Another baptism debate

Status
Not open for further replies.

josiahrussell

Puritan Board Freshman
Not really.

But I'm just curious, how many of you came to the conclusion that your view of baptism is correct strictly from the bible without the influence of church history and tradition?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I believe this is a good question. For myself I first changed to paedo after I realized I wished not to be a schematic, and second when I came to the dogmatic conclusion that there is a visible church (composed of wheat and tares) and an invisible church (composed of only wheat). The second scriptural conclusion lead me to hold dogmatically to including those The Lord loves in spite of ability to profess a faith they may posses. :)
 
For me, it was a covenantal issue and not a "baptism" issue. My adult experience was pop-evangelicalism after a childhood of Rome. In evangelicalism, I was exposed to memorizing Scripture. The problem was that, by and large, pop-E has no systematic and one is memorizing little data bits, scattered throughout, with no context, with no meta-narrative....no over-arching story of redemption. Once that door was kicked open, it was only a matter of time...............
 
For me it was scripture, books, plus the invaluable discussions on the PB; the latter having the most impact. I like to say that I finally knew I was a Baptist once I studied the matter thoroughly. Going up against Matthew Winzer, and getting my head handed to me, taught me the importance of doing my homework.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
For me it was scripture, books, plus the invaluable discussions on the PB; the latter having the most impact. I like to say that I finally knew I was a Baptist once I studied the matter thoroughly. Going up against Matthew Winzer, and getting my head handed to me, taught me the importance of doing my homework.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Out of curiosity, is that exchange still viewable here on PB?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Out of curiosity, is that exchange still viewable here on PB?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was more of a series of exchanges and it took place from 2005 to around 2007/8. You may want to use the advanced search feature to find it. I cringe at the exposure of my ignorance back then. Not that it's much better now!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
how many of you came to the conclusion that your view of baptism is correct strictly from the bible without the influence of church history and tradition?
Is this even possible? No man is able to absolutely transcend his place in time. His best efforts at confining himself to a single influence, if not accompanied by the admission that his power to do this is certainly less than his hopes, will probably produce a proud result.

The view is very likely to be idiosyncratic; that is, he will be the only person who holds his view in every particular. Until he teaches it to someone, who will then be the recipient (if not adherent) of a "tradition." Cannot escape from history and tradition. We are either receiving one, or passing one along; fitting in, or inventing.

One should take a step back, and try to determine/describe his own method of investigation of Scripture. He should try to figure out if he is a part of one "school" or another, deliberately or by default. Who else interprets Scripture (now or in the past) like he does? Exposure to the efforts of others will make one subject to their influence (tradition, again!); but it should make the interpreter aware of who his company is. If he finds he is in the company of the heterodox, more than the faithful, maybe it's time to rethink the method?
 
I think both sides have a very solid tradition of good Scriptural arguments on their side. And Pastor Buchanan is right -- the Scriptures are not meant for private interpretation: we're supposed to be seeking and finding common ground in how we interpret. Who we are finding that common ground with should also be illuminating.

Ultimately yes, it was understanding how one Scripture in particular fit into the whole Old Testament pattern that convinced me of my own current view.

But what I noticed about myself at the time and have noticed many times since is that, because we are more than just minds, we often become open to being convinced of another view for non-theological reasons. And that initial openness can be (depending on our commitment to Scripture) more than half the battle. Maybe it's already won at that point, whatever we may come up with trying to justify our decision. This can be a good or a bad thing. Ie, I would hope that a cult member would notice the genuine love that a Christian community has for one another and the lost, and be so drawn to this that they are more willing to reconsider their theology.

But I think it as often functions for selfish reasons, because we aren't yet glorified. Ie, I get tired of dealing with the sins in my own community. Some of their views or members embarrass me. Another community looks to me like it would ruffle fewer of my feathers or give me more prestige in the eyes of the world (tradition itself can be very powerful in its prestige factor), or at least the part that currently matters to me. If we aren't self aware that this kind of full-orbed influence operates on the best and on the worst in us, we can wind up moving from communion to communion, never really growing up in our knowledge of Scripture or in love for others, even though we are always changing views and church families.
 
