Since the New Covenant is called the covenant in Christ's blood, what, in the paedobaptist view, does Christ mediate towards those who are part of the "non-salvific" part of the covenant? What exactly does Christ's blood do for the non-elect?
Also, a study of Hebrews 6-10 and paedobaptism from a Baptist covenant theology perspective is found here.
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
I don't really wish to read the link you gave me. A summary would be helpful but unnecessary. The problem is an incorrect tendency to keep equivocating baptism with the elect. At best you apply baptism only to professors. Not all who profess are of the invisible/elect group. This established, the next question is who belongs to the visible covenant?
Quote
Act 8:14-23 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. (KJV)
I do not understand how baptism can be said to be exclusive to the elect.
SemperReformanda said: Well, since we're on this topic again...
Since the New Covenant is called the covenant in Christ's blood, what, in the paedobaptist view, does Christ mediate towards those who are part of the "non-salvific" part of the covenant? What exactly does Christ's blood do for the non-elect?
Also, a study of Hebrews 6-10 and paedobaptism from a Baptist covenant theology perspective is found here.
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> The blood of the covenant makes the reprobate within the administration of the covenant more culpable.
Now I have a question, or two. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/uptosomething.gif" alt="" />
1. With whom was the Abrahamic covenant "established"?
2. To whom was the Abrahamic covenant to be administered?
I skipped through one of those sermons on the site SemperReformanda gave a link to. I'll try to give a brief summary and show the argument being made. He argued that the new covenant is only made to actual believers that know God like it says in Jer 31. He looked specifically at Heb 8:6 and the word "better" or "superior." He showed the the greek kreitton is rightfully translated. Paedos who argue that the new covenant is greater in degree are wrong because the greek word means greater in kind. He showed that the people in the old covenant did not always have a change of heart. But the new covenant "will not be like the covenant made with their forefathers" and when God says "I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people" and "because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest" its talking about believers only. Then he shows that Jesus is mediator only for his people and not the entire visible church. He asks the question "if he is mediator for everyone in the visible church, what does he mediate to people in the new covenant who are unbelievers."
I am still not sold on either side, creto or paedo. I lean towards paedo but I did think that sermon had some good points in it. I ask the same question he did in the sermon, what does Jesus mediate to those in the covenant or visual church that are not elect? I dont think it can be wrath.
I would be happy if someone would try to persuade me either way. Thankyou
Last edited by Soli Deo Gloria; Fri Dec 03, 20041:49 AM.
I do not claim Christ is mediator for the entire visible church. I do claim that baptism is rightly administered to such. As I stated in my prior post, unless you want to claim to know the elect, this is also your belief whether or not you baptize children. None of us, James White included, baptize only elect people.
...someone would try to persuade me either way. Thankyou
SDG,
The "Reader's Digest" version is that God promised Abraham and the elect seed in Christ (Galatians 3; Romans 9; Genesis 17) salvation w/o condition. Even though the covenant promise pertained to the elect in Christ, God commanded Abraham to administer the sign of the covenant to his household (which would include infants). Circumcision was the sign that one was a member of the visible people of God, but it was not intended that the sign be reserved for only those who professed the true religion (since infants were to be counted among that number). The New Covenant is made with the elect as well. The only question is whether the New Covenant requires us to no longer consider the children of professing believers as subjects for the visible sign of entrance into the visible people of God. This argument cannot be refuted by a baptist. Rather they address a different argument, which is not the paedobaptist argument.
Reformed baptists will argue that the old the covenant was established with believers and unbelievers, whereas under the new, they will argue, it is only made with believers. From this premise they reason further that the covenant sign is now to be applied only to those who profess faith in Christ, since they believe that the New Covenant is now made only with the elect. Their reasoning is sound, but their starting premise is incorrect, which leads them to a faulty conclusion. The point is, the old covenant was not established with the non-elect, which Galatians 3, Romans 9 and Genesis 17 clearly and unambiguously teach. Accordingly, my first paragraph is what Baptists should deal with, IMHO.
I find it interesting that Peter couched the command to baptize at Pentecost in the language of the Abrahamic covenant. Are we to suppose that the Jews did not baptize their infants on that day, especially in light of the fact that for 2000 years infants of professing believers had been included in the outward administration of the entrance-sign to the covenant?
SDG, cool nick. Welcome to the boards. I hope you enjoy your stay.
I agree with practically everything Ron said. I am just going to add a little extra for thought.
