Baptism and the Regulative principle

[JML]

Have you read the book which I recommended? Are you able to refute what he presents?

Jo-Anne,

I have not read Reisinger's book nor do I really wish to read it. I have, however, read Richard Barcellos' book In Defense of the Decalogue which refutes his position as does the Scripture. I have also interacted on numerous occasions with proponents of NCT so I am very aware of the teaching.

However, you are of course entitled to your opinion. I just wanted to make sure others (who have not already studied these things out) would not be lead (wrongly) into considering ‘New Covenant Theology’ to be something heretical. The exact opposite is in fact true.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion as well but as noted by Pastor Barnes, this is a confessional board and New Covenant Theology is not confessional nor is it Scriptural. Your account states that you subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. This confession clearly teaches against NCT.

19. The Law of God

God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.

The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the ten commandments, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away.

To the people of Israel He also gave sundry judicial laws which expired when they ceased to be a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation, but their general equity continue to be applicable in modern times.

The moral law ever binds to obedience everyone, justified people as well as others, and not only out of regard for the matter contained in it, but also out of respect for the authority of God the Creator, Who gave the law. Nor does Christ in the Gospel dissolve this law in any way, but He considerably strengthens our obligation to obey it.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Just a note that the OP seemed to want information on what paedobaptists believe, not get into a debate. Some of the posts here seem defensive.

Yes! I meant no offense to anyone, just trying to see both sides clearly.

 

[sevenzedek]

To the original OP:

I haven't been following all the posts because I first noticed this thread in the wading pool.

It would be helpful to your understanding to combine circumcision and baptism under the same rubric—namely, the covenant sign of the covenant of grace. Under the old administration, circumcision was commanded to be the sign; under the new, baptism. Seen in this way, baptism is commanded for the un-confessing children of believers just as much as circumcision was commanded for the same. The command? Yes. Believers are commanded to apply the sign to their children. For me, it makes no difference that the sign changed. The substance still applies.

We don't need a patently revealed example of baptized infants in the NT because, as the sign was commanded previously, the sign is commanded now. Obversely, I would personally need to see an explicit command in the NT to now stop applying the sign of the covenant of grace to my children in order to revert back to my Baptist understanding.

It's kind of like this: If I told you to apply ointment to you face, the nature of the command does not change when the ointment, according to my command, is changed. One must still apply the ointment I prescribe. Well, God has not told us to stop applying the ointment to our children. The change of the sign does not change the substance of what it signifies. The substance of the sign is God's promise to save those who have faith in Christ. Furthermore, the promise is to us and our children, and as many as the Lord will call. Through baptism, our children are invited to partake of the promise of grace.

 

[Hemustincrease]

Jo-Anne, I am not a moderator, but espousing New Covenant Theology here I believe goes against the Standards that is to be held here at the Puritanboard. I have provided a link by the PB owner about the rules you agreed to when signing up on the PB: What?! This is a Reformed Board?! and here: The PuritanBoard FAQ

This doctrine teaches that the 10 Commandments are abrogated or changed (depending on the view). That view is just plain false.

I'm sure you could not espouse your view, but rather first start asking people for their thoughts on New Covenant Theology before coming here and saying that it is absolutely true. Especially since it is in fact a 'new' doctrine (at the very least a 'new name').

OK. Thanks for pointing that out. (The forum rules that is.) I respect your own certainty that New Covenant theology cannot be espoused, but I am equally as certain that it can be.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion as well but as noted by Pastor Barnes, this is a confessional board and New Covenant Theology is not confessional nor is it Scriptural. Your account states that you subscribe to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. This confession clearly teaches against NCT

Obviously I would have to disagree with your belief that New Covenant Theology is not Scriptural. However, if the board is founded upon confessions rather than ‘Sola Scriptura’ I guess I’m out on my ear. I can agree with the LBCF so far, but I cannot hold it over and above Scripture.

