Paedo vs Credo: Main point of contention?

[PuritanCovenanter]

In my opinion Covenant Paedo's flatten out the Covenants too much to make them all appear as they are administrations of the Covenant of Grace.

We credo only Baptists believe that the Covenants of Grace and Works are both administered in the Abrahamic and Mosaic. Neither are purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace nor the Covenant of Works.

There are two Covenants seen in the Abrahamic Covenant as laid out in Galatians.

(Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

(Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

(Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

(Gal 4:25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

(Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

These Redemptive, Historical Covenants reveal the Coming Messiah and salvation, as well as the condemnation of those who are not holding to faith in the Messiah, by Progressive Revelation .

The path narrows to more specific revelation concerning God and His people and more clearly defined boundaries are illumined in redemptive history.

We are Children of Abraham by faith. We have like precious faith that was born in Abraham before us. There are those of faith and those who are just his offspring by posterity. There were promises given concerning both in the Abrahamic Covenant.

The Seed is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. Abraham rejoiced to see His day. He is the Chief Cornerstone, Second Adam, Head of a Better Covenant as laid out in Corinthians and Hebrews Chapter 8.

His Covenant Children are not a mixture of unelect and elect. This is a better Covenant. His Children are defined as those given to Him by the Father. Anyone outside of this is not in a Covenant Relationship with Him as in Him all things are Yes. And He has redeemed His Offspring as I noted in an earlier post.


2) Covenant Children are defined differently between the Abrahamic and New Covenant. Their markers and identication are set up in scirptures differently. The Church of the New Covenant is not defined as a mixture even though we are warned of those who creep in unawares and wish to spy out our liberty. They are not true members of the Church. We are of Mount Zion, they are of Mt. Sinai. Both proceeded from Abraham's Covenant and both had promises. This is not so with Christ and His Church. We are of Zion, His offspring are redeemed and brought into the fold and make up His Covenant Children. St. John wrote of those who appeared to be one with us but aren't.

1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

There are markers that we look for. Repentance is one of them. A cognizant Confession is another. Repent and believe upon Christ and be Baptised is a command the Aposltes handed down.

I have written this quickly and you can now poke holes in it if you wish. But I hope you come away understanding the Credo only side a bit better.

Be Encouraged,
Randy

 

[Ron]

Ron, just my , but I think this is a little bossy. PC has been on the PB a long time and there have been many baptism discussions. I can imagine it is not enjoyable laying out one's entire argument every time someone starts a baptism thread (or every time one of us new guys comes along and demands it). I recommend searching for past baptism debates on here.

Bossy or not, it's hardly unreasonable to expect someone to actually defend his assertions with an actual argument that utilizes a valid form and premises that can be verified by Scripture. If one has done this in the past, then it should not be too tedious to produce such an argument here. One might even think that it would be a joy to do so - if , that is, he wanted his position to be subject to scrutiny.

Ron

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Ron, just my , but I think this is a little bossy. PC has been on the PB a long time and there have been many baptism discussions. I can imagine it is not enjoyable laying out one's entire argument every time someone starts a baptism thread (or every time one of us new guys comes along and demands it). I recommend searching for past baptism debates on here.

Bossy or not, it's hardly unreasonable to expect someone to actually defend his assertions with an actual argument that utilizes a valid form and premises that can be verified by Scripture. If one has done this in the past, then it should not be too tedious to produce such an argument here. One might even think that it would be a joy to do so - if , that is, he wanted his position to be subject to scrutiny.

Ron

Ron,

Bossy is a problem. Others behind the scenes thought so. I wasn't around when they did. I have no problem being scrutinized. If I did I wouldn't be around here. I did respond with links and quotes to address some of our discussion because I have been busy and not as capable to respond as I wish I could have. I hoped you would have read some of them and responded by asking for clarification or discussion. I did give some references in quotes that you didn't respond to. I did try to show you that the Covenant with Abraham was not so clearly identified with the CofG as you seemed to want to make it sound. I did this by bringing in the passage in Galatians and asking others to look at John Tombes on Genesis 17 which does deal with premise and conclusion. It is in the following post I gave a shotgun blast because of my time restraints and not feeling well.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/paedo-vs-credo-main-point-contention-54965/index5.html#post712825

The fact is that I am one of the few Particular Baptists on the board that will even venture into this forum. And it doesn't give me much satisfaction. I am in the minority when this part of the board is referenced in relation to the Presbyterians or Covenant Paedo Baptists. I tire of it and tire of having to repeat the same old arguments over and over again as I mentioned somewhere else, ad nauseam. Plus, at this time I am not at my full potential. I haven't been feeling up to par. So I have been popping on trying to give some kind of reference.

If my assertions are so bad then why not interact with them. BTW, I don't believe they are mere assertions as I tried to provide information to back them up through links and recommendations to go do a search. I make my arguments from scripture and from historical understanding. I don't just rely upon my own understanding. I think I have presented the historical understanding of the text based upon scripture, Pastors, and Confessors of the LBCF. If you don't want to go look at the information then so be it.

Others thought you were rude. It does matter. So please be careful.

 

[steadfast7]

The only way to harmonize it is to opt for a dual view of election: general and specific. This may very well be the case in the Old Testament scheme. But you have not shown why this scheme must necessarily be carried over to the New Covenant age. Simply because it hasn't been abrogated? Any positive reason why?

While nearly anything else might be said, I think this is a most telling point. For the most part, I think might be the single biggest distinction. For credo (not all, but at least you Dennis) it appears that it is "okay" to through out anything that is necessarily carried forward, while for paedo, anything that is not specifically abrogated is necessarily carried forward (though not if abrogated as a class).

A paedo would say if there is *any* reason to say that something is in fact carried forward, then there is absolutely no way to say it is abrogated (the general rule being that those principles that are not abrogated are part of the continuing testimony of the gospel).

The PB would say that of necessity, lack of abrogation is of necessity carry forward. Once God has given a command with an underlying principle, then it need not be repeated, and it always holds true unless specifically abrogated; God need not repeat himself on what he has already made clear.

It seems the CB would say that much of what has already been established has to be re-established in order to carry forward. While this is a side note, I would think this is more aligned with those that reject the 4th commandment.

What I see is not a simple silence which leads to a conclusion of non-abrogation. If there was silence on some subject, then by all means, we have the warrant to carry over. But it seems that we have in the New Testament a brand new pattern for applying a brand new sign. I see a pattern of repentance, faith, then baptism.

Ron:

That’s the point, Dennis. God had an elect people to whom he promised "I will be your God". This included the Isaacs and Jacobs, etc. and did not include the Ishmaels and Esaus (of the world). God made a covenant promise only to his elect, but the prophets were to address all of the visible people of God as the elect. Not all Israel was Israel but nonetheless God treated the visible people of God organically – “as a whole” as you put it “without distinguishing” the elect from the non-elect. Under both testaments, the visible people of God are treated as God’s only people – his spiritual elect.

