Baptists and the Promises

[Peairtach]

What do baptists think about all the promises in the Bible respecting children born to believers?

Do they

(a) Spiritualise them, so that they refer only to those "children" of ours that have been converted through our influence e.g. Paul calling Timothy his "son".

(b) Believe that they are no longer relevant, because they were just for Old Covenant believing parents.

(c) Believe they are relevant, but somehow these promises are non-Covenantal or outside the Covenant.

(d) Believe they are relevant and Covenantal, but that just because some Covenantal promises refer to the children of believers, and that they are in that sense Covenant Children, that doesn't mean we should baptise them.

Option (d) would be closest to Presbyterianism, although it's true that among Presbyterians these promises aren't sometimes emphasised in the way they should be.

 

[Pergamum]

What do Presbyterians make of all those little Presbyterian kids that grow up as mean unbelieving adults and die and go to hell?

If there truly is a promise apart from a steady diet of good Christian parenting the same that any Baptist family can provide (without sprinkling their kid with the magic water that effects some sort of change apart from what baptists can provide with sound parenting alone and no water until a credible profession of faith) then we should not expect to see a large number of Presbyterian children of believers fall away or should see a quantitative difference between baptized children of believers who fall away versus unbaptized children of believers.

If the promise is somehow contained in and revolves around baptism of your children, if the promise is only 50-75% effective, how much is it worth when a large percentage of children of baptized believers fall away?

The Belgic Confession of Faith (Article 34) says: 'And indeed Christ shed his blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful, than for adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that, which Christ hath done for them.' So, the Belgic Confession says that Jesus shed his blood for the children of believers without qualification..not merely 50% of the children of believers.



I believe the general promise of God that if I raise my child in the Word he will not go astray. That water sprinkled on a baby effects nothing.

---------- Post added at 03:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 PM ----------

As I teach my child the Word and we gather in church and see the ordinance and hear the Word, he is "under" the outward administration of the covenant.


The Promise is to all who are near and all who are far off, as many as the Lord shall call.... (Acts 2)..Presbyterians usually only use the first half of that verse.,...... as many as the Lord shall call.


I, as a Christian parent and a credobaptist, who raises his children in the teaching of the Word is just as promised by God as a Presbyterian family that raises their children in the Lord PLUS adds a little splash at the beginning. What extra power or thing does that little splash add that I do not have?

 

[SemperEruditio]

What do Presbyterians make of all those little Presbyterian kids that grow up as mean unbelieving adults and die and go to hell?

If there truly is a promise apart from a steady diet of good Christian parenting the same that any Baptist family can provide (without sprinkling their kid with the magic water that effects some sort of change apart from what baptists can provide with sound parenting alone and no water until a credible profession of faith) then we should not expect to see a large number of Presbyterian children of believers fall awayor should se a quantitative difference between baptized children of believers who fall away versus unbaptized children of believers.


I believe the general promise of God that if I raise my child in the Word he will not go astray. That water sprinkled on a baby effects nothing.

---------- Post added at 03:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 PM ----------

As I teach my child the Word and we gather in church and see the ordinance and hear the Word, he is "under" the outward administration of the covenant.

Where can I find it taught that Presbyterians believe that baptism effects change? Where can I find it taught where circumcision effected change in the OT?

Is your claim that baptism effects change in adults? So then are all adults who are baptized regenerate believers?

 

[au5t1n]

What do Presbyterians make of all those little Presbyterian kids that grow up as mean unbelieving adults and die and go to hell?

The same thing you do with all the baptized Baptist kids who professed as children and apostasized at 18 (a large number, unfortunately) -- we mourn for them that they have apostasized. We also mourn for the state of the Church that many parents in our churches do not teach their children the Word or pray with their children, but instead allow them to be indoctrinated by the world. Please join hands with us in changing this and teaching the covenant children in Presbyterian and Baptist churches the Word -- baptism or not baptism is not the problem, in my opinion.

 

[CharlieJ]

Pergy, I think you already know this, but Presbyterians don't baptize in order to make the promises effective, but as a testimony to their reality. As for the OT promises, they certainly didn't guarantee that Israelites wouldn't defect. I think you're right to place the emphasis on parenting, but unless our children belong to a covenant, how can we raise these little unregenerates as Christians.

Similar to how all Arminians are Calvinists when they pray for God to save someone, all Baptists are Presbyterians (or something similar) when they teach their children to pray, to love God, to revere the Bible, to act according to Christian charity, etc. before the children make professions of faith. No one would ever suggest that we teach an unregenerate adult to do those things as a means of converting them.

 

[Pergamum]

So, what does infant baptism really do? Nothing? What effect does it have?

The Belgic Confession 34:

For this reason we believe that anyone who aspires to reach eternal life ought to be baptized only once without ever repeating it-- for we cannot be born twice. Yet this baptism is profitable not only when the water is on us and when we receive it but throughout our entire lives.

