Credobaptist objection

[DNM300]

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?

In the book of acts, where the preaching went (preaching of these objective promises), the baptisms went. Notice I’m not talking about coffee table 1 on 1 evangelism but official, ministerial preaching. The unreached people do not have the promises and thus they do not have baptism which seals those promises.

I don’t have time to develop it now. But the answer is in a certain understanding of acts 2.39. When God calls those who are far off (by preaching), then the promises will be theirs also. Cuthbert Sidenham deals well with this.

 

[YorbaYeoman]

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".

Is post #296 not a good faith reply on this score? I would read it as such.

 

[No Other Name]

Is post #296 not a good faith reply on this score? I would read it as such.

I was referring to the poster in question but regardless of that: no, Post 296 does not answer this in terms of the "seal" as defined by WCF. It opens more questions than it answers.

If it is true that:

The sacraments confirm things spiritual to believers. This does not happen to those who are not truly believers.

we are happy to agree while yet still facing a difference in meaning to what "things spiritual" are confirmed to believers.

While one can say:

The efficacy of a sacrament depends upon the work of the Spirit.

and we can say "Amen" yet we are confirming this in a different manner. I confirm it with my definition of "sacrament" from Muller which includes believing in its one-way implementation on a one-way recipient, but you all somehow do not. (And yet, we get eyes rolled at us again for not being "truly sacramental") when it is said:

despite previous protestations, there really is a difference between seeing these signs and seals as ordinances vs. sacraments.

Whatever at this point. I mean never mind water baptism is BOTH ordinance and sacrament, and I thought it was agreed long ago here that while we do not share the same nature of the sacramental union we do share the fact of the sacramental union but it seems some will not allow for that in our own beliefs.

And while Post 296 argues:

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:

it misses the fact that

1) we agree

and

2) it is WCF that calls water baptism BOTH seal and sign, not us.

The rest of the Scriptures we affirm but obviously read them in the different NT economy here:

BOTTOM LINE for those who read in spurts and do not consider the whole of what I post:

[We believe Spirit-baptism is regeneration of the Spirit unto the once-dead and newly born again. Water baptism is the visible sign of the Spirit's seal and His invisible work.]

You all believe:

Water baptism is the seal and water baptism is the visible sign of ... I don't know. I can't finish this without possibly misrepresenting your belief.

Let the next post do it:

Circumcision seals (think, guarantees or confirms) this objective promise: God will count faith as righteousness.

with no answer given yet as to what about Esau? (here is where Rev. Winzer constantly dodges by saying "What is the chaff to the wheat?")

But the question stands. It is a meaningful question by way of defining terms with precise meaning:

If circumcision of the flesh itself is the seal and sign into the CofG (sorry the administration of the CofG - whatever that means) and it guarantees or confirms the promise of God's grace and a faith counted unto righteousness, then how doesn't Esau, Saul, and Ahab et al count as a pause on this language and a re-assessment as to terms and definitions here?

Baptism seals this objective promise: God will pour out the Holy Spirit on those who repent and believe

with no answer given yet as to what about infants not born to a covenant home or born into a Baptist home? What does the baptized infant have in a spiritual way that a non-baptized infant lacks?

So no, Post 296 did not answer these ongoing questions.
[automerge]1772043860[/automerge]

Is post #296 not a good faith reply on this score? I would read it as such.

But do NOT just take my word for it, if you believe I missed the point in 296 or anywhere, please supply the answer. Directly and to the point. It would be most welcome and refreshing in a way that I am not used to here. (It is why I even liked Post 296 because it was direct even though I am still murky on how water baptism works according to WCF). Is it equivalent to Spirit-baptism? Timed out in an "already"/"not yet" way? No one has been clear, and if it could just be clear it would be easier to shake hands and agree to disagree on whatever definition or interpretation whereupon we diverge.

 

[DNM300]

with no answer given yet as to what about Esau? (here is where Rev. Winzer constantly dodges by saying "What is the chaff to the wheat?")

I am maintaining that Esau, Ahab, etc. had the terms of the CoG of published to them. Circumcision was an occasion for this, a means of doing this, and sealed the terms/promise: if you believe, God will give you righteousness.

This answers this inquiry:

If circumcision of the flesh itself is the seal and sign into the CofG (sorry the administration of the CofG - whatever that means) and it guarantees or confirms the promise of God's grace and a faith counted unto righteousness, then how doesn't Esau, Saul, and Ahab et al count as a pause on this language and a re-assessment as to terms and definitions here?

