But we say, on Paul's authority, that our covenant is the same as Abraham's, and that he is our father. God told him his children would be reckoned as His people. And God told him to mark all his physical offspring, even for the sake of the elect among those offspring. So the "assumption" is a God-directed assumption; it is warranted on the basis of the commandment.

Hebrews is explicit: weakness isn't inherent in God's covenant-dealings, but in the humans engaged to them. The covenant of grace has always been completely efficacious, because it has never relied on man for its maintenance at all. Abraham's covenant is of grace, and yet it contained (and contains) signs applied to fallible professors, and their children.

So, starting in Genesis, the first book of the whole Bible, we understand there to be both an internal adminstration, and an external administration of this covenant. The external is imperfect, necessarily. The internal is perfectly administered by the Spirit. But Man looks on the outward appearance.

It only is effective in the secret places, which are inaccessible to us. No one doubts the effectiveness of the inward workings of the Covenant of Grace.

The assumption in the above statement is that ONLY and ALL professing Christians are God's children, a manifest untruth which I know you admit. No only are ALL professors not God's children (perhaps not even the majority of them!), but some non-professors (by reason of present inability) are in fact God's children. This is because God's children are according to election, which is secret. We are not to try to baptize on the basis of election, that is, according to who are God's secret children; but according to who are God's externally acknowledged children. And that definition comes to us from Gen.17.

You are dividing the Covenant of Grace here. You are separating the Covenant of Grace, or our present (new) covenant, from Abraham's covenant as if the two were fundamentally distinct. They are not (although some baptist theologians suggest that Abraham actually participates in TWO separate covenants: one spiritual, one carnal).

Abraham's covenant is atoning, indeed, unilateral as we see God alone pass through the carved pieces of the animals, Gen.15. The basis for it is hope in the Promised One, Christ.

Where you would limit the extent of the vocalized (external) promise, to a "church-within-the-church," we know of no such limitation, beyond the walls of the church. Again, the question is not that the "extent" has been universalized, but where is the visible line to be drawn.

The Baptist claim is that their limitation of baptism to adult professors is an ideal (or more ideal) picture of efficacy. But this is an unsustainable claim. The sheer number of adult-baptisms, followed by apostasy (even when the members stay in the church) gives this claim the lie. This protest should not be relied on as an argument.

A more serious question would be: "what is the biblical definition of disciple." After all, Jesus said, "Make disciples, by baptizing and teaching." So, who are they who are to be baptized and taught the faith? Should our children be so? If that is not the order we should follow with them, what is the argument for whatever alternate treatment be proposed? Where in the Bible do we go to find this method? And what do we make of the example of Abraham, of whom the Lord spoke, "For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD"?

__________________
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? --

Of course, baptism ideally represents the individual baptized's spiritual state. The question is, can it so become that, in evidence; or must it only be a statement that is TRUE, or is not a statement at all? Can not GOD speak, and be found TRUE, though every man a liar?

Baptism must be viewed in the context of God's covenant dealings...

Immediately after the fall of man God promised that he would inflict a deep seated hatred between the seed of the woman and the seed of Satan. That promise, which would come to fruition being a promise(!), included the good news that the seed of the woman would crush the serpent’s head(Genesis 3:15). Then the Lord of the covenant covered with skins the two who were naked and ashamed(Genesis 3:21).

God later expanded upon his promise with respect to the seed, saying 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. This promise that was made to Abraham and his seed was that God would be a God to them and that they would occupy the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession (Genesis 17:7, 8). 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).

God’s promise of redemption of the seed would come to fruition; yet it did not apply to all of Abraham’s physical descendents. In fact, it even applied to those who were not of physical descent. Notwithstanding, all those who were of the household of Abraham were to receive the sign and seal of the covenant, as if they themselves were partakers of the promise of God. Even more, those within a professing household who did not receive the sign and seal of the covenant were to be considered outside the people of God and covenant breakers. In other words, infants who did not receive the sign of the covenant due to a parent’s spiritual neglect were to be considered lost and, therefore, under the dominion of Satan (Genesis 17:13, 14). This sign of the covenant was so closely related to the covenant that it was actually called the covenant by the Lord (Genesis 17:10). 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).

When we come to Galatians 3 we learn something quite astounding. The promise was made to a single Seed, who is the Christ; and it is by spiritual union with him, pictured in the outward administration of baptism, that the promise extends to the elect (in Christ). “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ…For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ… And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:16, 26-29) The apostle in no uncertain terms teaches that the covenant promise is established with the God-man - the incarnate Christ, and by covenantal extension with all who would be truly, by the Spirit, buried and raised with him in baptism.

Although God’s covenant was established from the outset with only 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 reprobate 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).

With respect to the promise of the land of Canaan, it too was a type, as were the sacrifices that have passed away. The promise was seen as part-for-whole even by Abraham, who in his own time was looking not for the dirt of Palestine but the streets of gold, “a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” (Hebrews 11:10). In fact, all the “heroes of the faith” died without receiving the promises, “but having seen them afar off…confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth… For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God [the very essence of the covenant! “I will be your God...”]: for he hath prepared for them a city.” (Hebrews 11:13-16)

In sum, God’s promise was that he would redeem a people that he would place in his recreation, the church. The church’s final destiny is the consummated New Heavens and New Earth, wherein righteousness dwells. Until God separates the sheep from the goats, the visible church will contain unbelievers and hypocrites. Upon consummation, the visible church and the elect will be one and the same.

From a proper view of the covenant, we can now take a look at the practice of covenant baptism.

Under the older economy, although the covenant of promise was established solely with the elect in Christ, it was to be administered to the households professing believers. This means that the children of professing believers were to receive the mark of inclusion and, therefore, be counted among the people of God prior to professing faith in what the sign and seal of the covenant contemplated. Covenant children, even if they were not elect, were to be treated as the elect of God and heirs according to the promise based upon corporate solidarity with a professing parent.

