Jeremiah 31:31-34 & Infant Baptism

[Jack K]

although infants may indeed be regenerate, they have not made a credible profession of faith. Therefore, it would seem to be rash to include them within the New Covenant before being reasonably convinced that they actually do possess faith in God.

If this is the heart of your concern, my way of thinking responds with the following points:

1. When I see a church kid, I do NOT begin with the assumption that he is unproven or more likely than any of the rest of us to deny Christ some day. Rather, I begin with the assumption that God has put this child into his church and is at work in him. I'm expectant about seeing faith in that child, because I know God is good. I don't make assumptions about God's timing (the child may have no faith yet), but neither do I assume that my faith is necessarily stronger than his. Childlike faith is affirmed many times in Scripture, and it would be wrong of me to assume that just because a child is still a child he is to be suspected as a future apostate in a way that I am not.

2. Baptism is not an earned badge of honor, either for kids or adults, as if we wait to see signs of growth in a believer and then baptize him because he's proven himself fit. Rather, every instance of baptism in Scripture comes at the very beginning of the Christian life, before growth and discipleship. If a child is in the church and is being discipled, he should be baptized.

3. Baptism not only begins the life of discipleship; it is an important sign from God that ordinarily aids in the discipleship process. I can't teach a kid to love God while at the same time treating him as if he's a unproven heathen whom, unless the kid proves otherwise, God is likely to hate for all eternity. To teach a kid to love God and to disciple that kid in faith, I need to have some expectation that God loves that kid and is at work in the kid's life. To do otherwise is to attempt discipleship without grace, a fatal error.

4. Be careful not to make too much of the New Covenant, as if what God instructed before the cross doesn't really count today. I don't see any scriptural evidence that in this era we are instructed to more rigorously "vet" those who would enter the covenant community than God's people did in Old Testament times. If anything, the main thrust of Scripture is that now the gates are flung open and all may come to Jesus. It would seem strange if under the New Covenant God's community is more open than it used to be for adults, but now has new restrictions that didn't exist before for the children of God's people.

Anyway, that's how this paedobaptist thinks. I hope it helps you. I do much work with kids at my Baptist church, so obviously I don't think these points are absolute essentials for cooperation with others. And I find with most Baptists that as they understand where I'm coming from, they find the position is not as unthinkable as they once thought.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

if the New Covenant is the legal constitution of the Church in this age and the New Covenant consists of those who know the Lord, then there would seem to be a need to show intense effort to only include within the New Covenant those who have a credible profession of faith. Why? Because we want to ensure that the actual condition of the Church resembles the legal constitution of the Church as closely as possible. Of course, there must be the recognition that the actual condition of the Church still resembles the condition of the people of God under previous covenants, which means that there will be both believers and unbelievers. But we are trying, as much as it is possible in this fallen world, to only include those in the New Covenant who have credible professions. Am I making sense? And that is the difference between infants and adults. Because although infants may indeed be regenerate, they have not made a credible profession of faith. Therefore, it would seem to be rash to include them within the New Covenant before being reasonably convinced that they actually do possess faith in God. (Are you saying that Presbyterians are reasonably convinced that infants do possess faith in God?) The goal is to limit the amount of apostates as much as possible, because in so doing, the actual state of the church most closely resembles the legal constitution of the Church. If that is the case, it would seem to preclude baptizing infants.

Brennan,
Please allow me to challenge certain premises.

In the first place, its clear (in the above post) that you aren't distinguishing between the substance (spiritual) and administration (visible) of divine covenant, at least with respect to the New Covenant. If you acknowledge this, then you stand firmly in the Baptist tradition, which does not confess an earthly, temporal administration of the New Covenant; but only a spiritual and immediate administration.

Most Baptists I know do believe in something akin to a dual (internal/external) administration of previous covenants (e.g. Abraham, Moses); but according to Baptist theology, any external administration demanded was due to the absence of covenant fulfillment in Christ. And in their view, this defect was remedied in the New Covenant enactment. Classic covenant theology (CT) views this perspective as "overrealized eschatology," i.e., we aren't in heaven yet.

CT interprets all the covenants as being made exclusively between God and believers, insofar as the realization of the blessings thereof. What we mean is that those who are "blessed with faithful Abraham" are always and only those who shared in the faith of Abraham. There weren't and aren't any real, eternal blessings for anyone, no matter how closely associated administratively with a particular covenant they are, who do not have the spiritual substance.

The corresponding interpretation regarding covenant-curses fits the CT scheme as follows: those who do not inherit the blessing with Abraham are those who are unbelievers. That is to say, those who instead receive the judgments of the covenant are those whose participation was limited to the external administration. Ishmael, Esau, many Israelites who died in the wilderness, Saul, Absalom, Jeroboam, Ahab, many Israelites whose wickedness brought on the exile--the list of the faithless is long.


You claim that our New Covenant duty is to "make intense effort" at including in our visible presentation of New Covenant realities only verbal confessors--those who witness their voluntary opt-in attachment to this covenant. Simply depending on a personal statement doesn't seem to fit the definition of "intense effort" (not that I think Scripture calls for it); but I am aware that some Baptist churches do not baptize immediately upon profession of faith, but after a waiting period of some time--months or years--in an effort to see fruit of the initial profession.

Personally, I question the validity of any attempt to read the heart, whether short or long term. Presbyterians baptize mature converts upon their initial profession, usually with a brief period of catechesis (basic Christian instruction) beforehand; but generally grant the judgment of charity to the convert, that they have repented/abandoned known sin, or will do so upon further instruction (submission to discipline). If in your practical history the habit I've just described is essentially the method you know from your Baptist past, then I think that "intense effort" may be too strong a description.

