Credobaptist objection

[DNM300]

A theocratic nation defined in relationship with God as defined by prior covenants to the New Covenant.

As soon as you join this, you may have God’s name put upon you (Numb. 6:22-27) and can lawfully sing psalm 23?

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

As usual, Brandon Adams (@brandonadams) says these things better than I can.

Israel as a Parenthesis in God’s Plan

As I was preparing for Part 5 of the Reformed Northwest Podcast series on 1689 Federalism, it ocurred to me that 1689 Federalism’s view of Israel and the church is, in a sense, the inverse of…

contrast2.wordpress.com

This is on the topic of OT Israel as a Type of the NT Church.

 

[DNM300]

As usual, Brandon Adams (@brandonadams) says these things better than I can.

Israel as a Parenthesis in God’s Plan

As I was preparing for Part 5 of the Reformed Northwest Podcast series on 1689 Federalism, it ocurred to me that 1689 Federalism’s view of Israel and the church is, in a sense, the inverse of…

contrast2.wordpress.com

This is on the topic of OT Israel as a Type of the NT Church.

Augustine and Owen seem to be held up as the most significant figures who take the “1689 view” of OC/NC relations.

Patrick Fairbairn seeks to counter this in Ch. 7 of (his Hermeneutical Manual) “Opening Scripture.” I suggest anyone who wants to weigh things for themselves, give this a read or two.

 

[MW]

A theocratic nation defined in relationship with God as defined by prior covenants to the New Covenant. Since many of us believe the New Covenant is in substance different from prior covenants, those who belong to the New Covenant are a different kind of group than Israel.

According to 1 Peter 2 the church is a theocratic nation in relationship with God. So your definition of a church is the same in substance with what the church is now. Undoubtedly there are other "accidents" that go into the nature of OT Israel, but these are not essential to its basic definition as provided by you and applied to the church today. As for the substance of the covenants, Rom. 4:11 says that circumcision was a seal of righteousness by faith. That, again, is the same in substance. As far as I can see the idea of making Israel a type of the church, and only a type, is very imaginative, but has no grounding in Scripture.
[automerge]1770688866[/automerge]

Augustine and Owen seem to be held up as the most significant figures who take the “1689 view” of OC/NC relations.

Yes; that site is notorious for its misappropriation. It is not where you go to find carefully studied historical positions. Your Fairbairn suggestion is excellent.

 

[TheInquirer]

According to 1 Peter 2 the church is a theocratic nation in relationship with God.

I think you know the difference between a nation state and a metaphor Matthew.

Abraham is the father of all who believe, not all who were circumcised. The point is justification by faith, not justification by circumcision.

Where does the Abrahamic covenant promise the forgiveness of sins for all its members?

 

[MarrowMan]

I think you know the difference between a nation state and a metaphor Matthew.

Abraham is the father of all who believe, not all who were circumcised. The point is justification by faith, not justification by circumcision.

Where does the Abrahamic covenant promise the forgiveness of sins for all its members?

I'm sorry, but where does it not when circumcision represented justification by faith TO THEM

 

[MW]

I think you know the difference between a nation state and a metaphor Matthew.

A metaphor? Peter piles up OT privileges that belonged to Israel in order to say "you" are the restored Israel. He even quotes from Hosea, "not my people" to "are my people." This is not a metaphor. It is covenantal continuity

Abraham is the father of all who believe, not all who were circumcised. The point is justification by faith, not justification by circumcision.

That is irrelevant to the point I made. Circumcision was a sign and seal of righteousness by faith. The covenant benefit is the same as we enjoy.

Where does the Abrahamic covenant promise the forgiveness of sins for all its members?

Romans 4 articulates it. Romans 9 clarifies who the members are -- children of the promise, not simply of the flesh. But the children of the promise were obviously infants when they were circumcised; hence it was a means of grace to them as they were brought up in the consciousness of the promise.

 

[DanM]

Where does the Abrahamic covenant promise the forgiveness of sins for all its members?

Surely if we're discussing the nation of OT Israel then the Mosaic Covenant is also in play, in which case forgiveness of sins is explicitly mentioned e.g Lev 4:20, 26, 31 as relates to the sacrificial system. But in the light of Ps 51:16-17 and Heb 10:1-4 it is not these sacrifices which cause forgiveness of sin, we know also that forgiveness of sins comes only through Christ (Acts 4:12).
So, forgiveness of sins is promised to OT Israel and this forgiveness comes by grace alone (Deut 7:6-8, Rom 3:10) through faith alone (Rom 4:3, Rom 3:20) in Christ alone (see above, though he was not revealed yet to them) and I'm sure you agree.