When we come to the New Testament nothing has changed with respect to the heirs of the promise. The promise remains established with the elect in Christ, as it always was. The question is whether the children of professing believers have somehow lost the privilege of receiving the sign of entrance into the New Testament church.

By way of review, God's promise to save Abraham and his "seed" was without any preconditions (Genesis 17:7) that had to be met by those prior to God establishing his promise with the elect. Abraham responded to God's promise of salvation in faith, which was first issued in Genesis 12, whereby he was justified (Genesis 15:6). Although God promised Abraham and his elect son Isaac salvation, God rejected Ishmael (Genesis 17:18-21). Nonetheless, Ishmael was to receive the outward sign of the covenant-promise, which was circumcision (Genesis 17:10ff). Accordingly, God's precept was that his covenant sign be administered to the household of Abraham, even though God established his covenant solely with the elect in Christ. The apostle Paul reminds us in Romans nine that the promise of salvation was not intended for every single person to whom the outward administration of the covenant was to be administered. In fact, the apostle explicitly tells us that the children of the "promise" are counted as Abraham's seed, and not the children of the flesh (Romans 9:8). Accordingly, all those who would believe the promise are the true children of Abraham (Romans 9: 8; Galatians 3:9). Most importantly, the "seed" to whom the promise was made was actually Christ alone (Galatians 3:16). It is through union with Christ, the single Seed of Abraham, that we become seeds of Abraham. As Galatians 3:29 states, "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, and heirs according to the promise."

We must keep in mind that Abraham was not Jewish. Indeed, Israel according the flesh eventually came from Abraham's loins, but the promise was that Abraham would be the father of many nations. Israel did not even become a nation until 430 years after God called Abraham according to the promise (Galatians 3:17). Consequently, contrary to what so many Baptists think, the sign of circumcision primarily had spiritual significance as opposed to national or ethnic significance. As Romans 4:11 states, "[Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith..." The verse does not state that Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of his ethnic origin.

God always had an elect people, which he formed into a nation about 2400 years into redemptive history. Nonetheless, the promise both precedes and transcends the nation and could, therefore, not be abrogated upon the apostasy of the nation. God has now taken the kingdom away from the nation of Israel and has started his final building project, the church. The church is the international people of God, a nation bearing the fruit of the covenant. Consequently, when one is converted to Christ he need not become part of the nation of Israel; for Christ has sent his followers into the world to make disciples of all nations.

God commanded 4,000 years ago that the sign of the covenant be placed upon the males within the household of professing believers. Although the sign of entrance into the people of God has changed from circumcision to baptism, God never rescinded his covenant principle concerning the subjects who were to receive the sign and seal of the covenant promise. In the same way that all Israel was not Israel, all the church is not the church. Nonetheless, we are by precept to place the sign of membership in the church upon those who qualify, per the instruction of God – which was never rescinded or abrogated.

Here's the problem that many paedobaptists run into when dealing with Baptists, especially Reformed Baptists. Reformed Baptists will argue that the Old Covenant was established with the elect and reprobates in professing households since many who were to receive the sign of the covenant fell away. Then they rightly show that the New Covenant is established only with the elect. Accordingly, they reason: if the covenant has changed from including non-believers to including only true believers, then baptism should be reserved only for professing believers in order to ensure (as best as possible) that the visible church resemble the true regenerate church of the New Testament. The paedobaptist gets tripped up by that argument when he tries to argue that both the New and the Old Covenants are established with reprobates within professing households, which Randy Booth tries to do in his book "Children of the Promise." Such paedobaptists are certainly correct with respect to the continuity from Old to New but they cannot argue effectively that the New Covenant is established with certain unbelievers, which is the error that the Reformed Baptist zeros in on and exposes simply by highlighting the doctrine of "Perseverance Of The Saints," which is so well argued in the New Testament by the apostle Paul. Consequently, the Baptist argument often goes like this: "Hey Mr. Paedobaptist, you and I agree that the Old Covenant was made with the visible people of God, which includes believers and unbelievers (since many Israelites fell away from the true religion); therefore, we can agree that circumcision was to be administered to all males, elect or not, within a professing houshold. However, since the New Covenant is clearly made with the elect in Christ who will persevere in the faith (unlike unfaithful Israel), then it is reasonable to maintain that the covenant has changed with respect to inclusiveness. Therefore, the sign of the covenant should be reserved for those the elders are persuaded are actually believers." In other words, the Baptist argues that since the people of God fell away under the older economy, then the Old Covenant promise must have been made with at least some reprobates; yet the elect of God will not fall away in the New Covenant, therefore, the New Covenant promise must be made with the elect alone. The flaw in reasoning should be obvious. The Baptist is contrasting the Old Testament visible church with the New Testament invisible church! By using a twisted comparison, the Baptist argues for a covenant in the Old Testament based upon those who were to receive the sign (elect and reprobate), only then to turn around and argue for the New Testament sign to be reserved for the elect alone based upon the New Covenant being established with the elect alone! Baptists change their criteria in order to suit their desired ends. They establish whom the covenant was made with under the older economy by looking at who was to receive the sign; then they establish who is to receive the sign under the new economy by looking at whom the New Covenant was made with!

Ron

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

http://reformedapologist.blogspot.com

This strain of the discussion began when I pointed out that Bill must recognise my baptism because he calls me a brother. Bill said, Not so, telling me that I was unbaptised and could not be a member of his church. On the understanding that he considers his church to be a church of Jesus Christ, I drew the distinction that I am received as a brother in Christ but rejected as a heathen in Christ's visible church. Now, Bill seems to accept this distinction; so I don't see why others can't. If your church could accept me as a member then yours would be an altogether different "Baptist" scenario.

On Colossians 2:12 and related texts, there are two confessional points to be considered. The first and primary point is the Confession's teaching that baptism is a sign of fellowship with Christ. The second point is the adducing of this text to support that assertion.

