No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Of course not. False professors who are baptized in water are by default not in the CofG. I am lost here: what is your point?
Last edited:
Credobaptist objection
- Thread starter bnjam
- Start date
- Status
Of course not. False professors who are baptized in water are by default not in the CofG. I am lost here: what is your point?
DNM300
Puritan Board Freshman
My entire point was in the post. The last paragraph especially.
No one is ever knife-circumcised really and intentionally into the CoG. No one is ever water-baptized really and intentionally into the CoG. I worked out some implications of that view.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Your last paragraph:
Your point still eludes me entirely.
Water baptism does not instate anyone into the CofG so count me for the "no" but you dropped "water" and then said "baptism never instates individuals into the CofG" which I would deny because the baptism of the Holy Spirit in regeneration from spiritual death to new birth does instate one into the CofG. And this is the seal of the NC, the thing signified by the sign of water baptism.
If you can clarify more, I would appreciate it. It doesn't bother me when we have disagreement. But it does bother me when we are not on the same page in understanding one another.
Your point still eludes me entirely.
Water baptism does not instate anyone into the CofG so count me for the "no" but you dropped "water" and then said "baptism never instates individuals into the CofG" which I would deny because the baptism of the Holy Spirit in regeneration from spiritual death to new birth does instate one into the CofG. And this is the seal of the NC, the thing signified by the sign of water baptism.
If you can clarify more, I would appreciate it. It doesn't bother me when we have disagreement. But it does bother me when we are not on the same page in understanding one another.
DNM300
Puritan Board Freshman
My point is to undercut the objection to infant water-baptism that goes like this.
Obj. you can’t water-baptize infants because they may not be elect (and thus not intentionally/substantially in the covenant).”
Ans. We have already established that water-baptism does not add to the covenant. Thus, I have not adjusted the mixture of the covenant by adding an unbeliever. To put it yet another way, I have not muddied the purity of the covenant, by adding an unbeliever. Because water baptism does not add to the covenant.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Are infants considered elect from eternity grounded in the secret counsel of the Covenant of Redemption?
Or elect from the faithful observance of the parents in the performance of the sacrament? Or something else?
DNM300
Puritan Board Freshman
The former would be my vote and understanding. But I confess I don’t see your point and understanding.
I haven't said anything about ALL elements. I have pointed out the ONE point where there is obvious correspondence: baptism saves YOU. Plural. That speaks of the covenant community. Yet you want to insist it is individual so as to remove the "Ham" element. You are introducing the "individual" application into the antitype from nowhere. That is where you need to come up with something more coherent. Evading the issue with protestations that you are coherent is not going to answer the issues raised.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
You know very well I have done more than merely protest my coherence. And as I read you here, you are misinterpreting my Post 248. After your initial post, I edited Post 248 for clarity and now you are objecting to something I am not even saying. If you are going to "test" my claims, please get my position correct first.
[automerge]1771619803[/automerge]
Ok I agree, therefore the objection you are answering in 274 is not an objection I raised or would raise. I would raise the objection that an elect infant is not justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone due to the limits of infancy,
Believe it or not, your objection (ironically) has been kind of raised and is ongoing in Baptist churches with ministers saying they will not baptize a professing believer without an evidentiary test first since they "may not truly be elect". I am in opposition to these as I find their position unbiblical.
Last edited:
Isn't the vital and important thing the Holy Spirit baptism unto us when saved to be part of the body of Christ and now into Jesus, and that is appropriate through saving faith in him?
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Even elect infants are not born professing saving faith. In God's timing and secrret counsel, the Spirit regenerates and saving faith professed is still entirely by his grace
14.1: "Saving faith is that grace of faith whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls. It is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,1 and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word;2 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.3"
1 2 Cor. 4:13; Eph. 2:8
2 Rom. 10:14,17
3 Luke 17:5; 1 Pet. 2:2; Acts 20:32
Last edited:
That is a very good point, as that would seem to be suggesting then that one must by and through faith receive that eternal life in Christ Jesus
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
In addition to my Post 248, (in case people are unaware of what is going on), I will add that the NC antitype must proceed on the basis of the established "new and better" principle. It would be incorrect for anyone out there to read in the book of Hebrews that Moses is a type of Christ and Aaron is a type of Christ, and then presume that any element of the type must carry forward into the antitype.
It would be a grievous error to say
"1) Moses is a type of Christ, and
2) Christ was perfect and sinless,
therefore Moses must be perfect and blameless". That conclusion does not follow from the true premises.
