Is the New Covenant new or renewed?

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

Thanks Bill.

From my vantage the whole discussion about what the real supposition of Reformed Baptists (or Particular Baptists) is often obscured about points of disagreement where the RB is really trying to emphasize something about the Abrahamic or the Mosaic that they can point to in order to tie the circumcision of children to a historical imperfect dispensation of the Covenant of Grace. If you're a "1689 Federalist" you come at it a different way by really trying to say that all these other Covenants are not administrations of the Covenant of Grace but, again, the real aiming point against PB's is to say: "Look, there were Promises and such such that the elect were saved by the CoG in Christ but there's all this other historical stuff that is passing way. Notably, we have this circumcision thing that includes children but that's most formally about making sure that Jesus comes to earth historically in a people preserved from mixture."

Naturally, I'm summarizing it in a broad brush fashion but it's all aiming at the same thing: The NC is not like these old dispensations where you had imperfect and provisional things that loosely signified Christ. All we have now is the perfection of the NC with a perfect Mediator and ordinances that are no longer shadows but part of a fulfilled worship that brings us into the heavenly sanctuary.

OK, things aren't completely off the rails at this point. There's some truth to with Presbyterians could provisionally agree but RB's take this a step further and try to argue that the perfection of the NC somehow demands some sort of historical administration where God has somehow commanded the Church: "Look folks, I was OK with unbelievers being in my Covenant people in the OC because, hey, it was passing away. Times have changed now and part of your mission is to reduce the footprint, as much as is in you, to make sure that you never apply the sign of the NC to someone who just might turn out to be regenerate. Oh, and by the way, what better way to start than with your own children because you can't know for sure if they're regenerate and so you better not baptize them with a sign of regeneration until you have the maximal confidence of that reality. I know you're finite and so here's the best you can do: A mature profession of faith. I know you'll make some mistakes but I'm counting on you to at least make sure that everyone, even the children of believers, crosses this threshold of maturity so that you let in a few people as possible into membership into the local Church because I do not want my perfect NC to be visibly populated with people who might be unregenerate. Don't forget - children of believers are a sure way to reduce that population of the 'might be unregenerate.'"

I'm being a bit dramatic here and I hope it doesn't seem like I'm mocking. I'm trying to honestly express the logic of the matter. At the end of the day, the whole discussion about the nature of the NC brings you no closer than the Presbyterian on whom to baptize. We believe that the CoG was made with Christ and, in Him, all the elect. We believe that baptism does not convey the graces signified but is only sealed by the sovereign work of the Spirit. We believe the NC is the fulness of the CoG and that prior dispensations had types and shadows.

What puzzles me is how RB's can make the logical leap from the nature of the NC to the idea that, in the NC, God has commanded the Church to aim for a regenerate Church membership with profession as the goal. We can't find any verses that establish this and I've never really seen a GNC argument presented. I also question whether RB's really think that God was ever "OK" with unbelief at any time in history of Israel if it served some temporal purpose that Jesus would end up coming by a clear ethnic line. Last time I checked there were a lot of ways a person could be cut off and God did cut off people.

At the end of the day, the nature of the NC gets RB's no closer to excluding children from baptism. They regularly convince themselves of that fact but do not regularly defend the "OK, now what?" connection between what they think about the NC and baptizing their children.

 

[Dachaser]

Thanks Bill.

From my vantage the whole discussion about what the real supposition of Reformed Baptists (or Particular Baptists) is often obscured about points of disagreement where the RB is really trying to emphasize something about the Abrahamic or the Mosaic that they can point to in order to tie the circumcision of children to a historical imperfect dispensation of the Covenant of Grace. If you're a "1689 Federalist" you come at it a different way by really trying to say that all these other Covenants are not administrations of the Covenant of Grace but, again, the real aiming point against PB's is to say: "Look, there were Promises and such such that the elect were saved by the CoG in Christ but there's all this other historical stuff that is passing way. Notably, we have this circumcision thing that includes children but that's most formally about making sure that Jesus comes to earth historically in a people preserved from mixture."

Naturally, I'm summarizing it in a broad brush fashion but it's all aiming at the same thing: The NC is not like these old dispensations where you had imperfect and provisional things that loosely signified Christ. All we have now is the perfection of the NC with a perfect Mediator and ordinances that are no longer shadows but part of a fulfilled worship that brings us into the heavenly sanctuary.

