RC Sproul on baptism

[littlepeople]

2 observations, then back to lurking. Too many chefs....much better chefs than I am

I see covenant membership to mean sure salvation, and I find it mind-boggling that God might view someone as in Christ in one sense, but potentially not in Christ at the same time.

1 Cor. 10 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.

In Suk, many of your objections to covenant baptism are truly objections to baptism by human hands in general. The meaning and purpose you are drawing from baptism demands that baptism only be applied to known regenerates. The obvious problem is that there are no known regenerates. It's not a state that men can rightly judge in one another. And merely professing myself to be regenerate should not constitute the level of proof that your view of baptism demands of me. I can tell you I am a millionaire, but you won't know until you peer into my bank account at the last day. If baptism was meant to be applied only to those whom we knew to be regenerate, then it is a command that was never meant to be executed. All men are either regenerate or still in bondage to sinful lying. According to your understanding of baptism and your knowledge of the natural state of man's heart, you should not be surprised if most/many of your baptism subjects are really just liars. I don't recall any New Testament command to baptize liars. Do you?

Please forgive the facetiousness of my post, I just have a hard time being succinct without a little sarcasm. The point is, your view of baptism means that baptistic churches and reformed churches are in equal error in that we both baptize those who aren't known by us to be regenerate. Except that there are way more broadly baptistic churches than reformed ones, so perhaps their error gets propogated more widely.

ok back to lurking

 

[Peairtach]

In Suk

Here's where I get confused. Doesn't this mean that the one baptised is baptised into Christ, regenerated, cleansed, the recipient of the monergistic work of God (unconditional)? What does baptism say about the one baptised, if not these things?

It doesn't necessarily mean this with credo baptism either as the elders can't look into the heart of the professor. They may not be regenerate before or at the point of their baptism but may - or may not - come to faith in Christ later.

Likewise for the infants of believers. They may not be regenerate before or at the point of their baptism but may - or may not - come to faith in Christ later.

The Baptists haven't succeeded in applying baptism only to the regenerate because they can't look into people's hearts - only God can do that.

The Lord asks us to apply baptism to those who have a credible profession of faith and their children.

The baptists are being rather narrow and legalistic in seeking to apply baptism to the regenerate elect alone. It's a ridiculous exercise in perfectionism. We're in a different eschatalogical situation to the situation before Christ's first advent but we're not in the Heavenly Eschatological Kingdom and can see who the elect are, and marriage and the human family are still with us.

E.g. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. (Matt 13:47-48)

We're in the New Covenant phase of the gloriously expanding and expansive Abrahamic Covenant. It is fundamental to that Abrahamic Covenant that when adults are engrafted into it their children are also included, even if the sign is changed from circumcision to baptism.

And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. (Genesis 12:3)

 

[steadfast7]

1. Is there anyone else in your Church who has this internal testimony of the Holy Spirit?
2. Was the Holy Spirit testifying with your spirit that you are a child of God the basis for your baptism in the Church?
3. There are many that will come to Christ on the Day of Judgment surprised they are not His. How do you know that the Spirit testifies with your spirit that you are a child of God.

1. I would think that all who are saved have the Spirit ministering to them in this way.

I don't understand. Who are you talking about? I'm asking about people you know in your Church. Do you know anyone who has had the Spirit minister to them in this way?

Well, I haven't gone around asking lately, but I have it heard it as an answer given.

2. No, the Holy Spirit does not minister on the basis of my water baptism.

What relation does water baptism have to the New Covenant?

It's a sign of fellowship with Christ, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life. The NC is the summation of these.

3. I don't need to know how I know he testifies, I simply need to be testified to by him.

Does the Holy Spirit operate apart from the Word and give you immediate testimony? Is this a kind of gnosis that you have?

He works in conjuction with his Word, of course. Not gnosis, but Spirit-enabled faith, testimony and discernment.

Question 80: Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation?

Answer: Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavor to walk in all good conscience before him, may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the truth of God's promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made, and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God, be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation.

---------- Post added at 04:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 PM ----------

Richard and Brandon, thanks for your comments, I'll try to address them once I am permitted.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Well, I haven't gone around asking lately, but I have it heard it as an answer given.

I didn't ask if you had heard them say they had an internal testimony, I asked if you knew anyone who actually possessed the reality of that internal testimony. After all you noted earlier that God is not unsure of these things.

It's a sign of fellowship with Christ, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life. The NC is the summation of these.

It's a sign to whom?

Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavor to walk in all good conscience before him, may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the truth of God's promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made, and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God, be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation.

3. I don't need to know how I know he testifies, I simply need to be testified to by him.

So, do you need to know how you know the Spirit testifies of these things or do you not need to know?
Why do you quote the WLC when it otherwise confuses how grace operates in your estimation? How can you be confident in its answer here when its fundamentally flawed hermeneutic on the operation of grace leads to a sign/seal sacramentology by necessity, which you reject?

 

[steadfast7]

I didn't ask if you had heard them say they had an internal testimony, I asked if you knew anyone who actually possessed the reality of that internal testimony. After all you noted earlier that God is not unsure of these things.

Ohh, I see. No one can be sure of another's internal reality; only of our own.

It's a sign to whom?

unto the party baptised.

