Credobaptist objection

[MW]

There is no room for the unregenerate in those passages.

Neither is there room for the unregenerate in "Israel." Israel is a prince with God who wrestles with Him and obtains the blessing. You are shifting focus from the actual to the ideal. The ideal Israel is the same as the ideal church. But if we go back to the actual Israel and compare it to the actual church, there is mixture.

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.

They are not a different type of nation. You are focusing on what they are NOW in exile. But again, that applied to Israel in exile. Look at the saints in heaven. They are a holy and happy commonwealth under Christ their king, observing His laws. To make the comparison one must compare apples with apples, not with oranges.

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.

I am telling you what Peter tells you. Baptism saves. That is, the whole of baptism -- sign and thing signified together. But the thing signified is not profession of faith, as you have claimed. That is not possible. It is the actual faith that produces an actual good conscience. The Reformed are true credo-baptists. We do not think of any sacrament having efficacy apart from faith. Whereas "Reformed Baptists" want to turn it into a profession of faith, and take us from the objective to the subjective. They are not Reformed at all; neither are they true credobaptists.

 

[MW]

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.

Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us, and He is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Even granting your idea that the new covenant saves the OT believers. It saves THROUGH the sacrifices as means of grace THERE AND THEN. The same applies to circumcision. However one formulates the relationship between circumcision and baptism, the cutting off of the flesh looked to the cutting off of Christ. Ditto for all the types and ordinances. They were not free-floating things that had no respect to anything. They looked forward to Christ to come. Believers used them looking forward to Christ to come. Hence what you call the old covenant had the substance of the new covenant in it. And the infants who enjoyed that substance received it through the means of grace that they used THERE AND THEN.

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.

You can TRY to paint it this way. But if grace was administered to them THERE AND THEN, the means of grace were made effectual THERE AND THEN.

"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).

Right. Romans 10. Both are there. THERE AND THEN.

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

Right.

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).

Right. All which applied to elect infants THERE AND THEN.

 

[MW]

Whereas "Reformed Baptists" want to turn it into a profession of faith, and take us from the objective to the subjective. They are not Reformed at all; neither are they true credobaptists.

I worded this badly and without the sensitivity my brethren deserve, and I am sorry for that. What I mean is this: when a Reformed Baptist insists that baptism is essentially a profession of faith, he is adopting the Anabaptist sacramental structure, where the sacrament is grounded in the believer's act rather than in God's promise. A "Reformed Baptist" is fully monergistic in his doctrine of salvation -- no question there. But at the level of sacramental logic, something non‑Reformed remains in the wiring. The soteriology is Augustinian; the sacramentology still carries the Anabaptist framework.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Baptism is not essentially a confession of faith.

Ok. Since you break with the historic Christian view on this, there's not much room discussing with you further.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Ok. Since you break with the historic Christian view on this, there's not much room discussing with you further.

Perhaps you could provide evidence from one of the early Church fathers to show how far back the idea of baptism being a profession of faith is?

 

[MW]

Ok. Since you break with the historic Christian view on this, there's not much room discussing with you further.

Calvin's Institutes: Hence those who have thought that baptism is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men, in the same way as soldiers attest their profession by bearing the insignia of their commander, having not attended to what was the principal thing in baptism; and this is, that we are to receive it in connection with the promise, “He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved” (Mark 16:16).

That is the historic position taken up by the Reformers and the Reformed Churches.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

It's at the very least the historic Reformed position.

Calvin, Institutes Book 14, Chapter 15, Section 13

13. Baptism as token of confession

But baptism serves as our confession before men. Indeed, it is the mark by which we publicly profess that we wish to be reckoned God’s people; by which we testify that we agree in worshipping the same God, in one religion with all Christians; by which finally we openly affirm our faith. Thus not only do our hearts breathe the praise of God, but our tongues also and all members of our body resound his praise in every way they can. For thus, as is fitting, all our faculties are employed to serve God’s glory, which ought to lack nothing, and by our example others are aroused to the same efforts. Paul had this in mind when he asked the Corinthians whether they had not been baptized in Christ’s name [1 Cor. 1:13]. He thus implied that, in being baptized in his name, they had devoted themselves to him, sworn allegiance to his name, and pledged their faith to him before men. As a result, they could no longer confess any other but Christ alone, unless they chose to renounce the confession they had made in baptism.

 

[MW]

It's at the very least the historic Reformed position.

Calvin, Institutes Book 14, Chapter 15, Section 13

I just quoted the historic Reformed position from Calvin's Institutes where Calvin explicitly says it is not the principal thing in baptism. The principal thing is what God promises to us. And Calvin says that promise is to us and to our children. "Hence it follows, that the children of believers are not baptised, in order that though formerly aliens from the Church, they may then, for the first time, become children of God, but rather are received into the Church by a formal sign, because, in virtue of the promise, they previously belonged to the body of Christ."

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I just quoted the historic Reformed position from Calvin's Institutes where Calvin explicitly says it is not the principal thing in baptism. The principal thing is what God promises to us. And Calvin says that promise is to us and to our children.

Well that's great, but that's not the issue at hand. Please try to stay focused on what're actually talking about. No one is claiming that "baptism as a confession" is the "principal thing".

We are talking about whether baptism serves as a confession of faith or whether baptism does not serve as a confession of faith.

I've said from the beginning that whatever else baptism also is (and I agree that baptism is much, much more), it is certainly a profession / confession of faith.

Apparently you say it isn't. Well, I say it is, and so does Calvin and the historic church consensus.

 

[MW]

Well that's great, but that's not the issue at hand. Please try to stay focused on what're actually talking about. No one is claiming that "baptism as a confession" is the "principal thing".

We are talking about whether baptism serves as a confession of faith or whether baptism does not serve as a confession of faith.