^That error is plain and obvious to all of us. Amen.
Now it would also be an error to say:
"1) Paul is addressing the believing community when he teaches the Red Sea is a type of baptism, and
2) we know that non-members of the believing community are among those saved in the OT type of baptism that is the Red Sea,
therefore there must be non-covenant members of the covenant community baptized". That conclusion does not follow from the true premises.
(And - as far as I know - no one here has made that argument)
Now when I said in Post 248, "While the type includes individuals known not to be elect, the anti-type can be applied to individuals that are elect and part of the covenant community Peter is addressing here, and the believing community Paul addressed in 1 Cor. 10."
This is not an argument. It is not a syllogism.
It is a feature among a larger argument. A tangential point among several points designed to make the case that the OT types of baptism are given in the NT and always inform about the nature of salvation (inside and outside) and the types of the Red Sea and the ark ALWAYS physically saves all those from physical death as a physical type representing an inside-and-outside spiritual reality of the baptism of the Holy Spirit into redeeming grace that ALWAYS saves all the elect foreknown, predestined, called, justified, adopted and sanctified /sanctifying by being-and-always-being filled with the Holy Ghost.
I hope that clarifies my reasoning more, not less.
It would be a grievous error to say
"1) Moses is a type of Christ, and
2) Christ was perfect and sinless,
therefore Moses must be perfect and blameless". That conclusion does not follow from the true premises.
^That error is plain and obvious to all of us. Amen.
Now it would also be an error to say:
"1) Paul is addressing the believing community when he teaches the Red Sea is a type of baptism, and
2) we know that non-members of the believing community are among those saved in the OT type of baptism that is the Red Sea,
therefore there must be non-covenant members of the covenant community baptized". That conclusion does not follow from the true premises.
(And - as far as I know - no one here has made that argument)
Now when I said in Post 248, "While the type includes individuals known not to be elect, the anti-type can be applied to individuals that are elect and part of the covenant community Peter is addressing here, and the believing community Paul addressed in 1 Cor. 10."
This is not an argument. It is not a syllogism.
It is a feature among a larger argument. A tangential point among several points designed to make the case that the OT types of baptism are given in the NT and always inform about the nature of salvation (inside and outside) and the types of the Red Sea and the ark ALWAYS physically saves all those from physical death as a physical type representing an inside-and-outside spiritual reality of the baptism of the Holy Spirit into redeeming grace that ALWAYS saves all the elect foreknown, predestined, called, justified, adopted and sanctified /sanctifying by being-and-always-being filled with the Holy Ghost.
I hope that clarifies my reasoning more, not less.
Last edited:
That is a long post. Maybe you can enlighten me as to the changes and tell me what has been materially altered in your argument. Or perhaps you can simply explain how you understand the plural "you," which was passed by in a previous post. Again, if it is the covenant community, that still contains the "Ham" element; hence the antitype still includes the mixture of non-elect with it. Nothing has changed in that department.
[automerge]1771624217[/automerge]
For those who hold one covenant of grace with different administrations, the "new and better" is in the administration as the covenant moves from type and shadow to reality and substance. It is especially in the removal of human mediators that the difference is observed. There is no substantial difference in the way the covenant is administered to a mixed multitude. That is clear from Hebrews itself, its warning passages, and its own articulation of people breaking the covenant.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Thank you for the forward-moving post.
Your response to my points are the classic Westminster interpretation of Hebrews (particularly chapters 6 and 10 if I recall). And you position is that proves the NC is made of mixed: visible (as specifically defined by WCF and the Standards) and invisible (I believe for "invisible" WCF and 1689 are in lockstep agreement). Am I getting you correctly?
I ask because I am about to head out until Monday and I simply want to have your meaning clear as I pray and read more over the weekend.
Your response to my points are the classic Westminster interpretation of Hebrews (particularly chapters 6 and 10 if I recall). And you position is that proves the NC is made of mixed: visible (as specifically defined by WCF and the Standards) and invisible (I believe for "invisible" WCF and 1689 are in lockstep agreement). Am I getting you correctly?
I ask because I am about to head out until Monday and I simply want to have your meaning clear as I pray and read more over the weekend.
