Called To Communion Hype and Roman Catholic Reality

Published on by D. G. Hart

Bryan Cross’ response to Nick Batzig on the Reformed view of imputation has kicked up a little dust over at Green Baggins and for good reason, though I plan to go in a direction different from many of the Protestant complaints. Cross contends that Roman Catholics understand justification through the lens of agape while Reformed Protestants use a list paradigm:

From a Catholic point of view, as I explained in “Why John Calvin did not Recognize the Distinction Between Mortal and Venial Sin,” there are two different paradigms here regarding what it means to keep the law. Call one the list paradigm, and call the other the agape paradigm. In the list paradigm, perfect law-keeping is conceived as keeping a list of God given precepts. According to this paradigm, perfect law-keeping requires perfectly and perpetually keeping (and not in any way violating) every single precept in the list. In the New Covenant, we are given more gifts for growing progressively in our ability to keep the law, but nevertheless, nobody in this life keeps the list perfectly. All fall short of God’s perfect standard of righteousness. That’s the paradigm through which Batzig views God’s requirement of righteousness for salvation.

In the agape paradigm, by contrast, agape is the fulfillment of the law. Agape is not merely some power or force or energy by which one is enabled better to keep the list of rules, either perfectly or imperfectly. Rather, agape is what the law has pointed to all along. To have agape in one’s soul is to have the perfect righteousness to which the list of precepts point. Righteousness conceived as keeping a list of externally written precepts is conceptually a shadow of the true righteousness which consists of agape infused into the soul. This infusion of agape is the law written on the heart. But the writing of the law on the heart should not be conceived as merely memorizing the list of precepts, or being more highly motivated to keep the list of precepts. To conceive of agape as merely a force or good motivation that helps us better (but imperfectly, in this life) keep the list of rules, is still to be in the list paradigm. The writing of the law on the heart provides in itself the very fulfillment of the law — that perfection to which the external law always pointed. To have agape is already to have fulfilled the telos of the law, a telos that is expressed in our words, deeds, and actions because they are all ordered to a supernatural end unless we commit a mortal sin. The typical Protestant objection to the Catholic understanding of justification by the infusion of agape is “Who perfectly loves God? No one.” But this objection presupposes the list paradigm.

This is rich given the recent news out of the Vatican that Rome has added to the Church’s list of deadly sins. (Look for the words list and agape.)

After 1,500 years the Vatican has brought the seven deadly sins up to date by adding seven new ones for the age of globalization. The list, published yesterday in L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, came as the Pope deplored the “decreasing sense of sin” in today’s “secularized world” and the falling numbers of Roman Catholics going to confession.

The new deadly sins include polluting, genetic engineering, being obscenely rich, drug dealing, abortion, pedophilia and causing social injustice.

So the communion that originally gave us a list of sins is adding to the list. Agape indeed.

And to underscore the point — which is that Bryan Cross has remarkable intellectual gifts that have little purchase in reality — consider that the little, old (not ancient, of course) Orthodox Presbyterian Church, with all of its alleged list mentality, resisted mightily producing lists of sins. One occasion came in 1950 when the church, through a study committee of the General Assembly, concluded that belonging to the Free Masons was a sin. But contrary to some in the church who wanted a constitutional amendment to list Masonry as a sin, the committee opposed the composition of lists of sin:

Although it is unwarranted to condemn all cataloguing of sins by the church, history shows that it ma easily be carried so far as to become fraught with undesirable consequences. This danger becomes especially great when the church in its official book of discipline seeks to enumerate the precise sins which render their doers subject to ecclesiastical censures. . . .

It is obviously impossible for the church to draw up a complete catalogue of sins. Any list is certain to be a partial one. The almost unavoidable result will be that the members of the church will receive an unbalanced view of the Christian life. For example, let us suppose that a church catalogues as offenses certain types of worldliness, as gambling, the performance or viewing of immoral or sacrilegious theatricals, and many forms of
modern dancing. The danger is far from imaginary that the psychological effect of such partial cataloguing will be that other forms of worldliness, which in the sight of God are no less reprehensible, such as the love of money, the telling of salacious jokes by toastmasters and other speakers at banquets, the display of wealth in a palatial dwelling, and the stressing of the numerical rather than the spiritual growth of a church, to name no more, will be condoned and even overlooked. In another respect too the cataloguing of sins is liable to result in an unbalanced conception of the Christian life. It may easily impart the impression that Christian living is essentially negative rather than positive. Church members will be led to stress the separated life at the expense of the consecrated life. Very plainly put, they will conclude that merely not to do this and that and a third thing is the essence of Christian living and is proof of the Christianity of him who abstains from these things. (1950 GA Minutes, 26)

In case you didn’t notice, the church allegedly characterized by the agape paradigm makes lists of sins. And one of the churches that you might expect to draw up a list of sins, given its supposed reliance on the list paradigm, has tried not to make lists.

In which case, I am not sure what Bryan Cross’ point is other than to show the inadequacies of Protestants always in the peace of Christ.

Postscript:

The Baltimore Catechism on sin:
52. Q. What is actual sin? A. Actual sin is any willful thought, word, deed or omission contrary to the law of God.

The Shorter Catechism on sin:
14. Q. What is sin? A. Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God.

We print, realists decide.

366 thoughts on “Called To Communion Hype and Roman Catholic Reality”

  1. D.G.

    In which case, I am not sure what Bryan Cross’ point is other than to show the inadequacies of Protestants

    Which is why it is better to ask for clarification, before posting criticisms of positions you (by your own admission) don’t understand. (You have my email.)

    The agape paradigm neither is nor entails that there can be no lists. So the notion that there cannot be any lists in the agape paradigm is a strawman of your own making.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  2. Bryan Cross: The agape paradigm neither is nor entails that there can be no lists. So the notion that there cannot be any lists in the agape paradigm is a strawman of your own making.

    RS: What is the source of agape in the human soul? Does it basically boil down to works in the long run? I am still not seeing how an agape that comes from the human free-will (your view) and then keeps the law is any different from a human will that decides to keeps the law.

    Bryan Cross: In the agape paradigm, by contrast, agape is the fulfillment of the law. Agape is not merely some power or force or energy by which one is enabled better to keep the list of rules, either perfectly or imperfectly. Rather, agape is what the law has pointed to all along. To have agape in one’s soul is to have the perfect righteousness to which the list of precepts point.

    RS: It sounds as if you believe that if one has agape then one has a perfect righteousness. How is that different from the imputed righteousness of Christ Himself? So agape is what the law pointed to, but now agape points to the law?

    Bryan Cross: Righteousness conceived as keeping a list of externally written precepts is conceptually a shadow of the true righteousness which consists of agape infused into the soul. This infusion of agape is the law written on the heart. But the writing of the law on the heart should not be conceived as merely memorizing the list of precepts, or being more highly motivated to keep the list of precepts. To conceive of agape as merely a force or good motivation that helps us better (but imperfectly, in this life) keep the list of rules, is still to be in the list paradigm. The writing of the law on the heart provides in itself the very fulfillment of the law — that perfection to which the external law always pointed.

    RS: So a person can be perfect or does one have the imputed righteousness of Christ?

    Bryan Cross: To have agape is already to have fulfilled the telos of the law, a telos that is expressed in our words, deeds, and actions because they are all ordered to a supernatural end unless we commit a mortal sin.

    RS: But again, this just sounds like a person that is perfect and expresses that perfection by following a supernatural list or showing that s/he is not perfect by sinning. Somewhere your agape paradigm is like an old Harley. They were usually found beside the road leaking oil.

    Like

  3. I’m starting to think that attempting to understand the “agape paradigm” is like peeling an onion. There’s always another layer…

    It’s a gift to be simple.

    Like

  4. This is why protestants turned RC need to not turn into RC apologists a month after their conversion.

    Rome is the priestcraft and liturgy, it’s the mass. Rome isn’t ‘word-based’ religious expression. I want all the CTCers to write an epilogue in twenty years and describe to me RC apart from sacerdotalism.

    We just started reading the bible in 1965, and that through the filter of the higher critical method.

    “After 1,500 years the Vatican has brought the seven deadly sins up to date by adding seven new ones for the age of globalization.”

    More ‘maturation’ of a deposit. Oh, btw, this is also example of the ‘magisterium’ sticking their finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing(political). This is why you end up with; ‘I believe what the church believes’ .

    Like

  5. Bryan

    ‘The agape paradigm neither is nor entails that there can be no lists.’

    But in the ‘agape paradigm’ one doesn’t have to keep the list to be righteous?

    ‘Righteousness conceived as keeping a list of externally written precepts is conceptually a shadow of the true righteousness which consists of agape infused into the soul.’

    Does true righteousness necessarily consist in the infusion of agape into the soul?

    Like

  6. One of the problems is that Bryan Cross is just expressing his own opinions and interpretations. These are not the teachings of his church. These are post hoc rationalizations.

    Bryan Cross wrote: “the notion that there cannot be any lists in the agape paradigm is a strawman of your own making.” But actually, DGH didn’t argue that Cross’ position is “that there cannot be any lists in the agape paradigm.” That is a strawman of Cross’ own making.

    Like

  7. Rome has added to the Church’s list of deadly sins

    Have they really? From the linked article “Although there is no definitive list of mortal sins…” Does this article contain the abracadabra shibboleth necessary to activate the ex cathedra infallibility charm? Presuming not, why do we care? We’re busy trying to come to grips with the infallible teachings of Rome, let’s not throw falllible stuff into the mix…

    Like

  8. Bryan, or maybe when you philosophize you want to keep an eye on what the Vatican is saying. Believe it or not, but your pronouncements don’t contain much qualification.

    Even so, the way you convey your position and Protestants’ suggests that we have very different paradigms about righteousness. I wasn’t expecting Rome to teach such a similar view of sin as the OPC.

    Like

  9. The agape paradigm per the article is that

    In the agape paradigm, by contrast, agape is the fulfillment of the law. Agape is not merely some power or force or energy by which one is enabled better to keep the list of rules, either perfectly or imperfectly. Rather, agape is what the law has pointed to all along. To have agape in one’s soul is to have the perfect righteousness to which the list of precepts point. Righteousness conceived as keeping a list of externally written precepts is conceptually a shadow of the true righteousness which consists of agape infused into the soul.

    Bryan, I trust that you are correctly representing the Church teaching to the best of your knowledge. What do you mean then in relationship to

    Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. — CCC 2000

    Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification — CCC 2010

    “All Christians in any state or walk of life are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity.” All are called to holiness: “Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

    In order to reach this perfection the faithful should use the strength dealt out to them by Christ’s gift, so that . . . doing the will of the Father in everything, they may wholeheartedly devote themselves to the glory of God and to the service of their neighbor. Thus the holiness of the People of God will grow in fruitful abundance, as is clearly shown in the history of the Church through the lives of so many saints. — CCC 2013

    It seems here that charity is conceived of as the will to obey God, and is a species of ‘virtue’ (cf. Summa, II-II 23.3ff) What is your definition of charity?

    Further, would you agree or disagree with Thomas that ‘Charity is the efficient cause of all the other virtues’? And if you agree, then how is this different from ‘love is the energy by which one is better enabled to keep the list of rules’?

    Finally, if my questions are not wearisome, does this really come down to virtue-ethics vs. deontology, in which you conceive of Catholics as have a virtue system and Protestants, a deontological one?

    Like

  10. The agape paradigm neither is nor entails that there can be no lists. So the notion that there cannot be any lists in the agape paradigm is a strawman of your own making.

    So if the the agape paradigm can have lists, its difference with (let alone its alleged superiority over) the list paradigm becomes illusory.

    Like

  11. D.G.

    I wasn’t expecting Rome to teach such a similar view of sin as the OPC.

    That’s presumably because you’re assuming that if there are similarities, then there aren’t any underlying differences. And that’s not a safe assumption.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  12. Re. the OPC not making a list of sins: Does the Westminster Larger Catechism go to far in expounding upon the ten commandments? Some of the answers kind of look like a list. Maybe the OPC’s point was that they already had a list in their Confessions so there was no need to make another one?

    The Agape paradigm reminds me of the guy who wrote a letter to the editor this week about how Jesus never said anything in the Sermon on the Mount about homosexuality and that the Sermon on the Mount is all about love. As long as we love like Jesus did we don’t need to worry about the law. Right – like Jesus was making the law easier on us when he said that looking at a woman lustfully is as bad as committing adultery with her.

    Cross says “To have agape in one’s soul is to have the perfect righteousness to which the list of precepts point.” Exactly how does he think this agape gets into one’s soul if not through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness?

    Like

  13. Oh look nobody thinks Bryan is insincere. The whole exercise of trying to defend the entire deposit and drawing distinctions between all the different declarations is an field of academic, much less religious specialization all it’s own(Canon Law). And even if you could defend it all(internally), you’re still left to reconcile it both historically and per special revelation.

    Like

  15. “The new deadly sins include polluting, genetic engineering, being obscenely rich, drug dealing, abortion, pedophilia and causing social injustice.”

    polluting – promote private ownership vs. socialism

    genetic engineering – of crops? animals? humans?

    being obscenely rich – still waiting on the Vatican’s financial statements

    drug dealing – promote legalization

    abortion & pedophilia – they’re just being added now?

    causing social injustice – that’s a huge can of worms.

    Like

  16. Pingback: D.G. Hart on Called to Communion Hype and Roman Catholic Reality « Literate Comments

  17. Sean – “Infusion via the sacraments.”

    So when Catholics still commit serious sins how often are they denied the sacraments? To what extent is church discipline practiced?

    What good does it do to tell people they are being infused with grace through the sacraments (like magic) if they are living like hell?