I am getting what you're saying Ron. My apologies if I have been misrepresenting your position. Here's what I think you are essentially saying:

Under the older form of the covenant, the sign of circumcision is applied to everyone within the lineage of Abraham, regardless of their faith and spiritual standing before God. While the sign is administered to everyone, the establishment of the actual covenant is made by God with his spiritual elect. The same concept is thus carried over in New Testament church.

I get the argument, I just can't admit the implications:

1. There is no effective correlation between the sign and the reality
2. Personal faith is removed from the equation
3. Covenant inclusion is reckoned on account of family lineage, not justification by faith.
4. God reckons some persons as his covenant people, as his peculiar people, as his visible church, whom he has not actually elected and whom he may not ultimately save. This is a big problem for me. the PBs repeatedly assert that it is not only the church, but God himself, who reckons children of Christians as his covenant people. So, if one baptised infant of believing parents apostasizes, what are we to say of God's reckoning, and of his faithfulness?

If it were just a matter of the church identifying persons as a part of the visible church, then I don't have a problem with PB. But the argument is that God himself includes everyone into a covenant which he will only uphold for some. What, then, is the point of being marked as being IN the covenant?

 

[JTB]

Why is it rude or "bossy" to ask for someone to articulate a deductive argument?

Posting an article to defend your own position isn't entirely different from telling someone to read the Bible: it can be helpful, quite helpful, but it isn't an argument.

Arguments require clearly defined premises with secondary, tertiary, and even further supportive claims.

Ron put forth a deductive argument several days ago, with which no one seems to have interacted with directly. And by interacted, I do mean sought to undermine one of his premises with clearly defined premises and supporting claims. I've seen a few assertions, and a few recommended readings, but not much argumentation.

Those who have sought to argue (steadfast) have come up short of representing Ron's argument accurately. However, failing to understand and argument is a less greivous fault than not arguing at all, while all the while claiming to have done so.

Perhaps Ron's persistence is a put off, but persistance in demanding that one "show his work" in demonstrating his position is neither bossy, nor rude. As Ron said, if you have a valid proof, one would think it a joy to produce it for everyone to see in its pristine simplicity. After all, if one possesses the ability to demonstrate a truth, it shows that he has thought God's thoughts after Him.

For what it is worth, perhaps it would be better to spend some time away from the thread formulating a deductive argument, in order that you may have it for all future engagements, instead of reproducing circumlocutions time and time again.

 

[Herald]

Joshua, how a thing is said shows respect or a lack thereof to a brother in Christ.

 

[JTB]

Joshua, how a thing is said shows respect or a lack thereof to a brother in Christ.

Would you please point out where exactly in Ron's wording there has been demonstrated a lack of respect?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Joshua, how a thing is said shows respect or a lack thereof to a brother in Christ.

Would you please point out where exactly in Ron's wording there has been demonstrated a lack of respect?

Move along folks. Back to the discussion at hand. We are not here to discuss how to learn discernment.

 

[Ron]

I am getting what you're saying Ron....

I get the argument, I just can't admit the implications:

1. There is no effective correlation between the sign and the reality
2. Personal faith is removed from the equation
3. Covenant inclusion is reckoned on account of family lineage, not justification by faith.
4. God reckons some persons as his covenant people, as his peculiar people, as his visible church, whom he has not actually elected and whom he may not ultimately save. This is a big problem for me.

Dennis,

All you have noted in those four points is what you don't prefer. Since when does preference dictate biblical precept?

So, if one baptised infant of believing parents apostasizes, what are we to say of God's reckoning, and of his faithfulness?

We have a very simple and biblical answer for such contexts. We would then say with the apostle Paul, only the children of promise are counted as the seed. And we would say with the apostle John, they went out from us because they were not really of us.

If it were just a matter of the church identifying persons as a part of the visible church, then I don't have a problem with PB.

That's all any church can do - Baptist or Paedobaptist. What you want is more assurance that one is actually saved; hence your credo-only position. But again, this debate is not a matter of preference but biblical precept.

But the argument is that God himself includes everyone into a covenant which he will only uphold for some. What, then, is the point of being marked as being IN the covenant?

I can give several reasons but they would all be irrelevant (and get us off the subject at hand) because we're to be talking about what God requires and not whether something satisfies our sense of wisdom.

Best wishes,

Ron

 

[Peairtach]

In my opinion Covenant Paedo's flatten out the Covenants too much to make them all appear as they are administrations of the Covenant of Grace.

We credo only Baptists believe that the Covenants of Grace and Works are both administered in the Abrahamic and Mosaic. Neither are purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace nor the Covenant of Works.

There are two Covenants seen in the Abrahamic Covenant as laid out in Galatians.

(Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

(Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

(Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

(Gal 4:25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

(Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

These Redemptive, Historical Covenants reveal the Coming Messiah and salvation, as well as the condemnation of those who are not holding to faith in the Messiah, by Progressive Revelation .

The path narrows to more specific revelation concerning God and His people and more clearly defined boundaries are illumined in redemptive history.

We are Children of Abraham by faith. We have like precious faith that was born in Abraham before us. There are those of faith and those who are just his offspring by posterity. There were promises given concerning both in the Abrahamic Covenant.

The Seed is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. Abraham rejoiced to see His day. He is the Chief Cornerstone, Second Adam, Head of a Better Covenant as laid out in Corinthians and Hebrews Chapter 8.

His Covenant Children are not a mixture of unelect and elect. This is a better Covenant. His Children are defined as those given to Him by the Father. Anyone outside of this is not in a Covenant Relationship with Him as in Him all things are Yes. And He has redeemed His Offspring as I noted in an earlier post.


2) Covenant Children are defined differently between the Abrahamic and New Covenant. Their markers and identication are set up in scirptures differently. The Church of the New Covenant is not defined as a mixture even though we are warned of those who creep in unawares and wish to spy out our liberty. They are not true members of the Church. We are of Mount Zion, they are of Mt. Sinai. Both proceeded from Abraham's Covenant and both had promises. This is not so with Christ and His Church. We are of Zion, His offspring are redeemed and brought into the fold and make up His Covenant Children. St. John wrote of those who appeared to be one with us but aren't.

1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

There are markers that we look for. Repentance is one of them. A cognizant Confession is another. Repent and believe upon Christ and be Baptised is a command the Aposltes handed down.

I have written this quickly and you can now poke holes in it if you wish. But I hope you come away understanding the Credo only side a bit better.

Be Encouraged,
Randy

Thanks for that, Randy.

I'm trying to understand the credo position better. But I think it's slightly ironic that in connection with your quotation from Galatians Abraham was told to circumcise his whole family including Ishmael. Ishmael must have been in the Covenant in some sense otherwise God would not have told Abraham to circumcise him. Instead of telling Abraham which (male) members of his family would believe God in His wisdom - knowing that they would not all be children of promise - as regards administration tells Abraham to do it this way.

We may ask why, not only about paedobaptism but also about OT circumcision, but this is the way we all agree God did it in the OT. Why did God not make a clearer and "more spiritual" distinction in the OT aswell as in the NT if what baptists say is correct?

