Questions for paedobaptists

[Monergism]

These questions have come up during my biblestudy on baptism. If these have already been asked on the board, I apologize. Any help with these would be appreciated. If you take issues with how I've phrased any of the questions, please feel free to correct them. I'm here to learn.

1. Does the Covenant of Grace consist of elect members only or does it include apostates? (I've heard different answers from both credos and paedos on this one)

2. If an OC member who broke the covenant was immediately cut off from his people, then why aren't infants cut off from their people as New Covenant breakers the minute they're born, since they come into the world not obeying the Gospel?

3. We see from the Law that at some point the alien became a member of the covenant. At what point did they become a member and how? In the New Covenant, how do you know when an "alien" (someone who just begins attending your church) becomes a member of the covenant? What, from Scripture, is the objective basis for knowing he/she is a member of the new covenant?

4. If women were virtually circumcised in the OC, why aren't they virtually baptized in the NC? Can you establish this from Scripture without appeals to specific accounts of women being baptized?


5. In the case of 2 families, one Presbyterian one baptist, both families raise their child in the Lord, teaching them, exhorting them, surrounding them with the Gospel, etc. Does either child have any more hope of comming to faith than the other? For the child of paedobaptis raised the same as the child of a credobaptist, how are the blessings different? Are they? Is there efficacy of any kind in the baptism for the paedo-child?

6. Jeremiah 31:33-34 lists seval aspects of the New Covenant (the Law put within them, written on their hearts, all know the Lord, forgiveness of sins). If promises such as "all will know the Lord" only reach their fullness at the return of Christ, why doesn't this notion of future fulfillment likewise apply to "I will forgive their iniquity?" In other words, full forgiveness for sins has already been applied to the regenerate members of the NC. Why, if each of the other promises have all yet to be applied in their fullness? (This one is hard to put into words. I'm sure this either sounds confusing or extremely basic. Feel free to ask for clarifications).

More to come. . . . .

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

My answers will be somewhat short, as I must focus on Hebrew homework at the moment.. Plus, I have only been in the CT camp for a short time so my answers may be lacking..

1. The Covenant of Grace includes both elect and non-elect people, with the elect receiving the full spiritual benefits of the covenant (through the Covenant of Redemption) and the non-elect receive only the external/temporal benefits of the covenant.

2. Because through having believing parent(s), the children are considered "holy" (1 Cor. 7:14)

3. They were circumcised and brought into the covenant community as I recall. In the NC, we bring in alien members on the basis of a profession of faith and baptism (those who received the word were baptized in Acts).

4. Because in the NC they are included in circumcision. Luke makes note in Acts 8:12 that both men and women were being baptized. I believe this is because people would likely assume only the men were being baptized under this new circumcision.

5. I believe the child raised in a paedo-baptist family might be (generally speaking) better off, in certain ways. They would not be focusing on some single-time event like walking down the aisle to be saved and baptized as they grow older, all the time thinking that those actions saved them, while the paedo-baptized child is taught that their baptism guarantees nothing and that they are to obey the Lord, repent, believe, etc. for their entire lives. The focus is on a lifestyle of repentance and faith in most presbyterian churches, whereas in baptist churches it is often on a single event and then "you're in". This is my experience, at least, being Baptist for so long.

6. It is hard to answer this one, because I think you're approaching the text in the wrong manner. First of all, if you keep reading, the children of new covenant people are included in it's blessings. Secondly, Jeremiah 31-34 is largely eschatological in nature, for ethnic Israel. Thirdly, all of the promises in that new covenant were, for the most part, enjoyed by Old Covenant members (with the one exception being "knowing the Lord" in the same way we can through Christ being visibly seen as resurrected and not through "shadows" and types that point to Him, perhaps). Are we going to say that OC people did not have forgiveness of sins? I would hope not.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Brett, What a cool avatar!

