Differences on Covenant Membership between Abrahamic and New Covenant.

Not open for further replies.

Romans 9:16

Puritan Board Freshman

Thanks for the feedback.

The argument as it is stated is incomplete and could be worded a bit more clearly. I do hope your interpretation of the intent is correct. If so, then I have no problem with the point.

Many people (including Reformed people) affirm the salvation of all children of believers who die in infancy (some even go so far as to affirm that of all children irrespective of covenant). Also, the FV would affirm all children of believers are in union with Christ (objective covenantal salvation). This is why omissions are bothersome to me. I hope you are right as to the gentleman’s intent. In fact, based on other excellent posts made by Armourbearer, I am sure you are correct. Nevertheless, I would prefer that what is omitted was expressed. Something like the following would be preferred:

All elect are saved in the CoG
[None of the non elect are saved]
God’s election includes infants and adults
Therefore, elect infants are saved in the covenant of grace as well as elect adults.


Puritanboard Amanuensis
Your argument is not sound. Here is your syllogism:

1)We believe that sinners are saved in the covenant of grace.
2)We believe infants are sinners.
3)Therefore, we believe infants are saved in the covenant of grace.

I wasn't making a formal argument. If you would like to add the qualifier "all" to the major premise then you would be formalising what was implicit in the statement.

As a Calvinist, I do deny infant salvation. I believe in 'elect infant salvation.'

You were quick to find fault with my statement even though it was not technically at fault. But this statement of yours is contradictory and needs to be corrected. To say you believe in elect infant salvation is to believe in infant salvation. Infant salvation does not equate to all infants being saved any more than sinner salvation equates to all sinners being saved.

Romans 9:16

Puritan Board Freshman
I will answer you with your answer: I wasn't making a formal argument. If you would like to add the qualifier "all" ....you would be formalizing what was implicit in the statement. I deny all infants are saved (BTW - for a "Reformed defense" of all infant salvation check out Spurgeon's sermon on 2Kings 4:26).

Apologies for the jumping on your wording and thanks for clarifying.



Puritan Board Doctor
There are two aspects to the Covenant of Grace, inner/outer, living/legal, invisible/visible.

Marriage is a good analogy to understand this, being also a covenant.

Two person's hearts can be united in a covenant of love, and yet they may not have gone through the outward covenant bonding process of engagement and marriage. On the other hand two people can go through a sham marriage and have the outwrd trappings of the covenant without the inner reality.

Abraham had the living, inner, reality of being in covenant with God by faith before the outward legal bond.

The Covenant of Grace is the bond of God's love.

Children of believers are born with Covenant privileges, promises and responsibilities adhering to them and should therefore receive the sign and seal of baptism.

The New Covenant is the second great phase of the Abrahamic Covenant after the Old Covenant, the first great phase. The New Covenant is an era of the Abrahamic Covenant and will be to the end of the World and beyond.

The paedobaptist position ties in better with the broad sweep of covenantal and redemptive history from Abraham (circa 2000 B.C.) to 2010, while the baptist position introduces something strange, novel and truncated that breaks the sense of historic continuity and of Abraham (and Isaac and Jacob) being the Covenant Father and our Father in the Faith. :oops:

Another thread could be started on which view of baptism is "Hebraic" and which is "Greek". :rolleyes:
Last edited:
Not open for further replies.