I don't find the paedobaptist position if accompanied with appropriate discipline and care to be unspiritual or less spiritual or carnal. All the promises to the children of believers are yea and amen in Christ unless the New Covenant is less gracious than the Old Covenant or the Abrahamic Covenant.

If Ishmael was blessed by having these promises conditionally (on condition of personal faith) signed and sealed to him by circumcision, surely in the more gracious, or as gracious, New Covenant these conditional promises, privileges and responsibilities should be signed and sealed to New Covenant babies, who cannot be less than those babies born in the Abrahamic and Old Covenants.

Are these babies less?

Are the Abrahamic and Old Covenants more gracious in this respect than the New?

Your brother in Christ,
Richard.

 

[Ron]

Ron,

Bossy is a problem.

PC,

I hope I wasn't being bossy. Bossy is indeed a problem. In all humility, so is evasiveness, whether intentional or not.

I have no problem being scrutinized. If I did I wouldn't be around here.

Then I would only ask that you please put forth an actual argument with a valid form wherein the conclusion follows from the premises with necessity.

I did respond with links and quotes to address some of our discussion because I have been busy and not as capable to respond as I wish I could have.

What I'm asking for should take seconds.

I hoped you would have read some of them and responded by asking for clarification or discussion.

To have done that would have been to get off track. I believe it is best to deal with one's distilled argument, for reasons I cite below.

I did try to show you that the Covenant with Abraham was not so clearly identified with the CofG as you seemed to want to make it sound.

I don't believe I referenced the CoG in my formal proof. What I simply noted was that God's promise (to Abraham) was established with the elect seed and that the sign of that covenant promise was to be administered to households of professing parents. That a premise from my argument resembles the CoG is not germane to any sound argument against the position that is before you. Accordingly, to argue against the paedo position by pointing to anomalies found within the CoG is simply fallacious. For some reason, that seems to have been a stumbling block for you.

The fact is that I am one of the few Particular Baptists on the board that will even venture into this forum. And it doesn't give me much satisfaction.

I can only imagine.

I tire of it and tire of having to repeat the same old arguments over and over again as I mentioned somewhere else, ad nauseam.

In all sincerity, if you get the energy to put forth an argument, then please try to reach me by private message and I should get an email notification. For what it's worth, I already put forth on this thread in a multi-step proof the best Baptist argument I can come up with. I don't believe you ever claimed it as being the same as yours, nor have you commented on why it is not a fair representation of what you believe.

If my assertions are so bad then why not interact with them.

Too often I have taken badly stated arguments and placed them in the best possible light with some semblance of form. Then after performing a reductio on that argument, the one holding to the opposing position to mine would deny that the argument I just refuted was his. Accordingly, it is much more efficient to deal with arguments formed by those I am interacting with rather than my trying to reform assertions that I find disjointed. I have found no logical progression of thought from any Baptist on this site. The only logical progression I have seen for a Baptist argument is, frankly, the one I put forth in this thread, which was merely an attempt to give us some visible template to interact with for the sake of making some progress.

PC, I am more than happy to put this matter to rest without making any progression in the least, let alone toward touching our differences with a pin. Please feel no need to respond to anything I wrote.

I truly hope you will find rest for your weary soul.

Kindly intended,

Ron

 

[VictorBravo]

I don't believe I referenced the CoG in my formal proof. What I simply noted was that God's promise (to Abraham) was established with the elect seed and that the sign of that covenant promise was to be administered to households of professing parents. That a premise from my argument resembles the CoG is not germane to any sound argument against the position that is before you. Accordingly, to argue against the paedo position by pointing to anomalies found within the CoG is simply fallacious. For some reason, that seems to have been a stumbling block for you.

Ron, as I recall, the thread started out in the paedo-only forum and went that way for a couple of pages. Many of us credo-types don't follow such threads because we aren't supposed to post in them. I'm guilty of that. Can you point out in these 8 pages of discussion where this argument is? Just a link to the post would be fine.

For what it's worth, I already put forth on this thread in a multi-step proof the best Baptist argument I can come up with. I don't believe you ever claimed it as being the same as yours, nor have you commented on why it is not a fair representation of what you believe.

Same request for this multi-step proof, please.

I have found no logical progression of thought from any Baptist on this site. The only logical progression I have seen for a Baptist argument is, frankly, the one I put forth in this thread, which was merely an attempt to give us some visible template to interact with for the sake of making some progress.

I'm presuming that the lack of logical progression of thought refers to the baptism debate, not every single discussion on this site. Not that I like to be nit-picky, but such slips of expression lead to distraction.

But having been distracted and then contributing to it, I'm really interested in the primary positive argument you referenced, and then the Baptist counter argument you presented.

The original post asked what appeared to be a straightforward question. the range of discussion shows that it cannot be answered easily. I think the reason for this is because it cannot be boiled down to a simple and single difference: there is no one issue from which all dissention flows. I'm hoping to compile all the issues and related arguments into some kind of summary to facilitate an actual give-and-take.

Of course, it probably will take time. It may up being a book for all I know, but I hope not.

 

[MW]

The only logical progression I have seen for a Baptist argument is, frankly, the one I put forth in this thread, which was merely an attempt to give us some visible template to interact with for the sake of making some progress.

If the fish aren't biting maybe you should use different bait.

Just a friendly reminder -- this is a discussion not a debate forum.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

The only logical progression I have seen for a Baptist argument is, frankly, the one I put forth in this thread, which was merely an attempt to give us some visible template to interact with for the sake of making some progress.

If the fish aren't biting maybe you should use different bait.

Just a friendly reminder -- this is a dicussion list, not a debate forum.

Just a side question because that caught my eye, how do you determine the distinction between discussion and debate? Because if two people disagree the discussion generally becomes debatish or something.

 

[Herald]

The only logical progression I have seen for a Baptist argument is, frankly, the one I put forth in this thread, which was merely an attempt to give us some visible template to interact with for the sake of making some progress.

If the fish aren't biting maybe you should use different bait.

Just a friendly reminder -- this is a dicussion list, not a debate forum.

Just a side question because that caught my eye, how do you determine the distinction between discussion and debate? Because if two people disagree the discussion generally becomes debatish or something.

David, while a vigorous exchange of ideas occurs in almost all baptism threads, the venue is not that of a formal debate. The normal protocol that is observed during a moderated debate is not being employed. The typical baptism discussion has ebbs and flows that can take a 180 degree turn at any moment. For that reason it is difficult to insist that your "opponent" follow accepted debate rules.

 

[steadfast7]

I am getting what you're saying Ron....

I get the argument, I just can't admit the implications:

1. There is no effective correlation between the sign and the reality
2. Personal faith is removed from the equation
3. Covenant inclusion is reckoned on account of family lineage, not justification by faith.
4. God reckons some persons as his covenant people, as his peculiar people, as his visible church, whom he has not actually elected and whom he may not ultimately save. This is a big problem for me.