 

[JonathanHunt]

5. I believe the child raised in a paedo-baptist family might be (generally speaking) better off, in certain ways. They would not be focusing on some single-time event like walking down the aisle to be saved and baptized as they grow older, all the time thinking that those actions saved them,

Don't want to come on too strong, but I'm sick of this tarring of all Baptists with the arminian brush. Decisionism, aisle-walking, etc. 'Walking down the aisle to be saved' - give me a break. Talk about attacking a straw man, Gabriel.

JH

 

[luvroftheWord]

What other basis do you have?

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by JonathanHunt

5. I believe the child raised in a paedo-baptist family might be (generally speaking) better off, in certain ways. They would not be focusing on some single-time event like walking down the aisle to be saved and baptized as they grow older, all the time thinking that those actions saved them,

Don't want to come on too strong, but I'm sick of this tarring of all Baptists with the arminian brush. Decisionism, aisle-walking, etc. 'Walking down the aisle to be saved' - give me a break. Talk about attacking a straw man, Gabriel.

JH

It would be as if I wrote:


"I believe the child raised in a Baptist family might be (generally speaking) better off, in certain ways. They would not be under the delusion that they were regenerated by their baptism, all the time thinking that their baptism washed them of the guilt of original sin."

Most paedobaptists may have a Roman Catholic, Greek orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, or Methodist view of infant baptism, but that doesn't mean they all do. None here do. Most Baptists may not be 5-point Calvinists, but that doesn't mean they are all aisle-walking decisionist Arminians. None here are.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I'm just telling you what I have experience from 21 years of being in a Baptist Church. How is that a straw man if it is true? Chill.

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I'm just telling you what I have experience from 21 years of being in a Baptist Church. How is that a straw man if it is true?

It is a straw man because you confound credobaptism, one thing, with the arminianism with which you grew up, a different and unrelated thing. I could say quite a bit against paedobaptism as it is justified and explained by 95% of the paedobaptist theology out there, but since that underlying paedobaptist doctrine is not based upon CT, it would be a straw man argument for me to disparage paedopabtism based on those non-CT reasons that most paedobaptists have to justify the practice.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Greg,
I agree with you! Gabriel, this is true; one really doesn't have anything to do with the other........

 

[Philip A]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I'm just telling you what I have experience from 21 years of being in a Baptist Church. How is that a straw man if it is true? Chill.

1st reason:

"in a Baptist Church" is not the same as being in a representative sample of baptist churches, nor it is the same as having sampled the hundreds of different flavors of baptist churches that exist in America alone.

2nd reason:
"from 21 years". Now, how old are you exactly?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

21.

 

[Goosha]

1. Does the Covenant of Grace consist of elect members only or does it include apostates? (I've heard different answers from both credos and paedos on this one)

1a.) Depends on who you talk to- if they make a distinction between the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption, then they will allow non-elect in the covenant of grace…however…if they don’t make the distinction then they will hold that only the elect are in the covenant of grace.

2. If an OC member who broke the covenant was immediately cut off from his people, then why aren't infants cut off from their people as New Covenant breakers the minute they're born, since they come into the world not obeying the Gospel?

2a.) I think this is too simplistic on how the old or the new work…both had a person cut off from the covenant by excommunication (in the case of not keeping the Passover) or in the New a person was excommunicated from the church…in both cases church membership and covenant membership are tied together. Infants aren’t immediately excommunicated because we don’t have any reason to believe they are rejecting God. Furthermore…a person can break God’s covenant and still remain a part of the covenant but until the church disciplines them, they remain apart of a covenant they are breaking which is the purpose of many warning passages in the New Testament. So even if the infant is not obeying the gospel, they remain in the covenant as covenant breakers and will eventually be excommunicated (if you hold to paedocommunion) or simply remain perpetually a non-communing member (since they typically don’t discipline non-communing members).

3. We see from the Law that at some point the alien became a member of the covenant. At what point did they become a member and how? In the New Covenant, how do you know when an "alien" (someone who just begins attending your church) becomes a member of the covenant? What, from Scripture, is the objective basis for knowing he/she is a member of the new covenant?

