Credobaptist objection

[MW]

So close, but commits the fallacy of false dichotomy: this claims that either we accept elect infants and thus must baptize them /or/ we can only accept infants are elect by some other means of grace than is revealed in Scripture.

You are only proving my point that the new covenant is irrelevant to the question of baptism. However you construe the new covenant, the new covenant concerns the elect, and the elect includes infants. To remove infants from baptism, you have to separate baptism from the new covenant. That is the point.

Baptism is a "sacrament" and is defined as that which is a visible sign of an invisible grace, positively commanded by God, elements prescribed by God, and confer grace on believers and seal that promise in grace by the Holy Spirit. (Muller "sacramentum")

If you are going to accept this, you will have to also accept the Reformed view of baptism as a sign and seal of the covenant itself. This equates to saying that baptism is the means by which God seals the promise of His covenant to the elect, including elect infants. But I seriously doubt you will allow this. So you will need to explain how you propose to separate baptism from the covenant. At which point you will deny what you have affirmed from Muller. As with previous exchanges on this thread this challenge will likely be left unanswered.

Baptists define the Covenant of Grace as those who are truly sealed by the Spirit and therefore cannot be outside grace - false professors then excluded so it is not by profession of faith as we are continually maligned, but it is by possession of faith because the Spirit cannot fail those whom He seals.

Are elect infants sealed by the Spirit? You can use whatever turn of phrase you please, it is not going to remove elect infants from the covenant of grace.

Answer: the faith we have in our God, Judge of the earth and all those who walk thereon, who will always do what is right.

God has given means by which He signifies and seals His promises. God has provided baptism. One should hang his faith on what God gives.

But through that earlier handwringing in this thread, you then see that the paedobaptist likewise "inherently thinks in terms of baptism being something an individual does" as well.

How could we baptise an infant who cannot do anything and then think of baptism as something the infant must do? Infant baptism is a very clear testimony that regeneration is monergistic. Anabaptism did not hold to monergism. That is why infants were excluded in the first place. It was something the individual must do. That practice of baptism reflected the theology. I will say it again, I am thankful my "Baptist" brethren have become Reformed when it comes to soteriology, but when it comes to baptism they are not Reformed. Their doctrine of baptism is synergistic.

Baptism IS something done physically - by and upon - people; yet is only efficacious spiritually by God the Holy Spirit .

If this were genuinely accepted there would be no reason to remove infants, since the Holy Spirit does this on elect infants.

 

[No Other Name]

This feels repetitive and if it were just you and me, I would decline, but there are more than just you and me here.

You are only proving my point that the new covenant is irrelevant to the question of baptism.

Untrue. And I infer you double down on your false dichotomy. Not entirely unexpected to say the least.

To remove infants from baptism, you have to separate baptism from the new covenant. That is the point.

Again untrue. Also I chuckled at the way you phrased that "to remove infants from baptism" as if that is even in the mindset at all given there is not one single recorded instance of a newborn being baptized in all of Scripture. (I know I know GNC, but do you not see how your preconceptions word it in such a way as to puzzle someone on the other side of the aisle? Or - and I think this is more obviously true - is it that the other viewpoint is not even truly being listened to here?)

If you are going to accept this, you will have to also accept the Reformed view of baptism as a sign and seal of the covenant itself. This equates to saying that baptism is the means by which God seals the promise of His covenant to the elect, including elect infants.

We do accept baptism as a sign and a sacrament of the new covenant itself and not the old.

We do deny "baptism is the means" (your words; my italics) by which God seals the promise of His covenant to the elect including elect infants. (Thief on the cross)

But we do affirm baptism is an effectual means by which God saves a true member of the Covenant of Grace. (For, by definition, it is impossible for God to save one who is not elect). The water is the physical sign of the invisible grace to the believer by the Spirit for deeper union with Christ and his death and burial and resurrection (Rom 6) but the seal of His promises in the New Covenant was already made in the regeneration and new birth of the person.

So you will need to explain how you propose to separate baptism from the covenant.

We factually do not separate baptism from the New Covenant that is the Covenant of Grace.

At which point you will deny what you have affirmed from Muller.

Not true at all. I would say more but what is summarily asserted can be summarily dismissed.

Anabaptism did not hold to monergism. That is why infants were excluded in the first place. It was something the individual must do. That practice of baptism reflected the theology. I will say it again, I am thankful my "Baptist" brethren have become Reformed when it comes to soteriology, but when it comes to baptism they are not Reformed. Their doctrine of baptism is synergistic.

Our doctrine of baptism is not synergistic; it is monergistic. Think about what you are claiming about us:

If we affirm the seal of the new covenant is the Holy Spirit and by God's grace alone, a new life is birthed and a faith made living from nothing within the once-stony heart of the subject standing before us, this by definition is not synergistic. We have been down this road before. (Don't you all view this the same way with adult converts that come to you for baptism?)

