Baptism & New Covenant

[HisRobes4Mine]

I’m having a conversation with someone regarding baptism & the NC. They have told me their argument for credobaptism as listed below. I find errors in the logic of the argument but would like to hear your thoughts as to the relationship of baptism & the New Covenant.

1. Election is completely unconditional. Even believing parents does not make you more likely to be elect.

2. There is no category of in the new covenant but not in Christ.

3. Baptism is given to those who are part of the new covenant.

Therefore we should baptize only those who have given evidence of being elect.

 

[Doulos McKenzie]

I’m having a conversation with someone regarding baptism & the NC. They have told me their argument for credobaptism as listed below. I find errors in the logic of the argument but would like to hear your thoughts as to the relationship of baptism & the New Covenant.

1. Election is completely unconditional. Even believing parents does not make you more likely to be elect.

2. There is no category of in the new covenant but not in Christ.

3. Baptism is given to those who are part of the new covenant.

Therefore we should baptize only those who have given evidence of being elect.

1. I am pretty sure everyone agrees on this.

2. I would point to Hebrews 6 and 10 which clearly show the distinction between visible and invisible church. (unless your CanRC lol)

3. Right. And children are part of the New Covenant so they should be baptized.

The only problem I really see is that his view of the New Covenant does not recognize the external and internal distinction.

 

[TylerRay]

I’m having a conversation with someone regarding baptism & the NC. They have told me their argument for credobaptism as listed below. I find errors in the logic of the argument but would like to hear your thoughts as to the relationship of baptism & the New Covenant.

1. Election is completely unconditional. Even believing parents does not make you more likely to be elect.

2. There is no category of in the new covenant but not in Christ.

3. Baptism is given to those who are part of the new covenant.

Therefore we should baptize only those who have given evidence of being elect.

There is a lot that is left undefined. I would begin by asking your friend what the New Covenant is, exactly. I wouldn't know how to answer him without knowing what he understands the New Covenant to be.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'll push back on #1. Saying that having "believing parents does not make you more likely to be elect," more or less turns every child's providential birth and rearing into a fundamentally random act, or at least little more than the necessary physical outcome of historical determinism.

It turns appointed means for the appointed end of election into rituals--things like Bible-reading, praying with and for children, encouraging them in knowledge of spiritual reality, taking them to church--all these things are rendered nothing but a bare sign, human acts of duty which actually have no promise of effect.

No one excuses 1) casual or superficial reliance on "church" to bring about salvation for those elect children; or either 2) the sort of input-output expectation of the use of means. But saying that the elect are not found preponderantly among those who possess the means and the promises associated with those means is patent nonsense.

Just consider OT Israel. Was a person just as likely to be providentially appointed to election from the Americas (whatever those continents were called in that age) or from India or China, as they were from the children of Israel? That alone should demonstrate that location and parentage was in OT times a significant providential means-factor of nurturing faith.

What has changed since OT times? The internationalization of the church? How is it the case that believers should not expect their children to follow their parents in the faith as it is taught, modeled, urged, etc. to some significant statistical percentage greater than the pagan parents next door? Does this man (or anyone) really believe that there is no spiritual connection between our faith and its results?

Basically random distribution of election is not what the words "unconditional election" refer to. Nor is it the case that Reformed and Presbyterian parents think to themselves: "my child is elect BECAUSE I'm a Christian, or raising my child as a Christian." If those are their thoughts, they are often also the thoughts of Baptists (reformed and non-reformed), and lots of other denominations; but not so often tied to the official theology of that church.

Abraham, being the key example, demonstrates this reality. He has two (chief) sons, and additional sons; God tells him he knows he will teach his children well (see Gen.18:19), and he will be God to him and to his children after him (Gen.17:7). But Abraham is to allow for God declining to accept a son of his, without rendering the promise moot, Gen.17:18-19. Abraham is not to act like he has no religious duties of training toward his children, because God has elected him and many of his children.

Still, it is undeniable that God chose Abraham and his family to love them, and did not choose countless other men and their families, Dt.7:7ff. It seems to me just as undeniable, and in accord with the reality we observe each and every week in our churches, that the elect of one generation are privileged to see their children demonstrate the general truth encouraged by the divine promises--that God loves not merely individuals, but often generational lines of demonstrated grace, and always of grace undeserved.

 

[sc_q_jayce]

1. Election is completely unconditional. Even believing parents does not make you more likely to be elect.

This is interesting and I think it's a statement that may seem agreeable but should be pushed back against.

1. If you had 100 random people who lived and died without ever hearing the gospel in any form or manner, what would be the chances that someone among them is of the elect and saved?
2. If you had 100 random people who lived and died hearing the gospel once a day, what would be the chances that someone among them is of the elect and saved?

