There is also a public declaration from the paedo-baptist's when they confirm what has taken place between them and the Lord according to their theology. They (both the adult Baptist and the parents of the credo child) are acknowledging that they are passive recipients of God's grace. One professes that they were passively received into God's family as an adult by personal election as evidenced by faith and the other as a child by birth from believing parents.

__________________
Bryan Wiley
Layman
Reformed Baptist Church
Louisville, Kentucky

"Seek the Kingdom of God first."

Hi Rich,

I am comfortable with that statement as a Baptist. If I am not boasting but simply confessing something out of my control happened (namely faith in Christ, adoption, hope of the glory of God in Christ Jesus) then I am doing my duty to be baptized publicly to display myself as a "vessel of mercy" before the world (regenerate, unregenerate, angels, demons, God). No boasting would be involved except in Gods work done in me.

No, Bryan, that's not hitting at what we confess. The public witness is a necessary condition, but is not an essential condition.

Any time the (true) church (properly) baptizes someone (so we confess), God via his church is saying "God saves believers." That's it. This is MORE basic than than any person's individual appropriation of that truth. And for this reason, WE say (while the baptist emphatically REJECTS) that a valid baptism takes place before or after a true conversion. Because grace to the elect is not tied to the moment of administration.

Now tell me if a baptist thinks a baptism of any kind, pre-conversion, was any baptism at all, regardless of what the church intended to do? No, b/c a valid baptism on that scheme must follow a conversion. Otherwise, you would accept a paedo-baptized child's baptism. But you don't.

__________________
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? --

Bruce, I don't want to tie up the thread much but Could you explain that?

WCF 28:6 The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.

This paragraph
1) puts the sign and thing-signified together, showing it is a "means of grace" (that is, a communication of God to his people);

2) states that the Spirit's baptism (which is the efficacious work; the external sign is not, beyond an earthly utterance) is not tied to the time of the earthly action of the church; yet

3) in a proper usage, the Spirit of God really does show forth something of the gospel in the ordinance itself, and confers it salvifically upon the elect by his own will (not a pastor's or a father's or any man's) in his own good timing.

To any onlookers,

This interaction and my interaction with iconoclast ought to demonstrate precisely the point I made from the beginning.

Which schema points to the individual and which schema points to the election of God? I think this demonstrates which group tends to center the significance of the ordinances of the Church around human decision and which remains grounded in the grace of God to save.

Viewed correctly, the baptism of children is pure grace. It focuses not upon the individual but upon God who elects before a man has opportunity to will or to run. The credo-baptist formula places the will of man as the precedent for baptism and hence the visible ordinance undermines the basic premise of the doctrines of grace.

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

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

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

Rich, forgive me for disagreeing with your claim. I understand what you're saying but couldn't disagree with it more. We baptize because God commands it as a sign of the New Covenant. No, we don't share your covenant view. The only human decision involved is a person claiming to have believed. Once they believe baptism is to be administered immediately. While submitting to baptism is an act of obedience on the part of the one being baptized, baptism is all about God. The individual receives the sign of the New Covenant which identifies them with the body of Christ, the invisible church.

The credo formula does not place the will of man as the precedent for baptism. The will of God is the precedent for baptism. Believe and be baptized. Not, "I believed so I think I'll be baptized." THAT would be the will of man. The doctrines of grace are not undermined. God calls his elect by grace through faith. His elect believe and submit to the command to be baptized, not under compulsion but joyfully. And this is a will of man how?

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Reformed Baptist
Maryland

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

Bill,

The "How?" has been demonstrated by the posts referenced.

As I noted, it's not that the Baptist position, in a Confessional way, starts out trying to put precedence on the decision of man but it ends up with it being at the fore in visible practice.

From a decretal standpoint, it's not that the Baptist position fails in its goal to attempt to remain grounded in the election of God but when it tries to move from its decretal understanding (invisible) to the visible ordinances of the Church, the insistence that profession is the arbiter of detecting the decree, the net result is a focus upon the will of man because the baptism is administered on the basis of profession.