- - - -

with no answer given yet as to what about infants not born to a covenant home

They have no promise of salvation. God never promises to unbelievers as such and their seed.

born into a Baptist home?

For my part, I take them to be unrecognized covenant children. Parents and Ministers ought to recognize them and give them the sign.

What does the baptized infant have in a spiritual way that a non-baptized infant lacks?

The secret things belong to God.

 

[No Other Name]

I am maintaining that Esau, Ahab, etc. had the terms of the CoG of published to them. Circumcision was an occasion for this, a means of doing this, and sealed the terms/promise: if you believe, God will give you righteousness.

This answers this inquiry:

- - - -

They have no promise of salvation. God never promises to unbelievers as such and their seed.


For my part, I take them to be unrecognized covenant children. Parents and Ministers ought to recognize them and give them the sign.

The secret things belong to God.

For you, I am happy to just say I agree to disagree and move on.

I am happy to do that with any and all here except there always ends up comments that I am not so keen on parting ways as if all is good. eg, Baptists - despite protestations - are not truly sacramental in their baptismal views etc.

 

[DNM300]

They have no promise of salvation. God never promises to unbelievers as such and their seed.

When I say they “have” no promise, I mean they literally don’t possess it. If their parents are believers, then they give the promises to the children and then the children possess. If the parents don’t believe, then they don’t give the promises to their children and the children thus are without the knowledge of the promise.

God regenerates and justifies the ungodly. Romans 4:5. Thanks be to God. But he promises to “save” believers. Hebrews 10:39.

I say all this just for clarity, and so I’m not thought to deny the glorious truth of Romans 4.5 Luke 19.10

 

[Northern Crofter]

Of course baptism in the Holy Spirit seals and water baptism is a sign. I am unsure how that could be clearer?

First, thank you for continuing with this thread, brother - please don't throw up your hands just yet! It is not clear (to me at least) because you said:

...the seal of the New Covenant is a new and better seal than circumcision of the flesh was for the Old.

So I'm afraid I'm still confused - in your system, what is "the seal of the New Covenant"?

It seems like it can't be water baptism because you stated "water baptism is a sign" and you also stated "it is WCF that calls water baptism BOTH seal and sign, not us." (your emphasis)

It seems like it can't be the baptism of the Holy Spirit if you claim "the seal the New Covenant is a new and better seal than circumcision of the flesh was for the Old" since in both covenants it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that saves (which is the position of the 2LBC Ch.7, yes?: "...it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe. This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality." my emphasis added). This seems at odds with your view (in post #294 for example) that the Covenant of Grace = the New Covenant:


I thought, despite the different wording, the 2LBC agreed with the WCF that there is 1 covenant of grace dispensed differently in the 2 administrations/testaments (or as the WCF puts it, in Ch.7: "This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law and in the time of the gospel...."). Am I reading Ch.7 in the 2LBC incorrectly? Do you agree there is only 1 covenant of grace which began immediately after the fall of our first parents?

 

[DNM300]

I thought, despite the different wording, the 2LBC agreed with the WCF that there is 1 covenant of grace dispensed differently in the 2 administrations/testaments

Having read a little bit in 1689 literature (Coxe, Renihan, Denault), I’m convinced that they have a “revealed - administered” distinction. I believe every revelation was in some sense an administration.

 

[Northern Crofter]

You all believe:

Water baptism is the seal and water baptism is the visible sign of ... I don't know. I can't finish this without possibly misrepresenting your belief.

I think we all pretty clearly and publicly believe: "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time."

 

[DNM300]

Having read a little bit in 1689 literature (Coxe, Renihan, Denault), I’m convinced that they have a “revealed - administered” distinction. I believe every revelation was in some sense an administration.

https://heidelblog.net/2022/09/engaging-confessional-baptists-on-covenant-theology-part-1-typology/

H. Perkins has a useful 2 part overview. I’m attaching for interested readers. Not homework for anyone!

 

[Northern Crofter]

Having read a little bit in 1689 literature (Coxe, Renihan, Denault), I’m convinced that they have a “revealed - administered” distinction. I believe every revelation was in some sense an administration.

