Is there salvation outside of God's covenant?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
Michael,

I need to make a correction. In my haste to answer I misstated Spurgeon's position on the disposition of infants dying in infancy. Spurgeon believed that all infants dying in infancy are saved. The 1689 LBC, except for Spurgeon's version, reads that only elect infants dying in infancy are saved. I want to make sure Spurgeon's position is properly represented.
 

Damon Rambo

Puritan Board Sophomore
Bill, please excuse me but I would like to get further opinions on your last point. Are there other Reformed Baptists here that agree with the statement that...

"No one who is truly part of the New Covenant has/will find their way to hell"

Is this the prominent Reformed Baptist understanding?

Thanks.
I believe it is. Look here:

Luk 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

The blood of Christ IS the "New Covenant": only those who are partakers of the blood of Christ, are truly members of the New Covenant.


Rom 11:27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."


God's covenant IS that he "takes away their (our) sins." Anyone who has had their sins taken away, are saved. Since this IS God's New Covenant....well you see where this is going.

Baptism is symbolic of the New Birth, and entrance into God's covenant. It is not effectual in entering the covenant, any more than drinking a glass of wine is effectual in partaking of Christ's blood.

-----Added 12/26/2009 at 12:53:28 EST-----

Michael,

I need to make a correction. In my haste to answer I misstated Spurgeon's position on the disposition of infants dying in infancy. Spurgeon believed that all infants dying in infancy are saved. The 1689 LBC, except for Spurgeon's version, reads that only elect infants dying in infancy are saved. I want to make sure Spurgeon's position is properly represented.
Just a note: the LBCF does not exclude Spurgeons view that all infants are saved: they are not necessarily distinct. It may well be, that all who die as infants are in fact elect, in which case the LBCF and Spurgeons views would be the same thing.
 

Damon Rambo

Puritan Board Sophomore
kvanlaan said:
If it is all children that die in infancy, how does the death of thousands (millions?) of babies in the Flood play into this view? Just curious...
If you are asking me I would say that would make the Flood more of a blessing than the curse that it actually was.
Not really. If you consider that only about 1 out of 10 people in the U.S. are under the age of 7, and apply that statistic to the time of the flood, that means that 9 out of 10 people were wiped out and sent to hell. Not exactly a cause for rejoicing.

Also, when you consider the fact that people at the time before the flood were apparently living much, much longer than they are now, this number would drop somewhere around 1 out of 30 or 40 were saved infants/young children. Not exactly a resounding blessing.
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
Bill, please excuse me but I would like to get further opinions on your last point. Are there other Reformed Baptists here that agree with the statement that...

"No one who is truly part of the New Covenant has/will find their way to hell"

Is this the prominent Reformed Baptist understanding?

Thanks.
I believe it is. Look here:

Luk 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

The blood of Christ IS the "New Covenant": only those who are partakers of the blood of Christ, are truly members of the New Covenant.


Rom 11:27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."


God's covenant IS that he "takes away their (our) sins." Anyone who has had their sins taken away, are saved. Since this IS God's New Covenant....well you see where this is going.

Baptism is symbolic of the New Birth, and entrance into God's covenant. It is not effectual in entering the covenant, any more than drinking a glass of wine is effectual in partaking of Christ's blood.

-----Added 12/26/2009 at 12:53:28 EST-----

Michael,

I need to make a correction. In my haste to answer I misstated Spurgeon's position on the disposition of infants dying in infancy. Spurgeon believed that all infants dying in infancy are saved. The 1689 LBC, except for Spurgeon's version, reads that only elect infants dying in infancy are saved. I want to make sure Spurgeon's position is properly represented.
Just a note: the LBCF does not exclude Spurgeons view that all infants are saved: they are not necessarily distinct. It may well be, that all who die as infants are in fact elect, in which case the LBCF and Spurgeons views would be the same thing.
Damon,

You're right. I was simply pointing out that Spurgeon may not have been in agreement with the 1689 LBC on that point. I wasn't calling into question that LBC itself.
 

LawrenceU

Puritan Board Doctor
I don't have much to add at this time. I just now got a chance to sit and read through the thread. But, I will say that Bill is doing a fine job of delineating the newness of the New Covenant.
 

