Did you switch sides? paedobaptist/credobaptist

[No Other Name]

All your arguments that exclude infants do so on the basis that they cannot DO something. And the things they cannot DO is logically exclusive. You make that case every time you speak. You bring up the covenant of grace and the new covenant so as to exclude infants. And you have to be reminded over and over again that the covenant of grace and the new covenant actually includes infants.

Again simply and straightforwardly untrue. You can find my argument unpersuasive, sure, but you cannot recast the argument into something it is not.

The definition of covenant membership comes from the Bible and our interpretation of RPW alone. Someone mentioned positive command principle which is correct of us. (I think it was @DNM300 that mentioned it. He understands our position and does not agree but largely gets us right).

Your strangely-crafted "infant-exclusion" principle you assign to us is untrue and foreign to the historical development of the 1689 Confession.

If I was convinced of the Biblical case WCF makes for infant baptism was truly more aligned with Scripture as is revealed, well, it's too late for my adult daughter (who is saved and walking in Scriptural truth with our Lord, thank you, Lord God!) but I would - in a heartbeat - switch sides and advocate for her to baptize my grandchildren when she marries one day.

My understanding (and what I hold to) is that a child born to a believing parent is included in the C of G from conception.

Wait, I am lost a bit. You said:

A covenant cannot be "mixed." The visible Church is mixed, but the covenant is, by nature, always exclusive to God's people. Individuals may break covenant with God, but that does make it "mixed."

So all children born to believing parents are in the CoG, yes? And if any prove apostate then they break the covenant with God, yes? And if they do then it is mixed? Or did you miss a "not mixed" in the bolded part?
[automerge]1776520746[/automerge]
PS - To anyone else not @Northern Crofter right now, I am taking a pass and have not even read your comments where you quoted me.

No offense intended but I have learned not to "Jubilee table" myself here and my focus will only be given to one at a time.

Eventually, @Christodulus is up next re: Gal. 3. (I will probably have to create a new thread for that since his thread became a deep sola Scriptura discussion - and an excellent discussion there as well. I highly recommend that thread to any here).

 

[DNM300]

Circumcision was the seal of the righteousness that Abraham had by faith.

to cut the words of Roman’s 4:11 off from any other implications is unnatural and unnecessary.

Consider:

If circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith Abraham had in his state of uncircumcision, then it as a seal guarantees the promise/reality that God counts faith as righteousness. This is good news to every male, and indeed every household of Israel.

If circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of the faith which would be in the uncircumcision (that is to say, in the gentiles), well it still preaches justification sola fide!

The then-present pedagogical force of circumcision is as follows: “Father Abraham received this righteousness by faith. In a distant day the gentiles will receive this (same) righteousness by faith. You too, young Isaac, young Ishmael, young Jacob and Esau, may have this same righteousness right now by faith in the promised Messiah.”

The Jews knew this. Gal. 2:15-16 (KJV rendering.)

Clearly in Romans 4, the sign was confused with the thing signified by the Jews so Paul set out to do some correction. But the sign and the thing signified were not only linked for Abraham. The sacramental union was inherent.

 

[Northern Crofter]

So all children born to believing parents are in the CoG, yes?

Yes.

And if any prove apostate then they break the covenant with God, yes?

It is one and the same, yes.

And if they do then it is mixed? Or did you miss a "not mixed" in the bolded part?

I don't follow - what is the "it" that is mixed? If they prove apostate they are no longer in the CoG so it is not mixed. We all agree that the visible Church is a mixture of wheat and tares. I think we would also agree that the CoG includes the free offer of life and salvation by Jesus Christ to sinners, and that some who hear the offer will come and join but will fall away (Matthew 13, the examples noted above like Judas and Simon Magus, numerous examples from the previous dispensation of the CoG like Esau and Saul).

But the CoG is a promise to give unto all those that are ordained unto life the Holy Spirit (i.e. it is only efficacious to the elect): "...wherein also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise" (Ephesians 1.13). You may receive the sign, but it is not sealed if you never truly believe. This is why we say the efficacy of baptism - as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace - is not tied to the moment in time when it is administered, but 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" (WCF 28.6).