Hence, I maintain, the invisible ideal of the Baptist position is in tension with the visible practice of the Baptist and the visible practice is at the fore of the Body life of the Church. Since the man in the pew lives in the visible ordinance, the natural result is to have the ordinance, that focuses on profession, to focus inward and away from the Promise of God, which is external.

(Itching for that Formal Debate soon after July.)

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

It is God that multiplies our sorrows.... God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry

Rich, my daughter was baptized recently based on her profession of faith. I know you don't view that as somehow a diminished version of baptism. But if after the adoption takes place I decide to have my two younger children baptized, isn't THAT baptism on the basis of MY profession of faith. I believe that God chose me and my wife, but in his providence, WE chose the OPC we are attending, WE gave our profession in order to become members and now, if I choose, I will have my kids baptized as a sign of their inclusion in the covenant benefits. Now how do you avoid human decision in all this?

__________________
Bob Vigneault C.O.L, L.E., G.E, Dr.O.P., O.U.T.
The Heartbeat of Heaven (blog)
Deacon/Christ Presbyterian Church, Janesville, WI OPC www.christ-opc.org

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

Since I am dissatisfied with my statement here, I am offering a clarification.

In argumentative contexts, the words "necessary" and "essential" are equivalent terms. So, basically it could be argued that I am contradicting myself in that place.

In the context I need to show that I am not. I am using the terms in different senses, and those senses need to be explained.

When I say "The public witness is a necessary condition," I mean it is a "prescriptive" necessity, a "legal" necessity, and that as a condition irrespective of its honesty, its truth value.

When I say "The public witness is not an essential condition," I mean that in the church's activity given a valid set of circumstances, irrespective of the truth of the witness a valid baptism has occurred, and a person has been baptized. Thus, it may be said that the public witness of the individual is NOT a "moral" essential with regard to the church's activity.

In other words, it is IMMORAL for the individual to bear false witness, however that false witness is not an essential that will invalidate the action of the CHURCH.

Moreover, as it touches the occasional infant, it is possible to more clearly see that according to our doctrine, the true and personal witness of the subject is not essential, since it would be empirically impossible.

Bob,
It comes down to what entity performs a baptism. Are you (a subject) performing the baptism, or are you submitting to baptism (or submitting your children), and participating in the church's business? If this is a churchly thing, then you are basically passive, apart from your willingness to be included. You are more "acted upon" than "acting". By this, I do not mean you are inert, unresponsive, non-vocal. No more than in any other part of worship.

But if it is fundamentally the church that acts, then you are not the basic speaker. God is. He speaks, we reply. In fact, (we argue) he has commanded you to present his children to him. So, to "choose" to do so is simply to obey him. Baptism isn't a statement about me deciding for Him, but Him deciding to save believers, a sign, a witness of his sovereign Spirit-work.

More recent archaeology has brought to light an additional water source or sources. I think the magazine I saw was Biblical Archaeology Review.

__________________
In Christ's love and service

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

Pastor Bruce, as always you have given a great explanation but it sounds more like an explanation of church polity than explicit Scriptural doctrine. When my oldest daughters were babes I followed God's commands to present them to him and had them dedicated in the church. It was an American Baptist turned EV Free Church. This seemed the right thing to do and it was consistent with the teaching of "the church" as they interpreted scripture.

For years I belonged to a Baptist church that taught that we present our children to God through a public dedication. They added the fact that this baby is part of the covenant family and a participant in the benefits of the faith community.

Now I am in an OPC and have submitted to the leadership. In our church we have several families that are reformed Baptists. I am mostly Presbyterian at this point and I will submit my younger children for baptism when they are officially adopted. The OPC applies the very same scriptures that my Baptist brethren read differently.

