The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Continuity in Old and NT

Are we going to sink to that hermeneutic?



List them by name. Indeed, and since you cannot list them, equating baptism to election(true covenant)is indefensible.


Absolutely. And where did the administration change? All those in the visible covenant (profesors included) are not part of the true covenant. The dilemma of baptising those outside the covenant is as real to baptists as the orthodox.


God bless,

william

Steve, where is the word Calvinism in the Bible? Do you believe in Calvinism? averagefellar, asks a very good question!!!

Steve, I agree the text says everyone in the New Covenant knows Him, but presently many do not. The text is clearly speaking about the future: (1) not everyone is saved that will be saved, and thus the fullness of the covenant is not here yet—for not everyone knows Him yet, for some of them have not even been born, (2) everyone who is in the visible Church (both saved and lost) still need to be separated, wheat and tares in His Church—(Matt 13:24-30). Thus, you need to understand the fullness of the New Covenant is still not here YET.

Christ in His first coming only inaugurated the New Covenant. He continues to establish it during the time between His first and second coming and will establish it fully only at His return in glory.

So, you do not have a pastor that teaches you? Why did the Apostle Paul every preach a single sermon? The Kingdom is not yet here in its fullness. The theological phrase for this is—“the now, but not yet.”

Steve, you still do not know who is in the New Covenant and thus you are stuck with no baptisms at all. Was Isaac ever a member of the O.C.? Was Jacob ever a member of the O.C.? Was Esau ever a member of the O.C.? (Heb 11:20; 12:15-17).

While the individuals referred to here were never saved, were they ever in the covenant (visible/invisible Church distinction)?

Steve,

I have a few questions:

• 1. Since you propose that only professing believers are in the New Covenant, how does that relate to visible church membership in your church?
  
  2. Do you view your children as children of the church or are they children of the world?
  
  3. If they are children of the church what does that mean?
  
  4. What advantage does a child have growing up in a Christian household?
  
  5. How do you view infant dedications?
  
  6. During a typical infant dedication do you pray for God's blessings on the child?
  
  7. Does the church assume some responsibility for this child?

Please help me understand what the credobaptist belief and practice is regarding these questions.


Wes

Wes

I know I am not Steve, but I can say that you may get different answers on these questions by different Baptists.

"1. Since you propose that only professing believers are in the New Covenant, how does that relate to visible church membership in your church?"

As you probably are aware Baptists who hold to the LBCF, believe that we can not fully know who is saved and who isn't. We baptize not because we know the person's heart, but because they profess to be believers and some fruit is showing.
I particularly believe (not all Baptists agree) that membership to a Baptist Church should not be on whether or not someone has been baptized as an adult professor. But on the basis of whether or not after the elders are relatively certain that they are Christians and are willing to commit themselves to the well being of the rest of the Church body.
This would include Christians of Paedo-Baptist persuasion. However, since they disagree with Credo-Baptism, they would not be able to serve in the offices of elders or deacons.

"2. Do you view your children as children of the church or are they children of the world?"

Before a child has made a profession of faith, they should not be presumed to be Christians. But that does not mean there are not advantages to a child with Christian parents in the Church.

4. What advantage does a child have growing up in a Christian household?

Besides the obvious benefits of the parents and the Church doing everything in their power to make sure that child knows the ways of the Lord.
In 1Cor. 7:14 we read " 14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."

This of course does not mean that children are holy in themselves. It means that they are set apart, because of the believing parent. They are privilaged because at least one parent is a Christian.

"5. How do you view infant dedications?"

I am not sure there is an official stand on infant dedications in the Baptist Church (I am going to look for one).
But my understanding is that when a baby is dedicated, it has more to do with the parent/s and the rest of the body dedicating themselves to bringing that child up in the ways of the Lord.

6. During a typical infant dedication do you pray for God's blessings on the child?

It has been a while since I have seen a baby dedication, but from memory the praying had more to do with asking God to help everyone to bring the child up in the ways of God.

7. Does the church assume some responsibility for this child?

Hopefully I have adequately answered that already, the answer is yes.

I will add one question.
8. Are baby dedications mandated in Scripture?

Not sure, but I think it is safe to say that it takes a whole Church body to bring up a child in the ways of the Lord.

Tom

Hi Tom,

Thanks for answering my questions from a Baptist's perspective. It appears to me that we're not so far apart as you think.

We both agree that we cannot know with certainty whether another person is truly saved. It may appear to us that their profession of faith is genuine but only God knows for sure. We trust that there will be evidences in the life of each believer but again only the Lord knows the heart. Your practice of baptizing professing believers parallels our public profession of faith which brings the believer into the privileges of full communion with the people of God.

In regards to permitting someone who holds to a different view on baptism to be an office bearer in your church I certainly understand. You don't want to have leaders who are opposed to what you believe. So you would choose leaders who support what you believe.