You can disagree sure, that is fair, but you keep recasting what we believe into something it is not. Sadly, this is hardly the first post you have done so.

 

[MarrowMan]

This feels repetitive and if it were just you and me, I would decline, but there are more than just you and me here.

Untrue. And I infer you double down on your false dichotomy. Not entirely unexpected to say the least.

Again untrue. Also I chuckled at the way you phrased that "to remove infants from baptism" as if that is even in the mindset at all given there is not one single recorded instance of a newborn being baptized in all of Scripture. (I know I know GNC, but do you not see how your preconceptions word it in such a way as to puzzle someone on the other side of the aisle? Or - and I think this is more obviously true - is it that the other viewpoint is not even truly being listened to here?)



We do accept baptism as a sign and a sacrament of the new covenant itself and not the old.

We do deny "baptism is the means" (your words; my italics) by which God seals the promise of His covenant to the elect including elect infants. (Thief on the cross)

But we do affirm baptism is an effectual means by which God saves a true member of the Covenant of Grace. (For it is impossible for God to save one who is not saved). The water is the physical sign of the invisible grace to the believer by the Spirit for deeper union with Christ and his death and burial and resurrection (Rom 6) but the seal of His promises in the New Covenant was already made in the regeneration and new birth of the person.



We factually do not separate baptism from the New Covenant that is the Covenant of Grace.



Not true at all. I would say more but what is summarily asserted can be summarily dismissed.


Our doctrine of baptism is not synergistic; it is monergistic. Think about what you are claiming about us:

If we affirm the seal of the new covenant is the Holy Spirit and by God's grace alone, a new life is birthed and a faith made living from nothing within the once-stony heart of the subject standing before us, this by definition is not synergistic. We have been down this road before. (Don't you all view this the same way with adult converts that come to you for baptism?)

You can disagree sure, that is fair, but you keep recasting what we believe into something it is not. Sadly, this is hardly the first post you have done so.

2 observations for observers:

1. There is a significant point of departure between Reformed and Reformed Baptist in this exchange that might be overlooked. That is, the function of baptism as a seal. Notice that MW has baptism as sign AND seal, but @No Other Name does not. At least I've noticed that, but I'm open to correction.

2. There is some speaking past each other with respect to baptism's relationship to the new covenant that some light could be shed if both @MW and @No Other Name answer this question: what is it that gives one the right to baptism?

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

2 observations for observers:

1. There is a significant point of departure between Reformed and Reformed Baptist in this exchange that might be overlooked. That is, the function of baptism as a seal. Notice that MW has baptism as sign AND seal, but @No Other Name does not. At least I've noticed that, but I'm open to correction.

The 2nd London Baptist Confession explicitly avoids calling Baptism a "seal", but it doesn't rule out the view. The majority view among Reformed Baptists is that only the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the "seal" of the Covenant of Grace (aka New Covenant), because someone who is not "in" the Covenant can't possibly have the "seal" of the New Covenant.

 

[TheInquirer]

In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:13–14, ESV)

Where is baptism called a “seal” in Scripture?

If you are going to lay charges you should support them with evidence; if not, retract them. It is quite clear from your charges that you do not understand the Reformed position on this point, which speaks of the sacraments being made effectual to salvation. Rome says they ARE effectual. The Reformed say they are MADE effectual. The fact you cannot see the difference basically disqualifies you as a judge in this matter. Judges should know of what they judge.

You literally quoted my post and then completely misconstrued what I said as anyone can see when they go read post #333. I said “your methodology” sounds like Rome, i.e. your devotion and appeal to your tradition and your particular historical theology time and time again as the arbiter of solving controversy. Not sure why you see the need to twist my words. I’ve been very clear on my point of disagreement with you on this matter.

WCF 1.10

The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

LBCF 1.10

The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved

 

[Northern Crofter]

Where is baptism called a “seal” in Scripture?

We would appeal to Romans 4.11 (a proof text for both sacraments being "holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace" in WCF 27.1) and couple it with Colossians 2.11-12 with regard to baptism (WCF 28.1). But we will not agree on these texts because of our different beliefs regarding the covenant of grace and the role of circumcision.

 

[faithandfreedom]

I said “your methodology” sounds like Rome, i.e. your devotion and appeal to your tradition and your particular historical theology time and time again as the arbiter of solving controversy. Not sure why you see the need to twist my words. I’ve been very clear on my point of disagreement with you on this matter.

WCF 1.10

The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

LBCF 1.10

The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved

I think this is a very interesting point. Scripture is undoubtedly the final arbiter of all controversies, but the question is whose interpretation of scripture?

 

[Venator Veritatis]

I think this is a very interesting point. Scripture is undoubtedly the final arbiter of all controversies, but the question is whose interpretation of scripture?