3. I don't need to know how I know he testifies, I simply need to be testified to by him.

So, do you need to know how you know the Spirit testifies of these things or do you not need to know?

When you ask "how do you know the Spirit testifies to you?" I read that to mean that you are seeking something external to the Spirit (cognition, discernment, feelings, etc?) to validate that the Spirit is in fact testifying. But I say that my capacities to know are irrelevant; what He enables me to know is everything. I don't need to know how my inner assurance works, but only that I am assured by Him.

Why do you quote the WLC when it otherwise confuses how grace operates in your estimation? How can you be confident in its answer here when its fundamentally flawed hermeneutic on the operation of grace leads to a sign/seal sacramentology by necessity, which you reject?

WLC question 80 is a fine answer that I gladly confess. Westminster doesn't own the monopoly on the inner witness of the Spirit language, and I don't think sacramentology is here necessitated.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Ohh, I see. No one can be sure of another's internal reality; only of our own.

Does that include ministers who baptize others in the Church?

unto the party baptised.

What relation does the sign have to the realities it points to for the party baptized?

When you ask "how do you know the Spirit testifies to you?" I read that to mean that you are seeking something external to the Spirit (cognition, discernment, feelings, etc?) to validate that the Spirit is in fact testifying. But I say that my capacities to know are irrelevant; what He enables me to know is everything. I don't need to know how my inner assurance works, but only that I am assured by Him.

Which is it? He testifies through the Word or with nothing external?

WLC question 80 is a fine answer that I gladly confess. Westminster doesn't own the monopoly on the inner witness of the Spirit language, and I don't think sacramentology is here necessitated.

The WLC is a summation of certain ideas based on a hermeneutic you reject. If you agree with it then you have agreed to the clause where it speaks of the Spirit using means to give assurance to the believer. I'm asking you how you can have confidence in its systematic summary of this doctrine. Are you aware of the necessary consequences to the various clauses about means and their relationship to sacraments?

 

[steadfast7]

Does that include ministers who baptize others in the Church?

Yes. "another" includes them as well. Where are you going with this?

What relation does the sign have to the realities it points to for the party baptized?

For the elect, reality of the sign has been applied.

Which is it? He testifies through the Word or with nothing external?

Being the inspirer of the Word, the Word need not be considered separated categorically from the Spirit. Something external would be human reason. Reason does not validate the Spirit's work.

The WLC is a summation of certain ideas based on a hermeneutic you reject. If you agree with it then you have agreed to the clause where it speaks of the Spirit using means to give assurance to the believer. I'm asking you how you can have confidence in its systematic summary of this doctrine. Are you aware of the necessary consequences to the various clauses about means and their relationship to sacraments?

First, by your rationale of 'hermeneutic', a baptist (or any non Reformed person) could never, and should never agree with anything in the WLC. Second, I fail to see why the Spirit using the means of an inner witness means submitting to sacramentalism (which I am not entirely opposed to, in fact, depending on how that it's defined).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yes. "another" includes them as well.

Does the Church baptize on the basis of regeneration?

For the elect, reality of the sign has been applied.

So what, then, does baptism signify to the rest of the Church about the party baptized?

Being the inspirer of the Word, the Word need not be considered separated categorically from the Spirit. Something external would be human reason. Reason does not validate the Spirit's work.

So when you quoted the WLC:

by faith grounded upon the truth of God's promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made

Do you agree with this or not? Where are the promises of life made?

irst, by your rationale of 'hermeneutic', a baptist (or any non Reformed person) could never, and should never agree with anything in the WLC. Second, I fail to see why the Spirit using the means of an inner witness means submitting to sacramentalism (which I am not entirely opposed to, in fact, depending on how that it's defined).

I didn't ask that. I asked whether you understood the hermeneutic that the WLC uses to arrive at certain conclusions where "promises of life" have a certain meaning attached to them. Are you sure you're agreeing to what you think you are agreeing to by quoting the WLC here?

 

[steadfast7]

The church baptises on the basis of a credible profession of faith, b/c faith is the alone instrument that takes hold of the promises of life which are in the gospel.

If there is a deep chasm of secret knowledge underlying the confession that only trained commentators are privy to and must explain before anyone can agree to a paragraph, then I shall need to be instructed further, but as long as simple words have simple meanings, I have confidence that 'promises of life' is the gospel offer. Even if it had the strict baptismal underpinnings as you are suggesting, this is not something that I deny. I do not deny that in baptism is a declaration of the promises of the gospel; I just think how this plays out in language gets overly optimistic and confusing, as per my OP.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The church baptises on the basis of a credible profession of faith, b/c faith is the alone instrument that takes hold of the promises of life which are in the gospel.

Is the profession of faith the same as a faith that takes hold of the promises of life which are in the gospel?

I have confidence that 'promises of life' is the gospel offer

So the Spirit uses means to testify to the believer?

I do not deny that in baptism is a declaration of the promises of the gospel; I just think how this plays out in language gets overly optimistic and confusing, as per my OP.

Well, if the language is overly optimistic, I'm providing you an opportunity to demonstrate how you might demonstrate a coherent alternative where you link sign to thing signified in a baptismal candidate in a way that avoids this "optimism".

