Argument for Credo-Baptism from the Nature of the New Covenant

[Semper Fidelis]

What book would be simple and easy for me to learn it. I have tried reading books on logic and still have a connection problem.

I would personally run something along the lines that would be covenantal.

It would look like this.

P1. The Covenants are progressive in nature.
P2. The Covenants become more revealing and more narrowly defined as they historically proceed.
P3. The Covenant made with Abraham as head included both elect and non elect as covenant children.
P4. The Covenants proceeding reveal the Messiah more distinctly.
P5. The New Covenant has only one Federal Head, Christ our Father
P6. The New Covenant has only the elect as Covenant Children who are in Christ.

Conclusion: The term Covenant Children has been narrowed and defined between Abraham's Covenant Children and the Covenant Children of Christ as our New Covenant Federal Head.

If I am not mistaken one must proceed from one syllogism to the next to build arguments. One syllogism doesn't complete the process of argumentation.

Randy,

I'm not sure what relationship this has to the thread as the first premise and the Conclusion have been totally changed. You actually moved my P1 to your P6 and then left the Conclusion at the point of the idea that Covenant Children are Elect.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

My point... I don't understand syllogism. I have read books that use it. I need to read something that helps me learn it. Does premise one need to be the exact same? I was trying to progress from point 1 to reveal the progressive nature and how that progressive nature narrows the definition of the term Covenant Children. After that we can proceed to the next syllogism on the nature of the Church. When I have read syllogisms before people use them progressively and in order to prove their points. They use more than one to proceed and build upon to sharpen argumentation.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Should I have made the point in premise one that in Covenant nomenclature terms and definitions concerning Covenant Children have been progressively sharpened?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Randy,

Sorry my time is short today and I'm kind of swooping in and out. The problem is that you actually create a syllogism that arrives at my first premise. I wanted you to move from MY first premise to the Conclusion that I bolded above.

In other words, you have argued for a NC that consists of the Elect alone (I'm not going to argue for or against its validity or truth). Proceed, now from my P1, and get to my C.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

That is my problem with your first premise. It needs something before it to prove it as a conclusion first in my estimation. It is like you are jumping into the middle of the stream before you enter from the shore. It is like you are starting in the middle of the book without understanding its Genesis. As I noted above, when I have read other books that use syllogism they build from one to the next syllogism.

Does anyone know of a simple book I can read on syllogism?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Ok, I'm not a Baptist. I've long ago come to see what I perceive to be inconsistencies in the LBCFs view of the covenants, etc.

But I have to confess (Rich, sorry to appear to be bushwhacking you) that I find Rich's P1 troublesome, and recalling back to when I was a credobaptist, it certainly doesn't reflect what I believed, and I think it is important to frame P1 as accurately as possible if it indeed is to be the fount from which all subsequent points flow.

Rich has P1 as "The New Covenant is made with the elect alone."

Actually, the NC is "just" an administration of the Covenant of Grace, and WLC 31 says that the Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him all the elect as His seed. Even 2LBC 7.3 grounds the gospel in the covenant between the Father and the Son.

So who is the one really saying that the NC was made with the elect (that is, man)? I think a better - meaning more representative of the best possible Baptist thought - P1 would reflect an awareness that the covenant is with Christ and those in Him. (Perhaps developing the argument along the lines of how one relates to Christ, the differences in external administration between Israel and the Church, etc.)

I don't know, I'm just trying to make sense of madness.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Hey, this is a credo only area Ben. But I agree with you.... Thanks for trying to help clear up a muddy mess.

 

[steadfast7]

Ah, I understand..
ok, how's this:
P1:The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2. The elect are baptised into Christ
P3. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.
P4. As far as can be recognized by the Church, they are in Christ who make a credible profession of faith
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.

In Suk,

I don't know if you're reading the rest of this thread or just my response to your thread but you're repeating the same problem identified earlier.