Under the first point, I maintain that there is no way of knowing who are "professing the faith of the gospel" and are thus "visible saints" (LBC 26:2) apart from baptism. You maintain that baptism is only a sign and therefore you are able to know visible saints apart from baptism. As far as I can see this misunderstands what is meant by baptism being a sign. Either it signifies something in revealed religion or it does not. The lack of the sign must therefore signify a lack of something. But you refuse to allow that it leads to a lack of anything. Hence, as far as I can see, you are saying yea and nay with regard to baptism being a sign. You are saying it functions as a sign positively, but it doesn't function as a non-sign when it is not applied. At this point I think you need to do further reading as to what is actually meant by calling baptism a sign.

Under the second point -- proof texts -- you have maintained Col. 2:12 and related texts only refer to spiritual baptism whereas the Confession appeals to them in support of a substantive statement about water baptism. It is your prerogative to dissent from your Confession, but it doesn't place any burden on me to argue in defence of your Confession.

I have attempted to draw out the points of the discussion that are relevant to the issue. Other matters concerning spiritual baptism, John 1:12, etc, are not relevant to the discussion, as my posts have clearly recognised the sense in which Bill calls me a brother in Christ, i.e., invisibly. If these points could be kept to the fore in all further discussions it would be very helpful.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

There were two elections in the Old Covenant:-

The whole nation of Israel was elect or chosen in the sense that all in God's providence were in the Old Covenant of Grace.

Within that nation and outside it were the truly elect, i.e. those who had or were going to exercise true faith in God as Saviour from sin.

Also in the New Covenant there are two elections:-

All those adults and children who are within the visible church in God's providence have been chosen to be there in God's providence. The fact that if church discipline was properly operative, many should be put out, is another Q.

Within the visible church and outside it there are the truly elect, i.e. those who do or will exercise true faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

A clear distinction must be made between providential choosing by God and the salvific election of saving grace, unlike the Federal Visionistas and others.

Because God has chosen some to be born within the visible Church and within the New Covenant people, he wants them to receive the mark of the visible Church and New Covenant people.

The baptists confuse and conflate the visible and invisible churches, such that they want to try to apply the mark of the visible church only to those in the invisible church. But the invisible church is invisible even to baptist ministers.

We know what the visible church is and can discern it: those who profess the faith with their children. We cannot discern the elect or infallibly tell who's born again.

That the New Covenant administration should revert to an attempt to baptise only those who are in the church invisible, when New Covenant ministers and elders haven't been given any new powers by God to do this, seems strange.

To an extent the invisible tares and wheat must be allowed to grow together, until they become visible, and the tares can be separated from the wheat, by discipline or at death.

-----Added 11/6/2009 at 06:04:30 EST-----

There also was a typological adumbration of the duality of the New Covenant, in the Old Covenant, in the difference between the Levites and Priests, on the one hand, and the rest of Israel on the other.

E.g. only the priests could eat the Bread of the Presence, see the holy things and commune with God in this way.

Only believers are priests.

This duality is reflected even in baptist churches. Only baptists who are truly born again are priests. The other unbelieving baptists, i.e. those who have got in by mistake, are outwardly in the bond of the covenant without the inner reality. They are in a privileged position but if they fail to believe their condemnation will be greater.

__________________
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)

Matthew, if by heathen (ethnikos) you mean one who is outside the church it would depend on how you wish to parse that term. I do not consider you to be scripturally baptized. That presents a problem if you moved into our area and for some reason wanted to join our church. However, I do not consider you an ethnikos akin to a pagan or an unbeliever. That is why I am able to call you a brother in Christ, based on your profession of faith. The 1689 LBC states:

Your profession causes me to accept you as a visible saint. The veracity of your profession makes you an invisible saint. The fact that you a visible saint, based on profession, requires you to be scripturally baptized. Not submitting to baptism, either by wanton disobedience, or in your case based on a claim of a previous baptism results in certain actions by the church. If a new convert steadfastly refuses to be baptized, it displays a disobedient heart. This is serious because this new professed saint is failing to heed the first act of obedience of a Christian. Such disobedience may call his profession into question. As to a paedobaptist who refuses to be baptized; we would not place them in the same genre as the new convert. Their conviction is not based on a refusal to be baptized, but on a conviction that they have been scripturally baptized. Baptists would disagree, as the body of conversation in this thread will bear witness. Would that preclude the paedobaptist from membership? Yes. Would it preclude them from worship, fellowship, and partaking of the Lord's Supper? No.

Now, as to all of this, aren't we all becoming a bit of weary of point and counter point? The OP sought to define our differences. I think that has been done ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Reformed Baptist
Maryland

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

Bill, Is your church a church of Jesus Christ? Who are rejected from the church of Jesus Christ? Heathen and publicans. We don't reject brethren from Christ's church. Hence, while you may call me a brother in Christ, you are calling me a heathen in Christ's church.

What does the rejection of an individual from the membership of the church of Jesus Christ say about their profession?

First, There is no other membership but that which recognises a right to the ordinances of Christ. There should be no other privilege of membership, and insofar as there are further privileges of membership they are not conferred by Christ.

Secondly, I don't think any person should be admitted to the Lord's supper who has not been baptised. Something is amiss there.

And wheels of the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round.

I'm better off saying, "Tag, you're it."

I take my leave of this dialog. Adieu.

Bill, Tim, et al,

I have begun a new thread to discuss the design of baptism. I ask you to interact on that thread and discuss your reasons for separating profession and baptism: The design of baptism

Matthew, as previously noted I am not going to get into a discussion on the ins and outs of justifying the doctrine of baptism. My only concen throughout the thread has been to attempt to help you see that your charge that Confessional Baptists cannot recognize pb's as bothers in Christ and members of visible churches is untenable.

__________________
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 son 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 -

I don't think you understand those that hold to baptism as a covenant sign and seal. Those that were born to Abraham were given the sign and seal of the covenant (circumcision) even when they were hated by God. "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" is stated of two circumcised individuals; while I look forward to meeting Jacob as a member of the church invisible, I am as certain as I can be that Esau will not be a member of that great and glorious church.

