Thank you for clarifying that.

__________________
Jonathan
Audio Engineer
Reformed Anabaptist
Ohio

Moroni's magical glasses of proper interpretation:

Hey, maybe you should start a third thread on this topic for self-identified Anabaptists.

__________________
Austin
EE student at Texas State University
Member of Church of the Cross (PCA) in San Marcos, TX
Ps. 8:3-4 "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?"

Hello Dennis,

To answer your question, NO. But there's more to the story. We don't know whether the household baptisms recorded in the NT included babies but what we do know is that the reason indexed for those baptism was not individual faith but rather household membership. When we come to Scripture with a covenant eye we say sure, household baptism makes perfect sense. In fact, would would expect to see household baptisms occuring. Accordingly, we take those household baptisms as corroborating evidence for the paedo position. (It's not the main argument mind you, but it does offer stong corroborating evidence; as does Samuel Miller's argument from church history.)

You asked a fair question and now will I. Can we find in Scripture one example of a person born into a covenant home who got baptized after confessing Christ? You grasp the point. Both questions (yours and mine) are intended to argue from silence. In order to determine whether an argument from silence is fallacious or not, a burden of proof must be established. I would suggest that the burden of proof is squarely upon the Baptist who must show that God reduced the external status of covenant children from his children to the devil's children. Is that the glory of the New Covenant when God says that "all will know me"? Is the glory of the New Covenant that God would have us treat our children as outside Christ?

For what it's worth, here's a more extensive treatment of the subject: Reformed Apologist: A Primer on Covenant Theology & Baptism

Blessings,

Ron

__________________
Ronald W. DiGiacomo / Ruling Elder
Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Elkton, Maryland

http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com

Hi Ron! The rest of your post is addressed to steadfast7 (Dennis Oh). I'm paedo.

Glad to hear it - I'll change it!

Thanks. By the way, I didn't mean to be rude in calling you by your first name. I'm accustomed to addressing people by their username, and yours just happened to be your first name. Sorry about that.

-----Added 11/3/2009 at 10:07:46 EST-----

On the other hand, I'm not sure I can pronounce DiGiacomo.

Yes, I fully grant the household baptism thing. I come from an Asian context where it is not unusual for the whole family to convert when the father converts, and children are raised as Christians. There's no contention there, but I don't think this fact necessarily negates the baptist position.
In my understanding, I do not find any instance where baptism is separated from faith, unless one assumes that household baptism necessarily included children, which is hard to firmly argue for, given the use of oikos in NT narrative contexts. I'm not sure if any baptist would say that the children of believing parents belong to the devil. I'm sure there is some level of sanctification occurring (as in the case of an unbelieving spouse).

That's why it seems to me that the main problem comes down to the ambiguity of the term "oikos." Who precisely was included? Calvinists are known to protect the words "all" or "whole" from being used literally (in limited atonement passages, for example), but here it seems the rules have changed, wouldn't you say?

__________________
Dennis Oh
Toronto, Canada
"The gospel is only good news if it gets there in time" -- Carl F. H. Henry

Yes, agreed. Many infants are described as in the faith. My question was referring to baptism occurring apart from faith.

Welcome to the PB! Be aware that this is a paedobaptist-only forum and you might get in trouble for advocating credobaptism on here.

Also, you should spend some time reading through the Baptism forum archives. Many of the points you bring up are addressed there, and even if you remain credo, you should see that the issue is not as simple as you are trying to make it. I have found the Baptism archives extremely useful for learning about both sides. Happy searching.

-----Added 11/3/2009 at 10:27:55 EST-----

But that's just the problem. Where do you get the idea that an infant of a believer is baptized "apart from faith"? You will not find the Scripture speaking of believers' children this way.

I've always understood that for paedos, the infant is baptized on account of the parents' faith, not his/her own faith. Or, am I wrong on this? When I say baptism and faith as inseparable, I'm assuming that the faith is a confessed and intelligent assent done by the person being baptized.

You will find various views here even among the paedos on the spiritual state of believers' infants. If the word faith is defined as requiring the ability to articulate the gospel in a language, then you are right, the infant doesn't have that. But baptism is primarily a picture of cleansing of sin, and that pertains as much to infants as to anyone.