In your post #214 you responded to my statement: "Baptism is not essentially a confession of faith." Let's focus on that. "Essential." To which you replied with the claim that I break with the historic Christian view. But here you say baptism "serves as" a confession of faith. These are two different things. The issue is not whether baptism can "serve as" a confession of faith, since it does this in the case of adult converts. I stated it does this in earlier posts for anyone who wants to actually follow what I have said. The question is whether baptism "is essentially" a confession of faith. Later on you say ""baptism is a confession of faith." Here you raise a secondary function to the level of sacramental essence. That is not the Reformed position. It is the Anabaptist position. In the Reformed tradition, a profession of faith is a "prerequisite" for adult baptism, not the "nature" of baptism.

I've said from the beginning that whatever else baptism also is (and I agree that baptism is much, much more), it is certainly a profession / confession of faith.

Now you use the word "is," as distinct from "serve as." And this is the point on which we differ. Calvin explicitly rejects the idea that baptism is "nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men." He says those who think this "have not attended to the principal thing in baptism," which is God’s promise. That is the classic Reformed position: baptism is grounded in God's promise, not in our profession. The historic Reformed consensus is that baptism is a sign and seal of something done "to us" by God, not something done "by us" to express ourselves. That is why the Reformed churches baptise infants: because the sacrament's essence is God's promise, not the recipient's confession.

Apparently you say it isn't. Well, I say it is, and so does Calvin and the historic church consensus.

Obviously you are reading Calvin and the historic church consensus through the lens of your own sacramentology. It is quite clear for anyone who reads them objectively that they are of a far different mind to you. Calvin following Augustine defines a sacrament as a visible word. That is its essence. The word is the word of promise. When you have a visible sign and a word promising an invisible grace there you have the essence of the sacrament. When it comes to baptism his first statement is as follows: "Baptism is the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the Church, that being ingrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God." Nothing in Calvin's definition of what baptism is includes confession of faith. The essence of baptism is admission into the Church, ingrafting into Christ, and being accounted a child of God. All of these are divine acts, not human testimonies.

 

[MW]

Here is Stephen Marshall answering John Tombes, p. 117-118: "Secondly, let me put the same case in grown men, who make an external visible profession, and thereupon are admitted to baptism. Can any man say, that all the saving graces of the covenant, or the spiritual part of it, is promised to all visible professors? Is it not abundantly knowne that in all ages, even in the best times, even in the Apostles' times, multitudes were baptized, to whom God yet never gave saving graces, and therefore never promised them? For had he made a promise, he would have performed it. But I shall desire you a little to consider the nature of a sacrament, in what sense it is a seal, and then you need stumble at this no longer. These three things are necessarily to be distinguished: first, the truth of the thing signified in a sacrament; and secondly, my interest in that thing; and thirdly, my obligation, to do what is required in or by that Sacrament. I say therefore, that in every Sacrament, the truth of the Covenant in itself, and all the promises of it are sealed to be Yea, and Amen. Jesus Christ became a Minister of the circumcision, to confirm the promises made unto the Fathers; & so to every one who is admitted to partake of Baptism, according to the rule which God hath given to his Church, to administer that Sacrament, there is sealed the truth of all the promises of the Gospel, that they are all true in Christ, and that whoever partakes of Christ shall partake of all these saving promises. This is sealed absolutely in Baptism. But as to the second, which is interesse meum, or the receiver's interest in that spiritual part of the {118} Covenant, that is sealed to no receiver absolutely, but conditionally. In this particular, all Sacraments are but signa conditionalia, conditional seals, sealing the spiritual part of the Covenant to the receiver, upon condition that he performe the spiritual condition of the Covenant. Thus our Divines use to answer the Papists. Thus Doctor Ames answers to Bellarmine, when Bellarmine, disputing against our doctrines that Sacraments are seals, alleges then they are falsely applied oftentimes. He answers to Bellarmine, Sacraments are conditional Seals, and therefore not seals to us but upon condition. Now for the third thing, the obligation which is put upon the receiver, a bond, or tie for him to perform, who is admitted to receive the Sacrament, this third I say is also absolute. All Circumcised and Baptized persons did or do stand absolutely engaged to perform the conditions required on their part: and therefore all circumcised persons were by the circumcision obliged to keep the Law, that is, that legal and typical administration of the Covenant which was then in force; and Infants among the rest were bound to this, though they had no understanding of the Covenant, or that administration of the Covenant, when this Seal was administered to them. Now then, since in Baptism there is first an absolute Seal of the truth of the Covenant of grace in itself, a conditional seal of the receiver's interest in the Covenant, and an absolute obligation upon the receiver to make good the Covenant on his part, is there any reason that you should say, that the seal is put to a blank, where the spiritual part or saving grace is not partaked of?"

Marshall distinguishes three things in every sacrament: 1. The truth of the thing signified, i.e., the covenant promises in themselves; these are sealed absolutely in baptism. 2. My interest in that thing, i.e., whether I personally receive the saving grace; this is sealed conditionally, only if I believe. 3. My obligation, i.e., what I am bound to do; this is sealed absolutely (I am bound whether I believe or not). This is classic Reformed sacramental theology. And notice: none of these three are "profession of faith." Profession is not the essence, not the definition, not the nature of baptism.

 

[No Other Name]

Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us, and He is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Even granting your idea that the new covenant saves the OT believers. It saves THROUGH the sacrifices as means of grace THERE AND THEN. The same applies to circumcision. However one formulates the relationship between circumcision and baptism, the cutting off of the flesh looked to the cutting off of Christ. Ditto for all the types and ordinances. They were not free-floating things that had no respect to anything. They looked forward to Christ to come. Believers used them looking forward to Christ to come. Hence what you call the old covenant had the substance of the new covenant in it. And the infants who enjoyed that substance received it through the means of grace that they used THERE AND THEN.

1) "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us, and He is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Amen.

