Credobaptist objection

[tanstaafl72555]

If there has ever been a topic on which I am "driven and tossed by various waves of doctrine" it is this one! I have read pretty extensively for over 50 years on the topic and I remain as rudderless as when I first began reading on the topic.

I can say at least one good result has occurred here. I came to realize that I adopted the paedobaptist view, articulated it, taught it, and practiced it..... and yet looking back, I see that a LOT of the impetus was because most of my "heroes" in the faith were PCA / Presbyterian. I was privileged to study at L'Abri and Schaeffer was very pivotal in my growth. Also I lived in the home of Frank Barker, organizing pastor of Briarwood Pres in Birmingham, who is the only man I can say impressed me MORE after intimate association with him. I lifted weights at the local YMCA with Randy Pope as a kid in HS (I was not a Christian at the time). Lots of other leaders with whom I had varying degrees of acquaintance. OTOH, all the Baptists I knew were either neo orthodox "liberals," extremely anti intellectual fundies, or Reformed Baptists, who I viewed as being harsh, obstreperous, and overly dogmatic. Rightly or wrongly, this was how things appeared to me at the time. (this was before Lindsell and Battle For The Bible and the relatively successful turnaround of the SBC).

I am surprised to say that MOST of my "conversion" to paedobaptism had little to do with the doctrine, the articulation, the counter to objections, etc, but a desire to be affiliated with a tribe. That is not to say it is wrong or I have rolled back to a credobaptist. It is just saying that we willingly deceive ourselves about our rationality, reason, and decision making. Romans 1. 18-19 is NOT just about wicked men suppressing the knowledge of God. It is rather a window into the decision making process of men and how we willingly adjust the scales of reason to get a predetermined target.

It is one reason that I wish I had been more humble in theological matters over the years. I was at the top of my class in seminary and did extremely well academically in college and was convinced I could argue you into any position, because I knew so blinking much!.... yet here I was reasoning like a 4 year old and too stupid even to see it. I am no longer too embarrassed to admit it. Age does that to a man.

 

[No Other Name]

well I did just use your question and edit the words to ask my own question, so you’ll have to reckon with that.

But I did reckon with that. I answered that the change in subject (from adult to infant) changes the nature of my initial question so that your reversal is tangential. Sadly, it seems that is how this goes. Instead of Dawson's original point and comment (and I truly don't know what it was) gets buried because of this exchange which feels - again sadly - more pressing.

Okay, here we go, you’ve answered the question, thank you. Baptism, for you, has no efficacy. It is a profession of faith, but does nothing for the person.

No, you are wrong about me and my position (our position really). Baptism is an effectual means of grace saving those who obey and are bpatized by our Lord's command in Matt. 28:19.

Both baptism and the Lord's supper are sacraments and affect salvation "not for any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them, but only by the blessing of Christ, 1 and the working of the Spirit in those that by faith receive them. 2" (Baptist Catechism 96)

Not “baptism matters or it doesn’t” but rather “baptism does something or it doesn’t.” My bad. You can answer affirmatively to the former, but not the latter.

Wrong again.

For the Reformed, the reason for baptism is different (born into the covenant vs. professing faith and entering), but the meaning/function of baptism is the same - a sign and a seal of 1) our ingrafting into Christ 2) partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace 3)our engagement to the be the Lord's. Means the same thing for both, does the same thing for both, but the reason for receiving is different.

So you say. But others have said differently. That the different subjects produce different results in the effects of the water baptism. What you just said seems true for adults in your system, but for infants, there is an external administration of a grace that is not fully realized internally yet. Some kind of "outward" yet not "inward". In the New Covenant but not fully saved. I have asked others what the adult has that the child does not. I have been told (as you do here) nothing. No difference, but why would they not partake of communion then?

Sure, but does that mean they can't possess faith?

The ground of their salvation is the foreknown, predestined, effectual call of God on them from death to life. That ground is not in space-time but it is from eternity.

fundamentally, from the Baptist perspective, the raising of children is completely disassociated from their practice of the faith.

This is factually untrue.