Out of curiosity, could you underline the parts of the Larger Catechism questions pertaining to baptism that you would not hold to? (I've bolded the part I already know you do not hold to). I think this might help to see in one glance where we differ in the underlying dynamics (no need to explain why you reject them at this point):

Q165: What is Baptism?
A165: Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,[1] to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself,[2] of remission of sins by his blood,[3] and regeneration by his Spirit;[4] of adoption,[5] and resurrection unto everlasting life;[6] and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church,[7] and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s.[8]
1. Matt. 28:19
2. Gal. 3:27
3. Mark 1:4; Rev. 1:5
4. Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:26
5. Gal. 3:26-27
6. I Cor. 15:29; Rom. 6:5
7. I Cor. 12:13
8. Rom. 6:4

Q166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?
A166: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him,[1] but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.[2]
1. Acts 2:38; 8:36-37
2. Gen. 17:7, 9; Gal. 3:9, 14; Col. 2:11-12; Acts 2:38-39; Rom. 4:11-12; 11:16; I Cor. 7:14;
Matt 28:19; Luke 18:15-16

Q167: How is our Baptism to be improved by us?
A167: The needful but much neglected duty of improving our Baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others;[1] by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein;[2] by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements;[3] by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament;[4] by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace;[5] and by endeavoring to live by faith,[6] to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness,[7] as those that have therein given up their names to Christ;[8] and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.[9]
1. Col. 2:11-12; Rom. 6:4, 6, 11
2. Rom. 6:3-5
3. I Cor. 1:11-13; Rom. 6:2-3
4. Rom. 4:11-12; I Peter 3:21
5. Rom. 6:3-5
6. Gal. 3:26-27
7. Rom. 6:22
8. Acts 2:38
9. I Cor. 12:13, 25-27

 

[LaurenC]

I could not agree more, ever since I began reading Zwingli and realized he was using “Catholic” in reference to himself and the rest of the Reformation, I have thought we should reclaim this ancient word from Rome and try to avoid calling them Catholics or their religion Catholicism.

Yes kind of like when we say we believe in the Holy catholic church ( universal) and there's a little * there, explaining that the true church is catholic but definitely NOT Roman... by the way I've been on the fence for so long that I've tried to just not even pick sides, because I can see both arguments and the logic involved in infant baptism for all of the reasoning, but I don't think I see enough actual explanations in the Bible for infant baptism. Might sound weird but after people show me a couple Bible verses that Loosely explain the possibility of infant baptism then they jump into historical theologians, etc. I had begun reading a book about it but didn't get very far, I do not have children and am past the age of having children, but I appreciate the understanding that people have who do baptize babies at my church, and I understand how they want to honor God and keep the kids in the Covenant or at least I shouldn't say keep but they want to remember that their own children are in God's covenant.
I've come to understand portions of the sign idea but the seal is what confuses me because how could something be sealed by God's holy spirit when it is not actually sealed ? ( aka, the infant isn't saved) so since it's impossible to break a seal that God makes what does it mean if the child grows up and doesn't become a Believer the seal was broken? I mean that's impossible but that's where my brain goes with the concept of seal

 

[Reformed Sojourner]

Yes kind of like when we say we believe in the Holy catholic church ( universal) and there's a little * there, explaining that the true church is catholic but definitely NOT Roman... by the way I've been on the fence for so long that I've tried to just not even pick sides, because I can see both arguments and the logic involved in infant baptism for all of the reasoning, but I don't think I see enough actual explanations in the Bible for infant baptism. Might sound weird but after people show me a couple Bible verses that Loosely explain the possibility of infant baptism then they jump into historical theologians, etc. I had begun reading a book about it but didn't get very far, I do not have children and am past the age of having children, but I appreciate the understanding that people have who do baptize babies at my church, and I understand how they want to honor God and keep the kids in the Covenant or at least I shouldn't say keep but they want to remember that their own children are in God's covenant.
I've come to understand portions of the sign idea but the seal is what confuses me because how could something be sealed by God's holy spirit when it is not actually sealed ? ( aka, the infant isn't saved) so since it's impossible to break a seal that God makes what does it mean if the child grows up and doesn't become a Believer the seal was broken? I mean that's impossible but that's where my brain goes with the concept of seal

I understand the covenantal case for baptism best when I keep the whole structure of Scripture in view rather than looking for a single explicit verse that says “baptize infants.” In the Old Testament, God clearly established His covenant not only with believers but with their children, and He commanded that the covenant sign be applied to infants in that context (Genesis 17:7–12). What stands out to me is that the New Testament never explicitly overturns that pattern or states that children are now excluded from the covenant people of God. Instead, I see continuity in passages like Acts 2:39, where Peter says the promise is “to you and to your children,” and in the repeated pattern of household baptisms in Acts, which reflect the same covenantal way God has always dealt with families.

From that perspective, I understand baptism as taking the place of circumcision as the covenant sign, especially given the connection Paul draws between them in Colossians 2:11–12 and the covenant language of Romans 4:11. That tells me the issue is not a completely new covenant structure, but a continuation of the covenant of grace with a different outward sign. Since children were included under the old covenant administration and the New Testament never clearly removes them, I understand their inclusion in the visible covenant community to continue, with baptism as the sign of that membership.