2) "Even granting your idea that the new covenant saves the OT believers." MY idea?? I thought you yourself are on record as saying the Covenant of Grace saves OT believers and the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace.

3) "It saves THROUGH the sacrifices as means of grace THERE AND THEN." Amen. Not the blood of bulls and goats (shadows) but faith in the coming Substance (Blood of Christ promised to come).

4) "The same applies to circumcision." For whom? Parents? Or child? Both? If parents, I can say amen and acknowledge faithful obedience to the Old Covenant terms as a sanctifying grace. If child, I have to ask how?

5) "However one formulates the relationship between circumcision and baptism, the cutting off of the flesh looked to the cutting off of Christ. Ditto for all the types and ordinances."

Now I am really confused. Are you saying all types and ordinances are types of baptism? The only OT type for baptism I am currently willing to admit is the ark that saves Noah and his family per 1 Peter 3 and the passing of Israel through the waters of the Red Sea per 1 Corinthians 10.

6) "They were not free-floating things that had no respect to anything. They looked forward to Christ to come. Believers used them looking forward to Christ to come." Amen.

7) "Hence what you call the old covenant had the substance of the new covenant in it." I would ask clarification here. I want to say Amen as I did for 3), but I am unsure if what you mean is how I am reading it.

8) "And the infants who enjoyed that substance received it through the means of grace that they used THERE AND THEN." What substance? what grace? They are circumcised members of the Old Covenant. A sign and seal that they are of the physical seed of Abraham WITH the spiritual significance of the type that they are cut off from sin and dead to its curse. The first clause is the definition of the sign and seal into the Old Covenant. The second clause is entirely dependent on God's good grace as you have agreed earlier, not dependent on the knife that cuts the foreskin. And the work of the Holy Spirit in saving grace in the child is not even dependent on the faith of the parents.

More on this to come.

You can TRY to paint it this way. But if grace was administered to them THERE AND THEN, the means of grace were made effectual THERE AND THEN.

Well, when I wrote that, I was offsetting the false professor from the genuinely saved. So I stand by it, but I may have been too presumptuous on your telepathy on what I meant hahaha.

eg, King Saul may indeed have the natural law engraved by the Creator on his human heart of stone, but 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 - such as King David.

Both circumcised as infants by the way, so my question is how?

What substance? what grace comes on the infant through circumcision? Recall, I freely admit infant Moses (or David) is elect grounded in the eternal Covenant of Redemption, but what grace in and of circumcision itself outside of the physical seed of Abraham bound to a people who will "do this and live" - what grace to "do" was given to infant David that was not Saul? What substance in the circumcision of flesh to Jacob and not Esau?

Circumcision of the flesh cannot be into the Covenant of Redemption for only those who are truly elect will be entered unto this, yes?

[[I really think it would help if you would differentiate your "Old Covenant" and "New Covenant" from my definitions given above. At times it seems we are in agreement. At times not so much.]]

Hence those who have thought that baptism is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men,

I am sorry, brother. You need to be fair in your engagements here.

You do realize 1689 Baptists proclaim baptism a sacrament, not a mere mark. We affirm the Holy Spirit is the seal of the New Covenant - the Covenant of Grace - and it is by His work that we do baptize.

You accuse us of Anabaptist sacramentology?

Baptism is both a sign and a means of grace, a visible sign of an invisible grace sealed by the Holy Spirit who circumcises the heart. This is consistent in our theology between the Old and the New Covenant. No one gets baptized because they profess faith in a vacuum. They come, they ask "What must I do to be saved?" Or they come and ask "I believe Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead so that I can follow him and be free from sin. Where is there water? What stops me from being baptized?"

Did Peter baptize those who asked "What must I do?" as a mark of their profession? Did Philip with the eunuch?

No, I deny. Their profession was a secondary evidence of the primary work of the Holy Spirit within their hearts: hearts not of stone but of flesh, and on THAT basis, Peter did baptize. And Philip. And all other ministers of the Gospel of Christ.
[automerge]1770899975[/automerge]

Profession is not the essence, not the definition, not the nature of baptism.

Amen.

"Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, He is pleased in His appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call,1 by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ;2 enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God;3 taking away their heart of stone, and giving to them a heart of flesh;4 renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ;5 yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.6"
1 Rom. 8:30, 11:7; Eph. 1:10–11; 2 Thess. 2:13–14
2 Eph. 2:1–6
3 Acts 26:18; Eph. 1:17–18
4 Ezek. 36:26
5 Deut. 30:6; Ezek. 36:27; Eph. 1:19
6 Ps. 110:3; Cant. 1:4

 

[No Other Name]

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.

" 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."

Amen! But I suspect you didn't mean it the same way I read it. hahahaha

Heb. 11:4 and Rom. 4:11 DO point us toward the Covenant of Grace, amen! Again, I suspect you didn't mean it the same way that I see it. These things happen.

Let me be as clear as I can be, and let's look at Rom. 4:11:

1) "My definitions" of Old Covenant and New Covenant / Old Testament and New Testament (Post # 192) are informed by Reformed theology and Muller's DLGTT.

2) Rom. 4:11 says

"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised."

Recall, as Paul writes this, circumcision of the flesh is nothing. Its end is fulfilled: that ingrafting of Gentiles into the faith of Abraham. In Gen. 17, Abraham is being promised by God to be a "father of many nations" and this by a double seal: circumcision of flesh and a change in his name from Abram to Abraham. So he receives the sign of circumcision of the flesh, a seal of the righteousness of faith which (in a time yet to come) the same righteousness of faith will come to the uncircumcised as well.

Abraham had a twofold seed, natural and faithful. When the OT promises were fulfilled by Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon all, circumcision of the flesh ceased by the work of the Holy Spirit and it by His grace, our hearts of stone are now cut out and replaced with hearts of flesh.

3) If anyone disputes this interpretation that is fine.

But before you throw Calvin or whomeever's interpretation vs. Gill's here (actually more Lightfoot than Gill in phraseology), pause.

