Can a non member baptize people in a baptist church?
Can a non member ordain men for ministry?
Is the New Covenant new or renewed?
- Thread starter Pergamum
- Start date
- Status
Can a non member baptize people in a baptist church?
Can a non member ordain men for ministry?
Do you believe that a person who does not profess faith in Jesus Christ should be admitted into church membership? Do you take exception to the Confession on this point?
1689 LBC 26.2 All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.
Bill, I don't mean to put you on the spot here but you're not answering the question of legitimacy. Is a man legitimately baptized or ordained to ministry if the person doing the baptism and the ordination is apostate?
If your answer is no then I feel you are being consistent,if your answer is yes would you mind showing your theological ground for such a position?
If your answer is no then I feel you are being consistent,if your answer is yes would you mind showing your theological ground for such a position?
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
My dear brother, apologies if I sounded insulting--it was not my intent. I said 'childish,' and we are discussing the baptism of children
But don't think I'm not aware of the majority position of the church through the ages--no doubt Martin Luther was as well, though there's very little else in common between us. My point is: while we can certainly take comfort in a multitude of counsellors, there have been times when the vast majority of everyone must be disagreed with, based on what we see in the Law and in the Testimony.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
...or by what you fail to see, i.e. covenant consistency and the lack of any examples in the NT where we see the sign being placed on children becasue they already had the sign on them. It always struck me as a bit peculiar that we never see any children in the NT writings, where a child comes to faith-pick an age, there are none. Surely this is not an oddity in the church. All of us have witnessed children coming to faith. Why do we see no instances, ever in the NT writings? Is it that only adults came to faith?
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Pergie, you are very close indeed to the Presbyterian position, for I have never heard a Baptist argue like this. Only a few things remain. First, should the sign of baptism be attached to the external administration or the substance of the CoG, and should the sign's efficacy be tied to the moment of its administration, or can it have a "delayed reaction?" Here the analogy of circumcision works much more closely than Baptists would say it does. Both circumcision and baptism are physical signs that point to spiritual realities. Both are signs that the person so marked belong to the people of God. But in this way, the sacraments work the same way as the Word (though, instead of coming in through ear, the sacraments work through the other senses; but both preach the gospel, and that is what Presbyterians mean by sacramental efficacy: the sacraments have the same kind of efficacy that the Word of God does, though the grace offered is not a converting grace but a strengthening, confirming grace, and is only received by faith). Therefore, since the Word is attached to the external administration of the CoG, so should baptism. You have actually already pointed in this direction with your rejection of the argument that "only the saved should be baptized." If children can have the substance of the CoG (for of such belongs the kingdom of God, Jesus Himself says), then by what right should we refuse them the sign of the CoG? If families still work covenantally (and, contrary to Ben's assertion, they still do, as 1 Corinthians 7 proves), then there remain no more objections to paedo-baptism.
Children can be regenerated from the womb, as John the Baptist proves. David said that he trusted in the Lord even from the time he was nursing. We do not presume that they are regenerated, but the possibility is definitely there. The key, then, is that baptism does not mark the time of regeneration, but the time of joining the external administration of the church. You have basically already gone there, Pergie, by saying that it is false that only the saved should be baptized. If you connect this point in your mind with the covenantal structure of the family, then paedobaptism will emerge in your thinking as the logical thing.
JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
You can put it this way: There is a difference between being IN the Covenant and OF the Covenant. Presbyterians have always held tightly to the importance of this distinction.
Last edited:
JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
We (Presbyterians) would disagree with the first statement but agree with the second. We *do* consider unbelieving members of the church as part of the church (corporate, external, visible body), just as many of those during Moses' day in the OT wilderness never had saving faith but were nevertheless considered the "congregation (ekklesia) in the wilderness." However, we do not claim that false professors are members of the invisible church; only the elect are members of the invisible church; nevertheless, false professors are members of the visible church (for the reason above). (Not saying that you were saying otherwise brother, just wanting to help clarify).
The implication of what we as Baptists tend to believe on this issue of the NC/Church would to me seem to be that only those who are actually saved and in the NC would be under the CoG now, unlike in the OC, where again to me it seems that one would be part of say the Mosaic Covenant due to birthright, and still nor even be really saved. There does seem to be now under the NC only saved as for sure now part of it.
This distinction seems to be where the division is happening, as how can there be the CoG in full under the OC, where many under it were not even saved?
The OC had elements of the CoG within it, as God always was saving the same way, by the Death of Jesus as the basis to atone for sinners saved, but there was something new and different in some fashion under the NC Church, as all now under the NC are saved, while both saved and lost were under the OC, such as in the Mosaic aspect of it.