I also try to be careful with the language of “seal,” because I recognize the confusion that can arise there. I do not understand baptism itself to be the same thing as the sealing of the Holy Spirit described in Ephesians 1:13–14, which is inward, saving, and tied to regeneration and faith. Rather, I understand baptism in the same covenantal sense that circumcision is called a “sign and seal” in Romans 4:11—an outward confirmation of God’s promise and a mark of belonging to His visible people, not a declaration of inward regeneration. So when I speak of infants being baptized, I am not saying they are automatically saved or that the Holy Spirit has applied His saving seal in that moment, but that they are truly set apart within the covenant community and brought under the promises of God in a real and objective way.

If someone baptized in infancy never comes to faith, I do not understand that as a broken seal or a failed promise of God. Rather, I understand it in the same way Scripture speaks of Israel—many received the covenant sign and belonged to the covenant community outwardly, yet were not all inwardly faithful (Romans 9:6). The reality is not that God’s covenant failed, but that the outward covenant membership was never identical to inward saving union with Christ. Baptism, then, places a person truly within the visible church and under the call of the gospel, but it still requires personal faith to receive the saving reality to which it points.

So overall, I see infant baptism not as a practice based on one explicit command, but as the continuation of God’s covenant pattern across both Testaments. In my understanding, the burden of proof lies in showing that God has explicitly removed children from the covenant community, and I do not see that taught in the New Testament. Therefore, I see baptism as the New Covenant sign that now marks inclusion in God’s visible people, applied as it was in principle under the Old Covenant, while still calling every baptized person—child or adult—to personal faith in Christ for salvation.

 

[MW]

Again simply and straightforwardly untrue. You can find my argument unpersuasive, sure, but you cannot recast the argument into something it is not.

I am not recasting your argument. You bring up the newness of the new covenant to deny infant baptism. And I have to remind you over and again that the new covenant includes elect infants.

The definition of covenant membership comes from the Bible and our interpretation of RPW alone. Someone mentioned positive command principle which is correct of us. (I think it was @DNM300 that mentioned it. He understands our position and does not agree but largely gets us right).

There is nothing biblical about excluding the elect of God from His promise of salvation. The RPW says what is not commanded is forbidden. But you will not find anywhere that the Bible commands a profession of faith of covenant infants in order to be baptised. Nevertheless "Baptists" push this extra-biblical command as a church distinctive, and separate from Reformed churches on the basis of it.

If I was convinced of the Biblical case WCF makes for infant baptism was truly more aligned with Scripture as is revealed, well, it's too late for my adult daughter (who is saved and walking in Scriptural truth with our Lord, thank you, Lord God!) but I would - in a heartbeat - switch sides and advocate for her to baptize my grandchildren when she marries one day.

As one should. WCF 28.5, "Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance..."
[automerge]1776633092[/automerge]

I've come to understand portions of the sign idea but the seal is what confuses me because how could something be sealed by God's holy spirit when it is not actually sealed ? ( aka, the infant isn't saved) so since it's impossible to break a seal that God makes what does it mean if the child grows up and doesn't become a Believer the seal was broken? I mean that's impossible but that's where my brain goes with the concept of seal

It comes down to how you understand sacraments. Is this what man does, or what God does? In the Reformed understanding sacraments are God's visible promises. And God's promises are never broken. They are always fulfilled in His elect. Man's unbelief cannot make void God's promises.

 

[No Other Name]

^ Quite a few statements there that are posited to be held by 1689 that are not true or twisted around a bit to set up for the "easy slam". It is not that easy for anyone that holds to WCF (and vice versa for us in discussing these things with those who adhere to WCF).

Does the ministration of water baptism add someone to the Covenant of Grace? If one says yes, then he must acknowledge that the Covenant is breakable in at least some sense. If it one says no, then the problem of “mixing” or “defiling” the roster of the supposedly pure covenant goes away. Because by water baptism, no body was actually added to the covenant anyway.

Sorry brother I just noticed this now and this comment absolutely baffles me.

If they prove apostate they are no longer in the CoG so it is not mixed.

But you hold they were in the CoG, so God's promise of being faithful to finish what He has started does not apply to the Covenant of Grace? It is up to the believer to obey the Covenant obligations?

(I am asking. If I were others here I would act as if I discovered the great "slam" and dismiss with a handwave as if I had authority here and declare you all are maintaining the relics of Rome)

 

[Christodulus]

I've come to understand portions of the sign idea but the seal is what confuses me because how could something be sealed by God's holy spirit when it is not actually sealed ? ( aka, the infant isn't saved) so since it's impossible to break a seal that God makes what does it mean if the child grows up and doesn't become a Believer the seal was broken? I mean that's impossible but that's where my brain goes with the concept of seal

The sacraments are seals only to those who receive them in faith. For this reason none who come to the table partake of the true body and blood of the Lord, but only bread and wine, except those who partake with faith, for by faith alone the sacraments are made efficacious.