"As far as can be recognized" already admits there is not an identical relationship between the elect and those who make a credible confession of faith.

As I noted earlier, I'm perfectly content with the answer that Baptists don't baptize on the basis of P1.

I see what's happening Rich. You're trying to force a one-to-one identification between God's action of baptizing the elect into Christ and the Church's action of attempting that same thing. Obviously, this cannot be done so any attempt on the Baptist's part seems flawed. The exercise is unfair, and is doomed to fail. There is a massive gult between what God knows and what he performs and what the Church knows and what she can perform, however she is obligated to follow God's pattern as closely as possible. As I have tried to show, the union between the two realities is made sacramentally. Hence, the divine and physical realities come together mysteriously through this ordinance.

Perhaps a better way of showing this is not through syllogism, but chiasm.
P1:God establishes the New Covenant with the Elect Alone.
P2: God baptizes the elect into Christ
P3: Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.
P2': The Church baptizes those who exhibit a credible profession of faith
P1': The Church recognizes New Covenant membership to those who exhibit a credible profession of faith

This framework is fair and recognizes the differences between God and the church, while allowing for union and overlap through the sacrament.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Ok, I'm not a Baptist. I've long ago come to see what I perceive to be inconsistencies in the LBCFs view of the covenants, etc.

But I have to confess (Rich, sorry to appear to be bushwhacking you) that I find Rich's P1 troublesome, and recalling back to when I was a credobaptist, it certainly doesn't reflect what I believed, and I think it is important to frame P1 as accurately as possible if it indeed is to be the fount from which all subsequent points flow.

Rich has P1 as "The New Covenant is made with the elect alone."

Actually, the NC is "just" an administration of the Covenant of Grace, and WLC 31 says that the Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him all the elect as His seed. Even 2LBC 7.3 grounds the gospel in the covenant between the Father and the Son.

So who is the one really saying that the NC was made with the elect (that is, man)? I think a better - meaning more representative of the best possible Baptist thought - P1 would reflect an awareness that the covenant is with Christ and those in Him. (Perhaps developing the argument along the lines of how one relates to Christ, the differences in external administration between Israel and the Church, etc.)

I don't know, I'm just trying to make sense of madness.

Ben,

I'm fine with restating P1 but it needs to be in a sentence. Either way, it doesn't solve the problem that Vic has noted. Any way you state P1, the elect's composition is going to be hidden in the mind of God.

P1: The New Covenant is made with Christ and, in Him, all of the elect.

Ah, I understand..
ok, how's this:
P1:The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2. The elect are baptised into Christ
P3. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.
P4. As far as can be recognized by the Church, they are in Christ who make a credible profession of faith
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.

In Suk,

I don't know if you're reading the rest of this thread or just my response to your thread but you're repeating the same problem identified earlier.

"As far as can be recognized" already admits there is not an identical relationship between the elect and those who make a credible confession of faith.

As I noted earlier, I'm perfectly content with the answer that Baptists don't baptize on the basis of P1.

I see what's happening Rich. You're trying to force a one-to-one identification between God's action of baptizing the elect into Christ and the Church's action of attempting that same thing. Obviously, this cannot be done so any attempt on the Baptist's part seems flawed. The exercise is unfair, and is doomed to fail. There is a massive gult between what God knows and what he performs and what the Church knows and what she can perform, however she is obligated to follow God's pattern as closely as possible. As I have tried to show, the union between the two realities is made sacramentally. Hence, the divine and physical realities come together mysteriously through this ordinance.

Perhaps a better way of showing this is not through syllogism, but chiasm.
P1:God establishes the New Covenant with the Elect Alone.
P2: God baptizes the elect into Christ
P3: Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.
P2': The Church baptizes those who exhibit a credible profession of faith
P1': The Church recognizes New Covenant membership to those who exhibit a credible profession of faith

This framework is fair and recognizes the differences between God and the church, while allowing for union and overlap through the sacrament.

