The church is the New Israel. All of it (children etc) are to be interpreted spiritually; thats the reason for the consistant reference to the church as God's family, we are brothers and sisters, those Paul led to Christ as his children, etc. The fact that the NC is made up of exclusivly regenerate people is clear in Jeremiah 31. God writes His law on thier hearts, they know Him, He forgives them. Jer 31 shouts this change.

__________________
[B]Manley Beasley[/B]
Southern Baptist Convention
Fayetteville, Arkansas

[B]Wir sein pettler. Hoc est verum (We are beggars. This is true.).--Luther's dying words[/B]

Were there children in the household of Lydia, or the household of Stephanus, or the Philippian jailer. Baptists say no. Is this not an argument from silence?

This same Paul also connects baptism to circumcision in Colossians 2. He opens baptism to all in Galatians 3 in which he identifies those who have been baptized as Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. We can say with certainty that the Jewish side of Abraham's seed had all been circumcised (the males anyway.) And yet, Paul says that now there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male of female, but all may be baptized and may put on Christ. You would think that if there was no link between baptism and circumcision, that Paul might have mentioned it there. Instead, he connects the circumcision (Jews) with those baptized (Greeks).

This is important because what was the subject bothering the Galatians? Circumcision. Paul gives them assurance as he tells them, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Wouldn't this be a source of hope for them after being bewitched by the Judaizers? And yet, what ties it together? Abraham's Seed, which we know from that same chapter, Abraham's Seed is Christ, the circumcision (bloody rite of the flesh) and the baptism (the last bloody sacrifice) made together in one. That is why Christ's baptism is linked to our baptism because of His death and our new life. We no longer have to have the bloody rite of the flesh, because Christ is the bloody sacrifice, once for all.

All of this connects the two in ways that discontinuity can never separate them. And because this is true, infant inclusion is a foregone conclusion based upon God's everlasting covenant. He didn't exclude them in the old, and He didn't say to exclude them in the new.

In Christ,

KC

__________________
Heb 13:20-21

Kevin C. Easterday
Member Covenant OPC, St. Augustine, FL
Husband to Tina (August 13, 1988), Father and Teacher to Kamden (17) and Kolton (15)
Federal Theology Website
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

If Jeremiah 31 shouts this change using old covenant language of family, what has changed? And, might I gently remind you that with God, there is no shadow of turning and that Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever?

In Christ,

KC

It's not an argument from silence at all. We don't have to argue over something that isn't there. It never says anything about children or infants at all. It never says any who didn't believe on Christ were baptized. It is up to the Paedo's to give real evidence for Paedo-baptism since it is never explicitly taught in the NT. Paedo baptism is presuming on the passages something that isn't there, credo baptists follow the only examples given in the New Testament; believer's baptism.

Jeremiah 31:31-32 Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.

The covenant itself claims that it is changed. God not changing does not mean he doesn't do different things at different times (baptism is NOT exactly like circumcision even in how you see it, one is water being applied the other is surgery), its God's nature that is not changing. The book of Hebrews claims the superiority of the NC over the OC; ie change; the change is the NC being unbreakable. We enter the NC by regeneration not any outward act (circumcision or baptism) but by being born again which can never be broken.

Household meant wife, children, servants, mothers, fathers, grandparents, cousins, aunts, uncles. It is just as much silence on your part, arguing that there were no children present, as it is from my part, arguing that there were. Household means that there is more than one.

And, forgive me, but since when do we have to prove that because something is not taught explicitly in the NT, that it has no bearing? We'd have to throw out a slew of biblical teaching if we claim that.

I would also posit that baptists are not following the examples given in the NT. They would not agree with household baptisms.

In Christ,

KC

No, we don't have to prove that there were no infants present if it never says there are. We assume (from the rest of the NT teaching on baptism) that whomever was present was believers, whether adults or children (though certainly not infants).

We have no problem with households (it doesn't say who were present in these housholds) being baptized as long as the members believed (you have to pressupose infant baptism in the passages to believe there were infants present). The problem with the paedo view is that it assumes that there were unbelievers present because thats how the OC (circumcision) worked even though there is no actual NT evidence for baptizing infants (just assuming there must have been). Jeremiah 31 shows that the only basis for infant baptism (entry into the NC) is actually only entered by regeneration which cannot be separated from faith.

I think for something as important as baptism, direct biblical teaching is needed. We certainly have it for communion.

I take this passage to say that the new covenant will not be like the old, in that, God will not allow His people to depart from Him again. And why? Because in the "renewed" covenant, the Messiah is promised, the Holy Spirit is promised, the fuller revelation of God is promised. Additionally, the end of the law for believers is promised so that it will act as a proper tutor to Christ. But in the end, we have two choices to make: 1) either man does have a part in his salvation, i.e., a two-way street or, 2) God will continue to provide salvation to His people (monergistically), but on a much larger scale.

I'll not scruple that God's economy changed from old to new, but was it really a change?

Is baptism in the OT? Absolutely. Noah and his family escaped the baptism (judgment) of the flood. The Israelites escaped the baptism in the Red Sea (also judgment) and crossed over on dry ground. They did something similar at the Jordan. Baptism in the OT signifies judgment against the sin of the enemies of God. Appropriate, then, that we should be baptized and linked to Christ's death in the symbolism of it. It symbolizes that by Christ's death, we who were once enemies have been allowed to be members in the family of God.

The same can be shown of circumcision. In the NT, circumcision is the operation of the Holy Spirit transplanting a new heart of flesh for the heart of stone. Circumcision in the OT symbolized the bloody cutting off of the flesh so that one could be counted among God's people. Paul also called it a sign and seal.

So while the signs changed, the things signified remained the same.

What makes the old breakable and the new unbreakable? Was it not God in both covenants? Was it not His design? This by no means lessens the responsibility of the Jews, but if the old covenant had been perfect, there would be no need for the new. The reason the OC was breakable was to show us how it is kept, in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. This does not show a change in God, nor did it change the everlasting covenant whose blood speaks better things than that of Abel.