Since the OT believer is justified in the same way as the NT believer I don't see how we can say this is merely a type of the Church and not the real thing as there is still real salvation though in a much dimmer light than that of the NT.
(I hope this is relevant to discussion, if not just ignore it)

 

[DNM300]

That is irrelevant to the point I made. Circumcision was a sign and seal of righteousness by faith.

I'm sorry, but where does it not when circumcision represented justification by faith TO THEM

In Romans 4 Paul is simply exegeting the Old Testament. Thus, we can know that circumcision represented justification by faith from the OT text itself. How would you men explain this claim from particularly the OT narrative(s)? I have thoughts but trust yours are better. Thanks!

 

[YeshuaFan]

Surely if we're discussing the nation of OT Israel then the Mosaic Covenant is also in play, in which case forgiveness of sins is explicitly mentioned e.g Lev 4:20, 26, 31 as relates to the sacrificial system. But in the light of Ps 51:16-17 and Heb 10:1-4 it is not these sacrifices which cause forgiveness of sin, we know also that forgiveness of sins comes only through Christ (Acts 4:12).
So, forgiveness of sins is promised to OT Israel and this forgiveness comes by grace alone (Deut 7:6-8, Rom 3:10) through faith alone (Rom 4:3, Rom 3:20) in Christ alone (see above, though he was not revealed yet to them) and I'm sure you agree.

Since the OT believer is justified in the same way as the NT believer I don't see how we can say this is merely a type of the Church and not the real thing as there is still real salvation though in a much dimmer light than that of the NT.
(I hope this is relevant to discussion, if not just ignore it)

The OT believer was saved by being placed by God under ther new Covenant of Grace that would in the future be established by the coming messiah death and resurrection, as they looked forward to that promised one yet to come

 

[sc_q_jayce]

The OT believer was saved by being placed by God under ther new Covenant of Grace that would in the future be established by the coming messiah death and resurrection, as they looked forward to that promised one yet to come

So the OT believer was under no salvific covenant during their lifespan because there was no administration of it until Jesus? I don't think I understand what you're trying to say here.

 

[No Other Name]

It seems to me that you are much closer to the Presbyterian view than your regular antipaedobaptist. I think that is a good thing. You are not allowing your practice of baptism to drive your theology in a particular direction. The theology should inform the practice. But some of the reasons why antipaedobaptists will tend to go in different directions, is, (1) infants were included under this professing church of the OT. I don't think anyone denies that fact. This is why antipaedobaptists recede from the idea that there is continuity between the OT and NT "church," or between the old and new "covenant," as they term it. And (2) elect infants were still justified by faith in Christ. If it is the same now, and they were given the sign of ingrafting into Christ THEN, what rationale leads to denying them the sign of ingrafting into Christ NOW? Hopefully by putting it in this way you can see the internal logic whereby the rejection of infants becomes a driver of the theological conclusions.

Much closer huh? The irony is the post you quoted me where I am trying to define the visible Church is verbatim from 2 paragraphs from 1689. Honestly, you probably knew that already.

I am actually trying to be much closer to my Particular Baptist forebears. ...

(Also, everyone else of the 1689 persuasion, I am not trying to be closer to Brandon Adams or articles from 1689federalism.com, ahem, please please take note of this and don't bother tagging me in your handwringing over whether I am saying things that @brandonadams would approve. He is more than welcome to engage me here along with anyone of you as well. But try to have some substance when you do tag me, thanks).

You are right: theology absolutely informs practice. The truth of Scripture must hold precedence over any ecclesiastical praxis - your side or mine. (EDIT: that wasn't a shot as if you are not already doing so; merely enthusiastically nodding in agreement).

I do hold to the Old Covenant = Covenant of Works and New Covenant = Covenant of Grace, and thereby there is only one Covenant of Grace, and it was inaugurated in Eden (Gen. 3:15 and this is affirmed and allowed by 1689 Assembly in 7.3 and its attending commentaries).

That being said, there is still not a one-to-one correspondence or mapping Old Testament to New Testament in their respective economies.