Yes. But I would point out it is not distinctive of a Westminster view. "Baptists" have tended to understand it the same way. It has been a few years since I went through Hebrews, but I didn't detect anything unique from John Gill on this point. And when we think of it outside of the classic debate on paedobaptism, it makes sense that the "Baptist" emphasis on a "profession of faith" presupposes a mixed visible church, since people who are covenantally addressed as believers and warned as believers are not necessarily regenerate. This just brings me back to my earlier point -- that covenant theology really is not the point at issue. You have "Baptists" who have maintained a traditional Westminster view of the covenants, and you have paedobaptists who have been dispensational in theology.
The Community of faith, the local assemblies of Christians, though would include the wheats and tares among that body, but would it not be that those into the new Covenant must be there due to them having received Jesus as their savior and Lord by saving faith, and not by any rite that has been administered unto them?
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
No. Justification is by grace alone and this grace is known by the person through faith alone in Christ alone by His Word alone. It is God's work alone that brings the dead to life.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
I meant to come back Monday but our region's snowfall changed my plans and duties at home.
Amen.
Here is where we diverge (not only you and me but Dickson and well all of Westminster/Savoy splits from Gill and Keach and all of 1689 et al).
We do not affirm the CofG is administered to the non-elect at all.
Even if I agree there is one Covenant of Grace and different administrations before and after the Incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ, (which I do) yet I do not affirm that the physical administration spiritually included non-elect members of the covenant community. It never included Esau, Saul, Judas etc.
It is not illogical to say:
1) Moses in Deuteronomy or Paul in his epistles or Peter in his epistles or Hebrews- these all address the covenant community at large, the collection of "visible saints", the "visible church" and also,
2) every single passage in these books are meant for all together but only apply to each individual upon condition of their status of election.
What do I mean by 2?
2a) All warning passages apply to all members of the community - elect or non-elect.
If elect, it is unto their humble growth by revealing hidden sin, temptations, and drawing them to deeper dependence on God. If non-elect (or currently reprobate but will-be-revealed as elect), this Word works to the hardening or softening of their hearts as the Potter sees fit in His good pleasure.
However,
2b) all promises of grace and salvation only apply to the elect members of the local church/nation being addressed (or the local body reading it).
You keep bringing up 1 Peter 3 and insisting "baptism saves YOU (ye) (you all) PLURAL and that it is addressed to the covenant community."
Ok? Nowhere in any of my posts is it even hinted otherwise.
My "individual" comment only took into account that spiritually non-elect members where physically saved from physical death by a physical type of baptism (ark or Red Sea) but that individually, each piece of clay is either spiritually saved from spiritual death (Moses, Joshua, Caleb, etc) or not spiritually saved (Dathan and well, nearly everyone in the entire community at that time) by the hands and decree of God alone.
As @TheInquirer pointed out so many posts ago, your position here is quite baffling.
Are you claiming all members of a covenant community are saved (I am not talking justification here, quiet readers of these posts. Rev. Winzer believes justification is by God's grace alone) but baptism works as an effectual means of salvation unto ALL members of a covenant community regardless of if they are elect or non-elect?
That is contradictory in the very meaning of the terms "non-elect" and "effectual means". That just cannot be your point. I genuinely believe I must be missing something.
To say a non-elect member of the Old or New Covenant community can be saved by baptism into the Covenant of Grace for union with Christ is like saying a bachelor can be married into a covenant bond for union with his wife. When the truth of the latter state occurs, it eliminates wholly the truth of the former state. These cannot be simultaneous states.
Amen.
Here is where we diverge (not only you and me but Dickson and well all of Westminster/Savoy splits from Gill and Keach and all of 1689 et al).
We do not affirm the CofG is administered to the non-elect at all.
Even if I agree there is one Covenant of Grace and different administrations before and after the Incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ, (which I do) yet I do not affirm that the physical administration spiritually included non-elect members of the covenant community. It never included Esau, Saul, Judas etc.
It is not illogical to say:
1) Moses in Deuteronomy or Paul in his epistles or Peter in his epistles or Hebrews- these all address the covenant community at large, the collection of "visible saints", the "visible church" and also,
2) every single passage in these books are meant for all together but only apply to each individual upon condition of their status of election.
What do I mean by 2?
2a) All warning passages apply to all members of the community - elect or non-elect.
If elect, it is unto their humble growth by revealing hidden sin, temptations, and drawing them to deeper dependence on God. If non-elect (or currently reprobate but will-be-revealed as elect), this Word works to the hardening or softening of their hearts as the Potter sees fit in His good pleasure.
However,
2b) all promises of grace and salvation only apply to the elect members of the local church/nation being addressed (or the local body reading it).
