Is the New Covenant new or renewed?

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

Stephen,
I'm not trying to be pugilistic but I understand your point. If the reason for baptizing professing believers was restricted to God's command then (as I already noted) we might simply focus the argument upon that point. Yet Baptists claim that the nature of the New Covenant being made with the elect alone (unlike other dispensations) means that the sign should be applied to the elect and then make the further argument that the reason God commands the baptism of professing believers alone is because of the nature of the NC. That is assumed in Baptist argumentation but never established. No Baptist can logically move from the requirement to baptize the elect to the reason to baptize professing believers.

 

[Ben Zartman]

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.

But Bill, I think it is you who misunderstands me!
A credible profession is absolutely needed. But we recognize that even the Apostle Peter was duped by Simon Magus for a time. That doesn't relieve the requirement for the answer of a good confession (Peter's own words).
Also, it is highly irregular and undesirable that there should be a minister who proves to be unconverted, but that doesn't mean it may not happen sometime. If a Presbyterian minister turned out to be a reprobate and proved it by his life after excommunication, would you re-baptize all the infants he had baptized?
Again, a man who is not regenerate should not be made an officer of the church and should not partake of or administer the sacraments. But irregularities that ought not to happen need not make us strive for an ideal. I've mentioned this already, but you seem determined to be extraordinarily obdurate. I exhort you as you exercise your right to disagree to not become disagreeable. Baptists and Presbyterians have been charitably debating these very things for hundreds of years--why become uncivil about it now?

 

[BG]

Ben, i'm sorry you feel that I am being uncivil I certainly don't mean to be, however if we're going to have an honest discussion we should speak truthfully. Not to poke fun here but I have found that most people love the truth unless you're honest with them.

Most of what you said above I agree with but then again I'm a Presbyterian it's my theology we believe that the covenant of grace has both an internal and external administration, Baptist do not.

You don't get to jump to the Presbyterian side of the aisle and say that a baptism performed by an apostate minister is legitimate because he truly is an officer in the external administration of the covenant of grace and then jump back to the Baptist side of the aisle for everything else.


thanks for the discussion I have enjoyed it.

 

[Pergamum]

What is the answer to Ben's question?

"If a Presbyterian minister turned out to be a reprobate and proved it by his life after excommunication, would you re-baptize all the infants he had baptized?"

 

[Pergamum]

Ben, i'm sorry you feel that I am being uncivil I certainly don't mean to be, however if we're going to have an honest discussion we should speak truthfully. Not to poke fun here but I have found that most people love the truth unless you're honest with them.

Most of what you said above I agree with but then again I'm a Presbyterian it's my theology we believe that the covenant of grace has both an internal and external administration, Baptist do not.

You don't get to jump to the Presbyterian side of the aisle and say that a baptism performed by an apostate minister is legitimate because he truly is an officer in the external administration of the covenant of grace and then jump back to the Baptist side of the aisle for everything else.


thanks for the discussion I have enjoyed it.

Can you explain this line of argumentation again? Baptism does not rely upon the faith of the administrator, right?

 

[BG]

Can you explain this line of argumentation again? Baptism does not rely upon the faith of the administrator, right?

You are correct, that is the Presbyterian position and also the position many Baptist take, but it isn't consistent for them to do so.

A lost presbyterian minister is a member of the church at least externally and therefore the baptisms he performs would be considered legitimate while a Roman Catholic baptism would not.

Presbyterians do not except Roman Catholic baptism because Roman Catholics are not members of the new covenant ( Among other things).

In the Baptist view a lost Baptist minister and the Roman catholic find themselves in the same position they are neither one believers and not therefore members of the church. In order to be consistent Baptist should declare both baptisms illegitimate but they don't, instead they take a play out of the Presbyterian playbook to deal with a difficult problem and hope no one sees the inconsistency

 

[Pergamum]

You are correct, that is the Presbyterian position and also the position many Baptist take, but it isn't consistent for them to do so.

A lost presbyterian minister is a member of the church at least externally and therefore the baptisms he performs would be considered legitimate while a Roman Catholic baptism would not.

Presbyterians do not except Roman Catholic baptism because Roman Catholics are not members of the new covenant ( Among other things).

In the Baptist view a lost Baptist minister and the Roman catholic find themselves in the same position they are neither one believers and not therefore members of the church. In order to be consistent Baptist should declare both baptisms illegitimate but they don't, instead they take a play out of the Presbyterian playbook to deal with a difficult problem and hope no one sees the inconsistency

No. I don't think you understand.

While both a baptist minister and a Catholic priest can be lost when they administer the baptism, the baptist minister is acting in the name of the true church whereas the Catholic priest is acting in the name of a false church.

The ordinances are given to the church. Therefore, the baptisms of false cults do not count. I know many Presbyterians recognize the baptisms of Catholics, but they cannot also do this consistently and declare Catholicism to also be anti-Christ.

The validity of the baptism rests not upon the individual who administers it, but upon the church body to which the ordinance has been given.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Most of what you said above I agree with but then again I'm a Presbyterian it's my theology we believe that the covenant of grace has both an internal and external administration, Baptist do not.

You have hit the nail on the head here. This IS one of the big differences, and you're right that applying it consistently is a big challenge. I fear the charge of inconsistency will be laid by both sides (yes, we see a ton of inconsistencies in the Presbyterians as well) until we're all glorified together. That will be a grand day. Until then, I do appreciate your continued insights, Bill.
Peace be unto you.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Presbyterians do not except Roman Catholic baptism

Fodder for another thread, perhaps, but many certainly do...

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Fodder for another thread, perhaps, but many certainly do...

Yes, but leave a link to it here.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Yes, but leave a link to it here.

"Fodder" actually meant that this could be another thread (because there is much debate). I don't have specific resources at hand. However, a simple search will show many such threads in PB history; most recently: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/invalidity-of-roman-catholic-baptism.91458/

 

[Semper Fidelis]

What is the answer to Ben's question?

"If a Presbyterian minister turned out to be a reprobate and proved it by his life after excommunication, would you re-baptize all the infants he had baptized?"

Donatism has been considered a heresy since the early Church.

 

[Pilgrim]

Presbyterians do not except Roman Catholic baptism because Roman Catholics are not members of the new covenant ( Among other things).

I think you'll find that most Presbyterians do in fact accept RC baptism, as did the Reformers, even after Trent. If memory serves, Calvin covers this in some detail in his Institutes.

The main exceptions I can think of are Southern Presbyterians after the mid 19th Century and an Australian Reformed denomination whose name escapes me at the moment.

 

[Pergamum]

Donatism has been considered a heresy since the early Church.

Thanks. Yes.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think you'll find that most Presbyterians do in fact accept RC baptism, as did the Reformers, even after Trent. If memory serves, Calvin covers this in some detail in his Institutes.

The main exceptions I can think of are Southern Presbyterians after the mid 19th Century and an Australian Reformed denomination whose name escapes me at the moment.

Yup. Thornwell vigorously argued against the validity of RC baptism so the PCA (which emerged out of the PCUS) leaves it up to the Session.