Pause:

def. "Old Testament" - the legal bequest outlining the economy of God's covenant as promised in the coming Work of Christ towards the gift of salvation for all elect (foreknown, predestined, called, from eternity).

def. "New Testament" - the legal bequest outlining the economy of God's covenant as completed in the Work of Christ towards the gift of salvation for all elect (foreknown, predestined, called, from eternity).

OT EXAMPLE: Baby Moses in the basket is an elect infant bobbing along the Nile. At that time in history and geography, this fact is known only to the triune God grounded in the Covenant of Redemption and his guaranteed salvation is not yet seen by a faith that is coming, a faith that is to be counted for righteousness and is as sure as the fact that the Father is not known without the Son and none are saved without faith in Christ (even if Moses will only know him as the "promised serpent-crusher" or something like that) nor without the working on their hearts by the Holy Spirit.

Actually, I have planned out more to say, but I should pause and check if we are all good so far or do you take exception to anything I have said. Or have any caveats? Have we already diverged in theology here and I don't even know it?

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

EDIT: Never mind. I saw the other reference.

 

[No Other Name]

I'm the only one so far who has referenced Brandon Adams, as far as I can tell, and I haven't tagged you in anything. So, if you're talking about someone else, you might want to be more specific.

Nah brother. That was not for you. I guess you missed it, but thats ok. This is a big thread and for myself I have started only following those who are talking with me and I have lost where anyone else is.

But I disagree. There is no need to be specific since I do want everyone in 1689 to just let me try to put it in my words (as best as I can) and not freak out if I use phrasing leaning towards original intent of Biblical authors as I read them and how paedobaptists phrase the words "Israel" and "Church" et al.

 

[YeshuaFan]

So the OT believer was under no salvific covenant during their lifespan because there was no administration of it until Jesus? I don't think I understand what you're trying to say here.

The Grace of the Cross of Christ is the very basis of all salvation, so Moses, David, Daniel etc would all have been saved under that New Covenant yet to come

 

[MW]

Actually, I have planned out more to say, but I should pause and check if we are all good so far or do you take exception to anything I have said. Or have any caveats? Have we already diverged in theology here and I don't even know it?

We agree on the unity of the covenant of grace, the salvation of OT saints by Christ, and the typological character of the Mosaic economy. Where we diverge is in how you are defining "Old Covenant" and "New Covenant." Once you equate the Old Covenant with the covenant of works, it becomes unclear to me how you can affirm the salvation of the elect under that covenant unless you are saying they were saved by the covenant of works. I don't think that is what you are saying. But setting that aside, it does not alter the basic point I am making. If infants were included in the covenant community under whatever you call the Old Testament covenant, if they were saved by the same Christ, and if they received the sign of ingrafting into Christ, then the question remains: what principle now excludes them? So far, nothing you have said has addressed that discontinuity in your arrangement.
[automerge]1770760987[/automerge]

The Grace of the Cross of Christ is the very basis of all salvation, so Moses, David, Daniel etc would all have been saved under that New Covenant yet to come

Including all elect infants. This means elect infants were saved under the new covenant yet to come. So basically elect infants are saved under the new covenant. You haven't excluded them in the way you are formulating it. Once again, it is apparent that covenant theology is not at issue here. There is a disconnect between baptism and the covenant. Baptism is made a sign of profession of faith rather than a sign of salvation. This is the principle that is being smuggled into the conversation with no biblical basis.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Baptism is made a sign of profession of faith rather than a sign of salvation.

But it isn't an either / or situation for a Baptist. Baptism IS a profession of faith. Do you not affirm this to be true? I would be very surprised to hear that Presbyterians DON'T think that Baptism is a profession of faith,. But we also affirm that Baptism is a sign of salvation. It's in our confession.

Since baptism is a sign of salvation, and only those who are actually saved are entitled to receive the sign.
And since salvation is an invisible trait (it cannot be directly seen, or felt, or touched), and we can only observe its effects, it stands to follow that only those who we can reasonably judge to be recipients of salvation are lawful recipients of the thing signified.

How can we reasonably judge whether someone is a recipient of salvation? For adults, your answer to this question would be the same as ours. For infants, not so much.

 

[MW]

But it isn't an either / or situation for a Baptist. Baptism IS a profession of faith. Do you not affirm this to be true? I would be very surprised to hear that Presbyterians DON'T think that Baptism is a profession of faith,. But we also affirm that Baptism is a sign of salvation. It's in our confession.

