Question about covenant theology

[Contra_Mundum]

Etienne,
Here's a Q&A from the Westminster Larger Catechism:

Question 31: With whom was the covenant of grace made?
Answer: The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.​

The Westminster Standards do not directly discuss the Covenant of Redemption, a term for the inter-Trinitarian plan of salvation, but a couplet like the one above reveals the background of the thought. (You can find a more explicit statement in the Sum of Saving Knowledge, which in the Scottish Presbyterian Standards is often printed with the constitutional documents).

The Covenant of Grace is that eternal covenant when viewed from the standpoint of the earth, when looking upwards as it were, viewed through the lens of Christ. It is the portion of the Covenant of Redemption that intersects with our experience. We experience the Covenant of Redemption only through our Mediator, only through our Head, to whom we are united by faith in the Covenant of Grace.

Because the Covenant of Grace has so much to do directly with humanity, since it is (partly) administered in the realm of lesser things, and even fallen and broken things, we consider it under two modes of administration--earthly and imperfect administration, carried out by fallible men, based on things essentially visible; and a heavenly and perfect administration, executed by the Spirit, Son and Father, based on the secret things of God. See Dt.29:29. There is a "coming down" administration, and a "looking up" administration.

Full participants in the Covenant of Grace are partakers of both modes of administration. They receive the fullness of divine grace, by faith union with Christ--blessings that are the lawful property (by blessed donation) of the elect. These persons also, when they are properly related to the church in the world, worthily receive his benefits that are associated with the promise of God, by which he comes to us in our weakness through the means of grace instituted by himself. The church is his institution, organized in the main for the well-being of his dispersed flock, while they are on their pilgrimage.

But there are also those who infiltrate the church in its progress. These fall in with the membership, often even adopting the mannerisms, language and thoughts of the membership, all the while keeping a strange heart to the things of God. These partake unworthily of the promises, ministered to them through the means of grace. They are engaged in a kind of theft--not of eternal goods (which they can never taste), but of the service that has been laid out for the benefit of those who have seats at the table. Hence, there is a great terror in store for the one who is seated there, found not to have a wedding garment, Mt.22:12-13. The wonder is that there is a seat there for the one who only hoped to get the crumbs that fell from the master's table, Mt.15:27-28. See also Mt.8:11.

This is what we mean, then, that the CoG contains unbelievers. These may have many outward indications of belonging to the CoG, while they do not have a divine acknowledgement. The "down-coming" administration does not know them or recognize them. These are like the one in Pilgrim's Progress who makes his pass to the door of the Celestial City, only to find he has no citizenship. And there is a door for him hard by the gates of paradise that commits him to his rightful master in hell.

 

[Peairtach]

We are still in the Abrahamic Covenant in its super-dooper New Covenant administration.

It was promised to Abraham that he would be a father of nations and that he would inherit the world.

E.g.

Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. (Gn 17:5)

And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. (Gn 17:8)

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. (Rom 4:13)

The nation of Israel was just a token of international salvation, and was always open to incorporating others. The Land of Israel was just a token of the whole World and was always open to expansion, as tribes and nations joined with the Covenant People or were subdued by them.

 

[non dignus]

Randy,
You make an interesting question about the relation being parallel or linear. Could you elaborate?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I just question the parallel statement. As a Reformed Baptist I would state that the Presbyterians and paedo's flatten out the continuity of the Covenants too much. I held to an understanding that the CofW and CofG ran parallel and were both administered in the various covenants running up to the New Covenant which was not a mixture of CofW and CofG. As you can see I have had a change of heart concerning my view. I no longer believe that they run parallel next to each other through the various covenants. I do not believe the Covenant of Works is administered at all in the the administrations of the Covenant of Grace. I believe as the Westminster states that the Covenant of Grace was administered differently in the various covenants. I also believe that the Covenants are progressive in their Revelation. We all believe in Progressive revelation. I do not therefore see the covenants as stand alone dispensations as I use to see. I see the Covenants as progressively revealing the Covenant of Grace and building up those who are in the faith in its various administrations. Each proceeding Covenant reveals a bit more and builds on the previous covenant.

Does that make sense?

III. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, 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.

IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ, the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.


V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation, and is called the Old Testament.

 

[non dignus]

I just question the parallel statement. .....I do not believe the Covenant of Works is administered at all in the the administrations of the Covenant of Grace.

The unbeliever's status is that he is fallen in Adam, but he is still heaping up sins. I know we are not in a formal CoW now, but how would God account for my sins committed today if I were not in Christ? The CoW must still be in effect in some sense.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The result of the Covenant of Works is not done away. The same is true for everyone except Christ Jesus the Lord. They are all born in Adam even if they did not sin the same way as Adam did. They are all born in that sin and commit sin they do. Everyone born is heaping up sin upon sin if they are not found in Christ. It was effective in its original form and the result of it carries to this day. The difference in Christ is that he didn't share in our federal head of Adam. That is why He was able to fulfill it and suffer on our behalf. He was born of the seed of a woman as it was promised back in Genesis 3:15. So the progressive revealing of the Covenant of Grace to man started with Adam and Eve and it has been progressively revealed in the proceeding promises and Covenants that are administered by it.

 

[Loopie]

Good Evening Everyone,

I am new to the Puritan Board Forum, but I was very interested in the discussion on covenant theology, particularly the discussion between Paedo-Baptism and Credo-Baptism. Though I am not an expert in these areas, I want to hopefully contribute to this discussion by pointing out a few things.

First of all, I just finished reading Greg Nichols’ new book Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God’s Covenants. In it Nichols summarizes the different views concerning covenant theology. He compares and contrasts the London Baptist Confession, the Westminster Confession (as well as larger and shorter catechisms), the Belgic Confession, and the Heidelberg Catechism. He then goes into detail concerning each of the covenants that we see in scripture, and they relate to each other. With that said, I will summarize what Nichols presents in his book, and why he concludes that Paedo-Baptist position is an inconsistent one.

In Part II of his book (Part I was a compare and contrast of the different Reformed and Baptist confessions), Nichols presents the three monumental intrusions that God made into history. First was the rescue that occurred at the time of the flood. Second was the redemption of the Hebrew nation out of Egyptian slavery. Third was the redemption of God’s people from their sins by the atoning work of Christ. Nichols then declares that in each of these instances, the righteous servants and the saved societies were organically joined:

“God pledges to bless his righteous servants and their posterity. Each saved society is the posterity of a righteous servant. God perpetuates each covenant with a saved society. God makes covenants with the societies he saved from the flood, Egypt, and sin. He makes the Noahic community covenant with Noah’s posterity, the old covenant with the Patriarch’s physical posterity, and the new covenant with Jesus’ spiritual posterity.” (Nichols 108)

Nichols then presents an easy to understand diagram that provides the following information:

Feature	Noahic Economy	Mosaic Economy	Christian Economy
Righteous Servant	Noah	Patriarchs/Abraham	Jesus
Posterity Beneficiaries	Noah's Family	Patriarchs physical children	Jesus' children (Abraham's spiritual children)
Divine Salvation	from Flood	from Egypt	from Sin
Saved Society	Ark Dwellers	Hebrew Israel	Christian Israel
Organic Perpetuity	Physical posterity of Ark Dwellers	Physical children of Patriarchs	Spiritual children of Jesus

From here, Nichols discusses the seven historical covenants: God’s covenant with Noah (pre flood), God’s covenant with Noah’s posterity (post flood), Abrahamic Covenant, Old Covenant, Davidic Covenant, Messianic Covenant, and the New Covenant.

But before he discusses each of these covenants in detail, he spends a considerable time talking about the Covenant of Grace. Nichols quotes Genesis 3:15 as being the foundational passage concerning God’s covenant of grace. God promises to bruise/crush Satan’s head, and in that promise is the redemption of Eve’s seed. Again Nichols presents an easy to read table:

Essential Features	The Redeemed	The Redeemer
Partakers Named	All God's Elect	Jesus Christ
Promises Made	Apply Redemption	Accomplish Redemption

Nichols then declares that not all men in Adam partake of this covenant. It is the Elect who are the spiritual seed of Eve, the redeemed. God accomplishes this redemption through the general and effectual call of the gospel.

In addressing the misconception that the children of believers are automatically partakers of the covenant simply because they are the physical children of Abraham’s spiritual posterity, he makes the following statement:

“Now, has God so connected the means to the ends that these means are in every instance effectual? Is every hearer of the gospel converted? Does every child nurtured by godly parents inherit his parents’ faith? Does every sinner for whom the redeemed intercede repent and believe? I could wish the answer to these questions was yes, but it is not. God makes these means effective as it pleases him. As it is said, the best of means are means at best. The means of grace are great privileges. Yet, the partakers of the covenant of grace are all the elect, not all the privileged. Not all hearers of the gospel are elect. Not all children raised in godly homes are elect. Not all sinners for whom saints pray are elect. We should not confound being privileged by the means of grace with being a partaker of the covenant of grace.” (Nichols 132-133)

Nichols says more on the subject:

“Similarly, Christians are Eve’s and Abraham’s spiritual children. The physical children of Christians thus enjoy great privileges. They enjoy these religious privileges in their final and finest form. God often uses the nurture of Christian parents, gospel preaching, and intercessory prayer to apply redemption to our physical children. Yet sadly, not a few of them, in spite of all their privileges, remain, like Cain, the devil’s children. And patently, the devil’s children, however privileged, are not partakers of the covenant of grace…
…In this light Christians should evaluate our views of our physical children. God made the covenant of grace with Eve (the believer) and her seed (spiritual children). Ask some plain questions. First question, was total inability removed from all her physical children because God made the covenant of grace with her? Second question, did God remove the guilt of Adam’s sin from all her physical children? Third question, did God assure Even that he would work faith in all her physical children’s hearts? Fourth question, were all her physical children, collectively, God’s elect? Fifth and final question, were all her physical children partakers of the covenant of grace? The answer to all these questions is, no. Ask the same questions about Noah and his physical children. Even ask these questions about Abraham and his physical children. The answers are all the same, no. We should apply these answers conscientiously to our doctrines and practices. Conscience in submission to Scripture, not parental longing, should govern our theology.” (Nichols 138)

As for the church, Nichols makes it clear that there is a difference between what the visible church is and what the visible church is supposed to be:

“Can men discern God’s creation of spiritual seed, the fulfillment of this solemn pledge? The answer is, yes. Can men infallibly discern God’s creation of spiritual seed? The answer is, no. Man looks on what appears to be genuine conversion in a credible profession of faith; but only God sees the real spiritual state of every heart. Thus Bavinck most cogently distinguishes appearance from essence.” (Nichols 139)