I would encourage you to look for the links between the covenants instead of looking for the ways they are different.

In Christ,

KC

No, we should look for whatever is true, not similarities or dissimilarities. Again Jeremiah 31 describes the NC. Its mark IS 1. Law in the mind and written on the heart. 2. Knowing God. 3. Sins forgiven. If someone is in the NC then this is what they are. The covenant is obviously entered through new birth. Yes its the same God who made both covenants and he made the NC superiour to the OC because it cannot be broken (perseverance of the saints).

I believe I have been fair up to this point that I've tried to answer you point for point. However, I think I've been ignored on the questions I asked earlier. If you would interact with why there is so much familial language in something you're turning into an individually focused passage, I would interact with you. But I find at this juncture, that we'll not be able to see eye to eye.

I would suggest that before you decide on the matter about the new covenant, that you would go back and study the old. I found that to be invaluable and the only real way that one can understand terms especially because of the language of the Bible being so connected between the two. After all, how do you know what is new about the new, if you don't know what is old about the old.

In Christ,

KC

Because "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" is God's own self-declaration and it appears from John 1: 10-13 and Gal 3:7 that he has narrowed the scope of those He has included in his covenant. Now, they that are of faith who have the right to be called children of God and they are the children of Abraham in the new covenant just as it was the children of Isaac and Jacob (and not Ismael and Esau) who were the covenant children of Abraham under the old covenant.

__________________
In Christ's love and service

Mr. Tim Cunningham,
BMus. (Trombone Performance), University of Toronto
Dip. CS, Regent College, Vancouver
Member, First Baptist Church
Vancouver, BC
------------
"I once sat in darkness, and waited for the moon to rise.
I once sat in darkness, and waited for the sun to shine.
I once sat in darkness, when all the light I'd waited for was gone.
Then Jesus came, and now the only true light, ever, shines in me."
– John Deacon -

Not all families have any infants or children to young to trust in a Saviour in them at all times. Since Scripture does not answer the question as far as these families status at the times mentioned are concerned, it is the confession not me, that does not allow the hypothetical status of those families to determine our doctrine.

If you wish to use Col 2:11ff as a text to derive either water baptism or infant baptism as a necessary consequence you will find yourself biting off more than you can chew. For doing so necessarily leads to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration (since the baptism here mentioned clearly leads to actual union with Christ) and we know that not all who are baptized, especially not all who are baptized as infants, prove regenerate. No, the baptism here is that of the Spirit baptizing us into Christ or regeneration itself.

Indeed their faith in Christ rather than circumcsion should have encouraged them and their regenerate status and union with Christ acheived through the Spirit's baptizing them into Christ should have done likewise. But Paul specifically defines Abraham's seed as "they that have faith" not "they that have faith and their children."

What God has said in John 1: 10-13 and Gal 3:7 are enough to make it impossible to prove that presently unbelieving children are, at the time, children of Abraham or are due the right of being recognized as having been born of God.

Forgive me, but could you elaborate on the questions I asked? To which question does the above answer?

In Christ,

KC

You can know what is different about the new by studying Jeremiah 31 which clearly states what the difference is. The old was broken and the new (because of the description of regeneration) will not be broken. That is the point (the reason God points out that the old had been broken) of the passage.

I wasn't trying to ignore your questions; I apologize if I came across that way. I thought I had answered your questions though my references to Jeremiah 31. The fact that it describes (in detail) regeneration, and regeneration is individual I assumed that would be clear. Again, I do apologize; I did not mean to offend you.

You've not offended me, brother. What I was trying to get you to talk through is why there would be so much language involving family and household, if there is such narrowing distinction to only regeneration of individuals and not the broader church in view in that passage. I would say that in general, knowing that there are no perfect churches, the prophecy speaks to what is generally true about the church, but is not always true about her membership.

I think you probably know that Presbyterians talk about the visible and invisible church and how we deem it to be crucial to understanding the covenants of God. It helps us make sense of the real warning passages without the danger of abandoning the perseverance of the saints. It also makes sense of passages that talk about goats in with sheep and chaff in with wheat. And that brings up what has been said many times on this discussion that the baptistic view would lead us to a regenerate only church membership, which of course we can't get to. In the final analysis, both Baptists and Presbyterians have to administer baptism to people who could be genuine or false. Because that is the case, Presbyterians see the prophecy of Jeremiah in a completely different light. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of why we would see it differently.

There was an obvious visible and invisible scenario in the old covenant, so it stands to reason, as even our Lord says in Matt. 7:21-23 and various other places, that we would see the same distinction in the new covenant.

In Christ,

KC

I agree that there are sheep, goats and a visible, invisible church; I don't see this as a proof of infant baptism but of the fact that there are people who claim Christ but aren't regenerate. I do not see believer's baptism as a way to create a perfect church but as being obediant to what I believe scripture teaches. We baptists have many goats and tares also. I think the Presbyterian churches I've visited are just as filled with Godly people as any Baptist ones. Please don't think I'm arguing for Baptist churches being more pure in that way because that is not my experience.

Doctrine: The conferral of covenant sonship status under the New Covenant is limited no longer to the Jewish nation and is predicated no longer on natural descent but on supernatural descent, the fruit and evidence of which is saving faith in Jesus the Messiah.

Below I will offer three propositions to substantiate the doctrine articulated and close with an application related to the question of infant baptism and New Covenant church membership.

1. The passage is not merely explaining the ordo salutis, that is, God's way of salvation at all times, but is primarily highlighting a shift in the historia salutis, that is, God's manner of administrating the paradigm of redemption (i.e., commonly called the Covenant of Grace) in history.