Have you been following the thread? I've pointed out numerous times that Peter teaches baptism saves us. It is not "profession" of faith that saves us. It is "possession" of faith. The answer of a good conscience is an actual good conscience. The reality. And as we have gone along in this thread I have pointed out numerous times that possession of faith is as true for elect infants as for elect adults.

Since baptism is a sign of salvation, and only those who are actually saved are entitled to receive the sign.
And since salvation is an invisible trait (it cannot be directly seen, or felt, or touched), and we can only observe its effects, it stands to follow that only those who we can reasonably judge to be recipients of salvation are lawful recipients of the thing signified.

Therein lies the problem. You put yourself in the place of God in attempting to exercise a reasonable judgment. You cannot reasonably judge what is a secret thing that belongs to the Lord. That is a matter that is too high for you. The covenant of grace itself makes provision for tares and wheat to grow together for the sake of the wheat.

How can we reasonably judge whether someone is a recipient of salvation? For adults, your answer to this question would be the same as ours. For infants, not so much.

No, our answer is not the same. We administer baptism on the basis of faith. In the case of adults who are converting to Christianity it is obvious that they must make a profession in order to know that they have faith (whether it is true or not). In the case of infants we know that they have faith (whether true or not) because there is a promise that God will be a God to us and to our children and they are going to be brought up in the Christian faith.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Baptism IS a profession of faith. Do you not affirm this to be true?

No. This doesn't make any sense - how can something that (as you hold) requires a profession of faith to partake of at the same time be a profession of faith?

only those who are actually saved are entitled to receive the sign.
And since salvation is an invisible trait (it cannot be directly seen, or felt, or touched), and we can only observe its effects, it stands to follow that only those who we can reasonably judge

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?

I know I'm not the first to ask, by if the RB claim is that "only those who are actually saved/elect are entitled to receive the sign, how do you know who is actually saved/elect? You can't have it both ways. In other words, if election is a necessary precondition for being baptised, where is the Biblical support that the Church has the authority to "reasonably judge" whether or not someone is elect? The P&R position has no such claim that the Church can know who is elect. We know that the children of a professing parent are holy in God's sight, but we cannot know if they are elect. Thus election is not and can never be a prerequisite for baptism of anyone at or in any age.

I would suggest this position ("only those who are actually saved are entitled to receive the sign") is at odds with the 1689LBC itself. Does it not state that the elect are first enabled to believe, and then strengthened by the sacraments (and other means of grace)? Consider Chapter 14.1: "The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word; by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened." I just don't see anywhere in the 1689LBC where the idea of "only the elect are to be baptised" is suggested. I also don't see anywhere in the 1689LBC where it states that any one has the power, duty, or privilege to judge whether or not someone is actually saved.

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?

I meant to answer this earlier so I realize it is a bit out of the current flow: What an adult in the visible Church has that a child does not have is the ability to publicly profess faith and thus partake of the Lord's Supper. We require an initial credible profession (just like our RB brethren do for baptism) in order to partake of the Lord's Supper. But it is not a "one off" - we continue to require that (if not then one is barred from the Table) as the Lord's Supper is a continual profession: "For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye καταγγέλλω (show/proclaim/declare) the Lord’s death till he come." (I Cor.11.26)

 

[DNM300]

If infants were included in the covenant community under whatever you call the Old Testament covenant, if they were saved by the same Christ, and if they received the sign of ingrafting into Christ, then the question remains:

Rev. Matthew, this premise is not accepted by the 1689 brethren. They are quick to say circumcision was “a type, not a sign.” If they grant it was a sign, by no means do they see it as signing the same things WCF does.

I highlight this because it’s such a stark division.

 

[Gforce9]

No. This doesn't make any sense - how can something that (as you hold) requires a profession of faith to partake of at the same time be a profession of faith?



I know I'm not the first to ask, by if the RB claim is that "only those who are actually saved/elect are entitled to receive the sign, how do you know who is actually saved/elect? You can't have it both ways. In other words, if election is a necessary precondition for being baptised, where is the Biblical support that the Church has the authority to "reasonably judge" whether or not someone is elect? The P&R position has no such claim that the Church can know who is elect. We know that the children of a professing parent are holy in God's sight, but we cannot know if they are elect. Thus election is not and can never be a prerequisite for baptism of anyone at or in any age.