That's a point Keith Mathison makes in his book "The Shape of Sola Scriptura". He says any appeal to scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of scripture. So we cannot just set a Bible before two disputing parties and have it act as an arbiter. So this is where you would look at church history and how passages have traditionally been understood. And this in the Tradition 1 sense, not that past understanding is infallible, but in the sense that it can be a helpful guide.

 

[MW]

Untrue. And I infer you double down on your false dichotomy. Not entirely unexpected to say the least.

The actual substance of my argument is that in your view baptism is disconnected from the "new covenant," however you want to define the "new covenant." Something is coming in-between, but you don't give any articulation or defence of it. Try to explain why baptism shouldn't be given to infants? Baptism is not doing anything in relation to the new covenant in your scheme of things. It is not actually a sign and seal of salvation. If it were you could not remove infants from it.

Again untrue. Also I chuckled at the way you phrased that "to remove infants from baptism" as if that is even in the mindset at all given there is not one single recorded instance of a newborn being baptized in all of Scripture. (I know I know GNC, but do you not see how your preconceptions word it in such a way as to puzzle someone on the other side of the aisle? Or - and I think this is more obviously true - is it that the other viewpoint is not even truly being listened to here?)

Infants were included in the "old covenant," however you want to define that. So yes, they are being removed in the "new covenant" in your scheme of things. If you don't want to explain the mechanism for doing that, I suppose that is your prerogative; but it only shows the weakness of your position.

We do accept baptism as a sign and a sacrament of the new covenant itself and not the old.

I said sign and seal; you say sign and sacrament. What happened to "seal"? A sacrament is a sign and seal. These are the actual terms that I used and until those terms are taken up my actual statement has not been answered.

We do deny "baptism is the means" (your words; my italics) by which God seals the promise of His covenant to the elect including elect infants. (Thief on the cross)

The thief on the cross only proves that baptism does not itself produce the new birth. If doesn't deny the necessity of baptism as an ordinance and as the seal of the covenant. Reformed theologians explain exceptions in various ways without undermining the sacrament of baptism as something that must necessarily be obeyed. And your denial of "the" means only opens the question as to what is "a" means by which infants will be saved? What invention do you propose to place on a par with God's ordinance?

But we do affirm baptism is an effectual means by which God saves a true member of the Covenant of Grace.

Very good. An elect infant is a true member of the covenant of grace. Therefore you should affirm infant baptism. But no, you have an undisclosed mechanism for excluding them from the covenant.

We factually do not separate baptism from the New Covenant that is the Covenant of Grace.

Actually, you do; you have man doing something; you just don't tell us what that is.

Our doctrine of baptism is not synergistic; it is monergistic. Think about what you are claiming about us:

You require the person to do something. What that is has not been made clear. But you are not working from the doctrines of election and regeneration down to baptism. You are still working with the old Anabaptist categories of thought which requires a person to do something in connection with his baptism.

If we affirm the seal of the new covenant is the Holy Spirit and by God's grace alone, a new life is birthed and a faith made living from nothing within the once-stony heart of the subject standing before us, this by definition is not synergistic. We have been down this road before. (Don't you all view this the same way with adult converts that come to you for baptism?)

Of course it is synergistic because you exclude infants on the basis that they cannot do something.

You can disagree sure, that is fair, but you keep recasting what we believe into something it is not. Sadly, this is hardly the first post you have done so.

I am only dealing with your system as it is presented. You are casting it in its own light.

 

[MW]

In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:13–14, ESV)

Where is baptism called a “seal” in Scripture?

The words "sign and seal" are used by Paul to interpret what is meant by the "token of the covenant" in Genesis 17. Wherever a "sign" does more than represent a thing, as when it "confirms" a thing, it is more than a bare sign; it is a seal. Charles Hodge comments on 2 Cor. 1: " A seal is used, 1. To indicate proprietorship. 2. To authenticate or prove to be genuine. 3. To preserve safe or inviolate." If baptism does this in any sense it is a seal. The actual word "seal" is not necessary to convey the idea.

If this is agreed, and it is agreed that baptism is a "sign" of salvation, then it is clear from numerous passages of Scripture that baptism is doing outwardly what the Spirit does inwardly. Hence the New Testament consistently speaks of the believer as being in possession of the thing that baptism signifies. Take, for example, 1 Cor. 12:13, "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." The person who is baptized by the Spirit is counted as being in the one mystical body of Jesus Christ.

You literally quoted my post and then completely misconstrued what I said as anyone can see when they go read post #333. I said “your methodology” sounds like Rome, i.e. your devotion and appeal to your tradition and your particular historical theology time and time again as the arbiter of solving controversy. Not sure why you see the need to twist my words. I’ve been very clear on my point of disagreement with you on this matter.

If you follow the thread you will see that is the direction Yeshuafan was going. That part was not very clear to me. So thankyou for explaining what you meant. I apologise for misunderstanding. But I still assert that I have appealed to Scripture time and again. Nobody has offered an answer to the fact that Scripture places the sign and thing signified together. It is the opposing side of the discussion that keeps inventing the category of "profession of faith" in each of the texts I have commented on. You give no exegetical defence of your position. Are we supposed to accept your Anabaptist tradition on that point?