Ron said.......
Quote
The "Reader's Digest" version is that God promised Abraham and the elect seed in Christ (Galatians 3; Romans 9; Genesis 17) salvation w/o condition. Even though the covenant promise pertained to the elect in Christ, God commanded Abraham to administer the sign of the covenant to his household (which would include infants). Circumcision was the sign that one was a member of the visible people of God, but it was not intended that the sign be reserved for only those who professed the true religion (since infants were to be counted among that number). The New Covenant is made with the elect as well. The only question is whether the New Covenant requires us to no longer consider the children of professing believers as subjects for the visible sign of entrance into the visible people of God. This argument cannot be refuted by a baptist. Rather they address a different argument, which is not the paedobaptist argument.
As I have stated before we cannot know, infallibly, who is elect. Therefore baptism cannot be for the elect only. This begs the question, "for whom is baptism for?". It is my understanding that there has always been a visible/invisible distinction concerning the Church. The visible church is made up of all professing adults and their family. The invisible Church is made up of the elect, which surely contains some who cannot make professions of faith (infants, handicapped, etc.), though this is another issue. Since baptism only for the elect is not possible, I adhere to baptism for all visible covenant members. The OT and NT and practices throughout church history are reflective of this.
Then Ron said.......
Quote
Reformed baptists will argue that the old the covenant was established with believers and unbelievers, whereas under the new, they will argue, it is only made with believers. From this premise they reason further that the covenant sign is now to be applied only to those who profess faith in Christ, since they believe that the New Covenant is now made only with the elect. Their reasoning is sound, but their starting premise is incorrect, which leads them to a faulty conclusion. The point is, the old covenant was not established with the non-elect, which Galatians 3, Romans 9 and Genesis 17 clearly and unambiguously teach. Accordingly, my first paragraph is what Baptists should deal with, IMHO.
I have yet to see a didactic teaching showing the change of administration. Equivocating profession with election is indefensible. The NT shows that all adult converts did indeed give a profession prior to baptism. However, I believe it was the same in the OT for adults. The question isn't about adults but their families. The NT has several of these examples of OIKOS baptism. Making the descriptive prescriptive can also lead to wrong conclusions as well, i.e. footwashing.
Ron then stated.......
Quote
I find it interesting that Peter couched the command to baptize at Pentecost in the language of the Abrahamic covenant. Are we to suppose that the Jews did not baptize their infants on that day, especially in light of the fact that for 2000 years infants of professing believers had been included in the outward administration of the entrance-sign to the covenant?
I couldn't agree more. The historical grammatical method of interpretation makes the paedo understanding fit the context better. If there was such a difference in applying the visible sign, I missed the command in scripture. The question isn't about which covenant we are under but how the covenant sign is applied. I believe it is applied to believers and their families.
Combined, the sign being administered in the OT under a familial setting, the regular practice of household baptisms in the NT, the historical practice of all of Church history and my understanding of the visible/invisible distinction, helped me to become a paedobaptist. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Please feel free to ask further questions.
Please consider what I've written and let me know your thoughts.
Kindly yours,
Ron
Quote
As I have stated before we cannot know, infallibly, who is elect. Therefore baptism cannot be for the elect only. This begs the question, "for whom is baptism for?".
First, Baptists do not argue that baptism is for the elect but rather for the converted. (I wonder whether a baptist would say that an infant should be baptized if it was indeed known (somehow) to be elect. I don't think that a baptist would say this, because conversion is the issue, not election I would think.) In any case, I've never liked this argument very much, though it is quite popular. It is true that we cannot know who the converted are, but this does not mean that baptism is, therefore, not for them alone. The Lord’s Table, for instance, is only for those who consciously discern the Lord’s body, is it not? Yet we cannot know who the false professors are. The elders are to try to ensure through the examining of the congregants that the table not be partaken of by unbelievers. That is obviously the best the church can do. However, since some will no doubt eat damnation to themselves, must we conclude that the table is, therefore, for the unconverted and not for the converted alone? When Baptists say that baptism is for the converted alone, they are merely communicating the very same sentiment that Paedobaptists would like to communicate regarding the Lord’s Table.
The confusion, I believer, is over the word “for”. What Baptists mean by “for” is: “intended in an ideal sense”, which is really how we employ the term when the Lord’s Table is in view.
Quote
It is my understanding that there has always been a visible/invisible distinction concerning the Church. The visible church is made up of all professing adults and their family. The invisible Church is made up of the elect, which surely contains some who cannot make professions of faith (infants, handicapped, etc.), though this is another issue.