Are you only reading my responses to you or are you actually reading my interactions with others? I've already noted with Vic what this exercise is meant to demonstrate. The point is to attempt to create a valid syllogism from P1 to C. If it cannot be done then that is fine. It simply demonstrates that one cannot begin with P1 and get to C. It doesn't invalidate C, per se, but simply acknowledges that you cannot use P1 as an argument for C.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

That is my problem with your first premise. It needs something before it to prove it as a conclusion first in my estimation. It is like you are jumping into the middle of the stream before you enter from the shore. It is like you are starting in the middle of the book without understanding its Genesis. As I noted above, when I have read other books that use syllogism they build from one to the next syllogism.

Does anyone know of a simple book I can read on syllogism?

Randy, seriously, I let you get to your point more quickly. Why does it matter if we got to a point directly? My point is not to dispute it but to ask what more can be logically inferred from that point. Can it or can it not be used to logically require the baptism of those who make a valid confession of faith? That's the question. I don't think you need a book on syllogisms. How does one even begin to build a case of something unless we're able to connect the dots? You did fine to get to my P1 and just keep moving from there.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I am sorry Rich. As I stated above, I am not sure how the rules of syllogism work. I do believe that ground work needs to be done before we can get to your first premise. I believe that is true in light of understanding progressive revelation.

I will bow out since I am not sure how syllogism works.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Let me take another stab at it.

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2: Evidence of election is repentance, confession, and calling upon the name of the Lord which result from belief.
P3: The NewTestament only records the instances of those who believe in Christ as those being baptized.
P4: The scriptures of the New Testament reference baptism with a profession (confession of faith) and repentance in conjunction with baptism.
P5: The scriptures of the New Testament reference baptism with those who are in union with Christ.
P6: If a person can not or does not give a profession of faith he should not be considered to be in union with Christ.

Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.


I tried it again Rich... Thanks for your patience. I can add scripture to it if it looks okay to you.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Board Owner Hat ON. I control the horizontal and the vertical. Please abide by the thread rules. There are plenty of places to hash out other ways of arguing the point.

1. I have never stated that P1 is the basis for constructing a valid argument to the Conclusion.
2. I have accepted replies that note the same.
3. I have extended the courtesy to credo-Baptists to extend what may be gleaned, by argument, from P1.
4. I have allowed for P1 to be modified to more precisely state the point.

If it is the consensus of Baptist respondents that P1 cannot lead logically to C then I'm fine with that. I'm still seeing arguments presented and shored up. I even have people telling me they only need P1 in order to conclude C.

I have even agreed with some Baptists, via PM, that P1 is not the way that the case for C can be made Confessionally.

The point of this is to put to rest the fact that P1 (or its variants that begin with the hidden counsel of God) can and never has been the basis upon which a valid argument can be sustained for the baptism based on credible confession.

Those who do not think this is necessary can choose to start threads that deal with the issue but P1 comes up again and again as a positive argument for the baptism of credible professors and deserves its own treatement to see if it is sustainable.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Let me take another stab at it.

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2: Evidence of election is repentance, confession, and calling upon the name of the Lord which result from belief.
P3: The NewTestament only records the instances of those who believe in Christ as those being baptized.
P4: The scriptures of the New Testament reference baptism with a profession (confession of faith) and repentance in conjunction with baptism.
P5: The scriptures of the New Testament reference baptism with those who are in union with Christ.
P6: If a person can not or does not give a profession of faith he should not be considered to be in union with Christ.

Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.


I tried it again Rich... Thanks for your patience. I can add scripture to it if it looks okay to you.

Is P3 true? Are there no instances where people have left the faith?

P4 moves from status as elect -> fruits which are discernible but then P5 takes a step "backward" and denotes spiritual things.

