Credobaptist objection

[MarrowMan]

(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)

Forgive the chopping to focus on this aspect of your post. I did read all of it, but this piques my curiosity and leads me to ask the question as to the teeth of the warning to the non-elect within the visible church? I certainly can see the teeth for the elect that the Lord uses to preserve them from falling away, but what of the non-elect? Does it have teeth for them? If so, what do they fall away from?

 

[Northern Crofter]

Is it because the definition of the covenant of grace is different from Westminster to 1689?

I think you would find the article(-s) posted in #310 helpful in answering this. You won't agree with the critique and conclusions, but the author went to great lengths in having RB brethren involved to make sure he was representing their system accurately before demonstrating and discussing the differences.

 

[MW]

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.

If you are going to lay charges you should support them with evidence; if not, retract them. It is quite clear from your charges that you do not understand the Reformed position on this point, which speaks of the sacraments being made effectual to salvation. Rome says they ARE effectual. The Reformed say they are MADE effectual. The fact you cannot see the difference basically disqualifies you as a judge in this matter. Judges should know of what they judge.

 

[No Other Name]

Forgive the chopping to focus on this aspect of your post. I did read all of it, but this piques my curiosity and leads me to ask the question as to the teeth of the warning to the non-elect within the visible church? I certainly can see the teeth for the elect that the Lord uses to preserve them from falling away, but what of the non-elect? Does it have teeth for them? If so, what do they fall away from?

Falling away from an external-only profession of the Gospel into true external denial of it.

What Gill calls "the enlightened knowledge of the Gospel" not an enlightening unto saving grace for these who fall away, but a common-grace understanding that the Gospel contains truth to their external assent unto the external reality of Scriptural truth.

Gill uses the parable of the sower and the four types of seeds in his Hebrews 6 commentary.

And yeah, I think the warning of v. 8 that even among falling rain (in the preaching of the Word, baptism, Lord's table etc) and yet even among that falling rain if one is "that which beareth thorns and briers [these will be] rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned." is indeed a hefty warning with pretty big teeth for the non-elect among the visible saints.

 

[YeshuaFan]

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.

Would the difference being then that while Rome states that there is effectual grace i water baptism period, Our brother would be affirming it is only operation if and when someone affirms aris now saved later on?

 

[MW]

Would the difference being then that while Rome states that there is effectual grace i water baptism period, Our brother would be affirming it is only operation if and when someone affirms aris now saved later on?

I don't understand people opining about someone's thoughts to another person when the individual is present to answer it themselves.

It is not difficult to understand. The Shorter Catechism, which is very plain and simple, says that the sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not because of any virtue in them or in him that doth administer them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them. It is perfectly Calvinistic in every way. I have often commented that the Reformed doctrine is simply the doctrines of grace applied to the sacraments.

As I have stated numerous times in this thread, baptism saves -- not the outward sign alone, but the outward sign and inward grace together. That is what Peter says. It is exactly what he says on the day of Pentecost -- to repent and be baptised for the remission of sins. It is what Christ taught him to to say, He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved. Baptism is not an empty sign.

And again, as I have stated numerous times on this thread, as baptism is effectual to elect adults, so it is effectual to elect infants. There is no reason to exclude infants from the sign.

As far as I can see people are stumbling over the language of sacraments being effectual. But the language is Reformed, together with the explanations I have provided. So if you are stumbling over the language and my explanations you might want to ask yourself why you are stumbling over what is Reformed. Could it be that you are not Reformed?

 

[YeshuaFan]

I don't understand people opining about someone's thoughts to another person when the individual is present to answer it themselves.

It is not difficult to understand. The Shorter Catechism, which is very plain and simple, says that the sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not because of any virtue in them or in him that doth administer them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them. It is perfectly Calvinistic in every way. I have often commented that the Reformed doctrine is simply the doctrines of grace applied to the sacraments.

As I have stated numerous times in this thread, baptism saves -- not the outward sign alone, but the outward sign and inward grace together. That is what Peter says. It is exactly what he says on the day of Pentecost -- to repent and be baptised for the remission of sins. It is what Christ taught him to to say, He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved. Baptism is not an empty sign.