The Baptist will say that there was certainly an Israel inside of Israel and a church inside the church. However, the issue is not whether there are visible and invisible churches under both economies, but whether God’s promise was made with the same seed under both economies.
Quote
Since baptism only for the elect is not possible, I adhere to baptism for all visible covenant members.
I don’t think this is what you really want to say. For by the same reasoning one can conclude that we should baptize all the peoples of earth, since we don’t know who the elect are. The reason, I would think, that you want baptism applied to the children of professing believers (which aren’t necessary true believers) is because you believe that God’s word teaches that the children of professing believers are to be baptized. This, however, is not at all the same reason you just gave, which is that you cannot know who the elect are.
The instructions given for the Lords Table are not the same as Baptism. There aren't any examples of "household" communions. One is a sign, administered once. The other is a continuing practice.
Quote
For by the same reasoning one can conclude that we should baptize all the peoples of earth, since we don’t know who the elect are. The reason, I would think, that you want baptism applied to the children of professing believers (which aren’t necessary true believers) is because you believe that God’s word teaches that the children of professing believers are to be baptized. This, however, is not at all the same reason you just gave, which is that you cannot know who the elect are.
Except, as you stated, I don't believe such. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I believe, as Biblical example shows, that professors and their children are proper recipients. What I was arguing against is that baptism cannot be assigned to the elect alone in practice.
The instructions given for the Lords Table are not the same as Baptism. There aren't any examples of "household" communions. One is a sign, administered once. The other is a continuing practice.
William,
I don't think you dealt with my post. Maybe my point wasn't made clearly enough. My point is that we may not say that Baptism is not for the converted alone simply based upon our inability to discern who the converted are. This should be quite recognizable for the credo-communionists since we do believe that communion is for the converted alone, even though we cannot know who the converted are. Accordingly, the discussion over who qualifies for baptism cannot be resolved over our inability to discern the state of the soul. In other words, I believe it is a mistake to argue that we should baptize babies simply because we cannot ensure a converted visible church through the means of credo baptism.
Quote
What I was arguing against is that baptism cannot be assigned to the elect alone in practice.
Do you know of any baptist who thinks that the credo baptism ensures that only the elect or converted will be baptized? Accordingly, to argue against such a position seems at least to be a waste of time, if not to beat up on a strawman.
I don't think you dealt with my post. Maybe my point wasn't made clearly enough. My point is that we may not say that Baptism is not for the converted alone simply based upon our inability to discern who the converted are. This should be quite recognizable for the credo-communionists since we do believe that communion is for the converted alone, even though we cannot know who the converted are. Accordingly, the discussion over who qualifies for baptism cannot be resolved over our inability to discern the state of the soul. In other words, I believe it is a mistake to argue that we should baptize babies simply because we cannot ensure a converted visible church through the means of credo baptism.
Except, and one more time, that's neither everything I said nor what I believe. Now, please show scripture that states the same requirements for both sacraments.
Quote
Do you know of any baptist who thinks that the credo baptism ensures that only the elect or converted will be baptized? Accordingly, to argue against such a position seems at least to be a waste of time, if not to beat up on a strawman.
I can provide a thread where this was discussed. While they may not directly state such, I believe this is the end result of some baptist thinking. Now I ask you, who are the proper recipients of baptism?
Thanks for all the replies. I particularly liked what Ron D said on the matter. And agreed with him when he said "The reason, I would think, that you want baptism applied to the children of professing believers (which aren’t necessary true believers) is because you believe that God’s word teaches that the children of professing believers are to be baptized. This, however, is not at all the same reason you just gave, which is that you cannot know who the elect are."
My question is how exactly is the covenant different because it indeed it is. Jer 31
What book would be recommended to give the biblical reasons for Paedobaptism. If I was asked whether I was going to baptise my child, my answer would be yes because I see it be biblical. I go to a credobaptist church and still have much to learn about the paedobaptist position.
I particularly liked what Ron D said on the matter. And agreed with him when he said "The reason, I would think, that you want baptism applied to the children of professing believers (which aren’t necessary true believers) is because you believe that God’s word teaches that the children of professing believers are to be baptized. This, however, is not at all the same reason you just gave, which is that you cannot know who the elect are."
Except that Ron placed words in my mouth. I never stated this was a reason to baptize but as an argument against baptism being administered only to the elect. As I have stated, repeatedly, I believe scripture upholds the household administration. I now hope this false claim ends.
