Scott Clark and Infant Baptism

[Solparvus]

Just curious...were any of these instances of repeated baptisms and doubts about whether your baptism was valid experienced while in a confessionally Reformed Baptist church?

Doubts about one's assurance and questions about whether one is truly "saved" is something Christians of all stripes have historically wrestled with. Were it not, the Westminster Confession wouldn't need to include Chapter 17 "Of the perseverance of the Saints" or Chapter 18 "Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation." I'm thankful our forefathers in the faith included them in your standards (WCF) and in mine (LBCF). These truths, which are grounded in scripture, do provide much comfort when faithfully taught and learned.

I have gotten great comfort from the Standards lately. Marvelous gifts to the church!

My first was in a Pentecostal church. Surely was not saved at the time though I don't recall any administrative defects (ie. It was likely Trinitarian since my church wasn't modalist). Baptized a second time by one not appointed to it, and I did this because I thought I was recently converted for real. Third time was in an RB church after what I am certain was a real profession , and I did it at the advice of my elders. But my assurance not being the best I just wondered if I would have to do it again.

Not all RB churches believe in rebaptism. A number of them do. It's a problem though to make covenant signs about your profession above and over God's promises signified and sealed in them. Then you just end up wondering if you "got wet" and that is it. But baptism is the preaching of the Gospel by Christ's justifying blood and the Spirit's sanctifying cleansing, and the reality of the message does not depend on the state of the one receiving it. The message doesn't change.

So as circumcision signified Christ's righteousness regardless whether given to Isaac or Ishmael, so we say baptism too. It will preach participation in Christ's death and resurrection either way, and it's a Gospel message to the witnesses who observe it, and to the recipient all throughout his life.

The NC is New and better One, and those under it are united to Jesus through faith by the Holy Spirit before water Baptism.

Brother,

It might help the discussion if you format things like so:

- The point you disagree with
- Why my interpretation of the text is wrong
- What the correct interpretation is
- Why yours is correct

I'm happy to dialogue, but you just keep stating the Baptist position without showing just why our statements are wrong.

 

[Dachaser]

So then there are two ways men are saved?

Saved on Same basis, the Cross of Christ, but God does not require infants to exercise faith, as they have none!

 

[Dachaser]

I will be frank. In so many of your posts you don't even interact with the others, you just throw in a one-liner of your own position. Please brother, interact with our posts. We all know you are a baptist. We all know that I am reformed.

I am trying to interact, but feel like at times hard to express myself in a fashion understandable here!

 

[Dachaser]

I asked earlier, to which u again, didn't interact with:

See posting 56

 

[Dachaser]

I have gotten great comfort from the Standards lately. Marvelous gifts to the church!

My first was in a Pentecostal church. Surely was not saved at the time though I don't recall any administrative defects (ie. It was likely Trinitarian since my church wasn't modalist). Baptized a second tume by onenot appointed to it, and I did this because I thought I was recently converted for real. Third time was in an RB church after what I am certain was a real profession , and I did it at the advice of my elders. But my assurance not being the best I just wondered if I would have to do it again.

Not all RB churches believein rebaptism. A number of them do. It's a problem though to make covenant signs about your profession above and over God's promises signified and sealed in them. Then you just end up wondering if you "got wet" and that is it. But baptism is the preaching of the Gospel by Christ's justifying blood and the Spirit's sanctifying cleansing, and the reality of the message does not depend on the state of the one receiving it. The message doesn't change.

So as circumcision signified Christ's righteousness regardless whether given to Isaac or Ishmael, so we say baptism too. It will preach participation in Christ's death and resurrection either way, and it's a Gospel message to the witnesses who observe it, and to the recipient all throughout his life.



Brother,

It might help the discussion if you format things like so:

- The point you disagrew with
- Why my interpretation of the text is wrong
- What the correct interpretation is
- Why your's is correct

I'm happy to dialogue, but you just keep stating the Baptist position withoug showing just why our statements are wrong.

I do not see this as wrong or right, more as differences on understanding what the Bible teaches on this,!

 

[Scott Bushey]

Saved o. Same basis, the Cross of Christ, but God does not require infants to exercise faith, as they have none!

How do u know that they have no faith?

U still refuse to answer my previous question. Why is that? Please answer the question, please?

'Let me ask u another way: if infants cannot comprehend, that they have no intellect, that the Spirit of God transcends, do they enter glory with any theology at all or is their ignorance, perfected upon entering glory? Heaven is perfect and it's people perfect. Are infants made perfect?'