Perhaps you mean that it seems as if the Baptist credo-only practice is (somewhat) more rigorous than a Presbyterian's, given that an infant cannot volunteer to join this covenant, or protest his inclusion. But this observation is only meaningful after one has determined that the credo-only practice exclusively warranted by Scripture. As far as practical evidence goes, I can only declare that upon considering typical baptismal-rites alone, if the USA is any reliable indicator: the practice of credo-only baptism does not increase one whit the likelihood that a particular church will be marked by faithfulness. If it be objected that the failure surely lies elsewhere, rather than in the baptismal practice; then that objection must also be granted to the Presbyterian.


The Presbyterian will generally agree with you, of course, in the idealized proposal: "we want to [ensure] that the actual condition of the Church resembles the legal constitution of the Church as closely as possible." The question is: how are we to ensure this is the case? Is it by preemptively exercising exclusionary discipline on the children of believers, and waiting on a cognitive exercise of their will before discipling (disciplining) them as members?

We might ask the question another way: Is church membership more like an enlistment (Baptist), or more like a citizenship (Presbyterian)? In the Presbyterian understanding of the covenants, God visibly included children of believers in the church explicitly in Gen.17, although we would see the reality going back to Gen.4. And he has not (so far as Presbyterians know it) put them out--preemptively disciplined them--and therefore they remain in, as minor citizens.

So as your post indicates (where I bolded your statements), according to the Baptist commitments you've grown up with, you believe that the best way to not-quite-guarantee-but-come-close-to a pure earthly expression of believers in union with one another in Christ, is to insist on 100% verbally expressed testimony to a preexisting spiritual faith union with Christ.

The Presbyterian (at least, the non-establishmentarian kind) will also insist on not-including under the church's constitution (and discipline) anyone of-age to make his own decisions, who does not profess the true religion. But I must continue to challenge the claim that the credo-only practice is inherently superior to the (confessional) paedobaptist practice for the purpose of reflecting spiritual reality. If the Presbyterian "errs" on the side of inclusivity, he at least is able to support his practice by an appeal to the prescribed "inclusivity" of the historic (OT) church, leaving aside the disputed NT data. If the Baptist "errs" on the side of exclusivity, he must admit his practice leaves out of the picture a fair number of God's forever-children (minors who are actually being disciplined in the faith, unless their spiritual formation is grossly neglected), while including an equal number of of false-sons in the portrayal.

 

[Hemustincrease]

then you can't avoid the problem of baptizing those who eventually are apostate. The idea that only people who are truly regenerated can be baptized is impossible to adhere perfectly to (that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try, if that is God's command).

I don’t consider the baptism of possible apostates a problem to be honest (from a credo position). We are commanded to preach the Gospel and to baptize those who profess faith. If by obedience to that command we unwittingly baptize false professors, what is that to us? If these false professors reveal their true colors, as likely they ultimately will, they will be (or should be) disciplined and ultimately cast out of the church. Their false profession and subsequent baptism does not alter the Biblical doctrine of regenerate membership or baptism. Both sides agree that baptism as an outward sign does not prove inward regeneration has already taken place. The point is, that those who practice infant baptism knowingly admit into fellowship (of the visible church) those who are not (or certainly cannot demonstrate that they are by confessing with their mouth etc) born again of the Spirit and call those babes members of the New Covenant. This is contrary to what Scripture teaches us about the New Covenant. Nobody’s first birth admits them into the New Covenant. Only the new birth does this.

Additionally, if it is the "covenant sign" then the arguments against baptizing children could be raised against circumcising children.

Who would dare to raise an argument against God’s plain commands?
Circumcision was plainly commanded by God. He gave clear instructions as to whom it was to be applied to and when. Nobody was left guessing as to who should receive it or what it meant etc. To presume that baptism is to be applied in the exact same way as circumcision is to read into Scripture what simply is not there. Circumcision was a cutting of the flesh to denote a fleshly belonging to a physical and temporary nation. Baptism symbolizes a spiritual washing and a belonging to a spiritual and eternal nation. ‘An inheritance incorruptible!'

Both are given as signs of the covenant, signify membership, cleansing from sin, repentance, etc. Paul even calls believers in the NT the "circumcision". People focusing on the "new covenant" like to try to emphasize the differences, but there are really more similarities between the old and the new than they are often willing to admit

Circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant. A Covenant which included blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. ‘Do this and live, disobey and die.’ It did not signify cleansing from sin or repentance. It simply set apart a physical nation to God using a physical sign. The vast majority of Old Covenant Jews were dead in their transgressions.

What would there be to rejoice in, anymore than the Jews of old, if baptism only meant entrance into a physical, temporary community? Baptism symbolizes our burial with Christ and our having been raised up with Him, through faith, to new life! Our old life has been buried/put to death and we have, through faith, put on new life in Him. (Col. 2:12, Romans 6:4) In this there is so much more to rejoice in. Circumcision meant only that a Jew came under the law. The full condemnation of that law.

The focus on the New Covenant being new and different is a Biblical one. The differences are glorious. The differences are worthy of our continual thanksgiving and praise to our Savior! The differences prophesied in Jeremiah 31 are wholly inconsistent with a mixed covenant community. Rather than a nation of people who were primarily stiff necked and rebellious, not loving God or His law, under the New Covenant, every single member would know God, love His law, know full remission of sins and willingly follow their Lord and Savior. I make no apology for centering upon differences as glorious as these.

 

[Hemustincrease]

I don't see any scriptural evidence that in this era we are instructed to more rigorously "vet" those who would enter the covenant community than God's people did in Old Testament times. If anything, the main thrust of Scripture is that now the gates are flung open and all may come to Jesus. It would seem strange if under the New Covenant God's community is more open than it used to be for adults, but now has new restrictions that didn't exist before for the children of God's people.