Even though I could go on summarizing Nichols’ understanding of each of God’s covenants, I feel that I presented enough information to hopefully encourage you to read his book. Before I finish though, I want to quickly discuss how Nichols’ defines the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Redemption:

“The covenant of grace focuses on the application of redemption by means of the general and effectual call. When God applies redemption by this gospel call, he implements or executes his covenant of grace. Its essence is God’s solemn pledge to accomplish redemption by Christ and apply it to his elect. The gospel call is the method by which he implements, executes, and fulfills his solemn pledge.” (Nichols 13)

In the end, I feel that Nichols has done an excellent job presenting a clear and consistent understanding of covenant theology. Not only does he reference a large number of Reformed and Baptist Confessions, he also compares and contrasts John Gill, Charles Hodge, Robert Lewis Dabney, Herman Bavinck, and Louis Berkhof. He argues that the seven different covenants described in scripture are all a means by which God accomplishes his covenant of grace. The covenant of grace is God’s “pledge to apply redemption to his elect, through the general and effectual call of the gospel.” The covenant of grace is accomplished in time and history, which reveals it to be the manifestation of God’s covenant of redemption (the decree to save that was made eternally within the Godhead). The seven covenants in scripture are organized into three covenantal economies: Noahic, Mosaic, and Christian. There is continuity between them when it comes to God’s elect. Salvation from sin has always been by grace through faith in Christ, and the elect have always been Eve’s/Abraham’s spiritual children. In Nichols’ own words, “the organic continuity of the covenant of grace is spiritual, and thus supports believer-only communion and baptism, which are visible tokens of God’s covenantal favor to his people in Christ.” (Nichols 100)

 

[non dignus]

Welcome, Loopie.
It is an honor to respond to your 1st post.
How does Nichols interpret Deut. 29:29?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Yep, that is a Reformed Baptist perspective. I should know. Welcome to the Puritanboard Eric. Make sure you make a signature that will show up in your posts. Here is the requirement for it. http://www.puritanboard.com/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_signaturereqtsfaq

I would differ from Nichols in a few places probably. The first intrusion was at the base. God shed blood in covering Adam and Eve. I also believe there is more continuity between the Covenants than he does. I am also a bit more inclined to appreciate the term Covenant of Works than he is as I noted in this place. http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/reformed-baptistic-perspective-gods-covenants-70004/#post897939

I wonder if he deals with the nature and substances of the Covenants. That is one thing that has pulled me away from 30 years of adhering to the Reformed Baptist position. I was viewing the Covenants as stand alone Covenants which administered both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. I wonder if he does this as do many other Reformed Baptists. I don't believe that is true any longer. I see the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants as administrations of the Covenant of Grace. They don't administer a Covenant of Works.

 

[Loopie]

To Non Dignus:

Allow me to quote from Nichols in an area where he references Deuteronomy 29:29:

"The wilderness generation, due to its rebellion, displays both continuity and diversity. There is continuity in Joshua and Caleb. They experienced firsthand both divine redemption from Egypt and divine inheritance in Canaan. There is also diversity. Most of the men that God redeemed from Egypt perished in their unbelief in the wilderness. Their children, who inherited Canaan, were either minors or yet unborn when God redeemed their fathers from Egypt. As God instituted the Abrahamic covenant at various seasons of his life, so he instituted the Mosaic covenant throughout their wilderness wanderings (Jer. 31:32). He began its institution at Sinia (Exod. 19:3, 6: Deut. 5:2-3) and concluded it in Moab (Deut. 26:17-19, 29:1, 9-13). Thus its original partakers are the wilderness generations of Hebrew Israel.
God perpetuated this pledge with successive generations of Hebrew Israel, descended from the original partakers by natural generation (Deut. 29:14-15, 29). If the descendants of the original partakers break this covenant, God inflicts on them its curses and judgments. Eventually, if they persist in this disobedience, even after God afflicts and judges them severely, he removes them from their inheritance in the land of Canaan and sends them into captivity in a foreign land (Deut. 29:24-28). This confirms that God perpetuates this covenant with successive generations of Hebrew Israel." (Nichols 208-209)

Now I am not sure if that answers your question, or if you wanted to discuss that verse in more detail. Again, I myself cannot do justice to Nichols' work, though I will do my best to summarize his arguments and present them to you.

To Puritan Covenanter:

Throughout my reading of Nichols' book I never got the impression that he did not believe in continuity among the covenants. Consider what he says in this statement:

"The Supreme Designer, Artist, and Engineer of the universe arranges his pledges in a form that is beautiful, intricate, orderly, and revelatory; in a word, it is remarkable. These seven covenants have a benevolent framework that consists in the Noahic Economy. They have a redemptive focus comprised of the Mosaic and Christian economies. They culminate with a Messianic fulfillment in the Christian economy. This entire house of pledges rests on an evangelical foundation, the mother-promise, the covenant of grace." (Nichols 110)

Based on this statement, and others, I would suggest that Nichols does indeed support the continuity of the covenants. This of course depends on if I am understanding your definition of 'continuity' properly. If I have not, then I would ask that you explain to me more about what you mean by 'continuity', and I can therefore confirm whether or not Nichols holds to this type of continuity.

As for God shedding blood for Adam and Eve, Nichols asserts this several times in his book. He does not deny it at all. He argues that when we look at the Adamic Covenant, we need to look at the relationship between God and Adam:

"In sum, Adam's original relation to God was familial and filial-parental. Thus it was warm and affectionate, not cold or distant. It was not an impersonal relationship between contracting parties. It was not between a disinterested judge and an unrelated defendant, or a ruler to an unknown subject. Thus, a 'covenant of works' model simply doesn't compart with its filial-parental framework...
...It is important to grasp the impact of this. Royal sonship has familial and legal aspects. A prince is his father's subject and servant. Even so Adam was his Father's subject and servant. A king is a prince's father and judge. So God was Adam's Father and Judge. A prince is capable, as Absalom was, of leading a revolt against his father's kingdom. Even so, Adam was capable of treason against his Father's government." (Nichols 337)

As for the nature of the Adamic Covenant, it was of grace, since the blessings that Adam had were unmerited (he already had them when God placed him in the garden, and God was not obligated to put Adam there):

"First, Adam enjoyed the unmerited privilege of physical and spiritual life. He enjoyed communion with God. He knew God. He had affectionate fellowship with him. Scripture calls such knowledge and fellowship with God 'life' (John 17:3). Thus Adam had life, physical and spiritual. Thus, he had the right to eat from the tree of life (Gen. 2:16). Yet, it is also true that Adam's life was mutable.
Second, Adam enjoyed the unmerited privilege of home in paradise, the Garden of Eden. Adam lived in blessing and delight. The Garden of Eden was beautiful and comfortable. God abundantly supplied their every need.
Now, consider carefully the source and ground of these privileges. Adam did not merit life in paradise. He never earned it. God gave all this to him from the beginning, freely, out of parental favor. Adam enjoyed blessing from his Father that was unmixed and unmerited. God established Adam's filial relationship and its privileges wholly from his 'creative paternal favor'. He founded it on unmerited favor to the son he created upright (Eccles. 7:29). Adam enjoyed every privilege and blessing freely from the generous love of his Creator Father. Again, categories like 'contracting parties', and 'stipulations', misrepresent God's unmerited favor from which he freely gave every privilege and blessing to his son Adam." (Nichols 338)

In the end, I think Nichols presents the Adamic Covenant not as a covenant of works, but a covenant of life. Even before the fall, God bestowed unmerited favor to his son Adam. Adam never earned the privilege of being in the garden. I think that Nichols would agree with you that the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants are administrations of the covenant of grace. He seems to suggest that ALL seven of the covenants are administrations of the overall covenant of grace. As for the Covenant of Works, Nichols does not agree with the term, and prefers calling it the Covenant of Life or better yet, the Adamic Covenant.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Again, categories like 'contracting parties', and 'stipulations', misrepresent God's unmerited favor from which he freely gave every privilege and blessing to his son Adam." (Nichols 338)

So, are you suggesting that the Covenant of Works was a gracious Covenant Eric? That Adam didn't have stipulations and had an unmerited favor bestowed upon him in the Covenant of Works? I do understand that God was gracious in his condescending to Adam. But is the Covenant of Works a gracious Covenant in light of Romans 4. If there were no covenanting parties and no stipulations then why was Adam cast out? If there was an unmerited favor then what happened to cause Adam to fall from it?

(Rom 4:1) What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

(Rom 4:2) For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.


(Rom 4:3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.


(Rom 4:4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.


(Rom 4:5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.


(Rom 4:6) Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,


(Rom 4:7) Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.


(Rom 4:8) Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

And really you did not address my concern of how works are implemented into the framework of the Mosaic and other Covenants that Reformed Baptists teach. I have not read Nichols and wasn't going to since I have spent much time in the earlier works of Reformed Baptist and thought he really wouldn't have anything else to offer that differed. I would really like to know if he diverts from Reformed Baptist thought on this subject. No one is denying that Reformed Baptist hold to a framework that says the Covenants don't administer the Covenant of Grace. That is not the dispute. It is whether or not they administer a works application along side of the grace offered in these Covenants.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Covenant of Life or Covenant of Works, what's the difference? Adam was promised life upon condition of perfect, perpetual, personal obedience. He was promised death if he disobeyed. This sounds like a semantical debate, but one of questionable value.

And the truth is, words are very important, such that we want to be careful about when an where we use certain language, so as to safeguard certain concepts. "Works" and "Grace" are highly charged words, and often used in stark contrast to one another in Scripture. Creation is one starting point for history. The Fall of Man is the RE-starting point, and a different principle reigns so far as the creature relating to his Creator. Its the difference between a perfect man relating to God, and a sinner relating to God.

The Westminster divines do not use "grace" to describe Adam's unfallen relation to God, precisely because there is an urgent requirement to conserve that term. Instead, the use the language "voluntary condescension."

WCF 7:1 "The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant."​

Here, no one can be in doubt as to the fact that God must stoop to meet us, and that no creature is capable of strictly deserving the attentions of God. But God is still free to set up the terms of his engagement with his creation, and to establish the "merits" for maintaining the relation viable.


If it bears up, that there is a kind of embedded unease in the Ref.Bapt. conception of the economy of the covenants with the notion of "Covenant of Works" (and I do not claim there is, or that Nichols has been represented; I just don't know), then this would have to stand as another significant contrast in starting points, which I frequently say is the great difference in how Covenant Theology and Covenantal-Baptist theology differ.