 

[Dachaser]

How do u know that they have no faith?

U still refuse to answer my previous question. Why is that? Please answer the question, please?

'Let me ask u another way: if infants cannot comprehend, that they have no intellect, that the Spirit of God transcends, do they enter glory with any theology at all or is their ignorance, perfected upon entering glory? Heaven is perfect and it's people perfect. Are infants made perfect?'

They are given perfect resurrected bodies
At the time of the Second Coming.I do not see them as babies forever.

 

[Scott Bushey]

They are given perfect resurrected bodies
At the time of the Second Coming.I do not see them as babies forever.

U again fail to address the issue; Did I ask anything about their bodies?

 

[Dachaser]

U again fail to address the issue; Did I ask anything about their bodies?

They will arrive in heaven in the same state adult saved will be in, whatever that is!

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

They will arrive in heaven in the same state adult saved will be in, whatever that is!

Brother, please heed the words that have been offered to you so many times. Take the time to edit your posts to ensure they are coherent. If you are unsure of your theology, sit the discussion out. Take the time to wrestle with some systematics slowly and prayerfully. Please know I say this out of love.

 

[Dachaser]

Brother, please heed the words that have been offered to you so many times. Take the time to edit your posts to ensure they are coherent. If you are unsure of your theology, sit the discussion out. Take the time to wrestle with some systematics slowly and prayerfully. Please know I say this out of love.

I have read do far Hodgh

Brother, please heed the words that have been offered to you so many times. Take the time to edit your posts to ensure they are coherent. If you are unsure of your theology, sit the discussion out. Take the time to wrestle with some systematics slowly and prayerfully. Please know I say this out of love.

I appreciate all of your here, and would say that I have read the ST of Hodge, Berkof, Erickson, Grudem, Boice, Calvin, Strong, and currently wading through the Puritan Theology for life book. I am still convinced and persuaded by the scriptures that the Baptist view on this issue is the correct one, but also do not view as something to divide over. I read that link to what the Westminster Professor wrote on infant and adult baptism views within the Church, and think that he has a really good position that we can build upon now! Both sides I think need to realize that we just might have to rethink some of our beliefs in regards to this issue to some degree.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

I have read do far Hodgh

It is sentences like this that warrant our frustration. Slow down and proofread your posts before submitting them.

 

[Dachaser]

It is sentences like this that warrant our frustration. Slow down and proofread your posts before submitting them.

Corrected, as from now on will stick to computer keyboard, as its my phone small keys causing me trouble!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think it is hard for many to understand the difference between what Calvin would call the Spiritual Kingdom of Christ as distinguished between the visible Kingdom. Some have made a good case that the "Two Kingdom" view of Calvin is between this Spiritual Kingdom and its Visible Administration. He even included the role of Magistrates as an "estate" within the visible Kingdom with the Church herself as another estate in this visible Kingdom. We are not accustomed to thinking in this way because we assume that the Church herself is the Spiritual Kingdom.

In brief, this Spiritual Kingdom are those who belong to Christ - who have been regenerated, believe, justified, and are being sanctified by Christ. The Church does not make men, women, boys, and girls to be members of the invisible Kingdom but is given a crucial role in the administration of Word and Sacrament which are attended by the Spirit toward the end that these people become partakers of the Spiritual Kingdom. We can use the term Invisible as well to note that it is something happening by the power of the Spirit and not always discernible to the naked eye.

The minister of Christ has the sacred duty of preaching the Word which, through the power of the Spirit, accomplishes the ends of bringing people from Adam to Christ.

As a visible administration of this Spiritual Kingdom, the Church binds and looses by the Word of God. It establishes a historical and visible boundary of those who are in this visible Kingdom, which is under the Mediatorial Headship of Christ. Baptism, as administered, is Promissary but does not confer the grace that it signifies. The Spirit alone seals the Promise to those Who He soverignly chooses. It is not given to the Church to baptize on the basis of whom it believes the Spirit will or has chosen but though those whom it has been commanded to baptize.

