Thread: The Case for "Believer's Only" Baptism

Moderator Hat On:

This thread is not here to give and bring offense. Nor is it here to correct everyone/anyone on their giving/bringing of offense.

It stops now.

I'm going to delete all threads dealing with such, as it serves as a distraction.

I've posted it before, and will do so again now. Consider this quote from the Puritan Divine Richard Sibbes:

It would be a good contest amongst Christians, one to labour to give no offence, and the other to labour to take none. The best men are severe to themselves, tender over others.

NO MORE POSTING ABOUT PEOPLE'S ARROGANCE OR BLAH BLAH BLAH in this thread.

Moderator Hat Off

Rich,
thank you for your response in post #101. you said; Again, you err in calling this a "potential" promise. It really is something hard for the Baptist to understand. Please don't take that as being mean-spirited but it is against your pre-suppositions to see the Promise as not resting on you. The promise does not depend upon the recipient.

Faith is the response of the recipient on the basis of elective grace but the Promise itself is in the person of Christ. There is not "potentiality" in that - merely reality.
I will close for now with the observation I made before. The goal that Baptists attempt to achieve - namely the baptism of the elect - is not achieved.

In response I would say a couple of things.
The promise of the Father in Acts1:4-5,and 2:38-39 is the Holy Ghost,not the person of Christ. The promise is to you , your children,and to all that are afar off,even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
The Holy Ghost quickens the dead sinner to life,granting repentance and faith and enabling the person to lay hold of the person of Christ
As I have said several times before, it is Spirit baptism that unites the elect to the person of Christ, not water baptism. I believe this promise is actual to all who are called. I used the term potential because as I listen to some padeo sermons on sermonaudio they keep saying how some covenant children
might not ever realize this promise,hence that says to me they are speaking of something not actually accomplished.
I believe the promise of Acts 1 Acts 2 is 100% definante to all who are called, who repent , believe, and are baptized by God's grace.

Rob,
In post number 98 you said:
Chapter 10 contains dire warnings against those who break the New Covenant. Oops! but we are told, by the Baptists, that the New Covenant is unbreakable - again a rationialization they infer rather than an actual citation from Scripture.

Where in Hebrews 10 does it speak of anyone in the New Covenant that breaks it? I see warnings addressed to people who hear the message of Christ and turn away from the message. I do not see anywhere where it says what you think it means.
The warning of verse26-31 is addressed to those Jews who like the jews in Jn.8 thought they were children of Abraham,but where not.
In chapters 8-10 the superiority of the second covenant is what is in view Hebrews 8:7 they were in danger of drawing back to OT.shadows and going to perdition 10:38-39 They were not breaking the new covenant.

You should use the quote function. Put blocks of text you want to quote in [*quote][/quote] brackets (without the initial asterisk).

It makes reading quoted text much easier!

Rich,

In the same post you said this:
The problem for me is not so much in affirming the perfect nature of the New Covenant Church for those united to Christ. The WCF is actually stronger in its affirmation of benefits to the elect than the LBCF is. The problem is that Baptists err in believing they have figured out a way to identify the elect in a way that is not even hinted at in the Epistles. They acknowledge they're not baptizing the elect, and, when challenged, refer to the fact that profession is "most likely" the case. Asked for a Scriptural defense of such a claim and none is produced.

Baptists do baptize the elect. A person cannot believe the gospel unless he is elect which you state you agree with in this quote. We baptize believers who profess Christ yes. If non elect persons profess Christ and we do not find out about it by open sin needing church discipline, they will not get past the white throne judgement.
Nevertheless the elect do get baptized after they tell us what Christ has done for them.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

I believe the promise of Acts 1 Acts 2 is 100% definante to all who are called, who repent , believe, and are baptized by God's grace.

Well, yes, of course it is definite if they are foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified before the foundation of the world. They are the elect. The point I was making is that the sign points to the object of faith. Those who rest upon that object inherit and claim the promise. Those that reject it do not.

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Rich,

In the same post you said this:
The problem for me is not so much in affirming the perfect nature of the New Covenant Church for those united to Christ. The WCF is actually stronger in its affirmation of benefits to the elect than the LBCF is. The problem is that Baptists err in believing they have figured out a way to identify the elect in a way that is not even hinted at in the Epistles. They acknowledge they're not baptizing the elect, and, when challenged, refer to the fact that profession is "most likely" the case. Asked for a Scriptural defense of such a claim and none is produced.

