The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Jeremiah 31.......KNOWING

I have some questions concerning this passage.

1) What specific meaning for the word know should we use here?

2) Who was this covenant intended for?

3) How does this effect baptism?


God bless,

william

As far as what "know" means, hear is some commentary
from John Gill.

on jer 31:34

and on Heb 8:11

If we take knowing to mean a knowing in the salvific sense, we then remove grace from the Old Covenant. Since people in both covenants are saved by grace, this is not limited to the New Covenant alone. I can't see how we can equate knowing with grace.

However, (get out your towels for when ya'll faint) the baptist might have something here. The New Covenant is not entered into through nationality or birthrite, but by profession. I can see where this is true and what the baptists uphold. I agree. I have actually conceded this point on other occasions; all of uphold the credo position for adults.

However, this does not change the practice of entire households receiving the covenant sign as well. I believe this has been the basic practice of the Church throughout history. Baptism at birth as part of the visible covenant which has always included adults and their children.


God bless,

william

I don't necessarily disagree but could you explain what you mean exactly.

I'll attempt to. people are saved the same way in both covenants. Therefore the knowing cannot be something different concerning soteriology. I believe it speaks of the way we enter the covenant, profession for the new vs. birthrite in the old. It is no longer a national Israel but a spiritual Israel.


God bless,

william

Can I have opinions as to whether Kent Muhling is right when he speaks for the presbyterian church and says

"Now, back to Jeremiah: Jeremiah refers to the last days in your passage (31:31-34) - "The days are coming," declares the Lord in verse 31 (see also 31:27,38; 30:3). Look carefully at his words. Do they describe the age we live in today? I would say no. Verse 34: "No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying 'know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest." Question: Do we still need teachers and preachers? Do we still need to teach our neighbors and brothers to "know the Lord?" Of course we do. But Jeremiah says that the days are coming when we will no longer need to do this. I conclude that those days have not yet arrived - we still need teachers because not all of us in the house of Israel (v. 33) know the Lord. Not yet. That will be true after Jesus returns, when the days of restoration are made complete. Only then will Jeremiah's prophecy be completely fulfilled. But we're not all the way there yet. We won't need teachers then, because everyone in the house of Israel will know the Lord, and when that happens the covenant will never be broken again. But we're not there yet."

Thankyou

I agree it is not something different concerning soteriology but im not so sure we can get all that from the "know" in the text.

Agreed. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" /> I was attempting to see the topic in light of New Covenant practice. But yes, we cannot get that from that text alone.


God bless,

william

William,

I think that the Baptist would say that in the Old, not all knew the Lord (yet some did); but in the New all will know the Lord. Given this paradigm, the RB does not have to remove salvation and grace from the Old.

Make sense?

Ron

Whatever the distinguishing factor of the New Covenant is, it must square with the fact that the covenant was established only with the elect in Christ under the first economy. SDG, Do you see this? Do you see from Scripture that the Old Covenant was made with the elect in Christ alone? The reason I ask, Reformed Baptists deny this foundational theological point, which is the primary reason they conclude a change in outward administration. The change in outward administration follows from a perceived change in the establishment of the covenant.

Blessings in Christ,

Ron

"i can see clearly now the rain is gone" <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bananas.gif" alt="" />
Ron D, the answer is yes, I do see it. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ClapHands.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ClapHands.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ClapHands.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ClapHands.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/ClapHands.gif" alt="" />

It's a beutiful thing. Galatians three was the key for me in understanding Genesis 17.

Blessings,

Ron

p.s. Wouldn't that song be most appropriate for the smog in LA?

Ron,

You are correct. I do not see how taking "know" in a salvific sense would remove grace. Is not repentance/faith a result of God's electing, special grace?

"Knowing" can mean it in the salvation sense if you maintain that not all in the Old Covenant were saved.

Yes, it is, which Reformed Baptists embrace. Again, they would say that when God switched from an all inclusive covenant, elect and reprobate, to an exclusive new covenant of only the elect, the difference becomes that "all" will now know the Lord as opposed to just "some". The "some" were the elect among the reprobate.

Blessings,

Ron

This was argued earlier by Baptists and replied to here.

First, I think we need to understand that the above verses (Jer 31) are quoted in Hebrews 8:1-13.

Second, it is best to examine the Scripture itself and interpret it with other Scripture. Let’s examine them a little closer (Just a reminder: Covenant Theology teaches three aspects of the Kingdom: (1) the Inauguration—death and resurrection of Christ, (2) the Continuation—time between Christ first coming and His Second Coming, and (3) the Consummation—His 2nd coming. I hope this very brief explanation helps in everyone's understanding below.).