Again, you are offering the same argument from silence that I already addressed. Moreover, Romans 4:11 teaches that the sign of circumcision (which was given to infants) was a seal of the righteousness one has by faith. This sign and seal was given to infants yet without them having first believed. Accordingly, it is false that a sign that points to the seal of faith is not intelligible when placed upon infants. How much more the case with a sign that points to union with Christ, which an infant may have through regeneration?!

I know many baptists who think so. In fact, I know a Reformed Baptist whose husband graduated from Westminster-west with an M. Div. who believes that their miscarried child must certainly be in hell because God never brought the child to a saving knowledge of Christ. In any case, even if no Baptist would say that they don't regard their children as belonging to the devil, they treat them as such at least in one respect - by not permitting them to receive the sign of entrance into the church.

The bottom line is, when did God abrogate the covenant status of those born of one professing parent?

Ron

Thanks for the clarification.
As a picture primarily of cleansing sin, I see this as further inseparably linked with identification and union with Christ, atonement, election, gospel assent. If an infant without faith is pronounced as cleansed from sin, how does it affect the "golden chain" and ordo salutis?

Indeed, it is linked with all of those things. We do not know who is elect or regenerate, but we are confident that those who profess faith and their children who are raised in the faith, are indeed truly in the faith. We can't presume to know who is/is not definitely regenerate, even among adults. I recommend you search the baptism forums because your questions are answered on old threads better than I can answer, although I try. I'm not saying don't keep asking me; I'm just saying you might find surfing the old threads helpful as a...supplement.

Thanks for the Rom 4:11 verse. hadn't considered that one yet. But, interestingly, noting the context, it seems to support credo rather than paedo: See, though circumcision is applied to infants, Paul is not here speaking of infants, but of Abraham who was circumcised after exercising faith. It seems that true fidelity and continuity with the Abrahamic covenant would mean practicing what Abraham did (believe and was circumcised), rather than practicing what was done to his children (circumcision at infancy). I'm probably being heretical or something, so I'll cut the proposal right about -

You are willing to acknowledge that circumcision was applied to infants and that it was a sign and seal of righteousness through faith when applied to Abraham. Yet you seem reluctant to concede that the sign and seal of circumcision when applied to infants had the exact same meaning. Please tell me then, what did circumcision mean when applied to infants? It meant the same thing - it is God's sign and God's seal - whether God gave increase to the one who would bear the sign or not.

Ron

steadfast,
For your conclusion to have merit, you must propose a different, objective meaning for circumcision respecting Abraham than what it means for everyone else who received it--both Ishmael and Isaac, Jacob and Esau, David and Absolom--indeed every male among pre-Messiah Israel.

In fact, this is precisely the proposal that some non-Reformed (but somewhat covenant-minded) baptists have made--teaching that God actually makes two covenants with Abraham, a gracious one and a secular, non-spiritual one. Thus, circumcision is made to do double-duty for Abraham, being to him (alone) a testimony to his faith; but to everyone inclusive, nothing but a badge of national exclusivity.


________________________________

Moderation

And since this thread has been hopelessly intertwined with credo-answers in the paedo-only fourm (there were two threads, one in credo-answers, one in paedo-answers) I am moving it to the general "baptism" forum.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

I remember reading one of Rev. Buchanan's posts that one of the meanings of circumcision was to point to the Messiah, which was why it was applied to males. Do paedos generally believe this? It was news to me.

Having not yet gone in depth on this topic, I'm inclined for now to view circumcision as a sign of justifying faith (it seems this way from the text). It follows then, that circumcision applied to male infants is meant to point to Abraham and his faith, through which justification is made for true Israel.

The question I once answered--with respect to "why males ONLY" received the sign of the covenant in the OT--I gave as, that such limitation was an explicit pointer to the gender of the promised Messiah.

I don't think this is controversial among us, although I imagine that for many of either side in the debate, little thought has ever been given as to answering "why?". Don't nearly all aspects of our religious devotion point to Christ in some way? It was no different in the Old Testament.

For our part we seldom ask such questions (since the NT is better, of course a sign is given that is applicable to and so visually includes women); and Baptists aren't given to trying to understand a paedo-position from the inside (any more than we typically are of a contrary position).

Nor do I think that a single aspect of the sign exhausts the meaning of it.