 

[Grimmson]

Let me explain what a syllogism is, because I think that may be helpful for those that participates. It is a deductive inference of reason/logic which is composed of two premises and a conclusion. It begins with a major term or premise, moves to a middle term or premise, and then moves to a particular conclusion that in called a minor term. The conclusion is made up of part of the major term and middle term under a subject predicate formulation. Here is basic example:

1) If A then B
2) If B then C
3) So if A then C

The reason I am not participating in this exercise is because realistically in my opinion you need a series of syllogisms to make your way to Proposition 1 of “The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone” to the desired conclusion on Baptism for it to be done properly. We can see this by the use of five propositions by some for this conclusion, which makes it an improper syllogism. We are not like Calvin that can get away with not including the middle term.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Let me explain what a syllogism is, because I think that may be helpful for those that participates. It is a deductive inference of reason/logic which is composed of two premises and a conclusion. It begins with a major term or premise, moves to a middle term or premise, and then moves to a particular conclusion that in called a minor term. The conclusion is made up of part of the major term and middle term under a subject predicate formulation. Here is basic example:

1) If A then B
2) If B then C
3) So if A then C

The reason I am not participating in this exercise is because realistically in my opinion you need a series of syllogisms to make your way to Proposition 1 of “The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone” to the desired conclusion on Baptism for it to be done properly. We can see this by the use of five propositions by some for this conclusion, which makes it an improper syllogism. We are not like Calvin that can get away with not including the middle term.

A polysyllogism is a type of syllogism. You can use a sorite, climax, multi-premise, or gradatio if you like. I asked for valid arguments from the premise to the conclusion. You choose the form.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Let me take another stab at it.

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2: Evidence of election is repentance, confession, and calling upon the name of the Lord which result from belief.
P3: The NewTestament only records the instances of those who believe in Christ as those being baptized.
P4: The scriptures of the New Testament reference baptism with a profession (confession of faith) and repentance in conjunction with baptism.
P5: The scriptures of the New Testament reference baptism with those who are in union with Christ.
P6: If a person can not or does not give a profession of faith he should not be considered to be in union with Christ.

Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.


I tried it again Rich... Thanks for your patience. I can add scripture to it if it looks okay to you.

Is P3 true? Are there no instances where people have left the faith?

P4 moves from status as elect -> fruits which are discernible but then P5 takes a step "backward" and denotes spiritual things.

As I noted I don't understand syllogism and really find them hard to do.
Maybe I would start with a different P1.

I am not so sure you can come to your conclusion based upon P. 1. In syllogism does your P. 1. have to definitively and logically lead right away to the conclusion?
I would also say only the Elect are members in the Covenant of Grace.

I do believe P1. is a correct statement. I can't say it conclusively leads to the conclusion.

Concerning P. 3. Simon the sorcerer made a profession was baptized but later found to be outside. He had some sort of temporary belief as the Confession of Faith makes mention of concerning those who have temporary faith. (see LBCF 10:4, 14:3, and 18:1.)

Concerning your statement on P. 5. Maybe I should have tied that in earlier?

That is why I mentioned Covenant Heads in my first response.

As for scripture.... I do believe the Church has to start with looking at the outward fruit. Acts 2:38,39... Romans 10:9,10.

I hope I am not confusing others. I find syllogism hard as a statement because to me it doesn't have any for or aft. I don't believe it always works. I saw a semi-pelagian use it against Calvinism once. He tore Calvinism up. Then I saw a Calvinist use it against Arminians. The Arminians arguments were destroyed.

I guess that I can't use your single P1. to lead to the conclusion. Sorry Rich. Rich, I guess for me it would be like taking P. 1. and also saying it leads to a conclusion pertaining to the Lord's Supper. It is fenced also.

 

[timmopussycat]

My point... I don't understand syllogism. I have read books that use it. I need to read something that helps me learn it. Does premise one need to be the exact same? I was trying to progress from point 1 to reveal the progressive nature and how that progressive nature narrows the definition of the term Covenant Children. After that we can proceed to the next syllogism on the nature of the Church. When I have read syllogisms before people use them progressively and in order to prove their points. They use more than one to proceed and build upon to sharpen argumentation.