It is not within the church's authority to change to whom the sign is applied without perfectly clear teaching from the word. Not implied teaching. Not silence. If we are to change from OT to NT for something that is commanded as carrying forward, we would need completely unambiguous command to not baptize those that are the children of those who believe.

You state: "the real question is when does the church have the right to state that union with Christ has taken place in a given individual's life?" I would state that is not the question at all. The church never has the right to state that union with Christ has taken place, as only the Lord himself knows. What the church has is a command to baptize, and it has a duty to baptize all those whom Christ would include in the visible church. There is no question. All those who have a credible profession of faith, and their children, are commanded to be baptized.

It is not us to presume anyone by mere profession of faith to be truly a member of the church invisible (that is, united to Christ). All those that are baptized are not saved, even in those church that are credo. Profession of faith is not what saves a person; that is by grace alone. A profession of faith makes little difference, and if a profession of faith (i.e., being able to actually state a belief in Christ) was a necessary part, then those that die in infancy are lost, and even the elect parents of those infants have no hope of salvation for their children ... in fact, the opposite would be true, and they would have assurance of the damnation of their children. That I believe is contradicted by "I will be their God and the God of their children."

So even baptists knowingly baptize some who are not elect (for they know that not all who profess faith are in fact saved). So then if a question arises which is worse? Baptizing those that the OT would have baptized as part of the covenant community (and entering them into the visible church under age) or abandoning the principle taught within the OT with no positive command to stop, to reduce the number of those joined to the visible church and risk what I would see as clearly disobeying God's command that was never abrogated, because it was reiterated.

__________________
Brian Withnell
Deacon, OPC
Leesburg, Virginia

You cannot train for war in the midst of a battle. Prepare before the battle starts; if the battle is long and hard, you will wish you had.

As noted, I don't deny the "brothers in Christ" part, but the "members of visible churches." The linked thread does not get into the ins and outs of baptism, but merely the design of baptism in relation to profession of faith. It relates specifically to the issue of "visible saints." Dagg's statement makes it clear that one must be baptised as a visible part of Christian profession; hence it is impossible to separate profession and baptism the way you are attempting to do.

Actually I do understand the pb doctrine of covenatal baptism fairly well, including the fact that God gave the covenant sign to those who were not elect when he made his covenant with Abraham

After a remark like this, I may properly make the comment (and it will sound snide, sorry) that I don't think you understand those that hold to credo baptism as covenant sign and seal. The question is not whether the church has authority to change to whom the sign is given without clear teaching, but whether the clearly observable changes in the NT teaching on regeneration and entrance into the church necessarily imply (by GNC) a change in infant eligability to receive the sign. To give but one example, in the OT, every male physically descended from Abraham Isaac and Jacob was cirucmcised, but Paul's comment in Gal. 3:7, "They that have faith are children of Abraham", although not directly addresed to the question of infants may or may not entail, by GNC, the church's limiting those it recognizes as children of Abraham to those professing faith. (I'm not going to enter into debates on this - I am just identifying exactly what the problem is.)

You are in part correct. I made a slight overstatement. I should have written
"...when does the church have the right to assume that it is likely that union with Christ has taken place in a given individuals life." The church does have both the need to make that assumption, since if it can't make that assumption it cannot admit anyone to its membership, as it will be unable to distinguish a probable believer from an unbeliever.

And the church has also God provided criteria upon which it may make that assumption. Although John 1:12 is not directly addressing this issue, John does give the church the criteria we must use to distinguish possible believers from clear unbelievers, criteria that Paul later echoed (Rom. 10:9). So when the church admits someone to membership, we are not presuming that we infallibly know that they are members of the invisible church.

I agree.

A profession of faith may not be a necessary part of salvation in the case of elect infants dying in infancy directly even though we are not specifically told so. But the question at issue is not about elect infants, but about under what conditions does the church have the right to recognze someone as a possible believer. And there are some scriptures that plainly state that professed faith is essential to such recognition.

And cb's see good reason to believe by GNC that God's command was changed.

-----Added 11/7/2009 at 08:21:31 EST-----

You could have fooled me!! For after seeing you writing....

and

...I could come to no other conclusion but that you did deny the possiblity of cb acceptence of pb's as Christian brethren. For if one has no basis upon which to accept an individual as a visible saint, how on earth can one accept him as a brother in Christ? Yet you now turn around and claim you don't deny the possiblity that cb's can truly accept pb's as brother's in Christ???!!!

How is this possible?

If you really don't deny that we cb's can accept you pb's as Christian brothers, please resolve the contradiction ASAP. For ISTM that what you wrote in the abpve cited posts, will if true, necessarily eliminate not only any possibilty of cb's accepting pb's as brethren in Christ, but will eliminate any possibility of pb's accepting cb's as brethren in Christ as well.

And I would still like to see either a detailed response to my post 156 that fully comes to grips with issues I raised there (as I will show in a reply to follow, your post 204 does not do so) justifying your charge that cb's cannot recognize pbs as visible saints, brethren and members of visible churches, or a withdrawl of the charge if you can't justify it. Since one consequnce of your charge being correct, (if it is), is that immediate and radical rethinking of ecumenical relations (both on this board and elsewhere) becomes a vitally urgent necessity for just about all of us, I suggest that you owe it to the board to either justify your charge ASAP or to withdraw it with equal speed.

(Afterthought: are you, perhaps, trying to restrict the term "brethren" to those you recognize as sharing ecclesiastical relations, rather than allowing the term it's Scriptural extent? If you were attempting to make such a restriction, I suggest doing so leads to a highly unwise apparent contradiction with Scripture. For if you recognize any man as a Christian, the GNC is that he must be every bit as much a child of God as you are, and thus, by Scriptural definition, your brother. I try to avoid using multi-definition words in theological communication to avoid misunderstandings based on equivocation).