The reader should note that the primarily theme of John 1:1-18 is the Word becoming flesh and dwelling among men. This is obviously a historical event and it marks a new epoch in the history of redemption. The apostle notes this epochal shift when he asserts, "The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." John's reference to Moses alludes to a great event in redemptive history, viz, God redeeming His people from Egypt mediated through Moses and later revealed in the Law. That great redemptive event, however, would pale in comparison to the second great redemptive event. Indeed, the first great event was merely a shadow of the second great event. Now God would redeem His people from their sins by the hand of one greater than Moses (cf. Deut. 18:15ff.; Heb. 3:1-7). The Son of God would come and ratify a New Covenant with His own blood.

So what we have here are two mediators, two covenants, and two canons! The “law” is the OT canon completed. “Grace and truth,” refer to a New Covenant canon, not yet completed but anticipated and presupposed. Moreover, John’s purpose in this passage is to highlight the superiority of the New Covenant and its mediator. The Old Covenant contained grace and truth (Exod. 34:4-7). That grace and truth, however, was promissory in form. God’s people could not look directly at His glory, but they could only see it as it was reflected from Moses’ face. Even then there was a veil over his face, because God’s people were not ready for the full revelation of God’s glory (34:29-35).

But in the fullness of time God sent forth His Son, the Word. Now the veil will be taken away from the Law of Moses. Now God’s people are ready to see God’s glory in all of its fullness. Note verse 14: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Now grace and truth are no longer in the promissory form of the OT. Now they’re in the fulfillment form of the incarnate Son of God—the Mediator of a better covenant. Instead of sending Moses down from the mountain in order to reflect His glorious grace and truth, God Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ, has come down from the mountain. Note the declaration of verse 18: “The only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained [i.e., revealed] Him.” Jesus Christ Himself is the New Covenant word from God.

What, therefore, verses 10-12 describe are human responses to this redemptive-historical event. "The world did not know Him" (v. 10), "his own people did not receive him" (v. 11), and "but as many as received Him" (v. 12) refer primarily those historical human responses that have followed in the wake of this new and greatest of all redemptive events--God become flesh in the person of Christ. Thus, verses 12 and 13 are not merely rehearsing God's way of grace throughout the ages (e.g., God's work of grace in Abraham, Moses, and David) but are concerned primarily with a new state of affairs introduced by the coming of Christ and inauguration of the New Covenant. Now what once characterized only a remnant within God's Old Covenant family will now be the rule characterizing the members of the New Covenant family. Unfortunately, as William Hendricksen notes, "The Jew was very slow to learn that in the new dispensation there are no special privileges based upon physical relationships" [emphasis added] (Exposition of the Gospel According to John [Baker, 1953], 1:81). Therefore, Adam Brink’s observation (post #12) that John’s teaching in 1:12-13 “was true in the Old Covenant; this is nothing new” betrays an insensitivity to the clear redemptive-historical emphasis of John’s doctrine.

2. The passage is not merely referring to the divine causation of a moral change in individuals, that is, regeneration, but is primarily highlighting a divine conferral of legal covenantal status, that is, adoption.

The rendering of the Authorized Version, "to them gave he power to become the sons of God," has suggested to some that vv. 12-13 are dealing exclusively with regeneration. The Greek term translated "power," however, is exousia, not dunamis. The later would connote revivification and be consonant with the grace of regeneration. The former denotes legal authority and/or privilege. This is noted by Leon Morris who writes, "John does not speak of power, as in the sense of power of sin (though in fact they receive that too). His thought is that of status. They have received full authority to this exalted title. He does not say 'to be' but 'to become.' Not only is there a status, but there is a change of status" (The Gospel According to John [Eerdmans, 1971], 98). Albert Barnes argues similarly and prefers to translate exousia as "privilege." He then identifies this privilege as the legal status of adoption (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament [Kregel, 1962], 265).

Barnes is not without support from other commentators. John Calvin uses the term "adoption" at least four times in his exposition of verses 12 and 13 (see Calvin's NT Commentaries [Eerdmans, 1993], 4:16-19). Professor John Murray lists John 1:12-13 among "the most important passages in the New Testament bearing upon adoption" (Collected Works [Banner of Truth, 1977], 2:226). He argues,

In John 1:12 he speaks of giving authority to become sons of God. Sonship, he indicates, is instituted by the bestowment of a right and this is to be distinguished from the regeneration spoken of in verse 13. When we apply John's own teaching elsewhere to this passage we are compelled to discover the following progression of logical and causal relationship--regeneration (v. 13), the reception of Christ, the bestowment of authority, and becoming thereby children of God (v. 12).... In a word, the representation of Scripture is to the effect that by regeneration we become members of God's kingdom, by adoption we become members of God's family (CW, 2:228-229).

One should note how Murray connects the blessing of adoption with membership in God's covenant family. Robert Peterson builds on Murray's insights and remarks,

Adoption and regeneration are two ways of describing how we enter the family of God.... In regeneration, [God] begets his children, giving new life to those who were spiritual dead. In adoption, the Father places adult sons and daughters, former children of the devil, in his family. Adoption is a legal action, taking place outside of us, whereby God the Father gives us a new status in his family (Adopted by God [P&R, 2001], 105).

So the grace bestowed in verse 12 is "adoption" in contrast with the grace effected in verse 13, which is "regeneration" (see also J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels [Zondervan, 1957], 3:16-17). Of course, as the writers above note, John ties both salvific blessings together. This new covenant family status is conferred on believers (v. 12) whose very faith is itself the fruit or evidence of a supernatural work of God's regenerating grace (v. 13). Thus, this newly conferred covenant status is not the product of human merit but of divine bestowal. So, to answer Kevin Easterday (post #22), the passage is indeed about “the children’s rights.” But no Calvinist, whether Paedo or Credo, denies that “the rights” belong to us as a gift from God, just as the faith and regeneration addressed in this passage are gracious gifts.