Thanks for moving the thread and for your response.
That's an interesting Baptist argument - you wouldn't to know any authors that have written on it, I wouldn't mind taking a look. I'm assuming it's not a popular argument.

however, we do know that the NT links Abraham's circumcision with his faith, and also that Paul seemed to have a dual view of circumcision - on the one hand he repudiated it from the Judaizers, and on the other he wanted Timothy get receive it. Hmm, might it also link into the debate of limited atonement: was not two kinds of grace dispensed on the cross, one for the elect and the other for the world? No need to get to get into that, I guess. But it might be an interesting study.

N.b. Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother. Titus, who was fully Gentile, Paul refused to circumcise.

Right-o. Short and sweet! But, it does show that circumcision had both a national and spiritual meaning that Paul kept distinct, yes?

Scripture doesn't really separate national and spiritual with respect to Israel the way Baptists like to separate them. God expected, by virtue of his covenant with Abraham, that all Israel would love and obey him. The fact that not all Israelites practiced this was their disobedience, not a division of the covenant with Abraham into spiritual vs. purely national.

Any national signifcance was subordinate. Abraham was not a Jew! Israel became a nation 430 years later. What Baptists (and dispensationalists) need to grasp is that God always had a people that he so happened to form into a nation. Accordingly, the promises preceded the nation and therefore may be received by God's people after the expiration of the nation. In short, God's promises were to his elect, which for a time he turned into a nation. Now God is making disciples of all nations, which was always part of the promise.

Ron

I agree with you on Church-Israel continuity, (Reformed Baptists are ok with this, I think), but the new covenant is not simply one of Christ wanting or hoping that all Christian families be finally saved. The new covenant is efficacious unto salvation for it is a covenant instituted in Christ's own redeeming blood. That's why it seems to me that definite atonement, faith, baptism, and union with Christ should all be integrally linked. the paedo views seems to seek to retain national and genetic covenantal ties. Perhaps it can be said that for the credo baptism is soteriologically oriented; for the paedo, ecclesiological.

-----Added 11/3/2009 at 12:34:37 EST-----

I agree fully that covenant promises and fulfillments are made to the elect. if this is so, it seems to me that paedobaptism betrays this theology somewhat more than credo.

Here's the logic:
1. covenant promises are made to all Israel
2. not all Israel is truly elect
3. Therefore, covenant promises are made to non-elect people.

Are paedos ok with this? I find this disturbing and casts a big shadow on the power of God's promises, unless a covenant does not necessarily lead to salvation. But if not, then what does a covenant accomplish?

Doesn't the paedo view also run into the problem of dual covenants: one for general Christian families, and one for the elect in those families?

Yep Yep, and also I think many Baptists miss the fact that there is no scripture that says "and then WOMEN took the Lord's Supper."
While making fun of Paedo's way of interpretation baptist's make use of the exact same interpretation methods to include women in the partaking of the Lord's Supper.

__________________
~ Charles Stephen Barribeau ~
Christ Presbyterian Church , OPC (They sing alot of Psalms!)
Original Westminster Standards (I need to study more...)
The Puritans were best! Also... I NEED TO READ MORE!!!
Philipians1:29(KJV) For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Janesville, Wisconsin (In the fellowship of Bob Vigneault and Matt+Megan Meisberger)

My dear brother Dennis,

I believe you are not internalizing what has already been stated. Please slow down and only respond if you can articulate back the paedo paradigm that is being set forth.

You state up front: "I agree fully that covenant promises and fulfillments are made to the elect." Then you say that in P1: "covenant promises are made to all Israel". The only way I can reconcile these two statements of yours is by inferring that you mean by your first statement that the the "covenant promises and their fulfillments" are made to the elect but not only the elect. That of course is false. God's promise is to the elect alone. That is what you are missing my brother. God said that he would establish his covenant between himself and Abraham; but not only would God establish his covenant promise with Abraham, he would also establish it with Abraham’s seed after him. In response to the promise of God, which was one of redemption of a people and land for them to occupy, Abraham pleaded that his son Ishmael might live before God in faithfulness. (Genesis 3:18) God refused Abraham’s request, saying “as for Ishmael, I have heard thee… but my covenant will I establish with Isaac” not Ishmael (Genesis 17: 20, 21). Notwithstanding, all those who were of the household of Abraham were to receive the sign and seal of the covenant, as if God had established the covenant with them too. Consequently, those who had received the sign were to be considered in covenant with God; whereas those who had not received the sign - yet qualified to receive it - were to be treated as covenant breakers. We might say that the invisible church was to be found within the visible church, "out of which there was no ordinary way of salvation" (Acts 2:47b; WCF 25.2).