They cannot raise them as Christians, they cannot teach them how to pray or pray the Lord's prayer with them, they cannot teach them the things of God, beyond the gospel (in the same way you wouldn't disciple a belligerent muslim, but would focus on gospel and apologetics). They are raising a pagan. Now, these are offensive words, but it gets the core of the difference in view here.

Of course, our children are pagans in the sense that they are born into original sin and need to profess saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (not as a ground for their salvation lest it be by their works but as evidence of the aforementioned ground from Romans 8). So again you are wrong. We can and do teach them how to pray, can and do teach them to pray the Lord's prayer and pray it with them.

We also (believe it or not, backwards as we are) teach them that to say them is one thing; to mean them is another thing. And to say them in a state of regeneration united to Christ by the Spirit is even yet a whole other thing.

You make a horrific category error when you equate our children to belligerent Muslims, et al.

And this does not get to the core of our difference here at all. This is tangential, an offensive rabbit trail, and is more to the core of your ignorance regarding 1689 Baptist theology than it is helpful.

the Baptist has no such thing as a "Christian home," but only a home that (by God's gracious election) has Christians in it.

What do you mean by that? I thought the father is the covenant head? Are you denying the genuine salvation of the father? If you are not, then what does this statement mean? What is a "Christian home"? (Still waiting for the definition and meaning of a "Christian child" from Dawson as well).

Of course, Baptists do these things, praise the Lord, but without household inclusion in the covenant it is inconsistent.

You said we "cannot teach them how to pray or ... teach the the things of God ..." which is it? Can we do these things albeit inconsistently? Or can we not? If you say we can do them (even if inconsistently) then why would you equate our family worship to an outdoor street evangelism encounter with Muslims, atheists etc?

Neither of us has to be guilty of such behavior.

I am guilty of nothing (here in this case). I am saying you are posting with a lack of understanding the position of your interlocutor and making false assertions regarding their positions and I am also claiming you are not laying down an argument for your own position. You are chucking statements at me with no premises that establish defined terms, conditions, and links from premise to premise and lead to a conclusion that I can analyze and engage with.

NOTE: I am not even saying make a syllogism; just make a case for your position. At the very least, make a case.

 

[JvMill]

@No Other Name

I am done engaging with you on this subject. Seems we're talking past each other.

Have a blessed day.

 

[tanstaafl72555]

If "faith" is defined as knowledge, assent, and trust (Machen), then infants whose brains and cognitive faculties are not developed cannot have what we normally consider saving faith..... yet it is biblically certain that they can be saved. It is the renewed soul of a man/woman which is born again, and then faith is the NATURAL response to a presentation of the gospel. I am not sure this distinction then is of any real relevance to the disagreement here.

Where am I off base?

 

[DNM300]

Heeding the wisdom of @MarrowMan and my own inclination, I do not intend to open up further what I meant by objective disciples and the intersection of Matt. 28:19 - in this thread. I will likely open a new thread on that some time in the future.

That’s what I meant to communicate in my previous post.
[automerge]1770305643[/automerge]

And this does not get to the core of our difference here at all.

Can you make note of what you think that core is - perhaps for future reference? The Negation is useful; the affirmation would be more useful.

For the record, I think Matthew’s response to Jim’s Quotation of Jer. 31/Heb. 8 brings us right up to, if not directly to, the core issue.

 

[No Other Name]

Heeding the wisdom of @MarrowMan and my own inclination, I do not intend to open up further what I meant by objective disciples and the intersection of Matt. 28:19 - in this thread. I will likely open a new thread on that some time in the future.

That’s what I meant to communicate in my previous post.
[automerge]1770305643[/automerge]


Can you make note of what you think that core is - perhaps for future reference? The Negation is useful; the affirmation would be more useful.

For the record, I think Matthew’s response to Jim’s Quotation of Jer. 31/Heb. 8 brings us right up to, if not directly to, the core issue.

The core issue is the Biblical mandate to baptize infants. Where does it exist exactly?

Your initial attempt at communicating to me (what an "objective disciple" is and what a "Christian child" is) has a clear angle towards this core. I leave it to your esteemed self whether or not to continue down this road or shelve this for a later conversation.

 

[DNM300]

The core issue is the Biblical mandate to baptize infants. Where does it exist exactly?