Membership of the New Covenant is 100% a Sovereign choice. It isn’t for us to ‘vet’ anybody insofar as true covenant membership is concerned. We are simply instructed to be faithful to the commands of Christ (preach the Gospel, baptize those who profess faith , purge the church of false teachings/false teachers/those who are impenitent etc).

All may come to Jesus Christ, on the condition of their repentance and faith. Not on condition of their physical birth or any other external circumstance. I am not shutting my children out of the New Covenant. I am urging them into it, but ultimately, God’s Sovereign choice and grace alone will save my children’s souls and unite them with Christ, in true covenant with Him. Not my faith. Not their physical birth. Not membership of a local church. Christ alone!

 

[JSauer]

Jo, I would be interested to hear how you would answer the question I posed to the original poster:

Why weren't children of believers required to make a profession of faith in the Old Testament before they received the sign of the covenant of grace (circumcision)?

 

[mccaffertyb7]

Anyway, that's how this paedobaptist thinks. I hope it helps you. I do much work with kids at my Baptist church, so obviously I don't think these points are absolute essentials for cooperation with others. And I find with most Baptists that as they understand where I'm coming from, they find the position is not as unthinkable as they once thought.

Thank you Jack. This is exactly what I was hoping to accomplish by starting this thread. I'm really just trying to get a better grasp of the paedobaptist position, and your contributions have been helpful. I'm at the point right now where I've questioned my Baptist roots enough that I don't feel confident to call myself a Reformed Baptist. But I wouldn't say I'm fully convinced of the paedobaptist position yet. It is very helpful for me to see the Presbyterian response to the typical Reformed Baptist arguments.

 

[Jack K]

Anyway, that's how this paedobaptist thinks. I hope it helps you. I do much work with kids at my Baptist church, so obviously I don't think these points are absolute essentials for cooperation with others. And I find with most Baptists that as they understand where I'm coming from, they find the position is not as unthinkable as they once thought.

Thank you Jack. This is exactly what I was hoping to accomplish by starting this thread. I'm really just trying to get a better grasp of the paedobaptist position, and your contributions have been helpful. I'm at the point right now where I've questioned my Baptist roots enough that I don't feel confident to call myself a Reformed Baptist. But I wouldn't say I'm fully convinced of the paedobaptist position yet. It is very helpful for me to see the Presbyterian response to the typical Reformed Baptist arguments.

Thank you. And do listen to Bruce, in particular, as well. His insight into these issues is far beyond my own.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Hi Brennan,

You are getting a lot of answers from paedobaptists, but ultimately I think you'd also be blessed by hearing the credobaptist side.

Please feel free to take a moment to look at this link and see if perhaps some of your questions might be addressed. It's a quick read. Not at all exhaustive, but quite instructive.

Founders Ministries | A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism

Also, if you can bear this commentary, I notice that you seem to be trying VERY HARD to force yourself to see the paedo side. It's almost as if for some reason you feel that you "must" fall in line with that, but haven't been convinced yet.

I might point out that this is not the best tactic to use for self-instruction. To be honest, I went the same route once. I desperately tried to convince myself that paedobaptism was biblical, and ultimately it fall apart under proper scrutiny.

Now, the more I read about it the more obvious the flaws seem to be. It's like people trying to use cunning methods to prove that 0 = -1 or something. The proofs are all sound, but once you look at the premises and axioms that are relied upon, the logic falls to the ground.

 

[Logan]

Jo,

Unfortunately, in "dissecting" my statements I feel as though you've missed the big picture I was trying to paint. I'm not really interested in getting into a debate here and in the interest of allowing the OP the topic, I will bow out. But please do keep in mind that I myself used many of the same arguments you are using. I think the foundational difference is views of the covenants and perhaps what circumcision means. You've said that circumcision did not signify cleansing or repentance but was merely a physical sign for physical people. I don't think that is sound and it might be a profitable study to look into how circumcision is talked about in the Old and New Testaments.

E.g., John Gill on Genesis 17:11
"[physical circumcision] was also an emblem of spiritual circumcision, or circumcision of the heart, which ties in the putting off the body of sin, in renouncing man's own righteousness, and in his being by the grace of God, and blood of Christ, cleansed from the impurity of his nature, propagated by carnal generation, in which the member circumcised has a principal concern."

 

[Contra_Mundum]

We are commanded to preach the Gospel and to baptize those who profess faith.

Precisely, we're commanded (via imperatives) to preach the gospel (Mk.16:15); and make disciples (Mt.28:19), which is by baptizing and teaching (participles of means).

If by obedience to [that] command we unwittingly baptize false professors, what is that to us?

This is essentially the Presbyterian position as well, which simply thrusts the question back to its proper beginning, which is: who are the proper subjects? How is that to be determined? Presbyterians (as much as Baptists) appeal to Scripture for their answer.

those who practice infant baptism knowingly admit into fellowship (of the visible church) those who are not (or certainly cannot demonstrate that they are by confessing with their mouth etc) born again of the Spirit and call those babes members of the New Covenant.

Precisely, your contention is that we don't know the spiritual nature of some of those (viz. infants) whom we baptize. Allow me to take this one step further, and say quite clearly: We don't know the spiritual nature of ANY person whom we baptize, of any age or by any profession.

Because we distinguish between the substance (inward/spiritual) of the covenant, and the administration (external/visible) of the covenant, we are able to identify everyone under the care and discipline of the church as "members." Nor is it worthwhile to erect a hard divide between Covenant, and Church as the proper sphere of covenant activity.

Nobody’s first birth admits them into the New Covenant. Only the new birth does this.

It's your choice to merge, or identify 1:1, both spiritual substance of the New Covenant and its visible administration (if you admit of any). But if you want to persuade a Presbyterian he's wrong, you will have to undermine his ostensible Scripture-supports for dividing the two ideas.