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
David,
I'm trying NOT to be argumentative here, but back to my point: you are going to have to settle on a theology. You are creating various, strange hybrids of both the Baptist or Presbyterian views. What does "The OC had elements of the CoG within it" mean?
Last edited:
The Cross of Christ as the basis to save a sinner was present under the OC, but the NC was when the CoG was fully here now in place.
I am just saying that the NC is some fashion and way a distinctive new relationship established between God and mankind. This is what makes the Church in the NT a new entity.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
So which is it, David? Both statements still imply a connection to the previous.
Last edited:
Just responding to the OP but it seems like you hear from a lot of Baptists who misrepresent Presbyterian theology. We were just interacting on the idea that "...for the paedobaptist the AC is the CoG."
This sort of reminds me of those who do word studies to determine what the meaning of a word is and then expect that to be the basis for how they're going to understand an author's use in a specific context. Lexicons are fine but you still have to look at how the word is used.
It seems there is (to some) a sort of polemic value to how "New" something is as the basis of whether or not something is New. I evaluate what you believe is New about the Covenant and I say: "Yes but that's not as New as my view therefore your view is not New enough."
The nature of the New Covenant is well understood. It's New with respect to the Old. It's participants are not all "brand new" but expanded. It's Offices are no longer filled by types and shadows but fulfilled by Christ, the perfect Mediator. These previous dispensations are not the fullness of what was promised and so something New had to be inaugurated not only for those who called upon the Name of the Lord but for those who were far off.
We could discuss other ways in which the NC is New but simply because some decide that it's not really New by their understanding of New doesn't persuade me they are handling the Scriptures properly and they can say anything they want in theological and Biblical ignorance about my position they want. They can call it Replacement theology or claim that we only believe in a Renewed Covenant but, as my 7th Grade teacher used to say and laugh: Some people think ignorance is a virtue.
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
Edit: In my post #43, the original wording states I was "trying to be argumentative...", but, alas, meant "trying NOT to be argumentative". David, in particular, please accept my apology for this faux poop. I should leave typing on a phone to the youngsters.... Carry on........
That is the very Question that I am still working towards, as trying to figure out just what the major difference is between the CoG and the NC, if any.
The "major" difference is one of historical enactment. The Covenant of Grace is operative after the Fall. If one insists on teasing apart the Covenant of Redemption within the Trinity to save the elect then the Covenant of Grace is the Covenant made between God and Christ and, in Him, all the elect. No man can or courld be saved apart from the One Mediator so the Covenant of Grace has to be operative throughout human history after the Fall but it is only partially revealed through various epochs of redemptive history. Various historical covenants that God enacts have differing sacraments or offices that serve as types and shadows or copies of the heavenly sanctuary but they could only ever serve as types and not the fulfillment. When Christ comes, that which is prefigured becomes historical reality and it is further enacted by the death of the Testator and, as Christ in His flesh, provides a way through His flesh for us to have access to that heavenly reality. Thus, in Mediator and worship, the NC corresponds to the CoG in its Mediator and worship but it can't be said properly that the NC is the COG because it is historically realized. You can, in a sense, overlay the NC with the COG and find correspondence in every respect but it's still the case that you can find a "starting point" to the NC that makes it a distinct, full expression of the COG. If you go back to a period of time before Christ you can find the CoG in operation even before the NC itself is actually inaugurated.
I do understand that Presbyterians disagree with the first part of my statement. That was one of the points I was trying to make.
I would qualify the statement by noting that Presbyterians don't pretend to be able to "name" those who are "unregenerate Church members". We leave the issue of who is elect to God alone. No Church can actually operate on the illusory objective that its members are regenerate. It is our duty to proclaim Christ and to accept into membership those who make a credible profession of faith (and their children) and submit to the discipline of the Church. If they are found to be disobedient and unrepentant in their duties then we excommunicate them. As far as those who never publicly express their lack of belief or unwillingness to be obedient (externally) we don't make judgments about whether or not they are regenerate. In fact, my experience is that I've known several men who many would have assumed were regenerate but later turned their back on the faith. They were put out not because we knew they were unregenerate but because they refused discipline. As far as their status in the kingdom what is now bound on earth is bound in heaven and they have no reason to expect to be numbered as one of God's people. Nevertheless, the point is that discipleship is fundamentally viewed differently by Presbyterians. It's not that we openly "accept" Joe Smith or Jamie Smith (his son) as "unregenerate Church members", it's more appropriate to say that we leave the secret things to God and act as ministers of Word and Sacrament and not as the Judge of who really possesses saving faith.
29.3 of the 1689 LBC states, “wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” While being baptized by an apostate is highly irregular, the recipient of baptism is being baptized in the name of the Godhead. They are also being baptized on a profession of their faith, not the faith of the one doing the baptizing. Again, while irregular, the matter should end there. I am not sure what this has to do with the subject of the newness of the New Covenant.