    Like

  18. Since there are many different kinds of “legalism” and the word is not a biblical word, we need to be precise in defining what we mean. A distinction between “soft legalism” and “strict legalism” and “merit legalism” usually assumes a short-hand which does not really tell us the difference not using the word “merit” makes.

    In our day many folks think they have escaped legalism by simply eliminating antithesis between law and gospel, and thus they promote “covenant conditionality”. Some of these folks want to
    distribute Christ’s righteousness to both the “instead of us” AND the “in us”. They instruct us to stop looking only at the past and at the cross, and begin to look also to a present and future process in which we find out if being “in the covenant” turns out to be for us a curse. Now that we are “in the family”, things are not so strict (the law-grace antithesis no longer applies to us) and so all we need to do is imperfectly work out what we hope God has worked in us. As one celebrity preacher tells us— you don’t have to succeed exactly, but you do have to try, and keep trying.

    Of course, I disagree. I could say that Christians are not “legalists” and “legalists” are not Christians. But then one of you would correctly ask me about what kind of “legalist” Christians can and cannot be!

    If you check your imperfect fruit to see if you have died to the law, how could you ever know with any assurance at all that you belong to body of Christ? But, on the other hand, if you have to first know that you have died to the law (for justification, as a “covenant of works”, to use two popular ways of saying it) to know if the fruit is acceptable to God, then what’s the point of introspection at that point? Should pastors have a situational approach, so that you talk differently about faith and love when you are talking to a Roman Catholic? Should we “frame” things in terms of perspectives, so that if a person is looking out to Christ, we want them to look in, and if they are looking in, we still have a different counsel for them (look out)?

    Romans 7:4–”You have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we bear fruit for God.”

    Faith in the gospel has as its object not just any “Jesus” or any “grace”, but the Jesus Christ who PERFECTLY satisfied the list for all who will be justified (and not for the non-elect). This faith in the gospel is not only a sovereign gift but a righteous gift, given on behalf of Christ and His law-satisfaction (Philippians 1:29; John 17, II Peter 1:1).

    Like

  19. Erik,

    How well does a church of over say 500 people to be generous, administer discipline? The whole idea of a ‘visible catholic unity’ much less a ‘visible catholic unity’ along with discipline is non-starter everywhere except on a chalkboard or words written on paper. It’s like a reformation church amending their confession to legislate out sin. What? Huh? You can amend your confession to reflect that if you like, if that helps you sleep at night, or if you’re conscience requires such affirmation, but it doesn’t actually have any value in reality. Bryan’s whole quest started because he didn’t have a principled response to mormon missionaries as it regarded the orthodoxy of the early church. He determined that had to be answered to the right of certainty on the integer line if you will. Darryl has been trying to tell him it’s a little (a lot) messier than that, particularly if you’re eastern orthodox or maybe just a human being who reads history for a living. So far, no dice.

    Like

  20. You know, Darryl, this is exactly how JJS got started–continually taking up the Catholic question on an otherwise 2k blog. Should we be worried?

    Like

  21. The reason I love literature and movies is the constant reminder that the world is messy and that that’s o.k. We can still have faith in Christ because our faith rests on his resurrection. Bryan was trained as a biochemist and out of that mindset he appears to demand certainty — thus the focus on apostolic succession. The Mormons wear magic underwear and say their founder dug up gold plates in the 1800’s and we’re concerned about their critiques? We are always going to have some uncertainty in the midst of faith — explain the problem of evil to me for starters. Just start with the resurrection, go back to make sense of the Old Testament from there, then move forward to the New Testament and live in light of what we learn there. It doesn’t have to be so hard. Put the focus on Christ.

    Like

  22. The thing I fear about the CTC guys is the place they most likely go from here if they leave Rome is not back to a Reformed Church – but to atheism, hedonism, or nihilism. Try to resist a Big Lebowski quote here because it’s a serious concern.

    Like

  23. You know, Darryl, this is exactly how JJS got started–continually taking up the Catholic question on an otherwise 2k blog. Should we be worried?

    Nope. JJS got started giving the Romanists the benefit of the doubt from the get go. (Ask John Bugay about that.) Darryl, to his credit, just knocked it out of the park.
    Bryan, true to form, prevaricated.
    Which means that the little green men in the striped shirts have to keep calling time outs and moving the goalposts.

    But Rome is a vicious, wicked and stupefying fideism as I trust we are seeing in this discussion, that would conform Scripture, reason or history to her image, if possible.

    PS. Whitefield said that the natural man was a papist at heart, so the topic is always timely.

    Like

  25. “Bryan, I trust that you are correctly representing the Church teaching to the best of your knowledge. ”

    I would phrase it differently. I don’t think he intends to contradict his own church’s teachings on the subject. That said, I don’t see where he claims to derive his “agape paradigm” from any binding dogmatic teaching of his church. I recall he specifically acknowledged it was not derived from Scripture.

    In other words, Bryan may sincerely believe that his “agape paradigm” view is an *allowed* view within his communion (based on his interpretation of the official church teachings) but I don’t see where states the church itself teaches it (although, in the multitude of words, I may have missed it). He does seem to suggest it is “the Catholic” point of view (as though there were only one such point of view).

    -TurretinFan

    Like

  26. Prevaricate?

    Which is why it is better to ask for clarification, before posting criticisms of positions you (by your own admission) don’t understand. (You have my email.)

    The agape paradigm neither is nor entails that there can be no lists. So the notion that there cannot be any lists in the agape paradigm is a strawman of your own making.

    How do you know a politician is lying? He has his mouth open.
    How do you know a papist is lyi . . .
    Mr. Cross has a record beginning with the Mormons who came to his door, whom he couldn’t answer because protestantism doesn’t have an infallible apostolic successor to the original. Like the Mormons do. Go figure.
    Hypocritically he and the CtC appeal to the private judgement of Protestants to join Rome and surrender their PJ to the same, never mind that they must continually judge that what they are submitting to is truly Roman and not just something emitted by a fox in sheep’s clothing that hacked their email.
    Yet another shortcoming to their jive is that sin is only a “wilful” transgression of the moral law, not that we must also repent of our sinful human nature as the root of all our sin. IOW vide the distinction between the Roman and OPC definition of sin.
    To the contrary, denying that grace is irresistable, they also believe that we can cooperate with grace, hence a little agape on our part is enough to answer the demands of God’s righteous judgement upon our lawbreaking. We only need imitate Christ, with a little help from infusion.
    And there is no need to get so forensic about it. A little agape goes a long way. I didn’t really mean to say that agape didn’t make lists/you didn’t understand me/blah,blah,blah.

    Prevaricate? I think so, but as always my PJ is such a vicious and stupid protestant superstition that I am not even really sure that there is such a thing as objective reality.
    And don’t go you telling me that I ought to believe in it anyway, regardless of Mr. Cross’s ipsit dixits.

    Like

  28. “Denying that grace is irresistible, they also believe that we can cooperate with grace, hence a little agape on our part is enough to answer the demands of God’s righteous judgement upon our lawbreaking. We only need imitate Christ, with a little help from infusion. And there is no need to get so forensic about it. A little agape goes a long way.”

    Amen to the description of Romanism. And how much is enough, and how imperfect is too little? Even if “grace” is flexibility (slack) for those in the family (and not all or nothing), still Rome has no “grace” for certain sins on the lists, like suicides. I mean, if Protestants say there is grace for sinners who still sin, they only encourage suicide. Because surely there can be no motive for doing good or for not doing evil, if there is no blessing to be gained by what you do. If salvation is
    TOTAL grace, then how can we be relevant and make the difference? You can’t be thankful for what you can’t be certain you will still have, and gratitude is not enough motive anyway….

    Favorite quotation from the film: “Some people are so self-righteous that they confess other people’s sins.”

    Like

  29. Jack Miller: I’m starting to think that attempting to understand the “agape paradigm” is like peeling an onion. There’s always another layer…

    RS: Yes, and it always brings tears to the eyes.

    Like

  30. I know you know, Grim, but some of us had Jason nailed way back when, and people thought that we were the fools. But Rome is no joke and Jason isn’t fooling around and Trueman extended Bryan the olive branch when he shouldn’t have.

    As in it’s not “What nice manners you have”, but rather “What sharp teeth you have, Grandmother”.
    “Why, that’s the better to tear and devour the saints, my dear.”

    signed,
    Little Red Riding Hood

    Like

  31. Bryan, do you really think I believe Rome and Protestants don’t differ? To coke cue indeed. Or could it be that your agape paradigm doesn’t do justice to Rome’s teaching about sin and lists of them? In your effort to establish a contrast between Roman Catholicism and Calvinism, you didn’t take into account Rome’s actual teaching about sin or the forensic aspects of salvation at least in pre-Vatican 2 theology.

    Like

  35. Bob, yet another reference to the Mormon visit. I’d like to read about it if anyone has a link. It does strike me that this represents a certain strand of Reformed Protestantism migrated now to Rome. I don’t mean to wind the neo-Cal’s up, but CTC does seem to represent what may happen to minds overly philosophical. “Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief” seems to me where all believers are. Apologists and philosophers tend to gloss that petition.

    Like

  36. McMark, I should see Manon again. I loved Jean de Fleurette but can’t watch it anymore. It loses its poignancy once you know what happens. It’s one of the best movies that loses its potency once viewed.

    Like

  41. D.G.

    Or could it be that your agape paradigm doesn’t do justice to Rome’s teaching about sin and lists of them? In your effort to establish a contrast between Roman Catholicism and Calvinism, you didn’t take into account Rome’s actual teaching about sin or the forensic aspects of salvation at least in pre-Vatican 2 theology.

    Your speculative question and statement about me are fully compatible with what I said here and in the CTC post being true.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

    Like

  43. So if I understand Bryan properly he wants to be allowed to teach heresy (and contradictory/confusing heresy at that) publicly, but he wants to refuted privately?

    If you had no idea of the differences between the Reformed Faith and Roman Faith the complexity and confusion of the latter (as evidenced in Bryan’s comments) should be enough to make one run away…

    Like

  47. Ted – That’s because most evangelicals today are more into looking good, rocking out, and living their best life now. Thinking about serious theological issues is not high on the list. I don’t agree with the CTC guys, but at least they are thinking.

    Like

  48. Does anyone here think that Christ’s imputed righteousness extends to doctrine–that false or erroneous doctrine that we embrace is substituted with Christ’s perfect doctrine and that before God we are all equally orthodox in Christ before God. Would a mustard seed of faith give us Christ’s orthodoxy?

    Like

  49. We can debate with the gelatinous, changeable, moving-target blob that is Roman theology until we’re blue in the face. And maybe we should. But we should also remember that Calvin’s main problem with Rome was their idolatrous worship. I believe many of the Tiber swimmers are attracted by the worship, buildings, images, smells and bells (“the tradition”) as much as the doctrine. We must hammer the worship/idolatry issue. Stop taking the papist eggheads so seriously. Tell them their worship is an affront to God. Even if they’re “nice”.

    Like

  50. Eric, true, true. And prolly always has been.

    But would you agree that the motives that move people from Geneva to Rome seem to be more epistemological in source than doctrinal?

    Yet, there seem to be at the present time more than one or two men who believe infant baptism is corrupt who take doctrine as seriously as reformed men. Yet, you don’t see them crossing the Tiber.

    Not a one.

    Like

  51. Ted,

    They haven’t crossed the Tiber because the emergent church sucked em in before they could get to the bank to look across. If the reformed are leaking out, it’s either through analytical theology or monocovenantal/union/shepherd constructions and influences on the ordo. IMO

    Like

  52. Ted Bigelow: Did anyone notice that all the converts to Rome at CTC come out of infant baptizing church traditions?

    RS: I have noticed that the vast majority seem too.

    Erik Charter: Ted – That’s because most evangelicals today are more into looking good, rocking out, and living their best life now.

    RS: As opposed to looking bad and living their worst life now? Not so serious on that one. But could there be others who are between the modern flavor of evangelicals and the confessing Reformed?

    Erik Charter: Thinking about serious theological issues is not high on the list. I don’t agree with the CTC guys, but at least they are thinking.

    RS: You have raised a rather pointed question or made a real point here. Are the CTC guys really thinking? Is it thinking when the mind is in slavery to a conclusion? While the modern evangelical types have dismissed theology from their thinking, there are those who are not confessionalists who do so because of serious theological issues.

    Like

  53. Ted – I think it’s 90% a case of a temperment that wants “certainty”. They think they have found that in apostolic succession. Unless they think they can trace everything back to the beginning they are not satisfied. Once they are convinced they have done this nothing else matters to them.

    Like

  54. Ted – If you search I’m sure you can find a version of CTC for evangelicals who have become Catholics. We’re just not interacting with them here. I’m undermining my previous post, but I was obviously being a wise guy.

    Like

  55. Terry M. Gray: Does anyone here think that Christ’s imputed righteousness extends to doctrine–that false or erroneous doctrine that we embrace is substituted with Christ’s perfect doctrine and that before God we are all equally orthodox in Christ before God. Would a mustard seed of faith give us Christ’s orthodoxy?

    RS: A fascinating question, even one that McMark might have more trouble answering than I do. I would argue that those who have Christ in truth are taught by Christ and gradually move (or quickly to a degree) more and more to the truth as found in Christ. Part of sanctification is to love God with all of our minds more, so we begin to grow in truth and love in truth. Those with Christ in them have His Spirit illuminating them to wonderful truths. But then again, truth is something more than propositions and facts in the brain.

    John 7:17 “If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.