Nevertheless, since verse 13 stands grammatically in subordination to verse 12, the emphasis is not so much upon God's inward work of regeneration but rather upon God's subsequent conferral of legal status upon regenerate believers. And if John is not merely alluding to the ordo salutis but rather to a new stage in redemptive history, then his emphasis on a circumcised heart expressed by faith in Christ as the condition for the divine conferral of a new covenant-familial status suggests a qualitative difference between the constitutional makeup of the Old Covenant people of God, with the most of whom God was not well-pleased (1 Cor. 10:1-5), and the New Covenant people of God (who, as a rule, are truly "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession," marked by the fact that God has not merely called them out of Egypt to Canaan but "out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1 Pet. 2:9).

3. The passage predicates the divine conferral of a legal covenantal status no longer on natural descent but on supernatural descent, the fruit and evidence of which is saving faith in Jesus Christ.

If, as argued above, John's focus is not merely on the ordo salutis but primarily on the historia salutis, then verse 13 takes on new significance. Salvation has always been by grace through faith in the promised Offspring. More specifically, God has always called for a circumcised heart that gives rise to faith and genuine piety (Gen. 15:6; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4, 14). But one might lawfully belong to Abraham's "seed" and to the nation of Israel via the circumcision made with hands without the new birth. Hence, God confers upon the nation of Israel as a whole and indiscriminately the status of sonship (Exo. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Hos. 11:1; Rom. 9:4).

This redemptive-historical state of affairs, however, has changed with the coming of Christ, says John. Not only does God convey his grace and truth through a better mediator than Moses (see above). But now God will limit the conferral of legal covenant status to those upon whose heart His law is written, who know Him, and whose sins He has forgiven (Jer. 31:31-34). To use the language of John, "To as many as received" the Son of God incarnate (v. 12). Hence, natural descent, the pride of the Jewish people, no longer counts. As Calvin observes,

The universal term 'as many' implies an antithesis: the Jews were carried away by a blind glorying, as if God were restricted to them alone. So the Evangelist declares that their lot has changed; the Gentiles have succeeded to the place left empty by the disinherited Jews. It is just as if he transferred the rights of adoption to strangers (NT Commentaries, 4:16-17).

So the legal right of entrance into the covenant family of God is no longer predicated on physical descent or outward circumcision. Instead, "'Whosoever' received Him," notes Ryle, whether "Pharisees, Sadducees, learned or unlearned, male or female, Jews or Gentiles, to them He gave the privilege of sonship to God" (3:22). Hence, with the coming of Christ, God has reconstituted his covenant household. He has indicated through the pen of His inspired apostle that warrant for inclusion within his "covenant household" (see Eph. 2:19) is predicated on faith and the new birth, no longer on natural descent.

Application: What are the implications for the New Covenant rite of baptism and church membership status?

A Paedobaptist might respond like Matthew Winzer (post #15) and assert,

The passage teaches nothing concerning 'baptism,' the sign, but is concerned with the grace, or what is signified. Paedobaptists teach that the grace signified by baptism belongs only to those who believe. Paedobaptists are credobaptists in this sense.

I agree with Matthew that "the grace signified by baptism belongs only to those who believe" and that "Paedobaptists are credobaptists in this sense." I would also concede that John does not directly refer to water baptism (which would be a bit premature at this stage in his Gospel presentation). Nevertheless, I'm inclined to think, in light of my exposition above, that this passage does carry implications regarding the recipients of baptism and membership in New Covenant churches. Under both the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations, the ordo salutis was preached primarily through shadows and was not, as a whole, realized in the "people of God." Under the New Covenant, however, God's redemptive program has advanced. Now the historia salutis and ordo salutis will more closely coincide. (Note: perfect coincidence will await the eschaton, in response to Rich’s charge (post #13) that the Credobaptist argues for “the ideal.”) To achieve this result, God demands faith in Messiah as the warrant for inclusion within the New Covenant community. Natural descent and outward circumcision served their typical purposes under the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. But blood-ties to Abraham and removed foreskins failed to effect the kind of changes in the covenant community God ultimately desired. Therefore,

Finding fault with His people, He says: "Look, the days are coming," says the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day I took them by their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. Because they did not continue in My covenant, I disregarded them," says the Lord. "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days," says the Lord: "I will put My laws into their minds, and I will write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they will be My people. And each person will not teach his fellow citizen, and each his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know Me, from the least to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their wrongdoing, and I will never again remember their sins." By saying, a new covenant, He has declared that the first is old. And what is old and aging is about to disappear [emphasis added] (Heb. 8:8-13, CSB).

In keeping with the redemptive-historical shift portended by the prophet Jeremiah, highlighted by the author of Hebrews, and reinforced by the teaching of John 1:12-13, I would argue that those who have divinely conferred legal warrant to enter into God's newly constituted covenant family are those who give evidence of the new birth though a credible profession of faith in Jesus the Messiah. The fact that unregenerate men and women are sometimes baptized and brought into the New Covenant community on profession of faith that later turns out to be false does not contradict or invalidate the Credobaptist argument. Even the Paedobaptist predicates adult baptism on a credible profession of faith. Hence, “the proverbial elephant sitting in the Credo-Baptist living room,” to use Rich’s words (post #13), is in the Paedobaptist’s living room too! He too demands from adult proselytes a credible profession of faith based on John 1:12-13 and other texts without pretending to have he omniscience to read men's hearts.

The real question is one of divinely bestowed legal warrant (John 1:12). What the Credobaptist avers is that this demand for a credible profession of faith as the warrant for inclusion within God's New Covenant family is not a substantial continuation of the state of affairs under the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants with, of course, a few minor changes, like the switch from circumcision to baptism and from the Passover to the Lord's Supper. It is, rather, a new state of affairs from a redemptive-historical standpoint. Hence, the church and her leadership is no longer warranted by God to include physical seed in the covenant by virtue of mere blood-ties to believing parents. To those who receive Christ and to those alone does God grant de jure the privilege of New Covenant member status.

