Is it deceptive to teach someone they are in the New Covenant?

[Herald]

As I argued just today on the HB, there's no need either to follow the FV confusion of the administration with the decree or the Baptist confusion of decree and administration.

With all due respect, no one is suggesting that paedo's follow Baptists. The difference between Baptist and WCF-Reformed (a term I like to use) views of baptism and the New Covenant is well established. I don't believe this thread is attempting to address that. Rich has a direction he is trying to go with this thread and it seems to be to uncover what Baptists believe in regards to how we appeal to the church with the gospel and/or what it means to be in the New Covenant.

 

[Calvibaptist]

It was a simple question.

Who is appropriate, then, to say to them that they are in the New Covenant without a danger of being deceptive? Would you say that of somebody in your Church?

So, back to the original question...

Rich, this is a tough issue for us, I admit. We like to think that we have a regenerate church membership as Baptists, but, then again, we really can't see someone's heart. And modern Baptists, who have been so lenient as to church membership are having huge problems in this area. Just ask the SBC. So, in specific answer to your specific question:

1) I think it would be deceptive to tell children they are in Covenant with God (i.e. the New Covenant) when they have not given credible evidence of regeneration by both profession and life. This would mean that I am in most cases opposed to baptizing "precocious 5-year olds" as I believe another thread put it. Most Baptists in history waited until about 12-16 years old to baptize a child. I wouldn't want to put a specific age on it, but I would be cautious in baptizing young children who only know how to parrot answers told them by their parents.

2) I think it would be deceptive to tell someone who is living in unrepentant sin that they are in the New Covenant no matter when they were baptized. Honestly, you know that we believe New Covenant=salvation. We don't use the term New Covenant in this context. We would say they have no assurance based on their lifestyle that they are truly saved. I think this would be the consistent view based on our belief.

I think those two cases are specifically "deceptive" rather than just misguided because we have ample evidence that those two types of people are not true believers. Notice carefully what I did not say about either one. I did not say that those who are young or those who are living in unrepentant sin are definitely unbelievers. I just have no reason, other than their original profession and/or baptism to think they are. If a person puts their confidence in walking down the aisle or being dunked/sprinkled, then they really don't have much to be confident about.

I understand that paedos don't have this problem. You tell these same people (2nd case) that because they were baptized, though they are still in covenant, they are covenant breakers. But, then again, I don't understand how paedos view the final step of church discipline - that of treating a "so-called" brother as an unbeliever. Maybe I will start another thread to ask (not argue) that question.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

These threads take on lives of their own and it has gotten really far down stream. I need to try to capture a few thoughts here. I think Dr. Clark brought up some things that I want to try to integrated.

1. Baptists keep talking about an overarching presumption that, in telling children they are in the New Covenant, they can "rest on their laurels". It's like we're saying: "Son, presume you are Elect and you have nothing to go to God for and say: 'Save Me!'"

In so doing, Baptists are actually projecting the problem with their own presumption. Dr. Clark called it confusing decree and administration. As I noted before, what are you telling someone if you say:
a. The New Covenant is with the elect alone.
b. We only baptize those we have "maximal confidence" are elect
c. We are baptizing YOU, the man who just confessed Christ.

In essence, you are giving him an unwarranted presumption. In fact, I was just listening to Gene Cook and John Goundry say the other day that Preachers only have to tell those outside the NC to "...know the Lord" (i.e. repent and be baptized) because we don't tell those in the NC that because that's been fulfilled. Notice the presumption - they are baptized = they are in the New Covenant = they are elect.

This gets very confusing because I know if I press Gene on this he's going to admit that he doesn't know who's in the NC so the exercise of who you can and can't say "know the Lord" to becomes quite impossible. Do you see how Baptists can tie themselves into knots on this point if they actually thought about it? Yet, if you go back and read even portions of this thread we have people arguing that we should have people telling the Church: "Oh, I'm elect, the Holy Spirit told me so".