Further, if you look at the 1st chart (reproduced above), you see how that the Mosaic economy is described by Nichols as placing all sorts of essential emphasis on physical things, in contrast to the Christian economy, which he describes as placing (new) emphasis on Spiritual things. I find this radical contrast completely artificial, and foreign to biblical religion taken together. In contrast to the CB understanding of the former covenant, I do not believe that the enhanced sensory quality of Moses' was an essential quality at all. Those sensory aspects obtained an "overshadowing" quality because of the dullness of the people, but they were meant to illumine them (particularly the elect) to spiritual truth in a darkened age.

In the CT (vrs. CB) there is contrast between the Mosaic and Christic economies; however it is not contrast that is adequately expressed by pitting "physical" and "Spiritual" against one another as principles. The difference in those departments is one of degree, relative to the expression of those covenants historically. Furthermore, if one pushes farther back chronologically behind the Mosaic economy to the Abrahamic covenant (ala Paul's NT argument, Gal.3:18), one finds Spiritually-dominant economy antedating the Mosaic-economy.

And this reveals another distinction, one that the same chart (above) shows by way of omission, or combination. See how Moses subsumes Abraham, so that Abraham's covenant has no columnar reference? Where is the unique reference to Gen.12, 15, & 17? It is as though the covenant of Ex.20-24 (Sinai) has effectively muted the Abrahamic covenant. This apparently "validates" a Judaic (Pharisaic) reading of the OT! But Paul (following Christ) exposes the dominant Judaic reading (by the 1st century) of the OT as fallacious!


There are significant differences between the CB and the CT readings of these matters. And, sadly, it sounds as though again (this time in a massive, book-length treatment) the CB position is portrayed as distinct from the CT simply on the basis of alleged consistency, the CB view naturally being portrayed as "more consistent." But this presentation ought to make more people wince, at its claim so incongruous with observable fact.

It is far more reasonable to reckon that there is an essential divergence at the root of the matter, rather than at the conclusion of it. The difference in our conclusions has to do with the STARTING POINT, the hermeneutical origin, and then is worked out to different termini and practices. Consistency is the goal of both movements, and either side's insistence that the other side "get consistent" will result in endless talking past each other, rather than coming to an accurate understanding of the other's views (even where disagreement remains). At least, when someone changes position, it will be because they understood their reason for switching (or returning) went much deeper down.

This in no way invalidates the observation that both of these camps are related, or that they share many points of doctrine in common. This is quite rational, theologically as well as historically. We're dealing with the "same" materials, albeit with different principles of construction. But if we just think that its all about using the SAME principles, just "inconsistently" applied, we will not understand the other project.

 

[Loopie]

To Puritan Covenanter:

As I said earlier, I cannot do justice to Nichols' own words. I simply recommend that those who are interested in the topic of covenant theology take a look at his book. I certainly could offer many quotes from it, but other than reproducing the work verbatim, I am unable to do justice to his arguments.

What I will say is that the Adamic Covenant was indeed a covenant. But to use terms such as 'stipulations' and 'contracting parties' does not do justice to the fact that there is a parental relationship, a filial relationship, between God and Adam. Yes, God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge. Adam already enjoyed both physical and spiritual life prior to this. As Nichols says: "All this unmerited privilege and happiness carried with it filial obligation."

How would Adam complete his responsibility? Here is what Nichols says:

"Thus, Adam labored in hope that when he fulfilled his work on earth, the creation mandate, he would enter God's rest. God would translate him, without death, into his heavenly presence."

So I would agree that there was indeed a covenant between Adam and God, where Adam was obligated to obey. At the same time Adam has already received unmerited favor and blessing. His position was mutable, but if he fulfilled God's commands, he could expect to enter into God's rest. The reason why Nichols tries to avoid the term Covenant of Works, is because it implies that Adam had to work his way into God's favor. Yet this is a favor that Adam already had, and he could only lose it by disobedience. That is why I think Nichols avoids the term covenant of works.

As for the works application alongside a covenant of grace, I do not think that Nichols has ever labeled the Abrahamic or Mosaic Covenants as covenants of works. In fact, I still don't quite follow what you are trying to get at. Yes there were rules and stipulations in each of the covenants, but in each of those covenants God is bestowing his unmerited favor. Abraham was declared righteous well before he was circumcised. Salvation has always been by grace through faith in Christ. Some of the covenants cover more ground than just salvation though. Obviously the Noahic Covenant was redemption from the flood, but not from sin (not all who are part of the Noahic Covenant are Eve's spiritual children, the Elect). In the same way, there were physical and earthly promises to the Hebrew Nation, but not all who were circumcised were Abraham's spiritual children.

In the end I am not sure what you mean by administering a works application alongside the covenant of grace. If anyone has worked for the salvation of the Elect, it is Christ, who has done a perfect work.

To Contra_Mundum:

I must disagree with your statement that Adam was promised life upon perfect, perpetual, obedience. Adam already possessed life before God even commanded him to obedience. The only promise was a loss of life, death, upon disobedience. Adam was not in a neutral position when God planted him in the garden. Adam was in fellowship with God, and had both physical and spiritual life. Yet Adam was mutable. Certainly Adam could expect to enter into God's heavenly, eternal rest upon completion of his appointed tasks, but he already had life.

I agree with you completely that we must be careful of the terms that we use. Nichols does not call the Adamic Covenant a Covenant of Works or of Grace. Both are present in different senses. He simply acknowledges that is the Adamic Covenant, and that it is centered upon the filial-parental relationship between God and Adam.

As for your criticisms of Nichols' work, I again strongly recommend that you read his work for yourself, since I am not one to do justice to his position. I simply attempted to summarize his positions. Nichols does not deny a spiritual aspect of the Mosaic and Abrahamic Covenants. Yet we see that not all of Abraham's physical children were the Elect. Not all of Hebrew Israel were of the Elect. The spiritual remnant (Eve's spiritual seed) were always within the physical (visible) church. Salvation has always been by grace through faith.

In the end I must ask, what is your own position concerning the covenants, how they relate to each other, and how God redeems his people from sin? If our biggest area of disagreement is whether not children should be baptized, then let us discuss it plainly and clearly. I will now cease summarizing Nichols' book, and speak simply from my own understanding.

We all agree that God is sovereign and free in who he saves. Yet for some reason many Christian parents believe that simply because they are believers, that their state of grace is guaranteed to be transferred to their children (which is the primary reason why they baptize them). This is never promised in scripture to ANY physical children, but only to spiritual children. Abraham was in a state of grace when God promised him physical children. Yet Ishmael, and other children were not of the Elect. Eve's physical children were not guaranteed to be the Elect, because we see that Cain, who murdered his brother, was cursed. So throughout scripture, who are those guaranteed to be the recipients of God's Saving Grace? It is always the spiritual children, whether Eve's, Abrahams, or Christ's. Now some would go so far as to say that ALL children who die automatically go to heaven (unless they have reached the age of accountability). I am sure most of us disagree with that, but we still need to be consistent in our understanding of baptism. If we baptize our children and they grow up and live to be unbelievers, then they were not of God's Elect, and were not Abraham's spiritual children. But while physical circumcision was commanded for Abraham's physical children (many of whom were not believers), Christ's spiritual children are the ones to receive baptism and communion (as well as circumcision of the heart).

Consider that in the Old Testament we see that the true church was invisible. Often times most of the people of Hebrew Israel were NOT believers. Yet all of them were entitled to physical circumcision. All of them were part of the Mosaic Covenant, although not all of them were Abraham's spiritual children. In the New Testament we see that Christ gathers the invisible church (the remnant) and makes it visible. Only Christ's spiritual children are authorized to be part of this church, and to receive the signs of the new covenant (communion, baptism, and heart circumcision). Yet since we do not infallibly know who the Elect are, and since our physical children are not guaranteed to receive the state of grace that we currently enjoy, we need to refrain from infant-baptism. By engaging in infant-baptism we make the unwarranted assumption that we KNOW who the Elect are, and that our children are guaranteed to be part of that elect. We forget though that God is as free to save infants as he is free to save us. I have no claim to salvation, but God freely chose to save me for his own purposes, regardless of who my parents were.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I must disagree with your statement that Adam was promised life upon perfect, perpetual, obedience.

Technically, it's not *my* statement, but the statement of the Standards I'm oath-bound to confess as the biblical truth.

--WLC. A#20 "...entering into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience,..."

--proofs @ loc. cit.: Gen. 2:16–17. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Gal. 3:12. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Rom. 10:5. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

--It is also a part of the LBC to which you profess to adhere, 19.1 http://www.puritanboard.com/confessions/1689lbcf.htm#Ch.19 (and see the same in WCF.19.1).​

Do you believe in the Probation of Adam? That he had a better blessedness to attain than the blessedness of Eden? That it is better to be "not able to sin," than it is to be "upright" (Ecc.7:29) but mutable, and "able to sin"? If you do, then I don't know why you would disallow that there are two distinct modes of living even before the fall; and that not having the ultimate life, it yet remains held out to Adam as a motive

I say there's a qualitative difference between being alive, and working to stay that way; and having eternal life without fear of losing it. Paul says that there is such a person who "is dead even while she lives" 1Tim.5:6. That is to say, there is more than one sense in which we may be said to "live" in the present; all the same, there was a better-life waiting for Adam. The Tree of Life was a sign of it (as was the Sabbath). In the first estate, God suspended life on continued obedience. In the ultimate estate, he guarantees life, by himself ensuring the conditions that make it possible.

In the end I must ask, what is your own position concerning the covenants, how they relate to each other, and how God redeems his people from sin?

My position can be broadly defined within the contours of traditional Covenant Theology. I believe in a Covenant of Works existing before (and after) the fall, which binds or condemns all of the human race in the first Adam, the federal head of all his posterity (by ordinary generation). I believe in a Covenant of Grace, instituted after the fall to redeem the elect. I think it is present in seed form in Gen.3:15, and is progressively developed and revealed throughout the ages until it is uniquely and comprehensively revealed in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the promised Seed--of the woman, of Abraham, of Judah, of David, Rom.1:3. In him we have redemption through his blood.

The full witness of the Scriptures to the Lord Jesus Christ is the gospel of God; Christ is the hope of all the ages. The covenants of the past ages are all expressions of the grand, salvific Covenant of Grace. They enlarge the previously given revelation, as well as serving for a guide for the people who fall under their various administrations. Usually, the covenant-relations overlap. For example, the Law (Moses' covenant, or the Old covenant), which comes 430 years after the Promise (Abraham's covenant), cannot annul the previous one (Gal.3:17), because the the previous one is superior. The Davidic covenant does not supersede the Mosaic, because David's is largely a further expression of Moses', or more exactly an enlargement of certain provisions previously dormant or less developed. The New Covenant is the institution of the Mediatorship of Christ, which brings to fruition (has brought, or will bring that which remains to be completed) all that the previous covenants anticipated. The fullness of the Covenant of Grace is the completion of the new heavens and new earth, when God may be all in all, 1Cor.15:28.