I would suggest this position ("only those who are actually saved are entitled to receive the sign") is at odds with the 1689LBC itself. Does it not state that the elect are first enabled to believe, and then strengthened by the sacraments (and other means of grace)? Consider Chapter 14.1: "The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word; by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord's supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened." I just don't see anywhere in the 1689LBC where the idea of "only the elect are to be baptised" is suggested. I also don't see anywhere in the 1689LBC where it states that any one has the power, duty, or privilege to judge whether or not someone is actually saved.


I meant to answer this earlier so I realize it is a bit out of the current flow: What an adult in the visible Church has that a child does not have is the ability to publicly profess faith and thus partake of the Lord's Supper. We require an initial credible profession (just like our RB brethren do for baptism) in order to partake of the Lord's Supper. But it is not a "one off" - we continue to require that (if not then one is barred from the Table) as the Lord's Supper is a continual profession: "For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye καταγγέλλω (show/proclaim/declare) the Lord’s death till he come." (I Cor.11.26)

The last part of your last paragraph is particularly doxological, Andrew.....that's the stuff that gospel worship is made of.....

 

[sc_q_jayce]

The Grace of the Cross of Christ is the very basis of all salvation, so Moses, David, Daniel etc would all have been saved under that New Covenant yet to come

How? There is no administration of this Covenant of Grace for them because you have said that Covenant is not established until later.

 

[MW]

Rev. Matthew, this premise is not accepted by the 1689 brethren. They are quick to say circumcision was “a type, not a sign.” If they grant it was a sign, by no means do they see it as signing the same things WCF does.

I highlight this because it’s such a stark division.

Yes; but in the flow of our conversation I have established from Rom. 4:11 that circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith. Even if it was a "type," types are grounded on historical facts. The historical fact is they received the seal of the righteousness of faith, call it whatever one pleases, and they received it as infants. And now that we are told that they did so by virtue of the new covenant, they are making the case for us that all this is consonant to the nature of the new covenant.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Have you been following the thread? I've pointed out numerous times that Peter teaches baptism saves us. It is not "profession" of faith that saves us. It is "possession" of faith. The answer of a good conscience is an actual good conscience. The reality. And as we have gone along in this thread I have pointed out numerous times that possession of faith is as true for elect infants as for elect adults.

Maybe the fault is mine, but I don't see the relevance to the portion you quoted and are replying to.

Do you then believe that Baptism (regardless of what else it is or isn't), DOES NOT serve as a confession of faith? I saw no answer to this.

Do we not agree that Baptism is a sign of faith? You said that it is, and I agree that it is.

Therein lies the problem. You put yourself in the place of God in attempting to exercise a reasonable judgment.

Your comment below about adult Christian converts (which I agree with) seems to put you and me in the same place on this issue, so I don't know what you are trying to prove here.

You cannot reasonably judge what is a secret thing that belongs to the Lord.

That's not true at all. We cannot infallibly judge (and I never claimed we could), but we can certainly reasonably judge.

As I said, "... salvation is an invisible trait (it cannot be directly seen, or felt, or touched), and we can only observe its effects".

We observe its effects. A profession of faith. Not maintaining damnable heresies. Not living in unrepentant sin.

You cannot say that in the case of a professing adult convert that hasn't destroyed his profession by maintaining damnable heresies or living life like a reprobate that have no basis at all for reasonably judging their spiritual state.

That is a matter that is too high for you.

Then who is to be Baptized? Apparently according to you we have absolutely no way of making any kind of reasonable judgment about the presumed spiritual state of a professing convert.

But more on that in moment ...

The covenant of grace itself makes provision for tares and wheat to grow together for the sake of the wheat.

I see nothing in scripture that allows for the Covenant of Grace to include wheat and tares together, certainly not in Matthew 13, where the Lord clearly says that the field is the world. I've heard the standard paedobaptist line on this several times, and it's never been compelling.

No, our answer is not the same. We administer baptism on the basis of faith. In the case of adults who are converting to Christianity it is obvious that they must make a profession in order to know that they have faith

First, this is completely at odds with the comments you made previously, and second, you say that our answer is not the same, and then go on to state the way in which it is, in fact, exactly the same.

In the case of infants we know that they have faith (whether true or not)

You can't "know" something that may be true, and may be not true. That's logically incoherent. But I digress.

because there is a promise that God will be a God to us and to our children

A promise to Abraham and his children (the Nation of Israel), not to us and to our children.

Again, others have done the heavy lifting so I don't have to. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/10/22/heidelcast-i-will-be-a-god-to-you-and-to-your-children/

 

[MW]

Do you then believe that Baptism (regardless of what else it is or isn't), DOES NOT serve as a confession of faith? I saw no answer to this.