Thus, I think the presumptive problem lies with the nature of Baptistic baptism and trying to find a nexus in the perfection of the New Covenant. It is not really fair for you to ascribe the presumption you have for the people you baptize with the hope and promise that we have for those we baptize.

2. Sadly, I feel a sense in which you are missing the very power and weight of the Gospel to convert. Romans 6 is part of the Gospel by the way. Notice what you guys keep saying about "presuming" on the part of sinners. Why do you think a reprobate man is going to presume any less for a Law passage (do this and live) than He is about a Gospel passage. If a man is dead in His sins and trespasses then he presumes upon everything. The Pharisees had presumption of the Law down pat as well as the threat of hell. They just deceived themselves that it didn't apply to them.

Bill, please check out my teaching on Romans 6 at our website if you get a chance - http://www.baptistchurch.jp/teaching.html

It is my conviction that passages like Romans 6 can actually convert the soul. They feed hungry Christian souls. I think you guys worry too much about the reprobate presuming upon Grace and not enough about feeding Grace to the elect you have in your midst. Even as we sneer at Roman Catholics who say: "Don't teach that kind of stuff because it's a license for liberty", we don't preach it openly because we're afraid (like them) that the wrong people are going to get the wrong idea. Worry about the right people getting the right idea more! Feed them this stuff. Stuff them with it! One-third of Romans is this stuff. It's not merely doctrinally interesting but it is the basis for the ethics.

3. I love this point that Dr. Clark cited:

74. Are infants also to be baptized?

Yes, for since they belong to the covenant and people of God as well as their parents, and since redemption from sin through the blood of Christ, and the Holy Spirit who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as the sign of the Covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by Circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is instituted.

See, again, the problem I see is that it is the Baptists who presume too much. You guys presume, by your profession, that you're elect and so you turn a wary eye toward the young'uns who haven't. First, you shouldn't be presuming upon your profession. Second, you should be seeing that everyone visible in your midst needs the kind of Grace I was just talking about.

You worry too much about the bad apples and you punish the whole crowd. You can't figure out who to punish so you punish every child calling him unregenerate while claiming regeneracy for the adults. Where does such presumption come from? I'm not saying not to tell kids to repent but tell adults to repent too. Tell everyone to repent where Paul does. The Gospel is bouncing off the walls of your Church as you proclaim it to man, woman, and child. Stop worrying about who is elect among you and deal with the visible assembly in your midst. Let the Holy Spirit do its work but don't preach with one arm tied behind your back. Preach the whole counsel of God and where it says "repent" tell everyone and where it says "rejoice" then proclaim it as the Word does. And let God sort out the rest.

Don't even destroy the simplicity of the Gospel by demanding that solid, intellectual assurance that you want all adults to express. If a brother is struggling with assurance don't impoverish him with "try harder" to determine if you're elect. Focus him upon the Cross. Tell him that it's as simple as believing. Do you believe Christ died for sin? Do you believe Christ raised Him from the dead? Believe! Proclaim Romans 8 to him. If he's reprobate then that's his problem but if he's elect then let it feed him and establish him!

But stop impoverishing the flock by playing to the fear of the lowest common denominator.

 

[Herald]

1. Baptists keep talking about an overarching presumption that, in telling children they are in the New Covenant, they can "rest on their laurels". It's like we're saying: "Son, presume you are Elect and you have nothing to go to God for and say: 'Save Me!'"

Rich - which Baptists? Doug and I have made the majority Baptist posts in this thread. Illumine me where Doug or I have given this impression.

Yet, if you go back and read even portions of this thread we have people arguing that we should have people telling the Church: "Oh, I'm elect, the Holy Spirit told me so".

See my previous comment.

Sadly, I feel a sense in which you are missing the very power and weight of the Gospel to convert. Romans 6 is part of the Gospel by the way.