Not really.

But I'm just curious, how many of you came to the conclusion that your view of baptism is correct strictly from the bible without the influence of church history and tradition?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I searched the NT scriptures regarding those whom received the water baptism, and saw believers mentioned in that group of people. Also, I was not raised up under Covenant Theology, so I would not have seen OT equivalency on this issue, as would have seen more of a discontinuity regarding old/new Covenants than my Presbyterian brethren do here.
Interesting question, as all of us would have presumptions in theology that would shade how we came to our conclusion on this topic.
 
I feel that I did come to a paedobaptist conviction from the Scripture (just in the past year). Coming to a position on exclusive Psalmody came first, as I worked out continuities and discontinuities from the OT to the new. That helped me see the overall continuity that turned out to be covenant theology. The clincher was when I understood that without any prejudices about baptism, and if reading through the whole Bible from beginning to end, when I came to the NT narratives about household baptism I'd have simply accepted that the children were included, as with circumcision.

I rather fiercely rejoice in this realization of God's covenant dealings. It has been a tremendous source of joy and comfort. Now I see it all throughout the Bible (kind of like with the doctrines of grace when one first 'discovers' them).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Out of curiosity, is that exchange still viewable here on PB?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can check out the baptism forum and find a great many threads, some that run to hundreds of posts.
 
You can check out the baptism forum and find a great many threads, some that run to hundreds of posts.

I've been through several of them in the past, certainly valuable material there for understanding the logic behind the convictions on either side of this debate. As for this specific series of exchanges, well, Matthew Winzer 'schooling' anybody piques my interest, so maybe I'll go hunting for it :)
 
all of us would have presumptions in theology that would shade how we came to our conclusion on this topic.

Not necessarily. My "presumptions" were decidedly Baptist - and Dispensational Baptist, at that! However, a careful and prayerful reading of God's Word a number of years ago compelled me to reject those presumptions and conclude that they were inconsistent with the testimony of Scripture.
 
Standard Baptist covenantal/Jeremiah 31 arguments aside-

The way that scripture speaks of baptism as a "putting on [of] Christ," Gal 3:27, and that as many who are baptized are "baptized into his death," Romans 6:3. With full-respect to my paedobaptist brethren, whom I love, I just can't apply these statements to infants who lack a profession of faith, and neither can I see such a strong continuity between circumcision and baptism of the kind which would say, with Calvin, that the signs are essentially the same if only different in circumstance. That would require a back reading of the way the New Testament speaks of baptism into circumcision, which would be to say that circumcision represented the "putting on [of] Christ" and that all who were circumcised were "circumcised into his death." It just doesn't make sense to me.

Reading à Brakel state that unregenerate infants who receive baptism really are engrafted into and participate in the Covenant of Grace is just far from how I, as a Baptist, understand the Covenant of Grace in its New Testament administration.

(edit: Here I might be equivocating in my last sentence, as I might be leaning towards the 1689 Federalist view that states that the New Covenant and only the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace; I'm still working through my views).
 
Last edited:
The way that scripture speaks of baptism as a "putting on [of] Christ," Gal 3:27, and that as many who are baptized are "baptized into his death," Romans 6:3.

It seems like you are saying that 'baptism' in those two verses is talking about water baptism. Is that how you are using the term, that Galatians 3:27 and Rom. 6:3 are referring to water baptism?
 
It seems like you are saying that 'baptism' in those two verses is talking about water baptism. Is that how you are using the term, that Galatians 3:27 and Rom. 6:3 are referring to water baptism?

Edit: I write all this with the knowledge that I'm responding to an elder in Christ's church. If you find that I am out-of-line or failing to respect him in his office, please PM me.

