With certain qualifications, yes; sometimes the NT presents the means of grace as grace itself, as in 1 Cor. 6, Tit. 2.
 
Paragraph 2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.6

So it would belong to the first group
OK; now to connect this with baptism in the modern "reformed baptist" scheme of things-- does your "covenant baptism" apply to the "spiritual" or antitypical seed of Abraham, the elect, as the only true members of the new covenant,

I have always understood our confession to speak of Actual ,real, born again believers, as the only proper subjects of baptism.
I do not know of any unbeliever's baptism, if their profession is false so is their baptism. It would be a lie subject to church discipline,and or the final judgment.
If the former, then baptism has nothing to do with covenant membership
Again, without Spirit baptism there is no covenant membership.
9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

if the latter, then you cannot rule out the continuity of the covenant as it applies to non-elect, and hence leave yourself with no basis for denying baptism to infants.
This is where the clear difference is and as you have challenged me in the past, I or any other Reformed Baptist has to address the passages in Hebrews , and 1Cor 10 on this issue of continuity is it corporate and among households, or individual stones built together into the habitation of God.
as usual I am enjoying the interaction .
 
Here's what I really say (again): The visible new covenant community consists of the elect and non-elect. There are no pure churches this side of glory, which is confirmed by the LBCF 1689. Only the elect, however, belong in the New Covenant community by legal right (John 1:12-13).

OK; now to connect this with baptism in the modern "reformed baptist" scheme of things-- does your "covenant baptism" apply to the "spiritual" or antitypical seed of Abraham, the elect, as the only true members of the new covenant, or to the "visible new covenant community" which "consists of elect and non-elect?" If the former, then baptism has nothing to do with covenant membership; if the latter, then you cannot rule out the continuity of the covenant as it applies to non-elect, and hence leave yourself with no basis for denying baptism to infants.

Matthew,

You present me with two alternatives above: "Does your "covenant baptism" apply to the "spiritual" or antitypical seed of Abraham, the elect, as the only true members of the new covenant? Or to the "visible new covenant community" which "consists of elect and non-elect?" This is known as a false dilemma or fallacy of the excluded middle. You'd like me to choose either choice one or choice two. Instead, I'll provide something of a "both ... and" response. I'll even employ the language of our standards.

First, Yes, "covenant baptism" does apply to the true seed of Abraham, the elect, as the only rightful members of the New Covenant. For such, water baptism functions as an "effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in [the recipient], or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and working of the Spirit in them that by faith receive them" (WSC Q/A 91; 1693 Baptist Catechism [BC] Q/A 96). Again, for such water baptism "doth signify and seal [their] engrafting into Christ, and partaking of the [saving] benefits of the covenant of grace, and [their] engagement to be the Lord's" (WSC Q/A 94), that is, "a Sign of his Fellowship with [Christ], in his Death, Burial, and Resurrection; of his being engrafted into him, of Remission of Sins, and of his giving up himsef unto God through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life" (1693 BC Q/A 97). Since water baptism symbolizes to the recipient and others the proffered blessing-sanctions of the New Covenant, it is indeed "connected" with de jure or legally warranted NC covenant membership.

(BTW, I've always wondered how water baptism could "signify (symbolize) and seal (authenticate) [a child's] engrafting into Christ" when said child may yet be unconverted and may, in the end, prove apostate.)

Second, Yes, "covenant baptism" does apply to the "visible new covenant community" which "consists of elect and non-elect." "Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the Visible Church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience unto him" (WSC Q/A 95a). "Baptism is to be administered to all those who actually profess Repentance toward God, Faith in, and Obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ; and to none other" (1693 BC Q/A 98). Since baptism is the initiation rite of the New Covenant to be administered to those who profess faith in Christ, then covenant baptism is indeed connected with de facto or what exists with or without legal authority NC covenant community membership.

Now that I got off the horns of that false dilemma, allow me to address an invalid inference you draw from a NT phenomenon. The NT acknowledges that spurious believers or false professors may receive baptism and become attached to the NC community (Matt. 13:20; Acts 8:13-23; Heb. 6:1-8; 10:26-29; 2 Peter 2; 1 John 2:18-19). Both our Confessions recognize this making a distinction between an "invisible" and "visible church" and acknowledging that "the purest churches of Christ are subject to mixture and error" (WCF 25.1-3; LBCF 26.1-3). But though the NT acknowledges that "false professors" may enter the visible church, it does not identify any apostate as one having entered the visible NC community through infant baptism. That is a Paedo-Baptist unproven assumption.