    Like

  56. Sean – HA!

    I would have thought RCC would smell and feel so ancient and yet so emergent to these emergents that they would have done the breast stroke faster than Phelps across the Tiber. Oh yeah. Rome claims epistimological authority. My bad.

    Anyhow, I guess I’ve been surprised that more of you reformed guys haven’t stepped up on Green Baggins or here and taken Cross on at the very issue of visible church/invisible church. Is that a tough nut for reformed guys?

    IMO he is winning the day on that one.

    Like

  57. Eric – “I think it’s 90% a case of a temperment that wants “certainty”.”

    yep, me too. But I think we all do.

    “If you search I’m sure you can find a version of CTC for evangelicals who have become Catholics”

    Nah. A Bryan Cross for non-doctrinal types? Shirley you jest.

    Like

  58. Good point on worship, Brad.
    But if Israel could not stand before her enemies, because of an accursed thing in her midst Josh. 7:13, perhaps the P&R are a little compromised themselves on worship.

    One Prof. Frame has done more than anybody else in our day to subvert and remodel the reformed doctrine of worship without any real ecclesiastical censure. Further, the claque of Jordan, Meyers, Schlissel, Leithart and Wilson all pretty much sharpened their chops as his understudies on worship taking potshots at the RPW before moving on to the big time with the FV.

    And since we can’t seem to get any real traction practically speaking on the FV in regard to actually disciplining someone within our midst, well connect the dots. Worship is not a high priority, but at best a confused hodge podge for the P&R at the moment.

    Besides the romanists are sincere idolaters which makes it a done deal for evangelicals.

    Like

  59. Ted,

    That’s all we’ve done here for two weeks. He claims it, we ask him what color the sky is where he lives, and he responds that we can’t play the game because we’re skeptics and skepticism is right out as a starting point. Darryl has tried to tell him there’s a whole world of reality beyond the circles on the chalkboard and words actually have to bear some resemblance to actuality and history much less Vatican II in Bryan’s case…………..Crickets. Though I was hoping to see the dueling ECF combox showdown……………..No Joy. Plus, some of us have jobs. Thirty seconds to 5 minutes(every once in a while), if it’s longer you’re trying to hard and it’s better had in a book or journal article, or blog post.

    Like

  60. Well ok, more than crickets lots of ‘question-begging’ flag throwing as well. And yes, sometimes more than 5 minutes but I feel bad about it when I do.

    Like

  62. Yet, there seem to be at the present time more than one or two men who believe infant baptism is corrupt who take doctrine as seriously as reformed men. Yet, you don’t see them crossing the Tiber.

    Not a one.

    Actually, I count several friends now in communion with Rome or Constantinople (?) who are former Baptists or Anabaptists.

    Likewise, there are several in our own PCA church who are former Catholics.

    The world is fluid place.

    Like

  63. Ted, there you go again with the latent Romanism in confessional and paedobaptistic Protestantism. But have you noticed the scores of Protestant PBists pushing back on the Catholics and their converts? And have you noticed how most of the “30K denoms” that Catholics love to use to show how Protestantism undermines the catholicity of the visible church are credo-baptist?

    Like

  64. Erik – “so you’re telling me there’s a chance?”

    gulp, that the RC is the True Church in apostle-land (TM)? And I thought it was SGM all this time.

    Sean – too funny! Then there’s DGH telling BC “my epistemology is more humble than yours. What are you gonna do about it?”

    BC to DGH: Oh no, mine is much more humble than yours since I do not use private judgment as you do (if I do say so myself). And you can place that in the apostolic deposit.” Peace in you know Who.

    DGH to all: “sue the ban – que”

    Zrim, does my familiarity bred content yet?… I’m just saying I haven’t seen anyone (whom BC’ll answer on here or Green Baggins) slash his tires for calling the Catholic Church the visible church of Christ. I mean, if RC baptism is valid in Reformed churches then maybe he’s only pointing out what you guys are a little shy to admit: that his view of visible/invisible church really is in connection through the sacraments with you guys.

    Jeff – Any baptist types who swam the Tiber who were as theologically educated as the ex-reformed types at CTC? Love your posts, btw.

    Like

  65. Ted, by slashing his tires do you mean pointing out how Belgic 27-29 condemns the RCC and bids all pious souls to come out of her and cleave to the true church as defined specifically by 29? But that would also seem to give credo-baptists something to think about as well. But maybe you’ve missed the exchanges I’ve had with Andrew and Jeremy about the fact that their communion doesn’t raise the ecclesiastical stakes the way Reformed Protestantism does. V2 says we’re brethren, but Belgic doesn’t. Is that slashy enough?

    But RC baptisms are valid in Reformed churches for the same reason Baptist baptisms are. Does accepting yours mean we’re slouching toward Muenster? But Baptists and Catholics seem agreed that the Protestant Reformation was a compromised thing, what with both mistaking Prots for an undeveloped version of the other.

    Like

  66. Zrim,

    But Baptists and Catholics seem agreed that the Protestant Reformation was a compromised thing, what with both mistaking Prots for an undeveloped version of the other.

    Good point. Maybe the Reformed are doing something right!

    Like

  67. I noticed someone mention about the 30k denominations that Roman Catholics love to bring out; they bring that out as a criticism of Sola Scriptura, if I remember correctly. James White has responded to that over and over again on his blog; even recently when someone else expressed a desire to go to Rome about a month ago.

    Notice the reaction you find in some Romanists when you mention James White, a Baptist. I remember one thoughtful Roman Catholic student mentioning personally to Mr. White that he is the man that Rome’s apologists seem to place the most attention to refute. I think he has challenged the people at Called to Communion to a debate.

    Oh, and if Jason Stellman reads this, can you seriously consider what James White told you? Can you seriously consider his debate challenge to you specifically? Some of us would like to know in a public setting why we should also go to Rome. I am assuming that Mr. Stellman believes that we should all go to Rome. So please Mr. Stellman, I would seriously consider your objections if that were to happen, particularly since you were an ordained minister in the PCA.

    Like

  68. Zrim,

    I hear your rhetoric (in the right sense) and appreciate Belgic 29 (Belgic 34, not so much).

    But isn’t there a reason for reformed men finding refuge acorss the Tiber, and doesn’t it boil down to this matter of who is the visible church?

    Two questions:

    Belgic 29 says “Neither does she [the RCC] administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his Word.” Why do reformed churches accept RC baptism, claiming that baptism as valid when BC 29 says it isn’t?

    Second, in 34 it says, “ministers… administer the sacrament [of baptism], and that which is visible, but our Lord gives that which is signified by the sacrament, namely, the gifts and invisible grace;…”
    Wouldn’t that statement of visible sign / invisible grace work pave the way across the Tiber by fitting Bryan Cross’ view of the one and only visible church that passes along invisible/saving grace?

    Like

  69. Zrim: “Baptists and Catholics seem agreed that the Protestant Reformation was a compromised thing, what with both mistaking Prots for an undeveloped version of the other.”

    Brilliant point! But ultimately unhelpful. Catholics say Prots are undeveloped for entirely different reasons that Baptists. Baptists say Prots compromised the Word of God, Catholics say Prots compromised their own traditions.

    And isn’t that always the ultimate issue – the Word of God? Lumping Baptists in with Catholics might be clever and funny (I think it is, anyway), but Baptists don’t accept RC religion like Prots do.

    And isn’t that why so many more reformed men swim the Tiber?

    Like

  70. Ted, re Belgic 29, the validity of baptism does not depend on the validity of the church within which it is administered (nor even the piety of its administrator, for that matter). It must simply be Trinitarian. Re 34, it’s not unusual for a memorialist to think the Reformed visible/invisible distinction paves the way to sacerdotalism. But Reformed will still hold that the Spirit is really and spiritually present to make his means of grace efficacious and confirm faith previously created by the Word. The bread stays bread and wine wine, if that helps.

    Yes, the Word of God is the issue. But what the Biblicist has in common with the Romanist is the blind spot for the complication whose name is interpretation. The former depends on private judgment, the latter on the church. Protestantism employs both with a healthy dose of limitation of each and checks and balances of one for the other to discern what the Word of God is saying. It’s not an easy task, which is what makes both Biblicism and Romanism seem sort of lazy, frankly.

    Like

  71. Hi Zrim,

    Maybe you can clear up this confusion further for me.

    On the one hand, Belgic 29 says “Neither does she [the RCC] administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in his Word.” Yet reformed churches accept it exactly as “appointed by Christ in his word.”

    Is your answer, “because they use the Trinitarian formula rightly?” or is there more?

    Like

  72. Re. Belgic 29 – Maybe because the RCC doesn’t limit the sacraments to 2 and because of the doctrine of transubstantiation? Re. accepting Catholic baptisms – Think about the context of when the Reformed Churches started – Wouldn’t most people in that first generation been baptized in the Roman Catholic Church? Luther and Calvin certainly would have been. They most likely would have advocated a new, Protestant baptism if they thought that was important, no?

    Like

  73. Ted, my own understanding is that there has been disagreement in P&R history on this question. Some say a Roman baptism is invalid for the reason you seem to be driving at (i.e. false churches administer false baptisms), others affirm for the reason I suggested (i.e. Trinitarian baptisms are valid and do not depend on the validity of the communion within which they are administered). Local P&R communions must decide for themselves in particular cases which way to go.

    Even so, I’m not sure the point of Belgic 29 is to open the way for re-baptism, given the language of 34 which reads in part: “For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers.” The Protestant reformers themselves came up in the Roman church and weren’t re-baptized, unlike the Radicals who did. Which seems to suggest that they saw no problem with Roman baptism.

    Like

  74. Zrim, I wan’t suggesting the BC opened the way for “rebaptism” – although it is interesting that BC is harsher on us Baptists than it is on the Catholics (IMO). Again, this goes to my larger point.

    I think Eric’s comment to be spot on. You can’t separate the times from those living in them.

    Baptismally speaking, the reformers and their Prot followers never left Rome. Which is to really to say that ecclesiastically the Prots never left Rome since baptism is the initiatory rite into the ecclesia. And yet we agree Rome’s initiatory religious rite comes a midst all the priest-craft and Tridentine non-gospel heresy.

    You may not think you share communion with her, but you really do. You Prots will embrace them ecclesiatically, and us, perhaps begrudgingly, soteriologically (but not ecclesiastically).

    And in the end, ecclesiastically wins because keeping the machine running is survival of people’s livelihoods. Jus’ sayin.

    Like

  75. Ted, if it’s strong language against the Roman communion you want then why not try HC 80 on the other sacrament:

    What difference is there between the Lord’s supper and the popish mass?

    Answer: The Lord’s supper testifies to us, that we have a full pardon of all sin by the only sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself has once accomplished on the cross; and, that we by the Holy Ghost are ingrafted into Christ, who, according to his human nature is now not on earth, but in heaven, at the right hand of God his Father, and will there be worshipped by us. But the mass teaches, that the living and dead have not the pardon of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is also daily offered for them by the priests; and further, that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and therefore is to be worshipped in them; so that the mass, at bottom, is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry.

    I don’t know how an honest reader reads that and maintains the things you do about Reformed Protestantism having not shaken off all the Romanism. How in thee heck does maintaining that the Roman Mass is “an accursed idolatry” lead to Rome?

    Like

  76. Zrim,

    I feel your pain, really I do. I’m not saying that Prots embrace the mass, or the priest-craft. I wrote above, “we agree Rome’s initiatory religious rite comes a midst all the priest-craft and Tridentine non-gospel heresy” – which heresy covers all their sacramentarian whiffle dust.

    Except that Prots embrace the most important RC whiffle dust (ecclesiastically speaking) – a view of baptism that we find to be “an accursed idolatry” – as is all their mass and holy orders and the whole schmeer.

    We just find the Prot position inconsistent, unbiblical, and leaning toward Vatican City. And CTC confirms it.

    Like

  77. Ted – I think the Reformed view of Baptism is an extension of covenant theology and can stand on its own apart from Rome (and I was a Baptist until my mid-30s). Once you understand the idea of the Covenant and the role of circumcision in the OT it is not hard to embrace infant baptism as the NT sign and seal that replaces circumcision. It all makes sense if you can get out of the baptist mindset that’s it’s something that the believer does as an act of devotion.

    Like

  78. I think the reason so many non-Reformed people struggle with the Reformed understanding of the sacraments is they have trouble separating the visible church from the invisible church. Federal Vision types have the same struggle. Not every Covenant memer of Israel was elect, not every baptized child is elect. Nonetheless God commanded all Israelite males to be circumcized and he commands every Christian child to be baptized. By the grace of God many of these baptized children will have true faith and be saved.

    Baptists seem to want some kind of certainty that the only ones who are baptized are “real Christians”. The problem is that some of these people will not continue in faith for their entire lives. What does one do with the doctrine of perseverance of the saints at that point? Were they truly saved and lost their faith? (which can’t happen under the doctrine of perseverance of the saints) or were they not saved in the first place, which makes it an “unbeliever’s baptism” vs. a “believer’s baptism” in retrospect? I think it’s a real problem for the “Reformed Baptist”.

    Like

  79. Ted, in other words it all turns on the one sacrament of baptism (and never mind the Reformed understanding that, while it does indeed initiate covenantal membership, it is a sign and seal of the covenant made efficacious by the Spirit alone and not a magical or superstitious ex opere operato act). I suppose that’s consistent from those who identify themselves baptismally. But that sure seems to be elevating the sacrament of baptism to a height prone to over-realize its importance. Let me guess: you also celebrate the Supper infrequently.

    Like

  80. Erik – “It all makes sense if you can get out of the baptist mindset that’s it’s something that the believer does as an act of devotion.”