Both churches follow God's command to present your children to him. Through long, longer and even longer arguments using technical terms that many laymen will never grasp, the leaders claim to speak for God and codify their conventional thoughts. They say we are right and the other church is wrong.

I guess my question to Rich regards this framing of the argument:

Are you really contending that Baptists are weak on the doctrine that God saves by grace alone because they answer God's command to present our children to him in a different mode?

(Rich is sleeping so if anyone wants to jump in, please go ahead.)

I think Rich's point is that theology and practice are more dis-aligned (when we look at it) on the baptist model. I'm sure the baptist disagrees.

But go back to post #160, where I highlighted line after line in Iconoclast's post -- "the person states, he declares, they testify, etc." Remember, it is TIED to profession, and post-profession at that. Remember, a infant baptized hasn't been baptized according to the baptist understanding. He won't be until he professes, and is then baptized (and of course the method counts as well).

Everything has to be aligned just right in the baptist playbook. The church must intend and perform accurately, AND the person must be properly disposed. If the second part is inaccurate, then no baptism has occurred (or else one must admit to legitimate re-baptisms). Upon analysis, is this not a picture of synergism? Church must be right (and are they intentionally speaking for God on their principles? is this not a step too far for those principles?), and man must be right--they have to be speaking together, or the sign is invalid. Baptist Man cannot come afterward and say, "I was speaking incorrectly, or not at all, at the time, but now I concur with heaven. God was true, when as yet I was not."

Thank you Pastor Bruce for explaining that. I'll go back and read some of the previous posts. PS, I'm happy that you're speaking to me again. (Tehehehehehehehehe)

Rich (and Pastor Buchanan) makes a great point.

Throughout the Old and New Testaments the entire church is addressed, children not excluded (Colossians - "To the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae" and "Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord"). When we teach all that Jesus commanded we do so also to our children. we teach them to pray, "Our Father...," we teach them to sing Psalms (Psalm 4 - "But know that the Lord has set apart the godly for himself;the Lord hears when I call to him") and we teach them that whether they eat or drink, or whatever they do, they are to do all to the glory of God.

We do none of this because we presume they are regenerate (or unregenerate) or because we presume anything about the state of their heart but only because God has commanded us according to His good promises. The only thing we have evidence of is that God has blessed us (that is "us" the saints, the church, consisting of both truly inward regenerate and those who are only outward, but not truly regenerate) with offspring. The Baptist will hold off until they have evidence that this "blessed" offspring is indeed legit and truly included in the God's covenant. An infant that may or may not be truly regenerate must wait on fallible man instead of infallible God before they are considered one of "the saints and faithful brothers in Christ."

Paedobaptists can't presume anything other than our children are a blessing from God. We do not attempt to know a third will of God (Deuteronomy 29:29). Everything must be based on the revealed will only. If God has blessed us, then we will administer the sign and the seal God has graciously provided to His people.

Credo-only Baptist presume their children are outside the camp unless they prove otherwise (they being both children and elders). If they prove such then they will administer the sign and the seal God has graciously provided to His people.

__________________
Christopher Reeder
Husband to Kara, Father to Abigail (8), Caleb (7), Grace (5 1/2), Zoë (4), Elijah (2), Hannah (1), and Mary (due February 2010)

Member: Pilgrim Presbyterian Church (OPC), Raleigh, NC

Tim,

BAR is a respectable mag -- can you cite the issue?



That story about the toughness of Baptists, I looked and found it pertained to a Methodist evangelist / backwoods preacher, Peter Cartwright, in the 1800s. The story was told by a Baptist, William Grady, in his book, What Hath God Wrought! A Biblical Interpretation of American History (p. 195). [He's an IFB, and anti-Calvinist, but a very interesting read nonetheless.]

Anyway, Cartwright, upon entering a town in Ohio, heard of a bartender who was a notorious bully, who would threaten and beat up preachers traveling though his area. So Cartwright, a rugged character, sought him out and whupped him till he promised not ever to do it again -- reportedly singing a hymn while doing so.