Most the NT apostasy passage describe individuals who made a false profession of faith and who, in some cases, even enjoyed some measure of (short of saving) spiritual enlightenment, experience, and reformation (see Matt. 13:20; Heb. 6:1-8; 10:26-29; 2 Peter 2). So at best the NT phenomenon of apostasy from the visible NC community proves that false professors may infiltrate the church. It does not by any stretch of logic provide warrant for the inclusion of believers' non-professing infant children any more than it provides warrant for the inclusion of believers' non-professing spouses, parents, siblings, servants, neighbors, etc.

Do you endorse the concept of "common grace"?

With certain qualifications, yes; sometimes the NT presents the means of grace as grace itself, as in 1 Cor. 6, Tit. 2.

I am glad to hear that you embrace the concept of common grace. I had (perhaps wrongly) supposed that all High Calvinists rejected the concept of "common grace," arguing that for anything to be called "grace," it had to be saving and effectual. I'm wondering then, do you believe God grants "the grace" of water baptism to a child as a token of his desire that the child experience the saving blessings signified by that token even though some children who receive it may never experience those benefits? Or does God desire "the grace" of water baptism in the case of unbelieving children only to secure their greater damnation? Or something in between?

Respectfully yours,
 
Last edited:
Now that I got off the horns of that false dilemma, allow me to address an invalid inference you draw from a NT phenomenon. The NT acknowledges that spurious believers or false professors may receive baptism and become attached to the NC community

It is here, Bob, that you evidence you have not rid yourself of the dilemma as easily as you might hope. As soon as you allow for the fact that the qualifications for baptism are broader than "new covenant membership" (election), you have denied your first principle, namely, that baptism is for the spiritual seed of Abraham. By making broader qualifications, you deliberately open the door to receive candidates for baptism which you cannot guarantee are "true members" of the new covenant community. In actual fact, every one of those candidates for baptism might turn out to be a false professor. You allow that the subjects of baptism may in fact be people who are not in the new covenant, and thereby repudiate the idea that baptism has any connection with being in covenant with God.

It is at this point that your bracketed statement concerning water baptism of infants applies as equally to your own practice. You write:

(BTW, I've always wondered how water baptism could "signify (symbolize) and seal (authenticate) [a child's] engrafting into Christ" when said child may yet be unconverted and may, in the end, prove apostate.)

Any person with any sense will be inclined to state the very same curiosity with respect to your false professor who has received baptism, who by definiton is still unconverted. The fact that there is chaff among the wheat does not prejudice doing what can be done for the sake of the wheat. So the only difference between a paedobaptist and an antipaedobaptist is the conviction held by the paedobaptist that God has His wheat amongst the smallest infants, a conviction which is practically denied by the antipaedobaptist.

I am glad to hear that you embrace the concept of common grace. I had (perhaps wrongly) supposed that all High Calvinists rejected the concept of "common grace," arguing that for anything to be called "grace," it had to be saving and effectual. I'm wondering then, do you believe God grants "the grace" of water baptism to a child as a token of his desire that the child experience the saving blessings signified by that token even though some children who receive it may never experience those benefits? Or does God desire "the grace" of water baptism in the case of unbelieving children only to secure their greater damnation? Or something in between?

I think you know by now that I only speak of God's desire for the futurition of an event as something which pertains to His exhaustive decree concerning whatsoever comes to pass in time. There are no unfulfilled desires in God. Insofar as "desire" is connected with God's precepts, the correct language is that God desires this "should" happen, not that it "shall" happen.

I highly recommend James Durham's excursus in his commentary on Revelation for an excellent treatment of the subject of common grace in relation to outward church privileges. Historically, it is in this connection, that the term common grace was discussed. "Common operations of the Spirit" is confessional language, and language which specifically applies to the area of external calling.

The question of God's intention in giving a non-elect child visible church privileges of course applies equally to the non-elect adult who is a false professor, and yet receives what is unfitly called credobaptism. Reformed people maintain that there is an eternal counsel and a temporal administration. In the eternal counsel of God the means which are used for the softening of the elect become the very means for the hardening of others. But this does not prejudice the temporal administration, where every ordinance is sincerely administered by the church so as to prejudice none in coming to Christ to receive salvation.
 
