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.