• New Covenant: In its original framework, Jeremiah’s prophecy explained about a time when the exiled communities of Israel/Judah would be restored to the promised land and would obtain the blessings of God’s covenant in all its fullness. Jeremiah’s offer of a “new (renewed is a valid and a better translation of both the Hebrew and Greek) covenant” was an offer of forgiveness for transgressions committed under the covenant as it was administered under Moses (Heb 9:15) and to the restoration of God’s favor under the same covenant (Heb 8:12; Jer 31:34).
• laws into their mind: Inward appropriation of the law is not exclusive to the covenant in Christ or only the New Testament (Deut 6:4-9; 30:1-6, 14; Psa 37:31; 40:8; 119:11). This again reveals: (1) the continuity of the covenant from Genesis forward, and (2) adds emphasis that the New Covenant is a renewal and not a “new” Covenant in the way some have understood the term (new). In Jeremiah’s day, as in the 1st century, many Jews had reduced the Old Covenant to externalities, but Jesus and His apostles said “No” (Matt 5:17-19). When Christ returns, the New Covenant will bring wholehearted obedience to God’s will. This process began with the first coming of Christ, but will not be complete till the Second Coming.
• I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people This is again the Old Covenant formula (Lev 26:12). Again, we see the New Covenant not abolishing the Old Covenant, but fulfilling it.
• Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest: This exhortation once again summarizes the obligation of the law (Jer 22:16-17; 1 Chron 28:9). Under the New Covenant God promises to give His people a new heart to know Him (Jer 24:7). Needless to say, although Christ has inaugurated the New Covenant in His death and resurrection, not all who partake in the New Covenant (external church) know the Lord in a saving way. Moreover, not all who will receive a new heart have it yet--salvation is yet to come for many. In addition, teaching is still going on in the Church today, though we have the Holy Spirit (John 16:13, etc.). We only know in part now (1 Cor 13:10). Jeremiah’s words will not be entirely fulfilled until Christ returns. Only when the Church is composed “only” of believers will the finality of this promise be fulfilled. The “inauguration” of the New Covenant has brought us a step closer to this destiny. Theologically, this is called “the now, but not yet,” and can be read in any good systematic on Covenant Theology.

Now, to specifically answer William’s 3 questions:

• 1. What specific meaning for the word know should we use here?
  
  The Hebrew word is “yada” (oida in Greek). In this context it means, “to be intimately to acquainted with or stand in a close relation to” (BDAG). It has uses in the New Testament as well (Matt 25:12; John 7:28; 8:19; 2 Thess 1:8; Tit 1:16). This speaks of those that have a saving “relationship” with the Lord.
• 2. Who was this covenant intended for?
  
  Explained above.
• 3. How does this effect baptism?
  
  Baptists attempt to say we should “only” baptize professors based upon these verses. They contend the New Covenant is only for professing believers and not non-professing infants. However, as demonstrated above, the fullness of these verses has not occurred yet, and thus a Baptist could never baptize a single soul until the Second Coming. Why? Because Jer 31:34 states, [color:"FF0000"]“And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD,"[/color] but we still evangelize and have missions, thus there is still a future aspect to this—it is not yet completed. Why? Because Jer 31:34 states, [color:"FF0000"]“for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD,” [/color] but many still do not know Him. In addition, they can’t prove that a single soul savingly “knows” the Lord. They only have professors, but the verses in Jer 18/Heb 8 both speak of a “definite” saving knowledge—not just a profession. Baptists look at these verses as "already" fully fulfilled (thinking in part it does away with the visible/invisible church distinction), but proper exegesis does not support their line of reasoning. I look forward to a meaningful Baptist hermeneutic on the future aspect these verses speak about, but at present I have only seen some faulty interpretations of the passages...
  
  However, in looking at these verses from a true Covenant perspective this error will not occur. There is a continuity in the covenants. Children were part of the covenant in the O.T. and they are part of it in the N.T. Paedos do not baptize based on Jer 31 being completed, for it isn't. Jer 31 is not a valid defense for the credo. Scripture bears out that there is a visible/invisible church distinction as previously discussed. Covenant continuity is where paedos and credos part company, but we can still be friends.

I hope this assists with an explanation. Now, I have to go and prepare for a very busy week. Please pray for my wife as she will be entering the hospital for surgery.

Blessings.

Joe,

I will be praying for you and Carol this week. May the Lord suit a blessing to meet your needs.

Please let me know how she's doing.


Wes

Joe,

I'll be praying, too.

Forgive me jumping in mid-flow, I’m not a regular but I do have an interest (don’t we all!) in Covenant Theology. I’m a Baptist and don’t subscribe to NCT, but rather to historic Baptist CT. I’d like to respond to JEdwards post above and in passing thank him for his gracious tone throughout. I believe it is crucial to explore this issue and hope to do so without hostility. My post is long as I’ve quoted the original so I won’t ramble on any more.


I’m not overly familiar with this division of the Kingdom into three aspects, but I don’t think it causes many difficulties other than to omit consideration of OT saints and to make Consummation of the New Covenant synonymous with what exactly? The Lord’s Second Coming, Judgement, Glorification ?