Dennis,

All you have noted in those four points is what you don't prefer. Since when does preference dictate biblical precept?

So, if one baptised infant of believing parents apostasizes, what are we to say of God's reckoning, and of his faithfulness?

We have a very simple and biblical answer for such contexts. We would then say with the apostle Paul, only the children of promise are counted as the seed. And we would say with the apostle John, they went out from us because they were not really of us.

If it were just a matter of the church identifying persons as a part of the visible church, then I don't have a problem with PB.

That's all any church can do - Baptist or Paedobaptist. What you want is more assurance that one is actually saved; hence your credo-only position. But again, this debate is not a matter of preference but biblical precept.

But the argument is that God himself includes everyone into a covenant which he will only uphold for some. What, then, is the point of being marked as being IN the covenant?

I can give several reasons but they would all be irrelevant (and get us off the subject at hand) because we're to be talking about what God requires and not whether something satisfies our sense of wisdom.

Best wishes,

Ron

OK Ron, let's talk about precept ie. what God has commanded his church to do. Here are my opinions ...

1. The NT is more relevant than the OT in seeking instruction about baptism.
2. Short of the command to "be baptised", there are few (if any) prescriptive NT commands about the who, when, and how of baptism.
3. There are no explicit commands to baptize or not baptize infants.
4. The NT is repleat with descriptions of baptism.
5. The NT pattern links baptism with faith.
6. Households (whatever that means) were baptized.

With which do you disagree?

If we're concerned with precept, then I think the argument stands or falls on the word "household" and what the authors meant when they said that. i have shown earlier that for household to mean every man woman and child under the roof, this is problematic in cases where the household is described as believing, speaking in tongues, or committing themselves to service (I have yet to interact with anyone on this, btw).

PBs in this instance would require that households include all, but we know (as good Calvinists) that "all" does not always mean "all."

So, in light of the above impasse, we are left to derive our precept from the OT teaching on circumcision ie. mark everyone as elect, include them in a covenant, and let God establish his REAL covenant with his chosen ones (kind of like a "shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out" idea)

Now, actions produce theology, and here's what PB seems to say:
In the OT age, covenanting with God by association with Abraham did not necessarily save.
In the NT age, covenanting with God by association with Jesus likewise does not necessarily save.

I hope you don't so quickly dismiss this as my problem of "preference". It's a genuine problem that requires a satisfactory response.

thanks.

 

[Herald]

...God's promise (to Abraham) was established with the elect seed and that the sign of that covenant promise was to be administered to households of professing parents.

This is true insofar as the promise made to Abraham would ultimately be fulfilled spiritually (Rom. 4:3-25) through Christ (Rom. 5:1). But while the promise had a spiritual reality it also has a physical component, the circumcision of flesh which pointed to Christ, and provided a national identity to those who would be circumcised in the like manner of Abraham. Faith was a not a requisite requirement for the sign of circumcision. One simply had to be born a male into Abraham's household, and later into the nation of Israel. This is why Reformed Baptists posit a discontinuity between the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant and that of the New Covenant. The sign of the Abrahamic Covenant was not applied on the basis of faith, even though it pointed to faith in Yahweh, and ultimately Christ.

Paedobaptists argue that there is no explicit command in the New Testament abrogating the application of the New Covenant sign outside of covenant families. Reformed Baptists are not willing to concede that point (Gal. 5). If the abrogation of the application of the sign is not dealt with directly, it certainly is inferred. Inference is certainly an accepted method of deduction in theology if scripture supports it. Reformed Baptist believe it does in regards to the application of the sign of the New Covenant. To post all the scripture references that support "believe and be baptized" would be redundant given what has been shared on numerous posts in this and like threads.

I suppose I'm not really making a debate point. The object is not to convince paedobaptists as much as it is to explain.

 

[Ron]

1. The NT is more relevant than the OT in seeking instruction about baptism.

Dennis,

I regret to say this but that assertion is rather simplistic (and misleading) and if you actually put forth a baptistic argument for the credo-only position, you might readily see why that must be so. Let me explain. First off, there is such a thing as a valid Baptist argument. Such an argument would employ a logical form, which would in turn necessitate a conclusion from the premises. Such arguments, though valid, would not be sound due to the falsity of one or more of the premises. Having said that, any valid argument for the credo-only position would have to establish that God instituted a change in the covenant status of children. In order to establish such a point, both testaments would have to be considered; for it is impossible to prove that a change in precept has taken place in the New Covenant unless the Old Covenant principle can first be established. Accordingly, in order to prove a New Covenant change in administration, we must first need to know what the Old Covenant status was in the first place.

2. Short of the command to "be baptised", there are few (if any) prescriptive NT commands about the who, when, and how of baptism.

Only God can abrogate his precepts. Accordingly, if children are no longer to receive the mark of the covenant under the New Covenant administration, then we must be able to conclude by good and necessary inference that God abrogated his Old Covenant precept. That is precisely the reason why I keep asking for proof that children of professing believers have lost the status of inclusion in the covenant administration.

3. There are no explicit commands to baptize or not baptize infants.

Correct. Both sides argue from silence. Now in order to determine whether an argument from silence is fallacious or not, a burden of proof must first be established. With respect to establishing the burden of proof, first we must acknowledge that whenever possible, under the older economy children of professing parents were to receive the covenant mark of inclusion. You believe that this OT principle has been abrogated. I do not. However, it would be a hermeneutical nightmare if we were to arbitrarily presuppose discontinuity without being able to show good and necessary inference for an alleged abrogation of precept. Accordingly, the burden of proof is obviously upon the Baptist to show by good and necessary inference that God changed the status of covenant children.

4. The NT is repleat with descriptions of baptism.

And none of those prescriptions leads us to the logical conclusion that infants are not to receive baptism.

5. The NT pattern links baptism with faith.

I’m not sure what you mean by “links” but it is certainly false that we have good and necessary inference that faith is a prerequisite for baptism. Even the Great Commission doesn’t imply that; for if you press the order of the commands as prescriptive, then of course baptism becomes a prerequisite for salvation. Moreover, we have no idea who had faith in many of the household baptisms.

6. Households (whatever that means) were baptized.

That is a true statement.

If we're concerned with precept, then I think the argument stands or falls on the word "household" and what the authors meant when they said that. i have shown earlier that for household to mean every man woman and child under the roof, this is problematic in cases where the household is described as believing, speaking in tongues, or committing themselves to service (I have yet to interact with anyone on this, btw).

Even if those households only contained professing believers, how would that logically necessitate the precept that infants within another household were not to be baptized?

PBs in this instance would require that households include all, but we know (as good Calvinists) that "all" does not always mean "all."

It is not in the least bit critical to the Paedobaptist position whether the households included infants or not. Now if we knew that there were infants in those households that were not baptized, then we would have a problem.

Now, actions produce theology, and here's what PB seems to say:
In the OT age, covenanting with God by association with Abraham did not necessarily save.
In the NT age, covenanting with God by association with Jesus likewise does not necessarily save.