OK, things aren't completely off the rails at this point. There's some truth to with Presbyterians could provisionally agree but RB's take this a step further and try to argue that the perfection of the NC somehow demands some sort of historical administration where God has somehow commanded the Church: "Look folks, I was OK with unbelievers being in my Covenant people in the OC because, hey, it was passing away. Times have changed now and part of your mission is to reduce the footprint, as much as is in you, to make sure that you never apply the sign of the NC to someone who just might turn out to be regenerate. Oh, and by the way, what better way to start than with your own children because you can't know for sure if they're regenerate and so you better not baptize them with a sign of regeneration until you have the maximal confidence of that reality. I know you're finite and so here's the best you can do: A mature profession of faith. I know you'll make some mistakes but I'm counting on you to at least make sure that everyone, even the children of believers, crosses this threshold of maturity so that you let in a few people as possible into membership into the local Church because I do not want my perfect NC to be visibly populated with people who might be unregenerate. Don't forget - children of believers are a sure way to reduce that population of the 'might be unregenerate.'"

I'm being a bit dramatic here and I hope it doesn't seem like I'm mocking. I'm trying to honestly express the logic of the matter. At the end of the day, the whole discussion about the nature of the NC brings you no closer than the Presbyterian on whom to baptize. We believe that the CoG was made with Christ and, in Him, all the elect. We believe that baptism does not convey the graces signified but is only sealed by the sovereign work of the Spirit. We believe the NC is the fulness of the CoG and that prior dispensations had types and shadows.

What puzzles me is how RB's can make the logical leap from the nature of the NC to the idea that, in the NC, God has commanded the Church to aim for a regenerate Church membership with profession as the goal. We can't find any verses that establish this and I've never really seen a GNC argument presented. I also question whether RB's really think that God was ever "OK" with unbelief at any time in history of Israel if it served some temporal purpose that Jesus would end up coming by a clear ethnic line. Last time I checked there were a lot of ways a person could be cut off and God did cut off people.

At the end of the day, the nature of the NC gets RB's no closer to excluding children from baptism. They regularly convince themselves of that fact but do not regularly defend the "OK, now what?" connection between what they think about the NC and baptizing their children.

Only those who have been saved are under the NC now, but both the lost and saved fit under the Old One. as much of that was related to temporal and physical blessings.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Only those who have been saved are under the NC now, but both the lost and saved fit under the Old One. as much of that was related to temporal and physical blessings.

I don't know if you were intending to quote me and present that as a response to what I wrote but it widely misses the mark of the point I'm making.

 

[Dachaser]

You were addressing how Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists view those distinctions though, correct?

 

[Ben Zartman]

What puzzles me is how RB's can make the logical leap from the nature of the NC to the idea that, in the NC, God has commanded the Church to aim for a regenerate Church membership with profession as the goal. We can't find any verses that establish this and I've never really seen a GNC argument presented. I also question whether RB's really think that God was ever "OK" with unbelief at any time in history of Israel if it served some temporal purpose that Jesus would end up coming by a clear ethnic line. Last time I checked there were a lot of ways a person could be cut off and God did cut off people.

We get the notion of a regenerate church membership from God's statement through Jeremiah, "They shall all know me."
We take that to mean a saving knowledge, otherwise the New Covenant isn't very new at all. We get it from seeing written: "He that believeth and is baptized..." not "he that believeth having been baptized as a sign and seal that the covenant might be actually applied sometime in future." We see it in Phillip's answer to the eunuch: "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest (be baptized)" I've pointed out previously (in this thread or another of the many on this topic) that physical birth into the Old Covenant people served as a type of being born (Born Again) into God's true covenant people, the Israel of God. The sign of being born physically into the old covenant was abrogated at the start of the new, since the sign of being born of the Spirit is now in play. We arrive there by good and necessary consequence, just as Presbyterians, lacking an explicit command to baptize infants, see their view as good and necessary consequence.
I hope this helps further your understanding of the RB perspective.

 

[Scott Bushey]

We get the notion of a regenerate church membership from God's statement through Jeremiah, "They shall all know me."

But they all don't know Him. Ask any credo and they will bear witness to the fact that they know of members who have given witness, been baptized, only to fall away later. As well, this passage in Jeremiah , in the absolute sense, refers to the gloried church. We still need teachers.

We get it from seeing written: "He that believeth and is baptized..."

This refers to those that truly believe and are baptized....it is not an absolute that all those that are baptized are true believers.

We see it in Phillip's answer to the eunuch: "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest (be baptized)"

Yes, it's based on confession. Baptism cannot be validated on Earth-all of us place the sign upon presumption.