A profession of faith is not the bais by which a person is chosen. It is not for the Church the means by which it determines who has been chosen but it is the grounds by which it baptizes an adult convert to the faith. The convert is not one who has been identified, by the Church, as elect but as one whom Christ has commanded us to baptize into the visible Kingdom and disciple them. As a disciple, they are then members of the Church and subject to the means of grace by which the Spirit works. A disciple may long be a member of a visible congregation until the Spirit converts or they may be false professors who never press in and are judged for their lack of obedience to the Gospel of Christ. Today is the day of salvation for all who are in the Church and neither their profession nor their baptism confers union with Christ and its benefits. We treat each other as fellow heirs with a judgment of charity. We reprove and exhort one another to press in and not shrink back. We pray for one another but we are not in the business of determining who is really a member of the invisible Kingdom.

With this understanding of Christ's Spiritual and Visible Kingdom, we can better understand the status of our covenant children They are heirs to the Promise and are members, by birth, of the visible Kingdom. They are baptized because Christ has commanded their baptism. They are discipled because Christ has commanded that they be discipled. They are, as with any adult professor, enjoined to press into the Kingdom. We don't wait to baptize them until we are certain they are "real" disciples but we baptize them because they are disciples just like the rest of us who do not presume upon the fact that we are baptized but press in because we are disciples.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Don't try to be smarter than God. He gave us sacraments for a reason - because we are weak people whose faith needs strengthening, and so he gave us visible signs. I could use the same logic to dismiss the Lord's supper as unnecessary. After all, God saves people whether they partake in the supper or not. You could also use your logic to argue against the circumcision of children in the OT time. Why do they need to be circumcised? God's grace works independent of the sign, doesn't it? Yet he commanded them upon penalty of excommunication to give the sign of the covenant to their children. The fact is God commands us to use these signs to seal promises unto us. The real question is not whether you think something is beneficial or expedient, but whether God has commanded it. If he has commanded it, explicitly or implicitly, then you can be sure he has a good reason for it.

Finally, we both rejoice in the fact that God guarantees salvation to all who believe. But who is it who receives the promise of the covenant? Who is it who is told "I will be your God, and you will be my people"? Is it not believers and their children? Surely you cannot go to a random pagan in the street and say "God promises to be God to you and your children" - that would be extreme presumption. But what we can be sure is that God promises to all believers and their children - to be God to them. What if some do not believe? Does that nullify God's faithfulness? No. No it does not.

Friend, this isn't about being "smarter than God;" it's not about omitting things that we don't see as beneficial or expedient. If we were convinced that God had commanded that infants of believers be baptized, we would do it. However, it is Baptist boilerplate that He has commanded no such thing. There is no shifty logic at play here--we are obeying God's commands in good conscience.
As for who receives the promise of the Covenant--well, all who are elect, and no one else. In the times of types and shadows there was an external administration, which did not guarantee life, and an internal, which did. This external administration was painting a picture (a type, the Bible calls it), of spiritual realities that were not yet as clearly seen as when Christ came. Once Christ came and instituted the New Covenant, the administration of the covenant changed. No longer was it limited in scope to a physical nation, and no longer was it possible to be in covenant with God while remaining unregenerate. This is why the new administration is better than the old: all who are in covenant with God know Him--know Him savingly.
The promise to Abraham about his children and about a piece of Palestine were great and gracious promises, but their fulfillment pointed to a better thing: innumerable spiritual descendants for Abraham, and a city not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. So we see that even back then circumcision in the flesh meant nothing if it was not accompanied by circumcision in the heart, and having Abraham for your physical father only did not make you a real Jew until you were a Jew inwardly.
Now in our times, the birth that matters is not the physical birth from earthly parents, however regenerate they may be: the birth that matters is the New Birth, which uniting us to Christ makes us spiritual descendants of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful. And the sign is to be placed on those not who have been merely born, for the time of shadows is past, but on those who have been born again.

 

[Scott Bushey]

This is why the new administration is better than the old: all who are in covenant with God know Him--know Him savingly.

How is this different from OT times? I mean, really? Unless u have a regenerate geiger counter that identifies the elect, regenerates and converted, u are practicing along the same presumption as our OT saints.

Ben,
Is Esau a nation or a person?

 

[Ben Zartman]

@Ben Zartman

Then what is the point of the Israelites receiving circumcision, a sign and seal of the righteousness that is by faith if the Gospel is promised to everyone? What is the value of circumcision, and what did a little cut in the skin add to anyone? After all, salvation was open to all whether inside or outside of Israel even before Christ came as evidence by Ruth, Uriah, the Ninevites, and OT exhortations such as Ps 117 to the Gentiles to praise Him.