In closing, I acknowledge that some (not all) of my Paedobaptist brothers may affirm much of what I have said and acknowledge its validity as a general rule. They will, however, quickly remind me of a handful of New Testament passages that, in their minds, provide biblical warrant for an exception to the rule. They will point to Jesus' receptive disposition toward children (Acts 18:1-10; Mark 10:14-16), Peter's reference to children in Acts 2:38-39; household baptisms (Acts 16:15; 31-34; 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16), and the children made "holy" text (1 Cor. 7:14). But these passages are hardly conclusive and undisputed. It should also be noted in that in all the NT polemic against the Judaizers' attempt to foist the continuing demand of outward circumcision upon the New Covenant community never once do the apostles settle the confusion with the simple observation that circumcision has been superseded by baptism. Colossians 2:11-12 does not replace outward circumcision with water baptism. Rather, it replaces outward circumcision with inward circumcision (Phil. 3:3), i.e., regeneration, which in turn is evidenced by faith (John 1:12-13) and symbolized in water baptism (Col. 2:12). So, with all due respect and appreciation for my Paedobaptist brothers, I do not believe the Credobaptists argues in a "void" (contra Rob, post #9). Moreover, though our great esteem for our Reformed Paedobaptist forefathers has even constrained some of us to attempt to swallow infant baptism, yet until we find clear Scriptural warrant for the practice, we dare not violate our conscience and add to God’s word. Without trying to be melodramatic, we might borrow Luther's famous words,

Unless we are convicted by Scripture and plain reason ... our conscience is captive to the Word of God.... to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here we stand, we cannot do otherwise. God help us, Amen.

Respectfully yours,

__________________
Bob Gonzales Jr., Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
Easley, South Carolina

"Persons need not and ought not to set any bounds to their spiritual and gracious appetites." Jonathan Edwards

I don't think anyone here disputes the fact that this passage covers the proper ordo salutis and historio salutis. We all readily agree that for one to be a true son of Abraham in Christ, he is not so outwardly, but inwardly. This change is made completely of God and due to His election and glory and grace.

But to link this passage to a baptism argument does not help us get any nearer to a resolution. Presbyterians are still going to argue, from a covenant perspective, that Abraham, while under this passage was a true son, his son Ishmael, and his grandson Esau, were not true sons; yet all received the sign of the covenant. And Baptists will argue that circumcision and baptism are not linked.

I won't say that your analysis is not helpful, but I'll renew my primary objection: I still believe that your emphasis, and not just yours, but anyone who stresses the rights of the individual, is in the wrong place. As people who exist only to bring glory to God, we should always stress and press the rights of God to do as He will, and stress and press our rights only for assurance and edification. To place too much upon the forensic or legal rights of a son over His father, seems to be out of place. This passage should give us more gratefulness and appreciation for God's adoption, rather than give us boldness to claim rights as sons. We should claim only the blood of Christ as pertains to our salvation and should never point to a profession or any act that we perform as that which can help us make our claim. I'm not saying you believe this. I'm saying that we should avoid going close to making a profession of faith, that which gives us a right to be in the family of God.

[quote=kceaster;470541]Thanks, Kevin.

Kevin, I'm not certain you're interpreting what I've written carefully. By stressing that God has conferred upon us the legal status of sonship, I am stressing "His rights." As John makes clear and as I acknowledged in my exposition, God regenerates (v. 13), gives the gift of faith and grants the legal warrant of sonship. I'm a Calvinist.

Whoa! Did I say anything about the "legal rights of a son OVER his father"? I don't think I said that. What I did say was that we have been granted legal rights BY our Father.

Well, I'm not opposed to reading this passage doxologically. Let God be all and all! But this passage in particular explicitly asserts that God confers "a right to be in the family of God" based on a profession of faith. What more can I say? Since we all believe that faith is a gift of God, there's no reason for boasting.

Thanks for your response to my post. I genuinely appreciate your desire to keep our focus on God's glory in man's salvation.

Hi:

There is an easy answer to your post, Dr. Gonzales. That is, you are confusing the New Covenant with the Covenant of Grace.

A person can be baptized into the New Covenant, but not be a member of the Covenant of Grace. This is taught just about everywhere in the Bible.

Grace and Peace,

Rob

__________________
In Essentials Unity, in non-Essentials Liberty, in all things Charity.

Robert Paul Wieland
Springs Reformed Presbyterian Church
Colorado Springs, CO RPCNA
Student at Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh PA
Never be afraid to do something new. Remember, amateurs built the Ark, but professionals built the Titanic.

The answer is in typology.

For instance, it has already been stated that one entered into the Covenant of Israel, the chosen nation of God by blood line...BUT...

There was also, and is still used today, a "sign". The sign is circumcision. If one was NOT circumcised, then one was not considered to be under the covenant made with Abraham, and was not recognized as such.

Baptism avails nothing in and of it's self (as you know), yet is commanded as one professes the gospel and enters into covenant fellowship with God, the baptism commanded of Christ is to note those who have believed and make a public profession of it.

Now, with that, the Bible also teaches to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, and that fellowship with the world is enmity with God, and also, as Paul teaches, if, marriage sanctifies the unbeliever, how does it do so? In like manner, how does baptism sanctify the unbelieving infant? Give it some thought; meditate on it.

If circumcision, a sign of Israel, didn't cut it (ha ha) for Esau...but did for Jacob...what point was there to it? Did circumcision give Esau a place in the 12 tribes of Israel? He ended up OUTSIDE the nation of Israel (God's Chosen). Yet, he was circumcised.

If one would, that their child be understood as being brought in under the New Covenant, and to be raised as such, should the child NOT be baptised?

What is "baby dedication" in many denominations, but a mere mimic of the baptism of one's child, announcing to the church that they (the parents) commit to raising their child under the Covenant for which they belong. As if the child was/is a believer...like Isaac did Esau...and in fact, favored him, as you know.