For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers. We believe our children ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as little children were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises made to our children.

And truly, Christ has shed his blood no less for washing the little children of believers than he did for adults.

Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of what Christ has done for them, just as the Lord commanded in the law that by offering a lamb for them the sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ would be granted them shortly after their birth. This was the sacrament of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, baptism does for our children what circumcision did for the Jewish people. That is why Paul calls baptism the "circumcision of Christ."^77

^76 Matt. 28:19 ^77 Col. 2:11

The 1689 would side with what the Belgic Confession refers to as the errors of the Anabaptists here wouldn't they?

Otherwise we must presume that Christ has died for every child of every believer in order to believe the promises. The success rate for this promise then is not 100%.



What do you Presbyterian parents out there got that I don't have by baptising your children at birth, whereas I am waiting for a credible professsion of faith? Is there any advantage that your are accruing?


SUMMARY: Gonna sign out, but here is a summary: The OP asked what baptists thought about baptism and the promises. It seems that in regards to baptism a big generalization would be that baptists treat baptism as a sign of what already has already happened (their belief, Romans 6:4, an outward sign of an inward reality of the New Birth) whereas presbyterians treat it as a sign of what will happen. Any promises or assurances about my children that I get from Scripture are not the baptism verses, therefore, but those verses which tell me to train up my child. And, I do pray that we all would have believing children that grow up and glorify our wonderful Lord.

 

[White Knight]

Similar to how all Arminians are Calvinists when they pray for God to save someone, all Baptists are Presbyterians (or something similar) when they teach their children to pray, to love God, to revere the Bible, to act according to Christian charity, etc. before the children make professions of faith. No one would ever suggest that we teach an unregenerate adult to do those things as a means of converting them.

I don't want to rabbit chase, could you elaborate on the last sentence? My small mind isn't understanding. This is how I'm understanding it. When a visitor is at your church, you wouldn't teach the unregenerate man to pray, to love God, to revere the Bible, to act according to Christian charity, etc?

The "as a means of" part. Please clarify

 

[Herald]

Richard,

RB's believe that children are born unregenerate. They may be elect (future) but parents have no guarantee that their children will come to faith. However, we do believe that God works within families. Children raised in believing households are more likely to be exposed to the gospel and witness it being lived out by their parents. Our use of the term "covenant family" would differ greatly from yours. While no parent can assume their child is saved, RB parents can possess a high confidence that their children have at least heard the Gospel. We believe it will result, more often than not, in salvation. We do not baptize unbelievers, whether adult or child, in the absence of a creidble profession of faith becase we believe that ordinance is reserved expressly for those who believe.

 

[Poimen]

SUMMARY: Gonna sign out, but here is a summary: The OP asked what baptists thought about baptism and the promises. It seems that in regards to baptism a big generalization would be that baptists treat baptism as a sign of what already has already happened (their belief, Romans 6:4, an outward sign of an inward reality of the New Birth) whereas presbyterians treat it as a sign of what will happen. Any promises or assurances about my children that I get from Scripture are not the baptism verses, therefore, but those verses which tell me to train up my child. And, I do pray that we all would have believing children that grow up and glorify our wonderful Lord.

I take it that you mean to hold to option (d) or are you proposing option (e): other?

Whatever you meant to say, I think it is important to point out that the 'what does baptism do' question is being foisted upon the Reformed view of baptism. It is not an act of God in the life of the child (or adult), it is a proclamation of who God is and what He has promised. Thus baptism is a 'done': what has God done in Christ and promised to the baptized individual not what He has done, will do or might do internally by the cleansing of the blood of Christ and the working of the Holy Spirit.

For the promise itself requires faith as a response in order to be a blessing. Thus for those children who are baptized and apostatize without repentance, their baptism is of no effect except as a record against them in judgment. It is not God who failed; it was man who failed. For those who believe their baptism is a sure sign and pledge of their salvation in Christ. Anything else is a misunderstanding of covenant theology.

 

[CharlieJ]

Pergy, the answer right in the catechism is, "Baptism does for the children of new covenant believers what circumcision did for the children of OT believers." I still don't see how you're coming to the conclusion that it is supposed to secure salvation infallibly.

Zach, my point is that we don't teach unbelieving adults how to behave like Christians to prepare them to become Christians later. We don't tell them that God is their Father, that He hears their prayers, that they should sing songs of thanksgiving for salvation, etc. Yet from the earliest age we teach our children to pray to God as their Father; we encourage them to sing the psalms and hymns that speak of how He saved us. What parent has ever stopped their 5-year-old from singing "Amazing Grace" because the child wasn't regenerated yet and couldn't sing it truly? My point is that we treat our children as Christians from the time they are born; we don't treat unbelieving adults the same way.