 

[nicnap]

Obviously I would have to disagree with your belief that New Covenant Theology is not Scriptural. However, if the board is founded upon confessions rather than ‘Sola Scriptura’ I guess I’m out on my ear.

Jo-Anne, we Reformed folk are those who understand Sola Scriptura--you are seeking to redefine it. Perhaps it is you who might need to read a book: The Creedal Imperative, by Carl Trueman would be a good place to help you gain an understanding of what it means to be confessional. No one here holds a confession over the Scripture, and your insinuations as such (in posts #31 & #36) need to be retracted.

 

[Hemustincrease]

No one here holds a confession over the Scripture, and your insinuations as such need to be retracted.

I was referring to the board rules, not to any individual. I was graciously referred to those rules precisely because my speaking of New Covenant Theology was outside the confessions of this board. Not sure why that needs to be retracted?

o-Anne, we Reformed folk are those who understand Sola Scriptura--you are seeking to redefine it.

So I’m outside the royal ‘we’ now? Just joking!
Clearly, with hindsight, it was not the wisest thing to do, to recommend a book which stands against the confessions of this board. My bad! Having read the forum rules again now, I know the boundaries and won’t overstep them again. I apologize for posting in ignorance of them (my fault again for not reading them more carefully) and hope no long lasting offense was caused.

 

[nicnap]

I understand that you might have been speaking to the board rules---however, the men who put those rules in place are confessional men, and they do not hold confessions over Scripture. They (along with those who affirm the the rules) hold to sola scriptura. Such a position demands a statement of doctrine that can be tested by Scripture, and is drawn from Scripture---sola scriptura does not mean "me & my Bible alone" or "no creed but Christ."

So I’m outside the royal ‘we’ now? Just joking!

I was referencing 1689ers as well...though some might not include them. No--no longstanding offense was caused to me personally. I just wanted you to see that your definition of sola scriptura was faulty, that is if you are in the, "me & my Bible alone" and "no creed but Christ" camp.

 

[Loopie]

In reference to the OP, I would also recommend Greg Nichols' book Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants.

As one who holds to credo-baptism, I don't typically utilize the 'individual decision' argument as a central argument to defending credo-baptism. I honestly believe that there is a covenantal way to defend the credo-Baptist position. The core argument of that position (articulated by Nichols) is that the covenant sign is given to the covenant representative and the progeny of that representative. Noah and Noah's physical descendants receive the covenant sign of the rainbow. Abraham and Abraham's physical descendants receive the covenant sign of circumcision. Christ, being the covenant representative of the New Covenant, does not have physical children, but has spiritual children, and so the covenant sign is only rightfully received by those who are his spiritual children. Of course, we are not made privy as to who the elect are, and so baptism is to be administered upon a credible profession of faith.

Certainly there is much more that could be discussed, but that is the core argument at least from my understanding of Nichols' work.

 

[MW]

Christ, being the covenant representative of the New Covenant, does not have physical children, but has spiritual children, and so the covenant sign is only rightfully received by those who are his spiritual children. Of course, we are not made privy as to who the elect are, and so baptism is to be administered upon a credible profession of faith.

Thankfully infants are among the spiritual children of Christ, otherwise those dying in infancy would be damned. The argument from "physical" to "spiritual" children simply does nothing to support an antipaedobaptist position. The requirement of "a credible profession of faith" is not new to the New Testament, as both Noah and Abraham were required to respond in faith, Hebrews 11, and in the case of Abraham this is specifically stated to have been prior to the giving of the sign, Romans 4. The idea that "a credible profession of faith" must be prerequisite in all cases to the administration of the covenant sign is arbitrarily created by the antipaedobaptist's assumption. It has no basis in the salvific doctrine of holy Scripture.

 

[sevenzedek]

In reference to the OP, I would also recommend Greg Nichols' book Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants.