And again, as I have stated numerous times on this thread, as baptism is effectual to elect adults, so it is effectual to elect infants. There is no reason to exclude infants from the sign.

As far as I can see people are stumbling over the language of sacraments being effectual. But the language is Reformed, together with the explanations I have provided. So if you are stumbling over the language and my explanations you might want to ask yourself why you are stumbling over what is Reformed. Could it be that you are not Reformed?

So we are saved by the combo of receiving Jesus through faith as risen Lord and by the Holy Spirit applying sacramental gracing towards us then also?

 

[MW]

So we are saved by the combo of receiving Jesus through faith as risen Lord and by the Holy Spirit applying sacramental gracing towards us then also?

We are human -- body and soul. The body acts on the soul and the soul acts on the body. God has fitted His covenant to the human constitution. He draws us with the cords of a man. Hence the means of grace. They are physical in nature. He remembers we are dust and He our frame well knows. The Spirit blesses physical things that have been set apart by divine appointment to the elect. We attend upon them and seek His blessing; He works according to His will. We are in all respects being led by the Spirit as the distinguishing mark of the sons of God. The sacraments are a special kind of ordinance because they are signs and seals of the covenant. A visible word or promise, to borrow from Calvin who borrows from Augustine. Baptism is the sign of entrance into salvation; the Lord's supper of nutrition. Expecting and trusting that the Spirit will use the means of grace, we look to Him to bless the ordinance of baptism to the elect as a part of his entrance into the gift of salvation, be he infant or adult. By this mark the person is visibly separated from the world and visibly engaged as a member of the community of faith. The Spirit works faith in them by which the sacrament will be made effectual to him. To whatever degree the physical aspect of man is able to have a real effect upon him, in that way the Spirit applies His grace for our spiritual benefit. Baptismal water resembles washing from sin; the bread and the cup resemble feeding on Christ. These physical actions, appropriated by faith, are really and sacramentally working upon our souls to signify and seal the spiritual benefits they represent. In this way the Spirit applies sacramental grace to us. It is not magical or automatic. It is, in fact, perfectly natural, in accord with the nature of man and the operations of the Spirit of God upon him.

 

[YeshuaFan]

We are human -- body and soul. The body acts on the soul and the soul acts on the body. God has fitted His covenant to the human constitution. He draws us with the cords of a man. Hence the means of grace. They are physical in nature. He remembers we are dust and He our frame well knows. The Spirit blesses physical things that have been set apart by divine appointment to the elect. We attend upon them and seek His blessing; He works according to His will. We are in all respects being led by the Spirit as the distinguishing mark of the sons of God. The sacraments are a special kind of ordinance because they are signs and seals of the covenant. A visible word or promise, to borrow from Calvin who borrows from Augustine. Baptism is the sign of entrance into salvation; the Lord's supper of nutrition. Expecting and trusting that the Spirit will use the means of grace, we look to Him to bless the ordinance of baptism to the elect as a part of his entrance into the gift of salvation, be he infant or adult. By this mark the person is visibly separated from the world and visibly engaged as a member of the community of faith. The Spirit works faith in them by which the sacrament will be made effectual to him. To whatever degree the physical aspect of man is able to have a real effect upon him, in that way the Spirit applies His grace for our spiritual benefit. Baptismal water resembles washing from sin; the bread and the cup resemble feeding on Christ. These physical actions, appropriated by faith, are really and sacramentally working upon our souls to signify and seal the spiritual benefits they represent. In this way the Spirit applies sacramental grace to us. It is not magical or automatic. It is, in fact, perfectly natural, in accord with the nature of man and the operations of the Spirit of God upon him.

You are seeming to equate here water baptism as being the way to access divine grace in order to get saved and to be part of the Kingdom then?

 

[MW]

You are seeming to equate here water baptism as being the way to access divine grace in order to get saved and to be part of the Kingdom then?