To presume that baptism is to be applied in the exact same way as circumcision is to read into Scripture what simply is not there.

This is just the point of contention, and has to be (repeatedly) argued for, and not simply asserted (i.e. begging the question). It's obvious that this is your firm conviction, and that you do not understand (or see) what the Presbyterian alleges (thinks) is plainly witnessed by the text.

Circumcision was a cutting of the flesh to denote a fleshly belonging to a physical and temporary nation. Baptism symbolizes a spiritual washing and a belonging to a spiritual and eternal nation. ‘An inheritance incorruptible!'

This is a very truncated perspective on both circumcision and baptism. I don't like to tout my own contributions, but here is a much more complete presentation of the available evidence, regardless of what conclusions anyone reaches on the basis of it: The PuritanBoard - Circumcision and Baptism revisited

Circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant. A Covenant which included blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. ‘Do this and live, disobey and die.’ It did not signify cleansing from sin or repentance. It simply set apart a physical nation to God using a physical sign. The vast majority of Old Covenant Jews were dead in their transgressions.

It isn't my purpose to convince you that the Sinai Covenant was spiritual at the core, rather than being chiefly about the showy accidents of it. But you should understand that most Presbyterians covenant-theologians are not impressed with any claim that circumcision merely set apart a physical nation to God using physical means. According (explicitly) to Paul and to the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, Abraham and Moses et al. were fully capable of recognizing, and did recognize, the true, spiritual dimensions of the covenants to which they were parties. Outward signs always point to inward realities.

And however many Old Covenant Israelites were believers and unbelievers across their generations--which surely must have fluctuated mightily over the centuries and circumstances--no human being is actually in any position to say whether it was a minority, a majority, or a vast majority in toto who were always dead in their transgressions. We may have our suspicions and suppositions, but regardless of them: Israel was the visible church, and faithful in greater or lesser degrees over the 1500yrs of the national incorporation.

What would there be to rejoice in, anymore than the Jews of old, if baptism only meant entrance into a physical, temporary community?

Indeed. And what joy or honor would there be if circumcision only meant entrance into a physical, temporary community? Anyone who accepted it solely on that basis was sure to inherit nothing but the curses that accompanied it. Of course, CT also teaches that there are curses (not merely blessings) associated with the New Covenant, Heb.10:29 for instance and elsewhere in that covenant-treatise. Again, for those who are attached to the Substance (Christ) of the New Covenant, he provides them full protection from the Judgment. But for any who "insult the Spirit of Grace," they will certainly partake of an even more severe retribution than those who rejected Moses (v28).

The differences prophesied in Jeremiah 31 are wholly inconsistent with a mixed covenant community. Rather than a nation of people who were primarily stiff necked and rebellious, not loving God or His law, under the New Covenant, every single member would know God, love His law, know full remission of sins and willingly follow their Lord and Savior.

And of course, this cannot be found anywhere on earth this side of heaven. Do you really think of your church as being filled with people who are not primarily stiff necked and rebellious? Wasn't it the error of the Pharisees to disassociate themselves with the guilt of others in their company, and of their fathers?

What I mean is, that the OT church was obliged to view themselves under both an eschatological aspect (holy and righteous), as well as a temporal aspect (sinful and rebellious). The Pharisees in Jesus day were misguided "puritans," focused on themselves exclusively under the ideal perspective. Hence the great disparity between the prayer of the Pharisee and the Publican, Lk.18:9ff. And the same holds true for the NT church. We have to view ourselves under both aspects--ideal *and* marred. And as long as we are still in the world, the imperfect ought to be the "thorn in our flesh" that will not be relieved in any way other than by lives of constant prayer to God for relief and strength, and repentance.

Our primary perspective of the church on earth will be either: as
1) a perfect (heavenly) gathering of imperfect people--nothing but sinners here, and a pretty mixed bag of them; or as
2) an imperfect (earthly) gathering of perfect people--"sure" saints, folks we're pretty confident are going to heaven with us.
[addendum: there's obviously a couple other ways to combine those bold terms, but these are the two most common and theologically significant]

 

[mccaffertyb7]

You are getting a lot of answers from paedobaptists, but ultimately I think you'd also be blessed by hearing the credobaptist side.

Please feel free to take a moment to look at this link and see if perhaps some of your questions might be addressed. It's a quick read. Not at all exhaustive, but quite instructive.

Founders Ministries | A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism

Thanks Sean. I've read Waldron and listened to Samuel Renihan and Richard Barcellos talk about the issue. So, I'm fairly familiar with the credobaptist side. Just trying to think through the issue and look at it from both sides.

 

[Hemustincrease]

Jo, I would be interested to hear how you would answer the question I posed to the original poster:

Why weren't children of believers required to make a profession of faith in the Old Testament before they received the sign of the covenant of grace (circumcision)?

They were not required to profess faith, because entrance into the Old Covenant was by natural birth not spiritual. Entrance into the New Covenant is not circumcision of the flesh (or water baptism) but the circumcision of the heart which is entirely a gracious work of the Spirit which can and must be confessed before men.

Under the New Covenant, all that counts for anything before God, is the work of the Holy Spirit. Every blessing and privilege of the New Covenant is contingent upon our ‘being in Christ’.

Circumcision admitted a person into the external blessings/privileges of the Old (natural) Covenant. It did not bring them ‘into Christ’. It did not afford them any New Covenant blessings. These things came about then, as they come about now, through a work of the Holy Spirit, not through any outward sign or symbol and not through natural birth. The Old Covenant was not a covenant of grace. It was a legal covenant. ‘Do this and live. Disobey and die’.