 

[steadfast7]

In credobaptism, there is the honest attempt, as far as human limitations can allow, of bringing together Christ's work and one to whom it has applied. Credobaptism does not intentionally bring in the unregenerate into the church, whereas paedobaptism does.

By optimism, I mean when Sproul, for example, suggests that the one baptised is regenerated, thereby demonstrating God's fulfillment of promise. It is optimistic because there is no discussion of the baptised who do not get saved.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

In credobaptism, there is the honest attempt, as far as human limitations can allow, of bringing together Christ's work and one to whom it has applied.

You didn't answer my question. I asked you if profession of faith is the same as possession of the same. Is it?

Furthermore, is it not "optimistic" of you to assume that the professor of faith possesses the reality of the same?

By optimism, I mean when Sproul, for example, suggests that the one baptised is regenerated, thereby demonstrating God's fulfillment of promise. It is optimistic because there is no discussion of the baptised who do not get saved.

Could you please provide some discussion of the baptised who does not get saved in your schema?

 

[toddpedlar]

In credobaptism, there is the honest attempt, as far as human limitations can allow, of bringing together Christ's work and one to whom it has applied. Credobaptism does not intentionally bring in the unregenerate into the church, whereas paedobaptism does.

This is an inappropriately condemning statement. Paedobaptists no more "intentionally" bring unregenerate into the
church than do credobaptists. Both should recognize that some of those they baptize are not regenerate. Both, if
rational, will recognize that they've not only baptized unregenerate elect people, but they've baptized unregenerate reprobates.
You're painting with too broad a brush, and attacking where you needn't be so offensive.

By optimism, I mean when Sproul, for example, suggests that the one baptised is regenerated, thereby demonstrating God's fulfillment of promise. It is optimistic because there is no discussion of the baptised who do not get saved.

Just wanting to make sure you're being fair to Sproul here.

Does Sproul suggest that EVERY baptized individual is regenerated??

Where (as Rich asks) do we ever see Baptists write about those who are baptized yet turn out
to be obviously reprobate? (and please, please don't tell me that rarely if ever happens!)

 

[Contra_Mundum]

ContraMundum wrote:

For you, to speak of being "in covenant" is synonymous with being "in Christ." It's as simple as that. The one equates to the other.
For me, to speak of being "in covenant" pleads for further clarification: are we talking about deluding, deluded, delusional people who have outward covenant-marks (whether baptism, membership, profession, good deeds, etc.) but nothing of substance? Or are we talking about people with genuine faith, with or without any outward-signs?

For you, the first of my possibilities contains no covenant-relation at all. Whereas, I understand those persons to have an outward, external connection to the covenant, an "accidental" or merely formal connection, without the substance or reality. That means they are "in covenant" in a true but temporal way only, which is not healthy but damning. These people may not be said in any way to be "in Christ." But I can say that because for me, in this sense of an exclusive outward administrations, "in covenant" and "in Christ" are not synonymous.

How can someone be in the New Covenant but not, in any way, be in Christ? I only see this as possible if there is really no relation between the external administration and the internal reality. Should we not at least attempt to bring those together?

But my statement was restricted to the "first possibility." It doesn't include those with "genuine faith." The "someone" in the paragraph you refer to is the deluding or deluded person--this man's in the church, he's baptized (let's just say, it was upon his profession), and he's a liar. What (if any) connection to the New Covenant does your theological understanding predicate of him? Unless I miss my guess, you will say he has NO connection, despite being a visible church member. Ergo, he's not "in Christ."

Well, I don't think he's "in Christ" either! But I also believe that the New Covenant is administered BOTH internally and infallibly (by the Spirit); AND externally and fallibly (by the church). He's "in the New Covenant" outwardly, and not inwardly. Someone who participates in both administrations is "in Christ," however I do not have any access to the Spirit's membership roll. Only the one on earth; and I don't have the insight to put anyone down as "in Christ," only as "in Covenant." So, if you will just read the paragraph as written, you see how we mean to "bring those together."

I have yet to meet a Baptist who believes that the New Covenant has "visibility," in the sense of an external administration; it is wholly spiritual, perfect and ideal. Almost to a man (if they are conversant theologically), they say that ALL who are in the New Covenant are believers, ergo, all who are in the New Covenant are also "in Christ." The Baptist church doesn't "administer" the New Covenant; that is always an immediate and perfect work of Christ through his Spirit. The Baptist church contains a New Covenant gathering (the true Saints who are present), for practicing New Covenant discipline and ordinances (for the perfecting of the saints); but it is NOT the visible New Covenant Embassy, representative of the Government that at present is in "a far country."

And the Baptist church is faithful to that stance, with its view of membership. Covenant "citizenship" is claimed by individuals, and their professions are duly noted as membership. But the Baptist church does not claim those persons as New Covenant "citizens." If one is excommunicated, he is disowned, disfellowshippedhe is not "stripped of his citizenship." He wasn't ever a citizen, and you can't lose what you never had.

But on our side, the language of "disfellowship" is strange speech, not our lingo. Excommunicates are traitors, who are stripped of their citizenship. It is something akin to someone from a terrorist organization coming to this country, and gaining citizenship, for the purposes of infiltration and sabotage. He really is a citizen, even though he's lying about his allegiance all the way through the process. When he's caught, perhaps he will be punished, then stripped of his citizenship, and deported. We could say, "You never were an American!" but the truth is, outwardly, he was. He jumped through all the hoops, and got his papers.