There is undoubtedly this content in Jeremiah –the most immediate sense of the prophecy –but there is still a conditional aspect that means words like “in all its fullness” can’t be used carelessly. (Jer 31:30)

Well observed. And crucial to a right understanding of Covenant Theology. The Baptist CT contention here would be that the Old Covenant was never salvific; and external observances never effectual. Salvation was always and only by faith in the blood of the Glorious Promised Redeemer. Only those in the OT who had their eyes opened by the Holy Spirit to trust in Christ’s redeeming blood would be saved. They would enter into the everlasting covenant of Grace. Many of these would have been Jews, most of them members of the symbolic Old Covenant (although many before Sinai and many of other nations and even priesthoods –Melchisedec, Sareptan Widow). But yes, those –and only those- with the laws written on their minds would be redeemed.

Rather this is simply a covenant formula –it is the statement of a covenant.


This paragraph introduces the idea that one can participate in the New Covenant yet not in a saving way. It was certainly true of the Old Covenant that one could participate in all the externals of that Covenant –circumcision, Levitical worship, Jewish civil and ceremonial law and so on without regeneration. But the Baptist contention is that the Old Covenant was a picture –a type –a teaching symbol; and what it was a teaching symbol of is the internal reality of the New Covenant. Presbyterian CT errs in the failure to differentiate the type from the reality.

Let me ask what OT saints were saved by? Which “covenant” transaction saved them? It is the Baptist view (and the view of a famous paedobaptist as well –John Owen See Works Vol XXII on Hebrews 8.6) –that the New Covenant operated throughout and before the Old Covenant interlude as a Promise. It is called the new covenant because in time Christ fulfilled the Promise, thereby enacting it as a Covenant proper, but its effects were salvific even while promissory.

To be in the New Covenant, one has to be regenerated. That is the antitype of the OT “separated people”.


Not all paedobaptists would hold this Presbyterian CT as I said above (John Owen) but since the Baptist use of the verse is being objected to, I’ll answer as I can.

This isn’t the only verse we Baptists take our credo position from but we certainly do contend the New Covenant is only for believers. Within the exegesis of prophetic statements let me question the argument just made.
Jer 31:34 states, “And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD,"
It is crucial to determine who “they” are in this verse. If “they” are the members of the New Covenant –the regenerate, as we Baptists contend, then we will certainly obey the great commission and evangelise the lost, but the regenerate have no longer need of someone to lead them to salvation. “They” are already there! –they know Him. I am not saying we no longer teach, edify, sermonise and magnify the Lord –(I believe we will do this even in Glory) –but we will no longer teach believers as if they are unbelievers.
And of course- missions and evangelism will continue –outreach to those outside the New Covenant.
Jer 31:34 states, “for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD,” Again the Baptist position (alone) makes perfect sense of this. All in the New Covenant do know the Lord. Now there is an obvious difference between saving knowledge and Systematic Theology final exams, but in the case of every regenerate person the Lord Jesus Christ is known as Saviour.

“Fully fulfilled” is a tautology. While it’s true that not everyone who will be saved is saved now; (there are elect who are as yet unregenerate, or even unborn) it is entirely logical, Biblical and theologically sound that those who are saved are fully saved.

Rather than seeing the “Continuity of the Covenants” on the Presbyterian model, the Baptist CT sees the Everlasting Covenant of Grace as active throughout creation from the Fall, with the teaching interlude of the Old Covenant (Mosaic Covenant) interposed as a type of the church prior to the Coming of the Promised Messiah. Salvation was by faith in the God’s Promise of the (New) Covenant in the blood of the Redeemer to come, and thenceafter by the same faith as a realised historical (New) Covenant.

Can Baptists infallibly tell the regenerate from the unregenerate? Of course not. But Biblical teaching, credible profession, testimony and evidence of change of life; and church discipline properly applied make cases of error extremely rare in Reformed Baptist churches worthy of the name.

I would accept the notion of Visible/Invisible church only inasfar as it describes human error and deception. I think to set up an ecclesiology with this as a mainstay is an error of Covenantal thinking carried over from the OT nation-state of Israel as I’ve indicated above.

to the Discussion Board. And thanks for your thoughtful input. Of course, as a paedobaptist, I assuredly disagree with your understanding of Jer. 31:31f. As a reasonable response, I am going to defer at this time to the comments of C.F. Keil, which are found in his Commentary on the Old Testament, "Jeremiah - Lamentations". I've attached it as a MS Word (.doc) document. Again, if anyone can't open/read this attachment but would like to read it, I also have it available in ".pdf" (Acrobat Reader) format. However, the Hebrew words, albeit few, didn't convert. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Thanks for the welcome Pilgrim, and I guess differences were almost unavoidable. I was familiar with Keil's treatment and dug out my copy. Owen differs from Keil significantly in Covenant Theology but it always feels to me that Keil is a bit too literal (if that's possible -I mean it in a good way!) His CT seems to stop "just" short of Christological OT redemption...in a way that John Owen doesn't. It was consideration of OT salvation that led me to John Owen's position on CT. As I'm sure you know he remained paedobaptist (though congregational independent and opposed to both presbyterianism and episcoplianism) but not through his covenant theology. His reasons were interesting but, I think, flawed.