Quote
My question is how exactly is the covenant different because it indeed it is. Jer 31
Again, the real question is "who are the proper recipients of baptism?".
Sorry william , I was not trying to make a shot at you. I just agreed with Ron D and am happy to see we both agree. And even if the "real question" is "who are the proper recipients of baptism?" I still have my question, how is the new covenant different. I do believe it is relevant. thanks y'all
I particularly liked what Ron D said on the matter. And agreed with him when he said "The reason, I would think, that you want baptism applied to the children of professing believers (which aren’t necessary true believers) is because you believe that God’s word teaches that the children of professing believers are to be baptized. This, however, is not at all the same reason you just gave, which is that you cannot know who the elect are."
Except that Ron placed words in my mouth. I never stated this was a reason to baptize but as an argument against baptism being administered only to the elect. As I have stated, repeatedly, I believe scripture upholds the household administration. I now hope this false claim ends.
Quote
My question is how exactly is the covenant different because it indeed it is. Jer 31
Again, the real question is "who are the proper recipients of baptism?".
God bless,
william
William,
I must deny this charge. You stated, and I quote:
Quote
unless you want to claim to know the elect, this is also your belief whether or not you baptize children.
The necessary inference is that whether we baptize our children or not is predicated upon whether we know they are elect or not. You went on to labor on a later post that we don’t know who are the elect, therefore, we cannot baptize only the elect. Though this is true, it either brings nothing germane to the argument, or it is an attempt to bolster the original quote I’ve highlighted above. In any case, your second quote I've sited was interpreted in light of the first quote. I now understand what you are trying to say, to which I would only repeat that no reasonable baptist thinks that we can ensure an elect visible church through the means of credo baptism.
At the very least, who do you know believes that we only have a chance of baptizing the elect? I, already, showed how the word “for” does not indict the Baptist of any wrong doing or thinking.
Please, we have more important things to do than this. We have a man trying to understand what we both believe is the truth on this matter.
I think what William is addressing is that which so many Baptists use to argue against paedobaptism, i.e., that since infants cannot believe, then they are not valid recipients of baptism because in the New Covenant, the command is "believe and be baptized". They then annex this argument by then stating that the "new" covenant consists of ONLY the elect and, as the argument goes, since only those who are elect can believe, then they are those baptized. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/dizzy.gif" alt="" /> But, they will be quick to deny, as you are of course aware, that not all who are baptized are elect. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hairout.gif" alt="" />
William's approach may not be the most effective to present a sound apologetic for paedobaptism, but it does present a legitimate question in regard to what many Baptists profess. It is especially so for those who have retained the "old" term of "believer's baptism[/i], which is a misnomer and embarrassingly contradictory to their confession that not all who are baptized are true believers. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" /> The term "credo baptism" is at least more appropriate to their position, for it is only to those who profess faith in Christ who are valid recipients, at least in their view.
But I do agree, that this matter should not detract from the pressing issue of helping our young friend understand the nature and extent, continuity and discontinuity of the covenant of grace in its administration between the OT and NT. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
I now understand what you are trying to say, to which I would only repeat that no reasonable baptist thinks that we can ensure an elect visible church through the means of credo baptism.
Thank you Ron. However, it is my belief that all reasonable baptists turn to scriptural sacramentology and become paedobaptists. The baptist position is unreasonable from the onset, IMHO.
Quote
At the very least, who do you know believes that we only have a chance of baptizing the elect? I, already, showed how the word “for” does not indict the Baptist of any wrong doing or thinking.
None, personally. However, when we try to make passages speaking of the elect apply to baptism, how else should we interpret the intended meaning, spoken or not? As far as baptism being intended only "for" the elect, I have yet to see scripture provided for such. I agree that since we most likely are in agreement we should help this brother with his understanding. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />
Although I remain a Credo Baptist, from the past few years of studying the issue, I know that this issue is not black and white. This is one of the reasons why I refuse to make it a huge deal. Some Baptists I know believe that by allowing a paedo into the membership of a Baptist Church, that Church ceases to be Baptist. As one learned Baptist responded: "Please use Scripture to prove that statement. The onus is on you to prove it." The person never did respond with Scripture.