We all agree that God is sovereign and free in who he saves. Yet for some reason many Christian parents believe that simply because they are believers, that their state of grace is guaranteed to be transferred to their children (which is the primary reason why they baptize them). This is never promised in scripture to ANY physical children, but only to spiritual children. Abraham was in a state of grace when God promised him physical children. Yet Ishmael, and other children were not of the Elect. Eve's physical children were not guaranteed to be the Elect, because we see that Cain, who murdered his brother, was cursed. So throughout scripture, who are those guaranteed to be the recipients of God's Saving Grace? It is always the spiritual children, whether Eve's, Abrahams, or Christ's. Now some would go so far as to say that ALL children who die automatically go to heaven (unless they have reached the age of accountability). I am sure most of us disagree with that, but we still need to be consistent in our understanding of baptism. If we baptize our children and they grow up and live to be unbelievers, then they were not of God's Elect, and were not Abraham's spiritual children. But while physical circumcision was commanded for Abraham's physical children (many of whom were not believers), Christ's spiritual children are the ones to receive baptism and communion (as well as circumcision of the heart).

Brother Eric,
I'm going to respectfully ask of you that you not impute to me beliefs that I do not hold, nor that most Reformed or Presbyterian pastors, theologians, and laypeople hold--the ones who know their doctrine, and are worthy of the historic designations.

Your paragraph above contains claims about vaguely defined people and groups with whom you have some sorts of disagreement. It isn't entirely clear that you know exactly who these people are, or what they believe; or how many of the people you may be grouping together have such thoroughgoing disagreements between them, that they could not reasonably be placed into the same category on any but the most superficial resemblance. By way of comparison, I understand that JW's practice full-body immersion as a baptismal practice ( Baptism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). It shows as much unawareness of the views of the typical Ref.Baptist to lump him together with such incompatible beliefs as JW's hold, if I sought to explain what I thought was improper about baptism "ONLY when an individual is old enough to understand its significance" (to quote from the wiki-link).

So, again, I'm asking you to (1) first acquaint yourself with the views of those whose doctrine and practice differs from yours, by asking questions or reading texts, before you lead off asking then answering your own rhetorical questions, as in the above paragraph.

Consider that in the Old Testament we see that the true church was invisible. Often times most of the people of Hebrew Israel were NOT believers. Yet all of them were entitled to physical circumcision. All of them were part of the Mosaic Covenant, although not all of them were Abraham's spiritual children. In the New Testament we see that Christ gathers the invisible church (the remnant) and makes it visible. Only Christ's spiritual children are authorized to be part of this church, and to receive the signs of the new covenant (communion, baptism, and heart circumcision). Yet since we do not infallibly know who the Elect are, and since our physical children are not guaranteed to receive the state of grace that we currently enjoy, we need to refrain from infant-baptism. By engaging in infant-baptism we make the unwarranted assumption that we KNOW who the Elect are, and that our children are guaranteed to be part of that elect. We forget though that God is as free to save infants as he is free to save us. I have no claim to salvation, but God freely chose to save me for his own purposes, regardless of who my parents were.

Seriously, you do not know what you are talking about.

You have no idea (literally) why we baptize... anybody. Mature or infant. You really don't. Ask some questions, brother. That's the only way you will get to the root of our divide.

Blessings.

 

[Loopie]

To Contra_Mundum:

I apologize if I did not present myself more clearly in what I was trying to say. I fully agree with you that the words you spoke were of the Westminster Confession. I agree that Adam had a better life to look forward to, a life that was immutable, eternally in God's rest. Of course, without a bit of explanation, one might conclude that the phrase 'covenant of life' could mean that Adam did not actually have life until his job was accomplished. He certainly did have life, a spiritual life that was at the same time not immutable as ours is. Quite simply, Adam did have more to look forward to after some set probationary period.

Based upon your description of Covenant of Works and Grace, we are in agreement, and I do not disagree with anything that you have said up until this point. All men are obligated to be obedient to God, and all men are guilty of breaking God's law. The Covenant of Grace is God's means of redeeming the Elect, a redemption that was eternally decided within the Godhead as the Covenant of Redemption.

Also, again I apologize if my statements led to misunderstanding. I never was imputing arguments to you specifically. I had transitioned to a more broad subject area, a shift in the topic (though I realize that I did not make a big enough shift in my terminology). When I refer to people who argue for an age of accountability, or for infants being guaranteed to go to heaven upon death, I referred to examples of people that I have had discussions with in my own life (not JWs by the way). I am not trying to lump anybody on this forum, or anyone Reformed, in with those people. I again apologize if I left you with that impression. I realize now that I should have been more clear in my transition from a discussion of specific covenants, namely the Adamic Covenant, to a more broader discussion of infant salvation and infant baptism in general.

Now since we are practically in full agreement concerning the Covenants of Works/Grace, and the Adamic Covenant, I had wanted to transition to a more broad topic. I felt that there was really nothing more to discuss concerning Adam's position both prior to and after the fall. Looking at what you just said concerning Adam, and the fact that I truly do agree with you, I think it is right that we move on to a topic such as infant-baptism.

Now, I respectfully say that I do not appreciate it when you assert that I do not know what I am talking about. Let us allow each other a bit of grace, and not become combative or argumentative (again I apologize if my words appeared that way in my earlier posts). With that said, I do ask that you please show me where I have erred in my understanding of infant-baptism. If you claim that I have no idea what I am talking about, then the most gracious thing to do is to share with me exactly what you believe concerning the baptism of infants, instead of just ending on such a negative note.

In fact, since you bring up adult baptism, I respectfully request that you share with me (as succinctly and clearly as possible) why adults are to be baptized. I do not ask this simply for the fun of it, but to ensure that we both start out on the same sheet of music prior to addressing any differences. Now I am sure that we would agree perhaps 95% or so, but the only way to address the divide between us is to really narrow down the differences in our viewpoints. That is why I am asking you to share your view concerning both adult baptism and infant-baptism, and why you think infant baptism is consistent with Covenant Theology.

In the end, I think there was a slight disconnect in our communication. The different writing techniques between people will cause this, particularly since only 10% of a message is in the words, while the rest is in tone and body language (something which forums in general lack). I will try to be more clear in future posts, but I respectfully ask that you not simply write me off as not knowing what I am talking about (besides, if you are going to say that to someone, the least you can do is show them why they are ignorant, and share with them your viewpoints instead of just leaving them hanging with an insult).

I look forward to our continued discussion, and hopefully a more respectful one concerning infant and adult baptism. God Bless!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Eric,
I appreciate your willingness to review what you wrote, and to see that in moving into new territory for discussion you need to be clear on your purpose. In the two paragraphs which I criticized, you did make copious propositional statements, some about your views, some about what some other people may possibly believe. And interspersed a query in the middle there, which seems more rhetorical than curious. At that point, you seemed to be "defending" all over the map, anticipating this or that, but not really knowing your opponent's disposition. To use another metaphor: you pulled out the sword, brandished it, and whirled yourself about a bit executing set forms, and peering into the mist for a contestant. But at that point, you're just sparring with shadows.

I'm not entirely surprised that you didn't appreciate my observations, even swathed as they were in gentle encouragement to wait on genuine combat. I think you would have appreciated even less a blitz. What is your acquaintance with this position? Have you read any books by defenders of baptism from a Reformed or Presbyterian perspective? Have you had any conversations with knowledgeable pastors or elders from this perspective? Have you so much as read our confessional statements? If not, then I'd have to say in all honesty that you are more ignorant on the subject than informed. And it would be truly unkind and mean-spirited to use that to my advantage in a contest you were obviously not prepared for.

It would be hard for me to accurately describe where you've erred in your understanding of infant baptism, because I only have your few statements on the subject, half of which seem like "counter-moves" against imagined declarations by paedo-baptists. But let me start with this:

for some reason many Christian parents believe that simply because they are believers, that their state of grace is guaranteed to be transferred to their children (which is the primary reason why they baptize them).

You know, you may be right that there are many Christian parents who think this way. Who are they? What churches do they belong to? More importantly, what is the doctrine "on paper" of that church? Because lots of people believe all sorts of mixed-up stuff, that those who believe just what the doctrinal-statement declares would deny in a heartbeat. This might be true even in a Baptist church.

What is the primary reason why (informed) parents of a Reformed and Presbyterian persuasion present their children for baptism? Here's Q&A #166 of the WLC

Question 166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?
Answer: 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, 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.

Prooftexts include, Col. 2:11–12; Acts 2:38–39; Rom. 4:11–12; 1 Cor. 7:14; Luke 18:15–16; See Gen. 17:7–9; Gal. 3:9–14; Rom. 11:16​

If you want to know why I baptize (certain) infants, the answer is in the bolded portion above, a very plain statement as to the reason. Because the children so described "are in that respect within the covenant." The bottom line for why we (on this side of our divide) baptize infants is because we believe that God has ordered it so to be done, and so we do it. And we don't make unreliable judgments concerning the status of election of our children in order to justify God's directive, any more than we make the equally unreliable judgment concerning the status of election of any adult whom we baptize. When it comes to salvation we simply believe the promise of the gospel: that the Lord will save all those, and only those, who have faith in him; so let this person being baptized hope in the Lord.

Here's a second quote from your earlier post:

By engaging in infant-baptism we make the unwarranted assumption that we KNOW who the Elect are, and that our children are guaranteed to be part of that elect.

I hope it is clear to you that in order for you to say this about us at all, you must superimpose your understanding of baptism on us. I'm not sure where you would have to go in order to find a Reformed paedo-baptist who believes anything remotely like this. ONLY (some?) credobaptists make ANY attempt to baptize on the basis of scrying election. If you followed carefully what I said in the above section, you noted there the explicit denial that for us baptism is based on supposed knowledge of election (or good guesswork)--whether that be for an infant, OR for an adult. This is because the facts of election are not within the purview of any human being.


We baptize all those (and only those) of whom we have commandment to baptize. These are the persons that God has identified as being within the visible bounds of his covenant-dealings. His original, explicit designation of those persons so identified as standing within the covenant was stated in Gen.17, namely Abraham and his house. The males were to receive the sign of the covenant in their flesh, namely circumcision. This sign continued as covenant-sign down to the coming of the kingdom of God, and the Lord Christ of it. The old sign of circumcision was replaced by a new sign, baptism. Baptism isn't restricted to the males, but to every member of the covenant including women. And what of the children? Have they now been put out of the covenant? Where? It is nowhere stated that they are put out. In fact, there are references to them with a fair degree of frequency, and the terms are quite favorable.