 

[YeshuaFan]

For some reason I found your tone much more collegial in this response - not sure if that was intentional or not but it is appreciated!


My understanding (and what I hold to) is that a child born to a believing parent is included in the C of G from conception. Thus their baptism is, among other things, a sign and seal of being in that covenant. In other words, should they pass away before baptism, these children are still beneficiaries of the C of G sans baptism.

This is my understanding of the WCF when paired with the WLC which states that "Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible Church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise" (which shows the understanding that one does not become a member of the visible Church by baptism - one is baptised because they are already a member) and then goes on to state that "infants descended from parents, either both or but one of them professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect, within the covenant, and to be baptized." (Q/A 166).

So they are baptised because they are already members (party to the C of G) - they are not baptised into it, rather they are already in it which is why they are to receive the sign and seal. So maybe it is more accurate for us to refer to the C of G as the "covenant of promise" (although I would hold that they are interchangeable terms). That is, after all, the language of places such as Acts 2.39, Romans 4, and Galatians 3.

The water baptism does not affirm nor confirm that the infants are included in the New Covenant, for either they are already saved and in the COG, or else will be affirmed by their believers baptism
[automerge]1776699529[/automerge]

I referred to what the Bible does, not what the WCF does. The Bible calls on men to circumcise their hearts. Clearly, then, circumcision, is a sign of saving grace. And again, what the Bible says is left unanswered.



This does not account for the fact as to why they were baptised. They were not baptised because they were regenerate, obviously. Hence your previous statement was unbiblical. The very point I was making.



No, because the Bible says so. Westminster is right because it is biblical. Simon's case isn't an aberration. It is the norm. There is no narrative signal that his baptism was irregular, questionable, or exceptional. The apostles do not revisit or invalidate it. Peter rebukes his heart, not his baptism. But if baptism is only for the regenerate then Simon's baptism must be explained as an error, a failure of discernment. And at that point you have to read things into the text. It is far more natural to suppose that what Philip did was normal practice. It was nothing new to him to accept that the visible church is mixed by divine design and sacraments are valid even when received by hypocrites.



If that is all you want that is easy: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc01.html?term=Anabaptists



The shared element is the very thing that is synergistic. All your arguments that exclude infants do so on the basis that they cannot DO something. And the things they cannot DO is logically exclusive. You make that case every time you speak. You bring up the covenant of grace and the new covenant so as to exclude infants. And you have to be reminded over and over again that the covenant of grace and the new covenant actually includes infants.



Not so. As noted on many occasions, I am addressing your inconsistency here. I know what you hold with regard to soteriology. It is Reformed. Elect infants are saved by Christ. The problem is that your sacramentology works against that fact because it is not Reformed. It is Anabaptist. It is "clay" trying to adhere to "iron."

Does God apply effectual saving grace towards the infants by sovereign willing it towards them then, or in the water baptism then?

 

[YeshuaFan]

The sacraments are seals only to those who receive them in faith. For this reason none who come to the table partake of the true body and blood of the Lord, but only bread and wine, except those who partake with faith, for by faith alone the sacraments are made efficacious.

So infants must then have a saving faith?
[automerge]1776699756[/automerge]

Again simply and straightforwardly untrue. You can find my argument unpersuasive, sure, but you cannot recast the argument into something it is not.

The definition of covenant membership comes from the Bible and our interpretation of RPW alone. Someone mentioned positive command principle which is correct of us. (I think it was @DNM300 that mentioned it. He understands our position and does not agree but largely gets us right).

Your strangely-crafted "infant-exclusion" principle you assign to us is untrue and foreign to the historical development of the 1689 Confession.

If I was convinced of the Biblical case WCF makes for infant baptism was truly more aligned with Scripture as is revealed, well, it's too late for my adult daughter (who is saved and walking in Scriptural truth with our Lord, thank you, Lord God!) but I would - in a heartbeat - switch sides and advocate for her to baptize my grandchildren when she marries one day.



Wait, I am lost a bit. You said:



So all children born to believing parents are in the CoG, yes? And if any prove apostate then they break the covenant with God, yes? And if they do then it is mixed? Or did you miss a "not mixed" in the bolded part?
[automerge]1776520746[/automerge]
PS - To anyone else not @Northern Crofter right now, I am taking a pass and have not even read your comments where you quoted me.

No offense intended but I have learned not to "Jubilee table" myself here and my focus will only be given to one at a time.

Eventually, @Christodulus is up next re: Gal. 3. (I will probably have to create a new thread for that since his thread became a deep sola Scriptura discussion - and an excellent discussion there as well. I highly recommend that thread to any here).