I believe that Paul is primarily addressing, as his intended recipients, the invisible church. In Galatians 1 Paul addresses the letter to the churches of Galatia, which he defines specifically as those for whom Christ gave Himself (v. 4). To say that Christ gave Himself for reprobates in the visible church makes no sense, and in referring to their having been baptized into His death Paul was therefore speaking to the invisible church. Likewise, in Romans 1 Paul addresses the letter to the Saints of Rome who are "beloved by God" (v. 7), which I again cannot take to mean that Paul intends to address the reprobate present in the visible church, generally-speaking. (Edit: I ought to have said at this point that I believe that Paul is here speaking of water baptism.)

I understand the Paedobaptist argument based upon the distinction between the sign and the thing signified, but I fail to see why one would give a sign, which points to the individual in question having put on Christ and been buried with Him, language that was never used to describe circumcision and which necessarily signifies that the individual has Christ as mediator (In what way is Christ their mediator?), to infants.

The question of "water baptism" or "spirit baptism" is irrelevant in my view, given Paul's intended audience based upon who he addresses at the start of his letters it could go either way. (I withdraw this statement)




 
Last edited:
The question of "water baptism" or "spirit baptism" is irrelevant

Not at all. In fact, if this were referring to water baptism, your position would hold more water (pun). For then, as you say, it would imply that all who have been baptized externally were considered to have "been buried with Christ," to have "put on Christ," etc. If, however, Paul is referring to that "baptism" which accompanies true conversion, then indeed he is addressing only those who are thus converted (or, as you put it, the invisible church). The paedobaptist* would not suggest that Paul was referring to everyone baptized with water (adult or infant) any more than the baptist would suggest that there are none who have been baptized with water who lack true conversion.

*I am not considering those who hold to baptismal regeneration; obviously, that would be a different discussion.
 
Last edited:
Not at all. In fact, if this were referring to water baptism, your position would hold more water (pun).
I actually laughed.

For then, as you say, it would imply that all who have been baptized externally were considered to have "been buried with Christ," to have "put on Christ," etc.
Irrelevant was the wrong word for me to use- I wasn't being careful with my words. Apologies.

Given my argument I ought to have said, "Yes, it is referring to water baptism because, in consideration of Paul's intended recipients (regenerate saints), water baptism does signify their burial with Christ."
 
Mason do you mean that baptism unites us to Christ's death or that it is symbolic of his burial? Also you quoted rom 6:3 can you explain how baptism is symbolic of his crucifixion.

Could it not be said that during the first Passover in Egypt that the children or all in the household were covered with the righteousness of Christ.

I became a Presbyterian after being a reformed Baptist for about 14 years and my conversion to The Presbyterian view happened while I was reading through Genesis.

Three things that influenced me to change positions.

1. The everlasting covenant, all of the covenants of scripture are said to be the everlasting covenant meaning they are all an administration of the covenant of grace.

2. The substance of saving faith is the same in the ot and the nt, if Adam, Abraham, Noah, Moses, or David were going to be saved it would be through the cross of Christ.

3. After recognizing points one and two in my reading of the Old Testament I began to understand the New Testament in a totally different light. I started recognizing the following:
1. The New Testament is written to the old testament church

2. John the Baptist, Jesus and the apostles are not bringing a new teaching to the people but in fact are correcting a misunderstanding of the old. Their message is not so much this is the way things are going to be now but this is the way things have always been why did you not understand it.

3. Context context context. The original recipients of the New Testament message would have never come to the conclusion that the anointed one had come to put their children out of the covenant. They would have recognized Peter's words "to you and your children" as being an affirmation of God's promises to Abraham that he would be a god to you and your children. It was an everlasting promise of the everlasting covenant and it will remain true everlasting.

Hebrews 13:20 tells us that the new covenant is in fact none other then the everlasting covenant.
 
Mason do you mean that baptism unites us to Christ's death or that it is symbolic of his burial? Also you quoted rom 6:3 can you explain how baptism is symbolic of his crucifixion.
If we limit the scope of Paul's intended readers to the regenerate I see nothing wrong with saying that baptism, by faith, really does unite us to Christ's death. I don't hold to the Zwinglian, mere-symbolic view of the sacraments but neither do I hold to ex opere operato- faith is very much the necessary precondition for the elements to become effectual.