ContraMundum wrote:

What does baptism have to do with "God's view" of anything? Is that another expression of trying to bring heaven down to earth?

I thought it had everything to do with God's view. Is covenant membership a purely external and administrative pronouncement by the church, or does it not reflect God's perspective as well? Surely it does. Paedos argue all the time that God views children of believing parents as holy, as covenant members.

I note an equivocation on the meaning of "God's view." We don't try to replicate God's infallible view of the human heart. We just baptize those whom we think he has indicated Scripturally he wants marked with HIS mark of ownership. He calls the shots, we don't question his wisdom in that. On the other hand, Scripturally he calls those children "holy," which tells us something about his historically expressed "perspective" regarding such persons.

Also, how is covenant membership "damning" for some? As Rev. Winzer noted, "The very act of receiving the promissory sign confers benefits on the one who receives it. It is no small blessing to belong to the visible community of God's people and to enjoy God's promises both proclaimed and ratified by covenant." If there is reprobation in Christ, how is this a better promise than the old covenant?

Those are not eternal benefits, but the fact that "to him that has nothing, even the little he has will be taken away from him," doesn't unmake the benefit. The book of Hebrews tells us of those who have tasted the very real benefits of the age to come, and who fall away. That letter is replete with warnings to professing Christians.

And your final line? You've simply repeated your opening position, that to be "in the New Covenant" equals being "in Christ." I rejected your equation. There is no reprobation "in Christ." But since I believe in an outward form for the New Covenant, I can say that outward-only participants are in danger of damnation, just as certain professing Christians in Hebrews were. The New Covenant is "better" principally because of the finished work of Christ and the outpouring of Holy Spirit. He's not just working mainly in one tiny nation of the world with an eyedropper; he's doing more and saving more now than ever.


Hope that explains more from this perspective.

 

[steadfast7]

Profession of faith is not the same as the possession of the reality. Indeed, no one can know who's elect, there's no denying that. But what I see in the baptist scheme is the desire and effort to unify the external administration with the internal reality, the visible church with the invisible. I think we all agree that it would be ideal if we could SEE objective grace and election in individuals, baptise THEM and bring THEM and ONLY THEM into the church. This would be reasonable, for in the eschaton, there will be no distinction any longer, no impurity, no discrepancy. Todd, your adverse reaction to the charge that paedos admit unregenerates into the Church confirms this correct desire to see One Holy Catholic Church; one communion of Saints.

Baptists, infallible and gullible though they are, are trying to filter out unregenerates from the wedding ceremony. It's simple isn't it? Two systems: one has a screening process, the other doesn't. Which one will let in more undesirables?

I don't think it's inappropriately condemning to say that paedos intentionally bring in unregenerates into the Church, more so than credos. First, most of us believe that regeneration usually occurs close to the time someone believes, and although God can regenerate infants, most are regenerated later. Therefore, infant baptism tends to baptise those who are not yet regenerate. Second, according to canon, paedos MUST baptise and admit EVERY infant of one believing parent. So say there are 10 infants to be baptised, and 2 are not elect. The fact they are all commanded to be baptised and pronounced with the same blessing of membership, this imperative suggests intentionality. You brought them in knowing that some will not receive the reality. I don't see why the God, or the Church should want that, unless there were some instrumental or advantageous reason to create a church of a mixed flock of sheep and goats?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Nova,
How can you say we don't have a "screening process"? We don't baptize "just anybody," and we don't baptize just anyone's dependents. And we DON'T have sight to see the invisible, and we never shall. Ever. So hypothesizing about what would be ideal is futile. We don't base our estimate about how we SHOULD be doing baptism on what we would LIKE to be doing (such as maybe baptizing only elect people). We have a impure church on earth, and that's all we will ever have on earth.

You're claiming to have a better (finer?) screen you're using versus the one we use. That's it. It's theoretically possible that you may screen out more unregenerate persons in the initial process, however there isn't really any objective way to determine even that for certain, and it cannot be demonstrated at all over the long-term.

And, in the process your chosen method necessarily screens out an indeterminate number of God's children from among the total offspring who belong to the faithful. Obviously, this reading goes back to a disagreement over the nature of the Abrahamic covenant; but our position is that God long ago chose, in the case of children of believers, to err on the side of inclusion and visible mercy, rather than on the side of exclusion and visible hostility. Will this method let in "undesirables": Esaus and Ishmaels, Judases along with Peters? Yes. That's what the OT church did, and what similar acts do now.

If we're all supposed to be flagellating ourselves, I guess this is where I'm supposed to say, "Presbyterians, fallible and gullible as we are, we don't try to be wiser than God, and pick a better screen than he."

In Todd's defense, I think his reaction is against the pejorative statement that we "knowingly" and "intentionally" include the unregenerate in our churches. Which is nonsense, since 1) we are simply obeying the command (as we hear it), and both your side and ours "know" that some of those we baptize are untrue to God; and 2) we practice church discipline, which may lead to the removal at the last extremity of the unrepentant sinner--we deal with those we think may be evidencing "unregeneracy" (although they may not be, ultimately). We have to cut them out of the visible covenant, so that their souls may be delivered in the Day of Judgment.