A lot of stories about the hardships and persecutions of the early American Baptists in the book.

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

Blog: A Great and Terrible Love

I don't agree. I've tried repeatedly to state why I disagree but either I'm not communicating well or you don't agree with my explanation (I believe the latter is true). I maintain that credo baptism does focus on the promise of God.

Romans 11 allows me to attach the following passage to all those who believe:

Jeremiah 30:22 22 'You shall be My people, And I will be your God.'"

Another way of saying that would be, "If you are My people, I am your God." That is the promise. Credo baptism is a recognition of that promise made to all of the elect. Why not infants? Because, "believe and be baptized."

We have the arguments on auto pilot now. We both claim the high ground in the discussion. We do so, not out of pride but because we think we are being faithful to the scriptures. I don't know what else I can say. The arguments are out there. Paedos are going to side with the paedo view and credos with the credo view.

Josh, you said you can't wait for the baptism debate. What exactly is it that you can't wait for? When the debate is over, there are still going to be two sides believing what they consider to be right.

I agree.

BTW, didn't Gene Cook already win the debate? Shouldn't this discussion be over?

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


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

__________________
*

It is purely a personal gratification. I think a formal moderated debate between two well-read, sincere, Christian men will prove helpful to me, I'm sure. What I like about it is that folks don't have to read it if they don't want to. I hope you haven't mistaken my itch as some sick desire to see fur fly or blood drawn.

I'm content as well that what I have contended for has been clearly laid out and Baptist presentations of their visible ordinances have borne out what I've stated.

I actually do believe it is a bit more than a disagreement, I actually think you're sort of missing my point about the visible ordinance remaining in tension with the invisible ideal you believe in. There is sort of a neumenal/phenomenal divide in Baptist theology between the New Covenant and the ordinances themselves.

I recognize that you are attempting to base the New Covenant upon the Promise of God, which is inviolable, but the actual ordinance is detached from the the New Covenant itself in a sense because a Baptist cannot afford to state that baptism confers membership into the New Covenant. To do so would destroy your theology that the New Covenant consists only of the elect and you know full well that false professors are baptized inadvertently.

Hence, because the Baptist insists that Baptism is administered to those that profess, and that it is a declaration of the individual, it is the profession (true or false) that admits one into visible participation with the local Church.

On the one hand you have an ideal that exists invisibly with a Promise that applies only to the Elect (whom you do not know) and you have a Church on the other hand consisting of professors only whom you know based on profession and not on any other information related to Romans 11. Just to be abundantly clear, believe is not the same word as profess.

You keep defaulting back to your understanding of the New Covenant and say: "Look Rich, I remain grounded in the Promise of God because I believe in this New Covenant that consists of the Elect of God alone."

I answer that you are speaking abstractly at that point and not actually interacting with activity in the visible Church when you do this. Members are being baptized not necessarily into the New Covenant but into the local Church where the will of man to profess is central in every ordinance of the Church.

Thus, profession and the will of man is central in all your visible ordinances and even in how they are spoken of. Some Baptists here have even granted that this profession allows the Church to pretend to have "perfect knowledge" on its basis.

I continue to mantain, therefore, that you have a system of visible ordinances that place the will of man at the fore, which is in essential disagreement with a view of God's election in the Scriptures that emphasizes His action before a man has willed. Even your continued quoting of "Believe and be baptized" and insisting that infants cannot believe assumes that it is the will of a mature mind that takes precedence rather than a Sacrament that applies a sign in hope that the elective purposes of God don't wait for a child to mature.

Bruce,
It is the person who is baptized doing the talking, saying, confessing, professing, THAT GOD IN LOVE AND MERCY HAS SAVED THEM.
It is not his parents saying that God promises to save the elect so we will give a sign to a baby of a promise that this baby might not ever recieve.