 

[eqdj]

Richard,

Mark Dever recenlty preached through Mark. On March 7, 2010 he preached on Mark 10:13-16 "Children Teach Us"
I believe this sermon should answer the questions you brought up
Capitol Hill Baptist Church

---------- Post added at 01:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:40 PM ----------

I'd also recommend Greg Welty's "A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism", specifically section V, 'Paedobaptist Sentimentalism Examined'

 

[White Knight]

Zach, my point is that we don't teach unbelieving adults how to behave like Christians to prepare them to become Christians later. We don't tell them that God is their Father, that He hears their prayers, that they should sing songs of thanksgiving for salvation, etc. Yet from the earliest age we teach our children to pray to God as their Father; we encourage them to sing the psalms and hymns that speak of how He saved us. What parent has ever stopped their 5-year-old from singing "Amazing Grace" because the child wasn't regenerated yet and couldn't sing it truly? My point is that we treat our children as Christians from the time they are born; we don't treat unbelieving adults the same way.

Thank you for your time. My head just isn't on straight right now and knew it was my ignorance that was hindering me. I would be intrigued, if you had the time, to compare and contrast the difference between an unregenerate child and an unregenerate adult. Perhaps?

 

[Herald]

I'm surprised no Baptist has brought this up. The real promise is the one contained in Acts 2. "This promise is for you, your children, and all those who are far off; as many as the Lord has called...". The promise is eternal life to all who truly believe. No one can be saved unless they first believe. A sign may point to the promise but it is not the promise. That is another reason why we only baptize those who claim to believe. We are not signifying the promise of the promise, but the promise
itself through those who claim to believe.

 

[SemperEruditio]

I'm surprised no Baptist has brought this up. The real promise is the one contained in Acts 2. "This promise is for you, your children, and all those who are far off; as many as the Lord has called...". The promise is eternal life to all who truly believe. No one can be saved unless they first believe. A sign may point to the promise but it is not the promise. That is another reason why we only baptize those who claim to believe. We are not signifying the promise of the promise, but the promise
itself through those who claim to believe.

What do you do with the "your children..." bit?

 

[Herald]

Frank,

"your children" indicates the efficacy of the promise to those who believe. It has absolutely nothing to do with the promise being extended to children of believers. It is the general promise of the gospel to those who believe. In contact the word "called" us used, but the effectual call is never accomplished without faith.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It has nothing whatever to do with efficacy. Or else everyone who gets baptized (upon profession) would have to be saved, (i.e., be one whom the Lord our God calls).

God made the same promise to Abraham. The promise was to him and to his children--as many as the Lord God would call. No one got to enjoy those promises who didn't have faith either...

So the objection, as it has been formulated, is just as much an argument against the Abrahamic promise.

 

[Herald]

Bruce, there's a real simple answer to the Abrahamic Covenant; it is in discontinuity with the New Covenant. But we know about this difference between is (credos vs. paedos). It is for this reason I confidently and unambiguously reaffirm what I said in my previous post. Richard started this thread in order to understand the Baptist position. I gave my answer to his question; I don't expect it to be accepted. So, my purpose really isn't to debate but to explain plainly. I have done that.

 

[Herald]

btw I'm nit trying to be obtuse, but I'm sitting here on Main St. in the Magic Kingdom (Disney World). The women are shopping and I'm surfing. I can't follow this thread to conclusion. I want that to be known if I'm slow to respond.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello Richard
Some Baptists see the promise as primarily The promise made by the Father to the Son,in Psalm 16.
The promise is fulfilled in the resurrection,and to all who are called to salvation and saving union IN Jesus Christ. This explanation given by Peter in Acts 2 is also repeated in Acts 13 without the specific mention about the children acts 13:30-39.
We see that children born in a covenant home1cor7, have the advantage of living among saints.
We differ in that we understand that in the NT. entrance into the covenant is by new birth, not physical birth alone as happened among the Ot.
Richard.. in the ot a physical sign was given even if the parents were not believers. Physical birth was all that was necessary.It was outward and legal.

We all agree that without faith it is impossible to believe God and the gospel promise. A promise left,becomes a curse and a promise of judgment.
Your "covenant child" who does not have faith that is God given cannot believe, or improve his baptism
The baptist child who is baptized too early ie,[before the Spirit quickens him] is just as lost

 

[Grimmson]

It is proper to connect the Abrahamic covenant in relation to the those of faith. The problem is however baptizing on the basis of the promise. I think on the Paedo end that the focus should be on the divine command and not connect the parents’ faith to the election of their children or their dying infants. The sign covenant of Abraham was given beyond to just Ishmael, but to all the men under Abraham’s household, such as slaves. A distinction that isn’t focused upon, particularily in relation to the baptism today of the head of the household. Also, I think it was important to point out that the text clear shows, before the birth of Isaac that Ishmael was not to carry the seed of the promise of Abraham, but had to receive the sign regardless of the fact that the promise was not for him in relation salvificly to the calling of God. The same is true also for Esau

Now with Baptist, such as myself, I do not focus necessarily on the discontinuity of application of the sign, but instead look at it as a type that points to the covenantal work of Christ on the cross. The reason why we do not get circumcised today, because it was to be an everlasting covenant, was because of its relation to the law and its marker to the corporate visible nation of Israel. With the clear change in sign for the church, marked by the death of Christ, it would then make sense as to who were to receive the sign by faith and by who faith. By just your own, or what about your parents. We need to be careful what we assign as a promise by God, because it is from God.