I'm not going to try to anticipate all the possible objections and questions these views inevitably raise. I'm going to let you raise what you want, and try to answer them that way. I will say this: the assertion that Abraham's covenant was all (or primarily) about physical realities (versus spiritual)--and Moses' covenant the same along with his--is utterly and completely at odds with traditional Covenant Theology. It is an alien concept to the way that Covenant Theology developed out of the post-reformation exegetical revolution. CT in its traditional form understands that the covenant with Abraham was a spiritual covenant. There are earthly realities that accompany heavenly ones. But this is no different from what every age experiences, this side of heaven. The earthly, in some imperfect sense, mirrors the heavenly.

So there you have some food for thought.

 

[JP Wallace]

We all agree that God is sovereign and free in who he saves. Yet for some reason many Christian parents believe that simply because they are believers, that their state of grace is guaranteed to be transferred to their children (which is the primary reason why they baptize them).

Eric, let me as a Reformed Baptist reiterate what Bruce has said, in some of what you are writing here you are misunderstanding and misrepresenting the paedobaptist position, this is something that is frequently done (and they do it do sometimes of us!), but it really is essential that we critique a position that we understand it. It is not good enough to study one side of the argument. Here is the clear and unambiguous teaching and 'official' position of every paedobaptist on this board,

Westminster 28:5
V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

As you can see baptism does not regenerate, nor does it's application mean a person is regenerate, nor is it applied on the basis of presumed regeneration, much less election, all of that is error. There have been those who baptise on the basis of presumed regeneration, but that is not the Westministerian doctrine.

As I understand it, my presbyterian and other paedo-baptist friends baptise their children because they believe God commands the application of a covenant sign in the Abrahamic covenant and has not rescinded that commandment in the new covenant, though He has changed the sign. I recommend the following short series of sermons from Prof. Edward Donnelly on the subject. Prof. Donnelly knows RB's very well and deals with the subject very well I believe.

Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church(NI) - SermonAudio.com

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Some paedo's baptize on the presumption of election and not regeneration Pastor Wallace. They presume that in God's grace he has elected their Children even though they are not regenerate yet. I wouldn't do either. I would baptize based upon a father or mother's profession of faith as the child is sanctified and a covenant member of the Church the parent is a member at. Thus placing the child under the authority and discipleship of Christ, His Church, and the Parent's responsibility to raise up the child in the fear and admonition of the Lord as the Child is to recognize that God claims to be his God since he or she is a member of the Covenant Community. That places the responsibility of the child to respond to the Grace of God as well as it has placed the responsibility of their authorities to do what is commanded.

I have listened to all kinds of Paedo's through the years and this is the three situations I have heard. This is where I have landed on the issue so far. And I am still not sure I have understood all of the arguments.

I think I defend my position fairly well in this post in this thread we are also discussing right now.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/mosaic-republication-c-o-w-71664/#post917483

 

[Peairtach]

Eric

Mosaic Economy

Righteous Servant=Patriarchs/Abraham

Posterity Beneficiaries=Patriarchs physical children

Thanks for the post, Eric, and welcome to the PB. Sounds like a stimulating Reformed Baptist book on covenant theology.

The above place in the table misses out something important, that the Abrahamic Covenant was not only made with Abraham's posterity, but also with all those who entered the Abrahamic covenant by profession and their children.

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, (Rom 11:17)

People are still being engrafted into the Abrahamic Covenantal Olive Tree today, not atomistically but organically.

 

[Loopie]

To Rev. Buchanan:

As I said before, I apologized for what appeared to be a rapid and quick brandishing of the sword. As a humble Christian I recognized when I was not as clear in my purpose and my words as I should have been. That being said, mutual respect is very important in any discussion, so we need to maintain that towards one another.

I understand your position concerning paedo-baptism. The reason I asked your opinion on the matter is because not all Presbyterians adhere closely to the Westminster Standards. And though I myself agree with 99% of the Westminster Standards, I do disagree with the concept that in some way the children of believers are members of the New Covenant. I understand that you believe that God has ordered you to do so, and if I believed that he indeed commanded that all children of believers should be baptized, then I would adhere to your position. So that is the first divide between us, that you believe God commands the children of all believers to be baptized, while I do not believe God has commanded that.

As for the idea that some baptize their infants based upon the understanding that their state of grace is transferred to them in this way, yes there are some who would call themselves 'presbyterians', but again would not necessarily hold to the Westminster Standards. I agree with you completely that a church's confessions are important, and they need to be biblical.

As for reading and knowledge on the topic of baptism, there is no doubt that you have covered more books, lectures, sermons, debates, than I have. Of course, this does not mean that you should refrain from discussing these topics with me out of a quasi-charitable desire to not 'take advantage of me' in a discussion that I am not prepared for. Sir, I am a big boy, and I have no problem being destroyed in a discussion if I fail to prepare for it. I am responsible for my words, and I do not ask for anyone to wear kid gloves when having a discussion with me.

With that said, on the specific topic of baptism, I have read the London Baptist Confessions, the Westminster Confessions (including the shorter and larger catechisms). Now I certainly have to reference those writings, since I have not memorized them to any great level. As for books, I have read Nichols' newest work, as well as Calvin's Institutes. I am currently working on other works as well when my free time permits. As for other sources of information, such as lectures and debates, I have spent most of my efforts listening to Dr. James White and his discussions on baptism, as well as his debates with those who adhere to paedo-baptism.

Now that we have made a fresh start (so to speak), it would seem that our differences are two in number. One is that we disagree on who exactly is part of the New Covenant. Two is that we disagree on who God commands to be baptized.

One passage that I would like to address is Acts 2:38-39:

"Peter said to them, 'Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.'"

Now it is my understanding that paedo-baptists would say that since the promise is made for us and our children, that therefore the children need be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. I would argue that we need to ask what the promise is and what the context is. We can see that the promise (forgiveness as a result of faith and repentance, coupled with the gift of the Holy Spirit) is made to the Jews ("you and your children"), and to the Gentiles ("all who are far off"). Yet this promise is based upon God's election ("as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself"). For this reason I would say that Acts 2:38-39 is not to be understood as suggesting that the infants of believers are to be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins.

As for the disagreement concerning who is to be considered as part of the New Covenant, I have attempted to simply summarize what Nichols was presenting in his book (though I agree I could have done better). Allow me to try again.

When we look at the covenants throughout all of scripture, what is the basic structure that we see? In the Adamic Covenant we see that those who fall under that covenant are all of Adam's physical descendants. All have broken God's commands, and all are guilty. Yet we see that within this group is the spiritual remnant, the Elect of God. God's promise to Eve that her seed will crush the head of Satan hints at this. God was not telling her that all of her physical children (which would be Adam's physical children as well) would be redeemed.

As we transition to the Noahic Covenant, we see the same thing. God made a covenant with his righteous servant Noah, and the promise (of not destroying the world by flood again) was made to all of Noah's physical descendants. In this way, every human on earth is a partaker of the Noahic Covenant, a covenant that has been sealed by the sign of the rainbow. Of course, within this group the spiritual remnant still existed. Not all of Noah's descendants were God's elect, yet God's elect were indeed partakers of the Noahic Covenant.

With the Abrahamic Covenant we again see the same structure. God made a covenant with his righteous servant Abraham, with promises both spiritual and physical in nature. The sign of the covenant was physical circumcision of Abraham's physical children. We know that Abraham was already right with God prior to his circumcision, and not afterwards. We also see that Abraham circumcised his household, including Ishmael. Again, we see that all of Abraham's physical children were made partakers of this covenant, though we certainly recognize that not all of them are the spiritual remnant, the Elect of God. Not all of Abraham's physical children would be redeemed from sin.

In the Mosaic Covenant the same can be said concerning the Hebrews. They were all under the covenant, but not all of them were the spiritual remnant, the spiritual children of Abraham.

In the Davidic Covenant we see that God promises that the house of David will not fail to have someone on the throne of Judah. This is a promise to David and his physical descendants. Certainly there is a spiritual promise as well that is fulfilled in Christ. Yet we must agree that not all of David's physical descendants were part of the spiritual remnant, the elect of God. This is evident of the many wicked kings that sat on the throne of Judah.

Finally, when we get to the New Covenant, we see a genuine change in structure. Christ does not have any physical descendants. This is very different from ALL of the other righteous servants that God entered into covenant with. In the New Covenant we see that the spiritual remnant becomes the specific partakers of the New Covenant. The remnant includes those not circumcised as well as circumcised. Yet all of them are considered to be the spiritual children of Abraham. Whereas before the spiritual remnant were members of older covenants with those who were not the spiritual remnants, we now see that the New Covenant is made for only the spiritual remnant. Those who are members of the New Covenant are members of the church, the body of Christ, of whom Christ is the head. They are the Elect. The signs of this covenant are baptism, communion, and circumcision of the heart.

In the end, we see that there is continuity within the covenants, but there is also a genuine shift in who is considered to be partakers of the covenant. All of Abraham's children were commanded to be circumcised, but not all of them were the Elect. Yet the New Covenant is greater, and better, than the Old. Christ does not have any physical children, and it is the spiritual children of Abraham, the Elect, that are to receive baptism, communion, and circumcision of the heart. Throughout scripture we see that it is never the case that all of the physical children of believers (righteous servants) are guaranteed to be the spiritual remnant, the Elect. So why is it the case now, under the New Covenant, that we should baptize the children of believers as if they were the spiritual children of Abraham, the Elect?

To Pastor Wallace:

It was not my purpose to misunderstand or misrepresent the paedo-baptist position. Yet there are those who do hold to the views that I described (I wasn't making it up). Now I certainly did not mean to suggest that Reverend Buchanan held to these views, but I wanted to bring up the fact that if we are not careful in our consistent view of scripture, it can lead us to those false views. I agree that the WCF makes the caveat regarding paedo-baptism that it is no guarantee of salvation. The problem is that in one sense it is being argued that the children of believers are members of the body of Christ, the church (of whom Christ will lose none). Yet if they grow up and we realize that they weren't really part of the New Covenant, the church, then what have we suggested? Haven't we suggested that Christ HAS lost some? Is it truly consistent with perseverance of the saints? This is a problem unless we believe that those under the New Covenant are not all members of the body of Christ.

Ultimately, I believe that not only has the New Covenant changed the sign of the covenant from circumcision to baptism, but those who are considered to be members of this covenant has also changed. Abraham's physical descendants are partakers of circumcision, whether they are believers or not. Christ does not have physical descendants, and we see that he calls the spiritual remnant as the legitimate partakers in the New Covenant.