What covenant are children being circumcised into? Are the children circumcised going to be "fathers of many nations" all? Is that the promise held to the male infants? Or is it the promise of being naturally born into the household of Abraham's faith? Does a measure of Abraham's faith enter the infant upon the cutting of the foreskin? Where is this described?

Can you illustrate how the Covenants work and where the Spirit works vs where the human shows faith in your system - both Old and New like I have been doing in Post 192 and Post 222?

 

[YeshuaFan]

Reformed baptist tend to see God applying the COG of the NC towards those who were saved in the OT, as Go

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

d 'credited" them with the Grace that was yet to come about in our time and space
[automerge]1770919755[/automerge]
God chose Himself to administer to them under the

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.

OT the saving grace of the Cross of Christ yet to happen per our view of time, but had already happened per the will and plan of God in His view
[automerge]1770920169[/automerge]
T

Calvin's Institutes: Hence those who have thought that baptism is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men, in the same way as soldiers attest their profession by bearing the insignia of their commander, having not attended to what was the principal thing in baptism; and this is, that we are to receive it in connection with the promise, “He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved” (Mark 16:16).

That is the historic position taken up by the Reformers and the Reformed Churches.

he Church since the time of the reformation has agreed to disagree on the exact biblical response that should be afforded as the the ordinances/Sacraments, and as reformed Baptist still keep circling around the biblical aspect that seems to be stating that the ordinance is the outward confession of one having already been saved into the Lord Jesus and the Body of Christ based upon the profession in Jesus as their Savior and Lord
Thinkl also the big problem is that both sides here are to varying degrees reading back into the text what we think that what they must be based upon how we atre aproaching the scriptures regarding what the new Covenant represents

 

[DNM300]

Recall, as Paul writes this, circumcision of the flesh is nothing. Its end is fulfilled: that ingrafting of Gentiles into the faith of Abraham.

While not wanting to deny this, I think circumcision pointed forward to the death of Christ (him being cut off in judgment), and thus that’s my reasoning for why the ritual has ended.
- - -
It seems almost ironic to me that so much is made in these dialogues of Abraham’s natural seed. His natural seed is the only group missing in Rom. 4.11ff. See also Galatians 3:29. You have said earlier the seed is now spiritual & here:

circumcision of the flesh ceased by the work of the Holy Spirit and it by His grace, our hearts of stone are now cut out and replaced with hearts of flesh.

The “now” seems to always slip out when I hear RB’s speaking. I must say this loses me.

What covenant are children being circumcised into?

The one wherein the knowledge of Christ to come, his work, and benefits are preached to the members, with an accompanying ordinance.

Or is it the promise of being naturally born into the household of Abraham's faith?

Not sure what this means. But the promise held forth is that “those who believe upon the LORD, like father Abraham, will receive the same perfect, permanent, gracious imputation of righteousness that Abraham had received.”
- - -
For me, when I say COG I am not speaking about soteriology only but soteriology plus the administrative and structural elements - as it is managed by God and served up to sinners. For you, I think, COG is perfectly and only equated with regeneration and accompanying benefits, spiritual and ideal only.

 

[MW]

2) "Even granting your idea that the new covenant saves the OT believers." MY idea?? I thought you yourself are on record as saying the Covenant of Grace saves OT believers and the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace.

To save time and space I will skip over the points on which you simply agreed, but acknowledge at the start that I regard those agreements as of grreater substance overall than the things on which we differ.

It is not altogether clear what you mean by saying the new covenant saves, especially as we have regular referrals to a particular website and to a "1689" view of things which denies an actual administration of the covenant of grace in the OT itself. Hence I "grant" the proposition without committing to endorsing it because, in my view, it makes no difference whatsoever to the question at hand. In fact, it presents a shortcut since it affirms elect infants in the OT are saved by the new covenant in Christ. But, to date, no one on the other side has addressed this.

4) "The same applies to circumcision." For whom? Parents? Or child? Both? If parents, I can say amen and acknowledge faithful obedience to the Old Covenant terms as a sanctifying grace. If child, I have to ask how?

Since circumcision was applied to infants I fail to see what this division of parents and child could entail. Jacob was elect and he was circumcised; it must mean the same for him as it did for Isaac and for Abraham, unless a sacrament changes with each individual elect person and means different things.

5) "However one formulates the relationship between circumcision and baptism, the cutting off of the flesh looked to the cutting off of Christ. Ditto for all the types and ordinances."

Now I am really confused. Are you saying all types and ordinances are types of baptism? The only OT type for baptism I am currently willing to admit is the ark that saves Noah and his family per 1 Peter 3 and the passing of Israel through the waters of the Red Sea per 1 Corinthians 10.

I am not speaking about a "type" for baptism. I am saying that, at the very least, it typified Christ, whatever the relationship between circumcision and baptism. It is well known there is disagreement on the relationship to baptism; hence my statement avoids it to go straight to what circumcision must mean in relation to Christ. That relationship must be relevant to elect infants who were circumcised.

7) "Hence what you call the old covenant had the substance of the new covenant in it." I would ask clarification here. I want to say Amen as I did for 3), but I am unsure if what you mean is how I am reading it.

Christ is the substance of the new covenant and they were saved by Christ. Nobody has ever been saved apart from that one way of salvation. Hence, even if the old covenant is conceived as being a completely different covenant, with completely different terms and conditions, nothing changes with respect to the salvation of the elect under the old covenant. They were saved by the Christ of the new covenant.

8) "And the infants who enjoyed that substance received it through the means of grace that they used THERE AND THEN." What substance? what grace? They are circumcised members of the Old Covenant. A sign and seal that they are of the physical seed of Abraham WITH the spiritual significance of the type that they are cut off from sin and dead to its curse. The first clause is the definition of the sign and seal into the Old Covenant. The second clause is entirely dependent on God's good grace as you have agreed earlier, not dependent on the knife that cuts the foreskin. And the work of the Holy Spirit in saving grace in the child is not even dependent on the faith of the parents.

