Is there salvation outside of God's covenant?

Discussion in 'Credo-Baptism Answers' started by Michael, Dec 25, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Herald

    Herald Administrator Staff Member


    I need to make a correction. In my haste to answer I misstated Spurgeon's position on the disposition of infants dying in infancy. Spurgeon believed that all infants dying in infancy are saved. The 1689 LBC, except for Spurgeon's version, reads that only elect infants dying in infancy are saved. I want to make sure Spurgeon's position is properly represented.
  2. JonathanHunt

    JonathanHunt Puritan Board Senior

  3. Damon Rambo

    Damon Rambo Puritan Board Sophomore

    I believe it is. Look here:

    Luk 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

    The blood of Christ IS the "New Covenant": only those who are partakers of the blood of Christ, are truly members of the New Covenant.

    Rom 11:27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

    God's covenant IS that he "takes away their (our) sins." Anyone who has had their sins taken away, are saved. Since this IS God's New Covenant....well you see where this is going.

    Baptism is symbolic of the New Birth, and entrance into God's covenant. It is not effectual in entering the covenant, any more than drinking a glass of wine is effectual in partaking of Christ's blood.

    -----Added 12/26/2009 at 12:53:28 EST-----

    Just a note: the LBCF does not exclude Spurgeons view that all infants are saved: they are not necessarily distinct. It may well be, that all who die as infants are in fact elect, in which case the LBCF and Spurgeons views would be the same thing.
  4. Herald

    Herald Administrator Staff Member

  5. Damon Rambo

    Damon Rambo Puritan Board Sophomore

    Not really. If you consider that only about 1 out of 10 people in the U.S. are under the age of 7, and apply that statistic to the time of the flood, that means that 9 out of 10 people were wiped out and sent to hell. Not exactly a cause for rejoicing.

    Also, when you consider the fact that people at the time before the flood were apparently living much, much longer than they are now, this number would drop somewhere around 1 out of 30 or 40 were saved infants/young children. Not exactly a resounding blessing.
  6. Herald

    Herald Administrator Staff Member


    You're right. I was simply pointing out that Spurgeon may not have been in agreement with the 1689 LBC on that point. I wasn't calling into question that LBC itself.
  7. LawrenceU

    LawrenceU Puritan Board Doctor

    I don't have much to add at this time. I just now got a chance to sit and read through the thread. But, I will say that Bill is doing a fine job of delineating the newness of the New Covenant.
  8. Michael

    Michael Puritan Board Senior

    I've left this thread alone for a bit as I've been continuing the discussion outside of the internet (gasp!).

    Anyhow, back on topic. As Bill alluded earlier, we tend to understand that elect families normally bring forth the elect children. Do you feel comfortable saying the same about those who profess faith in Christ? Do they normally prove themselves (i.e. live their lives thereafter in such a way consistent with the) elect?

    Surely, not every child of a believer turns out to be one themselves. Likewise, not everyone who professes faith is elect. Therefore, for the Baptist, is baptism more about a profession of faith than it is about true entry into the covenant? I mean, if there are elect babies of Baptists who die, they die in the covenant but without the outward sign of it. Por que?
  9. Herald

    Herald Administrator Staff Member


    Do professed believers normally prove themselves?

    Yes, professed believers normally prove themselves. They do so by the evidence of changed affections and good works. Perfectly? No. Sin is still an ever too present reality, even in the life of believers.

    Both. Baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, and of the person being identified with Christ. The New Covenant was ratified by the blood of Christ (Luke 22:20). The presence of blood is not present in the sign of the New Covenant since it is signified in the Lord's Supper. Instead, we have the identification of Christ's death, burial and resurrection in water baptism. It is applied to those who profess faith, and it is the sign of the New Covenant. That is where the "both"comes in.

    That is my understanding and the understanding of the framers of the 1689 LBC.

    * This is John's baptism, but the emphasis on a changed life is the same.
  10. Michael

    Michael Puritan Board Senior

    So the answer is "both", but from the Baptist perspective one does not ever really know if another is actually in the New Covenant--only that it would normally follow for them to bear fruit and be established amongst the elect.
  11. Herald

    Herald Administrator Staff Member


    The Baptist would argue that the Presbyterian never really knows whether another person is actually in the New Covenant, since we view the New Covenant as only applying to believers. The fact is that we do not have to possess perfect knowledge in order to ascertain whether a person is in the New Covenant. If they profess faith, we administer baptism. The "bearing fruit" is what all of us, paedos and credos alike, should expect from a professed believer. Wouldn't you expect a person who professes Christ to walk in a manner worthy of their calling (Eph. 4:1)?
  12. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast Puritan Board Junior

    No one actually knows here on earth.They are known in the spiritual realm however.
    Michael, You are working through this issue in a step by step fashion,and I think Bill has answered with a consistent RB position that most of us would hold to.

    We baptize what you or other padeo's would refer to as a "communicant member", or a full communicant member, if I have my terminology correct?

    They confess/profess that the Spirit has savingly drawn them and placed them in Union with Christ,so that they will never perish. We believe them but as one pastor put it,time and the devil will tell.
    is evidence of the faith that saves. Phil1:6

    We are not dispensational for the most part at all. There is no salvation outside the covenant. It is just that as Bill has already posted you might be viewing the covenant of grace following the OC paradigm, ie, physical birth,physical sign,all that was required to be said to be in the covenant. This covenant was breakable in that those without saving faith, or those who left the promise were the apostate thorns and brier's that the book of Hebrerws refers too.

    We believe that part of what makes the New Covenant NEW is that it is not only a saved remnantIsa 1:9 who is included as the True Israel, but the ALL of Jn 6:37-44. That is to say in the is not about the physical,outward, and national sign of covenant inclusion. [with some not savingly in the covenant] It is all about being born again. Spiritual quickening, Spirit baptism. It is not that they are in,until they jump out. We now use what happened to national and physical Israel as a final type and as an example unto us, as the necessity of saving faith,Mt 21:43, 1cor 10, Hebrews 3-4, 6,8-12.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page