Dagg is not the LBC and hence he is not authoritative for confessional Baptists, something of which you must be well aware. And the LBC, as I have repeatedly pointed out, expounds its doctrine of the visible church in such a way as to necessarily leave pb's within it.

May I pointedly demurre from the bolded statement?

I think I understand what you intend to defend by it, however the language is infellicitous at best. In the present dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, post-cross, post-national-Israel, we should not speak of election in two parts, or two elections.

To do so is to concede a critical point to the FV folks, among other issues. No, there isn't now another sort of "election" which we may speak of regarding the visible church. No, the New Testament drops the language of "election" with respect to any visible estate. Paul doesn't speak thus, Peter, James, etc.

There is NO "conditional election" in the NT, respecting reprobates within the church. And we should not speak as though God's election is publicly proclaimed over his church in the present age, as it was in the previous. Election is an element of the personal and individual salvation, of the perfected church. The church on earth is not the justified, sanctified, and glorified; but the church in heaven.

Neither is election, properly speaking, a corporate statement at all, since the branches chosen are individually grafted onto the vine.

As I said, I thnk I realize what you meant to convey, Richard, but to speak as you did does not confine and define "election" properly.

I sincerely hope this post is read by all. It can save us all a lot of time because the arguments are now distilled. There are actual proofs put forth for both positions that are easy to follow and interact with.

You can't be serious. Of course we can examine the principle from Scripture and if you don't think these terms have been established, then I don't think you're trying as hard as you could; yet allow me to review the bidding just the same.

As I've said multiple times on this thread, the covenant was ESTABLISHED with the Seed of Abraham, which was the incarnate Christ and all who are elected in him. Genesis 17; Galatians 3

Although the covenant of promise was ESTABLISHED with the elect in Christ alone, it was to be ADMINISTERED to those within a professing believer's houshold. That is to say, those who were to received the adminstration of the covenant (i.e. households) were to also be regarded as spiritual children of God.

Paul reminded his audiance in Romans 9 of the Old Testament principle that ONLY the children of PROMISE were truly counted as the seed, which was to say that not all Israel was Israel - (i.e. not all those of physical decent were spritual children of God - yet they were to be regarded as such!). Yet notwithstanding, when God's judgements and blessings came upon Israel, God was treating Israel as an organic whole. The visible church was to be considered the true people of God, even though not all Israel was Israel. Baptist theology agrees with that! Moreover, even today, Baptist pastors will rightly treat all their baptized members as the church - even though not all the church is the church - since there are again unbelievers on the roles. There is no debate over how we are to treat the visible church. We are to treat its members as disciples of the Lord. The question is, who is to be regarded as being in that church?

Since nobody has cared to put forth an actual argument, let me get the ball rolling.

Here is what I see the Reformed Baptist argument to be:

1. In the older economy the covenant was established with professing believers and their households (whether elect or not)

2. It should be ensured as best as possible to place the mark of the covenant upon those with whom the covenant is established

3. Therefore, the mark of circumcision was to be placed upon professing believers and their households (whether they would ever believe or not)

4. The new covenant is established only with the elect

5. Given (2 and 4), we should therefore wait until someone makes a profession of faith before admitting them to baptism

Now if you think I have misrepresented the Baptist argument, then I by all means I invite you to actually put forth an argument rather than just using your rhetoric skills.

The Baptist argument has many problems:

1 is False: The old covenant was only established with the elect.

2 is False: God required that the sign and seal of the covenant be placed upon those who had not demonstrated election by making a credible profession of faith.

3 is True: The premise follows from two preceding false premises making the premise unsound, although the premise is true

4 is True

5 is False: Premise 2 is false, which is why 5 is false.

I've showed you yours, now I'll show you ours.

A sound Paedobaptist argument:

1. An Old Covenant precept was that whenever possible the sign of entrance into the covenant was to be placed upon all who were to be regarded as God’s people

2. Children of professing believers were to be regarded as God’s people under the Old Covenant

3. Children of professing believers whenever possible were to receive the sign of entrance into the Old Covenant by way of precept (1, 2)

4. God’s precepts may not be abrogated without explicit instruction or good and necessary inference

5. God never abrogated the Old Testament precept regarding who was to receive the sign of entrance into the Old covenant

6. The sign of entrance into the New Covenant is water baptism

7. God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive the sign of entrance into the New Covenant (3, 4 and 5)

8. God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive water baptism (6, 7)

Now, of course you will want to disagree with point 5, but in doing so, please prove point 5 wrong rather than just point to Jer. 31 without any logical commentary. Believe it or not, the problem I have found with most Baptists is that they do not arrive at the their conclusions using rigerous logic based upon premises derived from Scripture. Here's your opportunity to prove me wrong.

Ron

I think you are missing a few things. To briefly respond (and no, I am not answering all of the issues by any stretch but merely wish to touch a few points)...

1. The accusation made against Paul in Acts 21 was a false accusation. Paul never taught the Jews not to circumcise their children; this he taught to the gentiles (and yes, I believe that circumcision was to ultimately pass away for the Jew because baptism replaced it but that is another subject). This is significant as is demonstrated below...

2. Acts 15 presents far more problems for the Baptist position than that of the paedobaptists.

The Baptists ask, "if Baptism replaced circumcision, then why not just simply say so in Acts 15 and settle the matter?". Admittedly, that would be very helpful however...

The fact that 1st Century Christian Jews continued to circumcise their children clearly demonstrates they did not see the New Covenant abrogating the promise to their children. There is not one word of correction applied to this understanding in the New Testament.

So, for me, the real weight from Acts 15 as it relates to the issue of the children of believers and the covenant is on the side of the paedobaptist position. If the argument from the covenant holds (and 1st Century Christian Jews certainly thought it still held for their children), than paedobaptism is the unavoidable conclusion.

__________________
Robert Truelove
Pastor
Christ Reformed Church
Lawrenceville, GA

Yes. We have to have clear distinctions unlike the FV, to avoid dangerous confusion.