Although God’s covenant was established from the outset only with the elect in Christ, it was to be administered to all who professed the true religion along with their households. The theological distinction of the visible and invisible church was well in view, even at the time of Abraham. Although this was the theology of the covenant, the apostle still had to labor the point to the New Testament saints at Rome. After telling his hearers that nothing could separate God’s people from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:39), the apostle had to explain why the people of God, to whom the promises pertained, had fallen away from the faith. How, in other words, could the people of God become apostate if the promise of redemption would come to fruition? With his pedagogical background in place, the apostle explained the timeless Old Testament Covenant Theology, which is that although God established his covenant with the elect in Christ, it was to be administered to those who were not elect as long as they were of the household of a professing believer. Consequently, it is not hard to imagine that they are not all true Israel who are from external Israel (Romans 9:6); and that all the New Testament church is not the true church. “That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (Romans 9:8).

This discussion is one of ecclesiology.

Ron

Richard,

In all due respect you don't understand the Particular Baptist view of Covenant Theology. You are correct. It is an Olive tree that is mentioned. The unbelieving have been cut off now and the tree is in the New Covenant and consists of the regenerate. The tree was pruned. The believing are ingrafted in because the Covenant is a better Covenant with better Promises and the Covenant Head is Christ and his offspring now. Abraham is a part of Christ's seed and we are children of Abraham in like manner and considered descendants under promises made to him concerning Christ as his seed which fulfilled all of those promises. Abraham's seed is defined as those who are of faith now. It is the same Everlasting Covenant of Grace that has been instituted from the beginning with Promise and fulfillment. Ishmael was a part of the Abrahamic but not all of the promises that were given to Abraham concerning his posterity were meant for all of his descendants. Ishmael was never included in the Everlasting Covenant. Genesis 17 bears this out as well does Galatians.

__________________

Norseman Moderator

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

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

Yes, we are ok with this, because the Covenant of Grace is a conditional covenant, infants of believers are in this Covenant. The Covenant of Redemption though is unconditional since Christ did it for the elect, those who are elect and in Christ as the fulfiller of the Covenant of Redemption fulfill the condition of the Covenant of Grace which is righteousness that can only be obtained by Faith, and that faith is given by the Holy Spirit only to the elect.
So Covenant promises ARE made to unelect people, they must receive the promise though, by Faith, and of course only the elect are granted faith by the Holy Spirit.

PC,

Abraham’s seed was always the elect alone, so nothing has changed in that regard. That is why Paul had to remind his hearers in Romans 9 that it was the children of the promise who were counted as the seed! The Baptist position is that under the old, the seed included those who were not elect, which is not Pauline. It's a false premise.

Furthermore, Baptists will often say that the abrogation of the principle regarding children of professing believers as part of the seed is what Jeremiah has in view in verse 31:34: "...they will all know me....”, which they say means that the New Covenant is made only with believers who know the Lord. Accordingly, they reason that we should ensure as best as possible to administer the New Covenant only to those who profess faith in Christ, which infants cannot do. The problem they run into with this line of reasoning is that the verse does not teach that the covenant is only made with those who posses belief! The promise of Jeremiah 31 is a promise of greater fidelity (verse 32), greater empowerment (verse 34), and a greater depth of knowledge (verse 34). It does not address the qualification for covenant entrance. (I’ll address “depth of knowledge” later).

Verse 34 does not speak to the question of with whom the covenant will be established. It merely teaches that those with whom the covenant will be established will indeed “know the Lord.” Before considering what it means to “know the Lord” we must first appreciate that verse does not teach us that the covenant will be made only with true believers after they believe. At the very least, if Baptists were correct, then the knowledge of the Lord would not be a blessing of the covenant but rather something that first must be obtained in order to enter into the covenant! Moreover, the verse cannot possibly exclude infants from covenant entrance who will grow up to “know the Lord” because the verse does not imply a change in qualifications for covenant entrance, but rather it speaks to the increase of blessings that will be received by those with whom God establishes the New Covenant! The verse is not speaking of a new qualification for entering into the covenant; rather it is speaking about something different that will occur under the newer economy as compared to the older economy for those who will be in covenant.