Now there should be no denying that “the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” The question then is what is this promise. For that we should look at verse 38 of Acts 2. I would say the promise would be for the remission of sins and the receiving of the Holy Spirit to all who repent and are baptized in Christ. The promise is given to children in the same way it is for you or for those that are far off. Now I recognize that many of my Baptist brothers refuse to even allow their children to be baptized until their teens or until they are marked as adult by society. I personally think that is a mistake on their part because children are directly addressed in places like Eph. 6:1. I think children should be taught the gospel and once they can give a confession of faith, then they should be allowed to be baptized. Baptists have an issue with this because they don’t want the child’s faith to be that of the parents, but instead their own. If children are to be seen as disciples then there should be no problem, but instead expected that it matches the faith of the parents. I think the waiting for an older age, like teens, or for some emotional conversion experience takes away from the objective nature of the gospel and drives children towards a false hope. Particularly, if they don’t experience a conversion experience.

What do baptists think about all the promises in the Bible respecting children born to believers?

Do they

(a) Spiritualise them, so that they refer only to those "children" of ours that have been converted through our influence e.g. Paul calling Timothy his "son".

Yes and no.
Just as Isaac was a child of promise, so have we all that have been born of the Spirit. Salvation is not through physical descent of the flesh, whereby one is saved by the parents and by the parents faith, but through the divine calling of God to himself through the working of the preached word and the Holy Spirit. So we all spiritually look to Abraham as a father in the faith and receive that freedom by faith.

The spiritualizing as aspect is true. Whereby children can refer to those influence by say like Paul and to those he writing to. Galatians 4:19 is an example of this, where we are called by him “little children.” But I would not say that this is the only sense that children are used. But instead shows how we and our children in faith, where the child shares in the faith, are connected to the promise of Abraham spiritually.

In regards to B) and C) certain aspects of the promise is still relevant, but only as it points to that salvation. Such as with the land promises of the OT pointing to that reality in the NT. It would be the job of believing parents to teach that to their children, and for the children to accept and believe such on faith. God’s covenant still at work, otherwise none of us would be a child of promise as we seen in Galatians 4:28. There is a shift from being in the covenant by physical birth to being in by that spiritual rebirth as sealed by the Holy Spirit and receiving the proclaimed Word of God. God is still at work in the family, children are still holy, or set apart, because of the Godly instruction they receive by the parents. Parents instruction are the means in which children embrace Christ and enter into that Covenant by the call of God. They are not initially in this covenant because of their federal relationship to Adam in the flesh resulting in that passing of original sin. Children likewise need that spiritual quickening, like their parents.

D) They would be in a sense covenantal children only after they would confess Christ. But it should be noted that Baptist typically do not use covenantal children language due to a lack of study in the covenantal nature of scripture and to some degree the dispensational hermeneutic. It should also be noted in reality, outside of the issue of baptism, children are typical taught the scripture the same way, disciplined in the same love by their parents, taught to pray, and encouraged in the faith. Shoot, many dispensational Baptists have their children sing Father Abraham. Even though I personally am not happy about that because non-baptized children are singing it.

Baptist would focus on the giving of the ordinance of baptism, not on the promise, but on the divine command. Which is why so many of them focus on baptism being by immersion. In a sense, baptism on the basis of the divine command in relation to the confession of faith is a form of continuity with that of Genesis 17, because there a separation of the command in relation to divine election as Ishmael receiving the circumcision is an example of. This is a reality that Presbyterians many times struggle with. Therefore I would it may be best to separate the promise with election in the giving of the sign and entry into the visible church. Because we do not know who elect or not. Our only grounds for making some sort of judgment is on the confession of faith and fruit produced as a result of the work of the Spirit.

Richard hopefully this answers your question.

---------- Post added at 09:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 PM ----------

God made the same promise to Abraham. The promise was to him and to his children--as many as the Lord God would call. No one got to enjoy those promises who didn't have faith either..

Bruce, I would say many enjoyed the corporate benefits of the promise that didn’t have faith. Such as with Esau and with the Israelites that entered into the land that they were promised, but lacked true faith.

 

[Pergamum]

SUMMARY: Gonna sign out, but here is a summary: The OP asked what baptists thought about baptism and the promises. It seems that in regards to baptism a big generalization would be that baptists treat baptism as a sign of what already has already happened (their belief, Romans 6:4, an outward sign of an inward reality of the New Birth) whereas presbyterians treat it as a sign of what will happen. Any promises or assurances about my children that I get from Scripture are not the baptism verses, therefore, but those verses which tell me to train up my child. And, I do pray that we all would have believing children that grow up and glorify our wonderful Lord.