Just for more clarity: explain a bit more thoroughly please…Is it your position that a sacrament requires positive institution, and you don’t see such an express positive institution Bible verse for infant baptism?

 

[YeshuaFan]

If that is the case Peter would not have said that baptism now saves us in a way analogous to the waters of the flood. No doubt it functions along with a visible profession of faith but it is doing more than that in the NT. Hence the apostles choose the word "baptised" to mark believers in Christ as having certain benefits as in Rom. 6, 1Cor. 12, and Gal. 3. Baptism means something to the individual and the church. It is not simply a visible badge.

We have all spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus by being in Christ, which came about when we received Jesus as Savior and Lord, through faith alone, not by water baptism
[automerge]1770309723[/automerge]

This argument only works if you assume the 1 covenant, two administrations structure with the idea that some are in externally and some internally. If you believe the New Covenant in Christ’s blood only consists of the regenerated and in union with Christ, then it doesn’t work.

Notice all the differences about the New Covenant in this passage:

31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (Jeremiah 31:31–34, ESV)

1) The covenant is new
2) It is not like the Sinai covenant
3) The law will be internal, on the heart
4) All the members of this new covenant know the Lord
5) Forgiveness of sins is a benefit of the new covenant

All this states that the old, Mosaic covenant did not offer any of these things. This New Covenant is not a new administration of something previously enacted. It is NEW, and different in substance offering greater benefits in every way to that which came before.

Jesus Himself stated that in his blood he would be established a new Covenant, and Hebrews very clear its brand new and far superior relationship between us and God now
[automerge]1770309845[/automerge]

If "faith" is defined as knowledge, assent, and trust (Machen), then infants whose brains and cognitive faculties are not developed cannot have what we normally consider saving faith..... yet it is biblically certain that they can be saved. It is the renewed soul of a man/woman which is born again, and then faith is the NATURAL response to a presentation of the gospel. I am not sure this distinction then is of any real relevance to the disagreement here.

Where am I off base?

Saved by the election and application of the effectual grace of calvary towards them by God Himself, not based upon any faith response by them at that stage, nor while getting sprinkled

 

[No Other Name]

We have all spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus by being in Christ, which came about when we received Jesus as Savior and Lord, through faith alone, not by water baptism

We are justified by faith alone, but baptism does save.

Salvation is not the same as justification.

Salvation includes God's grace in our personal history of justification (faith alone), sanctification (good works being evidence of, and not the ground for), and ultimately glorification.

Part of the means of growing in holiness and faith is partaking of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's table. Is the water not a sign of our union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection? (Gal. 3; Rom. 6)

Paul here is not teaching that baptism is the vehicle that brings regeneration and the new life, for that is contradicted by everything he laid down in the previous chapters about how justification is by faith and grace alone.

He is saying that physical sign of the water in our baptism is tied with the truth of regeneration

and is significant or a signification or a sign of the thing signified:

the spiritual work by God in our regeneration.

(Even if one argues Gal. 3 and Rom. 6 are not water baptisms but baptism of the Spirit, I think we all would agree the truth of these texts extends into the sacrament of water baptism, but I could be mistaken there).
[automerge]1770311328[/automerge]

Is it your position that a sacrament requires positive institution, and you don’t see such an express positive institution Bible verse for infant baptism?

Correct.

Specifically so:

"28.1 Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world.1

1 Matt. 28:19–20; 1 Cor. 11:26

—
28.2
These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.2

2 Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 4:1"

EDIT: anticipating your next potential query:

"29.2:

Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.4

4 Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36–37, 2:41, 8:12, 18:8

 

[1689owen]

the argument is not about who is already united to Christ, but about whom God commands to receive the covenant sign

Agreed,
so,
the argument is not about infants who might already be united to Christ, but about who belongs to the visible covenant community.

I would say (no time for the arguments right now), credible professors, and they only, belong to the visible covenant community. Such only should be baptized.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Jesus Himself stated that in his blood he would be established a new Covenant, and Hebrews very clear its brand new and far superior relationship between us and God now

I would say (no time for the arguments right now), credible professors, and they only, belong to the visible covenant community. Such only should be baptized.