Could it not be said that during the first Passover in Egypt that the children or all in the household were covered with the righteousness of Christ.
To hold that the reprobate could in any sense truly be covered with the righteousness of Christ and then fall away (as did that generation) smacks of Lutheranism at best, or worse, Federal Vision. To read Christ's righteousness into this text in any way but typological means that His righteousness failed to preserve them. This is putting the oikobaptist cart before the Calvinistic horse.

1. The everlasting covenant, all of the covenants of scripture are said to be the everlasting covenant meaning they are all an administration of the covenant of grace.
With the exception found within the Abrahamic promise, only the New Testament is ever described as an everlasting covenant, never the Mosaic (Ezekiel 36:26,27; 37:26, Isaiah 53:3, Jeremiah 32:38,40). It is thus improper to speak of all of the covenants of scripture as being the everlasting covenant as the contrast drawn from Jeremiah and the New Testament is that the New Covenant, to summarize, is a "better covenant established upon better promises." The dual-covenant nature of what was established with Abraham has to be emphasized here, as even Abraham recognized that the eternal promise that Jehovah was speaking of was not the typological land and physical descendants which Jeremiah later writes God's repudiation of, but rather the spiritual land and spiritual descendants, the true seed of Abraham by faith, that was being promised to him (Hebrews 11:6). The alternative is to say that Ishmael, Esau, etc, and all pretenders to the faith of Abraham, truly and really participated in the Covenant of Grace- if true, in what way was Christ their mediator, given that Christ is the mediator of the Covenant of Grace? Did Christ fail in His office of mediator given their status as unforgiven reprobates?

2. The substance of saving faith is the same in the ot and the nt, if Adam, Abraham, Noah, Moses, or David were going to be saved it would be through the cross of Christ.
We agree together that if anyone was ever to be saved it would be through the cross. The difference is that I can't see Christ present in the Old Testament elements which the book of Hebrews so clearly speaks of as being imperfect and broken. The Mosaic covenant itself could not save, but those true seeds of Abraham present, by faith, looked past the elements and realized, like Abraham, what the promise pointed towards- Christ, and the Covenant of Grace.

3. After recognizing points one and two in my reading of the Old Testament I began to understand the New Testament in a totally different light. I started recognizing the following:
1. The New Testament is written to the old testament church
How would you respond to my citations from Galatians and Romans which show Paul is clearly limiting his intended audience to the regenerate, invisible church, and not the mixed visible church? Further, how can the New Testament be written to the Old Testament church given how quickly the ekklesia became Gentile-majority?

2. John the Baptist, Jesus and the apostles are not bringing a new teaching to the people but in fact are correcting a misunderstanding of the old. Their message is not so much this is the way things are going to be now but this is the way things have always been why did you not understand it.

3. Context context context. The original recipients of the New Testament message would have never come to the conclusion that the anointed one had come to put their children out of the covenant. They would have recognized Peter's words "to you and your children" as being an affirmation of God's promises to Abraham that he would be a god to you and your children. It was an everlasting promise of the everlasting covenant and it will remain true everlasting.

1.) Only the New Covenant is made in Christ's blood. That fact ought to be enough to stress the discontinuity between the Old and the New. What the reprobate in the OT did not and could not understand is what, or rather who, the law and ceremonies pointed towards.

2.) The gospel itself was scandalous enough of a stumbling block to the Jews. Peter had already called them Christ-killers with wicked hands and murderous hearts. That the Jews did not turn away or pick up stones at these statements immediately is evidence of their regeneration. Yet I'm somehow expected to believe that they would have if they understood Peter to mean that children weren't meant to be baptized. It's silly.