Your question indicates you are trying to interpret Reformed categories with non‑Reformed tools. You must work within the system to understand its distinctions. The category of "getting" saved is coming from outside the system of thought that I have presented. And you have stripped away everything I said about the Spirit, election, and faith. I was describing how the Spirit uses the means of grace in the life of the elect, not how a sinner gains saving grace or "gets" saved. Baptism does not confer saving grace by the act itself, nor is it the instrument by which a sinner receives Christ. Faith alone is the instrument of salvation; baptism is the divinely appointed sign and seal of that salvation.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Your question indicates you are trying to interpret Reformed categories with non‑Reformed tools. You must work within the system to understand its distinctions. The category of "getting" saved is coming from outside the system of thought that I have presented. And you have stripped away everything I said about the Spirit, election, and faith. I was describing how the Spirit uses the means of grace in the life of the elect, not how a sinner gains saving grace or "gets" saved. Baptism does not confer saving grace by the act itself, nor is it the instrument by which a sinner receives Christ. Faith alone is the instrument of salvation; baptism is the divinely appointed sign and seal of that salvation.

Ah, that brings clarity to my understanding, so big difference would then be to how we would view just to whom belongs in the New Covenant then?

 

[MW]

Ah, that brings clarity to my understanding, so big difference would then be to how we would view just to whom belongs in the New Covenant then?

Yes. But once you allow what has been said about the sign and seal of salvation, that is, the "possession of faith," not a "profession of faith," there is no reason to exclude infants. The Spirit works in elect infants as much as in elect adults. A Reformed view of baptism leads to the Reformed view of the subjects of baptism.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Yes. But once you allow what has been said about the sign and seal of salvation, that is, the "possession of faith," not a "profession of faith," there is no reason to exclude infants. The Spirit works in elect infants as much as in elect adults. A Reformed view of baptism leads to the Reformed view of the subjects of baptism.

Would lead to a Non Baptist Reformed view of the purpose of water Baptism, but the question would seem to be "just how new really was the New Covenant?"

 

[DNM300]

Would lead to a Non Baptist Reformed view of the purpose of water Baptism, but the question would seem to be "just how new really was the New Covenant?"

See post 100. I believe that is an answer to this question.

 

[MW]

Would lead to a Non Baptist Reformed view of the purpose of water Baptism, but the question would seem to be "just how new really was the New Covenant?"

The "Baptist" view is not "Reformed" though. It inherently thinks in terms of baptism being something the individual does. If they thought in Reformed terms of the Spirit working faith through the means there would be no reason to exclude infants; in fact, they would have to ask themselves how they could cut infants off from the sign and seal of salvation. As to the new covenant, once you have the category of elect infants it is irrelevant. It can't be so new as to exclude infants unless you think infants are saved some other way. But if you think they are saved some other way you have lost the Reformed system, which is built around the core idea that there is only one way of salvation for all sinners.

 

[No Other Name]

As to the new covenant, once you have the category of elect infants it is irrelevant. It can't be so new as to exclude infants unless you think infants are saved some other way.

So close, but commits the fallacy of false dichotomy: this claims that either we accept elect infants and thus must baptize them /or/ we can only accept infants are elect by some other means of grace than is revealed in Scripture.

This is not factually true.

Elect infants are in the Covenant of Grace the same way anyone else is: by God's grace and good pleasure as He sees fit unto the glory of His mercy.

Baptism is a "sacrament" and is defined as that which is a visible sign of an invisible grace, positively commanded by God, elements prescribed by God, and confer grace on believers and seal that promise in grace by the Holy Spirit. (Muller "sacramentum")

I get that you believe the infants are sealed to a future faith (by water now? and Spirit later?)

Baptists define the Covenant of Grace as those who are truly sealed by the Spirit and therefore cannot be outside grace - false professors then excluded so it is not by profession of faith as we are continually maligned, but it is by possession of faith because the Spirit cannot fail those whom He seals.

Now contrast this misguided post to the handwringing by other paedobaptists earlier over "what do Baptists have to hang on to if they lose an infant in death and have never baptized them?"

Answer: the faith we have in our God, Judge of the earth and all those who walk thereon, who will always do what is right.

But through that earlier handwringing in this thread, you then see that the paedobaptist likewise "inherently thinks in terms of baptism being something an individual does" as well.