Do we know if God has not elected and chosen all infants and children to be part of the COG, or is it just for saved parents children?
[automerge]1776699840[/automerge]

Yes kind of like when we say we believe in the Holy catholic church ( universal) and there's a little * there, explaining that the true church is catholic but definitely NOT Roman... by the way I've been on the fence for so long that I've tried to just not even pick sides, because I can see both arguments and the logic involved in infant baptism for all of the reasoning, but I don't think I see enough actual explanations in the Bible for infant baptism. Might sound weird but after people show me a couple Bible verses that Loosely explain the possibility of infant baptism then they jump into historical theologians, etc. I had begun reading a book about it but didn't get very far, I do not have children and am past the age of having children, but I appreciate the understanding that people have who do baptize babies at my church, and I understand how they want to honor God and keep the kids in the Covenant or at least I shouldn't say keep but they want to remember that their own children are in God's covenant.
I've come to understand portions of the sign idea but the seal is what confuses me because how could something be sealed by God's holy spirit when it is not actually sealed ? ( aka, the infant isn't saved) so since it's impossible to break a seal that God makes what does it mean if the child grows up and doesn't become a Believer the seal was broken? I mean that's impossible but that's where my brain goes with the concept of seal

How can God say one is included in the COG and now really saved ny Him if there were not ever born again?

 

[Northern Crofter]

But you hold they were in the CoG, so God's promise of being faithful to finish what He has started does not apply to the Covenant of Grace? It is up to the believer to obey the Covenant obligations?

The water baptism does not affirm nor confirm that the infants are included in the New Covenant, for either they are already saved and in the COG, or else will be affirmed by their believers baptism

I don't understand your connection. Being in the CoG =/= salvation. The CoG contains the free offer of 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 life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe." (WCF 7.3). Under the law it was administered by, among other things, circumcision, and we both agree that not all who were circumcised were saved. We just disagree what that promise is and who it is made to. So, of course, God's promise of being faithful to finish what He has started applies to the Covenant of Grace - He promises that all who fulfill the conditions of the CoG will be saved.

 

[No Other Name]

I don't understand your connection. Being in the CoG =/= salvation. The CoG contains the free offer of 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 life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe." (WCF 7.3). Under the law it was administered by, among other things, circumcision, and we both agree that not all who were circumcised were saved. We just disagree what that promise is and who it is made to. So, of course, God's promise of being faithful to finish what He has started applies to the Covenant of Grace - He promises that all who fulfill the conditions of the CoG will be saved.

This raises far more questions and seems to be another point where we are talking past each other in our definitions.

In my opinion, it seems every possible topic is downstream from the main fountain head which seems to me to be: our differences in 1.6.

 

[Christodulus]

So infants must then have a saving faith?

If you’re talking about the efficacy of sacraments, yes, but the necessity of faith is not a cause to delay or repeat baptism since its efficacy is not restricted to the moment of administration.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

This is not in response to anyone's post in particular, but just thought I'd post some thoughts. I came to paedobaptism through seeing greater and greater continuity between the old and new covenant. It was actually via a strong interest in what the church was to sing, and how we are to sing it. I was Baptist, and never imagined I'd be otherwise; actually had little interest or concern about the question of baptism. But the thread of continuity that led to EP opened up other pathways I couldn't un-see, and and showed me that the children of believers in the church are born into the administration of the covenant of grace, just as in the OT; they're born citizens of the commonwealth by right. They're baptized with the spoken promise of God to them that he will be a God to them, baptism being the visible seal of that promise. The King has spoken. Our children are visible members of the visible kingdom of God until they leave, or are disciplined and put out.

As ChatGPT helped articulate: baptism is the visible seal of God’s covenant promises, by which He publicly confirms and attests those promises to the recipient within the visible kingdom, to be received savingly through faith.

Baptism is meaningful to our children as they're taught to consider the claims of Christ upon them, as that tangible sign attests to. It's a means of grace!

Paul includes the children as members of the visible church. Ephesians is written to "the saints" and "the faithful;" and the children, as well as their parents, are included in his exhortations to the saints and the faithful. Perhaps (likely?) not every adult in the church was actually regenerate, and not every child. But he exhorts all as if they are faithful and saints. He exhorts the children to obey their parents in the Lord. No one can do anything "in the Lord" unless they have the Holy Spirit. But all members of the church at Ephesus- and this includes the children, who are members of the church- who have not showed themselves to be unregenerate are addressed as regenerate members.

There is always that danger of falling off a horse on one side or the other. I've met Presbyterian parents in the past who may have been presumptuous about the state of their children's souls, but that's due to bad or inadequate teaching, not the doctrine. Where there is lively, experiential preaching and the Spirit is at work, parents pray fervently for the salvation of their children, and never presume. Yet they do not by default consider them unbelievers, either. There's hope and there's thankfulness for covenant promises, and so they sow and plow in that hope.