 

[TheInquirer]

The words "sign and seal" are used by Paul to interpret what is meant by the "token of the covenant" in Genesis 17. Wherever a "sign" does more than represent a thing, as when it "confirms" a thing, it is more than a bare sign; it is a seal. Charles Hodge comments on 2 Cor. 1: " A seal is used, 1. To indicate proprietorship. 2. To authenticate or prove to be genuine. 3. To preserve safe or inviolate." If baptism does this in any sense it is a seal. The actual word "seal" is not necessary to convey the idea.

If this is agreed, and it is agreed that baptism is a "sign" of salvation, then it is clear from numerous passages of Scripture that baptism is doing outwardly what the Spirit does inwardly. Hence the New Testament consistently speaks of the believer as being in possession of the thing that baptism signifies. Take, for example, 1 Cor. 12:13, "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." The person who is baptized by the Spirit is counted as being in the one mystical body of Jesus Christ.

Regarding 1 Cor. 12:13 - your last sentence in the quote above is why we can’t fathom the sign being placed on one who has no faith. In your system, there is a twofold standard for baptism - one for adult converts who profess faith and one for children of those who profess faith who of course have made no profession if they are infants (not sure what you would do with older children of believers who deny the faith - do they get baptized?). We Baptists have one standard applied to all. Every time you seem to criticize our standard of requiring a profession of faith it is a bit confounding to me since you do the same with adult converts do you not?

If you follow the thread you will see that is the direction Yeshuafan was going. That part was not very clear to me. So thankyou for explaining what you meant. I apologise for misunderstanding.

I accept and appreciate the apology.

You give no exegetical defence of your position. Are we supposed to accept your Anabaptist tradition on that point?

No we always look to Scripture to arbitrate amongst various interpretations, there can be no other way. Of course interpretation is always involved but Scripture has to be the standard for discerning between competing interpretations and not historical theology (though it can help us understand Scripture but is not itself the final authority).

I would imagine the exegetical defense of requiring profession of faith for baptism is probably the same as what you use for adult converts.

The Great Commission links baptism with discipleship. Why baptize someone who is not a follower of Christ? How do you know if someone is a follower of Christ? Confession of faith and the evidences thereof.

 

[MW]

Regarding 1 Cor. 12:13 - your last sentence in the quote above is why we can’t fathom the sign being placed on one who has no faith. In your system, there is a twofold standard for baptism - one for adult converts who profess faith and one for children of those who profess faith who of course have made no profession if they are infants (not sure what you would do with older children of believers who deny the faith - do they get baptized?). We Baptists have one standard applied to all. Every time you seem to criticize our standard of requiring a profession of faith it is a bit confounding to me since you do the same with adult converts do you not?

That assumes the thing in dispute -- that infants have no faith. Scripture does not teach that assumption; in fact, it contradicts it, Ps. 22:9-10; Ps. 71:5-6; Luke 1:15; Matt. 18:6; etc. So your objection begs the question.

You also say we have "two standards" for baptism. But that is not correct. We have one standard: covenant membership. That applies equally to adults and infants. What differs is not the qualification for baptism, but the duties appropriate to age. Adults must profess faith because Scripture commands adults to profess faith. Infants cannot profess faith because they are infants; but they are still covenant members, just as in the Old Testament. Profession of faith is therefore not the ground of baptism. It is simply the obedience required of adults. In your system, however, profession of faith is the ground of baptism. So whenever Scripture speaks of baptism in relation to salvation, you silently insert "profession of faith" into the text. That is why you think our position is inconsistent, because you are reading your own definition into our practice.

But the real inconsistency lies on your side. You cannot discern whether an adult professor actually has faith. You baptise on the basis of a profession that may be false. So your objection -- that the sign must not be placed on one who may not have faith -- applies equally to your own practice. The Reformed position is simpler and more biblical. Baptism is grounded in God's covenant promise, not in the quality of the recipient's profession. Adults profess because they are adults who can make a profession. Adults and infants receive the sign because they are covenant members.

I would imagine the exegetical defense of requiring profession of faith for baptism is probably the same as what you use for adult converts.

The exegetical defence for requiring profession in adults is simply this: with the mouth confession is made, etc., he that confesses me before men, etc. Profession is an age‑appropriate duty. You will not find it tied to baptism in Scripture. For you to imagine our exegesis is the same requires you to assume your own definition of baptism and to project it onto our practice.

The Great Commission links baptism with discipleship. Why baptize someone who is not a follower of Christ? How do you know if someone is a follower of Christ? Confession of faith and the evidences thereof.