I take it that you mean to hold to option (d) or are you proposing option (e): other?

Whatever you meant to say, I think it is important to point out that the 'what does baptism do' question is being foisted upon the Reformed view of baptism. It is not an act of God in the life of the child (or adult), it is a proclamation of who God is and what He has promised. Thus baptism is a 'done': what has God done in Christ and promised to the baptized individual not what He has done, will do or might do internally by the cleansing of the blood of Christ and the working of the Holy Spirit.

For the promise itself requires faith as a response in order to be a blessing. Thus for those children who are baptized and apostatize without repentance, their baptism is of no effect except as a record against them in judgment. It is not God who failed; it was man who failed. For those who believe their baptism is a sure sign and pledge of their salvation in Christ. Anything else is a misunderstanding of covenant theology.

Again, this promise that you believe that clings to baptism seems to be a very general promose, such that it adds nothing that I, a baptist, do not already have by raising my children under the Word (under the outward administration of the covenant), a general promise also being given to me that my children will believe if I teach them God's Word. If there is an extra promise as well that you've got in addition to mine, I do not see it as very effective.

Again, the Belgic confession seems to read that Christ died for the children of believers. I find this to be a leap.

 

[Peairtach]

Richard,

RB's believe that children are born unregenerate. They may be elect (future) but parents have no guarantee that their children will come to faith. However, we do believe that God works within families. Children raised in believing households are more likely to be exposed to the gospel and witness it being lived out by their parents. Our use of the term "covenant family" would differ greatly from yours. While no parent can assume their child is saved, RB parents can possess a high confidence that their children have at least heard the Gospel. We believe it will result, more often than not, in salvation. We do not baptize unbelievers, whether adult or child, in the absence of a creidble profession of faith becase we believe that ordinance is reserved expressly for those who believe.

Presbyterian parents don't tend to assume/presume their children are saved either, unless they are following the unusual teaching of Abraham Kuyper. Of course, like RBs I'm sure, they may maintain that a baby may have faith from the womb, like John the Baptist. They may pray for that, but they will not know that the child has had faith from an early age until the child starts to show signs of that.

Children raised in believing households are more likely to be exposed to the gospel and witness it being lived out by their parents.

But this isn't mere "happenstance". It's of God's peculiar design and providence that He has placed this child within a believing family, within the Covenant of Grace in an outward sense, and open to the peculiar influences of the Holy Spirit.

I don't know if any Reformed Baptists believe that it's possible for a human being to be formally and outwardly in a Covenant relation with God and yet not be born-again. There seemed to be a few in the Old Covenant.

And what about the peculiar (albeit conditional) promises given to covenant families. In the Reformed Baptist schema, must these be played-down or denied?

We haven't yet entered that super-spiritual realm, when marriage, procreation and families and family ties as we know them here will be ended.

 

[Peairtach]

Hello Richard
Some Baptists see the promise as primarily The promise made by the Father to the Son,in Psalm 16.
The promise is fulfilled in the resurrection,and to all who are called to salvation and saving union IN Jesus Christ. This explanation given by Peter in Acts 2 is also repeated in Acts 13 without the specific mention about the children acts 13:30-39.
We see that children born in a covenant home1cor7, have the advantage of living among saints.
We differ in that we understand that in the NT. entrance into the covenant is by new birth, not physical birth alone as happened among the Ot.
Richard.. in the ot a physical sign was given even if the parents were not believers. Physical birth was all that was necessary.It was outward and legal.

We all agree that without faith it is impossible to believe God and the gospel promise. A promise left,becomes a curse and a promise of judgment.
Your "covenant child" who does not have faith that is God given cannot believe, or improve his baptism
The baptist child who is baptized too early ie,[before the Spirit quickens him] is just as lost

The promise is fulfilled in the resurrection,and to all who are called to salvation and saving union IN Jesus Christ. This explanation given by Peter in Acts 2 is also repeated in Acts 13 without the specific mention about the children acts 13:30-39.

Why did Peter mention "your children" (not " your believing children"), if they have no particular place in God's plan?

We see that children born in a covenant home1cor7, have the advantage of living among saints.
We differ in that we understand that in the NT. entrance into the covenant is by new birth, not physical birth alone as happened among the Ot.

But you of course believe they are holy/ set apart by physical birth, as did the Apostle? Therefore you believe in an outward and formal holiness, together with peculiar influences of the Holy Spirit, but you deny this is Covenantal, lest you become a Paedobaptist.

We differ in that we understand that in the NT. entrance into the covenant is by new birth, not physical birth alone as happened among the Ot.

Presbyterians don't believe that mere water baptism brings one into the life and love of the Covenant but that Spiritual baptism into Christ does. Water baptism alone brings one into the bond of the Covenant.

If you believe that two people can get married without loving each other, then you believe that it's possible to be in an outward and legal covenant relation without the internal reality. Special promises, privileges, responsiblities, gracious influences pertain to those born in Covenant families, and God wants them signified and sealed by baptism.