 

[Northern Crofter]

This raises far more questions and seems to be another point where we are talking past each other in our definitions.

So are you saying you hold that the CoG = salvation?

Someone can enter into a covenant, receive the sign of that covenant, and yet not remain in it (receive its promises) if they do not fulfill the terms of that covenant. This is how God operated in the previous dispensation, so why would we think He would not operate that way in the current dispensation?

I know our confessions differ greatly in their discussion of God's covenant with man, but they are agreed that the CoG is a free offer to all from God that requires faith for salvation, but that the promise is only for those made willing and able by the Holy Spirit to so. So both seem to hold forth that not all to whom the covenant is made come to salvation (just as in the in the previous dispensation) - only those ordained to eternal life:

2LBC 7.2​	WCF 7.2​
"it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein He freely offers 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.	the Lord was pleased to make a second,a commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered 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 life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

 

[DNM300]

So are you saying you hold that the CoG = salvation?

Someone can enter into a covenant, receive the sign of that covenant, and yet not remain in it (receive its promises) if they do not fulfill the terms of that covenant. This is how God operated in the previous dispensation, so why would we think He would not operate that way in the current dispensation?

I know our confessions differ greatly in their discussion of God's covenant with man, but they are agreed that the CoG is a free offer to all from God that requires faith for salvation, but that the promise is only for those made willing and able by the Holy Spirit to so. So both seem to hold forth that not all to whom the covenant is made come to salvation (just as in the in the previous dispensation) - only those ordained to eternal life:

2LBC 7.2​	WCF 7.2​
"it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein He freely offers 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.	the Lord was pleased to make a second,a commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered 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 life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

I agree with this. The wording of 2LCF at this point does not preclude unbelievers.

 

[YeshuaFan]

So are you saying you hold that the CoG = salvation?

Someone can enter into a covenant, receive the sign of that covenant, and yet not remain in it (receive its promises) if they do not fulfill the terms of that covenant. This is how God operated in the previous dispensation, so why would we think He would not operate that way in the current dispensation?

I know our confessions differ greatly in their discussion of God's covenant with man, but they are agreed that the CoG is a free offer to all from God that requires faith for salvation, but that the promise is only for those made willing and able by the Holy Spirit to so. So both seem to hold forth that not all to whom the covenant is made come to salvation (just as in the in the previous dispensation) - only those ordained to eternal life:

2LBC 7.2​	WCF 7.2​
"it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein He freely offers 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.	the Lord was pleased to make a second,a commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered 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 life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

Per the 1689, those who are actually in the COG would be those who were made able and willing to believe, so how can there be salvation and eternal life outside of the COG?

 

[MW]

Does God apply effectual saving grace towards the infants by sovereign willing it towards them then, or in the water baptism then?

Asked and answered many times. God applies His grace to infants the same way He applies His grace to adults. There is no difference. Baptism is a sign and seal of God's promise to them. We do not exclude God's elect from His promises. The promises are the object of faith. Baptism is a visible promise -- it serves to confirm the visible church in what God has said He will do. Hence Ananiaas told Paul to be baptised and wash away his sins. Not that the water did this, but it signified and sealed this. Likewise for infants.

 

[MW]

Perhaps (likely?) not every adult in the church was actually regenerate, and not every child. But he exhorts all as if they are faithful and saints.

It is good to read Revelation 2 and 3 in this light. A church can actually be filled with people who are not regenerate, but still it is a true church as to the form of it. Christ still walks in its midst and rules the messengers, and the Spirit continues to speak to it.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Per the 1689, those who are actually in the COG would be those who were made able and willing to believe...

Were all of the circumcised men in the previous dispensation in the CoG?

... how can there be salvation and eternal life outside of the COG?

There is no ordinary way.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Were all of the circumcised men in the previous dispensation in the CoG?



There is no ordinary way.

All who ever have been saved by God were under the COG, as always has been saved by Grace alone, received through faith alone
[automerge]1776786120[/automerge]

Asked and answered many times. God applies His grace to infants the same way He applies His grace to adults. There is no difference. Baptism is a sign and seal of God's promise to them. We do not exclude God's elect from His promises. The promises are the object of faith. Baptism is a visible promise -- it serves to confirm the visible church in what God has said He will do. Hence Ananiaas told Paul to be baptised and wash away his sins. Not that the water did this, but it signified and sealed this. Likewise for infants.

So you just stated God applies His effectual saving Grace towards His own, so regardless if water baptism as infant or adult still have to be already saved, correct. in your framwork?

