Paedo-Baptism Answers "Believers and their children"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Andrew, would there be any problems discussing your questions here while being a Pastoral Intern? I trust you see I am asking out of concern.
 
I don't understand what you mean. Isn't the continuing remnant the only hope Paul puts forward in Romans ch. 11?

The only reason there is any saved. OT or NT, is owing to God's grace in selecting a remnant.
I mean that what was the remnant in the OT-- those who are elect and truly saved by grace-- seem to me to constitute the whole of the covenant people in the New Covenant. They are no longer a small remnant of the people of God.
 
Andrew, would there be any problems discussing your questions here while being a Pastoral Intern? I trust you see I am asking out of concern.
It's on my mind. I feel free to discuss these questions because I am not under any vows of subscription as such-- but I do fully realize that if I do continue to be more persuaded by the 1689 view I cannot continue on my current ecclesiastical path.
 
I'm becoming convinced there is no "remnant" as such in the NC.
This seems like an odd conviction, to me. 2Ths.2:3 says, "that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first." The criticism some Presbyterians have of the Baptist view is that it has an overrealized eschatology. The idea that in the present (penultimate) age, the church of the New Covenant is so pure it has no "visible administration" at all; it only has a Spirit-administration, it is only perfectly administered unto the elect.

I see how that view may be found and held; but a text like 2Ths.2:3 (or Heb.6:4-9) says to me that the church of the NT, no less than the church of the OT, is an outward administration for the covenant, and one that does contain (at different degrees at different times) false sons in her pale. I look around the world today, and I see much of the church appears to be given over to idolatry. The faithful church is much smaller, though perhaps if the Lord tarries, it will in the future be more robust and larger. The Reformation was an effort by the remnant church to assert itself, in the end being driven out and new structures formed to carry on a faithful effort. Which has subsequently undergone similar growth and various corruptions, while the remnant perseveres and tries to purify itself.
 
This seems like an odd conviction, to me. 2Ths.2:3 says, "that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first." The criticism some Presbyterians have of the Baptist view is that it has an overrealized eschatology. The idea that in the present (penultimate) age, the church of the New Covenant is so pure it has no "visible administration" at all; it only has a Spirit-administration, it is only perfectly administered unto the elect.

I see how that view may be found and held; but a text like 2Ths.2:3 (or Heb.6:4-9) says to me that the church of the NT, no less than the church of the OT, is an outward administration for the covenant, and one that does contain (at different degrees at different times) false sons in her pale. I look around the world today, and I see much of the church appears to be given over to idolatry. The faithful church is much smaller, though perhaps if the Lord tarries, it will in the future be more robust and larger. The Reformation was an effort by the remnant church to assert itself, in the end being driven out and new structures formed to carry on a faithful effort. Which has subsequently undergone similar growth and various corruptions, while the remnant perseveres and tries to purify itself.
I see the connection you are drawing here. It is certainly undeniable that many professing believers are not true believers/recipients of grace. I see that as an aspect of the already/not yet tension. We live in a fallen world with fallible human judgment. Without opening a whole separate discussion, I'd say I don't think that necessarily means we have to consider those people as part of the covenant-- but of course again that goes straight back to the debate on what exactly the nature of the New Covenant is.
 
This seems like an odd conviction, to me. 2Ths.2:3 says, "that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first." The criticism some Presbyterians have of the Baptist view is that it has an overrealized eschatology. The idea that in the present (penultimate) age, the church of the New Covenant is so pure it has no "visible administration" at all; it only has a Spirit-administration, it is only perfectly administered unto the elect.

I see how that view may be found and held; but a text like 2Ths.2:3 (or Heb.6:4-9) says to me that the church of the NT, no less than the church of the OT, is an outward administration for the covenant, and one that does contain (at different degrees at different times) false sons in her pale. I look around the world today, and I see much of the church appears to be given over to idolatry. The faithful church is much smaller, though perhaps if the Lord tarries, it will in the future be more robust and larger. The Reformation was an effort by the remnant church to assert itself, in the end being driven out and new structures formed to carry on a faithful effort. Which has subsequently undergone similar growth and various corruptions, while the remnant perseveres and tries to purify itself.
@NM_Presby I hope you have read the Pratt article on Jer 31 i linked elsewhere
 
I fail to see how this establishes the principle that the physical descendants of those who are of faith, apart from any spiritual qualification, also receive the covenant sign.
I just read this point you made earlier, hence your lean to RB. I saw where your post was going and attempted to respond to that objection before you brought it up. I brought it up to explain what happens when children of believers are baptized despite any spiritual qualification such as a profession of faith.

I see that these children being in part of a 'covenant community' get to experience a greater measure of common grace. (based on the audience, it goes without saying this [paedobaptism] does not have salvific benefits, and nor does credobaptism ensure that that person is really saved.)