God's promise to save His elect are completely based upon God's faithfulness to His own oath to save . Jn 6;37-44 hebrews 6:17-19
The human statement as you call it, is seen throughout the book of Acts.
No where is an open ended promise offered. The promise is only to as many as the Lord shall call. When he calls them, they gladly welcome the word, and openly confess such by baptism. I believe therefore I speak.

__________________
Anthony D'Arienzo
Sunday School Teacher
Hope Reformed Baptist Church:
Medford, N.Y.

The sign given was outward and external looking forward to the promise seed which is Christ. Gal 3;16-29. Now that the seed has come, and accomplished redemption those who God brings to life in the Nt. by Spirit baptism Romans 6;1-17 live in newness of life by the Spirit who indwells them. Spirit baptism applied by the quickening work of the Spirit gives new life, a new creation. Without it , no one is in Union with Christ, or, In His body. Outward signs do not look forward to what might happen now as they did before the cross. The reality of the cross has taken place.
The person who identifies with the message of the cross by God given faith is the only valid person to be baptized.That is what was read and declared throughout the Nt. No more, no less
Babies do not yet identify with or against anything yet. All persons are dead in Adam. God often time works in and through believing families,yes, this is true. But those children are not immune from from Adam's fall.

Bill,

I hope you're reading Anthony. I couldn't have planned to have a Baptist make my point any clearer in Posts # 184 and 185.

This commits the same error as Randy did earlier, in assuming that to be dead in trespasses and sins automatically leaves one outside the covenant of grace. But the apostle taught differently. He acknowledged he was a child of wrath by nature, and yet a child of promise by covenant (Eph. 2:1-12). This clearly shows that the Baptist understanding of the doctrines of grace is overly individualistic and doesn't account for the corporate and visible nature of the work of grace in time.

Further, by using the word "identify," you effectively create a doctrine of mediate covenant inclusion. Attempt to apply this to the child's standing in Adam, and what are you left with? Pelagianism. To be consistent you would be forced to say that no child is counted guilty of sin until he himself identifies with Adam. But we know this is not the case, and that all men are immediately accounted guilty as a result of being unconsciously identified with Adam in the covenant of works. We also know from various passages of Scripture that there is an analogy between being in Adam and being in Christ. One is immediately in Adam because of his relation to the covenant of works, and one is immediately in Christ because of his relation to the covenant of grace. There is no difference -- for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified FREELY by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. We are therefore shut up to the conclusion that the covenant of grace is freely administered apart from the idea of self-identification.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Rich,
God makes a promise to anyone anywhere who believes the gospel that they will be saved.The promise is to particpate in the fellowship of the Resurrection life of Christ.
All through Acts they believed the WORD Preached. This whole twisting of what was said as if it was an arminian type of thing is off base.
The way you describe it, is more an arminian scheme- look at your language
The benefits are "promised " to you on the "condition of faith". The promise is to you if you -simply cling to Christ-That sounds like the idea of inherent faith, a full ability of will which I know for a fact you do not believe. I am certain you do not hold to these wrong ideas yet you write what you write
I can trust the promise
I am able to know that I have faith
I look at my baptism
If I simply cling to Christ
I look away from me, to my baptism
Where is the work of God in your statements? It looks like you are doing it apart from God, following a formula, rather than God changing you.

Faith as we know is the gift of God. We are not to look to our baptism, we are to look to Christ by a God given faith. The person who looks and lives does so only by the electing grace and mercy of God.
When an adult is immersed it is in response to the inward work of God, granting repentance and faith. He might not even know all the theology behind it, but if it is of God it is eternal. They do so in obedience to the command of Christ to believe and be baptized. Not to do "something for themselves as a "performance"!
The adult who is baptized is not saying something about himself as you state, He is saying once I was was blind but now I see. God has saved me.
If you did not know this when you were baptized you were not the proper subject of baptism at that time.
To say that a person has to have full assurance of faith before being baptized is also a ridiculous idea. What would you do if you lived in the first century? Doubt every baptism?
It is your position that denies the obedience of faith in believer's baptism.