Baptists do baptize the elect. A person cannot believe the gospel unless he is elect which you state you agree with in this quote. We baptize believers who profess Christ yes. If non elect persons profess Christ and we do not find out about it by open sin needing church discipline, they will not get past the white throne judgement.
Nevertheless the elect do get baptized after they tell us what Christ has done for them.

You baptize some elect and we baptize some elect. Who you baptize that are reprobate, you do not know.

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

Not in the covenant of Abraham in the sense that they received the spiritual blessings of the Abrahamic covenant. Remember that Paul described circumcision in Romans 4 as a sign of the faith that Abraham had before he was circumcised, yet God commanded Abraham to circumcise Ishmael right after telling him that Ishmael was not a child of the promise. The giving of the sign is a reminder to the visible Church of God's promise to save, and even signifies that saving work in some visible way. If the child repents and believes he will receive what baptism signifies, just as the believing child in the OT would have received what circumcision signified, which is substantially the same thing (union with Christ by faith, cleansing, regeneration).

This is helpful. The paedo sees in Rom 4:11 Paul teaching that circumcision was more than just a sign to Abraham, but a sign to all his visible/earthly posterity individually. Circumcision signifies to each and every physical descendant of Abraham the promise to save by faith even those who were not circumcised.

Now, baptism, just like circumcision, is a sign to each and every spiritual descendant of Abraham?

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

We see it as an external ordinance just as we see the baptism of an adult as an external ordinance.

Does the paedo see baptism as simply an act of obedience?

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

Water baptism saves neither a man nor a boy. Furthermore, baptism does not guarantee that a man who professes faith is truly a believer anymore than it guarantees that a child will grow up to believe and get the benefits signified in his baptism.

I am happy the everyone agrees on this one!

Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist

However, both the adult and the child are part of the visible church. And just as many circumcised apostates met their destruction in the OT, so many baptized apostates will meet theirs in the NT age. We have examples of this in scripture.

I see. The paedo sees a continuity between signs given to a visible church in the OT and signs given in the NT.

This is all very helpful but my question essentially remains: If circumcision signified to each and every physical descendant of Abraham the promise to save by faith even those who were not circumcised, then why is baptism different? Why must *all* be baptized in the New Covenant when only *some* needed to be circumcised in the covenant of Abraham?

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

If one was not a part of the covenant of Abraham, then how was salvation possible for that person? Did all the women in OT go to hell?

Are you saying that paedos believe that in the OT salvation was only possible for those in the covenant of Abraham?

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

I guess it is possible that God could have kept the system the same and only had a covenant sign for guys only, but he choose not to do so.

Where did he choose to change it? That's what I am asking. Does the paedo have a theological argument for doing so? Or does the argument rest on the example of the early church?

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

This is more of a question for why the OT had a covenant sign for only guys instead of why girls are included. If it is accepted that female children are a part of the covenant, then one would have to produce an argument against having the sign applied.

So the paedo does not have an answer for that question and doesn't believe they need one?

Originally Posted by KMK

Are you saying that paedos believe that in the OT salvation was only possible for those in the covenant of Abraham?

I stand by my statement. Another way of putting it is this: Can a person today be saved outside of the covenant of grace (of which the COA was an administration of).

I'll pick up the rest of your post, when we settle this part.

CT

I'm not concerned with the baptism discussion but the comments regarding the Abrahamic covenant do interest me.

Let me make sure I have my facts straight. During the Old Covenant, in order to be under the covenant of Abraham, circumcision would be required as the sign of the covenant (for males). No circumcision; no sign. No circumcision; no covenant. Am I right so far? If I am right then what do we make of the citizens of Nineveh who repented in the book of Jonah? We are not told that they were circumcised. They certainly weren't Jews and did not adopt Jewish customs and rituals. Are we to call into question their repentance and claim that they were not saved? Hermonta, forgive me if I am mistating your position, but you seem to be indicating that only a circumcised Jew could be saved under the Old Covenant.

????

Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis

I'm not concerned with the baptism discussion but the comments regarding the Abrahamic covenant do interest me.

Let me make sure I have my facts straight. During the Old Covenant, in order to be under the covenant of Abraham, circumcision would be required as the sign of the covenant (for males). No circumcision; no sign. No circumcision; no covenant. Am I right so far? If I am right then what do we make of the citizens of Nineveh who repented in the book of Jonah? We are not told that they were circumcised. They certainly weren't Jews and did not adopt Jewish customs and rituals. Are we to call into question their repentance and claim that they were not saved? Hermonta, forgive me if I am mistating your position, but you seem to be indicating that only a circumcised Jew could be saved under the Old Covenant.

????