I have been careful to use two terms: God establishes and God administers. I don’t say what you just said PB’s say. Let me improve upon your statements.

In the OT age, God established his covenant with the elect alone. Accordingly, God’s promise was a promise to save.

In the NT age, God established his covenant with the elect alone. Accordingly, God’s promise is a promise to save.

I hope you don't so quickly dismiss this as my problem of "preference". It's a genuine problem that requires a satisfactory response.

You have not shown by any good and necessary inference that God changed his precept regarding the status of covenant children. Consequently, I must conclude that you have a preference for Baptistic theology but it is not one that Scripture requires of you.

Dennis, we're simply not getting anywhere on this subject. Maybe we should put it to rest.

Ron

 

[MW]

Just a side question because that caught my eye, how do you determine the distinction between discussion and debate? Because if two people disagree the discussion generally becomes debatish or something.

What Bill said.

 

[Ron]

Can you point out in these 8 pages of discussion where this argument is? Just a link to the post would be fine.

Raymond,

This link: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/paedo-vs-credo-main-point-contention-54965/index6.html#post713203 will take you to the post, which is on page six of this thread. The meat of that post is below.

As I've said multiple times on this thread, the covenant was ESTABLISHED with the Seed of Abraham, which was the incarnate Christ and all who are elected in him. Genesis 17; Galatians 3

Although the covenant of promise was ESTABLISHED with the elect in Christ alone, it was to be ADMINISTERED to those within a professing believer's houshold. That is to say, those who were to received the adminstration of the covenant (i.e. households) were to also be regarded as spiritual children of God.

Paul reminded his audience in Romans 9 of the Old Testament principle that ONLY the children of PROMISE were truly counted as the seed, which was to say that not all Israel was Israel - (i.e. not all those of physical decent were spiritual children of God - yet they were to be regarded as such!). Yet notwithstanding, when God's judgments and blessings came upon Israel, God was treating Israel as an organic whole. The visible church was to be considered the true people of God, even though not all Israel was Israel. Baptist theology agrees with that! Moreover, even today, Baptist pastors will rightly treat all their baptized members as the church - even though not all the church is the church - since there are again unbelievers on the roles. There is no debate over how we are to treat the visible church. We are to treat its members as disciples of the Lord. The question is, who is to be regarded as being in that church?

Since nobody has cared to put forth an actual argument, let me get the ball rolling.

Here is what I see the Reformed Baptist argument to be:

1. In the older economy the covenant was established with professing believers and their households (whether elect or not)

2. It should be ensured as best as possible to place the mark of the covenant upon those with whom the covenant is established

3. Therefore, the mark of circumcision was to be placed upon professing believers and their households (whether they would ever believe or not)

4. The new covenant is established only with the elect

5. Given (2 and 4), we should therefore wait until someone makes a profession of faith before admitting them to baptism

Now if you think I have misrepresented the Baptist argument, then I by all means I invite you to actually put forth an argument rather than just using your rhetoric skills.

The Baptist argument has many problems:

1 is False: The old covenant was only established with the elect.

2 is False: God required that the sign and seal of the covenant be placed upon those who had not demonstrated election by making a credible profession of faith.

3 is True: The premise follows from two preceding false premises making the premise unsound, although the premise is true

4 is True

5 is False: Premise 2 is false, which is why 5 is false.

I've showed you yours, now I'll show you ours.

A sound Paedobaptist argument:

1. An Old Covenant precept was that whenever possible the sign of entrance into the covenant was to be placed upon all who were to be regarded as God’s people

2. Children of professing believers were to be regarded as God’s people under the Old Covenant

3. Children of professing believers whenever possible were to receive the sign of entrance into the Old Covenant by way of precept (1, 2)

4. God’s precepts may not be abrogated without explicit instruction or good and necessary inference

5. God never abrogated the Old Testament precept regarding who was to receive the sign of entrance into the Old covenant

6. The sign of entrance into the New Covenant is water baptism

7. God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive the sign of entrance into the New Covenant (3, 4 and 5)

8. God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive water baptism (6, 7)

I'm presuming that the lack of logical progression of thought refers to the baptism debate, not every single discussion on this site.

Yes, you presume correctly. Though the context might suggest what you correctly inferred, my words were poorly chosen and could have implied something I would not have wanted. Thank you!

The original post asked what appeared to be a straightforward question. the range of discussion shows that it cannot be answered easily.

I couldn't disagree more. I refuse to accept that God has made this subject difficult. A discussion over unconditional election with an Arminian or Justification with a Roman Catholic could also be never ending, but that does not mean that those doctrines are not plainly taught in Scripture. I think the correct doctrine of baptism is even more obvious.

I think the reason for this is because it cannot be boiled down to a simple and single difference: there is no one issue from which all dissention flows.

Again, I simply disagree. A proper discussion of this subject has to do with whether God has provided good and necessary inference to abrogate a standing principle that was embedded into historical covenant thought.

I'm hoping to compile all the issues and related arguments into some kind of summary to facilitate an actual give-and-take.

Of course, it probably will take time. It may up being a book for all I know, but I hope not.

If it takes you as long as all that and ends up being a massive amount of information, then I suspect you have missed the simplicity of what is required of you to prove your position.

Grace and peace,

Ron

-----Added 11/11/2009 at 07:49:21 EST-----

If the fish aren't biting maybe you should use different bait.

Just a friendly reminder -- this is a dicussion list, not a debate forum.

Just a side question because that caught my eye, how do you determine the distinction between discussion and debate? Because if two people disagree the discussion generally becomes debatish or something.

David, while a vigorous exchange of ideas occurs in almost all baptism threads, the venue is not that of a formal debate. The normal protocol that is observed during a moderated debate is not being employed. The typical baptism discussion has ebbs and flows that can take a 180 degree turn at any moment. For that reason it is difficult to insist that your "opponent" follow accepted debate rules.

Brother,

Now I'm really confused. Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable to expect one to defend his position with a clearly stated, logical argument unless a formal debate is taking place? I can think of many things that are necessary for a formal debate that are not necessary for point-counter-point discussion. Logical argumentation is not one of those things.

Cheers,

Ron

 

[MW]

David, while a vigorous exchange of ideas occurs in almost all baptism threads, the venue is not that of a formal debate. The normal protocol that is observed during a moderated debate is not being employed. The typical baptism discussion has ebbs and flows that can take a 180 degree turn at any moment. For that reason it is difficult to insist that your "opponent" follow accepted debate rules.

Brother,

Now I'm really confused. Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable to expect one to defend his position with a clearly stated, logical argument unless a formal debate is taking place? I can think of many things that are necessary for a formal debate that are not necessary for point-counter-point discussion. Logical argumentation is not one of those things.

I have emboldened what was said. You would find people more willing to interact with you if you did not insist on the way they must present their posts. Who knows, you might even learn a thing or two when people present themselves in a manner you don't expect.

 

[Herald]

Can you point out in these 8 pages of discussion where this argument is? Just a link to the post would be fine.