You keep bringing up 1 Peter 3 and insisting "baptism saves YOU (ye) (you all) PLURAL and that it is addressed to the covenant community."
Ok? Nowhere in any of my posts is it even hinted otherwise.
My "individual" comment only took into account that spiritually non-elect members where physically saved from physical death by a physical type of baptism (ark or Red Sea) but that individually, each piece of clay is either spiritually saved from spiritual death (Moses, Joshua, Caleb, etc) or not spiritually saved (Dathan and well, nearly everyone in the entire community at that time) by the hands and decree of God alone.
As @TheInquirer pointed out so many posts ago, your position here is quite baffling.
Are you claiming all members of a covenant community are saved (I am not talking justification here, quiet readers of these posts. Rev. Winzer believes justification is by God's grace alone) but baptism works as an effectual means of salvation unto ALL members of a covenant community regardless of if they are elect or non-elect?
That is contradictory in the very meaning of the terms "non-elect" and "effectual means". That just cannot be your point. I genuinely believe I must be missing something.
To say a non-elect member of the Old or New Covenant community can be saved by baptism into the Covenant of Grace for union with Christ is like saying a bachelor can be married into a covenant bond for union with his wife. When the truth of the latter state occurs, it eliminates wholly the truth of the former state. These cannot be simultaneous states.
Last edited:
That aspect of water baptism being it seems at times as the entry way into the Covenant of Grace, into the new Covenant, that seems to me to be strange?
If baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, it is administering the covenant in some way. However you break that down is of little consequence, but there are non-elect to whom baptism is administered. We do not suppose they partake of the thing that baptism seals, for it seals salvation only to the elect. But they partake of the administration. For Presbyterians it is simple: the covenant is made with Christ and the elect in Him, but it is administered to elect and non-elect in the visible church. On your view there would have to be a restriction of some kind in relation to the "sign and seal." If so, it needs explanation. But either way, it does not matter. Why? I will say it again -- you have "elect infants" in the covenant of grace. All of this is a detour from the main point.
Then you need to explain what circumcision was NOT doing in their case. They certainly received the sign; the sign is a sign of the covenant of grace; and the "sign" is part of an administration. That doesn't leave you much space to deny the covenant was administered to them.
Warning them of what exactly? If the elect and non-elect are both being warned to ensure they do not lose what they have, it is obvious that the non-elect have something to lose. Because this is confined to the visible church it is clear it only pertains to what they hold in virtue of their visible connection with the church. But they hold it nonetheless. The "administration" has put them in possession of something that can be lost.
So you have warnings to all, but not promises to all. How do unbelievers come to believe the promises if the promises are not administered outwardly to all? Faith cometh by hearing. Many are called but few chosen. While in God's intention the thing promised (salvation) is designed for the elect alone, yet in His outward call He promises that thing (salvation) to those who are not elect if they will believe.
I understand it is confusing to someone who insists Peter is speaking about profession of faith; but, as I have shown repeatedly, Peter says baptism saves -- not the outward action alone, but as accompanied with real grace. There is an efficacy in baptism when the two are together -- he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved. The attempt has been made by some to claim that Peter means an outward profession of faith when he speaks of a good conscience. That cannot be true. An outward profession of faith does not save any more than an outward washing saves. When Peter speaks of a good conscience he means real faith. Not profession, but possession. Peter addresses the community of faith, who have received the outward washing, so as to assure them in their sufferings that the water has real meaning for them, and where connected with a good conscience (real faith) it will save them. The point is, baptism is not an empty sign. It means something for those with faith. It is a sign to the outward senses and it is a seal to faith. Now, elect infants are saved by the same covenant of grace that is administered to adults; there is no reason why they should be excluded from the administration of the covenant of grace. If the grace belongs to them, the sign belongs to them. This is not hard to understand; but I can appreciate it will be hard for an antipaedobaptist to accept. He has put himself in a framework of interpretation that binds him to think in terms of a profession of faith every time he sees the word baptism. But to see what Peter is saying he will have to think outside the box.
The covenant community is "visible." So far as the covenant of grace is administered visibly, all within the visible church partake of it, signs and all. That is, there is a visible sign of being saved. It is not man's sign; it is God's sign. Baptism is effectual to the saving of the souls of the elect alone; but the visible sign of salvation is broader than the elect. When Paul argued from baptism to a mortified life in Romans 6 he included everyone in Rome. Later he speaks to these same people about the possibility of being cut off from the olive tree, reminding them of God's severity as well as His goodness, and pointing to unbelieving Israel as a living example of it.