    Ted – If that’s the same thing as an act of obedience to the command of Christ in Mat. 28:19 then I’m all for it.

    “I think it’s a real problem for the “Reformed Baptist””

    I guess it is for some, but for all my years in ministry and knowing hundreds of baptistic pastors I’ve never known one to have this problem. It could be we’re all too ashamed to admit it. Or it could be that its only a problem supposed on us from others.

    As one who has baptised far too many who have fallen away from Christ and now serve Satan, I still baptise on profession of faith and a pledge of a good conscience toward God. And i imagine I still baptize people who will fall away later, and I’m not losing any sleep over it.

    Erik – “Nonetheless God commanded all Israelite males to be circumcized and he commands every Christian child to be baptized.”

    We maintain that this commanding He does this through the word of God alone (Mat. 28:19), but not through the church, which is the point of concinnity between RC and Reformed in this matter of baptizing those without a credible profession of faith. Or to put it less delicately, you share the same authority in infant baptisms as does the RCC. Your church tells you to go for it.

    But then you have to rework the promise of the New Covenant from “they will all know me,” to “only some of them will know me.”

    Like

  81. Zrim: “Let me guess: you also celebrate the Supper infrequently.”

    About once per month. And its memorial. But hey, if I don’t tell the people the presence of Christ is spiritually in the elements, they are anyway from your perspective. Ex opere operato, right?

    Zrim – “while it does indeed initiate covenantal membership”

    But baptism is also the means by which the children of the faithful are brought into church membership. And if their RC baptism grants them entrance into the church and the covenant, and the Reformed baptism does the same, its hard to visibly see the difference. And that what Bryan Cross is trying to get you guys to accede to (in 10,000 words or more, which ever comes first).

    Zrim – “But that sure seems to be elevating the sacrament of baptism to a height prone to over-realize its importance”

    I like where you’re going here.

    Like

  82. Ted – How do you view the unbaptized children in your church? The same as or different than the guy on the street? If different, then why? If you do “dedications” what is your biblical authority?

    Like

  83. Matthew 28:19
    New International Version (NIV)

    19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

    How does this preclude infant baptism? If you make a disciple as an adult, then baptize them as an adult. Where does this say anything one way or another about children?

    Being that Jews were coming out of a background of circumcision why did Jesus not make it explicit that infants should not be baptized?

    What do you make of Colossians 2.9-12 linking circumcision and baptism?

    9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh[b] was put off when you were circumcised by[c] Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

    Like

  84. Ted – Have you known “hundreds of baptistic pastors” or hundreds of REFORMED baptistic pastors? I totally agree that believer’s baptism is no problem at all for an Arminian.

    Like

  85. Ted – “We maintain that this commanding He does this through the word of God alone (Mat. 28:19), but not through the church, which is the point of concinnity between RC and Reformed in this matter of baptizing those without a credible profession of faith. Or to put it less delicately, you share the same authority in infant baptisms as does the RCC. Your church tells you to go for it.”

    You post here enough to know this is not true. Reformed people (at least the Reformed people who post here) believe in infant baptism because they believe it’s biblical, not because the Church says to do it. We also share a belief with Rome in the Trinity. Should we disbelieve it because Rome believes it?

    Like

  86. Ted, the point about infrequency (which I take once a month to be) is that it seems to be a function of the same over-realizing of the Supper that Baptists make of baptism. There are various reasons to neglect the regular use of the means of grace, but one tends to be that the Supper is so special it shouldn’t be done regularly. But routine has a way of bringing sobriety and modest perspective to a ritual. Sure, many Reformed are anymore practitioners of infrequency, but this seems to be a reflection of just how victorious and influential low church evangelicalism has been.

    Likewise, on top of identifying by a particular baptismal doctrine betraying an over importance on that doctrine (again, where are the “Communionists”?), thinking that baptism should only be applied to those who profess credible faith seems to betray an over-wrought correspondence between faith and baptism. I wonder if it helps to know that the Reformed look for credible profession before admitting to the table? Paedo-baptism and credo-communionism are the correct bookends.

    Still like where this is headed?

    And you’re not seeing the difference because you lack the in/visible church distinction. When we baptize we are marking children as outward members of the church, not inward and not as presumptively regenerate. After baptism, and through the slow process of catechesis and the means of grace in regular worship, etc., we wait until a credible profession of faith is made, at which time they join us at the table. It’s not at all unusual for this to look Roman-esque to memorialists who think there’s Romanism and then there’s orthodoxy, but not only are there principled differences, but Protestants have never been shy to admit we inherited plenty of unassailable doctrines and practices from the early church. The Reformation was organic. Just because Catholics believe or practice something doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

    Like

  89. Eric – do you reformed guys sneak up on people, rip them off the street, sprinkle water on them, and tell them they are now externally in the covenant? No? How ’bout your neighbors kids? No?

    Of course not. So why do you do it to infants?

    You teach people before you sprinkle ’em, in part, because to do otherwise is to violate the part of Jesus’ words you left off: “teaching them to obey me in all things” which command is written with the expectation that those who embrace Jesus commands will obey Him by being baptized.

    The fact that reformed folks do it one way with their own kids (but won’t with other kids), and another way with adults shows an inconsistency with Mat. 28:19-20. Speaking of consistency, when Jesus commanded that those baptized should obey him in all things, did that include the taking of communion?

    And I’m not a reformed Baptist, and most pastors I know are not reformed baptist guys either. I’m not even a baptist, if by that you mean congregational, single elder church guy. I am all for churches with a plurality of elders through, like the kind Titus established on Crete.

    We don’t do children dedications, but will occasionally have parents come down to dedicate them publicly to the raising of their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. We all are so needy for the prayers of God’s people on that front.

    “You post here enough to know this is not true. Reformed people (at least the Reformed people who post here) believe in infant baptism because they believe it’s biblical, not because the Church says to do it. We also share a belief with Rome in the Trinity. Should we disbelieve it because Rome believes it?”

    OK. Show me the text that commands, or exemplifies infants being baptized.

    And as for Col. 2:9ff, the baptism spoken of there is like the circumcision spoken of there – “without hands” – iow, by Christ.

    Like

  90. Zrim – infrequency of the Lord’s supper “seems to be a function of the same over-realizing of the Supper that Baptists make of baptism”

    Or, it is simply the same point I keep trying to make with the Catholic guys over at Green Baggins. The church relies on both example and precept to establish a practice a binding. In communion, we have daily example (Acts 2:41) weekly (Acts 20:7) and “when you meet together” (1 Cor. 11:20) which was linked to the weekly meal together. But we have no precept that binds us to once per week, or every time we meet. One PCA church nearby went to it every week as part of a move to help bring revival. Gee, why isn’t that a compelling reason? And whom have we but the Presby’s to thank for the specter of revivalism in our land (not low church evangellyism)?

    Zrim – “you’re not seeing the difference because you lack the in/visible church distinction”

    could you direct me to some online resources that could teach me? thanks.

    Like

  91. Ted Bigelow says,

    “But then you have to rework the promise of the New Covenant from “they will all know me,” to “only some of them will know me.””

    And he says it right after having said,

    “As one who has baptised far too many who have fallen away from Christ and now serve Satan, I still baptise on profession of faith and a pledge of a good conscience toward God. And i imagine I still baptize people who will fall away later, and I’m not losing any sleep over it.”

    Finally, he accuses,

    “Or to put it less delicately, you share the same authority in infant baptisms as does the RCC. Your church tells you to go for it.”

    My response:
    From the first two quotations listed above, I’d say, you just shot yourself in the foot, Mr. Bigelow. On top of that, infant baptism, like the doctrine of the Trinity, is arrived at by good and necessary consequence from Scripture alone. Your “Rome” mudflinging missed its target and left its throwers hands covered in the mud trying to be flung.

    All throughout church history, this doctrine has been upheld by Scripture and thoroughly taught from scripture. Rome errs in falling back on traditions that are destroyed by Scripture. All the Reformers, from Luther, to Calvin, to Zwingli (and others) recognized this doctrine of infant baptism in Scripture and they clearly draw it out and defend it against the heretical wiles of the anabaptists using Scripture alone. (Baptists mainly use their own personal concerns about possible twisting of the truth by covenant children regarding the necessity of confessing the faith signified in baptism as a scripturally unwarranted aversion to the commands given by God).

    Credo-baptists, though no friends of the anabaptists in almost all respects, err with regard to the proper position of covenant children in the church. We know they are holy to the Lord, even on account of a single parent being of the church. We know from Proverbs 22:6 that we are called to raise a child in the way that he should go that he might not depart from that way (note, he is raised IN the way). Indeed, Ephesians 6:1-4 affirms that the children of believers are children of the covenant. To whom was the law given? Was it to those outside? No! It was given to God’s covenant people that they might put to death the deeds of the flesh and look to the Christ for their salvation. Here, in the New Testament, it is confirmed that children of believers belong to the church. That baptism is the new sign of the covenant replacing the old sign of circumcision (which was for male children only [pointing to Christ]) is shown to be a fuller sign than circumcision in Acts 8:12 where it is noted that both men and women alike were being baptized. Nevertheless, Colossians 2 clearly shows the covenantal tie between circumcision and baptism. And furthermore the Lord Jesus Christ promises of infants (belonging to parents who brought them before Him) that to them belong the kingdom of heaven after rebuking his disciples for trying to hinder them from coming to Him.

    I think the following quote from Zwingli is appropriate here (note he is confessing his faith in the teachings of Scripture). He writes, “I, believe also that the universal, visible Church is one, while it maintains that true confession, of which we have already spoken. I believe also that all belong to this Church who give their adherence to it according to the rule and promise of God’s Word. I believe that to this Church belong Isaac, Jacob, Judah and all who were of the seed of Abraham, and also those infants whose parents in the first beginnings of the Christian Church, through the preaching of the apostles, were won to the cause of Christ. For if Isaac and the rest of the ancients had not belonged to the Church, they would not have received the Church’s token, circumcision. Since these, then, were members of the Church, infants and children belonged to the primitive Church. Therefore I believe and know that they were sealed by the sacrament of baptism. For children also make a confession, when they are offered by their parents to the Church, especially since the promise offers them to God, which is made to our infants no less, but even far more amply and abundantly, than formerly to the children of the Hebrews.

    These are the grounds for baptizing and commending infants to the Church, against which all the weapons and war engines of the Anabaptists avail nothing. For not only are they to be baptized who believe, but they who confess, and they who, according to the promise of God’s Word, belong to the Church. For otherwise even the apostles would not have baptized anyone, since no apostle had absolute evidence regarding the faith of one confessing and calling himself a Christian. For Simon the impostor, Ananias, Judas, and no one knows who, were baptized when they declared their adherence to Christ, even though they did not have faith. On the other hand, Isaac was circumcised as an infant without declaring his adherence or believing, but the promise acted in his behalf. But since our infants are in the same position as those of the Hebrews, the promise also declares their adherence to our Church and makes confession. Hence, in reality baptism, like circumcision (I am speaking of the sacrament of baptism) pre-supposes nothing but one of two things, either confession, i.e., a declaration of allegiance or a covenant, i.e., a promise.” -this passage is taken out of a letter entitled, “From Ulrich Zwingli, An Account of the Faith of Huldereich Zwingli Submitted to the Roman Emperor Charles (3 July 1530)”. It can be read here, http://pages.uoregon.edu/sshoemak/323/texts/zwingli.htm

    We confess that in baptizing our infants, the sacrament of baptism signifies that the promise of God is for those who believe and for their children (Acts 2:39). Thus, we give them the sign in faithful obedience to Christ. Should they grow to deny their baptism, how is that any different than your own instance listed above where you give the sign to those to whom the promise applies, namely, those who confess Christ. I will admit, though, that much sleep is lost over said covenant children and also all others who are baptized only to eventually deny their baptism; much inward groaning and many hopeful prayer is given on their behalf that they might repent and believe; much like Paul wished that he were accursed on account of his fellow Israelites to whom rightly “…belong[ed] the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises (Romans 9:4).” But our faith is always in God who secretly elects, knowing that (though it is painful and discouraging when anyone denies their baptism) it is no failure of His promise when one who has received the sign of the covenant proves to be outside. Indeed, “God knows those who are His” (Numbers 16:5, 2 Timothy 2:19) as He always has, nevertheless, the sign of the covenant is given.

    Like

  92. Ted says – “do you reformed guys sneak up on people, rip them off the street, sprinkle water on them, and tell them they are now externally in the covenant? No? How ’bout your neighbors kids? No?

    Of course not. So why do you do it to infants?”

    Erik says – None of the people you describe are my kids, the children of Christian parents.

    1 Cor. 7.14 – “For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”

    The last 4 paragraphs of Belgic 34:

    “For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists who are not content with a single baptism once received and also condemn the baptism of the children of believers. We believe our children ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as little children were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises made to our children.

    And truly, Christ has shed his blood no less for washing the little children of believers than he did for adults.

    Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of what Christ has done for them, just as the Lord commanded in the law that by offering a lamb for them the sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ would be granted them shortly after their birth. This was the sacrament of Jesus Christ.

    Furthermore, baptism does for our children what circumcision did for the Jewish people. That is why Paul calls baptism the “circumcision of Christ.”^77”

    ^76 Matt. 28:19 ^77 Col. 2:11

    Like

  93. Ted says – “You teach people before you sprinkle ‘em, in part, because to do otherwise is to violate the part of Jesus’ words you left off: “teaching them to obey me in all things” which command is written with the expectation that those who embrace Jesus commands will obey Him by being baptized.”