I don't mean to seem snide, but yes Rich, I know that Romans 6 is part of the gospel. I don't how you can make this comment. In your last post you haven't quoted from one Baptist in this thread, yet your drawing conclusions that impugn all Baptists. Now you're telling me that we are missing the power and weight of the Gospel to convert.

It is my conviction that passages like Romans 6 can actually convert the soul.

I agree. If you listen to my upcoming two messages on Romans 6 you will see just that.

How often do I come at you Rich? You only see this side of me when I feel it is warranted. I'm getting the impression that you are reminding Baptists of the gospel content of Romans 6 because you think we either don't know that or proclaim it without power.

Even as we sneer at Roman Catholics who say: "Don't teach that kind of stuff because it's a license for liberty", we don't preach it openly because we're afraid (like them) that the wrong people are going to get the wrong idea. Worry about the right people getting the right idea more! Feed them this stuff. Stuff them with it! One-third of Romans is this stuff. It's not merely doctrinally interesting but it is the basis for the ethics.

If you were to sit in our sanctuary and listen to the gospel being proclaimed you would hear them being stuffed! You would hear the sheep being fed with the words that lead to life. What is it that you think we're feeding them?

you should be seeing that everyone visible in your midst needs the kind of Grace I was just talking about.

I'll skip the few sentences before this quote because they are in keeping with your disputation about Baptist practice to begin with. But your above quote is, once again, based on a false assumption. We preach the gospel that converts souls and equips saints for the purpose of godliness. We see salvation as an ongoing process that is begun by God, maintained by God and eternally sustained by God; and it is all by grace. That is what we preach at our church.

You worry too much about the bad apples and you punish the whole crowd. You can't figure out who to punish so you punish every child calling him unregenerate while claiming regeneracy for the adults. Where does such presumption come from? I'm not saying not to tell kids to repent but tell adults to repent too. Tell everyone to repent where Paul does. The Gospel is bouncing off the walls of your Church as you proclaim it to man, woman, and child. Stop worrying about who is elect among you and deal with the visible assembly in your midst. Let the Holy Spirit do its work but don't preach with one arm tied behind your back. Preach the whole counsel of God and where it says "repent" tell everyone and where it says "rejoice" then proclaim it as the Word does. And let God sort out the rest.

Don't even destroy the simplicity of the Gospel by demanding that solid, intellectual assurance that you want all adults to express. If a brother is struggling with assurance don't impoverish him with "try harder" to determine if you're elect. Focus him upon the Cross. Tell him that it's as simple as believing. Do you believe Christ died for sin? Do you believe Christ raised Him from the dead? Believe! Proclaim Romans 8 to him. If he's reprobate then that's his problem but if he's elect then let it feed him and establish him!

But stop impoverishing the flock by playing to the fear of the lowest common denominator.

Rich - who are you talking to? Doug? Me? Baptists in general? I suppose I am a bit defensive in my reply, but I have reason to be. You're lumping my church into your caricature and I believe you are off by a wide margin.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Bill,

I think you need to take the position as a whole and not parse the issue and take it personally. I had to sum up a lot of people's thoughts. I was unspecific because I wasn't aiming it at a Baptist but a line of thinking that begins with the assumption that NC=elect -> Profession which necessarily excludes those who are too young to profess in a mature fashion.

There is then an underlying assumption that if you treat the immature as if they are spiritually minded that it will lead to presumption and that it is deceptive to teach them anything other than the condemnation of the Law. I repeatedly hear from Baptists (in general) that the only status that children have is that they are in Adam and unregenerate. They claim this on the basis of the child's profession. Conversely, those that are professors are presumed (too much I think) to be regenerate on the basis of profession. There is an unhealthy mix of presumption about regeneration for professors and unregeneration for non-professing (young) members.