Looks like I have caused some debate. Well thanks for trying to help me,"a man", "our young friend", "this brother." <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" /> Its nice to see people care about biblical theology. I would appreciate some ones comments on Colossians 2: 9-12, I have heard this text used in defense of both sides. Thanks In Christ, your young brother man denny
I think I may have put words in your mouth in that I don't think you implied that we should baptize infants because we don't know who the elect are. I believe this was an honest mistake on my part, but careless just the same. Sorry!
However, when we try to make passages speaking of the elect apply to baptism, how else should we interpret the intended meaning, spoken or not?
William,
But this is what we do with communion passages. Our "ideal" is to serve only the converted, yet we'll fail at the goal because there are hypocrites in the church. This is all the Baptist means when he says that Baptism is for the converted. Isn't communion only for the converted? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
averagefellar said: Only if scripture commands it. What does scripture command prior to baptism? Prior to communion?
God bless,
william
William,
You say that when the Baptist says that baptism is for believers only that he must be wrong because we will baptize unbelievers in the process of trying to baptize only believers. I say this is absurd because we would say that communion is for believers only, etc. The point is, believers only baptism does not become wrong-doctrine simply because we cannot accomplish the "ideal".
1. With whom was the Abrahamic covenant "established"?
2. To whom was the Abrahamic covenant to be administered?
"To thee and thy seed," of course.
But here is the distinction that always comes up in credo/paedo debates. Baptistic covenant theology would say that, although Christ is the Savior of all the OT saints, He did not die for all in the Old Covenant. Based on Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8, Christ died for all in the New Covenant. Hence, this is why it is called a better covenant built on better promises.
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
The Abrahamic Covenant was to be administered to professing believers and their households, yet it was made with the singular-seed, Christ, and in him with the elect.
Quote
But here is the distinction that always comes up in credo/paedo debates. Baptistic covenant theology would say that, although Christ is the Savior of all the OT saints, He did not die for all in the Old Covenant.
But Christ did die for all whom the covenant was established. That’s the point; the covenant was established with the elect in Christ, even under the old. There's been no change in the establishment of the covenant, so there can be no change in its administration.
Quote
Based on Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8, Christ died for all in the New Covenant. Hence, this is why it is called a better covenant built on better promises.
Yes, Christ died for all that the New Covenant is established with, but that’s not what makes the new better than the old, for the old was established with the elect as well.
Yes, no, maybe, I give up? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Baptistic covenant theology would say that, although Christ is the Savior of all the OT saints, He did not die for all in the Old Covenant. Based on Jeremiah 31/Hebrews 8, Christ died for all in the New Covenant. Hence, this is why it is called a better covenant built on better promises.
Christ died (1) in a general way for all--common grace, and (2) He died specifically and effectually for the elect in both the Old and New Covenant. The problem is not "For whom did Christ die?," but how do you know for "Whom Christ specially died?" (i.e. who are the elect?). We don't know and thus baptism is not based upon this "actual knowledge!" For adults it is based primarily on a profession of faith and for children--the household baptism is more in line with the O.C. We must remember that the New Covenant is after the pattern of the Old Covenant (Heb 8:5, etc.). Thus, the New Covenant is a fulfilling and not an abrogation of the Old Covenant.
Now we must ask ourselves, “How the N.C. is fulfilled in the O.C.?” First, circumcision though no longer needed in the N.C. , had to be fulfilled some way? (it no longer is necessary in the N.C. relationship, but God’s law is holy, just, and good, and it can’t be abrogated, so it must be fulfilled). Second, it was not fulfilled by Christ being circumcised/baptized for all believers—for there is still a command for adults and infants (household baptisms) to be baptized. Thus, a sign still remains in the N.C., as in the O.C. (i.e. circumcision/baptism). So, what is the solution?
The solution is clearly seen in Acts 2:39 saying, “For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” Words are not here or elsewhere in Scripture by accident. What is being used here is O.C. language. What is in view here is not a profession of faith, but God’s effectual calling which will lead to a profession of faith in elect adults. However, the promise is not only to those who are effectually called and thus respond everywhere (Rev 5:9). The phrase and your children is added as well (these can’t respond by profession as with children not being able to respond in the O.C. with circumcision). The text clearly states that called children of covenant believer’s have a covenant promise (this does not mean they are or necessarily will be saved. In the O.C. community there were lost and saved members and thus in the N.C. as well)! What is the sign of their promise if not baptism? This naturally and hermenutically leads us back to the Abrahamic covenant and in finality to the truth of paedo-baptism.