I've pointed out previously (in this thread or another of the many on this topic) that physical birth into the Old Covenant people served as a type of being born (Born Again)

Not true.

into God's true covenant people, the Israel of God.

The Israel of God are the elect...

The sign of being born physically into the old covenant was abrogated at the start of the new, since the sign of being born of the Spirit is now in play.

The OT saints were born of the same spirit as the NT saint.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

We get the notion of a regenerate church membership from God's statement through Jeremiah, "They shall all know me.

I think we would all agree that God is speaking here of his elect; but it doesn't follow that the passage is speaking of regenerate church membership, as Baptists view it. The emphasis seems to be on the fact that the need for the types and shadows (the Levitical priesthood and the sacrificial system) will be no more needed in order to mediate between God and man. In other words, all the elect will know God in a new and living way. Hebrews 8:12, 13: "And they shall not teach every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old..."

Then Hebrews 10:17-20: "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin ["their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more"]. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh..."

So doesn't the newness of the covenant Jeremiah 31 is speaking of have to do with the better things that will come upon the full accomplishment of Christ, and his sending the Spirit? The elect may now know the Lord in a better way, his laws in their hearts and written on their minds (filled with the Spirit, the word of Christ dwelling richly).

The NT also seems to affirm this in 1 John 2:18-28, in relation to needing no man to teach saying "know the Lord": "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it...the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you..."




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ben Zartman]

I think we would all agree that God is speaking here of his elect; but it doesn't follow that the passage is speaking of regenerate church membership, as Baptists view it. The emphasis seems to be on the fact that the need for the types and shadows (the Levitical priesthood and the sacrificial system) will be no more needed in order to mediate between God and man. In other words, all the elect will know God in a new and living way. Hebrews 8:12, 13: "And they shall not teach every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old..."

Then Hebrews 10:17-20: "And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin ["their sins and their iniquities I will remember no more"]. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh..."

So doesn't the newness of the covenant Jeremiah 31 is speaking of have to do with the better things that will come upon the full accomplishment of Christ, and his sending the Spirit? The elect may now know the Lord in a better way, his laws in their hearts and written on their minds (filled with the Spirit, the word of Christ dwelling richly).

The NT also seems to affirm this in 1 John 2:18-28, in relation to needing no man to teach saying "know the Lord": "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it...the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you..."




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jeri, we contend that it does speak of regenerate church membership. The Hebrews passage you quoted sheds more light: speaking of all who know Him, he says: "Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." God only puts away the sins and iniquities of the regenerate. So, we Baptists believe that while false professors may slip in here and there, the ideal is that there would be no one counted as a member (given the sign and allowed at the table), who has not had their sins remitted.

 

[Ben Zartman]

But they all don't know Him. Ask any credo and they will bear witness to the fact that they know of members who have given witness, been baptized, only to fall away later. As well, this passage in Jeremiah , in the absolute sense, refers to the gloried church. We still need teachers.

Again, unbelievers may deceive the elders and be admitted into visible membership, but they are not in the New Covenant: they are deceivers. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to fence the sacraments against the unregenerate.

This refers to those that truly believe and are baptized....it is not an absolute that all those that are baptized are true believers.

But it is absolute that only those who are believers SHOULD be baptized. That is the Baptist position.

Not true.

Actually I did point that out. Perhaps you disagree with what I said, but this sounds as though you're denying that I made the point.

 

[BG]

The problem with the passage in Jeremiah is that it is hyperbole and we have certain rules for interpreting scripture that we cannot simply set aside just to fit our presuppositions.

It cannot mean they will all know me from the least to the greatest without exception.

Jer: 6:13 8:10 31:34 42:1 42:8 44:12
jonah: 3:5

If we say that the 31:34 passage is not hyperbole then we must say that about all the other passages which would lead us to conclude that not only are all of the prophets liars but Jeremiah himself is also.


When a phrase or term is used in a single book and five out of the six times it is used it is hyperbole a pretty good rule of thumb is that the sixth time it's hyperbole also.

Unfortunately there's a lot of confusion about this verse in both camps, if an arminian were trying to argue this way with an inconsistent hermeneutic both sides would jump all over him and demand that he remain consistent in his hermeneutic.

 

[Scott Bushey]

But it is absolute that only those who are believers SHOULD be baptized. That is the Baptist position.

Make the distinction between those that make a confession and true belief-no one knows this...

I've pointed out previously (in this thread or another of the many on this topic) that physical birth into the Old Covenant people served as a type of being born (Born Again)

Have I misunderstood what u wrote? Please clarify.