    Erik says – Why do you assume the teaching has to be prior to baptism? Why can’t you teach them after – throughout the 18 years you have them at home? Do you honestly think you have taught someone to obey Jesus in all things before you baptize them as a believer? I’ve seen 8, 9, 10 year old kids receive believer’s baptism.

    Like

  94. Ted says – “The fact that reformed folks do it one way with their own kids (but won’t with other kids), and another way with adults shows an inconsistency with Mat. 28:19-20. Speaking of consistency, when Jesus commanded that those baptized should obey him in all things, did that include the taking of communion?”

    Erik says – How does a church baptize someone else’s kids? What does that even mean? If someone comes to faith as an adult and is not baptized a Reformed Church will baptize them. We can’t make them revert to infancy and baptize them, duh. Let’s stick to baptism for now. Zrim had some comments on the Reformed take on communion above that I will refer to.

    Like

  95. Ted says – “OK. Show me the text that commands, or exemplifies infants being baptized.”

    Erik says – I’ll provide that single proof text when you provide the one for the Trinity. You really don’t have a single proof text to prove that infant children of believers should not be baptized. If it were that simple there wouldn’t be an argument.

    You keep hanging around here and we’ll win you over!

    Like

  96. Ted, though I think there is plenty of biblical precedent for frequency, my point wasn’t about its prescription. It was how infrequency seems to make more out of the sacraments than is warranted, and conversely how regularity and routine lend more sobriety. I think of the Scottish Highland Presbyterians who practice a communion season much like the medieval church observed once a year (or even my own URC which practices quarterly with a preparatory service). There is a load of fanfare and hype that seems not only unbecoming but tends also to exalt the sacraments in a way that is unbiblical and un-Reformed.

    As far as an on-line resource for the in/visible church distinction, I don’t have anything readily at my fingertips. I know it’s intramural, but if you can locate any literature on the Federal Vision debate you’ll find this distinction being made by the anti-FVs. FVs tend to also be PCs.

    P.S. the PCA we attend when visiting our hometown practices weekly. The evangies who visit find it, and every other aspect of the worship, “too Catholic.” A sure sign that something is being done right. But it’s not a move to “bring revival.” It’s an effort to build up the saints and to take advantage of what God has designated

    Like

  98. Zrim –

    PCA BCO, 56—4, g says:

    That children by Baptism, are solemnly received into the bosom of the Visible Church, distinguished from the world, and them that are without, and united with believers; and that all who are baptized in the name of Christ, do renounce, and by their Baptism are bound to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh.

    If I can apply the BCO of the PCA to your statements, one outside your visible church (like myself) reads the last statement “to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh” as only being done by regenerate people, because we are thinking Scripturally. Yet you say that in baptism “When we baptize we are marking children as outward members of the church, not inward and not as presumptively regenerate.”

    I assume you all don’t intentionally want to frustrate these dear little ones, but your system seems fraught with temptation. These little ones are *bound* by baptism to do something they can’t since you admit they aren’t regenerate. And to make matters worse, you all believe communion to be a means of grace to help “fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh,” but this you also deny these little ones who by baptism are to be taught to observe all the Lord teaches, including the obedience of communion, Mat. 28:19-20.

    This is why I say in the reformed system they are baptized out of obedience to the church, not out of obedience to Scripture, which is analogous to Rome, whose baptism reformed folks regard as valid.

    Like

  99. Zrim says – “As far as an on-line resource for the in/visible church distinction” – I would recommend the OPC paper responding to the Federal Vision. It is an excellent document. I know it is online.

    Ted – Not to butt in, but Reformed people don’t regard Rome’s baptism as valid because we agree with them about the meaning of baptism, but because it is Trinitarian.

    You raise good points about baptism binding people to fight against the devil, the world, and the flesh. Keep in mind that we believe that God owes no one salvation. He requires all people to obey His perfect law, but only those that He has given the gift of faith will be able to do it (and it is actually Christ who does it for them). The starting point is not a world in which everyone starts on a level playing field and can either choose Christ or reject Him. It is a world in which all are born into sin and God graciously saves some.

    Like

  101. Erik – ” Reformed people are not big believers in the concept of free will” – except in infants who have been enabled to fight sin, world, and devil through baptism but not regeneration?

    BTW, Steely Dan forever. Um, sorta.

    Can you fetch me a link to the OPC paper?

    Like

  102. But, Ted, what is the alternative? To treat children of believers like little pagans? Even when credos perform their dedications they demonstrate the intuitive sense that they aren’t and so thankfully don’t actually treat them the way their system seems to demand. So while I understand your concern here, I also wonder if you see how it cuts both ways. From my experience, credos may not formally and sacramentally mark their children as specially set apart like paedos, but otherwise treat them as if they have. On what grounds do you treat your children this way? By so-called “dedications”? You ask paedos where the Bible explicitly commends baptism for them, but where o where pray tell is there any explicit or implicit biblical warrant for that special act?

    I also wonder if you can see how the Reformed understanding of how the sacraments have different functions makes room for the complexities of being human at different stages in redemptive history: baptism marks but doesn’t save, is a lifelong signal of God’s grace and initiative toward a completely helpless and sinful creature, requiring nothing on his behalf, which then compels him to consider himself specially set apart and thus responsible, with the help of God’s continual grace, to take personal ownership of what God has declared of him at birth and respond in either affirmation or rejection. In other words, the sacraments function in such a way as to recognize both the frailty and responsibility of being human in the face of God.

    Like

  104. Terry M. Gray: Does anyone here think that Christ’s imputed righteousness extends to doctrine–that false or erroneous doctrine that we embrace is substituted with Christ’s perfect doctrine and that before God we are all equally orthodox in Christ before God. Would a mustard seed of faith give us Christ’s orthodoxy?

    mcmark: I am not going to talk about water baptism on this blog, nor even about the contrast between the Abrahamic and the new covenants. And I am not interested in the genealogy of Protestant converts to Rome. A guy like Sungenis came from Campbellite (an extreme Arminian, worse than Sandemanian form of credobaptism) through Westminster East and Harold Camping and out on the other side as a Roman Catholic. At best, a genealogy question concerning Sungenis would not be so much about the subjects of water baptism but about the ancient tradition of “baptismal regeneration.”

    I do want to respond a bit to Terry’s questions. Mainly I don’t understand the questions. Is Terry asking if we have to know about the doctrine of justification in order to know the God who justifies? Is Terry asking if we have to know the gospel in order to be justified by God’s sovereign grace? Is Terry saying that the doctrine of justification is not part of the doctrine of the gospel? I ask these questions because I don’t know what he’s asking.

    Of course, none of us judges who is justified and condemned in an infallible way. Not even Romanists, with the anathemas of Trent, want to say with absolute certainty that anybody is condemned (even though they do want to say that some are “saints”) None of us is infallible in our exegesis, in our posts, in our friendships, etc. We all know these things.

    Some of us delight in the role of Socrates: I know nothing for certain, but I know for certain that that you know nothing….My point is that we all make judgments, even if we don’t claim to be infallible about. them. We don’t content ourselves with “the invisible church”, unless we are “spiritualists” (the left wing, the revivalist opponents of the anabaptists). Is at least one mark of a church the gospel? What then is the gospel? Is the gospel something different from “orthodoxy”.

    To talk about “equally orthodox” denies the antithesis and makes everything relative, a continuum. Orthodoxy implies that which is un-orthodox (heresy, a choice against the agreed truth). Every inclusion is also an exclusion. Every excluding is already an including. If you insist that God saves elect sinners apart from the gospel, then you set yourself apart from us who teach that God uses His word as a means in regeneration/effectual call. The gospel is the power of salvation, according to I Corinthians 1.

    Terry: Does anyone here think that Christ’s imputed righteousness extends to doctrine–that false or erroneous doctrine that we embrace is substituted with Christ’s perfect doctrine

    mark: Nobody identifies the imputed righteousness with doctrine. 1. But in the gospel doctrine the righteousness of God is revealed, according to Romans 1:16-17, 2, Nobody wants to substitute the righteousness with doctrine about the righteousness. Doctrine is not imputed. Doctrine is what the elect are delivered to when they become servants of righteousness (Romans 6), and there is no conversion without “belief in the truth” (II Thess 2:13) 3.

    Not doctrine but righteousness is what God imputes. We learn that God does not simply declare some sinners righteous without any basis for doing so. God does not simply give a new status, without any forensic basis. God places the elect into Christ’s death, credits them that death , that doing, that righteousness, that blood (the Bible doesn’t use the same word all the time to teach the same truth)

    The Holy Spirit of truth does not use lies and falsehoods (notice the antithesis, not “less orthodox”) in conversion but rather teaches the truth so that the sheep hear the voice of the Shepherd and do not follow strangers. There is no faith without an object of faith, and thus no faith without some knowledge of who Christ is and what Christ did. Faith in Mormonism is not tiny faith or inadequate faith, such that one can gradually grow into orthodoxy without ever repenting of Mormon.

    Sure did write a lot words, Terry, for not really knowing what you were trying to say! Help me out.

    Like

  105. Ephesians 3:14-19 “For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts (minds) through faith – that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to COMPREHEND with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to KNOW the love of Christ that SURPASSES KNOWLEDGE, that you be filled with all the fullness of God”

    There is a difference between knowing something,and knowing everything. If we have to know everything to know anything, then we know nothing. But Romanism is knowing and believing the opposite of the truth. There is a big difference between growing IN faith, and the idea of growing into faith without ever learning to be ashamed of past idolatry.

    II Thessalonians 2::10 “and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to LOVE THE TRUTH and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may BELIEVE WHAT IS FALSE, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not
    BELIEVE THE TRUTH but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first-fruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and BELIEF IN THE TRUTH. 14 To this He CALLED YOU THROUGH OUR GOSPEL, so that you will obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were TAUGHT BY US, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”

    “The entrance of thy word giveth light” — Psalm 119:130.

    “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” John 6:63.

    “In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel” — 1 Corinthians 4:15.

    “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we would be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures” — James 1:18.

    “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever” — 1 Peter 1:23.

    “He that received seed into the good ground, is he that heareth the Word, and UNDERSTANDS it; which also beareth fruit” — Matthew 13:23.

    “Ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you” — John 15:3.

    “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” — John 17:17.

    “God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed, from the heart (mind), the standard of DOCTRINE into which ye were delivered”— Romans 6:17.

    “The gospel of Christ — is the power of God unto salvation, to as many as believeth” Romans 1:16.

    “The gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved” — 1 Corinthians 15:1, 2.

    “The word of the cross is to us who are saved the power of God” — 1 Corinthians 1:18.

    Like

  106. Ted – We need to keep working on this. You miss the point by using the word “enabled”. The one thing you are still missing is that we are not saying that baptism enables just any child to fight sin, world, and devil.

    Look at it this way: Baptism is a “sign” for all covenant children – those who are part of the visible church by way of their believing parents. It is a “seal” for those who are elect, those who have true faith in Jesus Christ. This is where the visible/invisible distinction is important. All children of believers receive the sign. For some it is a seal.

    You don’t have to agree because all of this is an outgrowth of a Reformed understanding of Scripture. You should try to accurately understand us, though. I think you are trying.

    If you have time you should read through the whole Belgic (and Heidelberg). They aren’t that long and after reading them you really can understand basic Reformed theology pretty well. There is a lot of beautiful stuff there even if one is not Reformed. There are also a lot of shots at Rome which I know you will like (ha, ha!)

    Here is the OPC paper: It’s a really nice piece of work.

    Click to access justification.pdf

    Like

  107. A way I think about it that makes it really clear is that in the OT all of Israel (males, anyway) were physically circumcised but only some had circumcised hearts (had faith in God and were saved). Today in the church it is the same with baptism. All covenant children receive the sign of baptism but it is only a seal for those who have faith in Christ and are saved.

    The covenant people are always a mixed body visibly.

    Like

  108. Ted says, “…but this you also deny these little ones who by baptism are to be taught to observe all the Lord teaches, including the obedience of communion, Mat. 28:19-20.”

    The little ones must be kept from the Lord’s table because unlike baptism, Scriptures command that communion requires discernment of the body (1 Corinthians 11:27-29).

    As per your objections regarding the clarity of the covenant child’s standing, I should think you might be more cautious. Doesn’t Paul say in Romans 9 that those who were the children of Israel, having necessarily received the sign of the covenant, were not necessarily of Israel? He further says that to them should have rightly belonged all the blessings of the covenant but for the election of God. Are you objecting to God’s command in giving this covenant sign to all of Israel? Might you call Him unjust for commanding that the sign be given to them and that they would, by right of being born of parents who were of Israel, have every reason to hope to receive all the blessings of God? I should think there to be the same parallel for those born of parents who are of the new covenant. The church gives them the visible sign of baptism before the whole assembly that they might be raised in the instruction of the Lord. Nonetheless, though those who are in the church are visible to our eyes even as Paul’s fellow Israelites were visible to his eyes, we know and teach that God’s secret election, according to His will alone, is not visible. This is apparently in your view already with adults because you said before that you baptize folks who later leave and live in sin, though for a time you certainly must have considered them to be members of the church.

    Like

  109. DGH: “Ted, you asked, “So why do you do it to infants?” Because Jesus told us to.”

    OK. I’ll bite. Where did he tell us to baptize infants? The Bible, the Magisterium, or the Confessions?

    Like

  111. Zrim – “But, Ted, what is the alternative? To treat children of believers like little pagans?”

    We raise them to believe God is their Father and Christ is their Savior, not because the ecclesia has claim on them, but because God does. We don’t do baby dedications, because it teaches people, implicitly, that their little ones are saved by a churchly act. Reformed people expect their members to be skilled exegetes of their church documents. We don’t.