As far as not letting paedobaptists into the membership of a credobaptist church, I have heard it argued this way:
If we let a paedobaptist into the church, then what will keep that person from becoming an elder? And the church would not want the paedobaptist to become an elder because the elders would then be in disagreement over one of the two ordinances given to the church.
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
As far as not letting paedobaptists into the membership of a credobaptist church, I have heard it argued this way:
If we let a paedobaptist into the church, then what will keep that person from becoming an elder? And the church would not want the paedobaptist to become an elder because the elders would then be in disagreement over one of the two ordinances given to the church.
Qualifications for membership and leadership can be different, cant' they?
Would you agree with this article by Thomas Goodwin? Would Goodwin's views be the common view among paedobaptists?
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
But it's generally been the case that those churches who let paedobaptists into membership soon have paedobaptist leaders.
Another issue is having the paedobaptists be baptized as believers by immersion. Someone's conscience is gong to be violated there- either the paedobaptist who is being immersed, or the Baptist church that would allow a paedobaptist into membership without immersing him or her.
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
averagefellar said: And you have yet to show this "ideal" from scripture.
God bless,
william
William,
You're putting the cart ahead of the horse. Walk with me on this...
Do you believe that communion is only for the converted yet the unconverted will receive what is not intended for them? Yes, you do. Therefore, in priniplea practice cannot be counted wrong simply because the "ideal" is not met. Accordingly, the Baptist position is not found wrong because they cannot meet the intention of what they would like to pursue as an ideal, a pure baptized church. Accordingly, the argument against their position must be found elsehwere, which is no problem for us. If you don't understand this, I can't help you. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hairout.gif" alt="" />
Oh no, I understand you. Yet I still await the scriptural answer. I don't really care what you think is a better ideal but what scripture assigns as proper.
averagefellar said: Oh no, I understand you. Yet I still await the scriptural answer. I don't really care what you think is a better ideal but what scripture assigns as proper.
God bless,
william
William,
Did I ever say that it is a better ideal to take measures to try to ensure a converted baptized community? No, I have said nothing of the sort. My point, which for some reason you have not responded to, is that it is erroneous for you to argue against the Baptist position on the grounds that it is virtually impossible for them to reach their ideal of a converted baptized visible church. That’s my point.
Indeed, the Baptist position is not taught in Scripture, so the ideal that they aim for, which they know is unattainable, is wrong. But that’s never been a bone of contention between us, which I believe you know! Accordingly, I'm inclined to take your last several posts as simply red-herrings to avoid my response to your faulty argument against the Baptist position.
Once again, you never dealt with my post. Again:
1. Do you believe that communion is only for the converted yet the unconverted will no doubt receive what is not intended for them? Yes, you do. Accordingly, the "ideal" of only having the converted partake of the supper will most likely not be met, yet we maintain the practice of examination for communion in an effort to try to ensure an ideal that we know we cannot ensure in practice, which you would agree is proper.
2. Therefore, you must agree that in principle a practice may not be counted wrong simply because the "ideal" is not met. Accordingly, the Baptist position is not found wrong because they cannot meet the intention of what they would like to pursue as an ideal, a pure baptized church.
3. Accordingly, you must agree that the argument against their position must be found elsehwere, which is no problem for the paedobaptist.
The more you argue against what I am saying the more you show that either you don't yet grasp the point or that you're being -- (should I say it?) -- a bit stubborn. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bash.gif" alt="" /> My guess is that since you are a bright guy that it must be the latter! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
But it's generally been the case that those churches who let paedobaptists into membership soon have paedobaptist leaders.
Another issue is having the paedobaptists be baptized as believers by immersion. Someone's conscience is gong to be violated there- either the paedobaptist who is being immersed, or the Baptist church that would allow a paedobaptist into membership without immersing him or her.
Paedobaptists typically don't object to immersion, though Jay Adams does (or at least did).
First of all, thank you for stepping in, and thank you for trying to play the peacemaker. O.K. here I go. Wish me luck!
Quote
I think what William is addressing is that which so many Baptists use to argue against paedobaptism, i.e., that since infants cannot believe, then they are not valid recipients of baptism because in the New Covenant, the command is "believe and be baptized".
I see this more as a fundamentalist-Baptist argument and not one that comes forth from Reformed Baptists, though I’m sure they do claim it on occasion. Reformed Baptists typically appreciate that if they press the Great Commission too far they’d end up with baptism being necessary for salvation. In any case, there’s no big deal on this one.