Notice though that Keil gives me my points on "knowing" God in contradiction of "JEdwards" interpretation.
Worth pointing out also that Keil gives the New Covenant Jerusalem (31:40)a wholly regenerate aspect(all holiness to the Lord without a Temple within) in contrast to the OT city (Old COvenant)which had a Temple. Wonderful picture of a regenerate church membership co-extensive with New Covenant boundaries contrasted with the Old Covenant mixed multitude typical covenant with a holy core.

Best Regards,
Dan

Ddaann,

My making Keil's comments available does not necessarily equate to my endorsing everything he wrote. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> But I do agree with much that he said in regard to the meaning of "new covenant", which I believe linguistically cannot or at least should not be disputed.

FYI, I side with Owen in his more "Christological" approach . . . and if I could be put in a specific group, I would be more than comfortable in the old Congregational camp. Call me a "Presbygationalist" if you like. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> To be perfectly honest, I haven't heard one salient argument from the Baptist camp which I found persuasive enough to make me renounce my paedobaptist position. For me, there is simply far too much unwarranted discontinuity forced upon one's Biblical Theology. And, of course, I reject the hermeneutic used to do so. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

However, be that as it may.... I am far more amiable toward Baptists than the vast majority of them have extended to me. Most of the members here, albeit holding divergent views on a variety of subjects, are more than hospitable and hold fast to that immutable bond which is found in being one in Christ. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,
Again thanks for amiableness and hospitality, it's much appreciated. I've found "baptism" discussions do seem to get singularly "fraught" and have often wondered why. Insecurity on both sides perhaps, or just the difficulty of the subject?

There are certainly bigger fish to fry, but this one is worth discussing as it determines so much of one's practical ecclesiology.

I don't want to derail this thread on Jermiah 31 so perhaps you could point me to a thread where the paedobaptist view is, to your mind, best set out or actively discussed?

Best Regards,
Dan

Welcome to the board. Perhaps it might be easier, and this hasn't happened in some time, if you would offer the baptist view and scriptural evidence. Perhaps start a new thread.


God bless,

william

OK.
I'll start one but I've just heard I'm going away on business for ten days from tomorrow morning. This wasn't planned, honest.
I'll be back!
Dan

First, welcome to the forum. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hello.gif" alt="" /> Second, I desire to address a few points, but will leave some for others to direct your attention to.

Baptists and Presbyterians BOTH baptize individuals which are not saved—visible covenant members. Presbyterians do this based on the continuity of the covenants (to which you agree above), where both the lost and saved are members of the “external” covenant. Baptist’s though have no warrant or Scripture on which to baptize “unbelievers,” though they do it? Where is the “direct” command in Scripture to baptize unbelievers—unless in the external covenant?

Baptist churches preach salvation messages almost weekly—to both the lost and saved and thus VIOLATE the very theology you claim they should be embracing.

Unfortunately my wife’s final tests Monday indicate that we will be proceeding with surgery tomorrow. Thanks to all of you that are praying. Needless to say I will not be around for a while.

J_Edward that is a pretty generalized statement, one I am not sure how you would know. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

But, when a salvation message is preached, it would seem to me it is for the lost, not the saved. Of course there is an aspect that a salvation message can be for the saved. It can show the saved, a true salvation message.
Perhaps, I don't understand your point?

By the way, I will be praying for you and your wife.
Tom

Joe,

Your you and your wife are in my prayers as well.

On our topic here, I am wondering along with Tom how you can make such a generalization of the teaching of Baptist churches. Granted, I would agree with you that, in your typical SBC church, you would hear the Gospel preached in a way that would cater to the nonbeliever and not really to the believer.

But I do not find that to be the case in Reformed and other Calvinistic Baptist churches. So just because Arminian, seeker-sensitive churches do that doesn't mean everyone does.

BTW, I still don't understand why erroneously baptizing unbelievers is an argument against credobaptism. Does accepting non-believers into full membership of the church mean we shouldn't have church membership? Does it mean that, if a false professor should partake of the Lord's Supper, we shouldn't fence the table at all?

I am going to answer all three of your questions in order. Most of this will be repetitious, but until it is understood, may be worth repeating.


It isn't! I covered this earlier when I said that it is an argument against two things that some, but not all, baptists uphold. 1) Believers baptism. The London confession agrees with me in that . 2) Baptism only for the elect, or those in the covenant of grace. Impossible to properly know who these are so we baptize all within the visible covenant.

Now, for the sake of making sure it is said again for clarity, we agree that adults should make a profession. We disagree as to the administration of baptism for children and their place within the covenant people(visible covenant).



No. Different circumstance. However, could you show this link from scripture? As with the sentence below you keep equivocating baptism with the Lords supper. I have repeatedly asked you, and others, to show from scripture that they are the same and that the requirements for administration are the same. Baptism has rightly been administered to professors and their OIKOS, whereas we have specific instructions concerning the table that are a bit different.


Answered above. I am opposed to paedo-communion.


God bless,

william

Brother William,

.

The London Confession does not exclude the notion that hypocrites are often baptized. In other words, it does not affirm what you continue to suggest that some Baptists teach. The Confession merely defines the proper subjects of baptism from a baptistic perspective. No more, no less.

Ron

I never claimed it did. I quoted it in support of my assertion.