I hope that I was able to clarify my position a bit, and I truly look forward to continued discussion.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yet if they grow up and we realize that they weren't really part of the New Covenant, the church, then what have we suggested?

Are the baptized adults in your congregation members of the church?
Are they all elect?
If some of your baptized adults turn out to be non-elect, what has your Church suggested by baptizing them?

 

[Loopie]

To Semper Fidelis:

There is no doubt that some adults who profess Christ (as well as receive the sacraments) are not of the Elect. They might be part of the visible church, but certainly not the invisible church. Yet we both would agree that they are not partakers of the New Covenant, and never have been. If they are not the Elect, then they are not true members of the body of Christ. Yet their false confession will condemn them, and they will answer to God. The question is: are they legitimately authorized to receive baptism and communion as deceivers? I would say that they are not authorized to do so, because they are false believers, not the spiritual children of Abraham. With that said, we do not know for certain whether our children are the Elect or not, and whether they are of Christ's body or not. When we baptize our infants we seem to be assuming to ourselves some role that is solely God's. He will call his Elect in his own time. If we baptize our children knowing full well that they might be of the reprobate, we knowingly err in our role as parents. If a person confesses Christ, deceives the church, and takes baptism and communion unlawfully, that person alone errs, and will be held accountable for their actions.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I have spent most of my efforts listening to Dr. James White and his discussions on baptism, as well as his debates with those who adhere to paedo-baptism.

I don't believe this is going to get you very far. I was a Reformed Baptist for many years and argued much along the same lines. And it is easy to win a debate sometimes (depending on the opponent) and depending on the topics discussed and you may still be incorrect.

Yet this promise is based upon God's election ("as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself"). For this reason I would say that Acts 2:38-39 is not to be understood as suggesting that the infants of believers are to be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins.

I recently found this to be an interesting topic. God calls many. I believe he even calls for infant inclusion into the Church and Covenant Community. We also have to remember that Acts is a narrative of historical events and that we should be careful about pulling stiff doctrine out of Acts. Many come away from Acts thinking that baptism is the means for forgiveness, cleansing of sin, and for making one right for receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. Do you want to make that wooden statement? One has to remember to whom Peter was addressing and the purpose of what he was saying.

Concerning calling I will refer you to a passage that I recently discovered in looking at Calvin's comments.

Matthew 22:14 14.For many are called, but few are chosen. The object of the parable is pointed out by the conclusion, that few are chosen, though many are called; from which we infer, that we ought not to attempt an ingenious explanation of every minute clause. But lately, Christ did not threaten that the greater part would be thrown out, but mentioned one man only; and now we learn from him, that out of a large number few will be retained. And certainly, though in the present day a more numerous body of men is collected into the Church by the Gospel than was formerly collected by the Law, it is but a small portion of them whose faith is evinced by newness of life. Let us not flatter ourselves with the empty title of faith, but let every man seriously examine himself, that at the final review he may be pronounced to be one of the lawful guests; for, as Paul reminds us, that the vessels in the Lord’s house are not all of the same kind, so
let every one that calleth on the name of the Lord
depart from iniquity, (2Ti_2:19.)
I enter no farther, at present, into the question about the eternal election of God; for the words of Christ mean nothing more than this, that the external profession of faith is not a sufficient proof that God will acknowledge as his people all who appear to have accepted of his invitation. (293)
(293) “Tous ceux qui semblent s’estre rangez sous son enseigne;” — “all those who appear to have ranked themselves under his banner.”

I also wanted you to look at my prior post concerning the Mosaic Covenant. I wanted you to look at it so that you could see that I believe the substance of the Covenants are the same and why they are the same. If they are then the same principles apply from Covenant to Covenant. That is something that isn't really discussed enough in this dialogue. Check this out if you would please. It will answer the post you respond to Rich in my estimation.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/mosaic-republication-c-o-w-71664/#post917483


I am going out of town for the rest of the day so I won't be able to respond. I will try later tonight if anyone addresses me.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Thanks Eric.
On this board, the rule of thumb is you assume your conversation partner is familiar with the confessional terms of the debate, unless he gives you a reason to think otherwise. In which case, you, Eric, should to call him to account by his own Standard.

One passage that I would like to address is Acts 2:38-39:

"Peter said to them, 'Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.'"

Now it is my understanding that paedo-baptists would say that since the promise is made for us and our children, that therefore the children need be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. I would argue that we need to ask what the promise is and what the context is. We can see that the promise (forgiveness as a result of faith and repentance, coupled with the gift of the Holy Spirit) is made to the Jews ("you and your children"), and to the Gentiles ("all who are far off"). Yet this promise is based upon God's election ("as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself"). For this reason I would say that Acts 2:38-39 is not to be understood as suggesting that the infants of believers are to be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins.

Specifically, what the paedo-baptist makes of Act 2:38-39 is first of all, that the Promise of it is a repetition and restatement of the Abrahamic Promise, Gen.12:2-3; Gen.15:5; Gen.17:7--in the context of the arrival of the One who brings all the promises of God to fulfillment.

I'll illustrate the parallel that the paedo-baptist understands this way:
The promise is:

to Abraham -- / -- to you
to Abraham's descendants -- / -- to your children
to all the nations -- / -- to those who are afar off​

I believe the overwhelmingly Jewish audience would have immediately and instinctively have recognized this.

Now, I'll address the substance of the Promise, which is: remission of sins.

(the unconstrained gift of the Spirit is an effect of Messiah's reign, Eph.4:8; Ps.68:18; cf. Jn.7:39)​

This is, in fact, what the Promise to Abraham is all about, has ever been about. God's covenant with Abraham is the beginning of fulfillment of the promise of Gen.3:15. The only way to have a right-relationship with God, to have Him as "your exceeding great reward" (Gen.15:1), is to have the curse lifted. And this salvation can only come by faith in the Promise of God, even the curse-destroying Savior, which faith Abraham has and is saved, Gen.15:6; cf. Rom.4:3. In Jesus Christ the saints have the promised reconciliation, see Col.1:20-23; Rom.5:11; etc. In other words, the substance of the promise--whether in Abraham's day, or afterward, down to Pentecost and our own day--is exactly the same.

Now, I'll address Peter's explicit coda, "...as many as the Lord our God shall call."
**This coda is ALSO exactly what the Abrahamic Promise contains.**

"Oh, that Ishmael might live before thee!" And God said, "No." (Gen.17:18-19)​

In other words, there was a constraint upon the promise in Abraham's own day. Abraham had no right to presume upon the salvation of every one of his descendants, not even of his own sons! The knowledge in Abraham's day (and in all the after-days even before the coming of Christ) was that the promise was for as many of Abraham/his descendants/Gentiles as the Lord our God should call. The promise has ONLY and EVER been for the elect of God.

Paul understands this: Rom.2:28-29, "For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise [a pun on the name "Judah"] is not from man but from God." And again, Rom.9:6, "Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel." Yes, the truth made plain to Abraham is illustrated yet again, in an even more blatant manner, in only the second generation--as God chooses only one of twin sons from the womb of their mother.

Now, I'll address the matter of "baptized... for remission of sins."
Since I do not think that you think that the water of baptism cleansed the hearts of the first hearers of Peter from their sins (cf. 1Pet.3:21)--and I would agree--then our rival interpretations of this clause is almost wholly dependent on the meaning of the Gk. word, "eis," here translated "for." Am I correct in judging that you would read that as meaning "because of," that is to say, be baptized because your sins have been forgiven"? Indubitably, this cannot be an infallible claim, i.e. that the remission of sins for all those listening in the crowd was revelationally confirmed. We know that because there were mockers present, Act.2:12. So, clearly there would needs be some sort of qualification to Peter's words on this reading, namely a heart-obedience to the accompanying command, "Repent."

There are three intentional observations I'd like to say on the phrase: 1) I do not believe that 'eis' is used in a "purposeful" sense, i.e. that the forthcoming ablution will be for the accomplishment or application of the hearers' forgiveness; but also, I am not convinced that an understanding of 'eis' as indicating the "basis" for their baptism does justice to the expression. 2) The old KJV version used the term "unto" to translate 'eis,' which I think is better than the modern "for." Calvin has many excellent things to say on this text, but from them:

Although in the text and order of the words, baptism doth here go before remission of sins, yet doth it follow it in order, because it is nothing else but a sealing of those good things which we have by Christ that they may be established in our consciences.

That is to say, I think an appropriate gloss for Peter's words is: "Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ unto--meaning as a seal, a mark, a memorial of--the remission of sins." Thus 'eis' serves here ideally in the "middling way," neither strictly expressive of basis nor of purpose.

Leading to the third observation, 3) that this understanding returns the whole expression to its idealized form; which is to say, the word that is "missing" from the text is the personal pronoun, "your." Peter says, "Be baptized for remission of sins," and not "...for remission of YOUR sins." The hearers' attention is turned upon the thing itself (baptism), and NOT turned self-referentially upon the appropriation by the baptized of the forgiveness offered "in the name of Jesus Christ." But rather, the forgiveness of sins is referred by baptism to the work of Christ. And so the "statement" made by baptism is above all things an objective testament to the work of Christ on behalf of helpless sinners.

But no good use of it can be made, apart from obedience to the first command in that text, namely "Repent." Necessary personal appropriation is what one DOES with the work of Christ that is witnessed to him. The witness is constant, continual, as also the repentance must be. Calvin again on the same place:

As the doctrine of repentance hath a daily use in the Church so must we think of the forgiveness of sins, that the same is continually offered unto us; and surely it is no less necessary for us during the whole course of our life, than at our first entrance into the Church, so that it should profit us nothing to be once received into favor by God, unless this embassage should have a continual course; be-reconciled unto God, because “he which knew no sin was made sin for us, that we might be the righteousness of God in him,” (2Co_5:20).

Baptism according to Calvin is nothing but the gospel-in-symbols, it is that "official messenger" (ambassador, by way of personification) of forgiveness of sins, which shall forever accompany that repentance so characteristic of the believer.

And, as an aside, circumcision in old time taught the same basic truths that baptism now does.

As for the disagreement concerning who is to be considered as part of the New Covenant...
....................
Finally, when we get to the New Covenant, we see a genuine change in structure. Christ does not have any physical descendants. This is very different from ALL of the other righteous servants that God entered into covenant with. In the New Covenant we see that the spiritual remnant becomes the specific partakers of the New Covenant. The remnant includes those not circumcised as well as circumcised. Yet all of them are considered to be the spiritual children of Abraham. Whereas before the spiritual remnant were members of older covenants with those who were not the spiritual remnants, we now see that the New Covenant is made for only the spiritual remnant. Those who are members of the New Covenant are members of the church, the body of Christ, of whom Christ is the head. They are the Elect. The signs of this covenant are baptism, communion, and circumcision of the heart.