Water baptism, without a prior Baptism of the Spirit avails nothing. It cannot and does not give any baby entrance into the New Covenant anymore than being born to a Christian gives them entrance into it. It points to (or should) the gracious, inner work of the Holy Spirit, not to the natural and external circumstances of a baby.

‘Unless ye be born again........’

To be part of the New Covenant (whether Jew or Gentile) we must be His seed. Born again of the Spirit. Spiritual seed. To consider the children born of our own natural seed to be automatically under the same gracious Covenant as those who are ‘born of God’ is to elevate natural man and his progeny in a way which does the very opposite of exalting Christ and the work of the Spirit in bringing forth, by means of ‘second birth’ true spiritual progeny.

There are two lots of people in this world according to Scripture.
1.Those who have been born physically yet never born again of the Spirit and so are outside of the covenant of grace. (This includes many circumcised Jews who were under the Old Covenant as well as many people today who were baptized as a baby.)
2. Those who have been born again of the Spirit of God and so are under the covenant of grace and eternally secure in Christ.

A person is either fully under grace or fully outside of it!

However, according to those who practice Infant Baptism there must be some additional category. Some kind of earthly purgatory where their children wait until either Christ saves them or they prove themselves apostate?
Do they have enough of the righteousness of Christ (somehow conferred upon them through natural seed) to be brought into His Baptism, but not quite enough to count them as His blood bought people? Are they buried with Him in His baptism but not yet raised up to new life?

 

[Hemustincrease]

You've said that circumcision did not signify cleansing or repentance but was merely a physical sign for physical people. I don't think that is sound and it might be a profitable study to look into how circumcision is talked about in the Old and New Testaments.

Circumcision of the heart (which physical circumcision pointed to, for those who had spiritual eyes to see) did and does indeed signify cleansing and repentance. One who is circumcised inwardly is one who is ‘born again’ of the Spirit. One who was circumcised physically was not necessarily ‘born again’ of the Spirit. The outward circumcision meant only that they were members of physical Israel.

Obviously, these differences can’t be easily chewed out on a forum such as this, but I hold this subject to be so hugely important and essential to a proper understanding and grasp of the Gospel, that I felt it reasonable to enter into a discussion which by it’s very nature, will be impossible to reach the end of.

 

[Hemustincrease]

But you should understand that most Presbyterians covenant-theologians are not impressed with any claim that circumcision merely set apart a physical nation to God using physical means.

I do understand that and it grieves me greatly, because it is not my claim or anybody else’s that they are not impressed with. It is the truth of God. (I speak of physical circumcision, not circumcision of the heart.)

According (explicitly) to Paul and to the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, Abraham and Moses et al. were fully capable of recognizing, and did recognize, the true, spiritual dimensions of the covenants to which they were parties. Outward signs always point to inward realities.

Are you suggesting that every single circumcised Jew (who had received the outward sign) had spiritual eyes (also received the inward reality of faith/grace)? It wouldn’t appear so from what you continue to say, so what is meant by ’outward signs always point to inward realities? Are you speaking generally? If so, I would agree. Or are you speaking individually (see again the first sentence of this paragraph)? You admit that not all Israel were regenerate. In other words (or in Reformed Baptist words, to be specific ) not all physical Israel were spiritual Israel, yet the true church, the body of Christ is 100% spiritual Israel. Is it possible for one to be under grace and to also perish under condemnation? I do not believe that it is. One cannot be under grace and under condemnation at the same time. Either they are justified (by grace, through faith) or they are not.
Yes, Abraham and Moses had faith. Circumcision of the flesh did not bring that about. Circumcision of the heart granted them spiritual eyes.

Israel was the visible church, and faithful in greater or lesser degrees over the 1500yrs of the national incorporation.

Israel was not the visible church ) and herein lies the main reason we differ of course) and was not (as a nation) faithful but faithless. Israel was a physical nation, redeemed from a physical country and then given a legal covenant to live under. It foreshadowed and pointed to a better covenant with better promises (spiritual redemption and a gracious covenant for a spiritual Israel) but physical Israel was not one and the same as spiritual Israel. She was not the redeemed body of believers which God’s dealings with her foreshadowed. Were there members of the body of Christ, the true spiritual Israel, within her borders? Absolutely. But primarily, physical Israel was faithless, wholly unable to keep the terms of the legal covenant (as any who ever lived would equally fail, apart from grace) made with her at Sinai and as such suffered the curses God promised would take place as a result of her disobedience and unbelief. The Gospel was preached to Israel and some were truly redeemed, but for many their redemption was physical and temporary.

And what joy or honor would there be if circumcision only meant entrance into a physical, temporary community? Anyone who accepted it solely on that basis was sure to inherit nothing but the curses that accompanied it.

Absolutely! Only those with true faith would ever see the real blessings of God’s covenant with physical Israel. Yet of course, most of Israel did not care about the blessings or the curses...... until a curse was upon them of course! Some even agreed to be circumcised so they could marry the daughters of Israel.......they were not thinking about God’s blessings or curses! Others actually believed they were keeping the law and dared to suggest to God that He was cursing them unjustly! The greatest blessing of being under the Old Covenant was the fact that they had the Gospel preached to them. They had the opportunity to repent from their miserable efforts at keeping the law and trust in a Messiah who would one day come to die in their stead and be the Author of a New and better, a gracious covenant, sealing it with His own blood!

The Old Covenant was not a covenant of grace. However, it was indeed gracious of God to set aside a chosen physical nation and to impart to them His truth and instruct them in the way of salvation. But as Scripture tells us, most ignored His warnings, rejected His way of salvation and chose to stake their flag with pagans and idolators.