Rich, this not far removed from RB practice. Obviously, we only baptize those who profess faith in Christ. Like Presbyterians, we lack perfect knowledge. We cannot look into the soul and know for certain that anyone is saved. Besides a credible profession, we are looking for the evidence of faith in the life of a professed Christian. Things become a bit murkier with children that are raised in the church. Most confessional RB churches are different than the fundamentalist Baptist strain. There is a strong emphasis on a conversion experience in the fundamentalist camp (the camp I came out of). In many of the RB churches I am acquainted with there is more of an emphasis on confessing the truth as opposed to a moment-in-time conversion. For instance, a child grows up in an RB family and is exposed to the Gospel at home and church. Since RB churches are less likely to push for a decision, there may come an unrecognized time when the child comes to faith in Christ. The child grows up believing the Gospel and displays evidence of faith in their life. While no conversion experience can be pointed to, the child readily confesses the Christian faith and lives according to it. This becomes clearer when the professed believer submits to the waters of baptism. At that time they are publicly confessing their faith in Christ.
JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
We would say it correlates exactly to the NT Cov of Grace. There can be the CoG "in full" in the OT in exactly the same way there is the CoG "in full" in the NT. As it was then, so it is now. Scripture calls it the church in the wilderness. Nevertheless, some (in their case, many) weren't truly saved. Well, we've got the same thing today. Christ calls us His church, though He himself concedes that there are tares mixed in with the wheat, which He will sort out in the last day. We don't close our eyes and pretend everyone is saved in the NT. We know better. But Christ still calls us His church. Paul knew there were unbelievers mixed in with those he was writing his epistles to, but since he is addressing the corporate body, he rightly calls them "Saints". The true invisible church in the OT correlates exactly with the true invisible church in the NT. Those who were truly saved then were the only true members of the invisible church, just as today those only who are truly saved within the larger corporate body are true members of the invisible church. Nevertheless, just as Scripture calls that whole OT body God's people/the church, even though there were unbelievers mixed in, so God calls His NT church His people/the church, even though there are still unbelievers mixed in. Hence our distinction between the church external and the church internal; the church visible and the church invisible; being IN the Covenant and truly being OF the Covenant.
Can I turn your question around and ask: How could God call OT Israel His people (over and over again) if many among them weren't saved?
Last edited:
Lane,
Thank you for your interactions with me. I suppose I may be close, but I am still not comfortable giving the covenant-sign based on mere birth and not also discernible profession/fruit. Though I do acknowledge the general promises given to children of believers. I see the logic of paedobaptism, however. I just want more NT examples...even one example would be nice. The household baptisms seemed to entail believers as well. I also acknowledge that paedobaptism was the majority view throughout church history. But many tied paedobaptism to the false belief in baptismal regeneration.
Branson
Puritan Board Freshman
I read this by Ligon Duncan at the time I was pondering over the issue myself. It was one of the points that stuck out to me.
"Are the children of believing parents in the covenant, speaking of the Covenant of Grace here, under the New Covenant, like we know that they were under the old? And again, we can point to several lines of evidence. The apostolic preaching of Peter in Acts 2:39, “The promise is to you and to your children.” The same language as in Genesis 17. We can point to the pattern of water baptism in the book of Acts and in Corinthians. There are at least four or five examples of household baptism given us in the book of Acts, and in I Corinthians; out of seven baptisms described, perhaps five of them are household baptisms. Now what am I arguing is this: it doesn’t matter whether there were infants in those households, although it would be exceedingly unlikely that there would not be young children. What matters is, is that the Old Covenant pattern of family solidarity in this great time of evangelistic revival is still obtained. Cornelius believes, and his whole household is baptized. The Philippian jailer believes, and his whole household is baptized. And Luke goes out of his way in Acts 16 to make it clear that it is the Philippian jailer who believes and the household is baptized. And then again, Lydia believes and her household is baptized. So we see this pattern of household baptisms.
What does this pattern of household baptisms mean? It simply means that God is using the same pattern of dealing in families in the New Covenant as He did under the Old. Does it mean that everybody in every family where the head made a profession of faith is ultimately going to be saved? No. It never meant that in the Old Covenant. Think of Esau and Ishmael."
Steve Curtis
Puritan Board Senior
Me, too. We would sing - all 7 stanzas - of "It was on a ___day (Monday, Tueday,...), Somebody saved me!" and everyone would stand up as the day they were "saved" was sung.
There is usually, at least among the Baptist churches that I have been part of, the time when the person receiving the baptism makes a public declaration to all present that they now have been saved by Jesus, and by professing salvation in Him, now as being obedient to the scriptures, are now being water baptized.
- Status