I think your tradition is leading you to read something into the Great Commission that simply is not there. The command is to "disciple the nations," not to identify individual regenerate persons. The language is covenantal and corporate, echoing the Abrahamic promise of Genesis 12. The apostles were not told to determine who was already a follower of Christ and then baptise them. They were told to bring "nations" into discipleship by baptising them and teaching them. Baptism is the entrance into that discipled community; teaching is the ongoing formation of those who have been brought in.

Your question, "Why baptize someone who is not a follower of Christ?" assumes that "disciple" means "one who has already evidenced personal conversion." But that is not how Scripture uses the term. In the Great Commission, discipleship is something initiated by baptism and continued by teaching, not something verified beforehand by evidences of regeneration.

 

[No Other Name]

The actual substance of my argument is that in your view baptism is disconnected from the "new covenant," however you want to define the "new covenant."

It is the actual substance of your assertion.

You can try to handwave us in as many words as you like, but you cannot rationally do so without dealing with the terms and definitions established. You are ignoring the substance of our argument for these series of succinct dismissals.

Something is coming in-between, but you don't give any articulation or defence of it. Try to explain why baptism shouldn't be given to infants?

Because there is no positive command to do so, therefore your sacrament (when applied to infants) has no ordinance. This is objectively true and is evidenced by the fact that to make the case, one needs to go to GNC regardless of how historical the case may be.

By the way, all others who are still reading with curiosity, that is essentially the reason the 1689 Assembly called it an "ordinance" and not a sacrament. Not because they believed baptism was not a sacrament; their parenthetical writings were loaded with sacramental language regarding baptism.

And that mysterious "something coming in-between" that you think you are so clever to point out? Faith. This isn't hidden anywhere. It was always there in the definitions. To be in the New Covenant is to be justified and born again. <-- This is the point where we disagree. Justification is by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. See the italics? There is the "something in-between" that you are "missing".

(excpet you aren't "missing" it at all are you? You know full well that your system also includes this concept and is why children are barred from the Table and are not considered born again until they make profession of faith in public. And unlike you, I am not obtusely pointing at you and claiming "synergism").

Infants were included in the "old covenant," however you want to define that. So yes, they are being removed in the "new covenant" in your scheme of things.

Again, ignoring our different definitions. Yes infants were included in the Old Covenant - as physical heirs to the physical household of Abraham's faith as one physically born into being set apart for obedience to God's laws for blessing and subject to the curses of disobedience. Infants were never known to be included in the Covenant of Grace because that always had the element of faith attached.

Old or New, justification is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone however He is understood by whatever special revelation God has given in whatever era of history.

But when revealed in the Covenant of Grace, we affirm they were always one of the elect on the ground of the Covenant of Redemption. Even before profession of faith in acts of sin (persecuting the Church like Saul) their names were written in the book of life from eternity. (Rev. 22:19 as true believers and ones who will not add to His Word their own).

I said sign and seal; you say sign and sacrament. What happened to "seal"?

I had already defined the seal as the Spirit before the part you quoted. Nothing "happened" to it. It was right there in my post. But again, you know that.

The thief on the cross only proves that baptism does not itself produce the new birth. If doesn't deny the necessity of baptism as an ordinance and as the seal of the covenant.

Amen. And that - coupled with our definition of membership in the Covenant of Grace - is the point I am making.

Now I am not saying that is proof that baptism is not the seal of the new covenant per se, but it is another exhibit of evidence that the thief is a member of the new covenant without one splash of water as an alleged seal into the Covenant of Grace.

Actually, you do; you have man doing something; you just don't tell us what that is.

Water baptism? Professing saving faith? Saying "what must I do to be saved"? Again you know full well I have not been hiding anything here.

But you are not working from the doctrines of election and regeneration down to baptism. You are still working with the old Anabaptist categories of thought which requires a person to do something in connection with his baptism.

You mean like getting water on them? Being present for the water?

You need to stop being obtuse here.

Even your system requires the infant to be present and to have parents who believe (even if only outwardly) to bring them forth. Could you imagine if I was thickheaded to say that your system is "synergistic and not monergistic" on that weak flimsy basis?

Full stop this ridiculous line of argument. Remove infants from the picture for one minute and address the adult convert asking "what must I do to be saved?"

Is it "synergistic" to say the subject must repent and be baptized? You know it's not. No one here interprets those passages in Acts that way. Come on with this already.

Of course it is synergistic because you exclude infants on the basis that they cannot do something.

We exclude infants on the basis there is no positive command to baptize infants. RPW

I am only dealing with your system as it is presented. You are casting it in its own light.

You factually and objectively are not. You are twisting what we say to cast it in a specifically non-Reformed light and categorical errors which we have been on record for centuries as denying.

Am I wrong? Prove it. Stop asserting this about us and prove it already.

Prove how the definitions of "covenant" leads inexorably to "synergism" and/or a denial of elect infants. Don't just claim it. Construct the actual case. Write out the syllogism that proves 1689 credobaptism inescapably leads to soteriological errors that deny Reformed theology.