Before saying that it was a national and ethnic mark for temporary promises, I'll bring up now that this is the New Testament interpretation of circumcision in Romans 4:11, of which Christ was minister (Romans 15:8-9), and meant to preach the very same promises of salvation to them. So the spiritual significance was not confined to be applied to Abraham alone.

The Rom 4 interpretation does not convey circumcision as foreshadowing a time of salvation or future realities in relation to Abraham, but sealing a real, present extant salvation available to Abraham in that time and place and to all who believe whether OT or NT--the same salvation we have now.

One can try to argue that we no longer apply the sign, but no one can argue that it is per se pointless. Otherwise God did something useless in the OT, and yet at that time it was a non-negotiable for discipleship.

Jake, you have quite an army of straw men here. No baptist claims that anything God did in the OT was useless. Circumcision visibly set one apart from other nations--it identified him with God's peculiar people. Nowadays we are set apart not by a mark in the flesh but by behaving differently than the unconverted. Can you not see the parallel?
Also, can you explain how Romans 4:11 applies to your argument? It seems to be saying that Abraham was circumcised AFTER he believed--he had been justified already! Salvation was not "available" to him, he had it before ever he was circumcised.
But perhaps I'd better begin by asking what you all mean by "seal." you keep using that as though it clinched all your claims: it seals the promise! Sure, it's there, but what do you take "seal" to mean?

 

[Ben Zartman]

How is this different from OT times? I mean, really? Unless u have a regenerate geiger counter that identifies the elect, regenerates and converted, u are practicing along the same presumption as our OT saints.

Ben,
Is Esau a nation or a person?

It's a different presumption, in that we're requiring the answer of a good confession, as Peter commands. Do we sometimes judge wrongly? of course. Peter did too, in that Simon Magus and Ananias were members of his congregation, but mistaken application doesn't negate the sign: this person bears witness by his life and word that he has been born again. But false professors, be baptized or not, are not in covenant with God.

Esau? who cares? I believe his name is used sometimes for his own self, and sometimes for him and his descendants as well. But I fail to see why he's brought up here.

 

[Scott Bushey]

It's a different presumption, in that we're requiring the answer of a good confession, as Peter commands.

but, u agree that it is a 'presumption' as u posit above? U previously said:

all who are in covenant with God know Him--know Him savingly.

So, u agree then that u can't really know, who knows God 'savingly'?

Do we sometimes judge wrongly? of course. Peter did too, in that Simon Magus and Ananias were members of his congregation, but mistaken application doesn't negate the sign

So then, u apply signage based solely on presumption. It is here that your point stumbles.

this person bears witness by his life and word that he has been born again. But false professors, be baptized or not, are not in covenant with God.

My point, Ben, is that you are essentially doing the same thing all presbyterians do. We place the sign, based on command; we believing that the command is to our children even, 'discipling them'; and u to those who make confessions. However, none of us know that persons place in God's actual economy.

Esau? who cares? I believe his name is used sometimes for his own self, and sometimes for him and his descendants as well. But I fail to see why he's brought up here.

I make mention of Esau in that most credo's find it quite convenient to try and substantiate their credo doctrine by saying that the covenant sign was simply a national idea and that the nation does not cross over into the NT economy; Considering Rom 9 and Esau says much as I don't see many credo's arguing on that point in Rom 9 that Esau is a nation and not a person (much like the Arminians try and press). In other words, I see many people doing this in one essence so as their doctrine filters out correctly and in the other instance, abandoning it, when it suits them, i.e. Circumcision was a sign only for the nation of Israel of the OT; the sign does not carry over for the NT as the people of God are not a physical nation anymore, but a spiritual one only, i.e. 'all will know him'.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

It is sentences like this that warrant our frustration. Slow down and proofread your posts before submitting them.

Chill out, brother. The posts are not likely to be published by RHB anytime soon ... unless you are keeping something from us.

 

[Solparvus]

Jake, you have quite an army of straw men here. No baptist claims that anything God did in the OT was useless. Circumcision visibly set one apart from other nations--it identified him with God's peculiar people. Nowadays we are set apart not by a mark in the flesh but by behaving differently than the unconverted. Can you not see the parallel?
Also, can you explain how Romans 4:11 applies to your argument? It seems to be saying that Abraham was circumcised AFTER he believed--he had been justified already! Salvation was not "available" to him, he had it before ever he was circumcised.
But perhaps I'd better begin by asking what you all mean by "seal." you keep using that as though it clinched all your claims: it seals the promise! Sure, it's there, but what do you take "seal" to mean?