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
If you are referring to me, that is not what I said. I said the “appeal to God for a good conscience” sounds like credobaptism, meaning the connection between baptism and someone who has said they made that appeal to God for a good conscience. Baptizing an infant who clearly has made no appeal to God in any way does not fit the language used.
Matthew, the problem I see with your explanations is your entire system goes well beyond the language of Scripture in its formulation and it gets you into all kinds of trouble that you are trying to explain your way out of. If Scripture was really your ultimate authority and not historical theology, you would do far better. Time and again your words here show me that when push comes to shove, you seem to have a higher devotion to your system than the Word of God.
You are dangerously close to heresy with statements like that. At the least, words like that cause massive confusion around the very gospel itself.
Venator Veritatis
Puritan Board Freshman
Q. 161. How do the Sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The Sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered; but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ by whom they are instituted
Am I missing something? The statement made does not seem off the mark from what is stated in the Larger Catechism.
Granted I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but I've been following this thread from the beginning and I'm fairly confident I can understand what's being asserted by both sides.
A. The Sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered; but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ by whom they are instituted
Am I missing something? The statement made does not seem off the mark from what is stated in the Larger Catechism.
Granted I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but I've been following this thread from the beginning and I'm fairly confident I can understand what's being asserted by both sides.
You say that is not what you said and repeat the same thing by referring it to "someone who has said." Someone who has said something has made a profession. Once again, the antipaedobaptist framework is blinding.
I have explained Scripture and nothing but Scripture without recourse to foreign elements like "profession of faith." It is understandable why that is distasteful to you. If you would like to critique what I said, please do. My words are written for you to do so; but simply dismissing what I say time and time again is not an answer.
The Westminster Standards are "close to heresy" now? I will put that down to the antipaedobaptist framework again.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
As @TheInquirer said earlier, that isn't me either. Let me tell you what I think of everytime I see the word "baptism": Spirit-baptism saves all the elect and seals into the New Covenant and water-baptism is a sign of that seal, that thing signified.
Once when I was naive and didn't know the WCF, I thought paedobaptists believed the same thing as we do, but simply reversed the timing of it. Baptizing infants in faith of a future Spirit-baptism that will seal them into the Covenant of Grace. Then I learned WCF teaches water-baptism is the seal of the New Covenant itself, and then I was utterly confused and probably will be until the day I die.
Let's be fair, my friend, he said "saves" not "justifies" and we affirm this in our Standards as well. (Baptist Catechism Q96)
Now I do agree with you: "HOW does baptism save the non-elect?" is a question that is not being answered here and is being dodged.
In the Old: how does circumcision in the flesh enter the OT infants into the Covenant of Grace when that somehow includes Esau, Saul, Ahab and other non-elects that are or were entered into the Covenant of Grace // and yet not saved by grace? I don't get it.
We take the fact that since they were not saved by grace then it is proof positive that circumcision of the flesh neither saves nor enters one into the Covenant of Grace.
But yet, it does enter them into a covenant: the Old Covenant.
def "Old Covenant" - "Circumcised into the household of covenant membership by the faith of Abraham, this Covenant includes the moral, natural commands of 'do this and live' (that even uncircumcised nations are morally responsible for) while also - and in addition to - committing the members of this covenant to the full range of modes of administration including the full Law of Sinai and all blessings and cursings."
This is different from the New Covenant.
def. "New Covenant/ Covenant of Grace" - "Grounded in the Covenant of Redemption and evidenced by a faith* whose object is the promised work of Christ who is to come (OT days) and thereby counted for righteousness unto all OT saints // or the finished work of Christ (NT days). Baptism in the Holy Spirit is its NC seal and water-baptism a sign and sacrament thereof."
[NOTE: * Such evidence of faith comes in the form of obedience to YHWH's commands attending the OC but also a love and an eagerness for humility in the face of following YHWH covenant LORD God of Israel]
[NOTE: all definitions are my own. I have based them extensively on reading Reformed theology sources and Muller's DLGTT but I allow for the possibility of tweaking that may need to be done and am OPEN to such suggestions
]Any paedobaptsist is free to answer: HOW does circumcision in the flesh/water baptism into the Old / New Covenant save the non-elect (when non-elect by definition are not saved) without it being a contradiction?