Before you confuse yourself further you might want to read what I write.
The object of trust is Christ. Evangelical faith is that which looks to Christ. Reformed faith does not lack personal pronouns but it is where those pronouns are placed that makes an idea non-Reformed.

What? Really? Every adult that is immersed is being immersed by the "inward work of God?" You really do confuse categories quite easily.

So, Anthony, are you saying that when a believer says "Once I was blind and now I see. God has saved me" that this is not about the believer?!

Which proves my point that I was making. You actually drive home my points beautifully!

Rich, why did you baptize your children? Did you not choose to do so? You believe the Promise. You believe that the covenant is for, "your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."? You believe your children are holy and baptism enters them into the covenant. But in the end, you choose to submit your children to baptism. The elders don't storm into your home at midnight and take your child from you. You do this, not in the presence of saving faith on part of the child but in the absence of it. You then proceed to raise this "covenant child" in the Lord, assuming regeneration unless repudiated by reprobation later in life. But in final analysis you are less certain than the Baptist as to whether the recipient of baptism is saved. By the way, I am not a subscriber to perfect knowledge, or at least not in the way I understand it. You choose to baptize your children. Choice is involved. We choose to submit to baptism. Choice again. Do either of these choices negate the election of God? No. As a believer in the doctrines of grace I confess that God's election is the causation of my choices. That is the essence of Romans 10:9-10. Confessing and believing are things that men do; choices they make. But those choices are actually the continuing work of God in His perfect election.

You keep wanting to lay the charge on Baptists that we view baptism as a work of the will of man. We believe, or least we should believe (Baptists aren't always as confessional as they state), that mans choice in submitting to baptism is not an element of the will independent from the grace of God, but the will submitting to God's perfect election; His election made complete. I've twiced used the term "perfect election". By "perfect election" I mean God's election of the believer made complete, from predestination to glorification. While God is completely and utterly responsible for His perfect election of the individual, He causes man to confess and believe and submit to the ordinances/sacraments of the church. God never cedes control or authority of election to the elect. He changes the nature of the elect to submit to their election.

To clarify, no Reformed paedobaptist (that I know of) believes baptism brings a child into the covenant. Rather, it's a sign signifying what is already the child's by birth.

I don't accept the premise here (it seems to point to presumptive election if not regeneration--although I don't know that there's really a difference practically) but don't have much time to interact. As Bill noted, I think we're basically at an impasse here. There are a lot of other issues and aspects I would like to bring up, but it would be far too time consuming right now. Hopefully I will be able to do it later.

The question is, which "schema" reflects Biblical teaching?

__________________
Christian
One Pilgrims Progress

Josh, if I'm wrong on that I stand corrected. I would change my wording then to, "You believe your children are holy and baptism places on them the sign of the covenant."

Again, you're confusing what I'm saying. I've never argued that it is wrong that men decide that they desire to be baptized. Nor have I ever argued that parents are not presenting their own children to the Church to be baptized. The Church does not compel baptism. The issue has to do with how each views the significance of the visible ordinance.

Over and over in this thread, the Baptists have insisted that Baptism is a sign that points to the individual's faith. Hence the visible ordinance, at its administration, is said to be the person's speech about their faith and the fact that they are therefore worthy recipients of the ordinance. In contrast, the paedobaptist insists it is not man's speech but God's speech in the Sacrament and the person receiving the Sacrament hears God's announcement of the Promise.

I don't know how many times I need to type this to make this explicit but I don't know how you confuse what I've typed heretofore as indicating that no wills are involved. Certainly, in the case of professors, men hear the Gospel and present themselves to the Church with the desire to be baptized even in our Churches but you can see Anthony as the quintessential Baptist insisting that the Church now administers the ordinance as indicative of pointing to some reality within. We say, in contrast, that the person does indeed present himself and he is baptized but the Sacrament points to the reality of a Promise without.