I think that Reformed Baptists appreciate that the “mission field” is in view and, therefore, concede the point that the Great Commission is not a great argument for credo-baptism. Their case is made more from Jeremiah 31 and their belief that the Old Covenant was made with the reprobate and elect as opposed to the New, which is made with only the elect. Again, no major point is being made here either.
Quote
They then annex this argument by then stating that the "new" covenant consists of ONLY the elect and, as the argument goes, since only those who are elect can believe, then they are those baptized. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/dizzy.gif" alt="" /> But, they will be quick to deny, as you are of course aware, that not all who are baptized are elect. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hairout.gif" alt="" />
I agree that they think that the New is made with the elect, and we would heartily agree. As I see it, the main reason that they argue for a change of administration is that they believe that the Old was established with both the elect and the non-elect. Therefore, a change in administration would follow from the alleged change with respect to those with whom the covenant is established.
Quote
It is especially so for those who have retained the "old" term of "believer's baptism[/i], which is a misnomer and embarrassingly contradictory to their confession that not all who are baptized are true believers. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />
“Believers baptism” simply means that Baptism is for Believers only. Please hear me out. I so wish to be understood here because I think we can be way too unfair to our Baptist brothers, whom the Lord purchased with his own blood.
The table is only for believers. This we agree upon. We wouldn’t say that the table is only for professing believers. Actually, that would be misleading for such a term might suggest that the table is open to those who profess Christ apart from having saving faith. We say, therefore, that the table is only for believers. It’s a “believers table”, though unbelievers partake of it all the time. It is not a misnomer, therefore, to call the Lord's Table a "believers table", since it is our desire that only believers come and eat. Well, given the Baptist position that only believers are to be baptized, the same reasoning would follow. I don't think that the term “believer’s baptism” is a misnomer given baptist theology. Yes, the theology behind the practice is wrong. I can’t stress that enough I suppose; but given the theology and what Baptists wish to convey, the term is most appropriate I believe. If only believers are to be baptized, then the term “believers baptism” is appropriate even though unbelievers will be baptized. In the like manner, the Lord’s Table is a “believers table” and should not be called a credo-table, even though many unbelievers will come and eat, yet without clean garments.
If I were to throw a party for my middle daughter’s Sunday school class, the party would be a “five year olds' Sunday school class party.” If I am fearful that a seven year old might crash the party incognito, would it be better for me to call the party “a professing / credo five year olds' Sunday school party”, as opposed to “a five year olds' Sunday school party"? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Again, I’m not defending the Baptist position; I am suggesting that given their theology, the term "believers baptism" is appropriate. Their term is not in need of correction per se, their theology is. Once they get their theology right, the term will fall by the wasteside. Their term, given their incorrect theology, is spot on I think.
Finally, that the Baptist cannot ensure a pure church is not an argument against their theology that only believers are to be baptized. It just doesn’t follow, as I’ve labored with William.
I almost didn’t write this because as you know, it can be painful when people simply ignore what you write and respond in an unfair manner. If you think I’m wrong, please take the care to respond kindly and carefully to what I am trying to say. In fact, maybe paraphrase my position as you interact with it so that I know we are communicating over what I mean to say.
I see this more as a fundamentalist-Baptist argument and not one that comes forth from Reformed Baptists, though I’m sure they do claim it on occasion.
I think that this is part of the difficulty that you and William are having at present. It would appear that the differences are due to contrasts in "experience". What I'm saying is that I do understand your objective apologetic argument and I agree. However, I do think that you are not recognizing the fact that the overwhelming majority of Baptists are not "Reformed", but rather they are of the "fundamentalist-Baptist" camp. In my own experience, dealing with the typical Baptist, they DO base their argument of "believer's baptism" on the idea that infants and very young children cannot believe and therefore they are not proper subjects to be baptized. They insist that the Bible teaches "BELIEVER'S baptism" only, which therefore prohibits infants from the sacrament ummm ordinance. Therefore, although it may not be "ideal" to dispute their argument by showing them their inconsistency, i.e., that no one can infallibly discern if someone actually possesses true saving faith; they will admit that not all who are baptized have faith, which seems to have no effect upon them and they never seem to catch the incongruity of their position.