3a.) Baptism/circumcision…an alien could enjoy the Passover after they join Israel through circumcision. These God fearing aliens would then have to follow the Laws and ordinances of the Passover in order to celebrate it…Numbers 15 has some interesting stuff on this.

4. If women were virtually circumcised in the OC, why aren't they virtually baptized in the NC? Can you establish this from Scripture without appeals to specific accounts of women being baptized?

4a.) I don’t think so…I would have to argue by inference by combining the case examples with the principle…we know that baptism is a commandment but the new testament doesn’t give us the details to who the recipients of this command is so we are forced to take the case examples of women being baptized and conclude that since the nature of the sacrament is not optional that it isn’t optional for women. This avoids committing the is/ought fallacy I think. However, I appreciate the consistency of the question though…

5. In the case of 2 families, one Presbyterian one baptist, both families raise their child in the Lord, teaching them, exhorting them, surrounding them with the Gospel, etc. Does either child have any more hope of comming to faith than the other? For the child of paedobaptis raised the same as the child of a credobaptist, how are the blessings different? Are they? Is there efficacy of any kind in the baptism for the paedo-child?

5a.) I think God is merciful in this situation. While theologically speaking, baptism doesn’t create faith it does work with faith and the preaching of the word to strengthen the child. This being the case, the baptized child that has faith will be more strengthen than the unbaptized children with faith. For two unbelieving children raised in these homes, the unbaptized child will be held accountable for his rejection of the gospel while the baptized child will be held for his covenant breaking. The baptized child will be worse off for rejecting the gospel…

6. Jeremiah 31:33-34 lists seval aspects of the New Covenant (the Law put within them, written on their hearts, all know the Lord, forgiveness of sins). If promises such as "all will know the Lord" only reach their fullness at the return of Christ, why doesn't this notion of future fulfillment likewise apply to "I will forgive their iniquity?" In other words, full forgiveness for sins has already been applied to the regenerate members of the NC. Why, if each of the other promises have all yet to be applied in their fullness? (This one is hard to put into words. I'm sure this either sounds confusing or extremely basic. Feel free to ask for clarifications).

6a.) That’s simple, the bible tells what has been fulfilled and what hasn’t been fulfilled. In other words, we know that redemption has come but just not for everyone in the New Covenant as of yet because there are still unbelievers in the church and God hasn’t separated the tares from the wheat yet…We know it will happen one day that when the fullness of the gentiles come in that all Israel will be saved but until then…there remains unbelievers in the church. The bible is very specific about this…in fact…each part of the prophecy (writing of the Law on hearts, knowing the Lord, the forgiveness of sins) are constantly being fulfilled in the life of the church in every born again believer; however, not everyone in the church is born again. One day though…

 

[Larry Hughes]

Jonathan,

I don’t think that it is meant to “tar” broadly all ‘believers only’ into the Arminian camp. Arminian thinking is merely our fallen thinking to ‘save ourselves’ somehow and can arise from any denomination. Admittedly, though, some denominational teachings are better soil for it.

In my humble opinion it is a matter of looking analytically where each view can lead by its own inherent definition. Certainly there is a danger of viewing baptized children as “saved” due to the baptism ala Rome. But that is a complete misunderstanding of covenant baptism altogether. The danger exists but the danger existing in this case doesn’t disprove nor necessarily call into question the true version of it. The Jews abused circumcision and seeking a righteousness of their own that was of the law, but that did not invalidate the veracity of physical circumcision prior to Christ.

Covenant baptism understood correctly does not lead there necessarily by its definition and in actuality leads away from “saved because I did it“. It inherently does this without external caveats.