As for your rationalist proposal that the Baptist has the superior method of constituting the church and preserving church discipline, I would humbly ask for the empirical data that backs up that contention. Alternatively, I would like to know the biblical texts that provide the propositions that lead to the logical conclusions you have offered. I'm really not interested in "common-sense" expectations, which cannot be reliable guides in spiritual things. TNX.

 

[Peairtach]

The reformed baptists don't seem to realise that there are inner and outer aspects to the Covenant and that there is the visible and invisible Church.

When someone is baptised in a reformed baptist church and they subsequently fall away, is that person's profession of faith deprived of all meaning in reformed baptist theology? They were never in the Covenant in any sense? Leaving aside the question of paedobaptism, this is not the position in the New Testament, where it is indicated that it would be better not to profess faith in Christ, rather than profess faith in Christ and subsequently turn away from Him.

If this is the view of the Reformed Baptists, they obviously (over) reacted to paedobaptism in order to avoid the implications of the fact that there are outer as well as inner aspects to the Covenant of Grace, and that unsaved people can indeed - either properly or improperly - be in the Covenant of Grace and the Visible Church, not only in the Old Covenant period but also today.

Do we say that when a husband proves to be a bad husband, that he was never a husband in any sense?

Quote from Nova

then how can some (unregenerates) enjoy some external benefits of membership but not take hold of all?

The Spirit of God can work in the elect before they are converted by common grace in a covenantal way. See e.g. Guthrie's "Christian's Great Interest.''

God - in the administration of the Covenant of Grace in history not in eternity- wants the children of those who have a credible profession of faith to be baptised. He does not tell the minister beforehand whether this child is regenerate or even elect.

The secret things belong to God, not to the paedobaptists or the reformed baptists.

I find this odd, because paedos confess that baptism is both the sign and seal, so I don't see how one baptised can receive the sign but not end up sealed.

Someone growing up in the Covenant of Grace doesn't fully appreciate his baptism as a sign and seal until he is regenerate and has saving faith. And even after coming to faith in Christ we learn further the meaning of the sacraments.

This doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit can't use that baptism before he/she is converted, explained to him from the pulpit and in the home, along with the Word of God, as a means to lead him to faith.

Perhaps this has a lot to do with culture and context of the early Reformed churches, who did not conceive of covenant children rebelling against the faith, but this is a very relevant question in our context, don't you think?

I think the reformers - who it is safe to say - knew their Bibles well, conceived of covenant children rebelling against the faith. We only have to site the generation of Jews that rejected the message of our Lord. In the covenant but not of the covenant apart from a relatively small number.

 

[Phil D.]

I think it can be argued that although the concept of dual aspects to the covenant is present in Reformed theology, it was not as prominent in early thought.

The prominent Westminster divine Samuel Rutherford wrote:

"Persons are two ways in Covenant with God, [1] externally by visible profession, and conditionally, not in reference to the Covenant, but to the things promised in Covenant, which none obtains, but such as fulfill the condition of the Covenant...And, [2.] Infants born of Covenanted parents are in Covenant with God, because they are born of such parents, as are in Covenant with God.

...The Lord promiseth life and forgiveness shall be given to these who are externally in the covenant, providing they believe, but the Lord promiseth not a new heart and grace to believe to these who are only externally in Covenant. And yet he promiseth both to the elect...Hence the Covenant must be considered two ways, [1] in abstracto and formally...so [i.e., ‘and in this way’] all within the Visible Church are in the Covenant of Grace…[2.] In the concrete…as the Lord not only promises, but acts and engraves the Law in the heart, commensurably with the decree of Election, so the elect only are under the Covenant of Grace. (The Covenant of Life Opened: or, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, [Edinburgh, 1655])​

 

[Semper Fidelis]

In Suk: I did not grant you permission to do anything but answer questions. Subsequent posts have been deleted.

But what I see in the baptist scheme is the desire and effort to unify the external administration with the internal reality, the visible church with the invisible.

Please provide a single Scripture where an Apostle or Christ expresses the "desire" and "effort" to unify the external administration to the internal reality.

I think we all agree that it would be ideal if we could SEE objective grace and election in individuals, baptise THEM and bring THEM and ONLY THEM into the church.

We don't all agree. You see, the world we have and the knowledge we possess have been ordained of God. Do you claim to know better than God that you cannot know the names of the elect and we are left wanting on the basis of His determined counsel? Where, again, has God required the Church to bring the Elect, and them only, into the Church? Where is their Apostolic example of the same?

First, most of us believe that regeneration usually occurs close to the time someone believes, and although God can regenerate infants, most are regenerated later.

Which is it, In Suk? You know who is elect or you do not? Do you know, contra John 3, where the Spirit blows? Where, again, in the Scriptures do you find that regeneration "usually" occurs close to the time someone believes?

Secondly, you are again being sloppy in your terminology. You said "believes" but you probably mean to say "professes". You have already admitted the two are not the same.

Therefore, infant baptism tends to baptise those who are not yet regenerate.

Because you have the mind of God you know this? Or do you have some other kind of Scriptural warrant for this where you know the identity or the timing of those regenerated?