That is interesting as the term "administered" is nowhere used in that context anywhere in the 2LBC, and yet in the Chapter 20 (Of the Gospel, and of the Extent of the Grace) it states that "The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth
the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance; in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners." (my emphasis added). In other words, it is saying the substance of the Covenant of Grace was "revealed" from the time of our first parents. The idea of different administration is something that is in the WCF, not the 2LBC: "This covenant [of grace] was differently administered in the time of the law and in the time of the gospel" (WCF 7.5).
[automerge]1772048854[/automerge]

https://heidelblog.net/2022/09/engaging-confessional-baptists-on-covenant-theology-part-1-typology/

H. Perkins has a useful 2 part overview. I’m attaching for interested readers. Not homework for anyone!

Well, it's homework for me now!

 

[No Other Name]

So I'm afraid I'm still confused - in your system, what is "the seal of the New Covenant"?

It seems like it can't be water baptism because you stated "water baptism is a sign" and you also stated "it is WCF that calls water baptism BOTH seal and sign, not us." (your emphasis)

It seems like it can't be the baptism of the Holy Spirit if you claim "the seal the New Covenant is a new and better seal than circumcision of the flesh was for the Old" since in both covenants it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit that saves

No, not both covenants. I do affirm 1 CofG from Eden onward. The baptism of the Holy Spirit saves into the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant. OT saints are in the CofG and they do have the gospel revealed and the Holy Spirit working in them but they do not have the promise of Christ's finished work and the consummation of Pentecost fulfilled. Thus the OT demands their saving faith granted by God's grace is exhibited by works within the OC economy proper.

Those in the OC but not in the CofG, (Esau, Ahab et al) are in the household membership of Abraham's faith and the blessings/cursings for obedience/disobedience upon them will be honored by God physically even if not spiritually due to their lack of God's grace unto salvation.
[automerge]1772049287[/automerge]

but they do not have the promise of Christ's finished work

EDIT for clarity: they DO have the promise of Christ's coming work as opposed to his finished work meaning the OT saints still have to offer bulls, goats, rams, etc. and have to circumcise male infants on day 8 etc. whereas NT saints do not now.

 

[MW]

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.

What stops you from baptising infants? There is certainly no command to that effect. It is your theology of profession of faith. Infants can't make a profession of faith. If you go back many pages in this thread you will see where this becomes front and centre. And then wherever faith is connected in the NT it is replaced with "profession of faith" as a necessary prerequisite to baptism. That is basic antipaeodbaptist thinking. It is imposed on top of what the Bible says about baptism and faith.

Now here you seem to be saying baptism is a sign of a seal. You won't find this idea anywhere in the Bible. It is nonsensical. The words sign and seal in Rom. 4 come from the word "token" in Gen 17. They are the same thing functioning in two ways. The sign is obviously placed in the flesh of the circumcised. This sign also seals righteousness by faith where faith is a reality. It is a sign to the senses and a seal to faith. This is the "token" of the covenant.

In Acts, Spirit-baptism is clearly indicated to be an event in the history of the church. Turning it into a theology of individual salvation will make no sense of what the Scriptures teach on this point. It is epochal in nature. Here again one has to make up theology and connect it to baptism.

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 makes no sense. The language of sign and seal in Rom 4 comes from Gen 17, and what applies to Abraham concerns his seed. This leads the apostle to explain that the things signified and sealed -- righteousness by faith -- is not only for those who are circumcised but for the uncircumcised as well. If you make this another covenant you have lost the language of signs and seals of the covenant, which is founded on Rom 4 using Gen 17. Besides this, you now have two covenants made with Abraham and one of them binds him to "do this and live." The poor man must have been very confused as to whether he should seek salvation by works or by faith.

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."

The new covenant gives faith. It is not evidenced by faith. And we have already established pages ago that faith was given to the OT saints, including elect infants. So this definition does nothing for the discussion and it certainly does not exclude elect infants.

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?

We distinguish between external and internal covenant membership. It is what is taught in Romans 9-11. Of course, if you believe that was the "old covenant," and it is entirely unrelated to the "new covenant," you will have great difficulty showing how Romans 9-11 has any application to the Gentile Christians in Rome.

 

[No Other Name]

What stops you from baptising infants? There is certainly no command to that effect. It is your theology of profession of faith. Infants can't make a profession of faith. If you go back many pages in this thread you will see where this becomes front and centre. And then wherever faith is connected in the NT it is replaced with "profession of faith" as a necessary prerequisite to baptism. That is basic antipaeodbaptist thinking. It is imposed on top of what the Bible says about baptism and faith.