I'm not sure how quoting the rest of Romans 4 helps your case. You just proved that Abraham received believer's circumcision in the same way that New Testament adults coming in from the outside receive believer's baptism. Yet one more way in which the New Covenant administration works like the Abrahamic.

Apart from Abraham's faith, Romans 4:11 is relevant because the New Testament meaning of circumcision is the righteousness of Christ by faith, ie. Sign pointing to it. Had Abraham received circumcision first, it would have pointed to the righteousness of Christ by faith all the same. When it went to Isaac and Ishmael, it preached righteousness by faith in Christ. Every child whoever received it had the Gospel of righteousness by faith in Christ preached to them, and so did every church member who witnessed it. Circumcision is an ecclesiastical ordinance.

That's what I mean by sign--a road sign pointing to Christ for righteousness through faith, and therefore instructing you to go to Christ to get that righteousness.

My copy-and-paste isn't working, but you responded to the sealing nature of baptism by saying that the same Gospel is promised to everyone. You asked what good it does to give baptism to a child to guarantee that he will be saved if he believes when that's the same thing that unbelievers are told. Yet nonetheless, God gives a spiritual sign to the children of Israel anyway expressing this very promise. God's Word was enough, yet because of our weakness God confirms it with an oath (Hebrews 6) so that by two things in which God cannot lie we would be all the more confident about our hope--a seal. The oath didn't make it more certain, yet it made the promise more real to Abraham. Sealing. Wasn't God's word enough without splitting apart a bull and walking through it? Yes, yet God goes a step beyond anyway--the bull was a seal. So isn't the promise sure even without giving the sign of baptism? Yes, yet God gives it anyway. Isn't a man's commitment to marry a woman enough without giving a ring? Yes if he's godly and honest, yet that ring has a world of meaning anyway--that ring is a seal to a promise she already believes to be true and sincere.

So does it mean something when God preaches the Gospel to a child in a near and dear way by applying the sign of participation with Christ to their body? It absolutely means something. Christ just preached the Gospel to that child in a much more intimate manner than he has for those on the outside of the church.

Coming to the part which you say is a straw man, it wasn't an assertion that you see circumcision as useless. I mean this (though I wasn't clear): if baptizing an infant is useless because baptism is spiritual in nature and we do not have any evidence that the child believes or repents, then so was administrating circumcision to children who did not yet profess faith and repentance.

 

[StephenMartyr]

All orthodox wings of Christianity believe that children are born in sin, under the condemnation of Adam. All orthodox wings of Christianity also believe that children, no matter who they are, need to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus in order to be saved. By baptizing a child, no orthodox reformed believer is saying "this child is now saved" - rather they are saying "this child belongs to God and as the child of a believer, should be given the sign of the covenant" - as was done by the apostles when they baptized whole households upon the profession of faith of the head, and as was practiced in pre-Christ dispensation when whole households were circumcised.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that the baptist tradition really tries to pinpoint regeneration, and it is simply not that easy to figure out. There are literally countless people who have grown up in a Christian household who never remember "not believing", there is no clear demarcation of when that person "came to faith", rather there is only indications of a growing and deepening faith. This is why you have people of baptist persuasion getting baptized multiple times because when they hit a lightbulb moment, the perceive it to be conversion, and thus their previous baptism (by their theology) is invalid.

If the assumptions of the baptist you mentioned are correct, how can he possible account for passages like "Have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise?'"

Thanks for your post. That was pretty clear. I'd like to keep learning more about this. As for your question, I have no idea.

 

[Ben Zartman]

but, u agree that it is a 'presumption' as u posit above? U previously said:



So, u agree then that u can't really know, who knows God 'savingly'?



So then, u apply signage based solely on presumption. It is here that your point stumbles.



My point, Ben, is that you are essentially doing the same thing all presbyterians do. We place the sign, based on command; we believing that the command is to our children even, 'discipling them'; and u to those who make confessions. However, none of us know that persons place in God's actual economy.