So say there are 10 infants to be baptised, and 2 are not elect. The fact they are all commanded to be baptised and pronounced with the same blessing of membership, this imperative suggests intentionality.

Premise 1: The Baptist minister does not know whether any are elect.
Premise 2: The Baptist minister baptizes every man who professes.
Conclusion (In Suk's logic): The Baptist is intentionally baptizing the unregenerate.

I don't see why the God, or the Church should want that, unless there were some instrumental or advantageous reason to create a church of a mixed flock of sheep and goats?

Perhaps you ought to start quoting some Scripture instead of presenting a rationalistic schema where you speculate what God would or would not like.
1. Has God given a Baptist Church knowledge of who the sheep or the goats are?
2. What advantage is there for the Baptist, who follows your reasoning, to baptize a single soul?

 

[steadfast7]

Please provide a single Scripture where an Apostle or Christ expresses the "desire" and "effort" to unify the external administration to the internal reality.

Anachronistic. All that is required by the NT is evidence that the visible church ought to be the invisible church, and that Church ought to be working toward it. Eph 4:11 "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes."

There is also evidence from the fact that the Apostles are addressing the elect in their ministry. They are thinking of the ideal church, the invisible church, the elect, when they minister. They do not conceive of the mixture as being in any way ideal. eg. 1 Peter: "1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood ..."

Titus 1 "1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth..."

Where, again, has God required the Church to bring the Elect, and them only, into the Church? Where is their Apostolic example of the same?

It's the elect who ARE the Church. God has required the Church to BE the Church, and God's servants, like Paul, "endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory" (2 Tim 2:10). Paul doesn't know who the elect are, but he sets the this ideal Church before him in his mind and ministry and serves them.

Which is it, In Suk? You know who is elect or you do not? Do you know, contra John 3, where the Spirit blows? Where, again, in the Scriptures do you find that regeneration "usually" occurs close to the time someone believes?

This has been answered already. NO ONE KNOWS WHO'S ELECT. But no one, paedo or credo, baptises an adult without profession of faith or an indication of fruit bearing. The Reformed have varying views regarding the time of regeneration. I'm entitled to hold to a view.

Premise 1: The Baptist minister does not know whether any are elect.
Premise 2: The Baptist minister baptizes every man who professes.
Conclusion (In Suk's logic): The Baptist is intentionally baptizing the unregenerate.

A gross misrepresentation. This was NOT the logic put forward.
1. Presbyterian minister baptizes all infants of believers
2. Not all infants of believers are regenerate
3. Presbyterian minister baptizes unregenerate infants

No one said anything about Baptists baptizing EVERY professor; that is your caricature. However, it is true that a Presbyterian MUST baptise EVERY infant of a believing parent.

I'm done with the thread, Rich. I'm not one for confrontation and I'm saddened at this turn of events. Sorry if I offended anyone.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Anachronistic. All that is required by the NT is evidence that the visible church ought to be the invisible church, and that Church ought to be working toward it. Eph 4:11 "And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, 14so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes."

There is also evidence from the fact that the Apostles are addressing the elect in their ministry. They are thinking of the ideal church, the invisible church, the elect, when they minister. They do not conceive of the mixture as being in any way ideal. eg. 1 Peter: "1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood ..."

Titus 1 "1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth..."

1. Anachronistic? You don't have to base your desires or efforts upon didactic teaching from the Scriptures?

2. Here's In Suk's reasoning:
a. The Apostles don't know who the Elect were...
b. The Apostles knew who the Elect were when they addressed them in letters.

3. In Ephesians 4, did you notice the word "until" in the passage - it is a hope and not a present reality. If anything, you quote a verse that would demonstrate admixture.

4. Whether the work is for the elect does not imply they did not baptize the unelect or that their chief end in baptism was to avoid the same. Paul served alongside in the ministry with men who he later notes have completely rejected the faith. The apostles also address many people beside the elect in the Scriptures (at least we do not know).

It's the elect who ARE the Church. God has required the Church to BE the Church, and God's servants, like Paul, "endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory" (2 Tim 2:10). Paul doesn't know who the elect are, but he sets the this ideal Church before him in his mind and ministry and serves them.

Notice the eisogesis in play here: Paul says he works everything for the sake of the elect, In Suk says that the elect ARE the Church.

In Suk: You are certain you are Elect. Who else is in "The Church" at Grace Community Church? Why do you call it a "Church"? Ought you not call it something else unless you're sure everyone is elect?

Except, as you will exclaim below, you cannot.

This has been answered already. NO ONE KNOWS WHO'S ELECT. But no one, paedo or credo, baptises an adult without profession of faith or an indication of fruit bearing. The Reformed have varying views regarding the time of regeneration. I'm entitled to hold to a view.

It's been answered and then you jump, irrationally, to statements where you claim to know the elect or the timing of their regeneration. If you are frustrated then it is only a reflection of you own inconsistency of expression and presentation.

Actually, on this board, you are not entitled to any view contra a Confession and your view is un-Confessional from a paedo and credo Confessional view. You are not entitled to violate the Word of God and speculate on things hidden (Deut 29:29).

