My investigation of this debate has led to many interesting dialogues with friends on both sides. In recent discussions with a Baptist brother it was brought to my attention that he believed that children are members of the New Covenant: However, they are not, in his estimation, to be baptized until they profess faith.


This is not a typical "Reformed Baptist" view as I am aware. Typically Reformed Baptist exclude their children from being members, that is unless they die, and then they fight for the notion that they were in the New Covenant without a profession. Whats interesting about this view is that it is Paedo in hermeneutic, and Credo in practice. So to recap....

God has not abbrogated children from the New Covenant, but they dont recieve the sign until they profess. Is this non-sense, or is it something to be taken seriously?

What say you? Anyone.

__________________
B.J. Edenfield
Member of Independent Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Savannah, Ga.
"Captain, my religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me. That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave"- Stonewall Jackson

Well, I guess one thing that's different (from a Reformed Baptist perspective) is the idea that your friend is confident that he knows people that are in the New Covenant.

From a practical standpoint, Baptists treat their kids like they are Covenant members all the time. They bring them into Church and into intimate contact with the Body life of the Church. They pray with them and have them pray. They teach them things of God and expect them to obey it. They sing praises to God and expect their children to be participants.

The difference between your friend and his peers in Reformed Baptist congregations is that he's not practicing something completely contrary to what he confesses regarding his children. I've never met a Baptist, thankfully, that does treat his children like tiny pagans.

Now, as I've stated elsewhere, the real issue is the significance of the sacrament itself. If Baptism is a sign of adult faith that has no initiating significance with respect to the New Covenant then it is not formally a contradiction. In other words, Reformed Baptists acknowledge that Baptism does not join a person to the New Covenant. If it did then it would join the Reprobate to it for every baptized believer that proves to be apostate. Most Baptists see the sacrament as a sign of something within the believer and not a ministerial act in which God's promise is signified.

So, for this man who is actually speaking out loud the way most Baptists treat their kids naturally, the issue of Baptism has no significant bearing. Because it represents not a promise of God outside of the person but a sign of something within that person then it's acceptable for him to wait until that something is manifest.

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
PCA

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Children in general or Children of believing parents?

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/

By denying them the sign that is exactly what they are doing. Its the epitome of treating them like pagans - excommunication via non-application.

__________________
C. Matthew McMahon, Ph.D.
John 5:39, "...search the Scriptures..."

Dr. C. Matthew McMahon.com, www.apuritansmind.com and www.puritanpublications.com
Member - Christ Presbyterian Church, Professor at WTS for Puritan History & Theology.

Suggested Tag: "I'm not user friendly."

Life Maxim: Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.
Like Card Magic? Check out: www.cardconjurer.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

and this is the major inconsistency/fracture in the credo theological road map. This is the pothole in the road that they just can't avoid. In fact, it was enough to drive me to Presbyterianism.

__________________
Scott Bushey
Husband to Tina, father to Nicole, Danielle and Zoe
Member First Presbyterian Church of Margate PCA

Maybe they're thinking their children are like females in the OC, who clearly would be members of it but without the covenant sign?

T'would appear the sign of the covenant cannot be strictly required, since half the population was excluded from it under the OC.

Mind, I agree that those who are being discipled ought to be baptized, which was what took me from credo to paedo.

Still, perhaps the "wait on it" view comes from RBs reflecting on all those who were in the OC without the covenant sign.

__________________
Anne Ivy
Christ Chapel Bible Church
Fort Worth, Texas

Married to Don, mother of six, grandmother to an ever-increasing brood.

The Ivy Vine (my blog)

Ann,
females in the old covenant DID have the covenant sign upon them; by proxy, through the federal head, i.e. their father, i.e. the reproductive organ and the passing of the seed. Those that were able to have the physical sign placed, i.e. male children, had it placed. This keeps things consistent.

Who was excluded?