Now that I got off the horns of that false dilemma, allow me to address an invalid inference you draw from a NT phenomenon. The NT acknowledges that spurious believers or false professors may receive baptism and become attached to the NC community

It is here, Bob, that you evidence you have not rid yourself of the dilemma as easily as you might hope. As soon as you allow for the fact that the qualifications for baptism are broader than "new covenant membership" (election), you have denied your first principle, namely, that baptism is for the spiritual seed of Abraham. By making broader qualifications, you deliberately open the door to receive candidates for baptism which you cannot guarantee are "true members" of the new covenant community. In actual fact, every one of those candidates for baptism might turn out to be a false professor. You allow that the subjects of baptism may in fact be people who are not in the new covenant, and thereby repudiate the idea that baptism has any connection with being in covenant with God.

It is at this point that your bracketed statement concerning water baptism of infants applies as equally to your own practice. You write:

(BTW, I've always wondered how water baptism could "signify (symbolize) and seal (authenticate) [a child's] engrafting into Christ" when said child may yet be unconverted and may, in the end, prove apostate.)
Any person with any sense will be inclined to state the very same curiosity with respect to your false professor who has received baptism, who by definiton is still unconverted. The fact that there is chaff among the wheat does not prejudice doing what can be done for the sake of the wheat. So the only difference between a paedobaptist and an antipaedobaptist is the conviction held by the paedobaptist that God has His wheat amongst the smallest infants, a conviction which is practically denied by the antipaedobaptist.

I am glad to hear that you embrace the concept of common grace. I had (perhaps wrongly) supposed that all High Calvinists rejected the concept of "common grace," arguing that for anything to be called "grace," it had to be saving and effectual. I'm wondering then, do you believe God grants "the grace" of water baptism to a child as a token of his desire that the child experience the saving blessings signified by that token even though some children who receive it may never experience those benefits? Or does God desire "the grace" of water baptism in the case of unbelieving children only to secure their greater damnation? Or something in between?

I think you know by now that I only speak of God's desire for the futurition of an event as something which pertains to His exhaustive decree concerning whatsoever comes to pass in time. There are no unfulfilled desires in God. Insofar as "desire" is connected with God's precepts, the correct language is that God desires this "should" happen, not that it "shall" happen.

I highly recommend James Durham's excursus in his commentary on Revelation for an excellent treatment of the subject of common grace in relation to outward church privileges. Historically, it is in this connection, that the term common grace was discussed. "Common operations of the Spirit" is confessional language, and language which specifically applies to the area of external calling.

The question of God's intention in giving a non-elect child visible church privileges of course applies equally to the non-elect adult who is a false professor, and yet receives what is unfitly called credobaptism. Reformed people maintain that there is an eternal counsel and a temporal administration. In the eternal counsel of God the means which are used for the softening of the elect become the very means for the hardening of others. But this does not prejudice the temporal administration, where every ordinance is sincerely administered by the church so as to prejudice none in coming to Christ to receive salvation.

Matthew,

Just got back from a Bible study and it's late so I don't have time to give a lengthy response. I've got three ministries of the Word this Lord's Day, so I might not have time tomorrow either. I did want to write a brief note, though, to thank you for the gentlemanly way in which you debate. The more I've interacted with you the more I've come to appreciate the gifts God given to you and your evident desire to do justice to the whole counsel of God. May the Lord bless your weekend and Sabbath day!

Your servant,
 
Paul, I have recently written two blog posts directly related to your question. In my opinion, the debate over "republication" in the Mosaic Covenant sheds tremendous light on the issue.

Obedience in the Covenants Contrast

The Westminster Confession of Faith is Dispensational Contrast

-----Added 3/30/2009 at 04:20:14 EST-----

And I would add that in private correspondence asking for clarification, Waldron basically said that the view he articulates in his Exposition is not exactly that of the LBC. Waldron states that the NC is an historical covenant that did not begin until Christ's advent. When I asked for references to opposing views, he pointed me toward the confession and Coxe, saying that they tended to equate the NC with the CoG.

My only point being, please don't take Waldron's comments on Ch7 of the LBC as the only or best explanation of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top