You answered my second question, "Before a child has made a profession of faith, they should not be presumed to be Christians. But that does not mean there are not advantages to a child with Christian parents in the Church." Again we find that we're not so different. As has been repeated here on the-highway many times we do not presume baptismal regeneration. I think our difference comes from our view of the covenant and the meaning of baptism.

If I'm understanding Steve correctly he concludes that there is not continuity between the Covenant of Grace in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Is this the common understanding of most Baptists? If this is true I can certainly see why you don't practice infant baptism and I can understand why your meaning of baptism is different than ours. This is not to say that I agree with this interpretation but at least I understand your view better.


Wes

In the same way, wouldn't the Baptist practice of bady dedications be similar to the way paedobaptists have the parents vow before God and the congregation (and their child!) to raise them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?

I've learned a lot about the paedo position since being on this board. I used to think all paedos believed in baptismal regeneration, but I know that is absolutely false now. I got that idea because, in the PCUSA church I grew up in, the pastor made it sound that way because he said the baby was now part of the body of Christ.

Wes

If you would like to further understand the issue from a Baptist CT position. I would recommend getting a small book (about 50 pages) called: 'A String of Pearls Unstrung' by Fred Malone. Because of its size it does not go into great detail, for that I would recommend Fred Malone's book 'The Baptism of Disciples Alone'.
You can find them at the following URL:
www.founders.org

Tom

I'm sure there are many similarities here too. However the paedobaptist views their child in the Covenant of Grace and the credobaptist does not. It's this broader sense of inclusion that marks the differences we hold. That's also why I'm asking how Baptist's view their children.


Wes

Thanks Tom. I may resort to that if others are unable to make this clear.


Wes

Wes

In case you want to know a little bit about Dr. Fred Malone.
He was brought up Baptist, but during seminary largely do to the work of John Murray, he became convinced of Paedo-Baptism. After seminary he served for a few years in a Presbyterian Church, where he baptised many babies including two of his own children.

Through a series of events he was forced to look into the matter of Paedo vrs. Credo again, only this time he became convinced that he had been too hasty at excepting the Paedobaptist view.
It is because of this that he understands both sides of the view, something which can not be said about many in the debate.

He is not hostile towards Paedobaptists, in fact here is a quote from the foreword of Malone's book 'The Baptism Of Desciples Alone'.

"I pray that the reading and studying of this book will produce a conciliatory spirit among Baptists and our dear and respected paedobaptist friends. I also pray our differences on baptism will not hinder our mutual efforts to obey our Lord's clearest command, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel." Earnest C. Reisinger

Tom

Yes it is helpful Steve. Your reply demonstrates similarities and differences in our views. The dedication and committment on the part of the parents and the church are similar but we don't view the covenant and baptism the same. Since Baptists only recognize believers baptism, I was wondering how they view their children? When I raised the question about how Baptists view the Covenant of Grace which God made with Abraham I was thinking about two things. In the Covenant of Grace that God made with Abraham His promise included his decendants, and it's an everlasting covenant. From the replies I received it appears we don't agree on these points. It's becoming clearer to me that the Baptist view simply doesn't see any continuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant in regards to including infants, in the church, in covenant with the people of God, or in covenant households unless each individual is a believer. Simply put, they are not included in any covenant until they believe so it's every man for himself.

We might ask then, “who’s in the Covenant of Grace?” Who are the elect of God? Can we know? We know that God revealed this promise to Abraham and his seed. In one sense it included all his’ offspring. All the male descendants were marked with the sign of the covenant which was circumcision. In another sense it only included those who were true believers. Paul tells us that only those with a circumcised heart are real believers. However we don’t know which one of our offspring will be true believers if any. So we must make a distinction between the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Redemption in the sense that one cannot be broken and the other can. It seems clear from history that there have been those who were included in the Covenant of Grace who turned out to be unbelievers. The same is true today. There are those who outwardly appear to belong to the church either by infant baptism or believer’s baptism but remain unbelievers and will not inherit the kingdom of God.

The Hebrews 8 passage (which also quotes the Jeremiah passage) tells that the big difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is our High Priest. Unlike the repeated sacrifices of the law, which were an annual reminder of sins, Jesus’ offering of Himself has brought forgiveness, holiness, and perfection once for all. The Old Testament promises were mainly earthly, the New Testament promises of heavenly blessings. The New Covenant refers to the restoration of God’s people whereby God forgives absolutely His people’s sins, and writes His law by His Spirit on the hearts of true believers.

It comes down to this… God promises to save those He has elected from the foundation of the world through the Covenant of Redemption He has established with His Son. We want to be able to recognize those He has chosen so we set up standards to determine who should have acceptance into the church. Whether we do this with a narrow focus on individual believers or a broad focus that includes covenant households we will make mistakes. Thankfully our mistakes will not be the final judgment. In the final judgment the sheep will be seperated from the goats.