As for the the Scripture reference, one is not born of the flesh, blood, will of man, but of God...and therefore what has baptism to do with it? One could be tempted to mention Rome's view of infant baptism, which, in essence, they believe regenerates the infant. As if there were something special about the water. As if natural elements somehow Spiritually change someone. Did circumcision change Esau, spiritually? Yet, he recieved the sign of which God commanded.

I know, Paul teaches how circumcision avails nothing, if one doesn't keep ALL the Commandments...of course it doesn't, and Paul also had a problem with baptising...in that many boasted in who baptised them. Neither GIVES eternal life.

A function of Baptism, is to signify one belonging to the Church, until they prove NOT to be otherwise, as mentioned earlier in the thread. It seems fine to baptize someone you don't know is saved, just because they give the impression they are, only to see them leave the fellowship and show they never were. Yet, it isn't o.k. to baptise ones' infant(s) to signify that as long as you are a steward of the child(ren), that you will raise them in all the ways of the Church, in the way of the Gospel and consider them, under the Covenant, until they prove otherwise. Seems odd. Almost hypocritical from an eternal perspective.

If on believes, salvation is of the LORD, and that He will save whom He Wills, then baptising your child goes well with John 1:12,13. Especially, being you are under the Covenant already, and praying for your children and doing all the other things to raise them in spirit of the covenant. Whatever happens to you as head of the family, trickles down to the rest of your family when it comes to the matters of life in general, so why not in the matters of Eternal Life?

It seems to me that those born of the Spirit are simply that, and that nothing but God brought this about in his eternal decree, which is the context in the passage, I believe. If one is Saved by the Grace of God, as head of his family, he should do all that pertains to eternal life, including the baptising of his own, showing forth that one believes that God will deliver his children as they are raised under/ in the Covenant for which the head is called. If you are raising your child as being in the Covenant, by the Commandments and churching them and teaching them the Bible, aren't you in ESSENCE raising them as a believer?

Always a good topic, and hope I haven't offended anyone, unless of course, it helped?...just kidding Thanks!

__________________
Duane
Lighthouse Bible Church (Independent Reformed)
Delavan, WI

Election is the Good News (Gospel)

What good work must we do to inherit the Kingdom of God?
THIS is the WORK OF GOD, that ye believe on Him in Whom He hath sent.

He's not confusing it. The Baptist view is that the NC is superior to the OC in that it is entirely made up of the elect. Its not confusion its disagreement. Our very argument is that the NC is made up of ONLY people that have been born again. That is a key difference between the two covenants and why the new is superior.

No doubt this is the Baptist view, but it is erroneous. In 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, warnings against wickedness and incurring God's ultimate displeasure are as relevant to the new covenant community as they were to the old covenant community. Clearly historic reformed theology was correct to maintain that the differences are in administration and not in substance.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

I would say His warnings are as relevant to the "visible church" as they were to the OC community. All in the NC are regenerate.

Baptists agree (as I mentioned somewhere) that there is a visible and invisible church (sheep/goats, wheat/tares etc); we disagree that eveyone in the visible is in the NC. The NC is entered by regeneration alone and is an unbreakable covenant (Jer 31).

By dichotomising the visible church and the new covenant community an entity is created which has no temporal value. This new covenant community could only be known to God. Baptism must be irrelevant to this non-temporal entity.

According to Heb. 8-10, Jer. 31 removes the need for priestly mediators in the administration of the covenant, and still leaves open the possibility of apostasy.

Under the Old Testament true Israelites entered the covenant by means of spiritual circumcision (regeneration), whereas the whole nation was visibly in covenant by means of the outward sign of physical circumcision. The state of affairs as described by Jer. 31 is no different, as verses 35-37 reveal. Individuals apostatise but the community remains as the true representative of God's covenant commitment.

Hi:

The only Covenant that is entirely composed of the Elect is the Covenant of Grace. It is an error to say that the New Covenant is entirely composed of the Elect. The New Covenant is composed of both the Elect and Non-Elect.

Such is taught in many of the Parables of Jesus Christ:

The Parable of the Sower in the field:

Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn, Matt 13:30.

In the New Covenant Kingdom there are both Wheat and Tares. Christ will send His Angels out at the end of the world to separate the good from the bad, see vs. 41.

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away, Matthew 13:47,48.

The New Covenant Kingdom is like a net that captures both good and bad fish. The New Covenant Kingdom is obviously composed of both Elect and Non-Elect.

The example of Simon the Sorceror as he was baptized into the New Covenant, but was never a member of the Covenant of Grace, is as clear an example as one can get of this principle.

As Pastor Winzer pointed out - the warnings found throughout the NEW COVENANT indicate that there are false sons in the midst of the people.

In Hebrews 10, which is Paul's commentary on Jeremiah 31, we find dire warnings of Apostasy, vs 29, which would be unnecessary if all of the members of the New Covenant were Elect, see Heb. 8:8ff.

Blessings,

-Rob

No, you have to presuppose your view to interpret the text that way. You keep using the term NC even though the text doesn't because you're assuming it. Jeremiah 31 is clear that the NC is made up of the elect only. Baptism doesn't bring entry into the NC, regeneration does. That is the difference between the 2.

1.Argument from practicality is not ours to make. Jeremiah 31 makes it clear that ultimately only God does know as evidenced by the parable of the wheat and tares.

2.It certainly makes the point that Christ is the mediator but does not leave any openings for apostacy in the NC.

3. Was there no perseverance of the saints in the OC? Jeremiah 31 says the reason God gives the new was because the Jews broke the old. The OC was breakable the NC is not. Vs 35-37 do not say anything about the NC being broken but is speaking of the permanance of the New.

All of them but especially the last.

[quote=Dr. Bob Gonzales;470556]I'm happy I misunderstood. Thanks for clearing that up.

