Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 this would only include the elect.and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect
Absolutely: founded upon, but I don't think this has to mean "coextensive with."
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.and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect
I am not sure what you mean be 'associate'. 29:1 says that Baptism is a 'sign'.
Huh?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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Did they have salvation and lose it?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.
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.
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.
Concerning that part of the community who are not brought into saving communion with God, shall we view the "grace" as saving or common?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.
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.
Concerning that part of the community who are not brought into saving communion with God, shall we view the "grace" as saving or common?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.
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.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.
Matthew,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.
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).
Do you endorse the concept of "common grace"?
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,
Again, without Spirit baptism there is no covenant membership.If the former, then baptism has nothing to do with 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.
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.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.
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.
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
(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.)
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?
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:
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.(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.)
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.