Raymond,

This link: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/paedo-vs-credo-main-point-contention-54965/index6.html#post713203 will take you to the post, which is on page six of this thread. The meat of that post is below.

As I've said multiple times on this thread, the covenant was ESTABLISHED with the Seed of Abraham, which was the incarnate Christ and all who are elected in him. Genesis 17; Galatians 3

Although the covenant of promise was ESTABLISHED with the elect in Christ alone, it was to be ADMINISTERED to those within a professing believer's houshold. That is to say, those who were to received the adminstration of the covenant (i.e. households) were to also be regarded as spiritual children of God.

Paul reminded his audience in Romans 9 of the Old Testament principle that ONLY the children of PROMISE were truly counted as the seed, which was to say that not all Israel was Israel - (i.e. not all those of physical decent were spiritual children of God - yet they were to be regarded as such!). Yet notwithstanding, when God's judgments and blessings came upon Israel, God was treating Israel as an organic whole. The visible church was to be considered the true people of God, even though not all Israel was Israel. Baptist theology agrees with that! Moreover, even today, Baptist pastors will rightly treat all their baptized members as the church - even though not all the church is the church - since there are again unbelievers on the roles. There is no debate over how we are to treat the visible church. We are to treat its members as disciples of the Lord. The question is, who is to be regarded as being in that church?

Since nobody has cared to put forth an actual argument, let me get the ball rolling.

Here is what I see the Reformed Baptist argument to be:

1. In the older economy the covenant was established with professing believers and their households (whether elect or not)

2. It should be ensured as best as possible to place the mark of the covenant upon those with whom the covenant is established

3. Therefore, the mark of circumcision was to be placed upon professing believers and their households (whether they would ever believe or not)

4. The new covenant is established only with the elect

5. Given (2 and 4), we should therefore wait until someone makes a profession of faith before admitting them to baptism

Now if you think I have misrepresented the Baptist argument, then I by all means I invite you to actually put forth an argument rather than just using your rhetoric skills.

The Baptist argument has many problems:

1 is False: The old covenant was only established with the elect.

2 is False: God required that the sign and seal of the covenant be placed upon those who had not demonstrated election by making a credible profession of faith.

3 is True: The premise follows from two preceding false premises making the premise unsound, although the premise is true

4 is True

5 is False: Premise 2 is false, which is why 5 is false.

I've showed you yours, now I'll show you ours.

A sound Paedobaptist argument:

1. An Old Covenant precept was that whenever possible the sign of entrance into the covenant was to be placed upon all who were to be regarded as God’s people

2. Children of professing believers were to be regarded as God’s people under the Old Covenant

3. Children of professing believers whenever possible were to receive the sign of entrance into the Old Covenant by way of precept (1, 2)

4. God’s precepts may not be abrogated without explicit instruction or good and necessary inference

5. God never abrogated the Old Testament precept regarding who was to receive the sign of entrance into the Old covenant

6. The sign of entrance into the New Covenant is water baptism

7. God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive the sign of entrance into the New Covenant (3, 4 and 5)

8. God’s precept is that children of professing believers receive water baptism (6, 7)

I'm presuming that the lack of logical progression of thought refers to the baptism debate, not every single discussion on this site.

Yes, you presume correctly. Though the context might suggest what you correctly inferred, my words were poorly chosen and could have implied something I would not have wanted. Thank you!



I couldn't disagree more. I refuse to accept that God has made this subject difficult. A discussion over unconditional election with an Arminian or Justification with a Roman Catholic could also be never ending, but that does not mean that those doctrines are not plainly taught in Scripture. I think the correct doctrine of baptism is even more obvious.



Again, I simply disagree. A proper discussion of this subject has to do with whether God has provided good and necessary inference to abrogate a standing principle that was embedded into historical covenant thought.



If it takes you as long as all that and ends up being a massive amount of information, then I suspect you have missed the simplicity of what is required of you to prove your position.

Grace and peace,

Ron

-----Added 11/11/2009 at 07:49:21 EST-----

Just a side question because that caught my eye, how do you determine the distinction between discussion and debate? Because if two people disagree the discussion generally becomes debatish or something.

David, while a vigorous exchange of ideas occurs in almost all baptism threads, the venue is not that of a formal debate. The normal protocol that is observed during a moderated debate is not being employed. The typical baptism discussion has ebbs and flows that can take a 180 degree turn at any moment. For that reason it is difficult to insist that your "opponent" follow accepted debate rules.

Brother,

Now I'm really confused. Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable to expect one to defend his position with a clearly stated, logical argument unless a formal debate is taking place? I can think of many things that are necessary for a formal debate that are not necessary for point-counter-point discussion. Logical argumentation is not one of those things.

Cheers,

Ron

How many baptism threads have you acquainted yourself with on the Puritan Board? It may help if you do a general search on "baptism" and see how the dynamic of these discussions is always fluid. Because there are no formal rules of debate that are being followed the discussion is like a moving target. A person may gravitate to something you've said and respond specifically to that point. You may wind up spending more than a few posts trying to get an answer to the question that was important to you. It's just the nature of the beast and the basic difference between a true debate and a free for all discussion.

Now, you may wind up in a dialog with an individual who argues in a similar fashion as you. In that case you may very well get answers to your questions in a logical and supported method. In either case you can't guarantee, or insist, how the discussion is going to track. Moderators (like moi) try to keep the thread on topic, but we can't police every jot and tittle.

I hope this explanation helps.

 

[Ron]

Herald,

I appreciate your candor. When I try to read your post in the most charitable light, I understand you to say is that you have not based your position upon what is meant by “good and necessary inference”. You simply think it is more reasonable to conclude a credo-only position. The problem with drawing such an inference is that the command to believe and be baptized is 100% consistent with the Paedobaptist position! That an adult convert on a mission field must believe before undergoing baptism is not peculiar to the Baptist position. It no less corroborates the Paedobaptist position than it does the Baptist position. In fact, every bit of corroborating evidence you can offer is consistent with the Paedobaptist position; for if the evidence was not consistent with the Paedobaptist position, then you would have proved the credo-only position by good and necessary inference! In the final analyses, the evidence you base your position on is evidence that comports very nicely with the Paedobaptist position. Accordingly, you really have no rational basis for your position.

As for corroborating evidence, let's look at NT baptisms .

The Ehtiopian eunuch had no household. Paul had no household. Gaius and Simon we know little about. The rest of the five baptisms were household baptisms: Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer, Stephanas and Crispus. Now obviously we don’t know whether there were any infants in those households, but nonetheless when we come to the NT with a covenant eye, we would expect to see household baptisms, which is precisely what we see in a striking ratio. That does not prove the paedo position mind you, but it certainly serves as not only consistent but also corroborating evidence. Now certainly you don’t want to argue that the only faith that we read about is the faith of adults; for how would we have heard about the faith of an infant?! Moving on, if the baptistic position were indeed biblical, we might expect to see alongside the ratio of household baptisms, maybe one narrative of a covenant child coming to faith and then being baptized. That, of course, is absent from the NT narratives. So when we only consider corroborating evidence, we see exactly what I would expect to see - household baptisms. And we do not see what I would not expect to see, any covenant children coming to faith and then being baptized. Again, these are not my arguments but the certainly counter anything that has been offered. My argument is simply that we have an abiding principle that not only was never abrogated; it is rather corroborated in all the NT has to say!