Now here you seem to be saying baptism is a sign of a seal. You won't find this idea anywhere in the Bible. It is nonsensical. The words sign and seal in Rom. 4 come from the word "token" in Gen 17. They are the same thing functioning in two ways. The sign is obviously placed in the flesh of the circumcised. This sign also seals righteousness by faith where faith is a reality. It is a sign to the senses and a seal to faith. This is the "token" of the covenant.

In Acts, Spirit-baptism is clearly indicated to be an event in the history of the church. Turning it into a theology of individual salvation will make no sense of what the Scriptures teach on this point. It is epochal in nature. Here again one has to make up theology and connect it to baptism.



This makes no sense. The language of sign and seal in Rom 4 comes from Gen 17, and what applies to Abraham concerns his seed. This leads the apostle to explain that the things signified and sealed -- righteousness by faith -- is not only for those who are circumcised but for the uncircumcised as well. If you make this another covenant you have lost the language of signs and seals of the covenant, which is founded on Rom 4 using Gen 17. Besides this, you now have two covenants made with Abraham and one of them binds him to "do this and live." The poor man must have been very confused as to whether he should seek salvation by works or by faith.




The new covenant gives faith. It is not evidenced by faith. And we have already established pages ago that faith was given to the OT saints, including elect infants. So this definition does nothing for the discussion and it certainly does not exclude elect infants.



We distinguish between external and internal covenant membership. It is what is taught in Romans 9-11. Of course, if you believe that was the "old covenant," and it is entirely unrelated to the "new covenant," you will have great difficulty showing how Romans 9-11 has any application to the Gentile Christians in Rome.

What a fascinating twist on what I said and what I meant. All oddities mixed with statements you make that I do concur with clearly, such as: "the NC gives faith and is not evidenced by faith".

I am happy to consider us at a point where we agree to disagree as well.

 

[MW]

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?

All you have said is that it seems nonsensical. You have to show me how you are reading me for me to be able to show you how you are misreading me.

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)."

If water baptism is a sign of salvation then baptism is a part of the administration of the covenant of grace. If this is administered to "false professors" who are non-elect, you have a category where the covenant of grace is administered to the non-elect. If not, you have to come up with some magical solution by which the "elect" are somehow in the administration and the "non-elect" are excluded.

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.

But they are both included in the promises and warnings of the covenant. That is my point. There is no basis for extending warnings, but not promises.

 

[No Other Name]

All you have said is that it seems nonsensical. You have to show me how you are reading me for me to be able to show you how you are misreading me.

Oh this is a fair question.

If water baptism is a sign of salvation then baptism is a part of the administration of the covenant of grace. If this is administered to "false professors" who are non-elect, you have a category where the covenant of grace is administered to the non-elect. If not, you have to come up with some magical solution by which the "elect" are somehow in the administration and the "non-elect" are excluded.

Oh I see a point here where we are in disconnect.

But they are both included in the promises and warnings of the covenant. That is my point. There is no basis for extending warnings, but not promises.

And again, another branch for possible fruitful discourse.

Ok I officially withdraw my earlier statement that I am happy to consider us at a point where we agree to disagree.
[automerge]1772050602[/automerge]
However, my day is ending and I am heading home and I never take PB home with me (well debate-wise, other things like prayers and messaging I can and have opened up for at home).

So on my end, I will return with my thoughts on your last post.

God bless you and all here

 

[YeshuaFan]

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.

That sounds very close to effectual gracing as Rome sees it as being, or maybe more in line with how those such as NT Wright state water baptism is the entry way into the Kingdom?

 

[faithandfreedom]

That sounds very close to effectual gracing as Rome sees it as being, or maybe more in line with how those such as NT Wright state water baptism is the entry way into the Kingdom?

The difference being that @MW is not saying that Baptism works ex opere operato. The Reformed view of Baptism is going to sound very similar to the RC view, because the difference is subtle. That’s what makes the RC error dangerous.

 

[Northern Crofter]

No, not both covenants. I do affirm 1 CofG from Eden onward. The baptism of the Holy Spirit saves into the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant. OT saints are in the CofG and they do have the gospel revealed and the Holy Spirit working in them but they do not have the promise of Christ's finished work and the consummation of Pentecost fulfilled. Thus the OT demands their saving faith granted by God's grace is exhibited by works within the OC economy proper.