    Zrim – “the sacraments function in such a way as to recognize both the frailty and responsibility of being human in the face of God”

    That’s all fine on paper, but it isn’t true to the way unbelief works in the human heart. Infant baptisms and “presence” communions have convinced millions they are going to heaven, are God’s favored, and can live in sin while being assured of heaven.

    Like

  113. Erik – “You miss the point by using the word “enabled”.

    OK. “responsible”

    Erik – “The covenant people are always a mixed body visibly.”

    There is no “visible covenant people” today. This because in the New Covenant ALL have their sins removed, and ALL know the Lord. You are either in the covenant, or you ain’t, and there aren’t any x-ray specs to see who is and who isn’t. Its a tension of invisibility established by Christ that Baptists live with and Reformed and RC try to control.

    Baptists refuse to bring people into the church whom we know aren’t (yet) meant to be members of the visible ecclesia, precisely because we believe in the New Covenant. While Reformed and Catholic claim to be the visible church, we don’t. We’re just a local church like the kind Christ assayed in Rev. 2-3.

    Like

  114. Ted, the book-length argument is found in Christian Baptism by John Murray. I think … oooh, it’s on You Tube … Richard Pratt has a book and now a YT video entitled “Why We Baptize Our Children.”

    I always love free resources.

    Anyways, here’s the command:

    And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.” — Gen 17.9 – 10.

    Now here’s the reasoning.

    (1) The command was given to Abraham as a part of the Abrahamic Covenant (not, as many Baptist and anabaptist apologists mistakenly argue, as part of the Old Covenant).

    (2) The sign was a sign of cleansing from sin (Rom 2.28 – 29 et al)

    (3) We who are in Christ have been adopted as Abraham’s children, and have therefore been brought under the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal 3.29).

    (4) The sign of our inclusion into that covenant is baptism, because that is the sign of our inclusion in Christ (Gal 3.27) that makes us Abraham’s children by consequence.

    (5) The proper obedience to the command in Genesis is therefore to baptize our children.

    (6) And we baptize both male and female because of the broadening of the Abrahamic covenant indicated in Gal 3.28.

    I would argue that the most natural reading of Acts 16.15 and 16.31 – 34 is to understand those as examplars for the readers’ households.

    In other words, the debate over “were there really kids in Lydia’s household?” is less important than Luke’s intent: Lydia baptized her household; so should you.

    Objections:

    (1) Obj.: The children don’t have faith; how can they receive the sign of faith?

    Resp.: Abraham’s children did not have faith, yet they received the sign of faith. Signs are given from God to us to represent an objective truth: Believe and you will be cleansed. It is neither necessary nor possible to restrict baptism to ‘those who believe’; rather, we should obey God’s command and baptize all those who profess faith, and their households.

    (2) Obj.: All of the baptisms in the NT are of adults.

    Resp.: Actually, this is not proved. But even if it were, it would not prove that all baptisms should be of adults. For the apostles were proclaiming the Gospel to the first generation of Christians. It is not therefore remarkable in the least that all those whom they baptized were adult converts. And their households.

    What now of the second generation?

    —

    But about that Reformed — conversion to Rome connection. Do you have actual numbers to show that Reformed folk are more likely to convert to Rome?

    Like

  115. Ted – “Baptists refuse to bring people into the church whom we know aren’t (yet) meant to be members of the visible ecclesia, precisely because we believe in the New Covenant.”

    Erik – Are you an Arminian who believes that people can be genuinely saved for a time and then through their own unfaithfulness lose their salvation? If you are, then I think you are being logically consistent with all you are saying.

    I don’t think you are right, though, if you are an Arminian, because you are having to ignore a lot of really inconvenient passages about election that are all over the Old & New Testament. If you think Al Gore identified “An Inconvenient Truth” lets talk about election…

    Like

  116. Luke – “I should think there to be the same parallel for those born of parents who are of the new covenant. The church gives them the visible sign of baptism”

    Which church? The Roman Catholic? The New Covenant is markedly different than the Old, and necessitates ecclesial practices submitted to it, not the Old.

    Great point on 1 Cor. 11:27-29. Now apply that discernment to baptism.

    Like

  118. Ted – As a non-Reformed guy you also see more radical discontinuity between the OT & NT. One of the things that won me over to Reformed theology is the continuity between the OT & NT. I never encountered a non-Reformed minister who handled the OT in a way that made sense to me. Mostly just talk about “Bible Heroes” (ignoring the fact that those people were really no better than us for the most part).

    Like

  119. Ted – You ignored verse 39:

    39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off —for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

    The adults hear the call to repentance (it was just gibberish to the baby’s ears) and then apply what they have heard to themselves and their families.

    Like

  120. Ted – As a minister with such low-church views, why would I want to come to your church? What if I could learn all I need to learn about Jesus on blogs and I could find Christian friends online. That’s another place where individual Christians come together. Plus, it’s free. Supporting a visible chuch and paying a minister’s salary is quite expensive. I would rather save the money AND sleep in on Sunday mornings!

    Like

  121. Jeff – “We who are in Christ have been adopted as Abraham’s children, have therefore been brought under the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal 3.29).”

    That’s not what Paul says. He never mentions terms which Christ fulfilled), but rather realized inheritance (nothing left to earn, iow). What’s more, Gal. 3:27, includes that New Covenant word ALL, “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” This has to be the spiritual baptism “without hands” performed by Christ Himself at the moment of inclusion into His body. Unless you want to argue all baptized infants are full members (3:28) in the body of Christ and then some/many get thrown out later upon unbelief?

    I’ll hold off on the discussion of household baptisms. But thank you for such a logical and cogent explanation of the Reformed (and RC) position on infant baptism.

    Jeff – “But about that Reformed — conversion to Rome connection. Do you have actual numbers to show that Reformed folk are more likely to convert to Rome?”

    Go to CTC web site and read through the bios of the contributors. All come from infant baptist backgrounds just prior to breast-stroking the Tiber. That was my original point. But moreover, who are CTC reaching out to for new converts, Baptists, or Prots? And they are being successful (Stellman).

    Consider: Rome ever calls upon itself for moral reform but never doctrinal reform. Prots ever call on Rome for doctrinal reform, not realizing that Rome returns the favor and snags some of her best and brightest. Why?

    Like

  122. Erik- “The adults hear the call to repentance (it was just gibberish to the baby’s ears) and then apply what they have heard to themselves and their families.”

    Does that not mean then the promise and the command were aimed at 2 different audiences? Then why does the command for adults and not infants go beyond repentance to baptism?

    Like

  124. Ted, you may not do dedications, but what you said was that you “will occasionally have parents come down to dedicate them publicly to the raising of their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” So where is the biblical warrant for this act of worship? And Reformed don’t expect their people to be skilled and erudite exegetes. They expect them to fulfill the vows they took, one of which is: “Do you agree to submit in the Lord to the government and discipline of this church and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to heed its discipline?” You keep saying that we baptize because our church compels us to as if this is a bad thing. But we are institutional Christians, and some of us are unashamed of our high view of the church. God works through her authority for own good. And the minute two or more of you get together and counsel one of your people, you’re doing the same thing. Why are you more spiritual when you do it but we’re latent Romanists?

    You say, “Infant baptisms and “presence” communions have convinced millions they are going to heaven, are God’s favored, and can live in sin while being assured of heaven.” And your parental dedications don’t have the potential to yield the same thing? Please, Ted. I cut my spiritual teeth in your tradition and could easily point to plenty of sanctified and extra-biblical activities that promote spiritual externalism. The question is whether anything has biblical warrant. Baptism is all over Scripture as a category. Where is anything remotely resembling dedication?

    Like

  125. Go to CTC web site and read through the bios of the contributors. All come from infant baptist backgrounds just prior to breast-stroking the Tiber. That was my original point. But moreover, who are CTC reaching out to for new converts, Baptists, or Prots? And they are being successful (Stellman).

    Ted, between you laying Roman conversions at the feet of paedobaptism and Trueman blaming 2k, you both have a remarkable way of missing forest for trees. When I read those conversionist stories it’s all about discovering that the RCC is the church that Jesus founded. It’s a ecclesiology on uber-steriods. Stellman is a little different, in that he is using a Protestant method to come to Catholic conclusion about salvation. But never do I see anything about sacramentology, particularly baptism.

    Like

  126. Zrim – “Where is anything remotely resembling dedication?”

    Have you not read about the baby Jesus in the temple? Or Hannah and Samuel?

    Just kidding.

    We do parent dedications in the evening, which is essentially a time of prayer for them and their children, accompanied by some teaching from Scripture on parental responsibility (Eph. 6:4). That’s how it fits into worship, and I think even the toughest regulative critic could be OK with that.

    Zrim – “Why are you more spiritual when you do it but we’re latent Romanists?”

    It’s not about who is more spiritual but about embracing an ecclesiology that promotes the gospel and protects the sheep from bad men and bad doctrines.

    Like

  127. Ted, in case you missed it, plenty of ex-Baptists or non-denominational Protestants are also Roman Catholics. They just don’t have a website. But when they become aware of how think low-church Protestantism is and how silly its worship can be (they may receive a wake up call when they hear the bad liturgical music in RC parishes), they don’t just swim but take a power boat ride across the Tiber. You should get out more.

    Like

  128. Zrim – “But never do I see anything about sacramentology, particularly baptism.”

    Here’s a guy who went to WTS Escondido and ended up in Rome:

    “I ended up rejecting Dispensationalism; further study led me to the writings of Michael Horton, who emphasized the centrality of the preached Word as well as the regular administration of the Sacraments (which were, in good Protestant form, two: baptism and communion). I came to greatly appreciate the sacraments as well as the liturgical form of worship in contrast to the often inconsistent and subjectivistic tendencies of the majority of evangelicalism….

    http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/joshua-lims-story-a-westminary-seminary-california-student-becomes-catholic/

    “When my professors or the minister would point to the benefit of the Lord’s Supper, it was hard to convince myself that it had any value since it was the visible Word, but nothing more or less than that. Yes, one is strengthened in faith by partaking of the Lord’s Supper–but it is not literally Christ’s body and blood, only sacramentally so, which is only further explained through vague terms such as ‘sacramental union,’ which no one actually seems to know the meaning of, only that it is neither Catholic nor Zwinglian. Issues such as this caused me to question the notion that confessional Reformed Protestantism was somehow more ‘traditional’ than broader evangelicals. If there was historical continuity with the early Church, for instance, it seemed to be purely superficial. Yes, the sacraments were celebrated, baptism was administered to children, but the reasons why they were celebrated or administered differed substantially from that of the early Church. In other words, even if there was seeming continuity with tradition, the reasons behind such a continuity were just as innovative and arbitrary as the rest of evangelicalism.”

    Down in the comments Burton writes: “I have also come to the conclusion that Baptism and communion probably mean and do a lot more sacramentally than I ever thought they did, and are more than the “covenantal sign” that my reformed elders tell me they are.”

    Joshua L, also in the comments, writes: “There is no salvation outside of the Church, but through baptism those who are not in communion with the Catholic Church can be said to participate in the graces of the sacrament; and in this way, they are saved through the Church. I would not say that I was never a ‘true believer’ until I entered the Catholic Church, rather, I would say that apart from the Sacraments and the Church I was a believer deprived of the fullness of grace.”

    IB greases the slide to one day believe the “RCC is the church that Jesus founded.” As does considering RC IBs valid. Restricting baptism to those who give a credible profession of faith doesn’t. One ancient Baptist theologian wrote a book, “Infant Baptism: A Part and Pillar of Popery.”

    Like

  129. Ted, yes, it is about embracing an ecclesiology that promotes the gospel and protects the sheep. And as Geoff has pointed out to you in the other thread about the three marks, that’s only a Protestant church and not the Roman church. Still, compared to the Reformed apologetic for infant baptism, your biblical defense for parental dedication is less than thin, and pretty folksy. This irony, of course, of Biblicism. You accuse Protestants of unduly esteeming tradition at the expense of Scripture, but you have your own practices that seriously lack any biblical support.

    Like

  130. DGH: ” they don’t just swim but take a power boat ride across the Tiber. You should get out more.”

    I would have guessed so too but we won’t see it. The average non-regenerate type in evangelical-land already resents ecclesial authority. Why would a religious consumer addicted to free choice buy more of what he/she already disdains?

    And I am a single digit handicapper on the links. I get to speak to all sorts out there.

    Like

  131. Zrim – “You accuse Protestants of unduly esteeming tradition at the expense of Scripture, but you have your own practices that seriously lack any biblical support.”

    Zrim, who claims dedications in any form convey grace or include somehow in the New Covenant? These things are not similar. You’re slashing my tires with a wisp of grass.

    Prayer for parent’s child-raising, and teaching them what Scripture says about the same, “seriously lack any biblical support?

    Like

  132. Ted,

    Rom. 4:11 tells us that Abraham received “the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had”.
    What did he do then? He applied the same to all the male members of his household.
    Were they all believers, even if they weren’t infants? No. Yet they received the seal of righteousness by faith – again even though they didn’t necessarily believe. More to the point, God told Abraham to circumcise his seed because it was the sign of the everlasting covenant that God would be a God unto Abraham and his seed in their generations Gen. 17:7.

    The reformed baptize their infants because it is the non bloody sign of the covenant of grace that replaces the bloody sign of circumcision for the covenant of grace in the OT. No more, no less, and popery doesn’t have anything to do with it, but rather NT continuity in the covenant of grace that God established with Abraham and his children in the OT.

    The argument that IB is popery by baptists – I speak as an ex baptist – is superficial. One might as well ask baptists why they don’t inconsistently believe what Rome teaches about “This is my body” since the baptist argument it that they see no literal command in Scripture to baptize anybody but adult believers.