How is it better if in the Old Covenant children of the covenant were blessed with circumcision as a sign and seal of said covenant and thus part of the visible Church, but in the "better" New Covenant (Hebrews 8:6) they receive no such blessed covenantal sign and seal and must stand outside of the visible Body of Christ?

 

[DNM300]

The core issue is the Biblical mandate to baptize infants. Where does it exist exactly?

This is going to sound like the uno-reverse-snarky-trump-card gotcha trap…. It’s not that I promise. I ask this with curiosity, borne from my ignorance.

Where is the express, clear, positive command to serve women the Lord’s Supper? How does a Baptist justify their practice here and not feel a pinch concerning “positive law?” (I’ve seen Paedobaptists argue this point. I’ve never heard a Baptist answer. That’s only anecdotal, I know.)

 

[YeshuaFan]

How is it better if in the Old Covenant children of the covenant were blessed with circumcision as a sign and seal of said covenant and thus part of the visible Church, but in the "better" New Covenant (Hebrews 8:6) they receive no such blessed covenantal sign and seal and must stand outside of the visible Body of Christ?

They would be sanctified and seen as representative due to their saved parents with them in the local assembly
[automerge]1770315356[/automerge]

Agreed,
so,
the argument is not about infants who might already be united to Christ, but about who belongs to the visible covenant community.

I would say (no time for the arguments right now), credible professors, and they only, belong to the visible covenant community. Such only should be baptized.

True, as only those who already been placed in Christ and His body would be the ones who can profess having been saved by the Lord Jesus and now indwelt by the Holy Spirit, which the water baptism is professing in an outward sign testifying to that inward work

 

[No Other Name]

This is going to sound like the uno-reverse-snarky-trump-card gotcha trap…. It’s not that I promise. I ask this with curiosity, borne from my ignorance.

Where is the express, clear, positive command to serve women the Lord’s Supper? How does a Baptist justify their practice here and not feel a pinch concerning “positive law?” (I’ve seen Paedobaptists argue this point. I’ve never heard a Baptist answer. That’s only anecdotal, I know.)

No that's all good. That's a fine follow-up question.

The positive command is for the Church. Who is in the Church? Paul establishes that there is no male nor female, no Greek nor Jew etc. in the Church. In the New Covenant, the "seed" is spiritual, not physical (Gal. 4). Paul does not say there is no adult nor child in the Church. He does not say there is no servant nor master in the Church. Rather the opposite in Eph. 6 and Col. 3.

By the way your post was not an attempt at a "gotcha" like the reversal of my question regarding the difference between baptized infants and unbaptized infants each in Christian homes using same language I employed as a rhetorical means to reveal something presumed missing from my view. That post was not a follow-up question at all and was not designed to further discussion.

 

[1689owen]

blessed with circumcision as a sign and seal of said covenant and thus part of the visible Church

This is, in my estimation, a false premise. Children of Israelites were part of the Israelite Old Covenant community. But one needs to establish that OT Israel was the (visible) Church for the (reformed) paedo argument to work. I, however, am confident that it was a type of the church (some of it's characteristics foreshadow some of the church's in NT times).

This may be a good point to discuss in a separate thread.

 

[DNM300]

No that's all good. That's a fine follow-up question.

The positive command is for the Church. Who is in the Church? Paul establishes that there is no male nor female, no Greek nor Jew etc. in the Church. In the New Covenant, the "seed" is spiritual, not physical (Gal. 4). Paul does not say there is no adult nor child in the Church. He does not say there is no servant nor master in the Church. Rather the opposite in Eph. 6 and Col. 3.

By my lights, which are by no means the brightest, your position here involves deduction, consequence, etc. which is the same way paedobaptists reason to their conclusions for subjects of baptism. The comparison of scripture with scripture, and taking it together..? Are you seeing a parallel here? Is anyone seeing a parallel here?

 

[No Other Name]

your position here involves deduction, consequence, etc. which is the same way paedobaptists reason to their conclusions for subjects of baptism.

Is it not the positive command for the Church? If yes, then we need only have direct Scripture that proves women are included in the Church for the positive command to include them. I must be missing something?

