Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFideles  I'll bite without prejudicing your position.
Let me logically follow your premises:
1. The New Covenant consists of the elect alone (those who are of the faith of Abraham)
2. The sign of the New Covenant (baptism) should thus be placed on those who have the faith of Abraham (the elect)
Am I good so far? Let me continue:
3. The elect are known by God alone.
Conclusion: Nobody should be baptized.
Now, you wish to modify. At this point you are going to shift the argument subtlely. You realize that you cannot baptize on the basis of election because you know that the Church consists of false and true professors. Even Judas received Christian baptism (under the authority of Christ nonetheless!).
Thus, you will argue that professors ought to be baptized.
Question: Does profession=regeneration?
If not, then what does the nature of the New Covenant being made with the Elect alone have to do with the decision on who you baptize? |
Apply the same logic to fencing the table in communion. No one should take communion because we don't know who is really regenerate. But we (and you) take their profession (and evidence of fruit) to be enough to apply the covenant sign of communion to them. We do the same with Baptism and, therefore, believe that we are baptizing fewer people who are not in covenant with God than you are.