I wasn't denying you believed all about Romans 6 and the Gospel in general. Please forgive me as I can understand how some of it came off as patronizing. I'm sorry to you and other Baptists if I sounded pejorative or condescending. I was trying to connect to the underlying concern in the OP, pull together some disparate posts, and draw it all out. I wanted to move from our common base of understanding regarding the Gospel and move to how the manner of Baptism and the way you talk about visible members actually undermines the program of the Gospel. In some aspects it is meant to sting (in a loving way) to get some to understand why the Reformed paedo baptizes into discipleship and not to declare of a person - this one is elect and this one is not.

The shoe fits for some or all aspects better than others, but credo-Baptism as an overarching system, in the way it treats the young - presuming them to be unregenerate - witholds an aspect of the Gospel from them. That witholding of the Gospel to the young is of the nature of Romans 6. It assumes that the only thing a child needs to hear is that they need to repent of their sins. On the other hand, it might see that adult professors don't need to hear as much about repentance of sins (because after all they've professed). My view is that ALL in the visible Church need the full orbed presentation - professors or too immature to profess. The full presentation will mature and convert babes and the full presentation will mature and convert adults.

In the end, where the shoe fits, wear it. Your frustration is mine. As I stated in another thread, the Baptist view is very eclectic (even though you guys are all supposed to be 1689 LBCF) and some argue in different ways. I'm sorry that you feel slighted when I have to refer to a strain of Baptist thinking that is, in the main, representative of the issue. Conversely, Reformed paedobaptists are pretty monlithic in the understanding of the issue. Regardless of the aspects that you believe fit tightly or not, you have to answer for the reasons why you don't baptize the young and why you believe profession alone is the arbiter of when discipleship begins. The difficulty in nailing down where Baptists fall on these issues communicates to confusion in the pews and why, when a Baptist calls up Pastor Gene Cook on the Narrow Mind he has no idea how he can possibly train his child in the fear and admonition of the Lord without training the child to obey the Law as a Pharisee might vice a motivation that focuses on love for God (Romans 6).

 

[Calvibaptist]

I repeatedly hear from Baptists (in general) that the only status that children have is that they are in Adam and unregenerate. They claim this on the basis of the child's profession.

Rich, when you and other paedos make this kind of statement it really concerns me. It is as if you think that your children pop out already regenerate. The are unregenerate and in Adam. If you tell them that they are already God's children, what need is there for them to repent.

I know that I am presenting a false dichotomy here because all of life is repentance and faith. So that would probably be your response. But understand that we teach them the same thing. We do not say that they are already in covenant, but we teach them repentance and faith. We teach them the Gospel. We teach them the benefits of the gospel like Romans 6, which my family happens to be starting in our before-dinner reading. We teach them what it means to be united to Christ. We teach them that, by the grace of Almighty God, they have been put in a believing family so that they can hear and believe these things.

I simply don't see how making them wait to be baptized until after they grasp and have responded to the Gospel with repentance and faith would change that. We don't walk around telling our kids that they since they are unregenerate they have no interest in God. We treat them as if they are in need of the gospel, which they are.

Conversely, those that are professors are presumed (too much I think) to be regenerate on the basis of profession.

But, we follow the biblical pattern. Believe and be baptized is what you see throughout the NT. So, we do it that way. If an adult makes a profession, we baptize them. Do we "presume" that they are regenerate? I would say the early church did, but also had a healthy church discipline that would eventually separate the wheat from the chaff. Baptists churches have failed to uphold that discipline. So, most modern Baptists (those that don't hold to 1689) probably do presume too much. I don't know that the case can be made against healthy churches practicing church discipline.

There is an unhealthy mix of presumption about regeneration for professors and unregeneration for non-professing (young) members.

I don't see how paedos get around this, though. You guys keep young non-professing members from Communion because you don't think they are regenerate yet while at the same time allowing adult professors to the table. You assume the same thing about children that we do. They haven't yet been brought to repentance and faith, so they can't partake of communion.

