ajdesau
Puritan Board Freshman
i have recently been rehashing my position on credo-baptism and my understanding of it within a covenantal framework (which i do). and i suppose my primary objection to the paedo-baptist position was that the "israel of god" or the people of God, from all eternity, are meant to be spiritually authenticate. furthermore, it then seemed to me that the new covenant, inaugurated and realized in Christ and his blood, consummated that reality. however, as has been brought to my attention, the new covenant realities (i.e. jeremiah 31:31-36) may be more eschatological in nature (i.e. the fulfillment of the new covenant is at the second coming of Christ, and thus it is possible for there to be unregenerate people in this new covenant period, who will be weeded out completely at the end of the age).
not only this but there has been scriptural support for the reality of unregenerate existing in this dispensation (i.e. hebrews 10:26-30, john 15:1-7, hebrews 6:4-6), thus indicating the meaning of jeremiah 31 is eschatological in its fulfillment and not at Christ's first coming. furthermore, the new covenant, as spoken of in jeremiah 31, is specifically relating to the mosaic covenant, and not the abrahamic covenant, which still then stands.
now, i'm still not sure about what i think about this, but i am having a tough time seeing how, if all this is true, infants are not then included. for if they are included in the old covenant and if the new covenant does not discount them, but rather speaks in eschatological terms (when it talks about the law written on the heart in jeremiah 31), why not baptize them?
in short, texts such as hebrews 10:26-30, hebrews 6:4-6, john 15:1-7, seem to demonstrate that there are those in the new covenant that are unregenerate, and that jeremiah's exposition of the new covenant is eschatological. therefore, why not baptize unregenerate infants in adherence with old covenant practices that are not abolished in the new?
i hope this question makes sense
not only this but there has been scriptural support for the reality of unregenerate existing in this dispensation (i.e. hebrews 10:26-30, john 15:1-7, hebrews 6:4-6), thus indicating the meaning of jeremiah 31 is eschatological in its fulfillment and not at Christ's first coming. furthermore, the new covenant, as spoken of in jeremiah 31, is specifically relating to the mosaic covenant, and not the abrahamic covenant, which still then stands.
now, i'm still not sure about what i think about this, but i am having a tough time seeing how, if all this is true, infants are not then included. for if they are included in the old covenant and if the new covenant does not discount them, but rather speaks in eschatological terms (when it talks about the law written on the heart in jeremiah 31), why not baptize them?
in short, texts such as hebrews 10:26-30, hebrews 6:4-6, john 15:1-7, seem to demonstrate that there are those in the new covenant that are unregenerate, and that jeremiah's exposition of the new covenant is eschatological. therefore, why not baptize unregenerate infants in adherence with old covenant practices that are not abolished in the new?
i hope this question makes sense