 

[Northern Crofter]

All who ever have been saved by God were under the COG, as always has been saved by Grace alone, received through faith alone

Were all of the circumcised men in Israel (and those who joined them per Exodus 22.48, Isaiah 56.6-7, etc.) in the previous dispensation under the CoG?

 

[YeshuaFan]

Were all of the circumcised men in Israel (and those who joined them per Exodus 22.48, Isaiah 56.6-7, etc.) in the previous dispensation under the CoG?

No, only the saved ones

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Were all of the circumcised men in Israel (and those who joined them per Exodus 22.48, Isaiah 56.6-7, etc.) in the previous dispensation under the CoG?

Absolutely not.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Were all of the circumcised men in Israel (and those who joined them per Exodus 22.48, Isaiah 56.6-7, etc.) in the previous dispensation under the CoG?

No, only the saved ones

Absolutely not.

So explain what you think the 2LBC means in 7.2: "Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein He freely offers 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."

To me it is saying the same as the WCF on this point (albeit the latter is more explicit and detailed): after the Covenant of Works was broken ("man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall"), God made "a covenant of grace" (note it does not say "the covenant of grace"), in which He freely offers life and salvation to sinners, some of whom ("all those that are ordained unto eternal life") are made willing to believe and thus are saved. Note the order - a covenant is made, it is offered to all, * , some are enabled to receive it.

The question seems to be what is left unstated at the point I marked with * - we all agree that, along the way, many will appear to be in the CoG, even receiving the current dispensation's sign of it (which is again something we can agree upon - baptism), but some will fall away. Are not those who profess and receive the sign of the CoG - even though they may later turn out to be false professors (something we may not know in some cases until the day of judgment) - in and/or under the CoG?

The confusion seems to be that you folks do not accept the idea that the CoG is is dispensed through the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper - many are called but few are chosen. Just as in the previous dispensation not all who were under the CoG were elect, neither are all those under that covenant today.

Do you with the statement "There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations." (WCF 7.6)? The 2LBC seems to be in agreement (see Chapter 20) but it sounds at times like you folks are arguing for two separate/distinct covenants of grace.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

So explain what you think the 2LBC means in 7.2: "Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein He freely offers 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."

So far so good.

To me it is saying the same as the WCF on this point (albeit the latter is more explicit and detailed): after the Covenant of Works was broken ("man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall"), God made "a covenant of grace" (note it does not say "the covenant of grace"), in which He freely offers life and salvation to sinners, some of whom ("all those that are ordained unto eternal life") are made willing to believe and thus are saved. Note the order - a covenant is made, it is offered to all, * , some are enabled to receive it.

So far so good.

The question seems to be what is left unstated at the point I marked with * - we all agree that, along the way, many will appear to be in the CoG, even receiving the current dispensation's sign of it (which is again something we can agree upon - baptism), but some will fall away.

So far so good. (Bolded one point for emphasis).

Are not those who profess and receive the sign of the CoG - even though they may later turn out to be false professors (something we may not know in some cases until the day of judgment) - in and/or under the CoG?

No. The Covenant of Grace does not contain any unregenerate / reprobate individuals.

The Covenant of Grace is not coterminous with the visible church. It is coterminous with the invisible / universal church.

Anyone who appears that they might have been members of the Covenant of Grace who later turn out not to be, never were. They were visible saints, but were never members of the Covenant of Grace. They were imposters.

The confusion seems to be that you folks do not accept the idea that the CoG is is dispensed through the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper - many are called but few are chosen. Just as in the previous dispensation not all who were under the CoG were elect, neither are all those under that covenant today.

The Covenant of Circumcision wasn't the Covenant of Grace. Not everyone under the Covenant of Circumcision was a member of the Covenant of Grace (which is the New Covenant).

Do you with the statement "There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations." (WCF 7.6)?

No. I agree with the statement "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" (2 LBCF 7.3)

The 2LBC seems to be in agreement (see Chapter 20) but it sounds at times like you folks are arguing for two separate/distinct covenants of grace.

This is because you're trying to force your preconceived notions of what the Covenant of Grace is (which is silly, both in fact and in application) and being surprised that the Reformed Baptist view of the Covenant of Grace of is at odds.

There's only one Covenant of Grace. The New Covenant is the full / proper expression of the Covenant of Grace.

Before the New Testament, the Covenant of Grace did not have a formal existence, although it had a material existence. Every saint in history was saved by virtue of this one Covenant of Grace (aka the New Covenant) even though it didn't exist in the form of a Covenant until it was formally established in the blood of Christ.

 

[MW]

The Covenant of Grace is not coterminous with the visible church. It is coterminous with the invisible / universal church.

What is this "visible church?" Is it a divine institution? Is it constituted on privileges and promises that are gracious? If not, what is it founded on? If the covenant of grace is not coterminous with it, what is it preaching and administering? A simple denial that it is a covenant of grace institution opens up a whole range of questions that require an answer.