A gross misrepresentation. This was NOT the logic put forward.
1. Presbyterian minister baptizes all infants of believers
2. Not all infants of believers are regenerate
3. Presbyterian minister baptizes unregenerate infants

No one said anything about Baptists baptizing EVERY professor; that is your caricature. However, it is true that a Presbyterian MUST baptise EVERY infant of a believing parent.

Again, In Suk is frustrated but states that Presbyterians KNOW who the regenerate and unregenerate are. Either that or In Suk knows. Perhaps you can reply in ALL CAPS that you do NOT know know the identity of the regenerate again and then we'll all wonder how you wrote the above. Furthermore, Baptist ministers do, in fact, baptize, every person that they believe gives a credible confession (as do Presbyterians).

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Been staying out of these discussions for the most part. Just thought I would throw this in for fire. LOL

LBCF xiv 3.
This faith, although it be different in degrees, and may be weak or strong, yet it is in the least degree of it different in the kind or nature of it, as is all other saving grace, from the faith and common grace of temporary believers; and therefore, though it may be many times assailed and weakened, yet it gets the victory, growing up in many to the attainment of a full assurance through Christ, who is both the author and finisher of our faith.

The real 1689 LBCF
Chapter 26: Of the Church
1._____ The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
( Hebrews 12:23; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:10, 22, 23; Ephesians 5:23, 27, 32 )

2._____ All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.
( 1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 11:26; Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:20-22 )

3._____ The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.
( 1 Corinthians 5; Revelation 2; Revelation 3; Revelation 18:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12; Matthew 16:18; Psalms 72:17; Psalm 102:28; Revelation 12:17 )

 

[Peairtach]

Well that shows that the Reformed Baptists recognise the visible and invisible churches, Randy. But in correspondence to that do they recognise invisible and visible aspects to the Covenant?

E.g. Abraham was in covenant with God in his heart ("invisibly") long before he was circumcised in his body.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Well that shows that the Reformed Baptists recognise the visible and invisible churches, Randy. But in correspondence to that do they recognise invisible and visible aspects to the Covenant?

E.g. Abraham was in covenant with God in his heart ("invisibly") long before he was circumcised in his body.

I am not sure what you are asking about in your first question Rich. I think I know the answer but want you to be more specific with your question before I answer.

Yes, Abraham was justified by his faith before He received the Covenant of Circumcision. He was included in the Covenant of Grace as one given to Christ by the Father. But as we have discussed this before I believe their are mingled Covenants administered through the Abrahamic and Mosaic. Is the CofW included? I don't believe so in its First administration. But there is "Do This and Live" content in those covenants which do resemble the Covenant of Works.

 

[Peairtach]

I am not sure what you are asking about in your first question Rich. I think I know the answer but want you to be more specific with your question before I answer.

Remind of the best place(s) online to get the Reformed Baptist take on the Covenant and baptism.

If someone proves to be unregenerate after they have been baptised in a Reformed Baptist church, do you believe that they were/are in any sense in the Covenant - e.g. outwardly but not inwardly, legally in the bond of the covenant but without the life, visibly but not internally?

If someone is converted after they have been baptised in a Reformed Baptist church, do you have to baptise them again?

2._____ All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.
( 1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 11:26; Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:20-22 )

Presbyterians would hold that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Liberals, Evangelicals and Reformed, Pentecostals, etc, are part of the Visible Church at its broadest, but ideally massive dead wood in the Visible Church should be greatly pruned back by church sanctions to make way for greater real and living growth.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I am not sure what you are asking about in your first question Rich. I think I know the answer but want you to be more specific with your question before I answer.

Remind of the best place(s) online to get the Reformed Baptist take on the Covenant and baptism.

Man, I must be a glutton for punishment. This is my third time posting this. I keep getting logged off.

In response to your first statement and or question I would recommend a book that is online at google books now.
Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New ... - Google Books

If someone proves to be unregenerate after they have been baptised in a Reformed Baptist church, do you believe that they were/are in any sense in the Covenant - e.g. outwardly but not inwardly, legally in the bond of the covenant but without the life, visibly but not internally?

NO. I do not.
Just because something is in a cookie jar doesn't make it a cookie. I believe the RB Church has discussed this topic extensively and Dr. Gary Crampton in his new book does a bang up job on this. I recommend you get a copy to understand his position from a Confessional position. It is done from a Confessional direction and as one who was a Presbyterian for many years.
I would also take you to understand that just because you claim to be an American Citizen doesn't necessarily make you one. We have many illegal aliens who have crept in unawares seeking out the liberties and benefits. Also some come in looking like American Citizens but in their hearts they are not. They are called illegal aliens. God knows who are HIS.

(Rom 8:9) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

(Gal 2:4) And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

(Gal 2:5) To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

Also remember Titus 1:4

(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.

If someone is converted after they have been baptised in a Reformed Baptist church, do you have to baptise them again?

I would leave that to the Elders. Early Particular Baptist struggled with allowing Paedobaptist baptisms in their church memberships after conversion. Bunyan would. So would many Particular Baptists. But not all of them. I believe Nehemiah Coxe had a problem with it. But to address your question. I would leave it to the Elders of a Congregation to weigh the matter. I was rebaptized because I was baptized under false pretenses the first time I was baptized. I state it this way because not every congregation would see things the same way just as Paedo Covenantalists doesn't. I will prove my point in the next question.