Further, Peter tell us who the promise is, the Holy Spirit, in Acts 2:33- it was not a rearticulation of the Abrahamic promise but an affirmation that all those who the Lord will call will receive Him, which the Abrahamic never suggested nor contained.

Hebrews 13:20 tells us that the new covenant is in fact none other then the everlasting covenant.
I agree, and only the New Covenant.
 
Last edited:
With the exception found within the Abrahamic promise, only the New Testament is ever described as an everlasting covenant, never the Mosaic (Ezekiel 36:26,27; 37:26, Isaiah 53:3, Jeremiah 32:38,40).

Eze 37:24 "My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd (Davidic Covenant). They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. (Mosaic Covenant)
Eze 37:25 They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. (Abrahamic Covenant)
Eze 37:26 I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore.
Eze 37:27 My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God (Abrahamic Covenant), and they shall be my people.
Eze 37:28 Then the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore."


In fact, here's the Mosaic Covenant,
Exo 19:1 On the third new moon after the people of Israel had gone out of the land of Egypt, on that day they came into the wilderness of Sinai.
Exo 19:2 They set out from Rephidim and came into the wilderness of Sinai, and they encamped in the wilderness. There Israel encamped before the mountain,
Exo 19:3 while Moses went up to God. The LORD called to him out of the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the people of Israel:
Exo 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself.
Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine;
Exo 19:6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel."
Exo 19:7 So Moses came and called the elders of the people and set before them all these words that the LORD had commanded him.
Exo 19:8 All the people answered together and said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do." And Moses reported the words of the people to the LORD.

1Pe 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.



Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
Jer 31:32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.
Jer 31:33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
Jer 31:35 Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— the LORD of hosts is his name:
Jer 31:36 "If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever."
Jer 31:37 Thus says the LORD: "If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be explored, then I will cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done, declares the LORD."

Jer 31:38 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when the city shall be rebuilt for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate.
Jer 31:39 And the measuring line shall go out farther, straight to the hill Gareb, and shall then turn to Goah.
Jer 31:40 The whole valley of the dead bodies and the ashes, and all the fields as far as the brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be sacred to the LORD. It shall not be plucked up or overthrown anymore forever."


Jer 32:37 Behold, I will gather them from all the countries to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation. I will bring them back to this place, and I will make them dwell in safety.
Jer 32:38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
Jer 32:39 I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them.
Jer 32:40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me.
Jer 32:41 I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul.
Jer 32:42 "For thus says the LORD: Just as I have brought all this great disaster upon this people, so I will bring upon them all the good that I promise them.
Jer 32:43 Fields shall be bought in this land of which you are saying, 'It is a desolation, without man or beast; it is given into the hand of the Chaldeans.'
Jer 32:44 Fields shall be bought for money, and deeds shall be signed and sealed and witnessed, in the land of Benjamin, in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, in the cities of the hill country, in the cities of the Shephelah, and in the cities of the Negeb; for I will restore their fortunes, declares the LORD."
Jer 33:1 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah a second time, while he was still shut up in the court of the guard:
Jer 33:2 "Thus says the LORD who made the earth, the LORD who formed it to establish it—the LORD is his name:
Jer 33:3 Call to me and I will answer you, and will tell you great and hidden things that you have not known.
Jer 33:4 For thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning the houses of this city and the houses of the kings of Judah that were torn down to make a defense against the siege mounds and against the sword:
Jer 33:5 They are coming in to fight against the Chaldeans and to fill them with the dead bodies of men whom I shall strike down in my anger and my wrath, for I have hidden my face from this city because of all their evil.
Jer 33:6 Behold, I will bring to it health and healing, and I will heal them and reveal to them abundance of prosperity and security.
Jer 33:7 I will restore the fortunes of Judah and the fortunes of Israel, and rebuild them as they were at first.
Jer 33:8 I will cleanse them from all the guilt of their sin against me, and I will forgive all the guilt of their sin and rebellion against me.
Jer 33:9 And this city shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and a glory before all the nations of the earth who shall hear of all the good that I do for them. They shall fear and tremble because of all the good and all the prosperity I provide for it.
Jer 33:10 "Thus says the LORD: In this place of which you say, 'It is a waste without man or beast,' in the cities of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem that are desolate, without man or inhabitant or beast, there shall be heard again
Jer 33:11 the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the voices of those who sing, as they bring thank offerings to the house of the LORD: "'Give thanks to the LORD of hosts, for the LORD is good, for his steadfast love endures forever!' For I will restore the fortunes of the land as at first, says the LORD.
Jer 33:12 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: In this place that is waste, without man or beast, and in all of its cities, there shall again be habitations of shepherds resting their flocks.
Jer 33:13 In the cities of the hill country, in the cities of the Shephelah, and in the cities of the Negeb, in the land of Benjamin, the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, flocks shall again pass under the hands of the one who counts them, says the LORD.
Jer 33:14 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
Jer 33:15 In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land.
Jer 33:16 In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: 'The LORD is our righteousness.'
Jer 33:17 "For thus says the LORD: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel,
Jer 33:18 and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever."
Jer 33:19 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah:
Jer 33:20 "Thus says the LORD: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time,
Jer 33:21 then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers.