Hi Randy

You may find the following book helpful as you attempt to understand syllogisms.
a a luce - logic - AbeBooks

---------- Post added at 03:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 PM ----------

The reason I am not participating in this exercise is because realistically in my opinion you need a series of syllogisms to make your way to Proposition 1 of “The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone” to the desired conclusion on Baptism for it to be done properly. We can see this by the use of five propositions by some for this conclusion, which makes it an improper syllogism. We are not like Calvin that can get away with not including the middle term.

I am puzzled as to why you think that you must arrive at P1 by a series of syllogisms. I think that Heb 8:10 and 11 teach P1 directly when the passage affirms that all of those with whom the new covenant is made will know the Lord, have his law written on their minds and their sins remembered no more.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Let me explain what a syllogism is, because I think that may be helpful for those that participates. It is a deductive inference of reason/logic which is composed of two premises and a conclusion. It begins with a major term or premise, moves to a middle term or premise, and then moves to a particular conclusion that in called a minor term. The conclusion is made up of part of the major term and middle term under a subject predicate formulation. Here is basic example:

1) If A then B
2) If B then C
3) So if A then C

The reason I am not participating in this exercise is because realistically in my opinion you need a series of syllogisms to make your way to Proposition 1 of “The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone” to the desired conclusion on Baptism for it to be done properly. We can see this by the use of five propositions by some for this conclusion, which makes it an improper syllogism. We are not like Calvin that can get away with not including the middle term.

I knew the first part but don't like it because it leaves too much unsaid. I most whole heartily agree that a series of syllogisms is needed as I stated above.

Thanks David.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The reason I am not participating in this exercise is because realistically in my opinion you need a series of syllogisms to make your way to Proposition 1 of “The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone” to the desired conclusion on Baptism for it to be done properly. We can see this by the use of five propositions by some for this conclusion, which makes it an improper syllogism. We are not like Calvin that can get away with not including the middle term.

I am puzzled as to why you think that you must arrive at P1 by a series of syllogisms. I think that Heb 8:10 and 11 teach P1 directly when the passage affirms that all of those with whom the new covenant is made will know the Lord, have his law written on their minds and their sins remembered no more.

Tim,

Read the first Original Post.

There were guidelines laid out for this thread.

I don't think you can arrive at Rich's conclusion based upon P. 1.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Moderator NOTE. Please READ the original Post before you reply. I didn't do that and was found guilty of getting off track and not replying correctly.

 

[Hilasmos]

P1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone
P2. The elect are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)
P3. The sons of Abraham are those of faith (Gal. 3:7)
P4. Those of faith give expression to their son-hood through baptism (Col. 2:11-12; Rom 6)

Conclusion: Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.

What is the connection of P4 to the conclusion? Connect "give expression" to "those who give a credible confession" please.

P1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone
P2. The elect are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)
P3. The sons of Abraham are those of faith (Gal. 3:7)
P4. Those of faith are commanded to be baptized (Mark 16:16; Matt 28:16-20)
P5. Baptism is the believer’s appeal to God for a good conscience (1 Pet. 3:21)
P6. To appeal for a good conscience, through baptism, would require and consist of making a confession of faith

Conclusion: Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.

Even if the above were valid, not sure that I like it much.

 

[timmopussycat]

This isn't necessarily a string of biblical arguments, but it makes sense to me and I look forward to having it torn to pieces. I'm still new to covenant theology so I'm here to learn!