 

[DNM300]

Is it not the positive command for the Church? If yes, then we need only have direct Scripture that proves women are included in the Church for the positive command to include them. I must be missing something?

It would seem that baptism belongs to the church, and paedobaptists certainly believe that children being part of the church is biblical. Perhaps that’s our divide…

 

[No Other Name]

It would seem that baptism belongs to the church, and paedobaptist certainly believed that children being part of the church is biblical. Perhaps that’s our divide…

I would say so, yes. I would say our difference lies in our respective definitions of the term "visible church" to put a more precise and finer point on it.

Now even so, let's all pause and step back a moment. Benjamin Keach was fired up about the error of the paedobaptists, but he did pause, step back and look at what God is doing in their churches and denominations. The hand of God is on them. The grace of God is evident in their works and fruit.

We will not treat you as "other". The 1689 Assembly officially called you "true churches of Christ" due to the faithful Gospel worship evident in your assemblies. We may separate by denomination, sure. Makes sense. But we are bonded and united to you all as brothers and sisters in like faith - one faith, one Lord.

God bless you all.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Children of Israelites were part of the Israelite Old Covenant community. But one needs to establish that OT Israel was the (visible) Church for the (reformed) paedo argument to work. I, however, am confident that it was a type of the church (some of it's characteristics foreshadow some of the church's in NT times).

I would say so, yes. I would say our difference lies in our respective definitions of the term "visible church" to put a more precise and finer point on it.

So when the LBC 1689 states that "All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ
according unto it... are and may be called visible saints," (26.2, emphasis mine) does this language (1) in any way/degree equate to the visible Church and (2) make a distinction in "professing the faith of the gospel" in Israel under the Old Covenant from believers in the New Covenant?

This is a sincere inquiry from someone not all that familiar with how parts of the 1689 are interpreted by RB brethren - I am familiar enough to know that the 1689 departs from the WCF any reference to the visible Church (see WCF Ch.s 25 and 27), but I am unfamiliar with the reasoning behind jettisoning the "visible Church" references.

 

[1689owen]

(2) make a distinction in "professing the faith of the gospel" in Israel under the Old Covenant from

Is there missing something in the sentence? Sorry, non-native here.


Good question! People with more knowledge than I have should answer this.

 

[DNM300]

Children of Israelites were part of the Israelite Old Covenant community. But one needs to establish that OT Israel was the (visible) Church for the (reformed) paedo argument to work

Consider that when Moses identified with OT Israel, he was “bearing the reproach of Christ.” & they gathered and sang Psalm 23 and Psalm 103. & Stephen called OT Israel “the church” in the wilderness. And Paul said that to be separated from OT Israel was to be separated from Christ. They had God’s name upon them.

Heb. 11:25-26
Psalm 23:6
Psalm 103:10-12
Acts 7:38
Ephesians 2:12
Numbers 6:22-27

 

[MW]

If "faith" is defined as knowledge, assent, and trust (Machen), then infants whose brains and cognitive faculties are not developed cannot have what we normally consider saving faith..... yet it is biblically certain that they can be saved. It is the renewed soul of a man/woman which is born again, and then faith is the NATURAL response to a presentation of the gospel. I am not sure this distinction then is of any real relevance to the disagreement here.

Where am I off base?

There are numerous scholastic distinctions to understand "faith." You have touched on one of them. There is also the habit and the act of faith. Looking at the habit of faith, which is wrought in the regenerate by the Holy Ghost, the Reformed speak of the "seed" of faith. As the "seed of religion" is sown inside the breast of every man, likewise the seed of faith is said to be sown in the hearts of the elect in regeneration. Thus for elect infants there is no reason why they cannot have true saving faith in this seed form, and the Scriptures are quite descriptive in speaking about it.
[automerge]1770321803[/automerge]

I would say (no time for the arguments right now), credible professors, and they only, belong to the visible covenant community. Such only should be baptized.

That is the very thing being debated. As I have noted throughout the thread, baptism points to salvation, not profession of faith. To which I might add, that the efficacy of baptism requires the "possession" of faith, not the mere "profession" of it. Reformed paedobaptists are actual credobaptists, not mere "professed" credobaptists.
[automerge]1770321889[/automerge]

We have all spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus by being in Christ, which came about when we received Jesus as Savior and Lord, through faith alone, not by water baptism

Correct. But water baptism "represents" this, and elect infants have this.