- (outside of the historical categories among Reformed paedobaptists that define covenant membership as including infants of course. I don't deny that our system does depart from any historically Reformed father on that point sure).

 

[DNM300]

Because there is no positive command to do so, therefore your sacrament (when applied to infants) has no ordinance.

There is no positive, express command to admit females to the Supper. Nor is there a positive command to have covenant-children grow up and make credible profession before being baptized.

To be in the New Covenant is to be justified and born again.

There are some (many?) who would describe the NC as basically a renewal of the Abrahamic Covenant. If that were true, no administrative policy change would be required for the initiation sacrament. We certainly don’t learn of an administrative policy change in the NT - except that women are embraced in baptism.

 

[No Other Name]

There is no positive, express command to admit females to the Supper.

This has been covered here. There is a positive express command to baptize members of the Church and women are members of the Church (Gal. 3)

Nor is there a positive command to have covenant-children grow up and make credible profession before being baptized.

Matthew 28 but here of course you have your different interpretations.

Now try to pay attention to what is happening in the thread right now:

our different interpretations are not the subject right now. Most of us here have earlier agreed to disagree on our different views re: Matt. 28; Acts 2; Rom. 4; Col. 2 et al. There is only one of you who is charging us with Anabaptist heresy and synergism within our doctrine of sacraments and means of grace.

If you are not standing with him on that point, great. If you are standing with him on that point, then your latest post completely ignored the current pressing issue at hand.

 

[DNM300]

This has been covered here. There is a positive express command to baptize members of the Church and women are members of the Church (Gal. 3)



Matthew 28 but here of course you have your different interpretations.

Now try to pay attention to what is happening in the thread right now:

our different interpretations are not the subject right now. Most of us here have earlier agreed to disagree on our different views re: Matt. 28; Acts 2; Rom. 4; Col. 2 et al. There is only one of you who is charging us with Anabaptist heresy and synergism within our doctrine of sacraments and means of grace.

If you are not standing with him on that point, great. If you are standing with him on that point, then your latest post completely ignored the current pressing issue at hand.

I recognize my points here are not exactly relevant to what is developing between you and rev. Winzer. I press it again not for our sakes only, but for readers.

Good day brethren!

 

[Christodulus]

- (outside of the historical categories among Reformed paedobaptists that define covenant membership as including infants of course. I don't deny that our system does depart from any historically Reformed father on that point sure).

This is in and of itself a denial of elect infants. There is not one member of the elect who is not made a partaker of the covenant of promise, and when we speak of elect infants we mean not elect infants which are unregenerate in their infancy and only brought near in adulthood, but infants which are regenerated and saved and even called out of this life in infancy. If there are elect infants, are they members of the covenant? If so, what prevents them from being baptized? If not, how are they saved if not through the covenant? By what other name under heaven must we be saved?

I frankly do not see how a Baptist could agree with the Canons of Dort, “Since we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy.”

 

[No Other Name]

This is in and of itself a denial of elect infants.

No it's not.

Elect infants are elect based on the Covenant of Redemption. I once thought that was true for you all as well.

 

[Christodulus]

No it's not.

Elect infants are elect based on the Covenant of Redemption. I once thought that was true for you all as well.

Elect infants are elect based on the covenant of redemption, but actually saved based on the covenant of grace. The alternative is eternal justification.

 

[No Other Name]

Elect infants are elect based on the covenant of redemption, but actually saved based on the covenant of grace. The alternative is eternal justification.

I agree which brings us full circle to the difference in definitions of covenant and seal etc. Now it brings us again to the point where most of us across the aisle had reached a point where we agreed to disagree but no one was charging any others with heresy except for one.

There is only one of you paedobaptists here who is charging us credos with Anabaptist heresy and synergism within our doctrine of sacraments and means of grace.

If you are not standing with him on that point, great. If you are standing with him on that point, then your latest post also completely ignored the current pressing issue at hand.

 

[Christodulus]

I agree

If elect infants are members of the covenant of grace, what prevents them from being baptized?

 

[No Other Name]

If elect infants are members of the covenant of grace, what prevents them from being baptized?

There is only one of you paedobaptists here who is charging us credos with Anabaptist heresy and synergism within our doctrine of sacraments and means of grace.

If you are not standing with him on that point, great. If you are standing with him on that point, then your latest post is still completely ignoring the current pressing issue at hand.

 

[MW]

Because there is no positive command to do so, therefore your sacrament (when applied to infants) has no ordinance. This is objectively true and is evidenced by the fact that to make the case, one needs to go to GNC regardless of how historical the case may be.