However the danger within “believers only” does necessarily lead to a ‘one time’ event thinking of some form or another due to its inherent definition and requires caveats to avoid it. Perhaps it is not always “hanging ones hat” on the one time event (arminian), but due to the necessity of the timing and it is a command (I.e., ordinance) one cannot help but wonder in some form or another “when was I ‘saved’ so that I may obey this command”. This leads to the ‘point in time’ thinking. Because even if you find a “believers only” that will allow a different mode, timing is never compromised it is of the essence and inherent to our definition of baptism. To compromise the timing would be to compromise the entire principle. As such the “when” factor is unavoidable in one’s thinking. That’s why some rebaptize, else why do they? For they wonder about the timing. Others do not because they are assured of the timing. Either way the timing, the one time event of conversion or at least a narrow range of time of conversion proceeding THE baptism.

Maybe that helps.

Blessings,

Larry

 

[openairboy]

Originally posted by Monergism
1. Does the Covenant of Grace consist of elect members only or does it include apostates? (I've heard different answers from both credos and paedos on this one)

So, I believe in some sense, that all who receive the sign and seal of the covenant are part of the covenant of grace.

2. If an OC member who broke the covenant was immediately cut off from his people, then why aren't infants cut off from their people as New Covenant breakers the minute they're born, since they come into the world not obeying the Gospel?

Are you speaking of circumcision? If so, I have often wondered the same thing and conclude that children of baptists are probably cut off.

3. We see from the Law that at some point the alien became a member of the covenant. At what point did they become a member and how? In the New Covenant, how do you know when an "alien" (someone who just begins attending your church) becomes a member of the covenant? What, from Scripture, is the objective basis for knowing he/she is a member of the new covenant?

In both instances it has always flowed from faith to the signs and seals of the covenant.

OC Alien: "I saw or heard what Yhwh did to the Egyptians and I believe that he is God/Lord."

Priest: "Blessed are you, I circumcise you in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

NC Alien: "I heard what YHWH was done through the man Jesus Christ. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he rose from the dead, is seated at the right hand of the Father, and that God has made him both Lord and Christ."

Minister: "Blessed are you, I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

I would, however, say that Scripture links the two much more closely than we often allow them to be linked.

4. If women were virtually circumcised in the OC, why aren't they virtually baptized in the NC? Can you establish this from Scripture without appeals to specific accounts of women being baptized?

I think I'm missing something. What do you mean by "can you est. this from Scripture without appeals to specific accounts of women being baptized?"

5. In the case of 2 families, one Presbyterian one baptist, both families raise their child in the Lord, teaching them, exhorting them, surrounding them with the Gospel, etc. Does either child have any more hope of comming to faith than the other? For the child of paedobaptis raised the same as the child of a credobaptist, how are the blessings different? Are they? Is there efficacy of any kind in the baptism for the paedo-child?

The child of the baptist has been outside the covenant (depending on how you answered 2). Going on the promises of God, which is all I have access to, then I say that baptized children are in a much greater position than non-baptized children. How are the "blessings" different for people that don't have access to the sacraments and those that do on a weekly basis? The answer is going to depend on your view of sacramental efficacy. If you don't believe that God's grace is administered through the sacraments, then you will probably think very little of the children being neglected the means of grace. If, however, you have a higher view, then you will see the importance of them.

6. Jeremiah 31:33-34 lists seval aspects of the New Covenant (the Law put within them, written on their hearts, all know the Lord, forgiveness of sins). If promises such as "all will know the Lord" only reach their fullness at the return of Christ, why doesn't this notion of future fulfillment likewise apply to "I will forgive their iniquity?" In other words, full forgiveness for sins has already been applied to the regenerate members of the NC. Why, if each of the other promises have all yet to be applied in their fullness? (This one is hard to put into words. I'm sure this either sounds confusing or extremely basic. Feel free to ask for clarifications).

I guess understanding Jer. 31:34 is crucial to this discussion. Personally, I see no reason for a 'literal' understanding of this passage, but agree with Calvin that it is hyperbolic. So, all of these are a present reality, but will find there fulness at the resurrection of the body.

openairboy