Richard.. in the ot a physical sign was given even if the parents were not believers. Physical birth was all that was necessary.It was outward and legal.

Gentile adults being engrafted into the Abrahamic Covenantal Tree, had to make a profession of faith in the God of Israel. I'm sure those responsible were no more able to infallibly look into professors' hearts than we are.

In the case of the main stock descending from Abraham, under the Old Covenant, once again those administering the sacraments could not look into people's hearts with X-ray vision. But if the Covenant was being administered properly, there was a system of discipline, including state sanctions, which would to a large extent winnow the wicked in the Covenant from the righteous (the just) by "cutting-off"

(a) denial of the Passover and other ceremonials, along with shunning.

(b) denial of the Passover and other ceremonials, shunning, and internal or external exile.

(c) the death penalty

(d) if the death penalty wasn't administered God sometimes promised to bring ill health and/or death in cutting-off from the Covenant, Covenant People and Covenant Land, Himself.

We all agree that without faith it is impossible to believe God and the gospel promise. A promise left,becomes a curse and a promise of judgment.

Those that enter the Bond of the Covenant as children or adults, are in double trouble if they don't believe, than the Muslim or Hottentot.

Your "covenant child" who does not have faith that is God given cannot believe, or improve his baptism
The baptist child who is baptized too early ie,[before the Spirit quickens him] is just as lost

But both have the privilege of either being baptised and/or seeing baptisms being performed, along with the Word of God and peculiar influences of the Spirit.

So if they don't improve their baptism leading to their conversion, they're in double-trouble.

And if we don't improve our baptism after our conversion we're missing out on an important God-given spiritual resource. I'm as guilty as many of neglecting that.

 

[Grimmson]

Richard.. in the ot a physical sign was given even if the parents were not believers. Physical birth was all that was necessary.It was outward and legal.

Gentile adults being engrafted into the Abrahamic Covenantal Tree, had to make a profession of faith in the God of Israel. I'm sure those responsible were no more able to infallibly look into professors' hearts than we are.

That not completely true concerning Gentiles being engrafted to the nation of Israel. It was only the head of the household that had to make the confession of faith. And the rest of his male household had to satisfy the requirements of the law through circumcision, but needed not to necessarily provide a confession of faith. Those that did not receive the circumcision and obey the outward appearance of the law were to be shuned or killed. I do remember reading that some leniency was given to their children in regards to the practice of Judaism so that they were not killed if they did not believe, but as adults that were no longer part of the community of faith.

“Presbyterian parents don't tend to assume/presume their children are saved either, unless they are following the unusual teaching of Abraham Kuyper.”

They do assume that their children are saved if the child died in infancy. The confession makes that clear for believing parents. Some held to Luther’s infant faith historically. For an in-house discussion, meaning within the presbyterian camp, of this I would suggest looking at Paedofaith by Richard Lusk, who is a Presbyterian pastor. I have heard its good, but have not read it myself to really weigh in an opinion. No time too. It is that aspect of infant faith that was foundational for the assumption of children salvation and a main argument against the Anabaptist regarding infant baptism.


“I don't know if any Reformed Baptists believe that it's possible for a human being to be formally and outwardly in a Covenant relation with God and yet not be born-again. There seemed to be a few in the Old Covenant.”

I am one. But that only because I do not equate completely the receiving of the sign with election. You can be part of the visible church and still be damned. In fact I think we have a ton of damned churchmen within the congregations of our various traditions. You can be formally and outwardly a part of the covenant community based on a confession in Baptist circles, but not necessarily be born again. That is a fact we recognize if were honest. Why would I say their in covenant with God? It is because they heard the gospel, and responded in baptism. As a result of receiving the sign they become a double child of hell, because they did not repent and was not sealed to salvation by the Holy Spirit. In fact I would go as far to say that everyone in the world in covenant with God with the order to repent. The joining of the church outside of the work of the Holy Spirit would actually be worse for such on the Day of Judgment.

 

[Iconoclast]

Hello Richard, I did not put that red faced mad guy as a part of the post
Thank you for your response. I see we are close on some things and approaching things from different points of view in other areas.

“I don't know if any Reformed Baptists believe that it's possible for a human being to be formally and outwardly in a Covenant relation with God and yet not be born-again. There seemed to be a few in the Old Covenant.”

Believing that the New Covenant is not breakable, to say that someone is in the covenant today,[saved] then breaks it tommorow[becomes unsaved] would suggest the impossible losing of salvation.
The RB believing that regeneration brings entrance into the New Covenant and thus membership in the true or invisible church.
The idea of a non-saving covenant, [outward administration,temporary] is foreign to the RB.view. as far as the New Covenant is concerned.
Where does God make a non-saving covenant with New Covenant believers?

Why did Peter mention "your children" (not " your believing children"), if they have no particular place in God's plan?