Originally Posted by Hemustincrease
The differences prophesied in Jeremiah 31 are wholly inconsistent with a mixed covenant community. Rather than a nation of people who were primarily stiff necked and rebellious, not loving God or His law, under the New Covenant, every single member would know God, love His law, know full remission of sins and willingly follow their Lord and Savior.
And of course, this cannot be found anywhere on earth this side of heaven. Do you really think of your church as being filled with people who are not primarily stiff necked and rebellious?

I believe that Spiritual Israel, who are the true church/body of Christ are exactly what God prophesied they would be through Jeremiah. (Which God tells us would be strikingly different to the physical nation of Israel.) They all know God. They all have His law written upon their hearts. They all enjoy the blessing of the full remission of their sins. I believe that they are all ‘new creations’ in Christ Jesus. That they were buried with Him through baptism and raised again to ‘new’ life, through faith. I believe what God tells me in His Word.

The Pharisees in Jesus day were misguided "puritans," focused on themselves exclusively under the ideal perspective. Hence the great disparity between the prayer of the Pharisee and the Publican, Lk.18:9ff. And the same holds true for the NT church.

I don’t recall our Lord describing the Pharisees in such gracious terms. He did not tell them they were merely misguided. He rebuked them as hypocrites whose hearts were far from God and plainly told them that their father was not Abraham, but the devil! The disparity is not some minor misunderstanding. The former was not ‘misguided’ but utterly blind. The difference was quite evidently ‘grace’.

P.S I apologize for the repetitive nature of the last three of my posts, this included. I answered Jesse’s question and posted it before I saw the other two posts directed at my previous responses.

 

[Logan]

The Old Covenant was not a covenant of grace. It was a legal covenant. ‘Do this and live. Disobey and die’.

I'm concerned that you're espousing a theology that your baptist forebears would have not.

1. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

3. This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.

Circumcision was instituted for Abraham, the father of the faithful, according to Paul. And it was not only for physical descendants: those foreigners wishing to join Israel were also to be circumcised so they could partake in things such as the Passover. Circumcision did not guarantee salvation any more than baptism does.

Moreover, you've repeatedly made the claim that the "New Covenant" is different because everyone belonging to it is really saved. Was this not true of national Israel as well? I know you're not saying that those who were part of the "covenant community" in Israel were all saved, so wherein lies the difference between then and now? Was there not a visible and invisible church then as there is now? Have the labels merely changed? If you think so, you're arguing semantics.

 

[Hemustincrease]

'm concerned that you're espousing a theology that your baptist forebears would have not.

I appreciate your concern, but (and surely Bunyan’s Pilgrims Progress demonstrates as clearly as anything outside of Scripture that I am at least in a minority of two and what great company he is ) I am primarily striving to hold to the truth of Scripture, even if that disagrees with some (but by no means all) of those good and Godly men who have gone before.

Moreover, you've repeatedly made the claim that the "New Covenant" is different because everyone belongto it is really saved. Was this not true of national Israel as well?

All physical Israel were physically redeemed out of Egypt. However, all physical Israel were not redeemed out of their far greater spiritual problem, slavery to sin.

I know you're not saying that those who were part of the "covenant community" in Israel were all saved, so wherein lies the difference between then and now? Was there not a visible and invisible church then as there is now? Have the labels merely changed? If you think so, you're arguing semantics.

No, there wasn’t a visible and an invisible church (in the way I think you and other paedobaptists mean). There was a 100% regenerate spiritual Israel then just as there is now. Not all physical Israel were saved (from sin) but all Spiritual Israel (the true church) were most certainly saved (from sin) then just as they are now and always will be. (I hope I am not totally misunderstanding your question??? Apologies if I am.)

 

[Andrew P.C.]

I think what helped me through all of this, after reading everything I could from the Reformed Baptist Institute guys, was their lack of covenantal distinction. First, a study of Hebrews will clearly go against the idea of a believer/non-believer distinction. More precisely, scripture is written in a covenant keeper/ covenant breaker distinction. Hebrews 10 clearly points that "The Lord will judge HIS people." If all are believers in the new covenant, then how could the writer of Hebrews consistently say that "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" toward HIS own people? There are a numerous other places, but I think Hebrews 10 hits the hardest. Also, you ask specifically the question how all will know the Lord in the new covenant in Jeremiah and that no one will have to teach one another. Here you ask the question with presuppositions. You claim you are trying to understand, but asking the question from a baptist stand point (even though you go to a PCA church). Hebrews 8 interprets Jeremiah at this point. Hebrews 8 is making a clear distinction between the Mosaic Covenant and The New which has come because Christ has come. I cannot add anything really to this discussion other then saying that there is a here/not yet distinction within what Jeremiah is proclaiming.

I'd also like to add that both passages has nothing to do with baptism. Rather, it is speaking about covenant administrations.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Jo,
Because I sense it is to little purpose pursuing this exchange (I'm not trying to change your mind; just attempting to accurately describe what Confessional Presbyterians believe, and dispel the myths some have imbibed), I'm not going to keep responding at length. See below for briefly addressing some of your questions/comments.

Both you and I recognize that a change of view would require a complete revolution in our respective methods of biblical interpretation. I'm not going to start the process of interpretation in Matthew; you aren't (likely) going to start the process in Genesis. I typically discourage investigators from using such practical matters (e.g. baptismal questions) as the driving impulse of their faith-pursuit. Admitting infant baptism (or credo-only) should be the practical result, the conclusion of one's theological commitment. We should avoid wherever possible having a practice that seeks justification.