The reasoning here is beyond me and I have read nothing to suggest that we have erred in our explanation: that circumcision of the flesh was always into the Old Covenant and not the Covenant of Grace.
How could there be any definition of "New Covenant" or "Covenant of Grace" that includes non-elect? There can't be since God's grace by definition never fails!
He is the God who will always be faithful to complete the good work started in all of us.
And by the way, Baptism in the Spirit never fails! That is why the seal of the New Covenant is a new and better seal than circumcision of the flesh was for the Old.
Last edited:
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
So you are saying:
"(Water) baptism is effectual to the saving of the souls of the elect alone, but the visible sign of salvation (water baptism) is broader than the elect (thus would include the non-elect where water baptism does not effectually save)".
This seems nonsensical. But please show me how I am misreading you?
We would say: "Spirit-baptism is effectual to the saving of the souls of the elect alone; but the visible sign of salvation (water baptism) is broader than the elect (and could include false professors who are by definition BOTH non-elect and thereby NOT Spirit-baptized)."
1) When Paul argued from baptism to a mortified life in Romans 6 he included everyone in Rome. Amen.
2) Later he speaks to these same people about the possibility of being cut off from the olive tree, reminding them of God's severity as well as His goodness, and pointing to unbelieving Israel as a living example of it. Amen.
How can I disagree with the bolded and agree with the non-bolded portions of your post? I don't know. Your position is confusing.
Why I agree to the non-bolded:
A) For the elect in Rome, the promises and warnings serve as faith-increasing and growth in holiness through the Spirit that indwells them and breathed these words for their edification based on His work in and upon them. Amen.
B) For the non-elect in Rome, a call to repentance in which hearing the Word of God they will either get harder in heart to the praise of God's justice or softer and regenerated by the Spirit into new life to the praise of God's grace.
Last edited:
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
I'm confused, please clarify - are you saying water-baptism is a sign but circumcision was a seal? That seems to be what you are saying at first, but taking these 2 quotes together, you seem to then also be saying they are both seals. But you also say "Spirit-baptism... seals."
The WCF position in Ch.27 is that the sacraments of both the Old and New Covenants were/are "holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace." For example, circumcision is called both a sign and seal in Scripture (Romans 4.11). They are not bare tokens or tests of our Christian profession. The names and the properties of the things signified are given to the Sacramental signs - circumcision is called "the Covenant" in Genesis 17.10; the bread is called "the Body of Christ" in Matthew 26.26; baptism is called "the washing of regeneration" in Titus 3.5. (all emphasis mine)
The sacraments confirm things spiritual to believers. This does not happen to those who are not truly believers. This is why, for example, the WCF states that one of the reasons the Lord's Supper was instituted was for "the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers," (Ch.29.1). The efficacy of a sacrament depends upon the work of the Spirit. Yes, this is in many ways a mystery - the word "sacrament" is simply the Latin word used to translate the Greek "mystery" in Scripture so, despite previous protestations, there really is a difference between seeing these signs and seals as ordinances vs. sacraments.
Another way to consider it (I admit this goes beyond explicit Confessional statements, but I believe it is implied) is that signs are external: "to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world" whereas seals are internal, known only by God: "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his." ( 2 Timothy 2.19). Again, as Paul points out in Romans 4.11, after Abraham "received the sign of circumcision [external], as the seal of the righteousness of the faith [internal] which he had." Thus the WCF in the chapter on "Adoption" (Ch.12) states that the elect (true believers) are "sealed to the day of redemption" (quoting Ephesians 4.30), which is repeated in Chapter 18 ("Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation") when it speaks of the elect being "sealed to the day of redemption."
How is that promise any different than what is offered to the one outside of a covenant family/non-baptized?
Isn't there a promise to anyone that God would pour out the Spirit on the one who repents and believes?
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
I asked this same thing pages ago. There either has to be a good faith reply to this question sometime or just a handshake here and an agreement to "disagree".
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
Of course baptism in the Holy Spirit seals and water baptism is a sign. I am unsure how that could be clearer?
Water baptism is not *the* washing of regeneration else the water itself would save and Peter says specifically that the water of water baptism does not save:
"Baptism, which corresponds to this [Noah's ark], now saves you, *not as a removal of dirt from the body* but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ..."
It is the baptism in the Holy Spirit that saves, amen, and that baptism perfectly saves into the Covenant of Grace even if that seal is never signified by a water baptism (eg the thief on the cross).
- Status