Ron

-----Added 11/11/2009 at 08:55:09 EST-----

David, while a vigorous exchange of ideas occurs in almost all baptism threads, the venue is not that of a formal debate. The normal protocol that is observed during a moderated debate is not being employed. The typical baptism discussion has ebbs and flows that can take a 180 degree turn at any moment. For that reason it is difficult to insist that your "opponent" follow accepted debate rules.

Brother,

Now I'm really confused. Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable to expect one to defend his position with a clearly stated, logical argument unless a formal debate is taking place? I can think of many things that are necessary for a formal debate that are not necessary for point-counter-point discussion. Logical argumentation is not one of those things.

I have emboldened what was said. You would find people more willing to interact with you if you did not insist on the way they must present their posts. Who knows, you might even learn a thing or two when people present themselves in a manner you don't expect.

Matthew,

What have you learned in this thread about the Baptist position? I can assure you that whatever it was, it must have made sense.

Ron

 

[Puritan Sailor]

...God's promise (to Abraham) was established with the elect seed and that the sign of that covenant promise was to be administered to households of professing parents.

This is true insofar as the promise made to Abraham would ultimately be fulfilled spiritually (Rom. 4:3-25) through Christ (Rom. 5:1). But while the promise had a spiritual reality it also has a physical component, the circumcision of flesh which pointed to Christ, and provided a national identity to those who would be circumcised in the like manner of Abraham.

Baptism also provides a national identity, the church is a "holy nation". And we will inherit the whole earth, as was promised to Abraham (Rom 4:13). The promise Abraham was looking forward to was not Canaan, but the city of God, and the better resurrection. The hope of Israel was not Canaan but Jesus and the kingdom of God (Acts 28:20). And Paul says in Gal 3:17 that the Abrahamic covenant continues. The promise has always been obtained by faith (Rom 4:12-13), even though the sign of the promise was given to believers and their children.

Faith was a not a requisite requirement for the sign of circumcision. One simply had to be born a male into Abraham's household, and later into the nation of Israel. This is why Reformed Baptists posit a discontinuity between the sign of the Abrahamic Covenant and that of the New Covenant. The sign of the Abrahamic Covenant was not applied on the basis of faith, even though it pointed to faith in Yahweh, and ultimately Christ.

The sign was applied on the basis of the parent's faith. If the child grew up and did not profess faith in the God of Israel, then he would refuse to have his children circumcised, and therefore his children would be cut off from the covenant (Gen 17:14). Professed faith in the God of Abraham was necessary to continue circumcision.

Paedobaptists argue that there is no explicit command in the New Testament abrogating the application of the New Covenant sign outside of covenant families. Reformed Baptists are not willing to concede that point (Gal. 5). If the abrogation of the application of the sign is not dealt with directly, it certainly is inferred. Inference is certainly an accepted method of deduction in theology if scripture supports it. Reformed Baptist believe it does in regards to the application of the sign of the New Covenant. To post all the scripture references that support "believe and be baptized" would be redundant given what has been shared on numerous posts in this and like threads.

Could you explain what bearing does Gal 5 have on this discussion? Paul's point has nothing to do with covenant children. He is rebuking the Galatian push toward legalistic observance of the law of Moses. He's rejecting their desire to inherit the promise by human effort, rather than by faith. That's the whole reason he brings in Abraham. Abraham inherited the promise by faith. God preached the gospel to him and he believed (Gal 3:6-10). He inherited the promise by faith just like we all do. Paul is turning the attention of the Galatians back to the covenant made with Abraham to refute their legalistic trust in the Mosaic covenant. And that covenant made with Abraham, the same covenant and promise which saves us today through faith, was made with believers and their children. If salvation is promised by the same covenant, and God does not change the place of believer's children, then we must still include them in the visible covenant community.

In my opinion Covenant Paedo's flatten out the Covenants too much to make them all appear as they are administrations of the Covenant of Grace.

We credo only Baptists believe that the Covenants of Grace and Works are both administered in the Abrahamic and Mosaic. Neither are purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace nor the Covenant of Works.

There are two Covenants seen in the Abrahamic Covenant as laid out in Galatians.

(Gal 4:22) For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

(Gal 4:23) But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

(Gal 4:24) Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

(Gal 4:25) For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

(Gal 4:26) But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Randy, I don't see where Paul says there are two covenants in the Abrahamic covenant. Perhaps you can explain your position a little more.

Paul clearly says that he is using the two women as an allegory, or figuratively, to illustrate not two aspects of the Abrahamic covenant but to illustrate the difference between the Mosaic Administration (Hagar=Sinai) and the Abrahamic covenant of promise (Sarah=Jerusalem above), reinforcing the point which he made in chapter 3. The child through Hagar was Abraham's attempt to obtain the promise through human effort (the same mistake the Galatians were now making through their reliance on the Mosaic law). The child through Sarah was the promise Abraham received by faith, which is how the Galatians first received salvation.

It's the one covenant with Abraham, the covenant of promise, which was "confirmed" (Gen 17:2) with the covenant sign of circumcision. It is this Abrahamic covenant, the covenant of promise, which continues (Gal 3:17), and through which we inherit the promise of eternal life, when we believe like Abraham (Rom 4:9-13). That has always been the case in Israel (Rom 4:12). The true Jews were always those who were circumcised in the heart (Rom 2:28-29). In fact circumcision itself was pointing to that very reality (Col. 2:11-12). Jesus himself made it clear that the Jews who relied upon their Abrahamic pedigree rather than Him were not Abraham's children (Jn 8:39-40).

If that covenant continues, which I think I've proven it does, and that covenant was made with both believers and their children (Gen 17:7), and God has nowhere told us to stop including children, then the same covenant promise is still made to belivers and their children and both must still receive the sign of that promise.

The Seed is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. Abraham rejoiced to see His day.

The Seed was not the only fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. The fulfillment of the covenant would come when all nations would be blessed though him (Gal 3:6-9). The promise, which the Gentiles obtained by faith in Christ, was the same promise in which Abraham believed. That's why we are blessed with him.

He is the Chief Cornerstone, Second Adam, Head of a Better Covenant as laid out in Corinthians and Hebrews Chapter 8.

True, Jesus is the second Adam and the head of a better covenant. But the author of Hebrews is not comparing the new covenant to the Abrahamic covenant but to the Mosaic covenant (Heb 8:9). It's the Mosaic covenant which is obsolete (Heb 8:13), not the Abrahamic covenant.

His Covenant Children are not a mixture of unelect and elect. This is a better Covenant. His Children are defined as those given to Him by the Father. Anyone outside of this is not in a Covenant Relationship with Him as in Him all things are Yes. And He has redeemed His Offspring as I noted in an earlier post.