I make mention of Esau in that most credo's find it quite convenient to try and substantiate their credo doctrine by saying that the covenant sign was simply a national idea and that the nation does not cross over into the NT economy; Considering Rom 9 and Esau says much as I don't see many credo's arguing on that point in Rom 9 that Esau is a nation and not a person (much like the Arminians try and press). In other words, I see many people doing this in one essence so as their doctrine filters out correctly and in the other instance, abandoning it, when it suits them, i.e. Circumcision was a sign only for the nation of Israel of the OT; the sign does not carry over for the NT as the people of God are not a physical nation anymore, but a spiritual one only, i.e. 'all will know him'.

I wish I knew how to interleave snippets of your posts with answers like you do, but I failed nerd school. I'll just address them less elegantly, though I hope clearly.

First, of course we apply the sign presumptuously--only God truly knows what's in man's heart. We are not claiming infallibility. But we do require to be ourselves reasonably sure, although often erring on charity's side, that that person has been justified. So the point stumbles not at all.
Second, we see a difference between the physical birth and new birth. I've stated this a number of times, but here it is again: during the old administration, you entered the covenant by virtue of being born, but there were unregenerates in covenant with God. During the new covenant, you enter ONLY by new birth, regardless of parentage, and thus can only be regarded as being in covenant with God when you can give credible testimony to that.

Lastly, I have seen the Esau straw man demolished before, but it has very little relation to this topic. It may be you have been speaking to credos who don't have their ducks in a row.

 

[Ben Zartman]

I'm not sure how quoting the rest of Romans 4 helps your case. You just proved that Abraham received believer's circumcision in the same way that New Testament adults coming in from the outside receive believer's baptism. Yet one more way in which the New Covenant administration works like the Abrahamic.

Apart from Abraham's faith, Romans 4:11 is relevant because the New Testament meaning of circumcision is the righteousness of Christ by faith, ie. Sign pointing to it. Had Abraham received circumcision first, it would have pointed to the righteousness of Christ by faith all the same. When it went to Isaac and Ishmael, it preached righteousness by faith in Christ. Every child whoever received it had the Gospel of righteousness by faith in Christ preached to them, and so did every church member who witnessed it. Circumcision is an ecclesiastical ordinance.

That's what I mean by sign--a road sign pointing to Christ for righteousness through faith, and therefore instructing you to go to Christ to get that righteousness.

My copy-and-paste isn't working, but you responded to the sealing nature of baptism by saying that the same Gospel is promised to everyone. You asked what good it does to give baptism to a child to guarantee that he will be saved if he believes when that's the same thing that unbelievers are told. Yet nonetheless, God gives a spiritual sign to the children of Israel anyway expressing this very promise. God's Word was enough, yet because of our weakness God confirms it with an oath (Hebrews 6) so that by two things in which God cannot lie we would be all the more confident about our hope--a seal. The oath didn't make it more certain, yet it made the promise more real to Abraham. Sealing. Wasn't God's word enough without splitting apart a bull and walking through it? Yes, yet God goes a step beyond anyway--the bull was a seal. So isn't the promise sure even without giving the sign of baptism? Yes, yet God gives it anyway. Isn't a man's commitment to marry a woman enough without giving a ring? Yes if he's godly and honest, yet that ring has a world of meaning anyway--that ring is a seal to a promise she already believes to be true and sincere.

So does it mean something when God preaches the Gospel to a child in a near and dear way by applying the sign of participation with Christ to their body? It absolutely means something. Christ just preached the Gospel to that child in a much more intimate manner than he has for those on the outside of the church.

Coming to the part which you say is a straw man, it wasn't an assertion that you see circumcision as useless. I mean this (though I wasn't clear): if baptizing an infant is useless because baptism is spiritual in nature and we do not have any evidence that the child believes or repents, then so was administrating circumcision to children who did not yet profess faith and repentance.

Jake,
In the interests of time, I will address only the most troubling paragraph: you said that when an infant is baptized, Christ had preached the Gospel to them in a more intimate manner than for those outside. Are you ascribing some sort of mystical efficacy to the act of baptism? The child has no idea what's going on, and will have to be told, years later, that he/she was baptized. If you claim that something changes for that child the instant they are baptized, you're ascribing some superstitious potency to the water, or the minister, or the ceremony.
The only efficacy of circumcision was a reminder, to themselves and others, that they were a called-out people. The called-out people of the new covenant are the spiritual descendants of Abraham--those who have been justified by faith, not merely those who have been born physically. But this is where Presbyterian's and Baptists will always divide: Baptists see no warrant to include unbelievers in the New Covenant, Presbyterian's think they do. We could go a few more rounds for nothing before putting it down, or we can leave it here, but we're never going to see eye to eye.
I am, however, interested in your answer to my first paragraph.