In the end, we see that there is continuity within the covenants, but there is also a genuine shift in who is considered to be partakers of the covenant. All of Abraham's children were commanded to be circumcised, but not all of them were the Elect. Yet the New Covenant is greater, and better, than the Old. Christ does not have any physical children, and it is the spiritual children of Abraham, the Elect, that are to receive baptism, communion, and circumcision of the heart. Throughout scripture we see that it is never the case that all of the physical children of believers (righteous servants) are guaranteed to be the spiritual remnant, the Elect. So why is it the case now, under the New Covenant, that we should baptize the children of believers as if they were the spiritual children of Abraham, the Elect?

Obviously, there is tons of stuff to take issue with here. One reason why it is often so hard to discuss these things is that too often, one or both sides feels the need to present one's whole case in every post. This is just about as stressful as can be, and it is hard to take the interlocking issues and deal with them separately. This is why I said way back in an earlier post, that until one sees that the issues are "deeper" than the surface, or accusations of "inconsistency," little helpful progress is possible. Yes, we do agree on A LOT of the discrete "points" of the theological enterprise. Thank God for it. But, the way we come at it, and put it together is VERY DIFFERENT. That's what we have to admit.

This "change in structure" you refer to above, I basically deny its reality. The true "change" that comes about in the "structure" of the Covenant of Grace (if we want to use those terms), happens--as it has happened through the whole of human history--in the actualization of eschatology. Either "personal" eschatology, or "historical" eschatology, i.e. the end of the world. The "meaningful" physical descendants of Abraham were the elect, ONLY the elect. The others--from Ishmael, to Achan, to Ahab--did not share their father's faith, and so did not share in the truth of the covenant made with him. They stand as warning signs to those within and without the church of the fate of hypocrites and formalists in religion. Paul, again, puts it so clearly that I do not know that it is possible to improve upon his stark statement: "Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham" Gal.3:7. No one else. Only those of faith.

In other words, the basic reality is that Abraham "only" has spiritual descendants. Hear what Jesus Christ says, Jn.6:63, "The flesh profiteth nothing." Moses has "only" spiritual descendants. David has "only" spiritual descendants. Etc. Etc. We have all those wonderful ingraftings of the "firstfruits of the Gentiles," all through the Old Testament--men like Caleb the Kenezite, Ittai the Gittite, and Uriah the Hittite; women like Rahab of Jericho, and Ruth the Moabitess. All these people who have been united by faith to become Abraham's seed.

Well, what about the fact that there was all those other descendants after the flesh? And why was there a national covenant, and a Promised Land, and all that? Because such conditions were part of the divine plan for bringing forth the Son of God into the world, cf. Heb.9:26. Many subordinate purposes could be adduced, but here are a few notices from Scripture: 1Cor.10:6, 11 "Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did.... Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come." Rom.15:4 "For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." Rom.4:23-24 "But the words 'it was counted to him' were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also." Heb 10:28-29 "Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?."


Lastly, more than once now the principle of "heart-circumcision" has been attached to the New Testament. I don't want to attribute the wrong idea to you, or assume you don't know something, so I will do the rhetorical question bit here, and ask (and answer) the question: Where does the first mention of heart-circumcision come in? It's Lev.26:41, written by the first biblical writer of them all, Moses. He explicitly mentions it twice more, in his sermons in Deuteronomy--refs. 10:16 and 30:10. In other words, no later than the national constitution (and it seems artificial to think that Moses invented, rather than inheriting the idea) the people of God are well-informed that there is an outward rite, and an inward reality that is supposed to correspond to the external.

How is this different from today's baptismal ritual? There's an outward rite, and an inward reality that is supposed to correspond to the former. Of course, its never a perfect correlation. Now, I can't tell you how many times I've been told by a baptist-brother that "heart-circumcision" corresponds to "baptism," but it's been often. Well, I'd be loath to deny that observation as such, but I truly wonder what has happened to the whole-structure parallelism? We have inward/outward circumcision in the OT. And we have inward/outward baptism in the NT. The fact that Paul can take the physical referent in the second pair, and connect it to the OT spiritual corollary only highlights the fact that the principles of the two signs are virtually interchangeable. And the really fascinating thing is that Peter does something similar but inverted, taking a different OT physical type (the flood) and deliberately connecting it to the inward baptism of the Spirit.

See that? An OT spiritual concept connected to the NT baptismal rite (Col.2:11-12); and an OT earthly type connected to the NT baptismal spirituality (1Pet.3:20-21). How do they do that? Well, if the religion is basically the very same thing OT & NT, these teachers are simply taking the Bible they already have and applying its eternal truths to the present age. And what gets written down in the first century of the NT is now our Christian heritage, along with the OT they preached from.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Eric: You didn't answer my questions.

You wrote:

There is no doubt that some adults who profess Christ (as well as receive the sacraments) are not of the Elect. They might be part of the visible church, but certainly not the invisible church.

Again, then, your Church baptized them presumably. I asked you what it says about baptism that you administered it to those who are potentially not elect. You didn't answer that question. You answered the question about what it says about the person.

Yet we both would agree that they are not partakers of the New Covenant, and never have been.

We would only agree that they do not receive the graces signified by the Sacraments of the New Covenant. They are not in Christ by definition and our Confession states this.

The question is: are they legitimately authorized to receive baptism and communion as deceivers? I would say that they are not authorized to do so, because they are false believers, not the spiritual children of Abraham.

Then why is your Church baptizing them and administering the Lord's Supper to them if they are not authorized to receive them?

With that said, we do not know for certain whether our children are the Elect or not, and whether they are of Christ's body or not.

Yet, by your admission, you do not know for certain whether the baptized members of your congregation are elect or are of Christ's body. Why are you baptizing them?

When we baptize our infants we seem to be assuming to ourselves some role that is solely God's. He will call his Elect in his own time. If we baptize our children knowing full well that they might be of the reprobate, we knowingly err in our role as parents.

Yet, it is not the parents who are baptizing but the Church and so, if the Church baptizes a person who may be reprobate, the Church by your logic knowingly errs in its role as those authorized to perform baptism.

If a person confesses Christ, deceives the church, and takes baptism and communion unlawfully, that person alone errs, and will be held accountable for their actions.

No, the Church has erred as well according to the criteria you have established.

I would suggest you need to study your Confession more carefully because it does not ground the baptism of professors in the manner you have for the logical errors it obviously creates.

 

[Loopie]

I'll illustrate the parallel that the paedo-baptist understands this way:
The promise is:

to Abraham -- / -- to you
to Abraham's descendants -- / -- to your children
to all the nations -- / -- to those who are afar off​

I believe the overwhelmingly Jewish audience would have immediately and instinctively have recognized this.

The difficulty lies in the fact that Abraham has both physical and spiritual children. Which descendants are you talking about? All of them? Which ones are the Elect? Is it not purely the spiritual children of Abraham? Are the non-Elect members of the New Covenant?

Abraham had no right to presume upon the salvation of every one of his descendants, not even of his own sons! The knowledge in Abraham's day (and in all the after-days even before the coming of Christ) was that the promise was for as many of Abraham/his descendants/Gentiles as the Lord our God should call. The promise has ONLY and EVER been for the elect of God.

Completely agree.

Since I do not think that you think that the water of baptism cleansed the hearts of the first hearers of Peter from their sins (cf. 1Pet.3:21)--and I would agree--then our rival interpretations of this clause is almost wholly dependent on the meaning of the Gk. word, "eis," here translated "for." Am I correct in judging that you would read that as meaning "because of," that is to say, be baptized because your sins have been forgiven"?

Again, completely agree.

but also, I am not convinced that an understanding of 'eis' as indicating the "basis" for their baptism does justice to the expression.

So are you suggesting that the repentance and belief of those Peter is addressing is not the reason for their baptism? If it is not the purpose, nor the basis, and is simply a 'middling way', then how does that make any sense? Baptism logically comes either before or after repentance, making it either a purpose or a basis. Why shouldn't those being addressed be baptized even if they refuse to repent and believe? If repentance and faith is not the basis for their baptism, then it should be perfectly allowable for them to receive baptism while still refusing to repent and believe.

Peter says, "Be baptized for remission of sins," and not "...for remission of YOUR sins."

So would you argue that the word 'your' is an improper addition to the translation of the Greek?

Baptism according to Calvin is nothing but the gospel-in-symbols, it is that "official messenger" (ambassador, by way of personification) of forgiveness of sins, which shall forever accompany that repentance so characteristic of the believer.

I do not quite follow your line of reasoning. Are you suggesting that baptism is simply a different form of the gospel? So if there is a general and effectual call of the gospel, then there is a general and effectual call of baptism? Should we then baptize all human adults (whether they repent or not) as a sort of general call of the baptism-gospel, with the understanding that at least some of them will repent and believe by the effectual call of the baptism-gospel?

Obviously, there is tons of stuff to take issue with here. One reason why it is often so hard to discuss these things is that too often, one or both sides feels the need to present one's whole case in every post. This is just about as stressful as can be, and it is hard to take the interlocking issues and deal with them separately. This is why I said way back in an earlier post, that until one sees that the issues are "deeper" than the surface, or accusations of "inconsistency," little helpful progress is possible. Yes, we do agree on A LOT of the discrete "points" of the theological enterprise. Thank God for it. But, the way we come at it, and put it together is VERY DIFFERENT. That's what we have to admit.

Completely agree.

The "meaningful" physical descendants of Abraham were the elect, ONLY the elect. The others--from Ishmael, to Achan, to Ahab--did not share their father's faith, and so did not share in the truth of the covenant made with him.

Those meaningful physical descendants of Abraham were Abraham's spiritual children. Of course, the Elect also included Abraham's spiritual children who were not his physical descendants. Like you said, others such as Ishmael did not share in their father's faith, and so did not share in the truth of the covenant. But even though God established his covenant with Abraham's son Isaac, not all of Isaac's physical descentants were of the Elect. Still, the covenant with Isaac included both Elect and non-Elect, with circumcision being given as a sign to both groups of people.

They stand as warning signs to those within and without the church of the fate of hypocrites and formalists in religion. Paul, again, puts it so clearly that I do not know that it is possible to improve upon his stark statement: "Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham" Gal.3:7. No one else. Only those of faith.

Yes, those of faith are Abraham's spiritual children.

In other words, the basic reality is that Abraham "only" has spiritual descendants. Hear what Jesus Christ says, Jn.6:63, "The flesh profiteth nothing." Moses has "only" spiritual descendants. David has "only" spiritual descendants. Etc. Etc.

