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
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