And lastly, I agree, one of the better arguments is to deal with the biblical understanding of what new means, in regard to Jer 31. The typical Baptist, fundamentalist and Reformed types, bring in an unwarranted discontinuity, which some of us recognize as akin to the Dispensational hermeneutic, which radically bifurcates Israel and the Church. However, from what I understand from the Hebrew, the new doesn't mean totally new, i.e., radically different from that which precedes it, but rather a fulfilling of that which precedes it, i.e., the Old covenant. The New Covenant is the bringing to pass which was foreshadowed in the Old Covenant. I think this interpretation of Jer 31 is most faithful to the original language, etc......... 'nough said, although I must say that I have used another approach which I have found most effective in helping Baptists of all flavors to at least see a major problem in their present position.
If we let a paedobaptist into the church, then what will keep that person from becoming an elder? And the church would not want the paedobaptist to become an elder because the elders would then be in disagreement over one of the two ordinances given to the church.
Actually most paedobaptists don't have a problem with baptizing people who have made a profession by immersion. They just see sprinkling and immersion to be both legitimate ways of baptism. Of course if they did have a big problem, then I doubt they would seek membership or even leadership in the Church. In my particular Church, people who want baptism and membership are interviewed by the leadership. When I was in leadership, I made it a priority to make sure everyone being interviewed knew the beliefs of the Church. I also asked them to look over a small booklet stating the doctrine of the Church. Of course if someone who was a paedobaptist was seeking a leadership position, I would hope that because of the importance of the matter, he would be prevented from doing so. I do know that if I was still in leadership and I became a paedobaptist, I would step down, both for my own sake and for the rest of the body. But it would not cause me to revoke my membership.
But it's generally been the case that those churches who let paedobaptists into membership soon have paedobaptist leaders.
Whose fault is that?
Quote
Another issue is having the paedobaptists be baptized as believers by immersion. Someone's conscience is gong to be violated there- either the paedobaptist who is being immersed, or the Baptist church that would allow a paedobaptist into membership without immersing him or her.
One should not violate their conscience and a Baptist Church should not make someone violate their conscience. I personally believe membership to a local Church and baptism are two separate issues. Yes I know many disagree with me, but I have yet to been shown in Scripture where I am wrong.
Ron, I am going to ask this one last time. You keep putting forth an equivocation of the Lords table with Baptism. I have asked you repeatedly to support this from scripture. In fact, I believe this "ideal" is also missing from scripture concerning baptism. You may scream it as often as you like. Until you show me, from scripture the true ideal, I see no reason to discuss what I see as your personal opinion on an ideal I am sure does not exist.
So, to reiterate, I need two things;
1) Scripture that says the requirements prior to partaking of the Lords table are the same as baptism,
averagefellar said: Ron, I am going to ask this one last time. You keep putting forth an equivocation of the Lords table with Baptism. I have asked you repeatedly to support this from scripture. In fact, I believe this "ideal" is also missing from scripture concerning baptism. You may scream it as often as you like. Until you show me, from scripture the true ideal, I see no reason to discuss what I see as your personal opinion on an ideal I am sure does not exist.
So, to reiterate, I need two things;
1) Scripture that says the requirements prior to partaking of the Lords table are the same as baptism,
2) The scriptural ideal for reipients of baptism.
God bless,
william
William,
I am sure you are not grasping my point. Otherwise you would appreciate that you and I agree over what the Scriptures teach regarding baptism and the supper.
Christ died (1) in a general way for all--common grace, and (2) He died specifically and effectually for the elect in both the Old and New Covenant.
Joe, could you please explain what you mean by Christ dying "in a general way for all." I know there is such a thing as common grace, but I did not think that that meant the non-elect somehow shared in Christ's blood. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you...
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
Christ died in a general way for all. There are benefits for both believers and non-believers. There is common grace applied to all in the Crucifixion. A good example of this is the preaching of the Word of God (the Gospel, the death, burial, and resurrection) to the unsaved. The mere fact they even hear it is common grace, et. al.....
Ron, just wanted to say I understand perfectly what you've been putting forth- and, as a credobaptist, am quite thankful for the accurate representation. We may disagree strongly, but it's good to see you making sure we're disagreeing over the right things, and being fair to all involved. It's a rare display- so thanks!
Henry said: Ron, just wanted to say I understand perfectly what you've been putting forth- and, as a credobaptist, am quite thankful for the accurate representation. We may disagree strongly, but it's good to see you making sure we're disagreeing over the right things, and being fair to all involved. It's a rare display- so thanks!
Ron, I too am thankful for your posts, and, although we disagree, I appreciate your knowledge of both sides of the issue. I'm glad to see you back on the board!
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