In Christ,

KC

To predicate that the field is the New Covenant Kingdom is to predicate that "the world" is the new covenant kingdom for Jesus explicitly says that the field is "the world" v. 38. Since Christ says "My kingdom is not of this world" in John 18:36 something is wrong with your predicate. If the New Covenant kingdom cannot be the world in this parable, it cannot be the full net in the next parable you cite nor do the fact that there are false professors found within the church militant make the case that such folk are in the kingdom of heaven. Nor do the warnings in Hebrews establish the point.
For the members of the New Covenant are not coterminus with members of the church militant.

Rob,

After reading several of the preceding responding to my initial question, I can see how some, like you, would chalk up my argument to a failure to make a distinction between the New Covenant and the "Covenant of Grace." I don't think you would have arrived at your "easy answer" if you had read my post more carefully.

To begin with, the so-called "Covenant of Grace" or foedus gratiae is not in fact a historical covenant (such as the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, New Covenant) but a theological construct that describes God's gracious solution to the First Adam's breach of the primordial covenant. As Jeffrey Niehaus observes, "This overarching covenant is not expressed as such anywhere in Scripture" ("An Argument Against Theologically Constructed Covenants," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50/2 [June 2007]: 260). Niehaus then cites Meredith Kline who describes the process at which Reformed theologians construct a "covenant of grace." Kline writes, "The traditional procedure of covenant theology whereby the individual berith-diatheke transactions of redemptive history are combined into ever more comprehensive 'covenant' entities" culminates "in what is usually called the Covenant of Grace, which encompasses all the redemptive administrations from the Fall to the Consummation" (Kingdom Prologue [Wipf & Stock, 2006], 6). As a result of man's fall, God determined to save sinners by grace through faith in a promised Redeemer. This paradigm of redemption is first revealed in the protoevangel of Genesis 3:15 and progressively in all the postlapsarian covenants. In reality, the "covenant of grace" is simply a theological depiction of the ordo salutis stated in the language of covenant (appropriately so, since the historical covenants serve as the vehicle through which God's one way of salvation is revealed).

With this in view, one will note that I took great pains in my post to distinguish the ordo salutis, to which pertains the "Covenant of Grace," and the historia salutis, to which pertains the "New Covenant." For example, I said, "Verses 12 and 13 are not merely rehearsing God's way of grace throughout the ages (e.g., God's work of grace in Abraham, Moses, and David) [which would could be called a "covenant of grace"] but are concerned primarily with a new state of affairs introduced by the coming of Christ and inauguration of the New Covenant." To offer a more lengthy quote, I said,

If, as argued above, John's focus is not merely on the ordo salutis but primarily on the historia salutis, then verse 13 takes on new significance. Salvation has always been by grace through faith in the promised Offspring [once again, this proposition can be summarized by the term "covenant of grace"]. More specifically, God has always called for a circumcised heart that gives rise to faith and genuine piety (Gen. 15:6; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4, 14). But one might lawfully belong to Abraham's "seed" and to the nation of Israel via the circumcision made with hands without the new birth. Hence, God confers upon the nation of Israel as a whole and indiscriminately the status of sonship (Exo. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Hos. 11:1; Rom. 9:4).

This redemptive-historical state of affairs, however, has changed with the coming of Christ, says John. Not only does God convey his grace and truth through a better mediator than Moses (see above). But now God will limit the conferral of legal covenant status to those upon whose heart His law is written, who know Him, and whose sins He has forgiven (Jer. 31:31-34) [here we are now talking about the New Covenant, which is a bona fide historal covenant and not equivalent to the covenant of grace]

Does that mean I see no relation between the "covenant of grace" and the historical covenants? Of course not, the "covenants of the promise," as Paul styles the Jewish covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) all served as vehicles to reveal God's one way of salvation (aka, covenant of grace). The New Covenant also is a historical covenant that likewise reveals God's gracious work of redemption. But the New Covenant also surpasses the prior covenants in that it more clearly reveals the "covenant of grace" and brings the ordo salutis to a greater realization in God's covenant community. To use the language of my previous post,

Under both the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations, the ordo salutis ["covenant of grace"] was preached primarily through shadows and was not, as a whole, realized in the "people of God." Under the New Covenant, however, God's redemptive program ["covenant of grace"] has advanced. Now the historia salutis and ordo salutis will more closely coincide. (Note: perfect coincidence will await the eschaton, in response to Rich’s charge (post #13) that the Credobaptist argues for “the ideal.”)

Did you catch that? I said, "Under the New Covenant the historia salutis [God's revelation of redemption via real historical covenants] has advanced. Now the historia salutis and ordo salutis will more closely coincide." Notice carefully that I did not say they perfectly coincide. Had I made that claim, I would have been guilty of confusing the two. But instead, I added the parenthical comment: "perfect coincidence will await the eschaton."

To turn the tables, I believe it is the Paedobaptists who often confuse the Abrahamic covenant with the "covenant of grace." That is the reason why they argue that we should include our children in the covenant since Abraham did. I reject the notion that either the Abrahamic Covenant or the New Covenant should be simply equated with the covenant of grace. But I do content that the New Covenant more clearly reveals the ordo salutis ("covenant of grace") and advanced God's redemptive program by removing the provisional, typical, and symbolic conditions of physical descent and/or outward circumsion as the legal warrant for membership in God's covenant family and replaced them with a credible profession of faith (John 1:12), which is the fundamental evidence and fruit of a circumcised heart (John 1:13).

I hope this clarifies my position for you and others.

Your servant,

Manley,

My time has been and is short but let me just cut to the heart of this by asking you a simple question (and please be careful how you answer this):

Who do you know, personally, that is in the New Covenant and how do you know they are in the New Covenant? If you could just give me 5 first names of people you know that are in the New Covenant that you've seen baptized then this will help facilitate some basic level of dialogue.

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

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?