In some aspects it is meant to sting (in a loving way) to get some to understand why the Reformed paedo baptizes into discipleship and not to declare of a person - this one is elect and this one is not.

It is highly possible that we need (as Baptists) to review the way we speak of Baptism. If we spoke of it as an entry point to the life of discipleship more than a validation of their regeneration, it might not be that bad.

My view is that ALL in the visible Church need the full orbed presentation - professors or too immature to profess. The full presentation will mature and convert babes and the full presentation will mature and convert adults.

I agree and fail to see how withholding baptism from those who haven't in any way responded to the full presentation is against the pattern of the Bible.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'm sorry, this post does not follow the train of this thread, but goes back to the beginning.

This text needs attention:

1 Thessalonians 1:2-4
We give thanks to God always for all of you, constantly mentioning you in our prayers, remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. in the sight of God and our Father; For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has elected you,

Does Paul mean he can see the believer's individual, invisible nature? Of course not. This is a charitable judgment. But it is also an evidential assessment, based on their reception of the gospel, and a doctrinal conclusion.

1 Thessalonians 1:5-10
because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything. For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

So I say, yes, you can speak of or to the assembled church as "elect", while knowing that it is likely there are a few present who are not. I also think you can say to a person who asks, "Am I elect?" "Sure, you are elect, IF you believed the gospel. Election preceded your conversion, and was not based upon it. Therefore, if the latter be true, so is the former."

 

[Herald]

Bruce - if that was a polemic of the sureness of election, I concur.

 

[Herald]

Rich - I admit that I did take your last post personal and reacted defensively. I apologize for allowing my blood to boil and not counting to 10 before responding. I understand that you view baptism as a means of comfort for a believer. They can point back to their baptism and have confidence. From that flows your passion for the paedo position. I appreciate that. I honestly do. I also understand that Baptists, even confessional Baptists, have been all over the map in regards to baptism and the New Covenant. Part of this is the independent nature of being a Baptist. There are some Baptist churches that are more confessional than others and would not be worthy recipients, in toto, of the accusations in your last post.

As usual the systemic differences between credos and paedos remain. That's the interesting conclusion to all of these baptism and NC posts. They almost always wind up with the same end. Not that it is enough to stop us from bringing it up again...and again...and again. Nature of the beast I guess.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm sorry, this post does not follow the train of this thread, but goes back to the beginning.

This text needs attention:

1 Thessalonians 1:2-4
We give thanks to God always for all of you, constantly mentioning you in our prayers, remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. in the sight of God and our Father; For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has elected you,

Does Paul mean he can see the believer's individual, invisible nature? Of course not. This is a charitable judgment. But it is also an evidential assessment, based on their reception of the gospel, and a doctrinal conclusion.

1 Thessalonians 1:5-10
because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake. And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with the joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we need not say anything. For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

So I say, yes, you can speak of or to the assembled church as "elect", while knowing that it is likely there are a few present who are not. I also think you can say to a person who asks, "Am I elect?" "Sure, you are elect, IF you believed the gospel. Election preceded your conversion, and was not based upon it. Therefore, if the latter be true, so is the former."

To this I agree. It's like preaching Romans 6 to them. My only point was that it's not because we have more confidence that one baptized member is regenerate and another is unregenerate that we preach in one way to some and don't to others in the visible Church.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I repeatedly hear from Baptists (in general) that the only status that children have is that they are in Adam and unregenerate. They claim this on the basis of the child's profession.

Rich, when you and other paedos make this kind of statement it really concerns me. It is as if you think that your children pop out already regenerate. The are unregenerate and in Adam. If you tell them that they are already God's children, what need is there for them to repent.

I know that I am presenting a false dichotomy here because all of life is repentance and faith. So that would probably be your response. But understand that we teach them the same thing. We do not say that they are already in covenant, but we teach them repentance and faith. We teach them the Gospel. We teach them the benefits of the gospel like Romans 6, which my family happens to be starting in our before-dinner reading. We teach them what it means to be united to Christ. We teach them that, by the grace of Almighty God, they have been put in a believing family so that they can hear and believe these things.