Precisely. Some baptists do teach such.

Precisely. The LBC agrees with me.


God bless,

william

In what way does the London Confession agree with you?

Ron

That professors are baptized.


God bless,

william

Is this REALLY that hard to grasp? William has consistently addressed and contended that some (most?) Baptists argue that only BELIEVERS are legitimate subjects for baptism. The LBCF states that only PROFESSORS are legitimate subjects. The matter revolves around the popularly held view among some (many?) Baptists that in the New Covenant, only true Believers, aka: the elect, are members; baptism being the initiatory rite for them and them alone. The fact that the realization of a "pure church" is an impossibility on earth and that these same Baptists will admit that it cannot be achieved but that they nonetheless must strive toward that goal doesn't nullify their view's inherent contradiction.

Unless "I" have totally missed William's point, all he's saying is that it would behoove those who insist that only BELIEVER'S are to be baptized should adopt the LBCF's wording, i.e., PROFESSORS should be baptized, as this at least allows for the possibility and reality that non-believers are in fact baptized and accepted as members of the Church.

Personally, I think that this ongoing bickering over this matter should come to a rest.

In His Grace,

Thank you. Agreed.


God bless,

william

William

Just so you know, I understood you and agreed that professors are the one's that the LBCF tells us to baptize.
I have found however, that when Baptists use the term "believers baptism". If you ask them to explain they will tell you that anyone who professes should be baptized. In other words they believe that as far as they can tell the professor actually is a true believer, and therefore should be baptized.
Of course there are Baptists that don’t understand this, but you can say the same thing about many paedobaptists on some aspects of paedobaptism.

However I will say this, I don't think anything I said above is anything you already didn't know. So what is your point in continually bringing the matter up?

Tom

Pilgrim,

Let me try to distill this as best I can.

1) When Baptists say that only genuine believers are legitimate subjects for baptism, they simply mean that if one is baptized who is not a genuine believer, he, the one being baptized, submits to baptism illegitimately, i.e. unlawfully and hypocritically.

2) When Baptists, (consistent with their Confession), say that only professing believers are legitimate subjects for baptism, they simply mean that the church in good conscience are to Baptize those who profess salvation in Christ alone.

Now let's put these two distinct points together.

Baptists believe that it is legitimate for the church to baptize professing believers but it is illegitimate for unbelievers to submit themselves to baptism. In this context, many or most Baptists might say that baptism is for genuine believers only, which is their way of saying that unbelievers should not submit to baptism; for baptism they say is for believers – which is why they call it “believer’s baptism" (in the same way we might call the table a "believer's table"). To say that some or most Baptists have an inconsistency on their hands is to lift their statements and terminology out of context. I have never heard or read any Baptist argue that it is only legitimate for the church to baptize genuine believers. They merely say that it is only legitimate for true believers to submit themselves to baptism. If anyone wishes to charge "most" or "many" Baptists with inconsistency, then I think he should document such claims against our Baptist brethren.

In his grace,

Ron

My point, which is made to Pilgrim, is that the London Confession is focusing on what is legitimate with respect to the church's responsibility to baptize subjects. This emphasis does not negate the fact that in Baptist theology only true believers are the legitimate subjects for baptism before God. That's my only point my brother.

Blessings,

Ron

Ron,

Perhaps here is part of the problem.... i.e., you "never heard or read any Baptist argue . . .". This is not my experience. In fact, as I have stated elsewhere, those who insist on using the phrase, "Believer's baptism" would reject your claim that they actually mean, "Professor's baptism". To show this to be true, for example, they then go on to argue against baptizing infants from this very premise, i.e., since infants cannot believe (according to their view), they are not legitimate candidates for baptism. Further, and the most relevant point to this matter is their definition of baptism, e.g., baptism IS, "an outward sign of an inward reality. Thus, as they argue, baptism displays outwardly what is resident in the heart of the one baptized. IF this is true, then what is also true of necessity, is that ALL who are baptized possess saving faith, are saved and thus are to be numbered with the elect. The fallacy of this argument should be perspicuous enough on its face. But whether you want to accept the fact that this IS how many Baptists argue for their position, it does exist and it is voiced. That it does exist is why I wrote a major paper on this matter when I was at WTS. Further, this line of argument was the same which was used by John Riesinger when I engaged him in a public debate on the subject of baptism.

Personally, I have no interest in dragging out this matter further. You may feel it is worth further discussion and you, of course, may do so, but I won't be responding again. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,

Most importantly, I appreciate your spirit in this exchange. Thank you. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hugs.gif" alt="" />

All I can say at this point is that the Baptists that I know are more clever than the ones you have known. Fair enough? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yep.gif" alt="" />

Blessings,

Ron

To refute it each time it is put forth that only the New Covenant (covenant of grace) members are to be baptised. While this might be an ideal, although, and again, unscriptural, it is not a possibility.


God bless,

william

Yes, Tom it is a generalized statement-the word "almost" was even used. As an evangelist in Baptist Churches (some holding to the LBCF) for 20 years I preached in a few churches and this was my general experience. Yet inconsistently these churches hold to a wrong interpretation of Jer 31--which was the point and context of the post.