[quote=armourbearer;470724][quote=armourbearer;470724]Matthew, thanks for your comments. Though I agree with much of Manley's posts, I don't unqualifiedly agree, "The Baptist view is that the NC is superior to the OC in that it is entirely made up of the elect." I'm a Baptist and would not state it quite that way. As I've tried to emphasize, I do not equate the New Covenant with the "covenant of grace." To state it differently, I allow for the fact that the New Covenant closely approximates the "covenant of grace" in that it calls for a credible profession of faith which is the fruit and evidence of regeneration. In agreement with my Paedobaptist brothers, I acknowledge, however, that false professors may enter the New Covenant community and later prove that their so-called "conversion experience" was spurious (Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26ff.). Hence, the continued need for warnings directed to the New Covenant community (1 Cor. 10:1ff; 2 Cor. 13:5; Heb. 3:12; etc.).

I also agree that "historic reformed theology was correct to maintain that the differences are in administration and not in substance." I am nonplussed, however, why some Reformed theologians continue to affirm natural descent as a warrant for entrance into the New Covenant. Blood-tie as a legal warrant for inclusion within the covenant community is, in my view, an administrative circumstance in the historia salutis, not a substantial element in the "covenant of grace" or ordo salutis.

Respectfully yours,

The book of Hebrews might be properly called, "An Epistle of Warning." I believe that the author alludes several times to individuals who were once part of the New Covenant community but who later apostatized from the faith. This fact is often used as an argument in favor of Paedobaptism. From the fact of the presence of unregenerate members in the New Covenant community, some Paedobaptists argue for the warrant of including infants who at the time of their baptism and inclusion make no credible profession of faith and hence, give no evidence of regeneration. But this reasoning appears, at least to me, a stretch in logical and theological inference. Nowhere in the epistle are the apostates identified as individuals who had been baptized as infants and raised in a Christian family. On the contrary, the author describes them as individuals who had a "conversion experience" that later proved spurious (Heb. 6:4-6). Accordingly, I don't interpret such apostasy passages as permission to include nonbelievers in the New Covenant community.

In this respect, Bob, you're sort of an amalgam. It's not really a Confessional view for Baptists to affirm that the NC consists of those that can break it. It's Scriptural, obviously, but just not Confessional according to historical Baptist theology.

I think Rob made a point that the idea to assert the Abrahamic Covenant has some sort of genetic component that goes away ignores the breadth of Scripture given the number of entreaties that call men to circumcise their hearts as well as Paul's examples of OT Saints who were part of the CoG but weren't elect.

Fundamentally, one of the questions to ask would be: Has there ever been a time when a man was saved who was not united to Christ and, if not, then what was this administration from Adam to Christ about that included children?

I've seen some crass Baptist assertions that God was really more concerned that the Israelites exist to make sure that babies were cranked out and the birth of their children had no real spiritual value - just ensuring the nation was around long enough for Christ to be born and then the Jews could just die out. Nobody quite states it that bluntly but that's what it amounts to. You practically have to ignore the "prolegomena" of Proverbs and all the other passages in the OT that see the purpose of parenting in the Covenant to raise a child that would believe upon the Lord - but somehow OT Israel is all about genetics.

The paedobaptist view is this: disciples are those that are to be trained in the fear and admonition of the Lord. Christian parents are commanded to do this to their children - their children are by definition disciples. I don't know how a Baptist believes their children can escape the warnings of Hebrews unless they choose to put their children in daycare while they attend Church every Sunday without them.

Thankyou for this helpful clarification, Bob. I'm not sure how this compares to Samuel Waldron's Exposition of the Confession, p. 351, but it is good to see you have a place for a temporal entity in the new covenant. Otherwise we would be left with a theological concept which provides no beneficial didactic function, which seems to me to be contrary to the utility of Scripture, 2 Tim. 3:16, 17.

Out of interest, when you consider the New Testament witness, I wonder if you can establish on a sure exegetical basis that profession of faith is subjective and includes "conversion experience." I've never encountered it in my reading of the Old or New Testament.

I'm not sure about the language of "natural descent," but natural relations are clearly included in the covenant community. Hence the instructions relative to fathers, children, masters, slaves, etc. When God takes a man into covenant He takes all that a man is and has. Children are an extension of the man's own body; hence it is impossible for the man to live in covenant with God and not acknowledge that his children belong to the Lord.

One thing that helped me understand the "holy" nature of the children of Believers, is that that they are set apart as part of the covenant community, marked out by baptism.

The children are "holy" not in the sense of [necessarily] being saved, but in terms of a position of privilege. They have the benefit of believing parents (at least one) and a community of believers that the child of a nonbeliever does not have. The Reformers would say the grace that is available to a child of a believer as a result of their relationship to a believing parent and a covenant community of believers is very real.

In one sense, baptism marks this position of privilege out in a visible way.

If there is not an historical covenant of grace, what then, is the everlasting covenant? Further, if this everlasting covenant is a spiritual covenant (possibly anticipating your answer), then how can the physical blood of the great Shepherd of the sheep be attached to it?

If blood is attached to a covenant, as all covenants did involve blood, then how is a specific event not not attached to it? If a specific event, then there has to be an historical covenant of grace.

I guess you can tell that I equate the covenant of grace with the everlasting covenant of Hebrews 13. If this is not the covenant of grace, then how can anyone be made complete to do good works in God's will, who is working in us to do what is well pleasing, through Jesus Christ (the mediator of the new covenant), for His infinite glory. I'm not, incidentally, trying to pin too much on one verse, as I see this theme as the overarching theme of the Bible.

This blood, I would also add, speaks better things than that of Abel. Why Abel? Why not Moses? Why not Aaron? To show us that the everlasting covenant began in the Garden with the sacraments given to the first family.

The everlasting covenant is history, it makes history possible. It was from before the beginning and will be after the end (olam), but it made its entrance in time and space and with real blood.

In Christ,

KC

As far as I'm concerned you are asking me "who do you know, personally, that is elect?". I've already admitted that I see the two as practically the same. Those in the NC know God, have His Law written on their hearts, and have their transgressions forgiven. Only God knows those things about people though we can certainly see evidence of it.