If the chances for 1 (only zero) and the chances for 2 (zero to 100%) have the potential to be different, then the first premise is incorrect.

 

[Dachaser]

I’m having a conversation with someone regarding baptism & the NC. They have told me their argument for credobaptism as listed below. I find errors in the logic of the argument but would like to hear your thoughts as to the relationship of baptism & the New Covenant.

1. Election is completely unconditional. Even believing parents does not make you more likely to be elect.

2. There is no category of in the new covenant but not in Christ.

3. Baptism is given to those who are part of the new covenant.

Therefore we should baptize only those who have given evidence of being elect.

All 3 points would be true.

 

[hammondjones]

If you had 100 random people who lived and died without ever hearing the gospel in any form or manner, what would be the chances that someone among them is of the elect and saved?

(only zero)

I don't believe you can say with certainty "only zero" if only for miscarriages/abortions, which are people who lived and died.


I'd agree with #3 only.

 

[sc_q_jayce]

I don't believe you can say with certainty "only zero" if only for miscarriages/abortions, which are people who lived and died.


I'd agree with #3 only.

In the scenario I described, your considerations are not a factor. I should have been more specific about these people being born and having lived a nominal number of years, but these assumptions weren't spoken out loud. Nonetheless, the situation I describe should still stand.

 

[Dachaser]

This is interesting and I think it's a statement that may seem agreeable but should be pushed back against.

1. If you had 100 random people who lived and died without ever hearing the gospel in any form or manner, what would be the chances that someone among them is of the elect and saved?
2. If you had 100 random people who lived and died hearing the gospel once a day, what would be the chances that someone among them is of the elect and saved?

If the chances for 1 (only zero) and the chances for 2 (zero to 100%) have the potential to be different, then the first premise is incorrect.

Does God stills ave His own elect if they never had the chance to hear the message of Jesus?
Primitive Baptists and others would still say yes...

 

[sc_q_jayce]

Does God stills ave His own elect if they never had the chance to hear the message of Jesus?
Primitive Baptists and others would still say yes...

I'm not sure why primitive baptists should be brought into this. I'll be even more specific: I'm talking about people who do not fall under WCF 10.3.

 

[Solparvus]

I’m having a conversation with someone regarding baptism & the NC. They have told me their argument for credobaptism as listed below. I find errors in the logic of the argument but would like to hear your thoughts as to the relationship of baptism & the New Covenant.

1. Election is completely unconditional. Even believing parents does not make you more likely to be elect.

2. There is no category of in the new covenant but not in Christ.

3. Baptism is given to those who are part of the new covenant.

Therefore we should baptize only those who have given evidence of being elect.

Pr. Bruce answered #1 wonderfully. I only add that promises to the children are most certainly included in the New Covenant administration (Deut 30:6, Isaiah 44:3-4, 59:21, 61:8-9, Jer 32:37-41), and their conversion is not only probable, but to generally be expected. Being born to Christian parents doesn’t make one elect, but God certainly places His elect in their homes.

For #2, even if you want to say that the New Covenant is exclusively the regenerate, still the principle of church membership is in the Abrahamic Covenant, which is most certainly not abrogated. The argument is that the Old Covenant is done away with according to Hebrews 8, but the covenant made when Israel left Egypt is not the Abrahamic—only the Mosaic. A cursory reading of Galatians and Hebrews will show that although the Mosaic has passed way, the Abrahamic Covenant has never been so important, so relevant, and its continuance more essential to the Christian’s hope. Really, the New Covenant is the magnanimous pouring out of God’s promises to Abraham. The passages cited in my response to #1 all assume the membership structure continues, and the NC comes upon those in the membership. Even Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8 assumes it when it says, “The house of Israel and the house of Judah.”

As for #3, they say that only those who are members of the NC—that is, in their book those who are truly regenerated—should be baptized, but in reality they can only baptize those with a profession of faith, which falls short of being sure the person baptized is regenerate. Some dubious professions turn out genuine, other impressive ones turn out false.

 

[Dachaser]

Pr. Bruce answered #1 wonderfully. I only add that promises to the children are most certainly included in the New Covenant administration (Deut 30:6, Isaiah 44:3-4, 59:21, 61:8-9, Jer 32:37-41), and their conversion is not only probable, but to generally be expected. Being born to Christian parents doesn’t make one elect, but God certainly places His elect in their homes.

For #2, even if you want to say that the New Covenant is exclusively the regenerate, still the principle of church membership is in the Abrahamic Covenant, which is most certainly not abrogated. The argument is that the Old Covenant is done away with according to Hebrews 8, but the covenant made when Israel left Egypt is not the Abrahamic—only the Mosaic. A cursory reading of Galatians and Hebrews will show that although the Mosaic has passed way, the Abrahamic Covenant has never been so important, so relevant, and its continuance more essential to the Christian’s hope. Really, the New Covenant is the magnanimous pouring out of God’s promises to Abraham. The passages cited in my response to #1 all assume the membership structure continues, and the NC comes upon those in the membership. Even Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8 assumes it when it says, “The house of Israel and the house of Judah.”

As for #3, they say that only those who are members of the NC—that is, in their book those who are truly regenerated—should be baptized, but in reality they can only baptize those with a profession of faith, which falls short of being sure the person baptized is regenerate. Some dubious professions turn out genuine, other impressive ones turn out false.

What do you think then of the LBCF 1689 take on this issue?

 

[Solparvus]

What do you think then of the LBCF 1689 take on this issue?

I’m a member of a Reformed Presbyterian Church now after being an LBC subscriber for 8 years, if that answers the question.

Which part are you wondering about my take?

 

[Dachaser]

I’m a member of a Reformed Presbyterian Church now after being an LBC subscriber for 8 years, if that answers the question.

Which part are you wondering about my take?

Guess would be what was the main issue that moved you from the Baptist to the Presbyterian position regarding this issue of the Church/water Baptism/ and the NC?

 

[Solparvus]

Guess would be what was the main issue that moved you from the Baptist to the Presbyterian position regarding this issue of the Church/water Baptism/ and the NC?

That might be better covered in a private message brother, so I’ll write to you there, so this thread can continue underailed. A general answer, I think even the nature of the NC demands that it’s the rich pouring out of blessings promised in the AC, and continues from it, and therefore the membership structure (believers and their children) continues.

 

[Dachaser]

That might be better covered in a private message brother, so I’ll write to you there, so this thread can continue underailed. A general answer, I think even the nature of the NC demands that it’s the rich pouring out of blessings promised in the AC, and continues from it, and therefore the membership structure (believers and their children) continues.

The spiritual blessings would be just to those who are in the faith of Abraham line though, just those who have trusted Jesus to save them.

 

[De Jager]

I’m having a conversation with someone regarding baptism & the NC. They have told me their argument for credobaptism as listed below. I find errors in the logic of the argument but would like to hear your thoughts as to the relationship of baptism & the New Covenant.

1. Election is completely unconditional. Even believing parents does not make you more likely to be elect.

2. There is no category of in the new covenant but not in Christ.

3. Baptism is given to those who are part of the new covenant.

Therefore we should baptize only those who have given evidence of being elect.

Jesus told us to go into all nations, making disciples and baptizing them.

A child who grows up in a Christian household is a disciple from the moment of his/her first breath. Therefore, I believe that child should be baptized.

Baptists will come back with something to the effect of: only truly regenerate people are 'disciples'; this is not true. In John 6, John clearly tells us that some of Jesus' disciples left him and walked with him no more.

'Disciple' does not equal 'regenerate'. A disciple is simply someone who sits under someone's teaching.

 

[De Jager]

The spiritual blessings would be just to those who are in the faith of Abraham line though, just those who have trusted Jesus to save them.

Yes, and the covenant sign of circumcision (which signifies spiritual blessings as proven in Romans 4) was given by Abraham to all the males in his household, even to the babies. The criteria was not personal faith - the criteria was belonging to the household of one who had faith.

 

[Dachaser]

Yes, and the covenant sign of circumcision (which signifies spiritual blessings as proven in Romans 4) was given by Abraham to all the males in his household, even to the babies. The criteria was not personal faith - the criteria was belonging to the household of one who had faith.

What passage in the NT though would indicate that those who have not received Jesus as their Lord are now included under it, as all who put on Christ and have the Holy Spirit only seemed to be now included?

 

[Gforce9]

What passage in the NT though would indicate that those who have not received Jesus as their Lord are now included under it, as all who put on Christ and have the Holy Spirit only seemed to be now included?

The burden is on you to demonstrate a covenantal system has been dissolved and that the signs and seals would apply to less people and not more, from Old to New.

 

[Dachaser]

The burden is on you to demonstrate a covenantal system has been dissolved and that the signs and seals would apply to less people and not more, from Old to New.

I think that was one of the purposes of the 1689 LBCF document, to demonstrate known differences between how the Presbyterians and Baptists viewed the NC and whose included under it now.

 

[De Jager]

What passage in the NT though would indicate that those who have not received Jesus as their Lord are now included under it, as all who put on Christ and have the Holy Spirit only seemed to be now included?

I would ask a different question. For 2,000 years, the sign of the covenant had been given to the children in the believing community. Why would it stop? There is no command to stop. The NT makes mention of household baptisms in light of this historical precedent.

Sent from my STH100-1 using Tapatalk

 

[Gforce9]

I think that was one of the purposes of the 1689 LBCF document, to demonstrate known differences between how the Presbyterians and Baptists viewed the NC and whose included under it now.

Fair enough, but you asked for a "magic bullet" verse from the NT to settle the matter. I assert there are precious few "magic bullet" verses for precious few doctrines; most doctrines have to be developed, not through atomism, but through careful and comprehensive systematics. The burden is still on you to demonstrate the covenantal structure has been dismantled......

 

[Dachaser]

Fair enough, but you asked for a "magic bullet" verse from the NT to settle the matter. I assert there are precious few "magic bullet" verses for precious few doctrines; most doctrines have to be developed, not through atomism, but through careful and comprehensive systematics. The burden is still on you to demonstrate the covenantal structure has been dismantled......

Not demolished, but the inference from the scriptures seems to be that there is a really New Covenant that came ushered in, so more of discontinuity than Presbyterians brethren would allow for, but not nearly as much as Dispensational would see as happening.

 

[Dachaser]

I would ask a different question. For 2,000 years, the sign of the covenant had been given to the children in the believing community. Why would it stop? There is no command to stop. The NT makes mention of household baptisms in light of this historical precedent.

Sent from my STH100-1 using Tapatalk

The NT scriptures seem to indicate though to us that only those actually are in a relationship with Jesus and have been reborn again though are seen as being in the NC, as the Holy Spirit Himself Baptized them into Jesus, the Body, and the NC.

 

[De Jager]

The NT scriptures seem to indicate though to us that only those actually are in a relationship with Jesus and have been reborn again though are seen as being in the NC, as the Holy Spirit Himself Baptized them into Jesus, the Body, and the NC.

The pattern has always been that children of believing parents are considered part of the external, visible covenant community. In the OT these children had a place in the community of believers because they were under the care and direction of their parents. Whether those children believed is another matter altogether. The point is that they were under the external administration of the covenant of grace and hence they received the sign. The sign is effective in and of itself, regardless of the spiritual state of the individual receiving the sign. This does not mean that the sign should be administered indiscriminately, but only in the way that God has permitted.The sign is supposed to point to God, not to man. Peter tells us that the promise is to "you and to your children" which is covenantal language. So the pattern remains unbroken in my opinion. The mention of household baptisms just adds further weight to the argument.

I believe Baptism is a sign for those in the external church. God appointed the sign of baptism for those entering this external church. Since we cannot determine anyone's true spiritual state, we cannot be expected to give a sign to only those who are "regenerate" . This is one of the problems I have with the baptist view.

With that being said, you are my brother in Christ along with all other baptists who are united to Christ by faith.

Sent from my STH100-1 using Tapatalk

 

[Dachaser]

The pattern has always been that children of believing parents are considered part of the external, visible covenant community. In the OT these children had a place in the community of believers because they were under the care and direction of their parents. Whether those children believed is another matter altogether. The point is that they were under the external administration of the covenant of grace and hence they received the sign. The sign is effective in and of itself, regardless of the spiritual state of the individual receiving the sign. This does not mean that the sign should be administered indiscriminately, but only in the way that God has permitted.The sign is supposed to point to God, not to man. Peter tells us that the promise is to "you and to your children" which is covenantal language. So the pattern remains unbroken in my opinion. The mention of household baptisms just adds further weight to the argument.

I believe Baptism is a sign for those in the external church. God appointed the sign of baptism for those entering this external church. Since we cannot determine anyone's true spiritual state, we cannot be expected to give a sign to only those who are "regenerate" . This is one of the problems I have with the baptist view.

With that being said, you are my brother in Christ along with all other baptists who are united to Christ by faith.

Sent from my STH100-1 using Tapatalk

The Children of redeemed reformed Baptists would still be under the external manifestation of the NC even if not baptized as infants though, as Paul stated that the saved parents would themselves place them under that. correct?

 

[Gforce9]

The Children of redeemed reformed Baptists would still be under the external manifestation of the NC even if not baptized as infants though, as Paul stated that the saved parents would themselves place them under that. correct?

You may want to check with your confessional Baptist brothers on this......

 

[Dachaser]

You may want to check with your confessional Baptist brothers on this......

What do you mean by the external manifestation though, as I would see that as the child being under the saved parents umbrella, and also under the church teaching and tutelage, until they made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Solparvus]

What do you mean by the external manifestation though, as I would see that as the child being under the saved parents umbrella, and also under the church teaching and tutelage, until they made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ.

That’s not too far from our own position. We believe that God providentially puts them under the means of grace, the big difference being that we include the means of grace called church membership, and their baptism is simply logical if you count them as members.

If you read what you just wrote, you gave the children the benefits of pastoral shepherding without calling them church members. To which the only question remains, if you give them the benefits of church membership, why not officially make them members?