 

[Kinghezy]

wish I knew how to interleave snippets of your posts with answers like you do

See attached. Selecting text and then hitting that reply throws that selected quote down to the reply. Quote saves the snippet so you can add later.

 

[Scott Bushey]

during the old administration, you entered the covenant by virtue of being born, but there were unregenerates in covenant with God. During the new covenant, you enter ONLY by new birth, regardless of parentage, and thus can only be regarded as being in covenant with God when you can give credible testimony to that.

and hence, the inconsistencies.....On one hand u say:

only God truly knows what's in man's heart. We are not claiming infallibility.

and on the other:

During the new covenant, you enter ONLY by new birth

Again, how is this different from the OT time? Men have only entered into the invisible distinction, by the new birth.

during the old administration, you entered the covenant by virtue of being born

False dichotomy. See my previous statement.

credible testimony

A testimony proves nothing. It is simple presumption at best; time would be a better thermometer.

I disagree that the Esau issue is a 'straw man'. U demonstrate it by your 'testimony' statement alone; Implying that the OT saints that were justified by faith alone didn't testify of said faith.

Since there is only one gospel, the same one that was preached to Abraham, Rom 10 is as pertinent to the OT time period as the NT one.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The called-out people of the new covenant are the spiritual descendants of Abraham--those who have been justified by faith, not merely those who have been born physically.

U mean like Isaac, Jacob, et. al.?

 

[Solparvus]

Jake,
In the interests of time, I will address only the most troubling paragraph: you said that when an infant is baptized, Christ had preached the Gospel to them in a more intimate manner than for those outside. Are you ascribing some sort of mystical efficacy to the act of baptism? The child has no idea what's going on, and will have to be told, years later, that he/she was baptized. If you claim that something changes for that child the instant they are baptized, you're ascribing some superstitious potency to the water, or the minister, or the ceremony.
The only efficacy of circumcision was a reminder, to themselves and others, that they were a called-out people. The called-out people of the new covenant are the spiritual descendants of Abraham--those who have been justified by faith, not merely those who have been born physically. But this is where Presbyterian's and Baptists will always divide: Baptists see no warrant to include unbelievers in the New Covenant, Presbyterian's think they do. We could go a few more rounds for nothing before putting it down, or we can leave it here, but we're never going to see eye to eye.
I am, however, interested in your answer to my first paragraph.

I'm pressed for time too, so the most I said is that the Gospel is preached to them by a sign that demonstrates the sincerity and goodwill of God to deliver what He promises, like an engagement ring--the sealing. I said nothing about its efficacy, so my view on baptism cannot be charged as including ex opere operato, or some kind of auto-efficacy or baptismal regeneration. Such a view has absolutely no welcome place in my theology anywhere. It is utterly repulsive, anti-Gospel, nullifies the free grace of God.

No matter the child doesn't remember--it did happen. God gave it to them, that's all that needs to be known to benefit.

As for the idea that circumcision is only a reminder, I think it waters down what Romans 4 says about it. But then again, there's other business for the day, and I've written on it here and copiously in other places in recent threads, so I'll stop there. I for one see that the warrant to baptize households as clear, and the spirituality of baptism and the profession of adults preceding baptism hold no weight against it per what I've written here and elsewhere.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

No matter the child doesn't remember--it did happen. God gave it to them, that's all that needs to be known.

Yes! It is a powerful thing to remind your grown children, who don’t show evidence of having been circumcised in heart, that as children born to believing parents, God himself caused this sign of belonging and claim to be placed on them; they were initiated into the visible administration of the new covenant and into membership of it, into the commonwealth of the Church, and partook of its many outward blessings. (Oh the solemn and weighty truth about God and the visible church conveyed by this...!)

 

[Dachaser]

Yes! It is a powerful thing to remind your grown children, who don’t show evidence of having been circumcised in heart, that as children born to believing parents, God himself caused this sign of belonging and claim to be placed on them; they were initiated into the visible administration of the new covenant and into membership of it, into the commonwealth of the Church, and partook of its many outward blessings. (Oh the solemn and weighty truth about God and the visible church conveyed by this...!)

Unless they receive Jesus as Lord though, in the end they are still unsaved persons outside of the NC with God!