In the context of Jer 31:34 , “And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD," Ddaann said, "–but we will no longer teach believers as if they are unbelievers," and thus his statement is in error. The fact is Baptist Churches, as well as others, teach believers about Knowing the LORD (salvation)--this is inconsistent if we hold to Ddann's assertion(s). In reality Jer 31 has not yet been fulfilled and though Baptist's claim it has, they teach their congregations as if it hasn't by many of their ongoing actions.

My wife made it fine thru surgery--a few complications, but generally ok. Many thanks for your prayers.

In my post above you will see that I said, "Baptists and Presbyterians BOTH baptize individuals which are not saved." Presbys do it based upon a covenant relationship. On what basis do Baptist's do it? What Scriptural support do you have for baptizing an unbeliever?

The remainder of your post was answered here.

None.

What Scriptural support do we see for non-Christians partaking communion? None. What Scriptural support is there to allow non-Christians into full-membership of the church? None. Yes, I know that you all agree, but that's not my point. My point is that we do not have any Scriptural support for these, but they all end up happening. They shouldn't happen, but they end up happening.

I'm content to leave this discussion at that and move on. Pilgrim's right in that we don't want something to happen like last time.

Would you please prove the equivocation from scripture? Or shall we assume it's truth by your mere persistence?


God bless,

william

Will,

You're not getting my point.

My point is that just because Baptists erroneously baptize non-believers does not make it an argument against credobaptism, and it doesn't make baptizing non-believers right either.

Marie,

Baptist ministers don't "erroneously" baptize unbelievers when the unbeliever professes salvation. (The same goes for Paedobaptist ministers when they are called upon to baptize professing believers who are not genuine believers.) Moreover, baptizing unbelievers is "right" from the Baptist perspective when the responsibility of the minister is in view. What is wrong from the Baptist perspective is for an unbeliever to present himself for baptism. When this occurs, it is indeed right for the Baptist minister to baptize.

Kindly,

Ron

I understand that. I never said is an argument against credo-baptism. What I did say is that it is an argument against only believers being baptized. Now here's my next point. Since not all those baptized are elect(invisible), what covenant do all professors belong to? The visible covenant. Now the question becomes, "who are members of this visible covenant?" Professors? Yes. Who else?

New Covenant = Elect only and baptism only for those in the New Covenant doesn't add up. The church, both baptist and otherwise, have never practiced this. The scriptural examples show a continuity of familial inclusion in the visible Church and baptism rightly administered unto professors and their OIKOS.

I'm still waiting for somebody to show who are the proper subjects from scripture. Only that is "right", not this ideal we keep seeing put forth.


God bless,

william

Before we can accept that statement does it not have to be grounded in principles of Scripture (sola scriptura)? SemperReformanda, since “they end up happening,” it is part of God’s decretive will. God did not stop Abraham from circumcising Ishmael. Abraham was suppose to follow God’s perceptive will (as are we). Thus, there is Scriptural Support if you understand how the covenant works. Of course, without a covenant understanding you are left without any Scriptural support.

When I asked in essence, "What basis do you have from Scripture to be in "error" here?” you stated that there is none from the Baptist position, to which I agree. Paedos though do have biblical grounds. When they do unknowingly admit unbelievers to the sacraments, because of their proper understanding of the God’s covenant and sacraments they are not in “error”—but actually following Scripture (visible/invisible Church distinction, oikos formula, etc). God taught in the O.T. that unbelievers could in fact be and actually were a part of the external covenant—Ishmael (Gen 17), etc. This is part and parcel of His plan. God’s plan has not changed. Unbelievers are still apart of the New Covenant.

Thus, again I assert that Jer 31:34, “And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD," is not yet a full reality in this earth! If we understand our “union with Christ” and thus, the union of the chain of redemption, we will understand that in justification we do come to KNOW the LORD, but it does not stop there. Sanctification is still in progress and we KNOW the LORD more and more each day, etc. Thus, every time a Baptist, or any other person, preaches sanctification they are asserting “KNOW the LORD.” However, Jeremiah clearly says, “they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD,” and thus while we are one step closer each day to its full fulfillment, it is not yet fully fulfilled, etc. Fulfillment will not be till our glorification!

Additionally, we must remind ourselves again that Jer 31:34 falls on the heels of Jer 31:32 which says, “It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant…." However, the New Covenant today is still broken every time we sin (remember Heb 12 on discipline follows Heb 8 on covenant, Jer 31)! In addition, unbelievers break the N.C. :

Please note first that these verses follow Heb 8 which is a summation of Jer 31 (as pointed out here). These passages make it clear that until Christ returns it is possible for the N.C. to be broken. In fact, the author applies the warning “the Lord will judge his people” from Deuteronomy 32:36 (a warning to the covenant people under the Mosaic covenant) to this N.C. situation, thus equating the circumstances of the N.C. prior to the return of Christ to the situation Israel faced under the O.C. (continuity in the covenant). Judgment was and is possible for both the O.C. & N.C. communities, and judgment flows only from covenant breaking, not from covenant keeping. If judgment is a possibility under the N.C., then so is the covenant breaking that leads to that judgment.