Since the Old Covenant was established with the elect alone, we may safely say that a saving knowledge was granted to all with whom God established the Old Covenant, barring no early deaths that would preclude saving knowledge. Consequently, the verse must be speaking to the quality and depth of that saving knowledge under the newer economy as opposed to the mere possession of it, which all those with whom God established the Old Covenant would have received. Not surprisingly, that is what we see in the New Covenant. Under the New Covenant with the establishment of the priesthood of all believers, through the revelation of Christ, the completed canon and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit – we all “know the Lord”(!) in a manner vastly different than that under the old economy. In summary, Jeremiah 31 may not be used to defend a more stringent entrance examination for covenant privileges simply because it does not imply anything more than increase of blessings. Thankfully the glory of the New Covenant is not to be found in the exclusion of infants!

Ron

The main contention in the paedo v. credo debate: Whether to baptize children of believers.

__________________
Andrew DeShazo
Husband of Kathryn
Father of Phillip-Giles B. DeShazo
Deacon
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"From out of the depth of unbroken Infinfity arose the Question, "Who am I?" And to that Question there is the answer, "I am God!" -Meher Baba, died 1969.

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Christ, died 33 AD, ressurected three days later.

Dear Ron,
thanks for journeying with me on this thread - you're a real trooper.

The above syllogism #1-3 is not actually my view, but my distillation of the paedo view ie. that covenant promises do not necessarily mean election. Charliejunfan asserts this explicitly:Interestingly, you said the opposite as Charlie:
So, there seems to be a discrepancy here between the paedos - I'll leave it you two to work it out. Does God covenant with the elect only, or with all who are within the family of elect? Unless, of course, we are talking about different covenants, each with different people in mind, and which accomplish different things.

Now you seem to distinguish the establishment of a covenant (for the elect) from the administration of a covenant (to households of the elect). This is similar to my above belief that promises and their fulfillment are for the elect alone. You and I are in agreement if this is the case. So, I think I have read you correctly and are tracking with you.

My only remaining problem is this: if the new covenant is made to those who are not necessarily elect, in other words, if it is administered but not established, promised but not fulfilled ... then in what way is the new covenant a better covenant? Should not the new covenant, in Christ's blood, be surer, more efficacious, more reliable? Again that covenant is:
The covenant is effective unto salvation, wouldn't you say?

Be careful, Charlie. This is false and denies the WLC, Q&A 31, which I suspect you want to uphold. It is false that the covenant of grace was made with persons not elected unto salvation.

Ron

-----Added 11/3/2009 at 01:55:12 EST-----

Happy to journey with you (for a while). For our purposes (without getting into what the Westminster standards address in 7.6) , the NC is much grander because of the quality and depth of that saving knowledge under the newer economy as opposed to the mere possession of it, which all those with whom God established the Old Covenant would have received. Not surprisingly, that is what we see in the New Covenant. Under the New Covenant with the establishment of the priesthood of all believers, through the revelation of Christ, the completed canon and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit – we all “know the Lord”(!) in a manner vastly different than that under the old economy. In summary, Jeremiah 31 may not be used to defend a more stringent entrance examination for covenant privileges simply because it does not imply anything more than increase of blessings. Thankfully the glory of the New Covenant is not to be found in the exclusion of infants!

Best wishes,

Ron

Let's say my friend Bob is a professing Christian, regular churchgoer, not in egregious sin, etc. Now I don't know if Bob is truly regenerate or elect, but I believe he is and I treat him like he is. Now, you keep accusing us of separating salvation from baptism and the covenant. We do not. I believe and expect the same of believers' children as I do of adult believers. They are raised in the knowledge of the Lord and I consider them God's people unless given reason to believe otherwise. There is no need to accuse paedobaptists of separating the covenant from salvation. It is simply that I do not know who, in the church, really has that salvation, whether it be Bob or his son. Nevertheless, the NT echoes the principle that our children are holy, raised in the faith, and heirs to the same promises we are, as long as they persevere to the end and prove to be truly God's elect. This is why whole households are baptized.