 

[BG]

Edited my post

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Jeri, we contend that it does speak of regenerate church membership. The Hebrews passage you quoted sheds more light: speaking of all who know Him, he says: "Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." God only puts away the sins and iniquities of the regenerate.

Hi Ben, yes, I agreed that this biblical statement is speaking of the regenerate. I was suggesting that God's "remembering their sins and iniquities no more" has to do with the fact that no longer must sacrifices of atonement be made before him year after year, a reminder of their sin since the final "remission of sins" (Hebrews 10:18) had not yet been accomplished. There were the regenerate in the OT, yet a continual reminder of their sin came up before God through the Levitical sacrificial system. "But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins year after year." (Hebrews 10:3)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ben Zartman]

Have I misunderstood what u wrote? Please clarify.

Not sure if I can make it clearer, but here goes: OT Israel was God's covenant people, but in a time before the Messiah had come, in whom all the promises are bound up. So they, their lives, and their experiences served as physical pictures of spiritual realities (the Exodus, crossing the Jordan, occupying the land, etc.). Inclusion in that old covenant was by birth, but that birth and inclusion served merely as a type--a picture--of the coming time when a better covenant would be established, and all the types and shadows fulfilled. In the new and better covenant, inclusion is not by physical birth but by spiritual birth (of which physical birth was a type in OT times). Everyone is born under the curse of the law, and must be Born Again to see the Kingdom of God. Sure, OT saints were born of the spirit (or Jesus' discourse to Nocodemus would make no sense), but RB's see that one of the better features of the NC is that everyone who is in Covenant with God is regenerate. There is no-one in that covenant who is not born again, though they may be mistakenly counted members of a visible congregation.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Hi Ben, yes, I agreed that this biblical statement is speaking of the regenerate. I was suggesting that God's "remembering their sins and iniquities no more" has to do with the fact that no longer must sacrifices of atonement be made before him year after year, a reminder of their sin since the final "remission of sins" (Hebrews 10:18) had not yet been accomplished. There were the regenerate in the OT, yet a continual reminder of their sin came up before God through the Levitical sacrificial system. "But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins year after year." (Hebrews 10:3)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jeri, that's an interesting way to see it--as of remembrance being made to God of sins. I always looked at it as reminding the people of their sins, since they had to offer year by year, whereas now, we don't remember our sins yearly--they're gone once for all when we repent and believe. I may have to look further into that--thanks for the food for thought.

 

[Herald]

Thanks Bill.

From my vantage the whole discussion about what the real supposition of Reformed Baptists (or Particular Baptists) is often obscured about points of disagreement where the RB is really trying to emphasize something about the Abrahamic or the Mosaic that they can point to in order to tie the circumcision of children to a historical imperfect dispensation of the Covenant of Grace. If you're a "1689 Federalist" you come at it a different way by really trying to say that all these other Covenants are not administrations of the Covenant of Grace but, again, the real aiming point against PB's is to say: "Look, there were Promises and such such that the elect were saved by the CoG in Christ but there's all this other historical stuff that is passing way. Notably, we have this circumcision thing that includes children but that's most formally about making sure that Jesus comes to earth historically in a people preserved from mixture."

Naturally, I'm summarizing it in a broad brush fashion but it's all aiming at the same thing: The NC is not like these old dispensations where you had imperfect and provisional things that loosely signified Christ. All we have now is the perfection of the NC with a perfect Mediator and ordinances that are no longer shadows but part of a fulfilled worship that brings us into the heavenly sanctuary.

OK, things aren't completely off the rails at this point. There's some truth to with Presbyterians could provisionally agree but RB's take this a step further and try to argue that the perfection of the NC somehow demands some sort of historical administration where God has somehow commanded the Church: "Look folks, I was OK with unbelievers being in my Covenant people in the OC because, hey, it was passing away. Times have changed now and part of your mission is to reduce the footprint, as much as is in you, to make sure that you never apply the sign of the NC to someone who just might turn out to be regenerate. Oh, and by the way, what better way to start than with your own children because you can't know for sure if they're regenerate and so you better not baptize them with a sign of regeneration until you have the maximal confidence of that reality. I know you're finite and so here's the best you can do: A mature profession of faith. I know you'll make some mistakes but I'm counting on you to at least make sure that everyone, even the children of believers, crosses this threshold of maturity so that you let in a few people as possible into membership into the local Church because I do not want my perfect NC to be visibly populated with people who might be unregenerate. Don't forget - children of believers are a sure way to reduce that population of the 'might be unregenerate.'"