Baptism is not essentially a confession of faith. Scripture presents it as God’s covenant sign and seal, not as my personal testimony. Adults who receive baptism do confess faith in the act, but that is a secondary, ecclesiastical use, not the sacrament's nature. The church receives both adults and infants on the same condition -- faith -- without claiming to judge its truth. Baptism rests on God’s promise, not the recipient's inward state.

Do we not agree that Baptism is a sign of faith? You said that it is, and I agree that it is.

Before you said it is profession of faith, now you say it is faith itself. If baptism is a profession of faith, then it is grounded in the believer's act. If baptism is a sign of salvation that is received by faith, then it is grounded in God's promise. You cannot hold both. And if you hold the second, infants must be included, because infants can receive the grace of faith even if they cannot profess it.

Your comment below about adult Christian converts (which I agree with) seems to put you and me in the same place on this issue, so I don't know what you are trying to prove here.

We agree that adult converts confess faith before receiving baptism. That doesn't mean baptism is a confession of faith. It simply means adults must profess Christ before being admitted to the covenant sign. The profession is the church's prerequisite; but baptism is God's sign. Those are two different things. Because you treat baptism as a profession, you restrict it to those who can profess. Because I treat baptism as God's sign of His promise, I apply it to all who are included in that promise -- adults after profession, infants before profession. So we agree on the adult procedure, but we do not agree on how it relates to baptism.

That's not true at all. We cannot infallibly judge (and I never claimed we could), but we can certainly reasonably judge.

As I said, "... salvation is an invisible trait (it cannot be directly seen, or felt, or touched), and we can only observe its effects".

We observe its effects. A profession of faith. Not maintaining damnable heresies. Not living in unrepentant sin.

A profession of faith, moral behaviour, and doctrinal soundness are not effects of regeneration alone. They are shared by the regenerate and the unregenerate -- the self‑deceived, the temporarily reformed, the hypocrite, and the apostate. So when you say, "We observe its effects," you are assuming what you need to prove. You are treating common effects as if they were saving effects. The reality is that you are not observing the invisible grace itself, only the person's outward presentation of it. And because those outward signs can arise from many different causes, they cannot function as indicators of regeneration. This is exactly where the antipaedobaptist position becomes unstable. Baptism is a "visible" sign; it belongs to the "visible" church; yet you want to make it a marker of something "invisible." You cannot build a sacramental practice on an inward reality that you admit you cannot see.

You cannot say that in the case of a professing adult convert that hasn't destroyed his profession by maintaining damnable heresies or living life like a reprobate that have no basis at all for reasonably judging their spiritual state.

You are grounding a sacrament in something you admit you cannot see, and then insisting that the church can judge who possesses what cannot be seen. But baptism itself is given precisely as the visible sign of the invisible grace we cannot see. If the grace were visible, the sign would be unnecessary.

Peter denying Christ or separating from the Gentiles might be acting inconsistently with his spiritual state. You and I do not know these things. Only God knows. But you want to be able to see inside the man's heart and make judgments that only God is competent to make.

Then who is to be Baptized? Apparently according to you we have absolutely no way of making any kind of reasonable judgment about the presumed spiritual state of a professing convert.

Believers and their seed. That is right. God makes the judgment. The church applies the sign as commanded by Him.

I see nothing in scripture that allows for the Covenant of Grace to include wheat and tares together, certainly not in Matthew 13, where the Lord clearly says that the field is the world. I've heard the standard paedobaptist line on this several times, and it's never been compelling.

It is grace that the wheat is not pulled up by hasty action. Tares are forborne. This is part of the administration of the covenant of grace. You have to allow this even in the case of false adult professors whom you baptise and "judge" to be in a fit spiritual state.

First, this is completely at odds with the comments you made previously, and second, you say that our answer is not the same, and then go on to state the way in which it is, in fact, exactly the same.



You can't "know" something that may be true, and may be not true. That's logically incoherent. But I digress.

I have no idea where the contradiction is here. You are asserting it but not demonstrating it.

A promise to Abraham and his children (the Nation of Israel), not to us and to our children.

The promise to Abraham and his children is the promise to Israel, because Israel is Abraham's family. And in Christ, the Gentiles are grafted into that same family. Scripture explicitly says that those who belong to Christ are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. The blessing to "all families of the earth" is not a different promise but the expansion of the same Abrahamic promise to the nations.