It may be better to say that God providentially places all children that are born to those who profess the faith within the visible church and conditionally within the Covenant of Grace, and that that is still significant in a way that baptists don't see it.

Children providentially placed by God in covenant families have promises, privileges and responsibilities that other children don't have.

Paul uses it in Colossians 3:12, Peter uses it in 1 Peter 5:13, John uses it in 2 John 1, 13, and James effectively uses it when he addresses the visible church as the twelve tribes and does not flinch at calling them adulterers and adulteresses who should humble themselves and draw near to God.

Context is everything. From the start I acknowledged that Bill receives us as brethren in Christ but not in Christ's church. The portions you have quoted were my attempt to show the inconsistency of such a procedure. Showing the inconsistency does not negate the fact that I recognised his reception of us as brethren in Christ. It is the easiest thing in the world to wrest statements from their context in order to make them say something they were never intended for. I don't think this is a skill Christians should be eager to master.

There is a sense in which God chooses some children to be born into covenant families. Ultimately God chooses/has chosen all providences. These children are not by accident there, and they are greatly privileged.

As long as people understand clearly what we mean.

The FV apparently says that God elects some to the invisible church/the inner-life of the Covenant, and yet they can turn out to be reprobate. This contradicts the Reformed faith.

They use an eschatological approach which distinguishes between the now and not yet; but from a traditional approach it equates to what you have summarised; only they would not acknowledge it as their view. Yes, it contradicts the Reformed faith, and it is at this point the FV is to be confronted, not at the point of temporal election, which is clearly assumed or articulated throughout the Old and New Testaments.

While it may be an easy skill to wrest statements from their context in order to make them say something they were never intended for, that was not what I was doing. For I recognized from the start as axiomatic that you did not believe the logical conclusion of your own premises as applied to pb's. Otherwise you would not be a contributor to the PB.

But it was equally clear that you did believe that your conclusions were logical if applied to Bill and to other cb's. I am asking you to prove your claim that we cb's must see things in the way you think we ought to see them, or to put it another way, to prove your charge that Bill is necessarily inconsistent with his confessional beliefs or else to withdraw the charge.

To do this you need to at least clearly explain why you think Col. 2:12 (whether or not it is read as referring to water baptism) must determine (on cb premises) whether or not one may not recognize a fellow believer or member of a visible church solely on the basis of having been cb'd over against a whole family of texts such as John 1:12,13 that give other grounds for recognizing someone as a child of God without requiring water baptism as a prerequisite for such recognition. To try to dismiss this text as "irrelevant" (your word) when pb's make use of similar texts making the same point in doctrine and practice to recognize those individuals whom pb's may properly baptize and admit into their churches. For example: in Acts 10:41, the visible grounds for recognizing that a known group of visible people had been born again were such that the Apostle Peter asked "Can any forbid water?" When in Rom. 10:9 Paul tells us that "if you confess with your mouth and believe with your heart you shall be saved" a necessary consequence of that statement is that if someone who confesses with his mouth and turns from sin we must be recognized as a child of God. And anyone who may be recognized as a likely child of God must be recognized as a brother (Heb. 2:11). Since Pb's routinely use these texts to justify baptizing professing converts as into the status of brethren and members of the visible church, you must justify why you pb's can justly baptize professing converts on these grounds even though they are not enough for cb's to recognize somone as a Christian brother and member of the visible church.

I have now twice asked you to justify your charge of cb inconsistency or else to withdraw it. May I suggest that not providing justification for one's charges while leaving the charge to stand is not a position that Christians should be eager to find themselves in.

For which I started another thread. Pergamum has already helpfully shown the consistency of understanding baptism to be an essential part of Christian profession in antipaedobaptist thought.

I already have. Colossians 2:12, on the understanding it refers to water baptism, requires that baptism be seen as part and parcel of profession and therefore of recognition of brethren. You rejected the water baptism referent. As noted, that is not my problem seeing as your Confession appeals to it for support of a substantive statement about water baptism. John 1:12 doesn't refer to profession of faith, but to faith itself, which is unseen; therefore that text cannot refer to visible membership or visible saints.

Matthew you are persistantly ignoring the point I am trying to address. Even if Col 2:12 is taken to refer to water baptism, why are you so insistent in your belief that it is the only ground upon which LBC's may recognize believers when the LBC itself defines believers and members of visible churches in terms of the criteria outlined in John 1:12,13. And you are ignoring repeated demonstrations of the fact that John 1:12, 13, and parallel passages, don't just refer to those people with faith as an abstract group that cannot be identified, but equally if not more to the signs that mark out those with faith.

Col. 2:12, union with Christ through baptism. If this has reference to water baptism as a physical marker of the spiritual reality then the absence of the physical marker leaves one with no basis for asserting the spiritual reality under ordinary circumstances. One would have to posit their own visible marker in the place of the one which God has instituted.

LBC states particular congregations ought to be made up of these visible saints who have professed faith, but the antipaedobaptist has declared these "unbaptised" visible saints cannot become members of their particular congregations.

LBC makes no such reference to John 1:12 or reflects its teaching in its statements on church and baptism. Sorry, you can't alter what is written.

Questions. According to paedobaptists, infants are baptized into the covenant, but what if one was not baptized as an infant? Can this individual be baptized into the covenant upon conversion? What is the difference between infant baptism into the covenant and an adult who God has converted being baptized? Is one greater than the other?

__________________
William Price
Attending Mills Road Baptist Church, Houston, Texas

http://www.commandmentsandjudgment.com

The Reformed Voice Radio Broadcast

LBCF 1689

The child has the benefits of being baptised which can be blessed to him by the Holy Spirit through the Word and prayer. The parent(s) are obeying God's Word in having their child baptised.

E.g. if a child is baptised then the fact that he/she has been baptised can be explained to him/her by minister or parents. The meaning of baptism can also be simply explained, from the Word (see the WCF on not separating sacrament from Word) to the child as she grows up. The Holy Spirit can bless this to the child, leading to their conversion.