Wes

Wes

I found something that you might be interested in listening to on this matter by Dr. Fred Malone.
http://www.gracesermons.com/hisbygrace/Page7.html#malone

Tom

Tom,

I want to thank you again for providing information about how Baptists view the covenants. The link you’ve provided with the sermons by Fred Malone really helped me to better understand the Baptist view. It's taken me a while to listen to these messages.

As I’ve mentioned before I see a lot of similarities is what we believe to be true. Actually I see enough for me to believe that we’re both on the path that leads to life eternal. However there are significant differences in our view of the Covenant of Grace. Malone himself points this out when he says, “As Baptists we disagree with just about everybody else.” That statement says a lot in itself. He admits that this view is not classic covenant theology.

He says that Louis Berkhof, William Hendrickson, and L.T. Robertson agree that the covenant is between God and His elect but also includes the children of believers. I think this is because they look at the Covenant of Grace differently than he does. Malone calls their views hermeneutical errors. It could be pointed out that his view is an error but I'd rather say they're different hermeneutical methods. Malone sights that many Baptists are asking these questions today. He says we lose good faithful Baptist pastors and churchmen on the basis of this doctrine. They’re reading books about the grace of God and the Reformation and suddenly become convinced that they need to become Presbyterians.

In one of his messages he rightly points out that there aren't many covenants but different administrations of the one. The administration of Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, etc. However later on he say's that we must be careful in assuming that any biblical covenant automatically carries the elements of one covenant into the other covenant. Rather than denying his previous statement I think he's referring to carrying elements of the Old to the New. However the New is the fulfillment of the Old. The New has accomplished what the Old could not. The Old failed because it required perfect obedience which no man could accomplish. It was a Covenant of Works. God sent His Son to fulfill the requirements of the law and provide a New Covenant. This covenant replaces the Old Covenant because it has a better High Priest.

Malone emphasis that in the New Covenant each person will have the law written upon their heart, the personal knowledge of God, and the forgiveness of sins. Only those who are assumed to have the actual fruit and realities of the New Covenant are to be baptized. Some say that you can never determine what is in the heart of another person. He says that the New Testament consistently accepts the outward repentance and faith of those who were made disciples as evidence of the inward work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts. And it is on the basis of the outward confession of faith in Jesus Christ that they were baptized.

Malone says, “It is only natural that God saves from among the children of believers and that He promises to bless our efforts. We can teach, sow, instruct, pray, and discipline in hope for the salvation of our children souls. But there’s quite a little difference in saying that our children must be in the covenant so that God may save from among them."

I agree with Malone that there may be some Presbyterian parents who believe their children are saved by infant baptism but it’s not what Scripture teaches nor what faithful men of God preach. Although I believe there is great advantage for children of believers who grow up in a covenant home and church. After all the promise is to believers, their children, and many that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. It’s not the genes of the parents that saves their children it’s the power of God’s word and the Gospel.

When I think about continuity between the Old and New Covenants I think about going all the way back to the beginning. After all God is the initiator of His covenants and I believe there is a progressive fulfillment in these promises with man being carried out through history. From before the foundation of this world God the Father (representing the Trinity) established the Covenant of Redemption with the Son (who represents the elect). This covenant is the foundation for everything that God will do in time in redeeming His bride for Himself. The Covenant of Grace depends of the Covenant of Redemption for its existence.

The first thing, then, is manifest, that there was a voluntary concurrence and distinct consent of the Father and Son for the accomplishment of the work of peace, and for bringing us to God. So the Covenant of Grace is the Covenant of Redemption as it expresses itself in time. If there were no parties assuming responsibility for establishing the Covenant of Redemption in eternity there would be no basis for the Covenant of Grace working itself out in time. The Covenant of Redemption cannot be broken. The Father and the Son have immutably fulfilled it. The Covenant of Grace, for the elect, cannot be broken because it logically flows from the Covenant of Redemption. So for the elect of God nothing can break the promise of their redemption because it relies entirely on His grace and is appropriated through faith.


Wes

Wes

I am glad you found the link helpful in understanding the Baptist view of the covenants.
I enjoy communicating with you, because regardless of whether or not you agree or not, you are cordial. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

I certainly can not say that about another person I gave that link to who is a Lutheran.

He accused Reformed Baptists of believing in a synergistic form of salvation. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Tom

Tom,

My intent was not to accuse but to understand our differences especially as it relates to children of believers which are included in the Covenant of Grace according to Gen. 17:7; Acts 2:39 etc. It should be noted that Reformed paedobaptist churches don't baptize infants per se, we baptize the children of believers.


Thanks again.


Wes