When Christ returns in glory, everyone in the new creation after Christ’s return will have the law of God written on his or her heart. We will all love and delight in His ways, just as Christ already does (2 Cor. 3:16-18; 1 Thess. 3:11-13). In this sense, we expect Jeremiah’s prophecy to find complete fulfillment when Christ returns. At the present time, however, this expectation is only partially fulfilled. There is a sense in which the hearts and minds of believers have been renewed by God’s grace (Rom. 12:1-2). At the same time, however, we are also commanded by NT writers to observe the Scriptures and to watch for corruption in our thinking (Rom. 1:18-2:29; Eph. 4:17-32; 2 Pet. 3:17). The NT speaks this way because the promise of complete internalization of the law of God has only begun within believers, but it has not yet been completed.

As the parables of the Ten Virgins and Talents (Matt 25:1-30) illustrate, there are many in the N.C. community who will prove themselves not to be truly regenerate. Consequently, there is no need to withhold baptism from infants on the basis of Jeremiah’s N.C. expectations. Until the consummation the N.C. will continue to be mixed with true believers and unbelievers.

Much of this material is from notes from Dr. Richard Pratt's lectures on Jer 31, which I will attempt to find a complete copy of and post later.

William,

You do appreciate that the one covenant of grace is established with Christ, the single Seed of Abraham. In him the covenant is established with the elect as well. The reason we baptize the children of professing believers is because although the covenant with Abraham was established with Christ and the elect in him, God commanded Abraham to administer the covenant with his household. Since God never abrogated this principle, we dare not stop. The covenant is made with the invisible church, but we are to administer it to professors and their offspring.

Blessings,

Ron

I believe we are holding hands on this one. Inclusion into the visible covenant has always had a familial understanding. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />


God bless,

william

It's a beautiful thing! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/applause.gif" alt="" />

Ron

Hi Marie,

How would you comment on Jesus allowing Judas to partake in the Last Supper. This is where the practice of communion was instituted and it is clear that Judas was a non-Christian, and yet Jesus did not prevent Judas from eating with them. It's certain that Jesus knew the true state of Judas's heart. Note that I'm not saying this is support for non-professing, non-Christians partaking of communion. Actually, I never thought about this particular passage in this light until today, so I'm not sure what to think about it yet.

John

I must come to Marie’s defense here as I don’t think Judas ever “finished” the Lord’s Supper. After supper, Jesus took a second cup, gave thanks and offered it to the disciples, ……

Passover celebrations involve four cups of wine, so it seems more likely that Jesus was observing a similar ceremony with multiple cups of wine. The 4-Cups of wine used in the Passover symbolize the 4 distinct redemptions promised by God to the Hebrews as told in Exod 6:6-7: (1) "I will take you out of Egypt," (2) "I will deliver you from Egyptian slavery," (3) "I will redeem you with a demonstration of my power," and (4) "I will acquire you as a nation". Since each of these cups of wine symbolize an action that was performed by God, Jews fill a small cup with wine at 4 different points in the Passover and drink each cup of wine…..

Jesus after the 2nd cup, then said someone is going to betray me… Judas dipped his hand…. Judas left.

Please note that the other TWO cups of wine had not yet been drunk and thus Judas never completed the Passover meal, though he did eat and drink damnation to himself in the "part" he did partake in (1 Cor 11:29).

First of all, I hope it didn't sound like I was attacking Marie. I pretty much agree with her, but I was just throwing that point out for discussion (which seemed to have worked since I learned some new things :grin).



Do you have a good reference for these customs? I am not familiar with the four cups of wine and their symbolism.


Would you mind explaining how you came about this chronology a little more. I re-read through all the gospel accounts again, and it is not clear to me how this chronology is arrived at. I do agree completely that Judas did eat and drink damnation to himself in the part he did partake in.

John

As far as references the earliest I know of are the Jewish texts: Pesah 10:1–9 and Targum Pesah 10.1–14. Sources that you may have available would be the Jewish New Testament Commentary which implies that Judas drank from all but the last cup to (several commentaries do), Mishnah Pesahim X. 2–10, A. Edersheim, The Temple, S. Greijdanus, Korte Verklaring, Vol. II, J. B. Segal, The Jewish Passover from the Earliest Times to A.D. 70, London, 1963. Though commentaries vary on whether Judas drank from all but the last 2 cups or only the last cup they pretty much agree that the Lord’s Supper was instituted at this “Passover Meal.”

The order of The Passover Feast, The main elements were as follows (Hendriksen, William, and Simon J. Kistemaker. Vol. 11, New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke):

1. A prayer of thanksgiving by the head of the house; drinking the first cup of (diluted) wine.

2. The eating of bitter herbs, as a reminder of the bitter slavery in Egypt.

3. The son’s inquiry, “Why is this night distinguished from all other nights?” and the father’s appropriate reply, either narrated or read.