2._____ All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.
( 1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 11:26; Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:20-22 )

Presbyterians would hold that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Liberals, Evangelicals and Reformed, Pentecostals, etc, are part of the Visible Church at its broadest, but ideally massive dead wood in the Visible Church should be greatly pruned back by church sanctions to make way for greater real and living growth.

I don't believe you are truly representing the whole here. I don't think you are trying to lie or misrepresent. But I know many Presbyterians who do not accept what you have said. They do not believe that the baptism of apostate organizations such as the RCC or other wayward groups are true baptism. T. H. Thornwell has written a wonderful book on this topic.
The Collected Writings of James ... - Google Books

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/validity-roman-catholic-eastern-orthodox-baptisms-37009/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/redo-rc-baptism-valid-41300/
Everyone doesn't agree here.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Something else I have thought about.... I don't think others understand the differences in Church membership. I have been involved with Presbyterians for many many years. Something missing from this discussion is Communicate Membership as opposed... well not really opposed... just membership. One acknowledges a Confession of faith and the fulfillment of ones confession and discipline. The other is looking and discipling toward it.

 

[Spinningplates2]

Thanks for the lesson in patience.

 

[Peairtach]

Thanks for the info, Randy.

NO. I do not.
Just because something is in a cookie jar doesn't make it a cookie.

What about the example of the couple that are properly married and then it turns out that the husband doesn't love the wife and never has? Would we say that the husband isn't a husband in any sense?.

People enter covenantal relationships who shouldn't; that doesn't mean that they have not in some sense entered a covenantal relationship.

What about the Jew - of Paul's day, for argument's sake - who wasn't a Jew internally? Should we say that they weren't Jews in any sense? Surely the fact that they were Jews in one sense made their lack of faith and repentance a greater crime against God?

Yes, Abraham was justified by his faith before He received the Covenant of Circumcision. He was included in the Covenant of Grace as one given to Christ by the Father. But as we have discussed this before I believe their are mingled Covenants administered through the Abrahamic and Mosaic. Is the CofW included? I don't believe so in its First administration. But there is "Do This and Live" content in those covenants which do resemble the Covenant of Works.

Abraham was in a sense in covenant with God before his circumcision.

I - at present - can't see any RoCoW in Moses, and how is it to be extended back to Abraham, when the law wasn't republished until Moses?

There may sometimes be a hypothetical proclamation and presentation of the law as a CoW in Moses (e.g. Leviticus 18), not as a RoCoW, which would mean that God was entering a CoW with the Israelites/and wanted them to enter into it, but in order to remind them of the impossibility of salvation in that way.

Our Lord Jesus does similar with e.g. the Rich Young Ruler, thus authorising generations of Gospel preachers to do the same, but would we say that the New Covenant was, or contained, a RoCoW?

A hypothetical presentation of the law as a CoW should not be called a RoCoW, nor should the typological teaching aid of the possibility of being exiled from the Holy Land. These were all given in God's grace to sinners to teach them, and ultimately to lead to the salvation of the elect among Israel.

In the case of Adam, the CoW was given in God's bountful goodness ("grace" if you like, although it is somewhat confusing to use the word "grace" with respect to the CoW) to a man who hadn't sinned and was capable of keeping a CoW.

Eden and Sinai are like chalk and cheese.

 

[ronlsb]

I hate to be so bold as to express something differently than Dr. Sproul, but I would say baptism, like circumcision before it, is a sign and seal of the righteousness of God which comes to all who have faith in the gospel promise. Just as Isacc did not possess this faith when he was circumsized but attained it at a later age, so it is with children who receive the sign now as infants. They begin to possess the righteousness of God when they come to saving faith, just as Isaac did. Why the sign then, one might ask, if it might all be for nought? Answer--Clearly there are great advantages to being raised by Godly parents assisted by a congregation of believers. The apostle Paul spells out such advantages to the Jews in the Old Covenant simply because they were circumsized and part of God's chosen people. Conversely, if the individual who was baptized and raised in this environment never comes to faith, his condemnation on judgment day will be much greater than he who was never baptized, just as the fate of the unbelieving Jew would be much more severe than a Gentile who was never circumsized.

Despite our differences with my baptistic brothers, there are many similiarities with their view of the sacrament and ours. Many are baptized and accepted as members of the church, thus enjoying its benefits, who will ultimately not possess true saving faith. Like the individuals mentioned above who were baptized as infants, their punishment will be much greater for having had the blessings that come with the sign and yet ultimately rejecting Christ and never actually possessing the righteousness of God as a result. One of the big differences between the camps is that padeo baptists view the sign as a promise of God and His righteousness to all who trust Christ (thus, the sign is about God, not man), rather than the baptist view that the sign is about man (and a public declaration than he has believed in Christ). One of the reasons I am a Presbyterian is that I feel I am standing on much safer ground to view both the sacraments as picturing God and the promises of Christ rather than a picture of what a man has done in response to the gospel, as wonderful as that may be. I am fully assured that Abraham would have had the exact view of both circumcision and the passover, which, with the death and resurrection of Christ, have now been replaced with baptism and the Lord's supper (obvioulsy there being no more need to shed blood). Blessings!