Those in the OC but not in the CofG, (Esau, Ahab et al) are in the household membership of Abraham's faith and the blessings/cursings for obedience/disobedience upon them will be honored by God physically even if not spiritually due to their lack of God's grace unto salvation.
[automerge]1772049287[/automerge]


EDIT for clarity: they DO have the promise of Christ's coming work as opposed to his finished work meaning the OT saints still have to offer bulls, goats, rams, etc. and have to circumcise male infants on day 8 etc. whereas NT saints do not now.

I think I finally have a grasp of your system. And I guess this is where I just say "I agree to disagree" and move on!

In parting, I do want to leave you with this thought. Much of the focus in your system is on the individual being baptised. But it is worth considering the issue from a collective lens. Baptism of a child is also of benefit to the believing parent - there is a reward for obedience (and a punishment for disobedience - God was going to kill Moses for not circumcising his son). In other words, there is a third way to look at Acts 2.39 (echoing the corporate covenant of Sinai). I'm afraid our Western individualism often keeps us from such considerations.

 

[No Other Name]

I think I finally have a grasp of your system.

I honestly doubt it. I think you gained more understanding in the general 1689 continuity/discontinuity of covenants and signs and seals thereto, (some outliers out there notwithstanding) but still are not seeing the full extent (proof would be the utterly baffling way you remind me of the parents when I myself addressed the faith of the parents being a sanctifying grace in earlier posts and you look at "Western individualism?" and see baptism as if baptism is only collective and there is no individuation at all in the sacrament?) I don't know and I don't get it but am also happy to fistbump and move on til next time.
[automerge]1772107703[/automerge]

All you have said is that it seems nonsensical. You have to show me how you are reading me for me to be able to show you how you are misreading me.

I am only to take on this one point and that is all for now.

You are wrong when you assert "all I said" was that it is nonsensical. You are very smart and you know full well what my argument and challenge is here:

How can a non-elect person (eg. Esau, Saul, Ahab) be circumcised into the CofG in the OT and not have God's grace unto salvation? How can a non-elect person (eg. a false teacher among a church whose lampstand is threatened to be removed) be baptized into the CofG in the NT and not have God's grace unto salvation?

Is it because the definition of the covenant of grace is different from Westminster to 1689? Or is it because the definition of baptism is different from Westminster to 1689? Or both? Or both and other factors as well?

 

[No Other Name]

To all here:

Even the most complex systems can be explained in its essence to a normal 12-year-old child. Keep it simple. Keep it straightforward. It can be long though. Especially in my posts where I am trying to show the whole picture from Eden onward, that takes some space no doubt, that is the nature of it.

Also I have tried to put everything in my own words and not block-quote 1689 or Jim Renihan or John Gill or whomever. And that does open up possibilities for misunderstanding or unintentional confusion. If there has been any on my part in my posting, I am genuinely sorry and promise wholeheartedly that my intent was the exact opposite of confusion or obfuscation.

 

[Northern Crofter]

https://heidelblog.net/2022/09/engaging-confessional-baptists-on-covenant-theology-part-1-typology/

H. Perkins has a useful 2 part overview. I’m attaching for interested readers. Not homework for anyone!

That was very helpful - I second this recommendation to understand the essential difference between the 2 systems of thought.

 

[MarrowMan]

I honestly doubt it. I think you gained more understanding in the general 1689 continuity/discontinuity of covenants and signs and seals thereto, (some outliers out there notwithstanding) but still are not seeing the full extent (proof would be the utterly baffling way you remind me of the parents when I myself addressed the faith of the parents being a sanctifying grace in earlier posts and you look at "Western individualism?" and see baptism as if baptism is only collective and there is no individuation at all in the sacrament?) I don't know and I don't get it but am also happy to fistbump and move on til next time.
[automerge]1772107703[/automerge]


I am only to take on this one point and that is all for now.

You are wrong when you assert "all I said" was that it is nonsensical. You are very smart and you know full well what my argument and challenge is here:

How can a non-elect person (eg. Esau, Saul, Ahab) be circumcised into the CofG in the OT and not have God's grace unto salvation? How can a non-elect person (eg. a false teacher among a church whose lampstand is threatened to be removed) be baptized into the CofG in the NT and not have God's grace unto salvation?