Circumcision was a sign of being a child of Abraham. Being a child of Abraham depended on the promise, I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee. This is what they HAD and they had it THERE AND THEN. "Jacob have I loved." He is a child of the promise. And this promise came to him in the way it was represented, signified, sealed, and applied to him THERE AND THEN. Whatever happened to Esau is not at issue here. What is the chaff to the wheat. His unbelief does not make the faith of God of none effect. What we are concerned to know is what happened to Jacob. From a child he was brought up in the consciousness that God was his God. Circumcision meant something to him.

eg, King Saul may indeed have the natural law engraved by the Creator on his human heart of stone, but 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 - such as King David.

Both circumcised as infants by the way, so my question is how?

That is as good as the Jacob and Esau example. It is precisely the same. David had consciousness of trusting in the Lord from his mother's womb, Ps. 22; 71. The objectivity of the covenant promises could be traced back to days he could not consciously remember, but the covenant itself supplid his memory.

What substance? what grace comes on the infant through circumcision? Recall, I freely admit infant Moses (or David) is elect grounded in the eternal Covenant of Redemption, but what grace in and of circumcision itself outside of the physical seed of Abraham bound to a people who will "do this and live" - what grace to "do" was given to infant David that was not Saul? What substance in the circumcision of flesh to Jacob and not Esau?

Romans 10 again. Paul quoting from Deuteronomy: v. 8, "But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach. That is what they had THERE AND THEN. That is what they believed upon to the saving of their souls. They did not have to go anywhere to get it. Not up to heaven, not down to the depths. The word was as near to them as to us.

Circumcision of the flesh cannot be into the Covenant of Redemption for only those who are truly elect will be entered unto this, yes?

Circumcision is the sign and seal of that. If we are going to adopt sacramental terminology we will have to keep sign and thing signified clearly in view. God intends for them to be distinct so that our minds will be led from the one to the other, even though they are joined together in the efficacy of the sacrament.

You do realize 1689 Baptists proclaim baptism a sacrament, not a mere mark. We affirm the Holy Spirit is the seal of the New Covenant - the Covenant of Grace - and it is by His work that we do baptize.

I just read again the 1689 on "Baptism and the Lord's Supper." They are described as "ordinances." Everywhere that Westminster uses "sacrament" the 1689 alters to "ordinance." There is nothing that approaches to the sacramental theology of Westminster. But if you say you hold them as sacraments in the sense of Westminster I will take you at your word. As long as Westminster is given the authority to declare its own meaning. There is no point adopting the terminology if another meaning is going to be assigned to it.

You accuse us of Anabaptist sacramentology?

Going back through the gears to slow down for this corner that was taken in our discussion -- the question is whether baptism is essentially a profession of faith. When that claim appears in church history, it normally arises from a "free‑will" account of salvation, where regeneration follows faith, and where salvation can be lost. That is the Anabaptist pattern. By contrast, the Augustinian-Reformed tradition is monergistic in its doctrine of salvation, and it has a sacramentology that matches that monergism. In that tradition, baptism is grounded in God's promise, not the believer's act; it signifies God's grace, not my experience; and it can therefore be given to infants, adults, and even hypocrites without losing its nature. So I'm not accusing you of Anabaptist soteriology. I am thankful we agree on the substantials of monergism. But when baptism is defined as a profession of faith, the sacramental logic being used is not the Augustinian-Reformed one. It resembles the older Anabaptist structure, where the sacrament depends on the believer's act rather than God's promise. That is the only point I am trying to make.

Baptism is both a sign and a means of grace, a visible sign of an invisible grace sealed by the Holy Spirit who circumcises the heart.

You have introduced the word "seal," but have not first applied the idea of a seal to the sacrament itself. Is this deliberate? Do you hold the sacrament itself to be a seal in the sense offered by Stephen Marshall. If yes, we are still dealing with the same doctrine of the sacraments. If not, we have a different doctrine.

Did Peter baptize those who asked "What must I do?" as a mark of their profession? Did Philip with the eunuch?

No, not really. They were to "repent and be baptised." The two went together. As noted earlier, it is "possession," not "profession." The same with the eunuch if you accept the TR reading. He must believe with all his heart. We do not administer baptism on the assumption of profession. It presupposes faith. That is because baptism saves, as Peter says -- not merely by the outward sign, but joined with the inward reality. This is true, biblical, confessionally Reformed credo-baptism.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I just read again the 1689 on "Baptism and the Lord's Supper." They are described as "ordinances." Everywhere that Westminster uses "sacrament" the 1689 alters to "ordinance." There is nothing that approaches to the sacramental theology of Westminster. But if you say you hold them as sacraments in the sense of Westminster I will take you at your word. As long as Westminster is given the authority to declare its own meaning. There is no point adopting the terminology if another meaning is going to be assigned to it.

This, as well as the replacement of "visible Church" in the WCF with "visible saints" in both the First (1646 - Ch.33) and Second (1689 - Ch.26.2) LBC, represents fundamental differences. The changes were purposeful alterations by Particular Baptists (even the Congregationalists in between maintained the term "visible church" at Savoy in 1658 - see Ch.26.2). And has been noted in past threads, the replacement of "sacrament" with "ordinance" is consistent throughout LBC catechisms as well their confessions. The Westminster Standards does see the sacraments as a type of ordinance, but they are holy and particular ordinances:
Q162: What is a sacrament?
A162: A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit... (WLC)

Respectfully, I'm not sure why current RB brethren keep using terms such as "visible Church" or "sacrament" to describe their positions when these terms were so purposefully and exactly removed from their confessional standards.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

, the replacement of "sacrament" with "ordinance" is consistent throughout LBC catechisms as well their confessions.