Jer 33:22 As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, (Abrahamic Covenant) so I will multiply the offspring of David my servant, (Davidic Covenant) and the Levitical priests who minister to me." (Mosaic Covenant)
Jer 33:23 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah:
Jer 33:24 "Have you not observed that these people are saying, 'The LORD has rejected the two clans that he chose'? Thus they have despised my people so that they are no longer a nation in their sight.
Jer 33:25 Thus says the LORD: If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed order of heaven and earth,
Jer 33:26 then I will reject the offspring of Jacob (Abrahamic Covenant) and David my servant (Davidic Covenant) and will not choose one of his offspring to rule over the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them."
 
We simply disagree, on a presuppositional level, on the identity of the covenant spoken of in the verses you block-quoted. In my view the everlasting covenant is and only is the New Covenant and that the David spoken of is Christ just as the Israel referenced is made up the regenerate.

Without stating your exegetical conclusions I can't really interact with your quotations.
 
We simply disagree, on a presuppositional level, on the identity of the covenant spoken of in the verses you block-quoted. In my view the everlasting covenant is and only is the New Covenant and that the David spoken of is Christ just as the Israel referenced is made up the regenerate.

Without stating your exegetical conclusions I can't really interact with your quotations.

Mason,

I have said something similar before on the PB in reference to baptism; that the the disposition of the New Covenant settles the baptism debate. Now that I am seriously looking at 1689 Federalism I understand what Jim Renihan, Sam Renihan, Rich Barcellos, and Pascal Denault are saying; that the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace (or the CoG inaugurated). If that statement is true it removes the tension Baptists sometimes feel when discussing the continuity/discontinuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. In essence the baptism issue is settled depending on one's view of covenant theology. On that last point I believe credo's and paedo's are in agreement.
 
Can someone break the new covenant?

No. The New Covenant is an everlasting covenant made between God and His elect. Believers may act contrary to how a covenant member should live, but the covenant itself cannot be broken since God is the covenant keeper (c.f. 1689 LBC chapters 7 & 18).
 
Can you explain what you mean by "break"? Is it renouncing one's faith and repentance after one has truly believed and repented? If so, I would say, No.
 
Last edited:
In essence the baptism issue is settled depending on one's view of covenant theology. On that last point I believe credo's and paedo's are in agreement.

I agree with this. I have been trying to nail down the exact point of departure between Confessional Presbyterians and Confessional Baptists. It seems that Presbyterians are willing to take a 'good and necessary' step in regards to Abraham that Baptists are not.
 
If that statement is true it removes the tension Baptists sometimes feel when discussing the continuity/discontinuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. In essence the baptism issue is settled depending on one's view of covenant theology. On that last point I believe credo's and paedo's are in agreement.

That's the conclusion I'm starting to come to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top