Is it because the definition of the covenant of grace is different from Westminster to 1689? Or is it because the definition of baptism is different from Westminster to 1689? Or both? Or both and other factors as well?

To be quite frank, your question has been answered in this thread repeatedly. You may reject the answer, but that doesn't make it a non answer. In the Reformed system, there is an external participation and an internal participation. It is possible to be externally related to the covenant by means of being in the covenant community and under its administration without possessing the substance of it. It is possible to be under its legal strictures and participate/experience some blessing per that external relationship without possessing the fulness of its substance and reality. That is an answer, you just don't agree.

 

[Northern Crofter]

...as if baptism is only collective and there is no individuation at all in the sacrament?

Slow down a bit and read more carefully and graciously - I'll add some emphasis to help:

Baptism of a child is also of benefit to the believing parent

I think you gained more understanding in the general 1689 continuity/discontinuity of covenants and signs and seals thereto, (some outliers out there notwithstanding) but still are not seeing the full extent...

Right - I think that's the definition of having "a grasp."

Fistbump accepted, brother!

 

[No Other Name]

To be quite frank, your question has been answered in this thread repeatedly. You may reject the answer, but that doesn't make it a non answer. In the Reformed system, there is an external participation and an internal participation. It is possible to be externally related to the covenant by means of being in the covenant community and under its administration without possessing the substance of it. It is possible to be under its legal strictures and participate/experience some blessing per that external relationship without possessing the fulness of its substance and reality. That is an answer, you just don't agree.

To be equally as frank, I have already said that answer begs more questions than it resolves. What does it mean to be an external participant but not an internal participant if not delineated from the physical and spiritual bifurcation?

I have already admitted the non-elect is within the physical parameters of covenant promises of the physical nature without being blessed by God's grace as to the promises of the spiritual nature.

I also then asked for how that non-elect can be considered in the CofG by definition. I have not received a clear answer nor even a definition that differs from my own.

Now it is possible that an answer may have open-ended points of further inquiry without being a non-answer itself. But I haven't seen what it is, particularly from the one I quoted.

 

[MarrowMan]

To be equally as frank, I have already said that answer begs more questions than it resolves. What does it mean to be an external participant but not an internal participant if not delineated from the physical and spiritual bifurcation?

I have already admitted the non-elect is within the physical parameters of covenant promises of the physical nature without being blessed by God's grace as to the promises of the spiritual nature.

I also then asked for how that non-elect can be considered in the CofG by definition. I have not received a clear answer nor even a definition that differs from my own.

Now it is possible that an answer may have open-ended points of further inquiry without being a non-answer itself. But I haven't seen what it is, particularly from the one I quoted.

To be under its administration is to be in the Covenant. We don’t bifurcate between administration and the CoG as you do. It is in this fashion that the non-elect can be in the Covenant. The following is, of course, a matter of discussion and disagreement but I’m speaking for understanding not convincing. Israel provides a template for understanding for us. A non-elect, unbelieving Jew was still in/under the Mosiac covenant and experienced some blessing through that membership by virtue of being a member of the covenant. Those blessings were spiritual in the sense of their origin - God’s relation to His covenant people. It is Hebrews 6. If one does not see Hebrews 6 as hypothetical for the non-elect, but as a warning with real teeth, it is plainly evident that one can experience these blessings and fall away because the legal/administrative relationship to the Covenant puts one in the sphere of blessing. One can experience some of that blessing without having the substance. It is possible to have a taste, even if you don’t ingest. Our corporate emphasis is more robust than yours. That’s not to say you have no corporate emphasis. It is to say you seem to see individual as primary. We do not.

 

[DNM300]

To be equally as frank, I have already said that answer begs more questions than it resolves.

Since we are all being so frank (playing!): I disagree. I believe you are at this point asking questions that have been addressed implicitly or explicitly in this thread.

In the Abrahamic covenant spiritual promises (the gospel) were given to physical people who made the spiritual decision to either believe the gospel or not. Not sure the spiritual/physical bifurcation is appropriate, or at least that your articulation of it is proper.

The reformed consider covenant terms and covenant tokens as covenantal. As such, unbelievers can be included in these aspects of the covenant. If you define the CoG only as vital union with Christ, then of course this is disagreeable to you. The question is which position has more scriptural warrant.