Are you suggesting that every single circumcised Jew (who had received the outward sign) had spiritual eyes (also received the inward reality of faith/grace)? It wouldn’t appear so from what you continue to say, so what is meant by ’outward signs always point to inward realities? Are you speaking generally? If so, I would agree. Or are you speaking individually (see again the first sentence of this paragraph)? You admit that not all Israel were regenerate. In other words (or in Reformed Baptist words, to be specific ) not all physical Israel were spiritual Israel, yet the true church, the body of Christ is 100% spiritual Israel. Is it possible for one to be under grace and to also perish under condemnation? I do not believe that it is. One cannot be under grace and under condemnation at the same time. Either they are justified (by grace, through faith) or they are not. Yes, Abraham and Moses had faith. Circumcision of the flesh did not bring that about. Circumcision of the heart granted them spiritual eyes.

Since you are wise enough to recognize your initial question is already answered by the rest of what I wrote, then I will move on to the subsequent series. The statement: "outward signs always point to inward realities," could have been stated, "...spiritual realities," but perhaps the confusion would still obtain. Naturally, it is a general more than a specific (individually applicable in every case) statement. And you do well to agree in that sense, because you assuredly believe that one purpose behind a mature professor's baptism is to have the outward symbol of identity match the inward reality that should be (but isn't always!) present.

But let me also grant one of our (probable) disagreements here. Because Baptists believe that evidence of an active faith must be antecedently present for a valid baptism, baptism is conceived by Baptists in the principal place as a word from man to God and other men, the "answer" referred to in 1Pet.3:21. Presbyterians do not deny that an answer is present or due from the baptized; but we believe that God speaks first in (not just prior to) baptism, as in everything else religious. Presbyterians say that in the principal place, baptism is a word from God to men, and also to this man (the one being baptized).

Because we are Reformed, we say that baptism is a conditional statement, God declaring: "IF you believe the gospel, your sins will be forgiven (cleansed) and you will have everlasting life." We don't believe the divine declaration is: "On account that you are..." saved, baptized, or etc.

Because we don't agree with the Baptist contention that 100% of proper recipients of baptism must witness their own antecedent faith, we don't think an infant so baptized has had a false word spoken to him in this way. The statement is a true conditional statement, no matter who it be spoken over; and so also for this reason we do not re-baptize anyone, whether baptized old or young, if they have for a time fallen away and return, maybe even never actually believed earlier. Because God's word still stands, 2Tim.2:19, and "Let God be true, but every man a liar," Rom.3:4.

And we believe that the same basic idea behind NT ordinances stands back of the OT ordinances, such as circumcision; which is reflected in the heart-circumcision notion already present in Moses' (the earliest biblical) witness. To us, this is sufficient proof that spiritual notions have never been cut off from ritual practice, as long as our religion has existed (from the beginning of time).


I'm not asking you to consent to the truth of what I've said, other than to agree that I've represented both your Baptist beliefs and my Presbyterian beliefs in a respectful and faithful way. You should agree that what I've presented for my side is actual Westminsterian doctrine and the basis we assert for it, and give up any fictions alleged about our beliefs contrary to what we confess. It doesn't matter if unConfessional Presbyterians teach otherwise. Or if Romanists, Anglicans, Lutherans, or others make alternative claims.

I can find various Baptist-types who believe various things about baptism that you would dissent from as well. Church-of-Christ practice comes to mind, as well as those who authorize a literally endless series of (re)baptisms, in an effort to get the timing correct. You have a right to be judged by the content/claims of your Confession, and so do I.


If you have questions I haven't answered, and would like them addressed, I will not abandon the discussion. However, I repeat that I have no desire to "correct" your position, but only to eliminate myths about what Presbyterians believe and why, making corrections of that sort.

Blessings,

 

[Hemustincrease]

Both you and I recognize that a change of view would require a complete revolution in our respective methods of biblical interpretation. I'm not going to start the process of interpretation in Matthew; you aren't (likely) going to start the process in Genesis. I typically discourage investigators from using such practical matters (e.g. baptismal questions) as the driving impulse of their faith-pursuit. Admitting infant baptism (or credo-only) should be the practical result, the conclusion of one's theological commitment. We should avoid wherever possible having a practice that seeks justification.

I absolutely agree that it is not a demonstration of wisdom to begin with a practice and then go to Scripture to seek justification for it. Pretty much anything can be ‘proven’ by doing that. So far as where I would begin.....the beginning is always 'a very good place to start’ and certainly has been where the Lord has had me begin doctrinal studies, not to mention the more general daily Bible reading.

I do appreciate your non combative approach and thank you for the respectful manner you have taken towards what is a significantly different belief to your own.

 

[JSauer]

Bruce & Randy,

I am completely open to having my position corrected. It seemed like Randy wasn't in agreement with what I was saying at the beginning of this post and wanted Bruce to explain. Was anything I said out of accord with what confessional Presbyterians believe?

I remember a couple years ago when I was trying to grasp these issues and I was getting a lot of information dumped on me and in an effort to keep things simple I hope I'm not oversimplifying them.

 

[timmopussycat]

It seems like there are two options:

1) there is no longer any need to teach our neighbor because we all know God
2) there is need to teach our neighbor to know God

So unless there is another option we haven't reached this level of fulfillment.

This is only true if the word "know" means that kind of knowledge in which we know someone exhaustively. Unfortunately the Hebrew word we translate "know" has a considerably wider range of meaning than that. The range runs from the intimate knowledge of husband and wife (Gen. 4:1), to intellectual deductions (Gen.8:11), intellectual knowledge or lack thereof (Gen.31:32), and personal acquaintance (1 Sam 10:1).

And personal acquaintance has various depths, for example, I may know a colleague at work slightly, but not as well as I know my best friend whom I know very well indeed and whose character has become known to me from walking through various crises together.

In Jer. 31:34 and its context, we are not given anything to define the sense of the word "know" beyond that of general personal acquaintance. And certainly anyone in Christ does know the Lord in this general sense. But since the Lord is not physically present with us today, in his mercy he gives both Scripture and teachers so that we may more easily move on to become better acquainted with him.