I'm being a bit dramatic here and I hope it doesn't seem like I'm mocking. I'm trying to honestly express the logic of the matter. At the end of the day, the whole discussion about the nature of the NC brings you no closer than the Presbyterian on whom to baptize. We believe that the CoG was made with Christ and, in Him, all the elect. We believe that baptism does not convey the graces signified but is only sealed by the sovereign work of the Spirit. We believe the NC is the fulness of the CoG and that prior dispensations had types and shadows.

What puzzles me is how RB's can make the logical leap from the nature of the NC to the idea that, in the NC, God has commanded the Church to aim for a regenerate Church membership with profession as the goal. We can't find any verses that establish this and I've never really seen a GNC argument presented. I also question whether RB's really think that God was ever "OK" with unbelief at any time in history of Israel if it served some temporal purpose that Jesus would end up coming by a clear ethnic line. Last time I checked there were a lot of ways a person could be cut off and God did cut off people.

At the end of the day, the nature of the NC gets RB's no closer to excluding children from baptism. They regularly convince themselves of that fact but do not regularly defend the "OK, now what?" connection between what they think about the NC and baptizing their children.

Rich, thank you for your gracious response, and no, I did not think you were mocking.

You wrote, "We believe that the CoG was made with Christ and, in Him, all the elect." 1689 Federalists agree with that. 1689 Federalists also believe that the CoG was concluded in the NC. As has been stated more than a few times in the various 1689 Federalism threads, the CoG was promised in the OT, and not concluded until the NC was revealed. That is the 1689 Federalist position, a position I have not yet adopted (even though I am attracted by many of its arguments). Since the CoG was made with Christ, and in Him, all the elect; 1689 Federalists take the position that the only valid recipients of baptism are the believing elect. At this point, I realize the argument is repeating itself. 1689 Federalists do not feel the need to argue about baptism because they believe that issue is settled by the nature of the NC. The NC/CoG (one in the same) is made with Christ and His elect; not sinful elect members who have yet to come to faith, but only with the believing elect. The 1689 Federalist position disqualifies natural birth as a means of coming under the auspices of the CoG.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, thank you for your gracious response, and no, I did not think you were mocking.

You wrote, "We believe that the CoG was made with Christ and, in Him, all the elect." 1689 Federalists agree with that. 1689 Federalists also believe that the CoG was concluded in the NC. As has been stated more than a few times in the various 1689 Federalism threads, the CoG was promised in the OT, and not concluded until the NC was revealed. That is the 1689 Federalist position, a position I have not yet adopted (even though I am attracted by many of its arguments). Since the CoG was made with Christ, and in Him, all the elect; 1689 Federalists take the position that the only valid recipients of baptism are the believing elect. At this point, I realize the argument is repeating itself. 1689 Federalists do not feel the need to argue about baptism because they believe that issue is settled by the nature of the NC. The NC/CoG (one in the same) is made with Christ and His elect; not sinful elect members who have yet to come to faith, but only with the believing elect. The 1689 Federalist position disqualifies natural birth as a means of coming under the auspices of the CoG.

Bill,

Again, it seems that there's a missing assumption that has yet to be provided by any Biblical or GNC argument:

P1: The COG is made with Christ and in Him all the elect
P2: Because the local Church is to represent the NC, the only valid recipients of baptism are the believing elect.
P3: ?
P4: ?
Conclusion: We baptize only professors because _______

I maintain that Baptists (of both varieties) assume (but never prove) that they are supposed to only baptize the elect and, therefore, they only baptize those who profess Christ.

This makes sense in an semi-Pelagian scheme but not one in which election is left to the hidden counsel of God and in light of Christ's own parable about the sower and the seeds.
In order to move, in one step, from:
1. We are to only baptize the elect
to:
2. We are to only baptize those who profess Christ

Then elect must be identical with those who profess Christ.

Since this is clearly not the case then there needs to be some additional argumentation that is not provided. It is simply assume and not argued.

 

[Herald]

Bill,

Again, it seems that there's a missing assumption that has yet to be provided by any Biblical or GNC argument:

P1: The COG is made with Christ and in Him all the elect
P2: Because the local Church is to represent the NC, the only valid recipients of baptism are the believing elect.
P3: ?
P4: ?
Conclusion: We baptize only professors because _______

I maintain that Baptists (of both varieties) assume (but never prove) that they are supposed to only baptize the elect and, therefore, they only baptize those who profess Christ.