    Like

  133. Ted, dedications (parent or child) are typically presented by credos as some sort of parallel to child baptism as an act of worship, in which case I’m still waiting to hear where the biblical warrant, as opposed to a proof-text, is for it. But if all you’re saying is that you pray for your parents to raise their children in the fear of God, ok, so do we in conjunction with baptism. Still, you seem to admit by this that children of believers have a special status and their folks have a corresponding burden to treat them not like pagans. So when Paul calls them holy do you flinch?

    Like

  137. Erik, beautiful photos of that course. But greens fees must be compensating the photographer who took them. I can play 10 rounds of golf in Michigan for that price. You’d think Iowa was on Long Island.

    Like

  138. Ted, thanks. I’ll give this poke, then a testimony, then a defense, then leave off.

    You write, That’s not what Paul says. He never mentions terms which Christ fulfilled), but rather realized inheritance (nothing left to earn, iow).

    Paul says this: And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

    I notice that you don’t really accept the literal meaning of these words — that those who are in Christ are considered Abraham’s offspring. Given that this is repeated in Romans 4 (“Abraham is the father of us all”), it would seem that this point is important to Paul.

    Here’s the testimony. Coming out of a Baptist then anabaptist background, I was convinced that Presbyterians were those folk who ‘didn’t take the Bible seriously.’ And I poked and prodded at my Presby friends on several grounds, infant baptism being the last.

    They didn’t particularly put the hard sell on me, but just asked me questions and let me work out the Scriptures for myself. Gal 3.29 was one of those.

    So here’s my question to you: Why does Paul affirm, in two different places, that we are children of Abraham because of belonging to Christ? How does that affirmation fit into his argument to the Galatians?

    —

    You also wrote, What’s more, Gal. 3:27, includes that New Covenant word ALL, “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” This has to be the spiritual baptism “without hands” performed by Christ Himself at the moment of inclusion into His body. Unless you want to argue all baptized infants are full members (3:28) in the body of Christ and then some/many get thrown out later upon unbelief?

    I would argue that baptism and circumcision both are outward signs that point to the promise of God for an inward change (cf. 1 Peter 3). Those who are ‘baptized into Christ’ in God’s eyes are those who possess that reality; those who are ‘circumcised of heart’ have that same reality.

    So, outward water baptism is the sign of our inclusion; the baptism of the Spirit is the reality of that inclusion.

    But if want to argue that only those who have the reality should receive the sign, then you must go back to Genesis 17 and tell God that He was mistaken to command Abraham to circumcise Ishmael.

    Like

  139. Bob S – “He applied the same to all the male members of his household.”

    Abraham had something you don’t – a command to circumcise the males, Gen 17:10ff. As a Jew, it was also commanded (Lev. 12:2-3). But in the church we require both example and precept for a mandated practice from Jesus Christ: in infant baptism we have neither. This is why some of your best and brightest are susceptible to Catholicism. They get it.

    BTW, whatever blood is produced in circumcision was never considered propitiatory or sacrificial. The connection of circumcision’s blood to the blood of Christ, even when read in the reformed confessions, is just weird. The point of circumcision was not that it produced blood (a cut on the finger could have done that) but that it was the male sex organ being cut, likely displaying that sin is nowhere more evident in man’s sexual proclivities.

    Bob S – “ One might as well ask baptists why they don’t inconsistently believe what Rome teaches about “This is my body” since the baptist argument it that they see no literal command in Scripture to baptize anybody but adult believers.”

    Could be the fact that with His literal body he was holding in His hand something that wasn’t.

    Zrim – “you seem to admit by this that children of believers have a special status and their folks have a corresponding burden to treat them not like pagans. So when Paul calls them holy do you flinch?”

    Not at all. They are special in that they are in the circle of blessing of a believing parent, even when defiled by divorce (there is no mention of covenant in the context, just divorce). We just don’t want to communicate to them that church membership is a birthright and that God is their grandfather because of Mommy and Daddy’s faith in church dogma.

    DGH – “Ted, you don’t know what’s going on among the students of western civilization. Maybe you should read more and play golf less.”

    I call on all elders in the OPC to immediately bring Darryl up on heresy charges. And I call as my first witness Bubba Watson.

    Erik – “Ted – If you become Reformed I’ll get you a free round on my boss’s golf course.”

    Slope of 140… 7300 yards. Dude, I’m sleeping with the 3 forms of unity under the pillow tonite.

    Jeff – “Why does Paul affirm, in two different places, that we are children of Abraham because of belonging to Christ? How does that affirmation fit into his argument to the Galatians?”

    Because Jew or Gentile alike comes into spiritual connection to Abraham’s example and Christ’s body by faith, and not by receiving symbols of covenant inclusion.

    Jeff – “But if [you] want to argue that only those who have the reality should receive the sign, then you must go back to Genesis 17 and tell God that He was mistaken to command Abraham to circumcise Ishmael.”

    Why would I want to submit the New Covenant to the Abrahamic Covenant? One is far superior than the other, and it’s not the one you want to send me to for allegorical obedience, i.e., baptism for circumcision.

    Jeff – “outward water baptism is the sign of our inclusion; the baptism of the Spirit is the reality of that inclusion.”

    I agree. Which is why Gal. 3:27 “has to be the spiritual baptism “without hands” performed by Christ Himself at the moment of inclusion into His body” and not infant baptism.

    Like

  141. Zrim – “you seem to admit by this that children of believers have a special status and their folks have a corresponding burden to treat them not like pagans. So when Paul calls them holy do you flinch?”

    RS: But they are no more holy than the unbelieving spouse is made by a believing spouse. For you to use I Cor 7:14 (see below for the text) as a reason for baptism of an infant would provide the same reason to baptize an unbelieving spouse. The word for “sanctified” is a verb in both instances in terms of the unbelieving spouse being sanctified by a believing spouse. The word “holy” in terms of the child is an adjective. Both come from the same root word. In centuries past some have seen this as simply declaring the child as legitimate rather than illegitimate. But whatever the case, until people start baptizing unbelieving spouses based on this text they should not baptize infants on the basis of this text.

    1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.

    Like

  142. Ted,
    If the baptist position is correct in light of Rom 4:11, circumcision would be a believers only affair.
    It’s not. Why not?

    Two, we have the OT command/precept and example and then the substitution of baptism for circumcision in the NT. IOW for the P&R, if it is commanded in the OT, it is commanded in the NT, unless it is repealed. The baptist paradigm is that if a OT command is not repeated in the NT, it is repealed. Those are the respective presuppositions being brought to the table are they not?

    IB is why some of the P&R’s “ best and brightest are susceptible” to Romanism? Man, that is below the belt. Longwinded and loquacious, verbose and voluminous, yes. The best and the brightest, no.

    Bryan couldn’t even answer the Mormons that came to his door, which event provoked his search for the necessary infallible apostolic authority – just like the Mormons – in the papacy/magisterium of Rome. That the canon had closed; that God providentially has preserved his written Word in his church that was preached into existence through the spoken word/traditions of the apostles; that Joseph Smith was neither prophet or apostle; that the Book of Mormon contradicts Scripture on the doctrine of God and Christ; all these elementary truths and doctrines eluded Mr. Cross, the protestant par excellent which then necessitated his confession of the truth of Romanism. We think not.

    Rather we think the CtC is more of a theological fraud and floozy affair, if not boob bait for the bubbas. Time and time again these supposed ex protestants reveal great ignorance of the reformed protestant faith, as well as a marked inability to frame an argument, never mind distinguish between a fallacy or factual error. IOW Rome is a vicious wicked and stupefying fideism that tramples on Scripture, reason and history whenever it gets a chance.

    One could make a better case that since both Rome and arminianism affirm free will, that evangelicalism is already half way to Rome, but without all the window dressing and pomp. Add to that evangelicalism like Rome has violated the Second Commandment regarding worship and either hierarchy or one man rule reigns in independent community churches and what you have again is romanism in principle, much more that the natural religious man is a papist at heart.
    While a genuine reformed church is reformed in doctrine, worship and government, the CtC bunch don’t seem to demonstrate that they ever understood that.

    While circumcision was a bloody sign, as was the passover, it is true that circumcision never represented the atonement. Its significance was also more about original sin and corruption which was inevitably passed on to man’s offspring, much more that his seed was corrupt to begin with rather than proclivity to sexual sin, which takes a back seat to man’s real proclivity, which is idolatry.

    Like

  144. D.G. – I’ll tell Rev. Lucero. He’ll be thrilled! ha, ha!

    You can bring Dave Van Drunen with you. He has something in the beginning of “Living in God’s 2k” about always being willing to accept free golf.

    Like

  145. Bob – “Ted, If the baptist position is correct in light of Rom 4:11, circumcision would be a believers only affair.” It’s not. Why not?”

    Because the Abrahamic Covenant is not the New Covenant. Progressive revelation, my friend.

    Bob – “Two, we have the OT command/precept and example and then the substitution of baptism for circumcision in the NT.”

    Where? If that’s how you want Col. 2:11-12 to dance for infants, then you better embrace the FV since Col. 2:13 attaches regeneration to the baptism of Col. 2:12. And FV is a just a slow doggy paddle across the Tiber, no? See, we’re all becoming Roman now.

    Bob – “The best and the brightest, no.”

    Who better to lead the Leithart investigation than Stellman?

    Richard – Problem is, a lot of unbelieving spouses tell you to get lost when you try to baptize them, infants not so much. Or maybe holy but unbelieving spouses do worse. They say the wife of Diocletian, the all time persecutor of the faithful, was a Christian.

    Like

  146. Bob S: If the baptist position is correct in light of Rom 4:11, circumcision would be a believers only affair. It’s not. Why not?

    RS: The context of Romans 4:11 demonstrates that the real subject Paul is speaking of has to do with the timing of Abraham’s faith and then circumcision. The nation of Israel was the physical seed of Abraham (the continuance of the promise in Genesis 3 of the seed of the woman who would crush the serpent’s head) intended to bring forth the Messiah. Now the real seed of Abraham is Christ and all those who are in Christ. One must be in Christ to be the seed of Abraham, that is, the true and spiritual seed of Abraham. To get at the issue of baptism one can simply ask who the children of Abraham are. Then ask how the Gentiles are brought in and are considered to be true Jews.

    Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

    Romans 4:16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

    Rom 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

    Galatians 3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

    Galatians 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

    Bob S: Two, we have the OT command/precept and example and then the substitution of baptism for circumcision in the NT. IOW for the P&R, if it is commanded in the OT, it is commanded in the NT, unless it is repealed. The baptist paradigm is that if a OT command is not repeated in the NT, it is repealed. Those are the respective presuppositions being brought to the table are they not?

    RS: You might consider that there is now a New Covenant. When the Old Covenant is done away, then the command/precept of the Old is also done away. This is why we can have a different high priest as set out in Hebrews. It is not that circumcision has been replaced by baptism, but one issue is that circumcision pointed to the need for a new heart and baptism points to those who have been born from above and have a new heart.

    Hebrews 8:13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

    Hebrews 9:15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

    Hebrews 12:24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

    Like

  147. Ted Bigelow

    Old Post by RS: But they are no more holy than the unbelieving spouse is made by a believing spouse. For you to use I Cor 7:14 (see below for the text) as a reason for baptism of an infant would provide the same reason to baptize an unbelieving spouse. The word for “sanctified” is a verb in both instances in terms of the unbelieving spouse being sanctified by a believing spouse. The word “holy” in terms of the child is an adjective. Both come from the same root word. In centuries past some have seen this as simply declaring the child as legitimate rather than illegitimate. But whatever the case, until people start baptizing unbelieving spouses based on this text they should not baptize infants on the basis of this text.

    Ted Bigelow: Richard – Problem is, a lot of unbelieving spouses tell you to get lost when you try to baptize them, infants not so much. Or maybe holy but unbelieving spouses do worse. They say the wife of Diocletian, the all time persecutor of the faithful, was a Christian.

    RS: Yes, but the command for Abraham to circumcise was to circumcise all those in his household. He circumcised slaves, servants, and all he had authority over whether they believed or not. I would think that if baptism simply replaced circumcision that employees and all those should be baptized as well.

    Like

  148. Ted, Reformed paedobaptists also worry about the dangers of externalism, which is why good paedobaptists are also credo-communionists. A covenant child who presumes upon his baptism still has to grapple with why he’s not admitted to the table until a credible profession of faith is made.

    So it remains puzzling as to why you lay so much on paedobaptism as a reason for Roman conversion among the Reformed. I’d second Bob’s suggestion that it is makes more sense to see broad evangelicals going to Rome for an assortment of possibilities.

    Like

  149. Richard, there is no OT precept for spousal circumcision, so the point is moot in the new covenant. Discontinuity only goes so far, and for the P&R the discontinuities are from bloody ordeal to watery marking and from male children only to female children also.

    Like

  150. Jefff: if you want to argue that only those who have the reality should receive the sign, then you must go back to Genesis 17 and tell God that He was mistaken to command Abraham to circumcise Ishmael.

    mark: In context, the “old covenant” is not the Abrahamic covenant but the Mosaic covenant. But many mono-covenantalists don’t want us to ask which covenant is which. They want to read the Abrahamic covenant as if it were the new. So if God commanded something in one covenant, God must still command it. Except of course there is “ceremonial law”, which is also given by our holy God as a reflection of God’s unchanging holy nature. And so what they don’t want to keep (seventh day for example) is put in the “ceremonial” category (the accidents, not the essence).

    Who are the children of Abraham? Are they “as many as He shall call”? Are they “your children”? Or are they “your chidren as many as God shall call”?