Nineveh, not to be thought of as in covenant or even saved in a spiritual sense, they just repented of their evil ways and eluded physical impending judgement.

Originally Posted by BaptistInCrisis

Are we to call into question their repentance and claim that they were not saved? Hermonta, forgive me if I am mistating your position, but you seem to be indicating that only a circumcised Jew could be saved under the Old Covenant.

????

What I am saying is that a person needs to be in the covenant of grace in order to be saved. I am not saying that you have to have the sign in order to be saved or in covenant. (If you look at the "cut off" statements in Genesis, then you will see that it was punishment for breaking the covenant. You don't have covenant curses, if you are not in the covenant). In reality, I have made the exact opposite argument. I was opposing the argument that women were not in the covenant because they did not have the covenant sign of circumcision. My counter was that if you wanted to believe that then you should believe that all women of the OT are now in Hell.

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

I stand by my statement. Another way of putting it is this: Can a person today be saved outside of the covenant of grace (of which the COA was an administration of).

I'll pick up the rest of your post, when we settle this part.

CT

You have not made a statement of which I am aware. Please direct me to the statement to which you are refering.

Originally Posted by KMK

You have not made a statement of which I am aware. Please direct me to the statement to which you are refering.

I'll correct it to, "I stand by my position." One does not have to have the covenant sign in order to be in the covenant of grace. To challenge the statement, then you would need to defend, that all women of the OT without the covenant sign are now all in hell, or Salvation was different in the OT, or some other option, that I can't think of right now.

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

What I am saying is that a person needs to be in the covenant of grace in order to be saved. I am not saying that you have to have the sign in order to be saved or in covenant. (If you look at the "cut off" statements in Genesis, then you will see that it was punishment for breaking the covenant. You don't have covenant curses, if you are not in the covenant). In reality, I have made the exact opposite argument. I was opposing the argument that women were not in the covenant because they did not have the covenant sign of circumcision. My counter was that if you wanted to believe that then you should believe that all women of the OT are now in Hell.

CT

If you are referring to me, then you misunderstand. I am not making an argument. If you read my posts you will see that I am asking a question about the paedo viewpoint which I admire but do not fully understand.

In a previous post you asked this question:

If one was not a part of the covenant of Abraham, then how was salvation possible for that person? Did all the women in OT go to hell?

This question seems to imply that a peado believes that salvation was not possible for Abel and Enoch and Noah etc because they were not a part of the covenant of Abraham. Then you said that you stand by this 'statement'. Does yours represent the standard paedo view?

Originally Posted by KMK

This question seems to imply that a peado believes that salvation was not possible for Abel and Enoch and Noah etc because they were not a part of the covenant of Abraham. Then you said that you stand by this 'statement'. Does yours represent the standard paedo view?

The covenant of Abraham is an administration of the covenant of grace. I was speaking of the CoA as equivalent to the covenant of grace.

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

I'll correct it to, "I stand by my position." One does not have to have the covenant sign in order to be in the covenant of grace. To challenge the statement, then you would need to defend, that all women of the OT without the covenant sign are now all in hell, or Salvation was different in the OT, or some other option, that I can't think of right now.

CT

Sorry, we cross-posted. Thanks for the clarification. But let me see if I understand... In the paedo view, circumcision is not merely a sign of the covenant of Abraham, but also the covenant of Grace. And if this is true, then the paedo says that since baptism is also a sign of the covenant of Grace, then baptism and circumcision are essentially the same thing.

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

The covenant of Abraham is an administration of the covenant of grace. I was speaking of the CoA as equivalent to the covenant of grace.

CT

Thank you for clarifying. But if *some* in the OT were a part of the covenant of Abraham/Grace w/o the sign, then why cannot the same be true of the NT? Why must *all* receive baptism to be 'brought into' the covenant of Grace?

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

The covenant of Abraham is an administration of the covenant of grace. I was speaking of the CoA as equivalent to the covenant of grace.

CT

Nehemiah Coxe points out that there were others who were not circumcised and they were members of the Covenant of Grace. The CoA applied to Abraham and his household specifically. It was put into place until Christ came. There are others who were not members of the household of Abraham who were Members of he CoG. King Melchizedek and I imagine some of his subjects were. There are other names who are mentioned in the OT that are outside of Abrahams household also but I don't have the references right now. I prefer to say that the Covenant of Circumcision is an handmaid to the CoG as is the Mosaic.