In going back to the reason for baptism, it's a command and a gift as a useful means of worship. A recent realization I had in growing to love God and the practice of baptizing both children and believers, even more, is it reflects the eternal construct of when/how God foreknew, predestined(s), called(s), justified(ies), and glorified(ies) believers.

To practice only credobaptism suggests an Arminian lean where a dead body (Eph 2.1) is able to reach out of the grave and pull itself out.
 
I see the connection you are drawing here. It is certainly undeniable that many professing believers are not true believers/recipients of grace. I see that as an aspect of the already/not yet tension. We live in a fallen world with fallible human judgment. Without opening a whole separate discussion, I'd say I don't think that necessarily means we have to consider those people as part of the covenant-- but of course again that goes straight back to the debate on what exactly the nature of the New Covenant is.
I'm inclined to agree with you, as to where the real debate is centered. I'm prepared to be corrected, but I do not think that the Baptist NC-conception of the church thinks of it as an administration of the covenant. Which may seem strange, since I'm sure most Baptist pastors would see themselves reflected in the first vv of 2Cor.3, which speaks of ministers and ministration; but perhaps this is only understood in mystical terms? Where I picture the church being the ongoing manifestation (still in the world) of the covenanted kingdom that was before the Incarnation; the alternative conception seems to remove the covenant out of this world, even while the participants still occupy their bodies in it.
 
To practice only credobaptism suggests an Arminian lean where a dead body (Eph 2.1) is able to reach out of the grave and pull itself out.
This is an interesting observation. Ironically, many Reformed Baptists would argue that paedobaptism suggests an Arminian lean because it allows for people to be under the covenant mediation of Christ yet to ultimately not be saved.
 
I'm inclined to agree with you, as to where the real debate is centered. I'm prepared to be corrected, but I do not think that the Baptist NC-conception of the church thinks of it as an administration of the covenant. Which may seem strange, since I'm sure most Baptist pastors would see themselves reflected in the first vv of 2Cor.3, which speaks of ministers and ministration; but perhaps this is only understood in mystical terms? Where I picture the church being the ongoing manifestation (still in the world) of the covenanted kingdom that was before the Incarnation; the alternative conception seems to remove the covenant out of this world, even while the participants still occupy their bodies in it.
This great question. In most of the baptist stuff I've read they do tend to avoid talking about any kind of outward administration. Though I'm generally finding myself in agreement with it, one of the lingering questions for me about the 1689 perspective is how they think of/talk about the visible church community. Perhaps if I haven't found answers in my reading that will be another question to ask on here down the line.
 
This is an interesting observation. Ironically, many Reformed Baptists would argue that paedobaptism suggests an Arminian lean because it allows for people to be under the covenant mediation of Christ yet to ultimately not be saved.
Interesting, I can see how that would happen.

Consider a lecture by Ligon Duncan from RTS. I like his style of giving a fair shake to opposing positions. Here, he simply teaches about the biblical basis for baptism in church. In the end, he gives an example of how his church had baptisms for babies and adults in separate services and eventually combined them as an improved display of God's rescue of sinners:

https://subsplash.com/reformtheosem_copy/learn-about-rts/mi/+bzrc3r6
 
Hebrews 10:29 is key here
Agreed, though I think this verse poses challenges for both perspectives. From a Reformed Baptist perspective, it must be answered how people who are not covenant members can be spoken of as sanctified by the blood of the covenant. That is definitely a challenge. However I think it is equally difficult for the paedobaptist perspective to explain how one can be under the covenant mediation of Christ, sanctified by his blood (in the sense of being in the covenant), and yet not be saved. Both are challenging things to answer, and both sides have their explanation-- I'm not sure which I find more convincing yet.
 
Agreed, though I think this verse poses challenges for both perspectives. From a Reformed Baptist perspective, it must be answered how people who are not covenant members can be spoken of as sanctified by the blood of the covenant. That is definitely a challenge. However I think it is equally difficult for the paedobaptist perspective to explain how one can be under the covenant mediation of Christ, sanctified by his blood (in the sense of being in the covenant), and yet not be saved. Both are challenging things to answer, and both sides have their explanation-- I'm not sure which I find more convincing yet.
I just leave Acts 20:28 to this without further discussion.

And the some most RB sees the he who was sanctified to refer to Jesus.
 
Ok, I remembered this and feel forced to share it. :)

AC96CCBB-CFC2-4F15-811F-DF5B6EB55104.jpeg

Here’s the inspiration for it.
tinysa.com/sermon/2223143874418
There is a video and the use of the whiteboard is helpful!
 
sanctified by his blood (in the sense of being in the covenant), and yet not be saved
Andrew, as a former Reformed Baptist myself, it was the paedobaptist position that eventually convinced me. Baptists argue that paedobaptists baptise unbelievers. But I came to see that Baptists also baptise unbelievers. Only God infallibly knows who is a believer. Thus the paedobaptist yet- not yet aspect of the covenant, to my mind, best accounts for this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top