I’m sure you’ve been told this before, but the Particular Baptists, including the guys who wrote the 1677/1689 Confession and the Baptist Catechism, used the terms ordinance and sacrament interchangeably in their writings. The word “ordinance” was preferred in the 1677 / 1689 and the Baptist Catechism to emphasize the fact that there were, well, ordained positively by Christ.

Also, the 1680 Orthodox Catechism (Hercules Collins) expressly calls them sacraments in Q65, Q66, Q67, and Q68.

 

[paranymph]

Respectfully, I'm not sure why current RB brethren keep using terms such as "visible Church" or "sacrament" to describe their positions when these terms were so purposefully and exactly removed from their confessional standards.

"Removal" even when purposeful and exact does not mean disagreement. 2LCF removes the word "covenant of works" from Ch 7.2. Yet it is very obvious that 2LCF affirms a covenant of works.

 

[Northern Crofter]

The word “ordinance” was preferred in the 1677 / 1689 and the Baptist Catechism to emphasize the fact that there were, well, ordained positively by Christ.

"Removal" even when purposeful and exact...

Do either of you have a source for this conjecture? I've been looking but can't find a contemporary writing that discusses these changes, but I'm sure they weren't done without discussion (knowing they would be noticeable changes).
[automerge]1770999898[/automerge]
Like something from Keach or Kiffin?

 

[DNM300]

Do either of you have a source for this conjecture? I've been looking but can't find a contemporary writing that discusses these changes, but I'm sure they weren't done without discussion (knowing they would be noticeable changes).
[automerge]1770999898[/automerge]
Like something from Keach or Kiffin?

My background is 1689. The CoW claim is correct. (I have mixed feelings about the other claim- personally.)

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I apologize, I copy/pasted with text from a couple of photographs I took with my phone. This is from Jim Renihan's exposition of the 1689 Confession, "To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: Baptist Symbolics Volume 2: A Contextual-Historical Exposition of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith" pages 537 and 538.

There's more on subsequent pages but this gives you the gist.

There is a fundamental mistake many make when noting that the word
ordinance is employed in 2LCF 28-30 rather than the common post-Refor-
mation term "sacrament." They assume that this choice entailed a rejection
of "sacrament" and a preference for ordinance, thus establishing a "Zwinglian"
trajectory in subsequent Baptist circles. This is a false deduction. The term "sac-
rament" and its cognates (e.g., "sacramental") regularly appear in Particular
Baptist literature, without any indication that the word was controversial or
inappropriate for a description of their confessional theology. 1

Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to ask why one term was substituted for
the other. The straightforward response is that ordinance was a handy word
with powerful polemic implications. According to OED, ordinance carries
the sense "something decreed, ordained, or prescribed."The linguistic relation
between "ordained" and "ordinance" must be noted, carrying exactly the sense
given in OED. Writing in defense of immersion as the proper mode of bap-
tism, Thomas Minge said, "Can there be an Ordinance, and no Coherence
of the Quality of the Subject that is to Obey? The very Word [Ordinance]
denotes in the Institution, a Subject capable of Obedience." 2 In their debates
with various paedobaptists, these confessional baptistic congregationalists
emphasized the nature of baptism and the Lord's Supper as positive com-
mands, an accent fundamental to the argument for their position. Notice
how the language of 28.1 is expressed: Baptism and the Lord's Supper are (1)
ordinances of 2) positive, and 3) sovereign 4) institution; 5) appointed by the 6)
Lord Jesus the only 7) law-giver, to be continued in his church to the end of the
world. In seven different ways, this brief paragraph places baptism and the
Lord's Supper into the realm of command. For Baptist sacramentology, this
was a fundamental element of their argument; William Kiffen called baptism
a "foundation ordinance." 3 Since baptism and the Supper are appointments
of Jesus Christ in His new covenant, they must be defined by the new cov-
enant Scriptures. It is inappropriate to define a new covenant ordinance by
primary reference to the old covenant Scriptures. As Mark 1.1 states, John
the Baptist came declaring the "beginning" of the gospel of Jesus Christ. His
baptism institutes the ordinance associated with the gospel.

1 Nehemiah Coxe uses the term "sacrament(al)"twice in his Discourse of the Covenants (once
to refer to the tree in the garden, the other referring to circumcision). Coxe, Discourse of
the Covenants, 22, 55. See also below. William Kiffen uses the term approximately thirty
times in his Sober Discourse of Right to Church Communion (London: George Larkin, 1681),
for example, calling baptism "the sacrament of spiritual birth," 2 3. In The Gospel Minister's
Maintenance Vindicated (London: John Harris, 1689), 122-23, (a book authorized for pub-
lication by the 1689 London General Assembly), the anonymous author(s) comment on 1
Corinthians 4.1-2, writing that gospel ministers are to dispense God's "Holy Sacraments and
Sacred Institutions." Examples may be easily multiplied.

2 Thomas Minge, Gospel Baptism (London: William Marshall, 1700), 42. Prefixed to Minge's
book is a unique and fascinating depiction of a "mathematical demonstration that (according
to the present Mode of Baptizing, commonly used by the People called Anabaptist) the
Person Baptized is plunged, or dipt, by the hands of the Administrator; even from the Crown
of the Head to the very Soles of the Feet."

3 Kiffen, Sober Discourse, 13.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I apologize, I copy/pasted with text from a couple of photographs I took with my phone. This is from Jim Renihan's exposition of the 1689 Confession, "To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: Baptist Symbolics Volume 2: A Contextual-Historical Exposition of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith" pages 537 and 538.

There's more on subsequent pages but this gives you the gist.

So there definitely was a purposeful shift: "The straightforward response is that ordinance was a handy word with powerful polemic implications."

I did come across the Kiffin/Kiffen quote (while trying to trace the "visible Church" to "visible saints" shift), but that work (Sober Discourse) was written after the Second LBC.