4. The singing of the first part of the Hallel (Psalms 113, 114), and the washing of hands. The second cup.

5. The carving and eating of the lamb, together with unleavened bread. The lamb was eaten in commemoration of what the ancestors had been commanded to do in the night when the Lord smote all the first-born of Egypt and delivered his people (Exod. 12 and 13). The unleavened bread was in commemoration of “the bread of haste” eaten by the ancestors.

6. Continuation of the meal, each eating as much as he liked, but always last of the lamb. The third cup.

7. Singing of the last part of the Hallel (Psalms 115–118). Fourth cup.

As far as a parallel account I do not have time to lay one out for you, but the internet, or better yet a book on the Synoptic Gospels would give the account much quicker than I could copy it…… Here is a website: Synoptic Parallels. Here are some books:

Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels: Joel B. Green
Harmony of the Gospels: Loraine Boettner
Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels: Darrell L. Bock

First Joe glad to hear about your wife I hope her recovery go smoothly and that she will be in good health once again in a short time.

Second now when you say that both Presbyterians and Baptists baptize individuals (and at this point I'm assuming you mean adults) whom are not saved you mean those persons who have falsely stated that they are believers but in fact are not.

If so then you are correct there is nothing in baptist theology that states we are to baptize unbelievers (adult) However, I believe that there is scripture procedure that should be done once this has been discovered.
The elders of the Church must confront the man or woman and tell them to repent and if they do not then they must be treated as an unbeliever and if necessary put out of the church. How do the Presbyterians respond?

We shouldn't intentionally baptize any adults who do not make a profession. Nobody's theology states we should intentionally baptize unbelievers. I agree that discipline is necessary for those found to be outside of the faith.


God bless,

william

Since, this happens in both Presby and Baptist churches how do Baptists "scripturally" excuse their mis-baptism of certain individuals? Presby by are covered under the covenant established in the O.T./N/T., how are Baptists covered? Under what N.T/O.T. structure or scripture do you baptize those who are not saved?

The discipline issue is the same--or at least somewhat the same in each church--I have no contentions there. This is not the issue at hand....

Wait a minute Joe you said this:

Are you saying that an [color:"FF0000"]adult[/color] (an unregenerate person) who falsely professes Christ and asks to be baptized by the elders of the Presbyterian church is covered by the covenant established by the OT/NT? I can understand if an unregenerate [color:"FF0000"]adult[/color] who was baptized as an [color:"00FF00"]infant[/color] can be part of the visible church because of the OIKOS baptisms but doesn't the Presbyterian church as the Baptist Church strive to ensure that [color:"FF0000"]adults[/color] who ask to be baptized pass scrutiny? And if they do not are refused? I can concede your point regarding [color:"00FF00"]infants[/color] who are baptized but are unregenerate and remain so until [color:"FF0000"]adult[/color]. But how can you say that unregenerate [color:"FF0000"]adults[/color] who petition for baptism are likewise covered? Are we not both in the same condition? Both Baptist and Presbyterian Churches requiring that [color:"FF0000"]adults[/color] be true to what they profess when they are baptized?

Please see my response to Joe.

Yes, we are in the same condition, but one is more scriptural and has more continuity with the O.T. We are both left with unbelievers in the visible church to be sure (unless rooted out), but not in the same way.

The credo has NO Scripture backing them to baptize an unbeliever-mistake or otherwise. Without a covenantal structure they have nothing. They normally do not concede a visible/invisible church distinction because it conflicts with their interpretation with Jer 31. Thus, they are left with the same "problem" as a paedo, but have no Scripture or structure warranting what they have done to get there.

The paedo has Scripture (that of the covenant) which takes care of such "problems," as they view a visible/invisible church distinction, a better and more feasible accounting of Jer 31 (here), etc.

A profession helps to avoid this problem, yet, you have no scripture for your premise.......that only those who are truly regenerate should be baptized. This is something we have discussed repeatedly, yet here we return to this error. Since we cannot know who is truly elect, regenerate, etc., we baptize by profession.


God bless,

william

Joe,

Thanks for the additional information. I don't have access to the Jewish texts you mentioned, but I'll try to look more into the synoptic parallels as you suggested.

John

Sorry I haven't been around for this folks. I've done some reading to catch up!

I notice Averagefellar repeatedly asks for a scriptural basis for baptising believers only. It might be slightly unfair since it isn't my own work (mind you, nothing is,...I hope!)but let me attach a paper by Greg Welty that sets out the Reformed Baptist stall from Jeremiah 31 (hence it is at least relevant) Jeremiah 31:31-34, Jeremiah 32:37-41, John 1:11-13, and Romans 9:2-4/8:15-17. Welty puts forward the case that the New Covenant, unlike the Old, is unbreakable and that it is only made with those who have experienced spiritual rebirth ie believers.

Apologies for the "cut and paste" tactics, but if any haven't seen this paper before it is a very useful account for reference on where "the better sort" of Baptists are coming from.

My reason for that last comment being that "baptist is a poor denominator since many claim to be baptists who are anything but Reformed or Biblical in their theology and ecclesiology.

Best Rgards,
Dan

^bump^


God bless,

william