Let me try to develop Hunn's original argument and provide Scripture for it

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone. (Heb 8:10,11)
P2: We have no way to infallibly know who is among the elect. (Acts 8:20-24, 20:25 Gal. 2:4 etc.)
P3: Baptism is the sign of the new covenant. (Matt. 28:19)
Tim's P3 a: The sign of the new covenant is to be adminstered to disciples. (Matt. 28:19)
Tim's P3 b: The elect will not only have faith in Christ but will also will profess it. (Rom. 10:9)
Hunn's P4: We should seek to avoid giving the New Covenant sign to those who are not elect. slightly modified to
Tim's P4: Only those who profess faith in Christ have the right to be recognized by the church as being potentially children of God, children of Abraham and members of the new covenant. (John 1:12, Gal 3:7)
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church

 

[Grimmson]

Let me explain what a syllogism is, because I think that may be helpful for those that participates. It is a deductive inference of reason/logic which is composed of two premises and a conclusion. It begins with a major term or premise, moves to a middle term or premise, and then moves to a particular conclusion that in called a minor term. The conclusion is made up of part of the major term and middle term under a subject predicate formulation. Here is basic example:

1) If A then B
2) If B then C
3) So if A then C

The reason I am not participating in this exercise is because realistically in my opinion you need a series of syllogisms to make your way to Proposition 1 of “The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone” to the desired conclusion on Baptism for it to be done properly. We can see this by the use of five propositions by some for this conclusion, which makes it an improper syllogism. We are not like Calvin that can get away with not including the middle term.

A polysyllogism is a type of syllogism. You can use a sorite, climax, multi-premise, or gradatio if you like. I asked for valid arguments from the premise to the conclusion. You choose the form.

I do not consider polysyllogism or a multi-premise syllogism to be the same as a syllogism proper. Before people learn how to run they need to learn how to crawl first, which means they need to learn what and how a syllogism works and the types there of. You based your example on a syllogism proper model and not a polysyllogism model. Here is an example of one for people that wish to continue your exercise:

All Pumas are wild large cats.
All large wild cats hunt for meat
All (creatures) that hunt for meat are carnivorous predators.
Pumas, therefore, are carnivorous predators.

Notice how each proposition depends on the next, which is what needs to be done before reaching the conclusion. The conclusion must includes your first proposition and the last one.

And more more thing as helpful advice think of each proposition in relation to a cause and effect. That way you can string along a series of causes to reach a conclusive effect.

 

[timmopussycat]

P1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone
P2. The elect are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)
P3. The sons of Abraham are those of faith (Gal. 3:7)
P4. Those of faith give expression to their son-hood through baptism (Col. 2:11-12; Rom 6)

Conclusion: Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.

What is the connection of P4 to the conclusion? Connect "give expression" to "those who give a credible confession" please.

P1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone
P2. The elect are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)
P3. The sons of Abraham are those of faith (Gal. 3:7)
P4. Those of faith are commanded to be baptized (Mark 16:16; Matt 28:16-20)
P5. Baptism is the believer’s appeal to God for a good conscience (1 Pet. 3:21)
P6. To appeal for a good conscience, through baptism, would require and consist of making a confession of faith

Conclusion: Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.

Even if the above were valid, not sure that I like it much.

Thank you for further establishing the relationship of the sons of Abraham to faith within the New Covenant

 

[Semper Fidelis]

P1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone
P2. The elect are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)
P3. The sons of Abraham are those of faith (Gal. 3:7)
P4. Those of faith give expression to their son-hood through baptism (Col. 2:11-12; Rom 6)

Conclusion: Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.

What is the connection of P4 to the conclusion? Connect "give expression" to "those who give a credible confession" please.

P1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone
P2. The elect are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)
P3. The sons of Abraham are those of faith (Gal. 3:7)
P4. Those of faith are commanded to be baptized (Mark 16:16; Matt 28:16-20)
P5. Baptism is the believer’s appeal to God for a good conscience (1 Pet. 3:21)
P6. To appeal for a good conscience, through baptism, would require and consist of making a confession of faith

Conclusion: Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.

Even if the above were valid, not sure that I like it much.

Somewhere between P6 and C you need to deal with those who make a credible confession who are not of faith. the only in the conclusion necessitates that the only people being baptized in P6 would be actually elect in your syllogism.