It seems like this still all comes back to the fact that these shifts in phraseology is all tied to the shift in how the covenants are viewed - in the footnoted Coxe reference, for example, it is admitted that the only time he uses the term "sacrament" is to describe OT evetns: "1 Nehemiah Coxe uses the term "sacrament(al)"twice in his Discourse of the Covenants (once to refer to the tree in the garden, the other referring to circumcision)."

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Hercules Collins, "An Orthodox Catechism"

The Sacraments - Lesson 25

Question 65:
It is by faith alone that we share in Christ and all his blessings:
where then does that faith come from?
Answer:
The Holy Spirit produces it in our hearts (a) by the preaching of
the holy gospel, (b) and confirms it through our use of the holy
sacraments.(c)

Question 66:
What are sacraments?
Answer:
Sacraments are holy signs and seals for us to see. They were
instituted by God so that by our use of them he might make us
understand more clearly the promise of the gospel, and might put
his seal on that promise. (a) And this is God's gospel promise: to
forgive our sins and give us eternal life by grace alone because
of Christ's one sacrifice finished on the cross. (b)

Question 67:
Are both the word and the sacraments then intended to focus our
faith on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as the only
ground of our salvation?
Answer:
Right! In the gospel the Holy Spirit teaches us and through the
holy sacraments he assures us that our entire salvation rests on
Christ's one sacrifice for us on the cross. (a)

Question 68:
How many sacraments did Christ institute in the New
Testament?
Answer:
Two: baptism and the Lord's Supper.(a)
[automerge]1771009136[/automerge]

So there definitely was a purposeful shift: "The straightforward response is that ordinance was a handy word with powerful polemic implications."

That wasn't in dispute, as far as I am aware.

I did come across the Kiffin/Kiffen quote (while trying to trace the "visible Church" to "visible saints" shift), but that work (Sober Discourse) was written after the Second LBC.

Ok? What does the fact that it was written after the 2LBCF matter?

It seems like this still all comes back to the fact that these shifts in phraseology is all tied to the shift in how the covenants are viewed - in the footnoted Coxe reference, for example, it is admitted that the only time he uses the term "sacrament" is to describe OT evetns: "1 Nehemiah Coxe uses the term "sacrament(al)"twice in his Discourse of the Covenants (once to refer to the tree in the garden, the other referring to circumcision)."

Ok? What of the 30+ times Kiffin referred to sacraments? Doesn't count because it was written after 1677? Is so, that doesn't follow.

Anyway, the long and the short of it is that the Particular Baptists mean the same thing for the ordinances / sacraments that the Presbyterians do. The fact that they wanted to emphasize the "ordinance" nature of the sacraments doesn't take away away the sacramental nature.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Hercules Collins, "An Orthodox Catechism"

What version/edition are you quoting from? This is different than the ones I've viewed (they don't have "Lessons," just the Q&A).

Although I don't approve of the tone in his article, R. Scott Clark has fairly well documented that this catechism is simply a work which co-opted as much of the Heidelberg as it could. So, yes, the Particular baptist version does retain many of the original terms, but saying "Particular Baptists mean the same thing for the ordinances / sacraments that the Presbyterians do" is an incredible statement! How can you state this while also agreeing that there was a definite, purposeful shift in terminology? Words have meaning: rite, ritual, ceremony, and ordinance may all be general synonyms for "sacrament," but they are still different words with different meanings.

What does the fact that it was written after the 2LBCF matter?

It suggests that perhaps there was a reaction to contemporary criticisms of the change in terminology - i.e. an attempt to return to the language of the WCF. Perhaps so the particular Baptists could say something like, "See, we mean the same thing for the ordinances / sacraments that the Presbyterians do."

The fact that they wanted to emphasize the "ordinance" nature of the sacraments doesn't take away away the sacramental nature.

Perhaps, but it does take away something by taking away the term. And the WCF uses both words, so, again, why jettison the one completely and leave the other? Furthermore, in Chapter 7 ("Of God's Covenant" - see 5&6) the WCF holds forth that there are many ordinances in both the time of the Law and in the time of the Gospel, but only Baptism and the Lord's Supper are sacraments. The 2nd LBC completely guts this chapter (stops after ¶3). Why?

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

What version/edition are you quoting from? This is different than the ones I've viewed (they don't have "Lessons," just the Q&A).

This is from a downloadable PDF from "Reformed Baptist Faith & Family Ministry", Knightstown, Indiana, circa 2014.

The one edited / published by Richard Barcellos in 2014 says the same thing for the questions and answers, except they are questions 64 - 67 instead of 65 - 68, and it's broken up into fewer topical "chapters" than the other one which has "lessons" that basically correspond to "Lord's Day X, Y" in the Heidelberg.

Although I don't approve of the tone in his article, R. Scott Clark has fairly well documented that this catechism is simply a work which co-opted as much of the Heidelberg as it could.

Yes. No one disputes that. That's in accordance with the general Particular Baptist tendency to use the generally common theological language as much as possible in order to demonstrate that the Particular Baptists really did believe essentially the same things that the Presbyterians and "Continental" Reformed did, except where explicitly noted. This is why the 1677 / 1689 Confession largely models the 1658 Savoy Declaration of Faith of Order, which was largely modelled on the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith, and why the "Keach's Catechism" (which wasn't written by Keach and is properly called "The Baptist Catechism") is largely modeled on the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

So, yes, the Particular baptist version does retain many of the original terms, but saying "Particular Baptists mean the same thing for the ordinances / sacraments that the Presbyterians do" is an incredible statement!

No, it's really not. It's weird to me that you find such simple and obvious things to be so unbelievable. So, I guess I find "this is an incredible statement" to be an incredible statement, in this case.

How can you state this while also agreeing that there was a definite, purposeful shift in terminology?