I see it this way;
The promise...[to partake of the resurrection life of Christ, by virtue of Spirit baptism]
is to you....[who are convicted of your sin hearing this message]...if you believe,
and to your children.....[when they hear the gospel message and believe it by God given faith and repentance]....
and all who are afar off....[whosoever believes savingly, jew, gentile, rich, poor].....
as many as the Lord our God shall call....[call effectually,ie you, your children, all who are afar off as in Jn 11:50-52...the children of Godwho are scattered abroad]

I read it this way because I think the context demands the promise is in reference to Psalm 16, and this is confirmed in Acts 13:30-39.
Richard, i would like your thoughts on the Acts 13 passage,as well as acts 2:31-40 in reference to psalm 16. Why and what significance do you see in the Holy Spirit having Peter open up this passage in these two places.
this is a major teaching that is to my point of view, kind of brushed over.
it demands a closer look.

But you of course believe they are holy/ set apart by physical birth, as did the Apostle? Therefore you believe in an outward and formal holiness, together with peculiar influences of the Holy Spirit, but you deny this is Covenantal, lest you become a Paedobaptist.

Good one Richard. I have to admit that we are very close here.Again if the Old Covenant model is to be followed, I would be speaking with Pastor Shishko in the Opcright now if the New Covenant is in and of itself is not necessarily savable, but only a "door to the house" as pastor Winzer has written I would be a padeo for sure.
If you saw the New Covenant newnessas that the covenant is not breakable, you and most others would be part of a RB growth spurt

Water baptism alone brings one into the bond of the Covenant.

This can happen without the work of the Spirit, in other words? This "bond of the covenant" is something we do, not God?
or would you say that it is God working through His Church?

Presbyterians don't believe that mere water baptism brings one into the life and love of the Covenant but that Spiritual baptism into Christ does.

We agree here, that is why we are brothers in Christ.

Gentile adults being engrafted into the Abrahamic Covenantal Tree, had to make a profession of faith in the God of Israel

Let me ask you this.....In Romans 11 unbelieving Jews were broken off in unbelief.
Gentiles were grafted in. The gentiles who are grafted in, are they believing gentiles, or believing gentiles and their unbelieving children? or just random gentiles irrespective of whether they believe or not?
I think it is believing gentiles who are grafted in. One at a time, individually, then form part of a local assembly as members in particular.Built up a spiritual house, not a spiritual house with fleshly blemishes ,spots or wrinkles.
This last part i agree with you on:

But both have the privilege of either being baptised and/or seeing baptisms being performed, along with the Word of God and peculiar influences of the Spirit.

So if they don't improve their baptism leading to their conversion, they're in double-trouble.

And if we don't improve our baptism after our conversion we're missing out on an important God-given spiritual resource. I'm as guilty as many of neglecting that.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The reason that a Presbyterian or Reformed is supposed to believe his child is in heaven is because the Bible tells him that's his reasonable premise.

Now, because we KNOW ourselves to be weak, partly unbelieving, and essentially children compared to God, and even to what we shall be hereafter (as Calvin aptly and frequently observed), we have been given tokens, of God's promises to us. They are these sacraments, which by sensible signs testify to the promise that Word of the gospel also declares.

Therefore, to our (paedo) understanding it is most helpful to us that we have been given not only God's promise to be God to us and to our children, but also something tangible to remind us of that promise. The baptism itself says NOTHING one way or another about the person being baptized. It CANNOT, and this is true even for adults baptized, and that under either scheme (paedo, or professors-only).

We should believe the promise of God, even when there is that "echo" in the background that teaches: God still has freedom to elect.

 

[Iconoclast]

Richard,
In the previous post i wrote this;[If people have to be adopted as sons by the Spirit rom 8:9-14,[to be in God's family] it would seem that you would have to change your definition of the church,or claim that all of your children are actual saved children of God.

you wrote this:

Not really. Not everyone in the Old Covenant were true children of God or of Abraham. The same is true in the New Covenant, even in Baptist churches, when adults enter the Covenant visibly by baptism (the Bond of the Covenant) and yet are not in the Covenant in their hearts.

This is one of the main areas of contention- romans 8.When I read it I see one thing,when you read it you are viewing it in a way that does not allow you to see the same thing I do. lets focus on this for a minute and see if we can at least clarify the differences a bit more.
In the previous post i mentioned the section found in Romans 8...lets look at that once again;
8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

11But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

12Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

15For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Clearly christians are in view as Paul is speaking about mortification of sin.
In verse 9 he states that if any man have not the Spirit of God,he is none of His. This seems cut and dry to me. people are considered to be either in the flesh/ not saved as yet......or in The Spirit/saved
If any have not the Spirit- he is none of His.
They are led of The Spirit
They have received the Spirit of adoption
They mortify sin through the Spirit
They are alive from the dead

In your response in part you said this

The same is true in the New Covenant, even in Baptist churches, when adults enter the Covenant visibly by baptism (the Bond of the Covenant) and yet are not in the Covenant in their hearts.