-----Added 11/3/2009 at 02:11:57 EST-----

p.s. I didn't mention church-Israel continuity. I was only talking about Israel in the post you quoted. My point was that just because Israel was a nation doesn't mean, as you assumed, that it is intended to consist of believers and unbelievers. Of course it did consist of false believers, but this was not what God demanded of Israel. He told them all to love and obey him. Some disobeyed (by his decree, yes, but against the spiritual demands of the covenant - It wasn't supposed to be just a physical, national covenant. All Israel was told to know God.)

Well if some baptists agree that the kids are in the covenant, why do these baptists not agree that they should receive the sign of the covenant?

Probably because baptists believe that there should be individual testimony that the individual has entered the internal and living aspect of the covenant?

If babies could talk and tell baptists whether they were saved or not, presumably baptists wouldn't mind baptising the saved ones like John the Baptist when he was a baby?

But this doesn't follow the biblical pattern. Babies born to believing parent(s) are born at least into the outward, formal and legal aspect of the covenant, the bond of the covenant. We don't know if they are saved or not, although some are.

But the biblical pattern is to baptise them all in anticipation, if they aren't saved, of their future baptism with/by the Spirit by Christ into the invisible church/ washing in the blood of Christ by the application of the Spirit/regeneration.

The pattern was set in the Covenant of Promise with Abraham, when parents didn't ask of their baby boys, Is he circumcised in heart yet?, but circumcised them all, in anticipation of future circumcision of heart if it hadn't happened before or at the baby boy's circumcision.

Circumcision of a baby boy could be used by the Spirit to bring him to genuine faith (internal circumcision) as baptism of children in the New Covenant can be used by the Spirit to bring them to genuine faith.

Not sacerdotally but accompanied by the Word of God/explanation of the meaning of circumcision/baptism as the children grow up.

__________________
Richard
communicant member, FCoS
Perth, Scotland UK

His Name forever shall endure;
last like the sun it shall:
Men shall be blessed in Him,
and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)

Well,
You bring up some interesting points. Your problem in my estimation is that you do not include the full scope of the Jeremiah passage.

There is a distinction between the two Covenants and differences laid out.

First God says that he will put His law in their hearts and that He will be there God and they shall be His people.

These people who are included in this New Covenant are not taught to know the Lord because they all shall know Him and their sins are forgiven and remembered no longer.

So those who are in this Covenant already have a heart that is different and they are considered to know him already. I get that out of this passage because of this part....

I also do not believe the Old Covenant is made with the Elect alone. I guess you are going to have to distinguish between what it means to be Elect. Elect according to being National Isreal or Elect according to the Covenant of Grace. If you maintain that only the elect are members of the Covenant of Grace then you are going to have to establish if the Covenant of Grace is made only with those God chooses for redemption from the foundation of the World or not. Because we all know that the Old Covenant is also called a ministration of death in 2nd Corinthians. And it is done away for that which is better.

I do not hold that the Abrahamic nor the Mosaic are purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace. We have discussed this many times before here.

Matthew's term of "reformed Anabaptists" is a misnomer. Baptists do not believe in rebaptism. Anything less than believers baptism is an illegitimate baptism, therefore it is not baptism. My paedo brethren disagree with that, but that's how Reformed Baptists view it. In good conscience I will not acquiesce to the term "reformed Anabapist."

As far as the OP, there is no one issue. The divide between credos and paedos is not that simplistic. It is real, substantial, and complicated.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Reformed Baptist
Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

As this single thread already appears to show!

Also note that our tradition comes from Particular Baptists which are known as Puritans. We do not have our tradition stemming from the anabaptists. We should probably be known more as antipaedobaptists.

I agree that we do not and cannot know whether someone is elect - that's for God and the individual to know. I also agree that there is measure of holiness in a child born to believing parents, in much the same way that an unbelieving spouse has been "sanctified" by the believing one.

Your hypothetical situation is valid in the case of a professing adult Christian, but in paedobaptism, a very different thing is happening. Someone who is incapable of professing Christian faith and performing deeds which evidence grace is being given the sign and seal of a covenant of grace. That sign is given 1. on the grounds of parental faith; and 2. in hope of future faith. In both cases, there is no regard to that infant's current and actual standing before God, and the clergy and community are left making big assumptions.