I simply don't see how making them wait to be baptized until after they grasp and have responded to the Gospel with repentance and faith would change that. We don't walk around telling our kids that they since they are unregenerate they have no interest in God. We treat them as if they are in need of the gospel, which they are.

Fascinating again how you say they are unregenerate when born. They might be but you do not know this. God does not reveal this of our children. He reveals only that a man must be born again to embrace the Gospel but, like the wind blows, doesn't tell us when. For you to pronounce: These are surely unregenerate is highly presumptuous given that we have Biblical data of believers regenerate in the womb.

I'm not even saying that you cannot say, broadly and with some confidence as Bruce noted, that professors in your Church are regenerated but you are making that claim too confidently in the contrast to how you are declaring surely that the intellectually immature are not regenerate. It almost seems as if you equate God's ability to regenerate with a child's ability to form thoughts and express them.

Do your small children love you? How do you know, when they are adults, they will not rebel against you when they have to decide to love you with an intellectual capacity informed by the costs of love? Perhaps you ought to withold present confidence about the love of your children for you until they are old enough to express it in a way that is intellectually suitable. Thus, at the moment, I would hold off on answering that question until you are certain of the answer.

Conversely, those that are professors are presumed (too much I think) to be regenerate on the basis of profession.

But, we follow the biblical pattern. Believe and be baptized is what you see throughout the NT. So, we do it that way. If an adult makes a profession, we baptize them. Do we "presume" that they are regenerate? I would say the early church did, but also had a healthy church discipline that would eventually separate the wheat from the chaff. Baptists churches have failed to uphold that discipline. So, most modern Baptists (those that don't hold to 1689) probably do presume too much. I don't know that the case can be made against healthy churches practicing church discipline.

Again, though, I don't disagree with discipline but I do disagree with pre-discipline - that is saying a person is out before they've rebelled. The fact is that your children are disciples. I even found it fascinating that Randy acknowledged that everyone has a responsiblity to disciple their children. Baptist Churches seem to even take on a sense of responsibility for that. Yet they don't really do it formally, just informally. They treat them in every way like they are disciples but simply won't call them that until they've gotten to a certain grade. As I said before, it's like saying my child isn't a student until he can read on his own. My Pastor won't admit it but the fact that he has a little "Children's Church" moment with the kids, gives them a little sermon, and then prays with them is a perfect demonstration how Baptists will treat their kids in every way like disciples but prepare to be caned if you actually call them that before they profess!

I don't see how paedos get around this, though. You guys keep young non-professing members from Communion because you don't think they are regenerate yet while at the same time allowing adult professors to the table. You assume the same thing about children that we do. They haven't yet been brought to repentance and faith, so they can't partake of communion.

Communion, like the Passover, is for the mature disciple - the one who can grasp the nature of the Table. Simply because I do not teach my five year old Algebra does not follow that I do not consider him a student. The Table is for worthy recipients. Even adult disciples are sometimes barred (for differing reasons) but they do not cease being disciples in every case.

My view is that ALL in the visible Church need the full orbed presentation - professors or too immature to profess. The full presentation will mature and convert babes and the full presentation will mature and convert adults.

I agree and fail to see how withholding baptism from those who haven't in any way responded to the full presentation is against the pattern of the Bible.

It's a matter of recognition and expectation. If children are strap hangers in terms of Covenant obligation to God then there's not really a sense in which you can enjoin a child to do something on the basis of love for Christ. That would be presumptuous in your estimation. Conversely, when I discipline my child, I discipline him as a Christian, pray with him, and have him understand that sin grieves His heavenly Father. I could not train him to think as a Christian now if I did not do so and, were I to wait, I would miss formative years of development getting the ideas of sin, repentance, and pleasing God in light of Christ into his bloodstream.