This makes sense in an semi-Pelagian scheme but not one in which election is left to the hidden counsel of God and in light of Christ's own parable about the sower and the seeds.
In order to move, in one step, from:
1. We are to only baptize the elect
to:
2. We are to only baptize those who profess Christ

Then elect must be identical with those who profess Christ.

Since this is clearly not the case then there needs to be some additional argumentation that is not provided. It is simply assume and not argued.

Rich,

It seems as though you are requiring Baptists to have perfect knowledge in order to only baptize those who are elect. I am not aware of any Baptist who makes that argument. We baptize those who profess faith in Christ and assume their profession is true. In this, I do not think there is much difference between paedobaptists and credobaptists when it comes to baptizing upon a credible profession of faith. There is a certain amount of trust that takes place on the part of the local church. Having said that, I do not see where this negatively impacts the Baptist view of the New Covenant and Covenant of Grace.

 

[BG]

Bill said:
It seems as though you are requiring Baptists to have perfect knowledge in order to only baptize those who are elect.

Isn't that your argument against baptizing children? We can't know if they are elect because they can't make a credible profession of faith. Btw how do you really know the profession is credible?


Bill said:
We baptize those who profess faith in Christ and assume their profession is true.

We baptize children and assume that Gods promises are true. We both assume that the party baptized will prove to be elect.



Bill said:
In this, I do not think there is much difference between paedobaptists and credobaptists when it comes to baptizing upon a credible profession of faith.
There is a certain amount of trust that takes place on the part of the local church. Having said that, I do not see where this negatively impacts the Baptist view of the New Covenant and Covenant of Grace.

You are right you to say that there is not much difference between the two groups, but there is one glaring difference, we have a theological foundation for our assumptions and our trust and you don't.

In practice Baptist act like Presbyterians. On the one hand you want to say that the church is for believers only and yet on the other hand you have to recognize that there are unregenerate people in your congregations who take the Lord supper, baptize people, ordain people to the ministry and execute church disciplined all this despite the fact that they are not even church members according to your theology.
How can it be that an unregenerate man can legitimately baptize people in a Baptist church? I'm sure that you will say that as long as it is a Trinitarian baptism it doesn't depend upon the man, to which I agree, but when you say that you are borrowing from the Presbyterian position.

 

[Pergamum]

Neither side agrees with purposely baptizing those who are not the elect. But what is the more sure determination of who to mark out? There are general promises in Scripture for the chldren of believers, yes. But a conscious and intentional profession of faith seems a more sure sign than mere birth, and it is the only explicit pattern we have in the NT.

 

[Ben Zartman]

We baptize children and assume that Gods promises are true. We both assume that the party baptized will prove to be elect.

My dear Bill G,
We Reformed Baptists see nowhere in scripture that the children of believers are promised salvation by being born. If God had promised to save the children of believers, then He must be breaking His promise when one of them proves to be reprobate. Are you suggesting that God breaks His promises? I can hardly think so, though it's the logical end to your statement.
Rather than presume upon something God has not vouchsafed, we look for the answer of a good confession; for the fruit of the Spirit by which they shall be known (perfectly? of course not, but a discerning eldership can weed out a good percentage of the false professors). That the ideal is impossible to achieve does not mean we do not reach toward it and make it our standard. Should I give up on keeping the Ten Commandments because I can't achieve perfection? No, they are my ideal and it is my duty to live in their light all of my days, regardless of whether it's achievable or not.

 

[BG]

My dear Bill G,
We Reformed Baptists see nowhere in scripture that the children of believers are promised salvation by being born. If God had promised to save the children of believers, then He must be breaking His promise when one of them proves to be reprobate. Are you suggesting that God breaks His promises? I can hardly think so, though it's the logical end to your statement.
Rather than presume upon something God has not vouchsafed, we look for the answer of a good confession; for the fruit of the Spirit by which they shall be known (perfectly? of course not, but a discerning eldership can weed out a good percentage of the false professors). That the ideal is impossible to achieve does not mean we do not reach toward it and make it our standard. Should I give up on keeping the Ten Commandments because I can't achieve perfection? No, they are my ideal and it is my duty to live in their light all of my days, regardless of whether it's achievable or not.

Your presuppositions here are wrong in the old testament the sign of imputed righteousness was given to children who were born in the household of believers only.
That's not to say that unbelievers stopped giving the sign of imputed righteousness to their children unfortunately they did it and God often punish the people because of that.
I realize that do to your presuppositions you cannot except this and that you have to view the new covenant as not just a renewed Covenant but a new religion this is where I see a lot of inconsistencies in the Baptist position. As I've said in another post Baptist regularly borrow the theological position of Presbyterians when it's convenient for their argument and then they turn right around and jump back on their Baptist platform on another issue I see this as inconsistent. Keep your Baptist footing don't borrow our foundation. You can't say that the only true members of the visible church are believers and then turn right around and say except in the case where a minister turns out to be apostate and in his case we will make a special exception he truly is a member of the church in someway and therefore his baptisms are legitimate. I understand that that is what you say and I understand that you don't see it as being inconsistent however that does not mean that you're not inconsistent.