And that's not a criticism, it's an observation.

Baptism IS something done physically - by and upon - people; yet is only efficacious spiritually by God the Holy Spirit .

 

[Christodulus]

So close, but commits the fallacy of false dichotomy: this claims that either we accept elect infants and thus must baptize them /or/ we can only accept infants are elect by some other means of grace than is revealed in Scripture.

This is not factually true.

Elect infants are in the Covenant of Grace the same way anyone else is: by God's grace and good pleasure as He sees fit unto the glory of His mercy.

Baptism is a "sacrament" and is defined as that which is a visible sign of an invisible grace, positively commanded by God, elements prescribed by God, and confer grace on believers and seal that promise in grace by the Holy Spirit. (Muller "sacramentum")

I get that you believe the infants are sealed to a future faith (by water now? and Spirit later?)

Baptists define the Covenant of Grace as those who are truly sealed by the Spirit and therefore cannot be outside grace - false professors then excluded so it is not by profession of faith as we are continually maligned, but it is by possession of faith because the Spirit cannot fail those whom He seals.

Now contrast this misguided post to the handwringing by other paedobaptists earlier over "what do Baptists have to hang on to if they lose an infant in death and have never baptized them?"

Answer: the faith we have in our God, Judge of the earth and all those who walk thereon, who will always do what is right.

But through that earlier handwringing in this thread, you then see that the paedobaptist likewise "inherently thinks in terms of baptism being something an individual does" as well.

And that's not a criticism, it's an observation.

Baptism IS something done physically - by and upon - people; yet is only efficacious spiritually by God the Holy Spirit .

I will grant that you baptize on account of authentic faith and not merely its profession as soon as you become able to see the hearts of men. The question at issue is not membership in the covenant of grace but in the Church, for which regeneration is not required, the apostles did not require it of Simon Magus.

Baptism is not something an individual does, it is something Christ does through the Church as His agents. Baptism is effectual to the believer precisely because the promises of which it is a pledge are made by Christ, its efficacy is not restricted to its moment of administration and so it is no matter if the recipient was unbelieving at that moment.

 

[No Other Name]

The question at issue is not membership in the covenant of grace but in the Church, for which regeneration is not required, the apostles did not require it of Simon Magus.

Fascinating reply.

What did the apostles require of Simon Magus?

 

[Christodulus]

Fascinating reply.

What did the apostles require of Simon Magus?

That he profess to believe in Christ.

 

[No Other Name]

The question at issue is not membership in the covenant of grace but in the Church, for which regeneration is not required, the apostles did not require it of Simon Magus.

That he profess to believe in Christ.

So regeneration is not required for Simon Magus, but a profession of faith is?

 

[DNM300]

Even if real faith be required for Covenant heads, it does not therefore follow that it be required of covenant subordinates. So the if the Ethiopian Eunuch is an example of the former, that doesn’t automatically or necessarily become the standard administrative practice for covenant children.

 

[Christodulus]

So regeneration is not required for Simon Magus, but a profession of faith is?

Yes, for Simon Magus, not for our children.

 

[No Other Name]

Even if real faith be required for Covenant heads, it does not therefore follow that it be required of covenant subordinates. So the if the Ethiopian Eunuch is an example of the former, that doesn’t automatically or necessarily become the standard administrative practice for covenant children.

Never? Or is this only limited to the days of infancy?

Honest Q: why can't children partake of the Lord's Table then?

 

[DNM300]

Never? Or is this only limited to the days of infancy?

Honest Q: why can't children partake of the Lord's Table then?

Of course Gospel faith is required to be saved; I’m not speaking about that but I’m speaking about the administrative policy of the initiation sacrament.

Children are barred from the Lord’s Table until the 1 Cor. 11 - Self Examination Warnings no longer apply to them.

 

[sc_q_jayce]

So regeneration is not required for Simon Magus, but a profession of faith is?