As one who holds to credo-baptism, I don't typically utilize the 'individual decision' argument as a central argument to defending credo-baptism. I honestly believe that there is a covenantal way to defend the credo-Baptist position. The core argument of that position (articulated by Nichols) is that the covenant sign is given to the covenant representative and the progeny of that representative. Noah and Noah's physical descendants receive the covenant sign of the rainbow. Abraham and Abraham's physical descendants receive the covenant sign of circumcision. Christ, being the covenant representative of the New Covenant, does not have physical children, but has spiritual children, and so the covenant sign is only rightfully received by those who are his spiritual children. Of course, we are not made privy as to who the elect are, and so baptism is to be administered upon a credible profession of faith.

Certainly there is much more that could be discussed, but that is the core argument at least from my understanding of Nichols' work.

MODERATORS AND PRESBYTERIAN ELDERS: Correct me if I am wrong.


While Christ does have spiritual children, Jeremiah says the everlasting, new covenant is made with believers and their children as well.

Jeremiah 32:39-40
39 then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them and their children after them. 40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me.

Ezekiel speaks of this covenant in Ezk 37:24-26. We know, according to his words, that this everlasting covenant of which Jeremiah speaks is the new covenant.

Ezekiel 37:24-26
“David My servant [Christ] shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. 25 Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children's children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever. 26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore.

What happens to Nichols' premise when seen in the light of the passages above? It fails because, in Jeremiah 32:40, God says that he will make an everlasting covenant with "them." Who is them? "Them" refers to those mentioned in the previous verse; Jeremiah 32:39, "them and their children after them." It is with these that God makes this everlasting covenant (also known as the new covenant), as Ezekiel 37:26 also emphasizes.

Note Clavin on Jeremiah 32:40:

"He first says, I will strike with them a perpetual covenant. We must notice the contrast between the covenant of the Law, and the covenant of which the Prophet now speaks. He called it in the thirty-first chapter a new covenant, and gave the reason for it, because their fathers had soon fallen away after the Law was proclaimed, and because its doctrine was that of the letter, and deadly, and also fatal. But he now calls it a perpetual covenant."

That Christ will have only spiritual children heaven does not affect the administration of His covenant before its final consummation in heaven in the way that Nichols would have it. The Bible evidences clearly the already accomplished aspects of the new covenant while emphasizing the interim aspects of not yet being complete. It is at this point where the paedobaptists and baptists take their fork in the road. This is where baptists over-emphasize the spiritual aspect of the covenant of grace and demand credo-baptism only. This is where paedobaptists hold to the aspects of the new covenant that are not yet complete that allow us to baptize those who may never be included in heaven's assembly.

One thing that must be understood toward what I consider to be a proper view of the new covenant is that God not only incorporates in it the drawing of his people according to his sovereign control in changing men's hearts, but also one of unilateral promise conditioned upon covenant compliance—if you trust Christ (again, a condition that God unilaterally fulfills). The covenant is not merely a promise that guarantees the state of believers, but also one that invites the children of believers to participate according to conditions of the covenant—if you do this, you will receive that. In other words, the covenant not only guarantees the state of its recipients when the conditions are fulfilled by God working in us the willing and doing of it, but is also a means of creating and growing faith.

This is important because we do not have a window into God's decrees concerning salvation. All we have is his promise that he will not turn away from doing us good according (Jeremiah 32:40) only if we turn to Christ.

If we understanding the covenant without regard to both important aspects of understanding I mentioned above, we may come out believing the promise of the new covenant is only one of guarantee and not one of means. If we do this, our surety of the new covenant becomes a contingent upon our decision rather than a surety of God's promise. How? The promise becomes divorced from the source of its means—God. Again, how? According to the baptist understanding of baptism, the promise that comes through baptism is turned into one of the recipient's decision rather than one of God's unilateral promise—baptism becomes a way to signify a profession of faith rather than a way to signify God's promise. With one eye toward our decisional participation and one eye towards God's promise, baptism becomes a way of recommending and evidencing our faith to God and man rather than a way of receiving God's unilateral promise of salvation. (I know—worms.) This is harmful to faith, but thanks be to God that, while he has tied us to means, he has not tied himself to means.