The Bible nowhere ties a “profession of faith” to baptism. So you are actually more dependent on “good and necessary consequence” than we are; only your consequence is neither good nor necessary. It is not good, because it excludes some of the elect from the sign and seal that God appointed for His covenant people. It is not necessary, because it is built on an assumption Scripture never makes: that profession of faith is the qualification for baptism. The text never says this. You must infer it, not from any command or example, but from your own definition of baptism. By contrast, our appeal to consequence arises from explicit biblical premises: the unity of the covenant, the inclusion of children in that covenant, the continuity of the promise, and the nature of baptism as the sign of covenant membership. These are stated; the conclusion follows. Your system must supply a qualification for baptism that Scripture never gives. Ours simply applies the qualification Scripture always gives: covenant membership.

And that mysterious "something coming in-between" that you think you are so clever to point out? Faith. This isn't hidden anywhere. It was always there in the definitions. To be in the New Covenant is to be justified and born again. <-- This is the point where we disagree. Justification is by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. See the italics? There is the "something in-between" that you are "missing".

If it were faith you would have no reason to exclude infants. There is something else.

(excpet you aren't "missing" it at all are you? You know full well that your system also includes this concept and is why children are barred from the Table and are not considered born again until they make profession of faith in public. And unlike you, I am not obtusely pointing at you and claiming "synergism").

You misunderstand the Reformed and Presbyterian system. We have TWO sacraments that do different things. One is for entrance; the other for nutrition. Regeneration is one thing; a man is passive in that. Communion is another thing; a man is active in that. Reformed! Not Anabaptist!

Again, ignoring our different definitions. Yes infants were included in the Old Covenant - as physical heirs to the physical household of Abraham's faith as one physically born into being set apart for obedience to God's laws for blessing and subject to the curses of disobedience. Infants were never known to be included in the Covenant of Grace because that always had the element of faith attached.

"Jacob have I loved" before he did anything good or bad. He was clearly in the covenant of grace and he clearly received the token of the covenant. But you have just excluded him.

Old or New, justification is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone however He is understood by whatever special revelation God has given in whatever era of history.

Including all the elect who were received as infants into the covenants of promise, Ephesians 2.

But when revealed in the Covenant of Grace, we affirm they were always one of the elect on the ground of the Covenant of Redemption. Even before profession of faith in acts of sin (persecuting the Church like Saul) their names were written in the book of life from eternity. (Rev. 22:19 as true believers and ones who will not add to His Word their own).

Even as infants.

I had already defined the seal as the Spirit before the part you quoted. Nothing "happened" to it. It was right there in my post. But again, you know that.

No, I don't know that. We were discussing the definition of a sacrament -- sign and seal. Do you believe baptism is a sign and seal? Is it a sign to the senses and a seal to faith? If one holds to this view they must see it as God's action on the elect, and that would include elect infants. So I understand why you would be reticent to receive what the Bible teaches on this subject.

Now I am not saying that is proof that baptism is not the seal of the new covenant per se, but it is another exhibit of evidence that the thief is a member of the new covenant without one splash of water as an alleged seal into the Covenant of Grace.

That is baptism you are talking about -- God's ordinance -- it is not a "splash of water." And that means the man went without the visible seal of the covenant of grace. Something I am sure that grace supplied in other ways because of the necessity of the situation. And that is the wonderful way in which he was literally crucified with Christ and Christ expressly said to him what baptism signifies -- WITH ME. But all of this only shows how important the visible sign and seal is -- not a "splash of water."

Water baptism? Professing saving faith? Saying "what must I do to be saved"? Again you know full well I have not been hiding anything here.

There it is. Based on something the person has to do.

You mean like getting water on them? Being present for the water?

Again, that is God's ordinance you are speaking about. "Hallowed be thy name."

Even your system requires the infant to be present and to have parents who believe (even if only outwardly) to bring them forth. Could you imagine if I was thickheaded to say that your system is "synergistic and not monergistic" on that weak flimsy basis?

It is not synergistic. The person who is regenerated is "present before God," as Cornelius said to Peter in Acts 10. You have to have a person to be regenerated. They are not stocks and stones.

Full stop this ridiculous line of argument. Remove infants from the picture for one minute and address the adult convert asking "what must I do to be saved?"

That is what your system requires because you have ADDED to the ordinance, which then gives you boldness to speak so glibly of the ordinance itself as if it were a splash of water and getting wet.

Is it "synergistic" to say the subject must repent and be baptized? You know it's not. No one here interprets those passages in Acts that way. Come on with this already.

To be regenerated? Yes, that would be synergistic. The person is passive in regeneration. Upon being regenerated they are capable of faith and repentance. Elect infants, regenerated by the Spirit, are capable of faith and repentance.

We exclude infants on the basis there is no positive command to baptize infants. RPW

That is not the RPW. You have added a commandment of your own devising.

Prove how the definitions of "covenant" leads inexorably to "synergism" and/or a denial of elect infants. Don't just claim it. Construct the actual case. Write out the syllogism that proves 1689 credobaptism inescapably leads to soteriological errors that deny Reformed theology.