 

[BG]

Btw The promises that God (not Bill) made to believers and their children remains the same in both administrations of the covenant of grace

 

[Ben Zartman]

Your presuppositions here are wrong in the old testament the sign of imputed righteousness was given to children who were born in the household of believers only.
That's not to say that unbelievers stopped giving the sign of imputed righteousness to their children unfortunately they did it and God often punish the people because of that.
I realize that do to your presuppositions you cannot except this and that you have to view the new covenant as not just a renewed Covenant but a new religion this is where I see a lot of inconsistencies in the Baptist position. As I've said in another post Baptist regularly borrow the theological position of Presbyterians when it's convenient for their argument and then they turn right around and jump back on their Baptist platform on another issue I see this as inconsistent. Keep your Baptist footing don't borrow our foundation. You can't say that the only true members of the visible church are believers and then turn right around and say except in the case where a minister turns out to be apostate and in his case we will make a special exception he truly is a member of the church in someway and therefore his baptisms are legitimate. I understand that that is what you say and I understand that you don't see it as being inconsistent however that does not mean that you're not inconsistent.

Ah, I think I understand you better now. Perhaps the issue lies in that you place more weight on the actions of human agents than we do. There's not a lot of skin off my nose if the ideal is breached and a false professor is allowed into the visible congregation. If the sign of covenant inclusion was administered by an apostate, it doesn't mean (to us) that the thing it signified was not real--after all, it is a physical picture of a spiritual reality. There is no saving grace conferred by the waters of baptism, so the spiritual condition of the baptizer isn't critically at play. It there's an unconverted minister in the church, there's bigger issues than whom he has baptized.
Your claim that we borrow wholesale from the Presbyterian position is uncharitable--we find these things in the Scripture as well. That there are many parallels is no surprise--we're reading the same book, believing the same God, trusting in the same Christ. Of course the charge of inconsistency goes right back at you (by that I mean Presbyterians at large) in that they demand positive warrant for ceasing paedoinclusion, but hang a lot of church polity on the fragile peg of extrapolating from example.

 

[BG]

Ah, I think I understand you better now. Perhaps the issue lies in that you place more weight on the actions of human agents than we do. There's not a lot of skin off my nose if the ideal is breached and a false professor is allowed into the visible congregation. If the sign of covenant inclusion was administered by an apostate, it doesn't mean (to us) that the thing it signified was not real--after all, it is a physical picture of a spiritual reality. There is no saving grace conferred by the waters of baptism, so the spiritual condition of the baptizer isn't critically at play. It there's an unconverted minister in the church, there's bigger issues than whom he has baptized.
Your claim that we borrow wholesale from the Presbyterian position is uncharitable--we find these things in the Scripture as well. That there are many parallels is no surprise--we're reading the same book, believing the same God, trusting in the same Christ. Of course the charge of inconsistency goes right back at you (by that I mean Presbyterians at large) in that they demand positive warrant for ceasing paedoinclusion, but hang a lot of church polity on the fragile peg of extrapolating from example.

With all due respect I don't think you understand .

You don't put a lot of weight on the actions of humans ? So, no credible profession of faith needed. You are staunchly critical about who can be baptized but not so critical about who baptizes.

You have flipped the argument upside down and once again you are embracing the Presbyterian position in order to justify your actions this is inconsistent.

The burden of proof is on you to show the theological foundation for saying that a man who is not a member of the church can legitimately be an officer of the church and administer the sacraments. It's like saying that multiplication is not a legitimate discipline and then turning right around and doing algebra if you don't believe that multiplication is a legitimate disciplined you cannot possibly do algebra. the same is true of your argument, you can't say that church membership is for believers only but officers in the church can be unbelievers.

 

[BG]

Where in scripture do you see the doctrine of the credible profession of faith? Where is this outlined? In one church a four year old can have a credible profession but in another church he can't, what about children with disabilities? When I was a Baptist I was troubled by the fact that we had a standard that fluctuated from church to church. Ultimately Baptist don't believe in the baptism of disciples alone or the doctrine of the credible profession of faith but when the pastor says so doctrine.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Lane,

I see the logic of paedobaptism, however. I just want more NT examples...even one example would be nice.