 

[timmopussycat]

First off, is it impossible for infants to know the Lord? I set John the Baptist in front of us all even though that is quite an exceptional situation.

While infants can know the Lord as this text makes clear, it took an equally supernatural endowment of the Holy Spirit on Elizabeth (Lk. 1:41) for her to discern that her infant was so filled. What is at issue for us is: what ought the church to do we do when we don't know the state of the infant?

 

[timmopussycat]

Let's look at what is said to be new. Is forgiveness of sin a new concept? No. But the text says "I will remember their sins no more." What is meant? Hebrews 8-10 tells us that it refers to sacrifice for sin. God will not require a yearly remembrance of sin by means of an annual sacrifice. So clearly the substance of the covenant has not changed. Forgiveness of sin was as much a reality of the old covenant as it is for the new. But the administration of the covenant has changed. Now we do not require a yearly sacrifice.


Let's look at another aspect of the description -- teaching. What is the point of reference? Is it all teaching? That cannot be the case, because the NT specifically speaks of teachers as one of the ascension gifts Christ has poured out upon His church. So when the text says that a man will no longer teach his neighbour, the point of reference cannot be to teaching per se, but must refer to a specific aspect of teaching, namely, the mediatorial function of the priesthood. Men could not come directly into the presence of God under the old covenant, but were dependent upon the ministry of priests to offer sacrifices and prayers on their behalf, and to teach them the significance of the sacrifices. As Hebrews 10 explains, all may now come boldly into the Holiest of all by means of the one sacrifice of our great High Priest, without the use of priestly intermediaries. All believers are priests unto God. So we note that coming into the presence of God was as much a reality for old covenant believers as for new covenant believers. The substance has not changed. What has changed is the administration of the covenant.

The exhortation, "Know the Lord" in Jer. 31:34 may not necessarily refer to the mediatorial functions of the priesthood, but may have been a challenge to an Israelite who did not know the Lord by the then available means of Scripture study, prayer and participation in the sacrificial system to start doing so. And this verse is not quoted in isolation in the NT but when we find it quoted in Hebrews it is as part of the longer passage (31-34) which outlines what the new covenant will be like.

 

[timmopussycat]

I also had to come to understand what is meant by New. What is New? What is meant by New? The term actually means renewed in Jeremiah 31.

Halliday's lexicon notes that the word used in Jer 31:31 is "new" (châdâsh) not "renewed" (châdash).

 

[JSauer]

Tim-- so you are saying that when "they all will know me" -- that's just a relative knowledge that all people in the church have now?

Was that not the case with the people in the desert? Or even the case with all humans according to Romans 1?

And it seems like the author of Hebrews 8 is using that passage to show that:


6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
And,
"13In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

 

[timmopussycat]

I would also remind you that you should peer at Jeremiah 31 with Jeremiah 32. One problem we have is dividing the scriptures into parts when they shouldn't be. It gives us lop sided understanding when we parse too much.

Agreed that we can get into trouble when we divide the scriptures wrongly. It is worth noting however that Jeremiah 31 seems to be part of a larger section that starts at 29:1 which seems to have taken place rather early in Zedekiah's reign. Jer. 32 on the other hand is dated to Zedekiah's tenth year, thus we may not too quickly assume that the two chapters are linked.

 

[timmopussycat]

Tim-- so you are saying that when "they all will know me" -- that's just a relative knowledge that all people in the church have now?

Yes

Was that not the case with the people in the desert?

The case of the people in the desert is not in view in Jer 31:31-4. What is in view is the case of Jeremiah's contemporaries who, with very few exceptions, did not have such awareness.

Or even the case with all humans according to Romans 1?

While all men do have a conscience testifying of God's eternal greatness and divine nature, this is not the same thing as a personal knowledge of him.

And it seems like the author of Hebrews 8 is using that passage to show that:
6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
And,
"13In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

That is indeed how he is using it. And that is exactly why Brennan has the problem he does. For one of those better promises is that "all shall know me from the least to the greatest."

 

[JSauer]

And I agree that there will be a time that all will know Him to the level that it won't even be necessary to have the bible or teachers. But that is not where we are at now.

If Hebrews 8 is inserting Jer. 31 and contrasting the new covenant with the one made with those in the desert, then those in the desert didn't all have this relative knowledge you speak of, correct?

 

[timmopussycat]

Lastly, I wonder if you think Paul's admonition to children in Eph 6:1--3 is written to say, your children? Children in the church or just "believing" children? For my part, I am quite certain it is an admonition for all children in Christian homes at the very least, and yet the letter was addressed to the "saints" and the "faithful". Were the children considered part of the church? what is the sign of belonging to the church? Regardless as to whether you baptize your children or not, you do treat them as though they are part of the church, and expect them to live their lives as Christians. There is something different about them as opposed to children born in non-Christian homes, and for that I am thankful.

The children Eph. 6:1-3 was written to were clearly not infants. At the very least, Paul is presuming that they were old enough to understand his charge to them. Such children could well have been baptized by the early church. (May we please keep in mind that not all children are infants, and that credo Baptists are on record as baptising very young children on occasion when those children professed understanding and believing the heart of the faith.)

 

[timmopussycat]

And I agree that there will be a time that all will know Him to the level that it won't even be necessary to have the bible or teachers. But that is not where we are at now.

If Hebrews 8 is inserting Jer. 31 and contrasting the new covenant with the one made with those in the desert, then those in the desert didn't all have this relative knowledge you speak of, correct?

Not all of them would have had it. The covenant made with national Israel included both those who were true saints, born again descendants of Abraham who knew God in this sense and those who were not born again and did not know God like this. (Remember that it is possible to see a miracle take place before your eyes and not know God personally at all.) We are told that one of the differences between Old and New Covenants is that the New includes the former but not the latter.