 

[TheInquirer]

Correct. But water baptism "represents" this, and elect infants have this.

If election is unto salvation, and you have already said we are not certain which children of professing parents are elected, how do we know which infants are elected?

 

[MW]

If election is unto salvation, and you have already said we are not certain which children of professing parents are elected, how do we know which infants are elected?

We do not know who is elect, be he an infant or an adult. It is a fact of revelation, acknowledged by both of our Confessions: "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit." My point was that baptism represents salvation and elect infants are saved. There is no argument that can exclude infants from the salvation that is represented by baptism while we hold to the confessional position.

 

[No Other Name]

So when the LBC 1689 states that "All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ
according unto it... are and may be called visible saints," (26.2, emphasis mine) does this language (1) in any way/degree equate to the visible Church and (2) make a distinction in "professing the faith of the gospel" in Israel under the Old Covenant from ?

This is a sincere inquiry from someone not all that familiar with how parts of the 1689 are interpreted by RB brethren - I am familiar enough to know that the 1689 departs from the WCF any reference to the visible Church (see WCF Ch.s 25 and 27), but I am unfamiliar with the reasoning behind jettisoning the "visible Church" references.

Good morning! I am happy to answer this soon, but it likely will not be today. So I will be offline at PB for at least today and possibly (but hopefully not) tomorrow. I am letting you know I see this and I am happy to reply even though you are one of the most misguided souls I have ever met here on PB:









a Nittany Lions fan hahahaha

(me too, so it takes one to know one )

 

[1689owen]

the efficacy of baptism requires the "possession" of faith, not the mere "profession" of it

Yes.

baptism points to salvation, not profession of faith

Yes, "points to"/"represents". (But this doesn't say anything about the recipients.)

baptism represents salvation

Ok.

elect infants are saved

Yes.

There is no argument that can exclude infants from the salvation that is represented by baptism

Ok, but there is an argument that excludes infants from [the] baptism [that represents salvation] (and even if it might be their own salvation that could be represented by their baptism, they should not be baptized until they make a credible profession).

It comes back to this:
Who should receive baptism? [i.e. the question is NOT, what does baptism signify]
If we say "the church" what do we mean? To say "visible church" does not suffice. We have to be more precise.

 

[tanstaafl72555]

It comes back to this:
Who should receive baptism? [i.e. the question is NOT, what does baptism signify]
If we say "the church" what do we mean? To say "visible church" does not suffice. We have to be more precise.

How can one be precise about a word where the Scripture itself is not precise?

 

[Northern Crofter]

Is there missing something in the sentence?

Yes - meant to end with "believers in the New Covenant." I've fixed my original post - sorry for the confusion!

Good morning! I am happy to answer this soon, but it likely will not be today. So I will be offline at PB for at least today and possibly (but hopefully not) tomorrow. I am letting you know I see this and I am happy to reply even though you are one of the most misguided souls I have ever met here on PB: a Nittany Lions fan hahahaha

(me too, so it takes one to know one )

No problem.

I'll just add that a lot of my concern with the RB view of the Church being distinct from OC Israel (i.e. not seeing Israel as the Church in the OC) no doubt stems from growing up in an American dispensationalist Baptistic congregation. Coming out of that tradition I can look back and see a direct link between the Baptistic views of Israel as separate from the Church and the widespread adoption of dispensationalism by the majority of those holding Baptistic views (for me it took being suddenly dropped into a Scottish reformed and presbyterian Church for a few years to see the divergence of paths caused by one's view of the Church). While I am not accusing my RB brethren of being dispensationalists, I am faulting their view of the covenants as containing errors which lead to further error. One's position on covenantal issues (the distinctions and continuations between the Old and New, who is included/excluded, the visible signs associated with them, etc.) has a far-reaching effect beyond baptism. I do not think it is unrelated to note that presbyterians (along with other paedocommunionist traditions) - in America and elsewhere - have consistently rejected dispensationalism (it also has bearing, I believe, on issues like Church polity, leading to the individualism of congregationalism over and against presbyterianism and establishmentarianism, for example).