Remember that even with circumcision it would have to be explained to the little boy that he was circumcised. Otherwise he could easily grow up thinking that God had made all little boys that way!

See also Larger Catechism on Improving Baptism.

This cannot be done - with the same import - with a child who is born into a believing family but is not baptised as a child, just as the ceremony of circumcision or the knowledge of the fact, could not be blessed to an uncircumcised little boy in the same way as a circumcised little boy.

Probably the subject of improving baptism and improving a child's baptism merits a separate thread!! Baptism threads seem to be currently sprouting exponentially.

Good question. No, one is not greater than the other. Yes, a child raised to unbelievers who later converts would need to be baptized (Indeed, this is what we see in Acts). However, the children of believers should be baptized in infancy, ideally.

If, when you speak of being baptized upon conversion, you are speaking of the children of believers, then you would have to establish when that conversion took place, which is just about impossible. I was raised being taught the faith and I don't know when I was regenerated, within quite a wide range. I don't even know what year the Lord changed my heart. Mind you, I was also baptized at 13, but that's not the point.

Thoughts?

Edit: N.b. When you asked if infant or adult baptism is better, I assumed the adult is a convert who had been raised in an unbelieving family. If you were speaking of an adult raised in a believing family, then it would have been better to baptize him/her as an infant in our view (not a superior baptism, but a more timely baptism so-to-speak). If you are speaking of an adult convert, though, then no, his baptism is not inferior, except that there are obvious advantages to being raised by believers, but that wasn't your question.

__________________
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?"

Richard,

Just a point of clarification from the Baptist side (not a point for debate). Baptists believe it is the gospel itself that (borrowing some of your words)...

John 1:12 states those persons who have received Christ and believed on his name have been given the right to be called sons of God. For such folk to truly receive Christ and believe, the following realities: entrance into "fellowship with Christ, in his death and resurrection; ... being engrafted into him; ... remission of sins; and ... giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life". These realities taken together are what the bible calls regeneration and conversion. Now Scripture tells us that the probable presence of regeneration and conversion may be known by known by certain indicatiors on the part of the professor (confession with the mouth Rom 10:9, and a turning from iniquity to following Christ). So when someone requests

you are not really baptizing them on their profession alone. Underneath your acceptance of their profession is a recognition that if they want to follow Christ, they must believe on him and for that to be truly possible then regeneration and conversion must have occurred. Even if what you are dealing with is someone who turns out to be a false professor, the professon of renouncing the world and desire to follow Christ is enoough to say that the person so professing has professed belief in Christ and his desire indicates that he has received Christ and so has the Scripturally given right to be recognized as a child of God.

Now if any pb who has taken the step of joining a local pb church whose doctrine is either evangelical or Reformed, that step necessarily reiterates that person's desire to renounce the world and follow Christ. Cb's may rightly recognize that that the presence of that desire in a pb's life indicates the likely if not certain regeneracy and conversion of the pb in question and treat him as a brother and member of the visible church. Which is why your charge that cb's are necessarily inconsistent with our principles is unfounded.

Well no sacrament is rightly administered without the Word. So a wordless sacrament couldn't be blessed to anyone saved or unsaved.

People can be brought to salvation without the water, wine and bread, and just with the Word, but does the Holy Spirit not also use the sacraments, which always when truly administered should be accompanied with the Word - including infant circumcision and infant baptism - to bring unsaved infants to faith? Or are you saying that infant circumcision was of no salvific use to the individual, and that infant baptism can be of no salvific use to the individual?

Was not infant circumcision an encouragement to seek the true circumcision? E.g."Circumcise your hearts and not your foreskins!" (e.g. Jeremiah 4:4) Likewise infant baptism is an encouragement to seek the true baptism.

The Bible and the WCF don't indicate that infant baptism and circumcision were only of spiritual benefit to the individual concerned after they believed. The Holy Spirit can and does work on individuals before they are converted to lead them to conversion.

Richard, the Lord can use anything He desires as part of the process of calling his elect, whether it be a song, motion picture, billboard etc. Many circumstances can be used to bring the sinner to the place where they will hear and believe the gospel. My point is that it is the gospel alone that contains the words of life. Reformed Baptists don't recognize a specific slavific function in baptism, whereas we do, in the Lord' Supper. Of course, the reason we don't attach a specific salvific value to baptism is because we view baptism as the first act of obedience in the life of a believer. In the Lord's Supper we see the visual proclamation of the gospel message to all who are in attendance.

Of course, I am simply articulating what Reformed Baptists generally believe. I'm not seeking debate. Consider it a simple point of clarification if you will.

That's fine brother. I think the subject of precisely what influence or use baptism is to believers or non-believers, to those to whom it is applied whether children or adults, to those who are present at a baptism whether children or adults, may be slightly off topic and would be better moved to another thread or continued on another thread.

Dear Ron,

What a post! It's a bit overwhelming, and I doubt I'm the best person to offer a defence for the baptist position, but I do have questions and observations, which are all just different ways of noticing the same tendency within Paedobaptism.

1. I think my question regarding "child of God" in the OT and NT is still a valid one. Many, if not most, of the references of the people of God in the OT refer to national Israel, as a whole without distinguishing the elect, within the elect (ie "true" Israel). In some places do we see this finer distinction, but the NT almost always speaks of God's children as those who are fully elected unto salvation. I don't see the absurdity in distinguishing circumcision administered nationally and ethnically, from baptism administered to those of faith.

2. From what I observe from the PB position, there is no definitive link between the administration (sign) and the establishment (reality) of the covenant. You are emphatic that the covenant in both testaments is established with spiritual Israel only, but administered to ethnic Israel. I'm sure you would agree that baptizing generations upon generations of Christian families does not ensure or signify their salvation (?). Baptists at least make the attempt to bridge the covenant sign with actual salvation.