This is not accurate from a RB point of view. You are importing language from the padeo teaching and mixing it with baptist teaching.
We do not believe adults enter the covenant visibly or invisibly by water baptism. We believe they are drawn and quickened by the Spirit, it is then that they are adopted by the Spirit,and the indwelling Spirit breaks the power of reigning sin,and begins to lead the child of God into the word of God. Remember in our position to be in the covenant is to be saved.
Water baptism is used as a testimony and public confession of Christ before men and angels, that the person being baptized is confessing that God has already done this internal work....not that it might happen in the future. this is why churches [baptist] require baptism for someone to be considered as a member which i think you were getting at when you said.....the bond of the covenant[ie, outward and external]

In your view at best, you cannot say that those only in "the bond of the covenant" can do any of those things listed by Paul in romans 8as i have listed above. mortification, being led,welcoming truth.
So I do not think it is accurate to say the same is true in baptist churches.

Why is it not recognised in the New Covenant? Because we've all become more individualistic and God wants to encourage that? Because the New Covenant is so much more spiritual that the natural family can be neglected? .Today

Israel was to be a holy nation.God placed His name there. They failed many times. that which was in shadow or type gives way to the reality.
The Israel of God now is only by new birth. If any have not the Spirit of God he is none of his. The holy nation grows. We do not become Ot saints and follow that pattern.

 

[MW]

In verse 9 he states that if any man have not the Spirit of God,he is none of His. This seems cut and dry to me. people are considered to be either in the flesh/ not saved as yet......or in The Spirit/saved

"For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live."

The New Testament repeatedly addresses itself to people for whom both threatenings and promises are necessary. Ignoring this fact distorts the counsel of God.

 

[Peairtach]

I don't know when I'll get round to answering or even reading all these posts? Maybe in a few days.

The paedobaptist position seems to have a much more full-orbed understanding of the nature of the Covenant of Grace, having an outward aspect corresponding to the sacraments, and an inner aspect corresponding to the thing signified by the sacraments, and that both are not always present in the same person.


The fact that Reformed Baptists deny that children of believers should be baptised, because we're not sure they are believers - of course we can never be 100% infallibly sure that another person is a believer anyway - leads them to deny that someone who is an unbeliever could or should be water baptised and yet be in the Covenant in some sense. On the other hand some are willing to admit this.

I think the Q of improvement of baptism, as much as baptism itself, should be taken more seriously by all sides.

I think the Presbyterian position is better developed. There are clearly inner and outer aspects to the Covenant and both are important. To deny that an unbelieving adult who is baptised and/or partakes of the Lord's Supper is in some sense in the Covenant of Grace, as some Reformed Baptists do, is confusion, and yet one reason why they would oppose infant baptism.

 

[Herald]

Presbyterian parents don't tend to assume/presume their children are saved either, unless they are following the unusual teaching of Abraham Kuyper. Of course, like RBs I'm sure, they may maintain that a baby may have faith from the womb, like John the Baptist. They may pray for that, but they will not know that the child has had faith from an early age until the child starts to show signs of that.

The evidence of pre-natal conversion seems to be special and extraordinary. Scripture does not present it as normative. Even the account of Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5) speaks more of Jeremiah's being elected by God than it does pre-natal conversion. Again, I thought this thread was started in order to understand the RB position, not to debate RB vs. Presbyterian? I've tried to keep my responses tied to the intent of the OP.

But this isn't mere "happenstance". It's of God's peculiar design and providence that He has placed this child within a believing family, within the Covenant of Grace in an outward sense, and open to the peculiar influences of the Holy Spirit.

No. I have no problem with God determining to call His elect from within believing families. It certainly is logical. No one can come to faith in Christ accept through hearing and believing the Gospel. What better place is there to be exposed to the Gospel message than the family of believers? This isn't happenstance, it's part of God's plan. However this is not God's exclusive plan because unbelievers are called to faith outside of believing families all the time. So, whereas the RB understands God to work through believing families ("covenant families"), the RB understands that the real power is in the Gospel itself, which is freely offered to all.

I don't know if any Reformed Baptists believe that it's possible for a human being to be formally and outwardly in a Covenant relation with God and yet not be born-again. There seemed to be a few in the Old Covenant.

And what about the peculiar (albeit conditional) promises given to covenant families. In the Reformed Baptist schema, must these be played-down or denied?

We haven't yet entered that super-spiritual realm, when marriage, procreation and families and family ties as we know them here will be ended.

No RB who knows his theology would ever say that an unbeliever could be in covenant with God. The Old Covenant contained specific promises to a specific ethnic and religious group. It was not dependent on saving faith. The New Covenant is only made with those who believe. Are there false professors who are numbered among the ranks of the New Covenant? Yes. But that is due more to our not being able to distinguish their fraudulent profession than it is to their actually being a member of the New Covenant.

What promises of the Old Covenant are you referring to?