The CoG doesn't have a sign. It was in effect before the Abrahamic and after. And it didn't have a sign for it then. The Abrahamic does havea sign. The Abrahamic Covenant is not purely the CoG as the Mosaic isn't either. They are both handmaids to the Covenant of Grace. They do serve it and administer the CoG. Both the Covenant of Circumcision and the Mosaic administer the Covenant of Grace but they are not purely the Covenant of Grace. They are not identical. The Covenant of Abraham or Circumcision does administer to the Promised Seed. Today, the promised Seed has come and so the need to administer the promise of that Seed in a covenant with a specific family has been fulfilled. There is no need to maintain the family distinctives (including circumcision) since the CoG has moved toward fulfillment. This is also why children are not automatically included in the covenant any more. The promised Seed is come and so we're not looking at one family or one ethnic group to fulfill that promise. The function of being born into covenant is done. God is calling people from every tribe and nation and not ancestorally into the Covenant.

A brother named Tim Etherington has helped me a little in understanding this.


BTW... I am still working this out. My main point in my reply was to say there where those around the time of Abraham that were not circumcised and were members of the CoG.

Originally Posted by KMK

Thank you for clarifying. But if *some* in the OT were a part of the covenant of Abraham/Grace w/o the sign, then why cannot the same be true of the NT? Why must *all* receive baptism to be 'brought into' the covenant of Grace?

I do believe Baptism is more than a sign. It is also a means of Grace (not a means of special grace but a special means of grace) and it is the initiation rite to enter the Community of faith. To deny it is to deny Christ and His body.

Originally Posted by KMK

Thank you for clarifying. But if *some* in the OT were a part of the covenant of Abraham/Grace w/o the sign, then why cannot the same be true of the NT? Why must *all* receive baptism to be 'brought into' the covenant of Grace?

Would not this current line of argument/questioning lead to at least infant males being baptized?

As I said earlier, I would attempt to address the rest of your post from yesterday, when it was accepted that people were in the covenant of grace without having the covenant sign.

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader
I guess it is possible that God could have kept the system the same and only had a covenant sign for guys only, but he choose not to do so.

Where did he choose to change it? That's what I am asking. Does the paedo have a theological argument for doing so? Or does the argument rest on the example of the early church?

Well one could argue that previous baptisms included women (The worldwide flood and the Red Sea parting), so when baptism became the covenant sign, the women that were a part of the covenant of grace, now were to receive the covenantal sign.

One could also ask, if there is something wrong with just following the scriptural example of women being included? Could someone argue that it was just an apostolic thing?

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Well one could argue that previous baptisms included women (The worldwide flood and the Red Sea parting), so when baptism became the covenant sign, the women that were a part of the covenant of grace, now were to receive the covenantal sign.

One could also ask, if there is something wrong with just following the scriptural example of women being included? Could someone argue that it was just an apostolic thing?

CT

So, as I said earlier, the paedo does not have a 'cut and dry' theological anwer to the question as to why *all* are to receive a sign in the NT covenant of Grace whereas only *some* were required in the OT covenant of Abraham/Grace and more importantly doesn't think that he needs such an answer. It is obvious or irrelevent. Am I correct?

Originally Posted by puritancovenanter

I do believe Baptism is more than a sign. It is also a means of Grace (not a means of special grace but a special means of grace) and it is the initiation rite to enter the Community of faith. To deny it is to deny Christ and His body.

Thank you for these comments and those of your previous post! I too am 'working things out'. I can't wait to meet the man who has everything 'worked out'. (He's probably somewhere on PB)

Originally Posted by KMK

So, as I said earlier, the paedo does not have a 'cut and dry' theological answer to the question as to why *all* are to receive a sign in the NT covenant of Grace whereas only *some* were required in the OT covenant of Abraham/Grace and more importantly doesn't think that he needs such an answer. It is obvious or irrelevent. Am I correct?

Um, if you can figure out how to circumcise a woman, then your question might make more sense. As currently stated, it seems to be something along the lines of "God said don't give woman the covenant sign in the OT", then all of a sudden we just start doing it now.

If the question is: Why did God make the covenant sign in OT something that only men could have done instead of something that could be done by both sexes, then "I" do not have a lock down answer.

CT

Originally Posted by KMK

Thank you for these comments and those of your previous post! I too am 'working things out'. I can't wait to meet the man who has everything 'worked out'. (He's probably somewhere on PB)

I've seen this man once or twice. He is usually quick and doesn't stick around very long. He goes by a nome de plume...Bawb.

Originally Posted by S. Spence

I started to read all the posts in this thread and then gave up - it's a bit long.

Can I recommend that folks listen to this excellent sermon by David Silversides:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninf...D=122605124549