But the NT does say that children of believers are in some kind of relationship to Him. Eph 6:1, children are to obey their parents "in the Lord". The children of believers are somehow changed from "unclean" to "holy" (1 Cor 7:14) not because of something they did, but because of the faith of one parent. You don't become "holy" without some kind of covenant provision to that effect.

 

[Ron]

How many baptism threads have you acquainted yourself with on the Puritan Board?

Herald,

Possibly too many but certainly quite a few.

Because there are no formal rules of debate that are being followed the discussion is like a moving target.

I believe I appreciate that such threads can get off on tangents. That has not been my issue. My issue is that too many are not arguing their point when they are staying on track! They make assertions and then draw conclusions that go beyond the scope of the premises. Look, I'm not expecting everyone (or anyone) to be a skilled logician to the end that they might put forth formal step-by-step proofs. But as God's image bearers I do believe we are to draw conclusions in our informal, verbal discourse that logically follow from justifiable premises. There has been absolutely nothing that even comes close to resembling an argument, even informally.

A person may gravitate to something you've said and respond specifically to that point.

That would have been a delightful experience.

You may wind up spending more than a few posts trying to get an answer to the question that was important to you.

I think I've lived that this week.

Moderators (like moi) try to keep the thread on topic, but we can't police every jot and tittle.

I certainly appreciate what you are trying to do. I really do.

Best,

Ron

-----Added 11/11/2009 at 09:13:05 EST-----

Brothers,

I am going to bow out of this discussion now. I have to believe that I am unable to make the Paedobaptism case any more clear than I have.

Ron

 

[VictorBravo]

Thanks, Ron.

I, for one, think that this thread has become too unwieldy to be of further use. I plan to close it in half an hour.

I am by no means stopping discussion. I'd like to work on what Ron provided to me at my late request, and I think there is plenty more to discuss (as always).

But it should be done with more narrowly focused threads.

Clock starts ticking, get your last thoughts in if you want them here, otherwise, take a breather and gear up for another thread.

 

[Herald]

I appreciate your candor. When I try to read your post in the most charitable light, I understand you to say is that you have not based your position upon what is meant by “good and necessary inference”. You simply think it is more reasonable to conclude a credo-only position.

Ron, actually it is quite the opposite. It is good and necessary inference, plus clear scriptural command, that leads me to a credo only position. And yes, I understand that paedobaptists follow the command of "believe and be baptized." The difference is that to Reformed Baptist's only those who profess repentance towards God and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ are to be baptized.

1689 LBC 29.2 Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.

Ron, you wrote:

Now certainly you don’t want to argue that the only faith that we read about is the faith of adults; for how would we have heard about the faith of an infant?! Moving on...

You don't mind if we don't move on, do you? Prey tell, please show me where an infant exercises saving faith?

Moving on, if the baptistic position were indeed biblical, we might expect to see alongside the ratio of household baptisms, maybe one narrative of a covenant child coming to faith and then being baptized. That, of course, is absent from the NT narratives.

This is completely superfluous to the Reformed Baptist position. The fact that, for example, the Acts 10 and 16 narratives (Cornelius and the Philippian jailer) do not mention the ages of those who were baptized in any way undermines the Reformed Baptist position. Luke writes, about those whom Peter preached to at Cornelius' house:

Acts 10:47-48 47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" 48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

Reformed Baptists see a specific salvific work of the Spirit in the above passage.

And of the Acts 16 narrative:

Acts 16:32-34 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.

The word of the Lord was spoken to all who were in his house. This presupposes that those who heard the word could understand it. Additionally, all who were baptized believed in God (vs. 34). The weight of this passage leans heavier on the side of baptism being administered only to those who believed.

You do a great job of assuming the deficiency of your opponents point of view while assuming the superiority of your own. Unfortunately, you are making assumptions about the Reformed Baptist view that are not accurate. Additionally, your scripture proofs are inconclusive at best. I dealt with two of them (Cornelius and the Philippian jailer), and your explanation falls flat.

 

[Herald]

Thanks, Ron.

I, for one, think that this thread has become too unweildy to be of further use. I plan to close it in half an hour.

I am by no means stopping discussion. I'd like to work on what Ron provided to me at my late request, and I think there is plenty more to discuss (as always).

But it should be done with more narrowly focused threads.

Clock starts ticking, get your last thoughts in if you want them here, otherwise, take a breather and gear up for another thread.

Thread killer!

 

[VictorBravo]

Thread killer!

Yup. Time's up. Thanks everyone.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

As I said, my concern is the difference between the OT and the NT on this point. And I think it is real enough to demand great care in articulating it, especially in the current climate.

Bruce, this is my concern also, which leads me to ask, Is your New Testament church something other than the Old Testament church, i.e., elect? It seems to me that a denial of visible election entails a difference in "substance" between Old and New Testaments. If "substance" is permitted to change, then so also could infant inclusion in visible church membership.

The thread is closed, although Matthew I believe you have privileges to respond.

I want to answer your point. Of course, I see the church as one across administrations.

But allow me to illustrate my point.
_______________

OT age contained the following:
1) Personal election, looking something like this,

ooooiooooiiiooooooioiooioioooooiiooioooiooooioooo

where "i" stands for an elect person out of all "o" people.

2) Election of the nation Israel, looking something like this,

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

where "I" stands for Israel elected out of all "O" nations. Dt.7:6; 14:2; Ex.19:5.
_______________

NT age contains the following:
1) Personal election, looking something like this,

ooooiooooiiiooooooioiooioioooooiiooioooiooooioooo

there is no change here.

2) There is nothing comparable to the national election out of something already present, like nations.

One organization out of all possible organizations? One church out of all the churches? One religion out of all the religions? All these notions have major problems.

_______________

The church is elect out of the world, but it is just here that it seems to me the NT draws up, and does not speak of the church as elect in the world unless she is being viewed ideally, eschatologically. National Israel was elect among all the nations. Except in those formal addresses and OT allusions, it seems to me the NT writers are reluctant to carry over explicit terminology of a corporate or general election and apply it to the church.

The world-undifferentiated (and not the world-of-nations) is the corpus from which the eternal-church is drawn. This does not at all change the fact that the church militant is still composed of believers and their families (Mk.10:1-16). I don't believe my point is affected at all by this recognition.

In this age of the already/not yet, we look back at the national election and forward to the completed election, but should resist the impulse to equate membership in the church with election. Everyone in OT Israel should have noted the difference between his election within the nation, and his election to personal salvation. It is far simpler, today, to speak of "membership" in the church on earth, and "election" (which is most definitely a membership) in Christ/Israel/church-triumphant.

OT Israel has come down to One Person, namely Christ. He sums it up, and they and we also find our identity in Him. He is Israel, OT & NT. We are elect in him (Eph.1:4).

But we still identify ourselves (the church) with the previous national election, which also constituted the church, prior to the cross. My point was that it is the eschatological church that is spoken of in NT terms as elect. That church is chosen out of the world.