I think that the question was more to if we take the scripture command to have only these allowed to partake of Lord's Supper, why not be consistent and apply the commands regarding who is to be water baptized?
Baptism & New Covenant
- Thread starter HisRobes4Mine
- Start date
- Status
Cymro
Puritan Board Junior
How can it be a “surer relationship” when it is said of Abraham that he “staggered not at the promise of God, but was strong in faith,giving glory to God.” All the OT saints exercised faith, and we exercise the same faith. You are dichotomising the faith, the church and the covenant if you force this distinction.
Cymro
Puritan Board Junior
The playing of two different scenarios is a red herring. One is to the unbeliever the other is to the believer. We are to be in the right spiritual frame to partake of the elements, and to that end we must “examine”ourselves. Covenant children are restricted until they are of an age to examine themselves.
I am not forcing that distinction, as God Himself does in Hebrews 8:6.
There are important similarities. Baptism is administered by an ordained minister of Word and sacrament. Also the Lord's supper is administered by an ordained minister of Word and sacrament. So it is consistent to say faith and repentance is an important prerequisite for both sacraments? I am still trying to think this through.
Don't you think Wales should stick to her supreme skill - i.e. singing? And let the All Blacks show the world how rugby should really be played
I'm just trying to think through your argument Bruce. Baptists would argue that John the Baptist did bring in a change in redemptive history in the sense that the new covenant would be "repent and be baptized" and the new Testament would continue that theme. But the "you and your seed" provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant (in the paedobaptist view) are still in force. Feel free to expand on this. I am trying to piece the argument together.
Cymro
Puritan Board Junior
The position remains unchanged. The two references are to adults. If now you want to introduce children then the two ordinances require that they come to an age of being able to understand their covenant obligations and privileges. Or, to be able to examine themselves. They then also exercise faith and repentance. WCF on the Supper,” to be administered —only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.” And, “needfully discerning the Lord’s body.” Obviously their junior understanding is taken into account as compared to an adult. In baptism the WCF states, “infants descending from parents, either both or but one of them professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him are, in that respect, within the covenant, and to be baptised.” Children and adults are to “improve our baptism all our life long.”
Ah, when you watch the Welsh backline magically, entertainingly dancing through the opposition, then they are on song even when not in a choir! It’s not about forward power and “hits”, or being immersed in one objective, but in the finesse and spirit of the subject of delight.
Ah, when you watch the Welsh backline magically, entertainingly dancing through the opposition, then they are on song even when not in a choir! It’s not about forward power and “hits”, or being immersed in one objective, but in the finesse and spirit of the subject of delight.
Those who are part of the NC actually indeed would be just the redeemed of the Lord, as the Water baptism is the sign/symbol of what God has already done on their behalf for them.
And I'm trying to help you (and other readers) think for your own conclusion, putting together a valid argument by first spotting the disconnect between premise and conclusion in the original proposal. It could be that the conclusion is more valuable, and a better path to it found. Otherwise, it could be that the premise is sound, and a better conclusion should be reached.
Obviously, on this side we are not going to agree that the changes announced by JtB (he did not bring in the changes of NC redemptive history, which are the exclusive prerogatives of Christ) that they were encapsulated in the expression: "repent and be baptized."
We reply:
1) repentance was integral to the Old Covenant to any and all participants, failures notwithstanding; and would be a special prior consideration for a convert.
2) Baptism has the same basic function re. the covenant administration in the new era as circumcision did in earlier ages. "Repent and be circumcised" would be appropriate phrasing for a similar call under evangelistic settings from Abraham down to the day of Christ. The expression "repent and be baptized" is not phrased as an absolute order-of-events, any more than "baptism of repentance for remission of sins" is any order-of-events.
3) Baptism is not such a "new thing" that baptism (though by Hebrew designation) is unknown prior to the NT.
2) Baptism has the same basic function re. the covenant administration in the new era as circumcision did in earlier ages. "Repent and be circumcised" would be appropriate phrasing for a similar call under evangelistic settings from Abraham down to the day of Christ. The expression "repent and be baptized" is not phrased as an absolute order-of-events, any more than "baptism of repentance for remission of sins" is any order-of-events.
3) Baptism is not such a "new thing" that baptism (though by Hebrew designation) is unknown prior to the NT.
Therefore, to a paedobaptist practitioner, that which might seem to Baptist eyes to have some kind of inconsistency seems rather the opposite. JtB is saying things that aren't so radical that they should have little resonance with the church of his day.
When it comes to Pentecost, and we hear echoes of the Abrahamic promises in Peter's NT preaching (I will be God to your children), we recognize in the NC the same kind of faith union as was essential to what came before, though not identical in expression.
What is my goal in showing this? It is not to decide for or against the Baptist conclusion, or the Baptist premise. Theoretically, either one of them could still be accurate. It is simply to show that what may look like good reasoning to him doesn't appear so to another POV, and he might even be persuaded that it isn't either from his own POV.
Thanks Brothers for your input. I realise I have to think about this at a deeper level. I'll continue my reading of Blake's "Covenant of God".
- Status