 

[No Other Name]

That was helpful @MarrowMan (I was almost there once but in another reply I was told that I deny the corporate reality of sacraments).

(I would also add that it is perfectly possible to read Hebrews 6 as a real warning with teeth and not hypothetical while still adhering to 1689 covenant theology. The two positions are not mutually exclusive as implied)

In 1952, Feynman was invited to Brazil to lecture at a university down there. He started by asking them questions and found they knew the formulas and textbook concepts inside and out, no problem. They could ace any test with very little turnaround time from initial lecture to exam day. They could recite complex quantum mechanics equations for this problem and that problem perfectly from their textbooks and lay out the equations for quantum tunneling and all the advanced concepts attending it.

However, they were completely stumped when asked to explain the workings of a simple basic radio transistor or how a beam of electrons could tunnel through a negatively charged rod because they had learned the formulas but could not apply them to the real world.

It is one thing for any of us well, all of us (credo or paedo) to zip off the standard replies from our respective confessions and commentaries, but we do have to pause. One of us is wrong. One of us is right (or at least much closer to being right than the other). And rehashing standard replies by any of us on either side (and as helpful and as useful as the historically standard replies ARE) may not always be the most illuminating.

Is it simply a case of two opposing systems that are inherently coherent and internally consistent and there is no current way to parse out the correct one?

Or is there a case out there - a book yet to be written - that would lay out a slam-dunk Biblically sound in all of its points that relegates the other side to such an obvious degree of error that the entire world of orthodox Reformed theology moves one way and denounces as error unto heresy the other?

If the former then it still is perfectly reasonable to agree to disagree; if the latter, then I suspect in that hypothetical future this board would not be possible.

One thing is for certain, I have a new appreciation for historical councils and creeds and confessions than ever before.

 

[MW]

How can a non-elect person (eg. Esau, Saul, Ahab) be circumcised into the CofG in the OT and not have God's grace unto salvation? How can a non-elect person (eg. a false teacher among a church whose lampstand is threatened to be removed) be baptized into the CofG in the NT and not have God's grace unto salvation?

They were circumcised. Circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant of grace. I simply acknowledge what those words entail. A sign and seal of a covenant IS an administration of the covenant. The same goes for baptism. Simon also believed and was baptised, even though his heart was not right with God. He was accounted, by the church, a believer, and therefore a partaker of the blessings of the covenant. The fact he was not a true believer nor a genuine partaker of the saving grace of God does not prejudice the fact he received baptism which is a sigh and seal of the covenant of grace.

Is it because the definition of the covenant of grace is different from Westminster to 1689? Or is it because the definition of baptism is different from Westminster to 1689? Or both? Or both and other factors as well?

As stated in an earlier phase of this discussion, the 1689 only goes so far. Your understanding of the 1689 seems to go further in a direction that is closer to Westminster. You allow things that the 1689 does not explicitly teach.

On the covenants themselves, the 1689 rewrites a whole section. Westminster teaches that the covenant of grace was already present and operating throughout the Old Testament, THERE AND THEN, while the 1689 teaches that it was only promised and revealed in the Old Testament.

WCF says there is one covenant of grace running through all of redemptive history. It was administered in the Old Testament, though in shadowy, typological form. The types and shadows were not just symbols; they were real administrations of the same covenant believers enjoy today. And Old Testament believers were in the covenant of grace, not merely waiting for it.

The 1689 view is that the covenant of grace was revealed in the Old Testament but did not yet exist as a covenant. Old Testament believers were saved by the grace that would later be in the covenant of grace, but only by anticipation. The covenant of grace itself begins in history only with Christ and the New Covenant.

Whether this leaves room for "one covenant, variously administered" across history, I don't know. Numerous antipaedobaptists have taken it that way. But others reject it.

 

[TheInquirer]

Let's be fair, my friend, he said "saves" not "justifies" and we affirm this in our Standards as well.

Salvation from what then? Possible drowning by immersion? The phrase “an appeal to God for a good conscience” is the key to understanding that passage and the connection to salvation.

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.

Hardly. You have already argued at length in the past the heavy weight you put on your particular (selective) Reformed tradition in your interpretational methodology which received significant pushback at the time for sounding a lot like the same methodology used by the Roman Catholics. I don't feel like spending the time digging for the thread now but it was clear as day from your own words where your priorities lie - that’s what’s distasteful to me.