This was one of those things that dawned on me; I realized that if I were somehow unaware of the baptism controversy and, reading through the OT, saw that the households of believers received the sign of inclusion; and then reading through the NT saw that households still received the NT sign of inclusion; my non-prejudiced self would assume that any children must have been baptized as well, since there is no direction in the Scripture given to us to think otherwise. (And from the example of Lydia and others, would see that baptism was for girls, too). Since there is no Scripture that refutes such an assumption (claims to the contrary notwithstanding), I have to believe that our good and loving Father, who wants us to know his will on these things, would have us baptize our whole households.

Holding out for a specific example then seemed uncalled for; as if I was being like Thomas, 'unless I see a specific example here I won't believe,' when He had already spoken to this and and given the pattern and examples; it was settled with Abraham. It seemed to me to be one of those many cases where we are called to see the OT as exhibiting the same covenant of grace and the same golden threads running throughout as in the New.

I had a sort of paradigm shift in realizing that baptism just wasn't what I had been taught it was. My assumptions ran very deep, and I was thinking that if paedobaptism was correct, it was probably just one of those things I'd never be sure of. I really wasn't looking to be convinced of it.

 

[BG]

This was one of those things that dawned on me; I realized that if I were somehow unaware of the baptism controversy and, reading through the OT, saw that the households of believers received the sign of inclusion; and then reading through the NT saw that households still received the NT sign of inclusion; my non-prejudiced self would assume that any children must have been baptized as well, since there is no direction in the Scripture given to us to think otherwise. (And from the example of Lydia and others, would see that baptism was for girls, too). Since there is no Scripture that refutes such an assumption (claims to the contrary notwithstanding), I have to believe that our good and loving Father, who wants us to know his will on these things, would have us baptize our whole households.

Holding out for a specific example then seemed uncalled for; as if I was being like Thomas, 'unless I see a specific example here I won't believe,' when He had already spoken to this and and given the pattern and examples; it was settled with Abraham. It seemed to me to be one of those many cases where we are called to see the OT as exhibiting the same covenant of grace and the same golden threads running throughout as in the New.

I had a sort of paradigm shift in realizing that baptism just wasn't what I had been taught it was. My assumptions ran very deep, and I was thinking that if paedobaptism was correct, it was probably just one of those things I'd never be sure of. I really wasn't looking to be convinced of it.

Jeri, you have put your finger on the heart of the issue you had the good fortune of allowing the Bible to dictate what your presuppositions would be rather than the other way around allowing your presuppositions to dictate what The Bible says.
Having a biblical understanding of Old Testament theology is foundational to understanding the New Testament message, if you don't understand the doctrine of Covenant households which is fully developed in the Old Testament and carried over into the new, then you're not going to understand the new.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Neither side agrees with purposely baptizing those who are not the elect. But what is the more sure determination of who to mark out? There are general promises in Scripture for the chldren of believers, yes. But a conscious and intentional profession of faith seems a more sure sign than mere birth, and it is the only explicit pattern we have in the NT.

This is what I keep speaking to. These are assertions. They are not supported by GNC.

In my fake conversation, Baptists assume God has somehow said: "I want to make sure you don't baptize the reprobate because the NC is with the elect only and, after all, what is the more sure determination of who to mark out than Profession of Faith." This is always assumed in Baptist theology.

Now, I can accept an argument that just says: "Look, we don't know why God tells us to only baptize professors. We're just obeying the Word of God where (it seems to us) that we are to only baptize mature professions of the faith.

But the Baptist goes further - he tries to draw a straight line from the NC is with the elect to "God only wants us to baptize the elect" to "therefore the way to make sure we do that most effectively is to baptize those who maturely profess the faith."

This last progression is always ASSUMED but never proven that God has actually commanded the Church to trace election to the administration of baptism given the inability of man to know at all the hidden counsel of God.

I don't know how many different ways I can express this. I obviously understand that Baptists do not know who the elect are. I'm not creating the demand that you think in these categories. I'm arguing that you think in these categories and I'm asking for a Biblical accounting for it.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

But the Baptist goes further - he tries to draw a straight line from the NC is with the elect to "God only wants us to baptize the elect" to "therefore the way to make sure we do that most effectively is to baptize those who maturely profess the faith."

I think you have missed the point Rich. Only God knows who are the elect are. Reformed Baptists baptise professing believers in a similar way that only Reformed Paedobaptists baptise children of professing believers.