 

[Tyrese]

Paedobaptist clearly confuse the physical and the spiritual in scripture. Is the term infant or babe relevant in Scripture? Of course it is. That's why Jesus told Nicodemus that he needed to be born again (hence his confusion of the matter). When we are BORN AGAIN (become spiritual infants) we receive the sign of baptism which is completly Spiritual. The physical flesh is of no value (which is why infant baptism is nowhere to be found in Holy Scripture). Also this whole idea that a profession of faith is completely worthless is a dangerous unscriptural position as we are plainly told to profess with our mouth. It's interesting that we can ignore a plain teaching in scripture and have a thread defending something that's not plain (of course it's plain in the WCF). That's not to say a profession means everything, it's just plain that we better be professing what Scriture commands us to profess.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Also this whole idea that a profession of faith is completely worthless is a dangerous unscriptural position

I've been following this thread, and I missed this precise claim... Who made it? Where...? By itself, the referred-to statement is extreme, which leads me to first expect that there were probably qualifiers in the post (assuming an accurate reference), and possibly even a context of exchanges. Such facts alone aren't sufficient to justify such a statement, but with them this criticism from post#43 might not carry any weight at all.


Borrowing from the same post: "Is the term _____ relevant in Scripture?," insert profession there, and we (Presbyterians) answer, "Yes." As a matter of fact we confess it, WSC95,

Q. To whom is baptism to be administered? A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; but infant of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized.

Now, if the particular criteria for admission to baptism as laid down in Scripture be differentiated for different classes of persons--i.e. 1) those of age and able to speak for themselves, and 2) those not of age but belonging to them that are--then the Confessional statement is unobjectionable.

No surprise that the Baptist denies the hypothetical (if...then), particularly the leading premise (antecedent) that then obviates the consequent. But the Presbyterian affirms it, and the conclusion necessarily follows for him on the principle of biblical authority.

So its fairly tendentious to allege that we (for our part)

ignore a plain teaching in scripture and have a thread defending something that's not plain.

Plainness is nothing more nor less that what is patent to a particular set of eyes. Moreover, the thread was started by a Baptist with a genuine query into why Reformed paedobaptists see (plainly) what it is they see, though it isn't or wasn't plain to him where the other side even began to get traction. So the defense isn't ironic in any sense.

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all... WCF 1.7

 

[Peairtach]

Paedobaptist clearly confuse the physical and the spiritual in scripture. Is the term infant or babe relevant in Scripture? Of course it is. That's why Jesus told Nicodemus that he needed to be born again (hence his confusion of the matter). When we are BORN AGAIN (become spiritual infants) we receive the sign of baptism which is completly Spiritual. The physical flesh is of no value (which is why infant baptism is nowhere to be found in Holy Scripture). Also this whole idea that a profession of faith is completely worthless is a dangerous unscriptural position as we are plainly told to profess with our mouth. It's interesting that we can ignore a plain teaching in scripture and have a thread defending something that's not plain (of course it's plain in the WCF). That's not to say a profession means everything, it's just plain that we better be professing what Scriture commands us to profess.

This talk of "spiritual" and "physical" with respect to salvation becomes somewhat problematic for the Baptist when he remembers that our salvation is both spiritual and physical, as evinced e.g. by the resurrection of our Lord and our own resurrection.

Was the salvation of the OT believers, both spiritual and physical, whereas the salvation of NT believers is purely spiritual? I think not, but the topic would maybe furnish material for another thread in order to tease out the confusion that there is in this way of thinking and reasoning.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[christianrecon]

I would highly recommend a book by Robert R. Booth to my Baptist brethren titled, Children of the Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism.