Yes, but the sign of the NC would be the indwelling and sealing of the Holy Spirit in the people of God, and shown in symbolic fashion by water baptism.
Baptism & New Covenant
- Thread starter HisRobes4Mine
- Start date
- Status
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
Patently false. The "sign" and seal of this covenant is baptism, not "indwelling".
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
So everyone in the Baptist church who has been baptized has died to Christ and is elect?
No, but the orediance of the water baptism would be now reserved under the NC to those who have made a profession of now being saved by Jesus Christ. Romans 6 describes the process, so how would that be babies/infants in mind there?
The two Baptisms are interlinked though, as first the person is saved and been baptized in to the Body of Christ by the Holy Spirit, and then the person takes the water baptism. The NT witness would be the sign of now being identified and saved by the person and work of Christ.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Romans 6 says nothing about one's confession, just that they have been baptized. Infants can receive the sign.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
You say this as if it is authoritative. Baptism is nothing more than a presumption...as mentioned ad nauseum, Demas, Annanias and his wife, Simon Magus were all baptized.
I know that all of the OT saints were saved on the same basis as all of us, but I honestly do not know if the Lord had them all indwelt as he has all of us now under the NC, as the Holy Spirit seemed to jsut come upn those in specific roles/positions and assigned tasks for Him. he might have overlooked and remitted their sins, but not indwelt all of them as he does us now.
I see the Holy Spirit as regenerating them, but not indwelling them, as that would require the future NC to come, as prophesied by Jeremiah, when the reality of the Law would then be written upon our hearts, and no longer just external.
I have read some material that have said that some reformed see Him as indwelling them all in the OT, others that He regenerated but not indwelt, still others that He remitted sins, but did not do any further activity at that time.
the person being water baptized is said to going down into the water, immersed, and to be identified as now being saved by/in Christ, as we now partake of the Holy Spirit.
The terminology used by Paul to me would indicate He is addressing adults, or at least older children being part of the water baptism rite.
I am just suggesting that both of us have theological implications that cause us to view water baptism in differing ways in some regards. Nothing wrong with that, as there are issues where those who are the redeemed of the Lord will continue to iron out between each other.
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
First, David, you've avoided the question again as has been pointed out ad nauseam. This is why it is frustrating to attempt dialog with you....the target is ever moving. It is absolutely irrelevant (red herring fallacy) to drag in a relationship between baptism and the indwelling Spirit in a debate of "what is the sign of the NC?". Absolutely irrelevant and this gets us one step closer to the 56 posts/counter-posts to get at what position you are lobbying for. Secondly, you continue to state your position as though that ends the argument. I am convinced of Reformed, covenantal theology. I was once a baptistic evangelical and have become convinced of covenant theology. Your stating, over and over your evangelical position as though it is the judges gavel that ends the matter is wholly incapable of convincing me or of the convinced Reformed here. Thirdly, I want the regeneration goggles after you are through with them, for I, too, would like to gaze into the deep soul of man to see his condition before God. Personally, I would jettison totally the pop-E language of "saved" since, as it turns out, the regeneration goggles are only Ray Ban filtered knock offs......
Please help me to betetr articulate this, as I am just saying that to me as a Baptist who fully agrees with Covenant Sotierology theology, do still see water baptism as being the sign of one having already received Jesus as their Lord and Savior. The aspect of bringing into this discussion the Person of the Holy spirit was to just underline what to me enables the person to now being able to receive the water baptism at the local church, as they have already been Spirit Baptized into the Universal church.
I have no intentions of changing any Reformed Presbyterian Brethren on this issue, but do sometimes feel like there has to be a better way to have us discuss these issues without either of us getting heated .
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Was water baptism a sign of Simon Magus's being regenerated and elect?
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
Romans 6 is the classic passage that baptists seem to go to. I will admit that it does fit fairly well with the whole 'immersion' idea. However, this is not the only verses about baptism in the NT, so we cannot limit our understanding of baptism to what we see there.
It seems to me like in Romans 6 Paul is talking about the spiritual baptism that all believers went through when they were united to Christ as he died and was raised. I don't think it is talking about the physical rite. And I don't think it is correct to base our view of the physical rite only on this passage, as their are other passages that indicate to us that baptism does not have such a precise, technical meaning as the baptists tend to want to indicate. For example, Jesus speaks of being baptized by the Holy Spirit - and we know that the Holy Spirit was poured out, believers were not immersed into the Holy Spirit.
I don't think Romans 6 is the passage to go to when trying to determine who should receive the sign of baptism. I do think that Romans 6 helps us understand what baptism signifies - but I think it signifies more than just what is mentioned in Romans 6 - it also signifies the receipt of the Holy Spirit and also the washing by the blood of Christ.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Please show me how u have come to the conclusion that this passage has an age limitation. If u will...
The water baptism should reflect to the Church that one has been saved and reborn from above now.
What is interesting is that Most Baptists that I hacve spoken with concerning Romans 6 are conviced that it refers to water baptism, and I once held it to be as your see it here, but their persuasion won me over to their position.
Cymro
Puritan Board Junior
No man can call Jesus Lord but by the Spirit. This they did in OT. Can you explain to me in what condition was the man who was born blind, who said, “Lord I believe, and he worshipped Him.” Christ had not died or risen again, yet he was converted. Neither had Pentecost arrived, yet he worshipped.(adoration, prostration). Was he indwelt by the Spirit?
The NC promised to us by Jeremiah Himself states that the Law of God will be upon our hearts, so how could infants have that done to them then?
De Jager
Puritan Board Junior
The new covenant promise does indeed state that they will "all know me", and that the law will be written on their hearts.
I don't believe we are at that point yet. I don't think that will be fully realized until Jesus comes back and separates the wheat from the tares. There are still aspects of the NC that have not been fully realized yet.
The question is: who is 'all'? All of whom?
I believe that these promises refer to a future time in which the visible church and invisible church will exactly correspond - head for head. We are not at that point yet. In fact, the church of the NT testament is like the church of the OT insofar as there are those who are merely professors, as well as those who are truly 'circumcised of heart'.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Speaking of Jeremiah, Jeremiah, Samson, John the Baptist and Isaiah were separated from the womb......That still has no relationship to Rom's 6 and Paul's words. You are pressing a pressuposition into the verses. Eisegesis.
Again I say to you, to say infants cannot have these characteristics, is to say all infants perish because no one gets into heaven without a changed heart.
God is able to do a miracle in them to have them regenerated and saved. Just would be done apart from the Infant baptism.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Do u see the contradiction? On one hand u say, 'how could infants have that done to them' and on the other, "God is able to do a miracle in them to have them regenerated and saved"
So, does the Jeremiah passage exclude infants? Does Paul, knowing what Jeremiah said?
Jeremiah was speaking of the NC itself, so seems that we would now be in that state with God.
God can save Infants in infancy due to His grace, but that is a separate issue on whether we baptize them or not.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Do u see the contradiction in your statements?
For 4 thousand years, Christ commanded that the sign be placed on disciples!
In the great commission, to which u run and hide behind some proverbial hedge that is so much lower than u think (I can see u peeking over it), Christ himself said:
'Make disciples and baptise them'! He did not say, 'wait until they have a profession of faith before u baptize them!'
What u say is in direct opposite of what Christ tells us:
I have shown u that there were a number of examples in the NT where people were baptized and yet, did not show any fruit of their faith. You say:
Christ does not tell us that in every baptism, the recipients would be indwelt. Some would be-the elect.
Every time that water baptism is mention din the NT though, it appears to be describing given to those who believe in Jesus as Lord. One can make inference that some places means all in family, be that would be reading ones presumptions into the text itself.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Was Simon Magus regenerated and born from above?
Not from the scripture evidence.
- Status