Here I would disagree with you, because you have read Gal 3:7 to suggest that the physical descendants of Abraham have somehow disappeared. In truth, the spiritual children of Abraham existed amongst the physical descendants of Moses, and the physical descendants of David. Would you argue that the same is true for Noah? Did Noah ONLY have spiritual descendants? There is a slight inconsistency here in the structure that you are proposing. I would argue that Abraham's physical descendants have not ceased to exist. The spiritual descendants, the Elect, have always existed, but they have always existed within the broader group (this is true of Noah's descendants, Isaac's descendants, Moses' descendants, and David's descendants). In the New Covenant though we see that God finally calls his spiritual remnant out as their own group, as the visible church. In the older covenants, God included non-Elect as partakers of those covenants. In the New Covenant, God calls the spiritual children of Abraham, the remnant, out. It is they alone who are called to partake in the signs and seals of the New Covenant (baptism, communion, and heart-circumcision).

Lastly, more than once now the principle of "heart-circumcision" has been attached to the New Testament. I don't want to attribute the wrong idea to you, or assume you don't know something, so I will do the rhetorical question bit here, and ask (and answer) the question: Where does the first mention of heart-circumcision come in? It's Lev.26:41, written by the first biblical writer of them all, Moses. He explicitly mentions it twice more, in his sermons in Deuteronomy--refs. 10:16 and 30:10. In other words, no later than the national constitution (and it seems artificial to think that Moses invented, rather than inheriting the idea) the people of God are well-informed that there is an outward rite, and an inward reality that is supposed to correspond to the external.

Certainly they knew about circumcision of the heart, but the difference is that God makes it one of the signs of the restoration. Yes they were commanded to be circumcised in heart, but it was not going to happen until God was the one to change their hearts. We see in Deuteronomy 30:6 that Moses, after predicting the disobedience and captivity of the Israelites, promises that God will be the one to circumcise their hearts (a sign of the New Covenant). That is why I would argue that heart-circumcision should be attached to the New Testament as a specific sign of the New Covenant.

Now, I can't tell you how many times I've been told by a baptist-brother that "heart-circumcision" corresponds to "baptism," but it's been often. Well, I'd be loath to deny that observation as such, but I truly wonder what has happened to the whole-structure parallelism? We have inward/outward circumcision in the OT. And we have inward/outward baptism in the NT. The fact that Paul can take the physical referent in the second pair, and connect it to the OT spiritual corollary only highlights the fact that the principles of the two signs are virtually interchangeable.

I would disagree that they become fully interchangeable. Certainly the reference to outward baptism is connected to inward cirumcision (the reference is not from outward baptism to outward circumcision). Obviously God did not call Abraham to inwardly circumcise his children. He called Abraham to outwardly circumcise them. In this way I think there is a slight inconsistency in your argument, because you end up interchanging outward baptism with outward circumcision, even though you specifically said that the corollation is between inward circumcision and outward baptism. With this in mind the corollation is more like a cross-corollation rather than a direct and full interchangeable corollation.

---------- Post added at 06:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ----------

To Rich:

Allow me to better explain my arguments. You seem to be arguing that since there is nothing wrong or unbiblical about the church baptizing those who profess Christ (who may be reprobate), then there is nothing wrong or unbiblical with the church baptizing infants (who may be reprobate). Is that a fair understanding of your argument?

First of all, the correlations are not exact. In the first instance we have those who profess Christ as receiving the sacraments. In the second instance we have infants (who have not professed Christ) as receiving the sacraments. That is why there is a difference between the two instances, and why the first is expected, while the second is not.

In the instance of parents baptizing their children, why should this relationship change as the infant grows up? If I was an unbeliever, but my parents became believers, shouldn't they still baptize me even if I was older (say, 11 or 12, or even 29)? This might be the case if my parents did not accept Christ until I was a teenager. Why does the relationship change when children become older? Does it change simply because at some point in my childhood (at some arbitrary and unknowable moment), I am able to profess Christ on my own? Would I not still technically be a partaker of the New Covenant, since my parents are believers? So regardless of what age I am, I should receive the sacrament of baptism, right? I know that the Westminster Confession declares that only infants should be baptized, but at what age does that stage end? At least in the Abrahamic Covenant the specific time of 8 days was given for the circumcision of children. But who decides when an infant is no longer an infant, and when a person is able to confess the Lord on their own?

Finally, there is a difference between the presumption of the church regarding those who cannot speak for themselves, and the presumption of the church regarding those who can speak for themselves. We know that the church is not infallible, and we can expect that many will enter the church who do not belong (are not of the elect). Yet we must not ignore the importance of the profession of faith that one makes. The church SHOULD be as careful and responsible as possible about who receives the sacraments. By giving these sacraments to infants the church is not being as careful as it should be (it is being overly presumptuous). In fact, the church is being very liberal with the sacraments, when it should instead wait for a confession of faith from the individual before providing them with those sacraments.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

You seem to be arguing that since there is nothing wrong or unbiblical about the church baptizing those who profess Christ (who may be reprobate), then there is nothing wrong or unbiblical with the church baptizing infants (who may be reprobate). Is that a fair understanding of your argument?

No, I am telling you that your own standard for baptism is hanging you on the same gallows you are attempting to hang others. You will see the error in your reasoning if you simply follow your own arguments out. This is why the LBCF does not admit to the same standard for baptism that you are attempting to argue for.

Finally, there is a difference between the presumption of the church regarding those who cannot speak for themselves, and the presumption of the church regarding those who can speak for themselves.

Now this is a different standard. You previously stated this was the standard:

The question is: are they legitimately authorized to receive baptism and communion as deceivers? I would say that they are not authorized to do so, because they are false believers, not the spiritual children of Abraham.

Clearly you stated that those who are not "spiritual children of Abraham" are not authorized to receive baptism and communion. Either the Church is authorized to baptize them or they are not. Make up your mind.

 

[non dignus]

The difficulty lies in the fact that Abraham has both physical and spiritual children. Which descendants are you talking about? All of them? Which ones are the Elect? Is it not purely the spiritual children of Abraham? Are the non-Elect members of the New Covenant?

Hi again, Eric.
Thanks for Nichols' rendering of Deut. 29:29. I mentioned that verse because this debate often boils down to 'knowing' who is elect and who is not. But Moses said that the secret things belong to the Lord, and he also said that the revealed things (covenant) belong to us and to our children forever. As Dr. McMahon has said, "The elect do not have a big 'E' on their foreheads."

The covenants are given so we might believe and have certainty of these things, not so that we might peer into the secret decrees of God. Paedobaptists simply believe that all holy persons are to receive the sign of holiness, namely Baptism. Believers are holy, as far as we humanly know, and children of at least one believing parent are holy. 1 Cor 7:14

If baptism were only administered to the deadsure elect, as the Baptist requires (bless his heart), then one would have to evaluate a whole lifetime of fruit and baptise candidates on their death bed.

The Lord has promised to save our children. The promise is to the body as a whole, not to individuals per se. That is why some children are lost but the promise is sure.

 

[Loopie]

Rich,

It is indeed true that the church is authorized to administer the sacraments. There is another question though: who is authorized to accept and receive those covenants?

Say, hypothetically, that you know someone who is certainly not a Christian. You are aware that this person only wants to enter into a church for selfish reasons (perhaps just to fit in and make friends, or because of peer pressure). Now you might go to the church elders and inform them that you do not believe this person to be a true believer. Yet when they confront the person, the person asserts that they have accepted Christ, and wish to be baptized and take communion. There are two different questions we need to ask here:

1) Is the church authorized to baptize this person? Yes. The church is acting based off of the best information that they have. Though you might speak up against their decision, they might not give your arguments much weight (particularly if the person was very convincing). We know that the church is not infallible, and we have been told in scripture that there will be many false prophets and false teachers within the church. In this case the church is not being overly presumptuous or liberal with the sacraments, as its decision to baptize others is based on a credible confession of faith (which many false believers give).

2) Is the person in question authorized to request and receive baptism? No. God knows the heart of that individual, and whether that individual is of the Elect or of the Reprobate. That individual can expect great judgment for deceiving the church, and essentially being a wolf in sheep's clothing. Obviously the church cannot infallibly know the heart of the individual, or else the church would not have baptized them.

This leads me to another hypothetical question: If the church did have infallible knowledge of who was of the Elect and who was of the reprobate, would (and should) the church still baptize those reprobate who request it? If the church knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that a person WAS NOT a believer, should the church still baptize them? Obviously not. The church should act based upon what it knows, and what God has revealed to it. That is why the church needs to be careful and conservative in the distribution of its sacraments.

That is also why the LCF declares that the proper subjects of the sacrament of baptism are "Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ." What futher revelation can the church have concerning someone's faith other than this? If the church was able to infallibly know who was Elect and who was not, they would not simply give baptism to someone that they infallibly knew was reprobate. That is why the church is indeed authorized to baptize those who profess Christ (even if they profess falsely). This does not ignore the fact that the reprobate are deceiving the church, disobeying God, and defiling the sacraments when they request and receive baptism on a false profession of faith.

 

[Loopie]

Non dignus,

Hi again to you as well!

I addressed the issue of knowing the Elect in my response to Rich, and I would never argue that the church must determine if someone is truly Elect before baptizing them. The church is unable to do this, for the church is not infallible.

I understand that paedo-baptists believe that all holy persons are to receive the sign of holiness. Yet in 1 Corinthians 7:4, are the terms 'sanctified' and 'holy' to be referring to salvation, or being a partaker of the New Covenant? If they are, then the verse is indeed saying that unbelieving husbands are made partakers of the New Covenant (or are redeemed from sin) through their believing wives, and vice versa. Does this mean then that the unbelieving husbands of believing wives should receive baptism? If not, then why not? What if the children are older? Should they also receive baptism without professing Christ?

I would argue then that baptism is not JUST a sign of holiness, but a sign of being a partaker of the New Covenant, of having ones sins forgiven, and of having new life. Based on the paedo-baptist reading of 1 Corinthians 7:4, unbelieving husbands/wives should also be eligible to receive baptism, to be considered partakers of the New Covenant, and to be viewed as having a newness of life without repenting and believing.

In the end, I would say that the Lord has promised to save the spiritual children of Abraham, the Elect. Certainly we would be able to argue that the New Covenant would EXACTLY parallel the Abrahamic Covenant if Christ himself had physical children. We could then argue that Christ's physical children should receive the sacraments, just like every previous righteous servant's children received the sign of their particular covenants. But since Christ did not have physical children, the promise and the sacraments are only to the spiritual children. We do not know if our physical children are the spiritual children of Abraham, and for that reason we must base our decisions to administer the sacraments on a credible profession of faith, not a profession of silence (which infants can only give).