If we say "the church" what do we mean? To say "visible church" does not suffice. We have to be more precise.

This is the issue. Reformed Baptists can only define the visible Church as professing believers sans their pre-professing children (thus OC Israel cannot be considered the visible Church). In fact, they jettison the term "visible Church" altogether - the 1689 LBC removes the "visible Church" language and replaces it with "visible saints" in the "Of the Church" chapter (see 26.2). Again, this has far-reaching influence in other areas beyond baptism, like polity - replacing the corporate term "Church" with "saints" places the emphasis on the individual over the community.

The Reformed Presbyterian view is that the visible Church has always included all those set apart by God in covenantal union - those "holy" to God by His choosing. This is separate from the choosing of election - God chooses who is born to whom, even though some born into the visible Church may not be elect. Thus, as Paul explain in 1 Corinthians 7, these children are part of the visible Church before baptism - they are holy/set apart because of the profession of one of their parents (which is why the paedo-/credo- distinction is a false dichotomy - paedobaptism requires a profession). If set apart, from what? The world. If not a part of the world, part of what? The visible Church. There is no covenantal limbo for children.

 

[YeshuaFan]

There are numerous scholastic distinctions to understand "faith." You have touched on one of them. There is also the habit and the act of faith. Looking at the habit of faith, which is wrought in the regenerate by the Holy Ghost, the Reformed speak of the "seed" of faith. As the "seed of religion" is sown inside the breast of every man, likewise the seed of faith is said to be sown in the hearts of the elect in regeneration. Thus for elect infants there is no reason why they cannot have true saving faith in this seed form, and the Scriptures are quite descriptive in speaking about it.
[automerge]1770321803[/automerge]


That is the very thing being debated. As I have noted throughout the thread, baptism points to salvation, not profession of faith. To which I might add, that the efficacy of baptism requires the "possession" of faith, not the mere "profession" of it. Reformed paedobaptists are actual credobaptists, not mere "professed" credobaptists.
[automerge]1770321889[/automerge]


Correct. But water baptism "represents" this, and elect infants have this.

Are not all infants elected by the Father to be fund in Christ Jesus though?
[automerge]1770391723[/automerge]

We do not know who is elect, be he an infant or an adult. It is a fact of revelation, acknowledged by both of our Confessions: "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit." My point was that baptism represents salvation and elect infants are saved. There is no argument that can exclude infants from the salvation that is represented by baptism while we hold to the confessional position.

Would that not be saved apart from the infant baptism though any ways? Why not just have that election confirmed in believers baptism when they actually articulate a saving faith in Jesus?
[automerge]1770391967[/automerge]

We are justified by faith alone, but baptism does save.

Salvation is not the same as justification.

Salvation includes God's grace in our personal history of justification (faith alone), sanctification (good works being evidence of, and not the ground for), and ultimately glorification.

Part of the means of growing in holiness and faith is partaking of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's table. Is the water not a sign of our union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection? (Gal. 3; Rom. 6)

Paul here is not teaching that baptism is the vehicle that brings regeneration and the new life, for that is contradicted by everything he laid down in the previous chapters about how justification is by faith and grace alone.

He is saying that physical sign of the water in our baptism is tied with the truth of regeneration

and is significant or a signification or a sign of the thing signified:

the spiritual work by God in our regeneration.

(Even if one argues Gal. 3 and Rom. 6 are not water baptisms but baptism of the Spirit, I think we all would agree the truth of these texts extends into the sacrament of water baptism, but I could be mistaken there).
[automerge]1770311328[/automerge]


Correct.

Specifically so:

"28.1 Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world.1

1 Matt. 28:19–20; 1 Cor. 11:26

—
28.2
These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.2

2 Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 4:1"

EDIT: anticipating your next potential query:

"29.2:

Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.4

4 Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36–37, 2:41, 8:12, 18:8

Question comes back down to who would be qualified to partake of the ordinances of the church, and the NT seems to be stating would be those who are actually saved and redeemed, who now confess and profess Jesus as Savior and Lord