 

[TheInquirer]

NT words/concepts for the church:

• The body of Christ, united to Christ as its head
• The holy temple indwelt by the Spirit

“And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. 15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.” (Ephesians 4:11–16, ESV)

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 2:4–5, ESV)

There is no room for the unregenerate in those passages.

Regarding the 1 Peter nation:

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. (1 Peter 2:9–10, ESV)

These are a people who have been rescued from darkness and have received mercy. They are saved and regenerated. They are no longer a geopolitical entity and thus a different type of nation. This is very obvious and I am surprised it is even a point of debate.

Matthew, your explanation of the “baptism now saves us” passage seems so muddled and contradictory that I can’t even understand your position the more you try to explain it.

 

[No Other Name]

But it is not a "one off" - we continue to require that (if not then one is barred from the Table) as the Lord's Supper is a continual profession: "For as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye καταγγέλλω (show/proclaim/declare) the Lord’s death till he come." (I Cor.11.26)

On this at least, we are 100% agreed.

 

[Northern Crofter]

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 2:4–5, ESV)

Who is Peter writing this epistle to? Ethnic Jews who had converted (see Calvin, Gill, etc.). If you miss this, you miss how Peter - "the Apostle to the Jews" - is using many references from the OT to encourage the converts in the Diaspora and then start making universal jumps in applying all of it to the entire Church. Much of it can be applied to all believers, but you cannot ignore who Peter is writing to.

Ephesians 4:11–16, ESV

Ephesians, on the other hand, is written by Paul - "the Apostle to the Gentiles" - to the "Gentiles in the flesh, called uncircumcision of them, which are called circumcision in the flesh" (v 2.11). He is writing to the Church which included the children (v 6.1) who are reminded that the Law contains a continual promise to them (v 6.2) - that promise was given to children in the Mosaic law in the Old Covenant Church, but Paul is unequivocally stating that it still applies to children within the covenant community in the New Covenant Church.

 

[No Other Name]

Where we diverge is in how you are defining "Old Covenant" and "New Covenant." Once you equate the Old Covenant with the covenant of works, it becomes unclear to me how you can affirm the salvation of the elect under that covenant unless you are saying they were saved by the covenant of works. I don't think that is what you are saying.

Well, I will stay here then.

Whether pre- or post-lapsarian, it seems largely agreed the Old Covenant is "do this and live". Whether one looks at making sacrifices pre-Flood, post-Flood and/or circumcising male infants eight days old and/or bringing a bull for the burnt offering at the wilderness Tabernacle or the Shiloh Tabernacle and/or bringing the cake for the grain offering at the Solomonic/post-exilic Temple, it is all part of "do this and live". And no, no one is saved by these things.

They can TRY to be. But even with the natural law engraved by the Creator on their human hearts, these efforts are distinct from the gospel of Christ and differ in substance and form from the acts of one re-born into the Covenant of Grace.

"Do this and live" works hand-in-hand with the gospel promise of "He who can do this and live will come and do this and live". (In our NT case, He has done).

Salvation has been/ always will be dependent on God's good grace.

Since the Covenant of Grace is ordained by God alone and cannot be entered by fallen humanity unless God provides the grace necessary to regenerate the will and draw a person into covenant, the covenant is initially unilateral; but once an individual is drawn into the covenant and the will is regenerated, responsibility under covenant and, specifically, faithful obedience to God’s will are required, and the covenant appears as bilateral (with stipulations as what obedience of faith looks like in the working of the habits of grace - or the working of one's salvation in fear and trembling and that is for both Old and New Testament eras as well).

And no, I do not agree that this point of departure "does not alter the basic point" you are making as you claim. I think this disagreement (?) is at the root of it.

 

[DNM300]

Whether one looks at making sacrifices pre-Flood, post-Flood and/or circumcising male infants eight days old and/or bringing a bull for the burnt offering at the wilderness Tabernacle or the Shiloh Tabernacle and/or bringing the cake for the grain offering at the Solomonic/post-exilic Temple, it is all part of "do this and live".

It seems to me that Heb. 11:4, and Rom. 4:11, for examples, point us toward the Covenant of Grace.

Edit for further clarity: the sacrifices point to Christ’s atoning sacrifice to come; circumcision points to the circumcision of the heart & imputation of justifying righteousness through faith in him. These lift eyes to Christ, and call us to faith in him.