I am responding to you according to the things that you have written here. I don't need the 1689. Your words show clearly the tendency of your views.

 

[Beoga]

This has been covered here. There is a positive express command to baptize members of the Church and women are members of the Church (Gal. 3)

Really enjoying the conversation.

Sorry for being another voice to jump in, but how does this make it a "positive express command" and not a good and necessary consequence.?

 

[TheInquirer]

Really enjoying the conversation.

I’m glad at least one person is .
[automerge]1773114984[/automerge]

The exegetical defence for requiring profession in adults is simply this: with the mouth confession is made, etc., he that confesses me before men, etc. Profession is an age‑appropriate duty. You will not find it tied to baptism in Scripture. For you to imagine our exegesis is the same requires you to assume your own definition of baptism and to project it onto our practice.

Then on what basis are you baptizing adult converts?

 

[MW]

Then on what basis are you baptizing adult converts?

An easy one for a change. On exactly the same basis as infants -- covenant membership. But because adults are entering the covenant from outside, they must do what Scripture commands adults to do when entering: repent, believe, confess Christ, and be baptised. Profession of faith is not the ground of baptism, not the qualification for baptism, but the age‑appropriate duty of an adult entering the covenant. It is the way an adult enters, not the reason he is baptised.

 

[TheInquirer]

But because adults are entering the covenant from outside, they must do what Scripture commands adults to do when entering: repent, believe, confess Christ, and be baptised.

But for those applying the sign of baptism, the only one of the preceding three you can evaluate to determine if the adult convert should receive the sign is confession/profession of faith is it not? Unless you get into evaluating fruit which is something you have criticized Baptists of doing so I don't imagine you do that.

I am just not seeing how you get around the need for a profession as much as you want to downplay it.

 

[Ploutos]

Then on what basis are you baptizing adult converts?

Because they weren't baptized as babies!

I will readily grant that there are things about the paedobaptist position that require some careful reflection to understand. This shouldn't be one of them.

 

[MW]

But for those applying the sign of baptism, the only one of the preceding three you can evaluate to determine if the adult convert should receive the sign is confession/profession of faith is it not? Unless you get into evaluating fruit which is something you have criticized Baptists of doing so I don't imagine you do that.

I am just not seeing how you get around the need for a profession as much as you want to downplay it.

You are assuming, "If profession is the only thing you can evaluate, then profession must be the basis of baptism." But that is a category mistake. Profession is not the basis of baptism; it is simply the visible evidence that an adult is entering the covenant.

The biblical basis is covenant membership. All the elect are instated in the covenant by faith. Again, note the difference I have harped on throughout this thread -- not "profession of faith," but "possession of faith." This faith "expresses" itself in confession. "With the mouth confession is made," etc. That confession is therefore "evidence" that they are entering the covenant. But baptism is the sign of the covenant itself. So we baptise them because they are entering the covenant, not because they have performed the act of professing. Profession is simply the observable marker of that entry.

Elect infants are in the covenant by birth. God has promised to be a God to believers and their seed. We do not require "profession" in their case; the "evidence" in their case is the fact that God has marked them as federally holy because they are born to Christian parents, 1 Cor. 7:14. But in both cases, baptism is grounded in covenant membership, not in the act that reveals it.

Again, profession is an age‑appropriate duty, not the essence of baptism.

 

[TheInquirer]

Regarding profession of faith:

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. - Acts 2:38

• Those who received Peter's words were baptized. How does one distinguish between those who received the word spoken and those who did not except upon verbal affirmation?

But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. - Acts 8:12

• How does one know if the people listening to Philip believed his preaching unless they affirm it?

While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days. - Acts 10:44-48

• The evidence of the Holy Spirit is manifested in the speaking of tongues and extolling God, after which baptism is performed. These are verbal manifestations of the inward reality of faith and reception of the Holy Spirit.

Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God. - Acts 16:30-34

• The word of the Lord is spoken, belief is the response, and baptism follows. How does one know if the man and his household believed if they do not verbal assent to the spoken word?

The same pattern is given over and over again in Acts - preaching of the word, reception of the word by faith, and then baptism.
[automerge]1773119737[/automerge]

You are assuming, "If profession is the only thing you can evaluate, then profession must be the basis of baptism." But that is a category mistake. Profession is not the basis of baptism; it is simply the visible evidence that an adult is entering the covenant.

I agree covenant membership (through regeneration by the Spirit and the gift of faith - not mere birth) is the basis and profession/confession is the evidence. However, since the sign is applied to individuals by other individuals who must discern whether the individual is a member of the covenant, profession of what one believes is a logical requirement.

Our difference is obviously what constitutes covenant membership but we have tread that ground a multitude of times.
[automerge]1773119905[/automerge]

Because they weren't baptized as babies!

That statement adds nothing useful to the argument nor does it help the one applying the sign of baptism discern whether someone is a believer in Christ or not.