This isn't a direct response to your post and neither am I trying to rebut anything in particular, but on the topic of the profession of faith, I found this quote from Robert Boyd really interesting and possibly worth thinking about. I found it from Witsius quoting him in the publication On the Efficacy and Utility of Baptism in the Case of Elect Infants Whose Parents Are Under the Covenant, as translated by William Marshall and published in the Mid-America Journal of Theology, 17 (2006), 121-190:

Meanwhile, we in no wise so connect the grace and mercy of God towards infants with the faith of believing parents as to infer any prejudice to the free and secret election of him who, both among infants and adult professors of the faith, knows who are his own and has sealed them with a seal known only to himself. We merely assert that it appears to us from the good pleasure of the grace of God toward infants, as disclosed in his covenant, that so far as concerns their being admitted to baptism and reckoned members of Christ’s church till they shall have arrived at riper years, their being the children of pious parents has precisely the same value as a profession of faith on the part of those who have grown up and become capable of belief.

The part in bold interests me as I don't think I've ever seen it stated so boldly as that before.

The reference of Boyd is below. It appears that the text is in Latin, and unfortunately I could not find a translated source online.

Robert Boyd, Roberti Bidii A trochoregia Scoti SS. theologiae in academiis salmuriana, glascuana, & Edinburgena professoris eximii, in epistolam Pauli Apostoli ad ephesios praelectiones supra CC. lectione varia, multifaria eruditione, & pietate singulari refertae (London, 1652), p. 762.​

​

Edit: Here is the link to Page 762.

 

[No Other Name]

Of course Gospel faith is required to be saved; I’m not speaking about that but I’m speaking about the administrative policy of the initiation sacrament.

Children are barred from the Lord’s Table until the 1 Cor. 11 - Self Examination Warnings no longer apply to them.

Gospel faith is required, ok.

And adult converts not baptized in infancy asking you all for baptism? Do you require a profession of faith and repentance of sins per Acts?
[automerge]1772810953[/automerge]

This isn't a direct response to your post and neither am I trying to rebut anything in particular, but on the topic of the profession of faith, I found this quote from Robert Boyd really interesting and possibly worth thinking about. I found it from Witsius quoting him in the publication On the Efficacy and Utility of Baptism in the Case of Elect Infants Whose Parents Are Under the Covenant, as translated by William Marshall and published in the Mid-America Journal of Theology, 17 (2006), 121-190:

The part in bold interests me as I don't think I've ever seen it stated so boldly as that before.

The reference of Boyd is below. It appears that the text is in Latin, so unfortunately I could not find a translated source online.

Robert Boyd, Roberti Bidii A trochoregia Scoti SS. theologiae in academiis salmuriana, glascuana, & Edinburgena professoris eximii, in epistolam Pauli Apostoli ad ephesios praelectiones supra CC. lectione varia, multifaria eruditione, & pietate singulari refertae (London, 1652), p. 762.​

​

Edit: Here is the link to Page 762.

their being the children of pious parents has precisely the same value as a profession of faith on the part of those who have grown up and become capable of belief.

you said "The part in bold interests me as I don't think I've ever seen it stated so boldly as that before."

Me neither. I would ask him a lot of follow-up questions.

 

[DNM300]

And adult converts not baptized in infancy asking you all for baptism? Do you require a profession of faith and repentance of sins per Acts?

Certainly. I see this as being obvious. WSC #95.

 

[No Other Name]

Certainly. I see this as being obvious. WSC #95.

Excellent.

And it would be inappropriate for one to claim of you that you do not baptize as to possession of faith wrought by the Spirit but only as unto profession of faith of the subject?

 

[DNM300]

Excellent.

And it would be inappropriate for one to claim of you that you do not baptize as to possession of faith wrought by the Spirit but only as unto profession of faith of the subject?

This wording is unclear to me - At least a little.

The most appropriate wording is that which is in WSC 95 in my opinion.

I believe, as I and others have said in this thread, that the apostles baptized on the *profession of faith (in the case of covenant heads).

 

[No Other Name]

This wording is unclear to me - At least a little.

The most appropriate wording is that which is in WSC 95 in my opinion.

I believe, as I and others have said in this thread, that the apostles baptized on the *profession of faith (in the case of covenant heads).

Thanks. This was all pure clarification. Sorry about the wording.