Michael

Puritan Board Senior
I've left this thread alone for a bit as I've been continuing the discussion outside of the internet (gasp!).

Anyhow, back on topic. As Bill alluded earlier, we tend to understand that elect families normally bring forth the elect children. Do you feel comfortable saying the same about those who profess faith in Christ? Do they normally prove themselves (i.e. live their lives thereafter in such a way consistent with the) elect?

Surely, not every child of a believer turns out to be one themselves. Likewise, not everyone who professes faith is elect. Therefore, for the Baptist, is baptism more about a profession of faith than it is about true entry into the covenant? I mean, if there are elect babies of Baptists who die, they die in the covenant but without the outward sign of it. Por que?
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
Michael,

Do professed believers normally prove themselves?

Matthew 3:8 8 "Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance; *
Ephesians 2:10 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Philippians 2:12-13 12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
Yes, professed believers normally prove themselves. They do so by the evidence of changed affections and good works. Perfectly? No. Sin is still an ever too present reality, even in the life of believers.

Michael Turner said:
...for the Baptist, is baptism more about a profession of faith than it is about true entry into the covenant?
Both. Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, and of the person being identified with Christ. The New Covenant was ratified by the blood of Christ (Luke 22:20). The presence of blood is not present in the sign of the New Covenant since it is signified in the Lord's Supper. Instead, we have the identification of Christ's death, burial and resurrection in water baptism. It is applied to those who profess faith, and it is the sign of the New Covenant. That is where the "both"comes in.

...if there are elect babies of Baptists who die, they die in the covenant but without the outward sign of it.
That is my understanding and the understanding of the framers of the 1689 LBC.

* This is John's baptism, but the emphasis on a changed life is the same.
 

Michael

Puritan Board Senior
So the answer is "both", but from the Baptist perspective one does not ever really know if another is actually in the New Covenant--only that it would normally follow for them to bear fruit and be established amongst the elect.
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
Michael,

The Baptist would argue that the Presbyterian never really knows whether another person is actually in the New Covenant, since we view the New Covenant as only applying to believers. The fact is that we do not have to possess perfect knowledge in order to ascertain whether a person is in the New Covenant. If they profess faith, we administer baptism. The "bearing fruit" is what all of us, paedos and credos alike, should expect from a professed believer. Wouldn't you expect a person who professes Christ to walk in a manner worthy of their calling (Eph. 4:1)?
 

Iconoclast

Puritan Board Junior
So the answer is "both", but from the Baptist perspective one does not ever really know if another is actually in the New Covenant--only that it would normally follow for them to bear fruit and be established amongst the elect.
So the answer is "both", but from the Baptistperspective one does not ever really know if another is actually in the New Covenant--only that it would normally follow for them to bear fruit and be established amongst the elect.
No one actually knows here on earth.They are known in the spiritual realm however.
15And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
12Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into
14Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
Michael, You are working through this issue in a step by step fashion,and I think Bill has answered with a consistent RB position that most of us would hold to.

We baptize what you or other padeo's would refer to as a "communicant member", or a full communicant member, if I have my terminology correct?

They confess/profess that the Spirit has savingly drawn them and placed them in Union with Christ,so that they will never perish. We believe them but as one pastor put it,time and the devil will tell.
Continuance in the faith
is evidence of the faith that saves. Phil1:6

We are not dispensational for the most part at all. There is no salvation outside the covenant. It is just that as Bill has already posted you might be viewing the covenant of grace following the OC paradigm, ie, physical birth,physical sign,all that was required to be said to be in the covenant. This covenant was breakable in that those without saving faith, or those who left the promise were the apostate thorns and brier's that the book of Hebrerws refers too.

We believe that part of what makes the New Covenant NEW is that it is not only a saved remnantIsa 1:9 who is included as the True Israel, but the ALL of Jn 6:37-44. That is to say in the NC...it is not about the physical,outward, and national sign of covenant inclusion. [with some not savingly in the covenant] It is all about being born again. Spiritual quickening, Spirit baptism. It is not that they are in,until they jump out. We now use what happened to national and physical Israel as a final type and as an example unto us, as the necessity of saving faith,Mt 21:43, 1cor 10, Hebrews 3-4, 6,8-12.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top