The answer to your question is the paedobaptist scema.

The only people that have insisted on presumptive election and regeneration with respect to Baptism are a couple of Baptists in this thread.

There is nothing presumptive about the election of God viewed correctly. As you likely skimmed over what I wrote and chose merely to pull that quote you ought to know better that what I'm indicating is that we cannot know who is elect and the visible Sacrament in the paedobaptist schema points away from the individual and could not presume election but merely calls the baptized to trust in the Promise of God, which is held forth in baptism. Only the Baptist attempts to say something definitive of the recipient during baptism.

Rich, within the Baptist schema, what do you think is our opinion of the ordinance? We do not believe it is the initiation into the New Covenant, for the New Covenant is administered on the basis of sola fide. But baptism points to the New Covenant; the Abrahamic Covenant made better. Is there an individual component in the the Baptist schema? To the extent that the individual submits to baptism, yes. There has to be. But instead of baptism being a sign that points to the individual's faith, it is sign of God's more perfect election. It really is a matter of emphasis. You are choosing to emphasize the Baptist profession preceeding baptism. A truly confessional Baptist will emphasize God as the director of His most perfect election, which includes profession (Romans 10:9,10).

Rich,

And with all due respect to Anthony, don't hold me to his point of view.

Bill,

How many times have I pointed this out in this thread? I've labored that very point so much that some might get carpal tunnel typing it out over and over as much as I have. I suppose I ought to thank you for repeating the point I've made. Yes, yes, yes, Baptists do not believe that baptism initiates into the New Covenant so the next time the New Covenant is toted out to establish the reason for Credo Baptism I expect you to be the first to note that such a discussion has nothing to do with who ought to be baptized.

According to your confession, baptism is not a sign of the New Covenant. That language is purposefully left out of your Confession. Your Confession, rather, emphasizes that it is a sign of the fellowship of the individual with Christ and of his faith.
I'm highlighting Anthony because there is some doubt that I'm somehow just making this all up about how Baptists tend toward a personal emphasis in the ordinance. I maintain that is not accidental nor is Anthony unique in this regard.

Finally, agreement on something. It's not I haven't understood your words. It's the context that kept me repeating myself. We were using similar language but I don't think we were approaching it from the same direction. You view it as a negative of Baptists, while I view it as a distinct positive for reasons given in more than a few posts in this thread.

I will happily, and most diligently, disagree with any Baptist who states that baptism enters the recipient into the New Covenant. I will tell them that God's perfect election; made possible by the birth, death and resurrection of our Lord, provides their entrance into the New Covenant.

The 1689 LBC says, of baptism:

You state correctly that the LBC does not address the New Covenant. Was it purposefully left out? I don't know. I do know that the confession was partly written to separate from Presbyterians. Baptism being the main areas of contention between the two sides, it is not surprising that the New Covenant wasn't addressed head on. But I would call the attention of those interested to some other areas of the LBC.

Regarding God's covenant:

There is a strong connect-the-dots trail here that starts first with the covenant of works. It leads to the covenant of grace (redemption), of which the New Covenant cannot be separated.

Regarding Christ the Mediator

Rich, I believe the exclusion of baptism as the initiation of the New Covenant fits well within the Baptist schema. Circumcision, and now baptism, are signs of God's promise (c.f. LBC 8.6, 29.1). Circumcision was applied to all males in Israel, not on the basis of faith but because of decree. Baptist (credo style) is administered on the basis of professed faith but it's root is planted in the promise of God. This is one of the reasons why the New Covenant is unlike the old Abrahamic covenant. This should be consistent with confessional Baptist orthodoxy and effect our orthopraxy. I am not saying the LBC is outdated but I wonder (for reasons given above) if this issue was intentionally omitted in order to eliminate any blur from the line of demarcation with Presbyterians.

All children of one Christian parent are covenant children, regardless of whether or not they have the sign of the covenant.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)