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

[timmopussycat]

What about this?

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone. (Heb 8:10,11)
P2: The Elect will not only have faith in Christ but will also will profess it. (Rom. 10:9)
P3: 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 P4: 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.

Footnote on "potentially" in P3: The church experiences false professors from time to time and we have no way to infallibly know who is truly among the elect. (Acts 8:20-24, 20:25 Gal. 2:4 etc.)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It doesn't Tim. P3 compromises on the identity of the elect. You then Make Baptism the sign of entry into the New Covenant (which consists of the elect alone) and conclude that confession of faith in Christ (potentially elect) is grounds for baptism (which is a sign of entry for the elect).

 

[timmopussycat]

It doesn't Tim. P3 compromises on the identity of the elect. You then Make Baptism the sign of entry into the New Covenant (which consists of the elect alone) and conclude that confession of faith in Christ (potentially elect) is grounds for baptism (which is a sign of entry for the elect).

Rich, P3 does not compromise on the identity of the elect as all the elect are included among those who profess faith and will be included in the group eligable to be recognized as such.

The following might be valid.

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone. (Heb 8:10,11)
P2: The Elect will not only have faith in Christ but will also profess it (Rom. 10:9)
P3: Only those who profess faith in Christ have the right to be recognized by the church as being children of God, children of Abraham and and elect members of the new covenant. (John 1:12, Gal 3:7)*
P4: Baptism is the sign symbolizing, for the Elect, entry into their new status of covenant membership. (Col. 2:12 - 14)
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.

Footnote *: In addition to the elect, false professors shall arise from time to time and give evey humanly visible sign of faith and election. Because the church has no infallible method of telling true from false professors we baptise all professors in charity and hope (Acts 8:20-24, 20:25 Gal. 2:4 etc.) and reject none until they go out from us. (1 John 2:19)

 

[MW]

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.

Excellent work! You can account for the exclusive conclusion by adding a premise which appeals to the regulative principle.

 

[Iconoclast]

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone. (Heb 8:10,11) Heb.10:10-18
p2:The elect when quickened by The Holy Spirit are brought from death to life, are able to believe the word of God and the gospel promises,Spirit Baptism having already united them savingly and eternally with their Lord and His blood bought body the church.
p3: Believing the word of God ,as Believers they seek to publicly identify with the Lord and His church by believers baptism as commanded in the NT.
p4: false professors in the strength of their own flesh sometimes attempt to mimic true believers. they make a false profession,and request baptism.This however is in reality unbelievers baptism they being devoid of the Spirit,and the promises, have never entered into the New Covenant.
p5:therefore

believers baptism

is truly for the elect alone.

 

[MW]

p3: Believing the word of God ,as Believers they seek to publicly identify with the Lord and His church by believers baptism as commanded in the NT.
p4: false professors in the strength of their own flesh sometimes attempt to mimic true believers. they make a false profession,and request baptism.This however is in reality unbelievers baptism they being devoid of the Spirit,and the promises, have never entered into the New Covenant.

Does believers' baptism have any relation to the new covenant? If so, these premises contradict each other. If not, they are irrelevant to the argument.

 

[Iconoclast]

p3: Believing the word of God ,as Believers they seek to publicly identify with the Lord and His church by believers baptism as commanded in the NT.
p4: false professors in the strength of their own flesh sometimes attempt to mimic true believers. they make a false profession,and request baptism.This however is in reality unbelievers baptism they being devoid of the Spirit,and the promises, have never entered into the New Covenant.

Does believers' baptism have any relation to the new covenant? If so, these premises contradict each other. If not, they are irrelevant to the argument.

Good point,let me add to it.
p3:Having already been placed in the New Covenant by Spirit Baptism and now having the Spirit[ROM:8:9][jn3:3-5] Believing the word of God ,as Believers they seek to publicly identify with the Lord and His church by believers baptism as commanded in the NT.
acts8:36
See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

 

[MW]

Anthony, I still see no relation of baptism to the new covenant. If there is no relation, what is the relevance to the first premise? If there is a relation, then the person baptised is related in some way to the new covenant whether he is a believer or unbeliever.

 

[Iconoclast]

Anthony, I still see no relation of baptism to the new covenant. If there is no relation, what is the relevance to the first premise? If there is a relation, then the person baptised is related in some way to the new covenant whether he is a believer or unbeliever.