Actually there are two schools of thought:

Quoting Dr. Clark

Perhaps the RBs are assuming the proxy aspect is still in force, with their children being in the covenant because the parents are in the covenant, like the females were in the covenant because their federal heads were in the covenant?

Heck, I dunno. The original poster inquired about this "hybrid" view and I'm just speculating as to what would be the rationale, that's all.

Not that I want to go here again, that would not be possible as if the RB's family are neglecting placing the sign upon the male children, Gods word clearly states that they are cut off.
From a previous thread on the issue:

The idea is a contradiction; the person sounds like they are either confused or transitioning.

Dr. Clark may be able to affirm this (then again, maybe not), but I think that some of the Covenantal Credos are developing something along these lines (the idea that children of believers are set apart, but not to be baptized)...men like James Renihan, etc.

Is that true, Dr. Clark, or am I losing my mind?

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Attending CCRPC, Member of TRBC
Reformers & Puritans -lllll- Puritan Pub
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

Josh,
If it's true, they still have to deal with Gen 17, which would end up shooting them in the big toe. It reminds me of the infant dedication thingie.

My dh and I, who were reformed baptists until last year, as RB'sdid view our children as set apart. We didn't know what that meant necessarily, other than the fact that they were providentally put in our family and that God regarded them as "privileged" in some respect.

__________________
*~Dawn~*
Reformation Fellowship OPC, CA

The 'priviledge' being that they were sitting under preaching and were being catechized. Outside of that, being consistant, if taken to task, they would have to admit that they were no different than any other unregenerate out there.

Yes, though once we began to study the paedo view, our understanding of believers children shifted to the point that we did view them as new covenant members. We didn't necessarily know if that meant they should be baptised as babies/children though. So I guess we were in the transition stage at that point (and very confused).

This is something I've found kind of funny. Baptists will frequently attempt to show how often Paedobaptists contradict each other (T.E. Watson's book consists of almost nothing but this sort of thing), but it's usually on relatively minor points, like how to interpret this or that verse, or whether such and such argument for Paedobaptism is really valid. But they still all agree on the "big stuff," i.e. one covenant of grace in both Testaments, children are still in the covenant, baptism has replaced circumcision.

But on the other hand, Baptists will contradict each other on the "big stuff." Jewett and Kingdon both argue that baptism has replaced circumcision; and Reformed Baptists who disagree with that position will still recommend their books as among the best arguing for an RB understanding of baptism. But both authors are opposed to the idea of children in the covenant.

And I've met a couple baptistic (one ARBCA) pastors who believe that children are in the covenant (certainly not the majority RB position), but don't believe that baptism has replaced circumcision. It seems that this provides them with their basis for performing infant dedications.

As far as I can tell, all we have to do is get some Baptists to argue for baptism replacing circumcision, and other Baptists to argue that children are in the covenant, put the two arguments together, and we'll have a book arguing for Paedobaptism.

__________________
Sean P.M. McDonald
Communicant Member of Springs Reformed Church (RPCNA), Colorado Springs, CO
Attending Lisbon Reformed Presbyterian Church, Lisbon, NY
Infantryman, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, NY
Engaged to Laura A. Doman of Grand Rapids, MI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lex praescribit, evangelium inscribit." (The law prescribes, the gospel inscribes.)

This will be a truly stupid question, but I've always wondered this. Are there any paedobaptists who are immersionists, immersing even the infants for a brief bit. Sorry, just a nagging question.

__________________
Scott - Dallas, Texas - PCA

"It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do." - Edmund Burke

I think the Greek Orthodox Church is.

Indeed they do, how about that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern...ch#Chrismation.

Thanks for the info.

I've chatted to a few RB's about this. This is how they put it.

They say God is sovereign and in His sovereignty it Has pleased Him to place children into a Christian home. Those children are privileged to be raised under the word of God and so in some sense are different to other children. However they also say that until those children make a profession of faith they are outside the covenant, as in their estimation only the redeemed are in the NC.

Hope that sheds some light on the situation.

__________________
Stephen Spence

A Presbyterian attending a Baptist church