Anyone who appears that they might have been members of the Covenant of Grace who later turn out not to be, never were. They were visible saints, but were never members of the Covenant of Grace. They were imposters.

So why are they condemned for apostacy and covenant breaking? What exactly have they done over and above what ordinary sinners do? And the same issue faces you in this as in everything else. This includes infants. Whatever you apply to the adult applies to the infant. Moreover, it works in reverse. Those who are members of the covenant of grace always were, adults and infants alike. So whatever the covenant sign did for one it did for the other. There is no difference.

The Covenant of Circumcision wasn't the Covenant of Grace. Not everyone under the Covenant of Circumcision was a member of the Covenant of Grace (which is the New Covenant).

The argument in the second sentence does not prove the point in the first sentence. Circumcision proved effectual in those who were elect. What is the chaff to the wheat? The farmer sows a field because he expects wheat. The chaff does not nullify his intention. He simply removes the chaff when it is the right time to do so. The attempt to define the covenant according to those who do not benefit by it is contrary to the divine intention in establishing the covenant, which is for the purpose of the elect.

 

[Brandon M.]

So why are they condemned for apostacy and covenant breaking?

That is a such a helpful question. Hebrews 10:26–31 appears to be judgment language directed not merely at “pretenders,” but at actual covenant breakers within the New Covenant. This text was pivotal in leading me to embrace a P&R ecclesiology and, downstream from there, paedobaptism.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

What is this "visible church?" Is it a divine institution? Is it constituted on privileges and promises that are gracious? If not, what is it founded on? If the covenant of grace is not coterminous with it, what is it preaching and administering? A simple denial that it is a covenant of grace institution opens up a whole range of questions that require an answer.



So why are they condemned for apostacy and covenant breaking? What exactly have they done over and above what ordinary sinners do? And the same issue faces you in this as in everything else. This includes infants. Whatever you apply to the adult applies to the infant. Moreover, it works in reverse. Those who are members of the covenant of grace always were, adults and infants alike. So whatever the covenant sign did for one it did for the other. There is no difference.




The argument in the second sentence does not prove the point in the first sentence. Circumcision proved effectual in those who were elect. What is the chaff to the wheat? The farmer sows a field because he expects wheat. The chaff does not nullify his intention. He simply removes the chaff when it is the right time to do so. The attempt to define the covenant according to those who do not benefit by it is contrary to the divine intention in establishing the covenant, which is for the purpose of the elect.

Bingo!! You cannot apostatize from that which you were never part of.

 

[No Other Name]

What is this "visible church?" Is it a divine institution? Is it constituted on privileges and promises that are gracious? If not, what is it founded on? If the covenant of grace is not coterminous with it, what is it preaching and administering? A simple denial that it is a covenant of grace institution opens up a whole range of questions that require an answer.



So why are they condemned for apostacy and covenant breaking? What exactly have they done over and above what ordinary sinners do? And the same issue faces you in this as in everything else. This includes infants. Whatever you apply to the adult applies to the infant. Moreover, it works in reverse. Those who are members of the covenant of grace always were, adults and infants alike. So whatever the covenant sign did for one it did for the other. There is no difference.




The argument in the second sentence does not prove the point in the first sentence. Circumcision proved effectual in those who were elect. What is the chaff to the wheat? The farmer sows a field because he expects wheat. The chaff does not nullify his intention. He simply removes the chaff when it is the right time to do so. The attempt to define the covenant according to those who do not benefit by it is contrary to the divine intention in establishing the covenant, which is for the purpose of the elect.

I actually think these are legitimate and fair questions for us. I almost posted a reply, but refrained.

Historically, this has been a case of: "How do you 1689 guys account for x?"

Now when I give a Biblical case for why this is not a problem for us, historically, the counterreplies has been to ignore the Biblical case and retort with Westminster-heavy concepts and definitions showing that my Biblical case cannot possibly be true, if Westminster is granted.

That is true enough, but since I cannot grant Westminster, we spin tires again. The circular nature of these threads is exhausting.

I just wanted to point out that

1) Rev. Winzer is asking good questions here and

2) if the reply that is forthcoming is seen as good faith from the 1689 system and treated as such so that the case can go more Biblical (eg, going deeper in Hebrews 10, et al) and less Westminster (eg. quote from WCF 7.6) then we might have a decent dialogue coming up soon.

NOTE: That is no disrespect to WCF at all; merely trying to prevent disagreement while the definitions of the CoG, members, visible/invisible is held back and kept "off the table" by either side as an axiom.

In my opinion, when I (and others) do this - when we keep our confessional definitions and concepts as axioms and argue downstream from them, that is where the dialogue disintegrates.