3. Paedobaptism therefore perpetuates a dual-view of election: a general election down genetic lines (like national Israel); and a specific election of individuals destined for salvation. The NT clearly de-emphasizes any claim of election based on ethnic or familial ties. Jesus says that he came to divide families, and Paul denigrated the Jewish necessity of circumcision as having any bearing on salvation.

4. Paedobaptism seems to remove personal faith from the golden chain of election to glorification by placing the sign of the covenant on those who have yet to exercise personal faith. The outstanding question I have is: if you believe that baptism is a sign of salvation through union with Christ, how do you affirm this in an infant who has not yet exercised faith? The only way I see PBs doing this is by claiming that there is something intrinsically salvific about being born in a certain family. Ever heard of the saying, "God has no grandchildren!" ? PBs seem to deny this.

Dennis.

-----Added 11/9/2009 at 02:38:49 EST-----

I reread point 5, and had a bone to pick... Are you saying that circumcision was never abrogated as a means of entering the Old Covenant?

Say it ain't so.

What do you mean by Old covenant, anyway? If you're talking about Abraham, then the NT is clear what that's about: Faith.

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

That’s the point, Dennis. God had an elect people to whom he promised "I will be your God". This included the Isaacs and Jacobs, etc. and did not include the Ishmaels and Esaus (of the world). God made a covenant promise only to his elect, but the prophets were to address all of the visible people of God as the elect. Not all Israel was Israel but nonetheless God treated the visible people of God organically – “as a whole” as you put it “without distinguishing” the elect from the non-elect. Under both testaments, the visible people of God are treated as God’s only people – his spiritual elect.

Paul treats all the saints at Galatia, for instance, as brethren even though many who received the instruction may have not been elect. That is the exact same modus operandi that we see in the Old Testament.

First and foremost, circumcision had spiritual significance. (Romans 4) Moreover, circumcision preceded national Israel by 400 years, again accentuating that its primary significance was not ethnic but spiritual. Get this - God always had a covenant people that he so happened to form into a nation. Accordingly, upon the advent of the nation, the spiritual people were to be equated with the nation; so to refer to the one was to refer to the other. Notwithstanding, the promise was to the elect, which is why the promise did not become null and void upon the expiration of the nation.

The “absurdity” of only administering baptism to those with a credible profession is due to the fact that God’s precept of administering the sign to all within a professing household was never abrogated.

Correct. The sign being administered to an infant (or adult) does not imply that the recipient will ever possess what the sign contemplates. (The same goes for the Baptist position.)

Genesis 17, Galatians 3 and Romans 9 all teach this. I won’t rehearse the verses again. The premise is irrefutable.

Yes, Baptists make an attempt at something that God would not have them do, which is exclude infants of professing believers from the appellation “Christian disciple”.

Dennis, with all due respect you are back to pure rhetoric without any logical progression of thought based upon premises justified with scriptural proofs. Please argue something. I already know what you would like to assert.

My brother, that is not an argument let alone a refutation of the argument that is before you. All you are doing is begging crucial questions. You require one to be able to give a spoken evidence of their conversion in order to bear the sign of the covenant. However, that is not a stipulation we find in Scripture. It’s a stipulation born out of baptistic theology. Again, please deal with the arguments.

Circumcision was abrogated, but the principle of applying the sign of the covenant to infants of professing believers was not!

The old covenant principle goes back to the beginning. For instance, God established his covenant with Noah but his entire family was saved in the ark.

Brother, I'm not going to be able to deal with posts like this last one of yours in the future. For some reason you clearly have not grasped the challenge that is before you. You might just have to think a bit harder, or you might simply have a presupposition (that you cannot find in Scripture) that is clouding your reasoning.

Most sincerely,

Ron

This thread has several discussions going on at once so this is likely to get lost in the shuffle but I wanted to comment on this...

A correction needs to be made. The Reformed paedobaptist position does not believe that infants of believers are "baptized into the covenant". We baptize them because they ARE in the covenant.

Consider Genesis 17:14...

"Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

The child is to receive the sign of the covenant because they ARE already in; else how can God say of the uncircumcised Jew that he has "broken my covenant"?

I'm not going into details here but this is a very important distinction.

Scripture states that baptism is the "indicator." That seems to be the real point at issue here, whether one accepts the biblical prescription of baptism as "sign" or feels liberty to replace it with a sign or indicator of their own devising. You may have the final word; we are just repeating ourselves now.

Scripture doesn't so state. While it is clear that wb is a Dominically required act of obedience, and perhaps even the first act so required after entering the Christian life, recognizing that reality is is not the same thing as proving that wb is the sole biblically mandated grounds for determining whether or not someone is entitled to recognition as a brother and fellow member of the visible church. It is only when one can provide proof that Scripture provides no grounds beside wb upon which one may be Scripturally proved to be a child of God, that one may rightly deny that cb's can recognize pb's as fellow brethren in the visible church without doing violence to the LBC. I have demonstrated that Scripture does in fact provide additional ground besides wb to recognize someone as a child of God. You have failed to break the demonstration. So if you want to withdraw from the discussion, isn't it only fair that you also withdraw your charge until and unless you can support it with satisfactory evidence?

Ron, this is a great post.
I would only offer one clarification. I would substitute "Old Covenant" with "Abrahamic covenant" or simply covenant of grace. Hebrews 8:9 clearly identifies the "old covenant" as the Mosaic administration which did become obsolete (Heb 8:13, 2 Cor 3:7-11). But the Abrahamic covenant continues on (Gal 3:17), which is why the same covenant promise and sign are given to believers and their children today(Gen 17:7, Acts 2:39).

__________________
Patrick
MDiv, RTS Jackson
Pastor, Grace Presbyterian Church (OPC), Lisbon, NY

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.
"Let us not please ourselves that we have deep understandings, but let us shew our understandings by our practice." Richard Sibbes

Wow, You go away for a few days and it reverts to this. Let me just post a link to Richard Barcellos's Exegetical Appraisal of Colosian 2:11,12

The greek font shows up in the aforementioned link. Not in this post.

__________________

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?