Because it's true. Your incredulity doesn't change the facts.

It suggests that perhaps there was a reaction to contemporary criticisms of the change in terminology

That's conjecture on your part.

Perhaps, but it does take away something by taking away the term.

No. That's an incredible statement.

And the WCF uses both words, so, again, why jettison the one completely and leave the other?

How has this not been answered already? I don't mean to be rude, but we're literally discussing the answer to this question. I don't want to simply repeat what I've already said.

Furthermore, in Chapter 7 ("Of God's Covenant" - see 5&6) the WCF holds forth that there are many ordinances in both the time of the Law and in the time of the Gospel, but only Baptism and the Lord's Supper are sacraments. The 2nd LBC completely guts this chapter (stops after ¶3). Why?

WCF Ch. 7 doesn't say "only Baptism and the Lord's Supper are sacraments". Yes, it CALLs them sacraments and neglects to explicitly call the OT ordinances sacraments, but are you asserting that the WCF teaches that the OT ordinances are NOT sacraments? Would you be surprised to find that many (if not most) Presbyterians consider some of those OT ordinances to be sacraments, despite them not being explicitly called such in WCF Ch. 7?

Lastly, I am getting a little tired of the general tendency of Presbyterians to say "no, you Baptists really don't believe XYZ" when we say "we believe XYZ". It's condescending and unbecoming, so stop it.

 

[paranymph]

Although I don't approve of the tone in his article, R. Scott Clark has fairly well documented that this catechism is simply a work which co-opted as much of the Heidelberg as it could. So, yes, the Particular baptist version does retain many of the original terms, but saying "Particular Baptists mean the same thing for the ordinances / sacraments that the Presbyterians do" is an incredible statement! How can you state this while also agreeing that there was a definite, purposeful shift in terminology? Words have meaning: rite, ritual, ceremony, and ordinance may all be general synonyms for "sacrament," but they are still different words with different meanings.

It's odd that you note the Orthodox Catechism is based off of Heidelberg, but somehow this is "co-opting" and you dismiss that they use the same terms. You see this as a strike against the Baptists? Collins used the word sacrament because he does wish to retain the word, as do the PBs. Why not render a judgment of charity that Collins does indeed believe in sacraments? It's like if we don't use the word "sacrament" we're accused of not believing in them. But if we use the word "sacrament" we're just co-opting to sneakily change the meaning of words? What is one to do?

It suggests that perhaps there was a reaction to contemporary criticisms of the change in terminology - i.e. an attempt to return to the language of the WCF. Perhaps so the particular Baptists could say something like, "See, we mean the same thing for the ordinances / sacraments that the Presbyterians do."

That's much speculation. There's a lot of history of which many are unaware (much of which I am too). I think Keach left London Association and later didn't adopt the 2LCF. I'm not a historical theologian and don't know the details of all that Keach believed. But I suggest not coming to simplistic conclusions.

Perhaps, but it does take away something by taking away the term. And the WCF uses both words, so, again, why jettison the one completely and leave the other? Furthermore, in Chapter 7 ("Of God's Covenant" - see 5&6) the WCF holds forth that there are many ordinances in both the time of the Law and in the time of the Gospel, but only Baptism and the Lord's Supper are sacraments. The 2nd LBC completely guts this chapter (stops after ¶3). Why?

They "gut" chapter 7 to present the covenants in a distinct manner. It is nothing new that we hold to a different CT. I wouldn't make an argument from Ch 7 lacking the word sacrament.

 

[MW]

This, as well as the replacement of "visible Church" in the WCF with "visible saints" in both the First (1646 - Ch.33) and Second (1689 - Ch.26.2) LBC, represents fundamental differences. The changes were purposeful alterations by Particular Baptists (even the Congregationalists in between maintained the term "visible church" at Savoy in 1658 - see Ch.26.2). And has been noted in past threads, the replacement of "sacrament" with "ordinance" is consistent throughout LBC catechisms as well their confessions. The Westminster Standards does see the sacraments as a type of ordinance, but they are holy and particular ordinances:
Q162: What is a sacrament?
A162: A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit... (WLC)

Respectfully, I'm not sure why current RB brethren keep using terms such as "visible Church" or "sacrament" to describe their positions when these terms were so purposefully and exactly removed from their confessional standards.

I wouldn't take it that far. People are entitled to adopt the language that best expresses their point of view. My only point was to clarify terms in light of the person claiming this was a "1689" thing. I don't see anything in the Confession that binds or necessitates the word. I suppose "ordinances" was adopted for the sake of consensus among a variety of opinions. But even where they use the word "sacrament" it is obvious they do not mean the same thing as we do. But then people surprise you from time to time.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Would you be surprised to find that many (if not most) Presbyterians consider some of those OT ordinances to be sacraments...

No - I worded that poorly. The WCF does, of course, explicitly teach that the OT ordinances are sacraments (27.5). I meant to communicate that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the only sacraments in the New Testament, over and against other ordinances like the preaching of the Word (7.6). In other words, I was trying to show that not all ordinances are sacraments.

That's conjecture on your part.

That's much speculation. There's a lot of history of which many are unaware (much of which I am too). I think Keach left London Association and later didn't adopt the 2LCF. I'm not a historical theologian and don't know the details of all that Keach believed.

Admittedly - thus I wrote "It suggests that perhaps...." But this is all conjecture regarding the word changes/choices from the WCF to the LBC as there seems to be no minutes or private diaries documenting the discussions that led to the latter (for example, how do we know "Collins used the word sacrament because he does wish to retain the word, as do the PBs."?). So I don't see any point in engaging further unless such resources exist and can be shared. I apologize if I have caused this thread to drift from the OP.

 

[Alive in Christ]

It is inconceivable to me that a Christian parent would not baptize their child. I think the conversation I would have with that person is getting to the root of the problem, which is how they view the visible church, and how they confuse the church with the elect.