This isn't necessarily a string of biblical arguments, but it makes sense to me and I look forward to having it torn to pieces. I'm still new to covenant theology so I'm here to learn!

Let me try to develop Hunn's original argument and provide Scripture for it

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone. (Heb 8:10,11)
P2: Baptism is the sign of the new covenant. (Matt. 28:19)
P3: We have no way to infallibly know who is among the elect. (Acts 8:20-24, 20:25 Gal. 2:4 etc.)
Hunn's P4: We should seek to avoid giving the New Covenant sign to those who are not elect. slightly modified to
Tim's P4: We have only the right recognize those who confess belief in Christ as being potentially among the elect. (John 1:12, Gal 3:7)
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.

P3 is where the identity of the elect is compromised in the syllogism. P4 simply extends a compromise on this identity

 

[SolaScriptura]

P1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone
P2. The elect are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)
P3. The sons of Abraham are those of faith (Gal. 3:7)
P4. Those of faith give expression to their son-hood through baptism (Col. 2:11-12; Rom 6)

Conclusion: Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.

What is the connection of P4 to the conclusion? Connect "give expression" to "those who give a credible confession" please.

P1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone
P2. The elect are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)
P3. The sons of Abraham are those of faith (Gal. 3:7)
P4. Those of faith are commanded to be baptized (Mark 16:16; Matt 28:16-20)
P5. Baptism is the believer’s appeal to God for a good conscience (1 Pet. 3:21)
P6. To appeal for a good conscience, through baptism, would require and consist of making a confession of faith

Conclusion: Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.

Even if the above were valid, not sure that I like it much.

Will - thank you, in my opinion you've done as good a job as can be done within the perimeters. I think you go awry at a few points, but still an admirable job.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I do not consider polysyllogism or a multi-premise syllogism to be the same as a syllogism proper. Before people learn how to run they need to learn how to crawl first, which means they need to learn what and how a syllogism works and the types there of. You based your example on a syllogism proper model and not a polysyllogism model. Here is an example of one for people that wish to continue your exercise:

All Pumas are wild large cats.
All large wild cats hunt for meat
All (creatures) that hunt for meat are carnivorous predators.
Pumas, therefore, are carnivorous predators.

Notice how each proposition depends on the next, which is what needs to be done before reaching the conclusion. The conclusion must includes your first proposition and the last one.

And more more thing as helpful advice think of each proposition in relation to a cause and effect. That way you can string along a series of causes to reach a conclusive effect.

An example of a polysyllogism. Which is what everyone has been trying to put together.

No more distractions.

 

[timmopussycat]

This isn't necessarily a string of biblical arguments, but it makes sense to me and I look forward to having it torn to pieces. I'm still new to covenant theology so I'm here to learn!

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone. (Heb 8:10,11)
P2: Baptism is the sign of the new covenant. (Matt. 28:19)
P3: We have no way to infallibly know who is among the elect. (Acts 8:20-24, 20:25 Gal. 2:4 etc.)
Hunn's P4: We should seek to avoid giving the New Covenant sign to those who are not elect. slightly modified to
Tim's P4: We have only the right recognize those who confess belief in Christ as being potentially among the elect. (John 1:12, Gal 3:7)
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.

P3 is where the identity of the elect is compromised in the syllogism. P4 simply extends a compromise on this identity

How about this then?

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone. (Heb 8:10,11)
P2: We have no way to infallibly know who is among the elect. (Acts 8:20-24, 20:25 Gal. 2:4 etc.)
P3: The elect will not only have faith in Christ but will also will profess it. (Rom. 10:9)
P4: Only those who profess faith in Christ have the right to be recognized by the church as being potentially children of God, children of Abraham and and elect members of the new covenant. (John 1:12, Gal 3:7)
Tim's P5: Baptism is the sign of entry into the New Covenant (Matt. 28:9)
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Tim,

It falls apart at P2 now.