Hello Matthew,
Yes ...I think that is because you are looking for water baptism first as an entrance point to the NC. A credo see's Spirit Baptism coming first,not water baptism. There can be no believers baptism,without a born from above believer having already been translated from darkness to light. This work of God being unseen...sign gifts having now ceased...the God ordained ordinance is Believers baptism where a believer desires to obey the command to believe and be baptized. This identification with the Lord and His corporate body declares that God has already done a saving work internally placing the elect sheep in the invisible church Heb12:22-24, and in obediance the believer now joins a local expression of the body. In my original post in this thread I spoke of the elect sheep being one with the elect servant.

If there is a relation, then the person baptised is related in some way to the new covenant whether he is a believer or unbeliever.

[/QUOTE]
well yes....either as an obedient believer, or an unbeliever taking God's name in vain by his false/profession,false baptism

 

[MW]

well yes....either as an obedient believer, or an unbeliever taking God's name in vain by his false/profession,false baptism

Thanks Anthony; this is helpful. To take God's name in vain with respect to the new covenant must mean that they bear God's name in a covenant relation, yes?

 

[Iconoclast]

well yes....either as an obedient believer, or an unbeliever taking God's name in vain by his false/profession,false baptism

Thanks Anthony; this is helpful. To take God's name in vain with respect to the new covenant must mean that they bear God's name in a covenant relation, yes?

In your view this would be the essence of being a covenant breaker.If as you believe a person can be said to be in covenant with God....but not necessarily savingly so,ie, they may or may not be.
If in the new covenant it is unbreakable in that God himself who begins the good work will perform it [phil1:6] then the one trying to identify with the covenant keeping God by fleshly means and motives and not by new birth, proves to be a thief and a robber trying to come in another way. His profession is a lie,his baptism false. That he attempts to identify with God's name and people will be manifest sooner or later.

24Some men's sins are open beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they follow after.

25Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid

If I believed they were in some external way in the covenant, but not savingly[having been placed there by God]???? I would have to be Padeo and take the warning passages to mean they as the OT covenant breaker came short of God's rest.Heb3=4.
Believing they are false professors, i can look to the OT apostate as the Nt.says, as examples 1 Cor10 of what not to do.
Instead of a physical sign cominfg first,{water Baptism} I see Spirit baptism coming first, then an outward physical sign or representation of the reality.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thanks to all participants. I'm going to bow out of trying to eval arguments as I have a lot to do. I appreciate the input. It may yet be possible to form the argument. I've been skeptical but some have gotten close. This would then form the basis to evaluate the individual premises but that's not the purpose of the exercise as much as the formation of the argument is.

 

[captivewill]

How about this from Matthew 28...Jesus said All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me..Therefore go and make disciples in all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit AND teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you...

Isn't it self evident that disciples will be made of those who hear and receive and obey the gospel, and that these are the ones who are to be baptized, and furthermore these dfisciples are the same who are to be taught to obey the things that Jesus commanded His first disciples.

Authority trumps logic every time.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

How about this from Matthew 28...Jesus said All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me..Therefore go and make disciples in all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit AND teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you...

Isn't it self evident that disciples will be made of those who hear and receive and obey the gospel, and that these are the ones who are to be baptized, and furthermore these dfisciples are the same who are to be taught to obey the things that Jesus commanded His first disciples.

Authority trumps logic every time.

I'm sorry but I could not resist answering. Are you asking me if it is evident logically or illogically?

 

[captivewill]

How about this from Matthew 28...Jesus said All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me..Therefore go and make disciples in all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit AND teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you...

Isn't it self evident that disciples will be made of those who hear and receive and obey the gospel, and that these are the ones who are to be baptized, and furthermore these dfisciples are the same who are to be taught to obey the things that Jesus commanded His first disciples.

Authority trumps logic every time.

I'm sorry but I could not resist answering. Are you asking me if it is evident logically or illogically?

Touche'...you are right of course..it is evident logically and a syllogism can be thus constructed..YET authority does trump the process of discovering logic for its own sake.

 

[Austin]

I had a Baptist uncle who was a drunk. (Among other things.) He was baptized again and again each time he made a credible profession of faith & resolved never to wake up w/ a hangover again.. (Just injecting some tongue-in-cheek ad hominem argumentation into a fascinating discussion... .)