    Since the sign of the Abrahamic covenant was purposely given to the non-elect, the argument from circumcision ASSUMES that the new covenant also includes the non-elect. And then it assumes that the sign of circumcision is fulfilled by water baptism, and not by the bloody death of Christ and the justified elect’s legal identification with that same one death (cut off from Adam’s body of the guilty and put in the body of Christ’s by imputation of Christ’s death.)

    Who is “us all”? Dispensationalists can’t see that the land promise was a temporary part of a covenant with Abraham. Covenant theology can’t see that the genealogical priniciple was a temporary part of a covenant with Abraham. Is the “us all” our children? Are “we” promised that we shall have children?

    Are our children promised that they are elect and that Christ died for them? Certainly not, and nobody here is saying that, because even in God’s covenant with Abraham, God never promised Abraham that his children would be justified. The promise of the one elect seed (Christ) wasnot a promise to Abraham’s children that they would be given grace and eternal life. The circumcision sign could go either way (covenant curse), and if the sign of water baptism is the fulfillment of that sign (signifying the same realities) why do we take comfort in a conditional promise? Those who are circumcised are obligated to do the entire law. Those who are not circumcised are also obligated to do the entire law.

    ps: This would be another big discussion, but I would not assume that the fulfillment of circumcision in Colossians 2 is the same as that in Romans 2. The context of Colossians 2 (and Romans 6) is NOT about the Holy Spirit or regeneration, even though “through faith” is very much part of the picture. Faith in what? Faith in faith? Faith in the Holy Spirit? Faith in regeneration?

    Not saying we need to have the Col 2 discussion here, but I am saying we need to exegete Col 2, and not simply give the reference. If Scott Hahn (Roman Catholic) can be wrong about “covenant”, so can Mike Horton. Also the pope.

    Like

  151. Zrim – “I’d second Bob’s suggestion that it is makes more sense to see broad evangelicals going to Rome for an assortment of possibilities.”

    But what can Rome sell to religious consumers that they can’t already purchase for cheaper in Colorado Springs, or Houston, or Seattle, etc.? At least RC evangelists can make a “principled argument” (to quote Mr. Tu Quoque) with P&R folks that builds on the common ground of sacramentology and “we are the true visible church founded by Jesus Christ” (TM).

    That stuff just plays better in Escondido than Colorado Springs, as I’ve already shown you.

    Like

  152. M squared – “The context of Colossians 2 (and Romans 6) is NOT about the Holy Spirit or regeneration”

    “content” and not “context” – either way – have you read Col. 2:13?

    Like

  153. The reason the CTC guys move from evangelicalism to Reformed to Rome is because they actually read books, unlike most evangelicals. They just draw the wrong conclusions from what they read.

    Like

  155. But, Ted, quite a few are willing to pay. So for those that have quickly come to the bottom of the three-thousand-mile-wide-but-three-inches-deep of broad evangelicalism yet want to retain the still, small voice and personal encounter with the risen Christ, as well as cultural relevance, Rome is perfect. Infant baptism is a small price to pay.

    Confessional Reformed Protestantism will give them substance, but it won’t let them retain their pietism and puts a damper on the quest for worldly importance.

    Like

  156. Zrim: Richard, there is no OT precept for spousal circumcision, so the point is moot in the new covenant. Discontinuity only goes so far, and for the P&R the discontinuities are from bloody ordeal to watery marking and from male children only to female children also.

    RS: The point is not moot at all. You are wanting to say that because children are holy according to I Cor 7:14 they can be baptized. In the New Covenant males and females can be baptized, so if unbelieving spouses are holy in the same way as infants are, then why not baptize them? The point has to do with being holy in some way because of relation.

    Like

  157. Erik Charter: Ted – You ignored verse 39:

    39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off —for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

    The adults hear the call to repentance (it was just gibberish to the baby’s ears) and then apply what they have heard to themselves and their families.

    RS: Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
    39 “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.” 40 And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation!” 41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.
    42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

    RS: Notice the context and the specific language that is in that context. Notice that the promise spoken of in verse 39 is given in verse 38. It was the promise of the Holy Spirit to those who repent and are baptized. But the promise was to all who are far off as well. In other words, the promise was to the Jews hearing the preaching, their children (no age mentioned), and then to all who are far off. The promise is for all who repent and are baptized. There is no special promise given in this passage to the children of believers. Instead of that, it is telling them that their children (they probably thought of them as being in the covenant) must also repent to have this New Covenant promise.

    Following the context on down, we see what people did when they heard this promise. Some received his word and were baptized. This is related to the earlier promise mentioned in verse 39 but stated in verse 38. Those who heard that promise received that word and were baptized. Again, no mention of any but those who received the Word. Then the “they” of verse 42 points back to those who received the word and were baptized in verse 41. They devoted “themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” That is what believers do.

    Like

  158. Zrim: Confessional Reformed Protestantism will give them substance, but it won’t let them retain their pietism

    RS: In other words, it takes out the heart of the very mystery of the Gospel which was hidden for so long and now revealed through the Apostles. It also is against what Jesus prayed for in John 17.

    Col 1: 25 Of this church I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the preaching of the word of God,
    26 that is, the mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints,
    27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
    28 We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and teaching every man with all wisdom, so that we may present every man complete in Christ.
    29 For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me.

    John 17:25 “O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me;
    26 and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”

    Like

  159. Richard, no, I’m following the Reformed hermeneutics of OT/NT continuity and discontinuity. There is nothing anywhere about placing the sign and seal of the covenant on spouses. The question is entirely out of the purview. Sorry to sound so Jesse Jackson, but the question remains moot.

    And when confessional Reformed Protestantism opposes pietism, it’s not because it has anything whatsoever against the mysteries of the gospel. In fact, a theology of the cross wants to protect those mysteries against the glory efforts of the pietists, epistemologists, and philosophers who would seek to give creatures the knowledge and experiences unfit for them. It is quite at ease with the tensions that come with the realities of living in the semi-eschatological age of the already-not yet.

    Like

  160. Does “semi-eschatological” mean that many “in” the new covenant are “not yet” justified, so that “the covenant sign” could still go either way, so that the “efficacy” could be “covenant curse”. And unless we agree to the grayness of that “not yet”, we will be accused of over-realized triumphalism? Most often the paedobaptist explanation for their distinction between new covenant and election is that the new covenant has not yet been fufilled, and thus we need to think it of the new covenant now as if it were the same as the Abrahamic (except for certain indifferent circumstances). The clearest presentation of this argument is by Pratt (Reformed Seminary) but there are many variations on the theme.

    Are Christians promised what Abraham was promised? Abraham was promised children. Are Christians promised children? Abraham was promised that one of His seed (there’s the reason the sign is circumcision, the sexual organ) would be Christ, the one who satisfied all convenantal conditions for the elect. Is any Christian today promised that one of their seed will be the Christ?

    If circumcision was for Abraham a seal of the promise to Abraham that Abraham would have children and own a lot of land, then we cannot say that circumcision is ONLY a seal of righteousness that Abraham had by faith. The circumcision is a sign of more than one thing, and it’s not fair for those on either side of the debate to focus on only one of the promises.

    Paedobaptists (since Zwingli) tend to read the Old Testament as if the Arahamic covenant and the new covenant were the same, and thus reduce the Abrahamic covenant to being only about the righteousness earned by Christ. The Romans 4:11 text says that circumcision was a sign to Abraham that he Abraham had the righteousness. The circumcision is a sign that Christ will bring in the righteousness, but not a sign to anybody else that they have or are promised the righteousness.

    Israel is a type fulfilled by Christ, not by a mixed body of justified and non-justified folks we call “the church”. Circumcision is a type of the forensic “cutting off” from legal identity in Adam by means of Christ’s death. Christ’s death becomes the death of those the Father unites to the Son. I Cor 1:30 God is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.”,

    This one death of Christ (the “circumcision of Christ”, check your commentaries!) is not water, not regeneration, not “covenant membership” in a conditional probationary “semi-eschatological” position.

    Even though I was credobaptist for many years before I was converted by the power of the gospel some 12 years ago, I must say that I was never and still not in any credobaptist group that did “baby dedications”. This is not to say that my fundy experience is the norm, but it is to question Zrim’s assumption that all credobaptists think like he was taught to think.

    The disagreement about water will not go away simply by reading all the books Zrim has. Maybe the problem is that all credobaptist readers without exception cannot understand what they read. That must be it. Either that, or stubborn refusal to submit to the obvious??? As John Cotton said to Roger Williams—you have a bad conscience, therefore it would be no sin for you to act against it. So shut up or get out.

    Like

  161. We don’t have to agree with Hodge that there were two different Abrahamic covenants to agree that circumcision had more than one significance.

    1. In the case of Abraham, the righteousness signified had already been imputed to Abraham before circumcision. 2. There is more than one thing signified but one of the things is that objective righteousness revealed in the one gospel, which Abraham believed.. 3. But there is an ambiguity in which paedobaptists have their cake and eat it also. On the one hand, they tell us we can’t know who is justified, and so the sign is not about an infallible knowledge that this infant will be justified.

    And I agree. We talk about Christ dying only for the elect in the gospel, but that is not saying who is elect or not, and nobody can know if they are elect until after they believe the gospel. But agreeing with that, why not then give the sign of the objective righteousness to everybody?

    But then, on the other hand (the eating cake as well), the confessions teach that there is a promise to the children of those who are Christians. And here there is more ambiguity, since first we can’t infallibly know which parents are justified, and second, there is no promise to Christians that they will even have children, and third, What exactly is this promise to the children of those who are Christians? At most what you have is some idea that they are “in the covenant” and thus subject perhaps to “covenant curses”. But again, how are these infants different from any other infants, since all infants are born guilty in Adam and all need that righteousness, and none of them is
    promised that righteousness, and they can only know they have it if God gives them faith in the gospel?

    Religion likes ambiguity. Soundbites are ambiguous. One more soundbite—“covenant child”.

    I oppose “child evangelism” as much as the next guy. If I reach into the box to see if the cat is alive, what am I doing? But if I tell my child she’s in the covenant, and that the children whose parents are not Christian are not in the covenant, have I not also reached into the box before the time?

    Like

  162. Ted,
    Because the Abrahamic Covenant is not the New Covenant. Progressive revelation, my friend.

    WCF 7:5-6 This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel …. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.

    IOW the baptist believe in an New covenant, while the reformed believe in a New adminstration of the covenant of grace. At least that’s what I am getting out of all the comments.

    But what can Rome sell to religious consumers that they can’t already purchase for cheaper in Colorado Springs, or Houston, or Seattle, etc.?

    Read Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor. Rome has magic, miracles and idolatry galore. Likewise the EOrthodox. The evangelical arminian free will mega churches can’t hold a literal candle to the holy spectacle and pomp of Rome. Salvation for the dead and license to sin all the while at least the minsters get to play dressup.

    Mark

    God never promised Abraham that his children would be justified.

    Genesis 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

    Huh?

    the argument from circumcision ASSUMES that the new covenant also includes the non-elect

    Externally, but no more than the old covenant.

    Richard,
    Acts 2 boils down to again whether it is a New covenant or a New administration of the same covenant of grace.
    FTM how many household baptisms were there in the NT?

    Thanks,

    Like

  163. Hi Bob:

    Bob – “IOW the baptist believe in an New covenant, while the reformed believe in a New adminstration of the covenant of grace.”

    Well put. There’s a reason we Christians originally divided the Bible into Old Testament and New Testament, instead of releasing Testament 2.0.

    Bob – “The evangelical arminian free will mega churches can’t hold a literal candle to the holy spectacle and pomp of Rome.”

    Remember though your marketing basics: the consumer defines both the need and it’s solution, not the manufacturer.

    Bob – “FTM how many household baptisms were there in the NT?”

    A bunch did. But they were all believers being baptized – Acts 11:14-18, Acts 16:33-34, Acts 18:8, 1 Cor 16:15 and 1 Cor 1:16.

    Like

  165. Richard & Ted – I would love to hear how you guys make sense of the OT sometime. I’ve never met a non-Reformed pastor who could do it. Bible heroes, anyone?

    Argue why the Apostles, speaking to Jews, would not explain that the sign of baptism was entirely different from the sign of circumcision, which had been given to Jews for thousands of years. They just assumed everyone would know this? “No more circumcison! Baptism! But not for your children!”. It wouldn’t have been too hard to spell out, then we would have no arguments.

    Like

  167. Richard & Ted – Not being Covenant theologians, what hope do you have to offer to a parishioner whose child dies in infancy? That child was born in sin and has not prayed to receive Jesus as his/her savior, correct?

    Like

  168. Mark, all that is meant by semi-eschatological is that what has already been accomplished in the first coming of Jesus hasn’t yet been consummated in his second. And, yes, the covenant sign could be understood as a two-edged sword, bringing blessing to a covenant child who affirms his baptism in profession of faith and curses for the one who comes to reject it (the parallel in the Supper being those with faith are affirmed and those without faith eat and drink judgment onto themselves).

    Like

  169. Ted,
    And the baptist alternative to WCF7:5&6?
    Is there one covenant of grace from Adam to the end of time, or are the people of God and his church bifurcated?
    FTM do you know from the texts for certain that no infants were baptized?

    Thank you.

    Like

  170. Mark McCulley: Paedobaptists (since Zwingli) tend to read the Old Testament as if the Arahamic covenant and the new covenant were the same, and thus reduce the Abrahamic covenant to being only about the righteousness earned by Christ.

    Yes, that’s correct. And speaking as one who disbelieved this, then came to believe it, I will explain how my thinking changed.

    First, I was challenged by (of all things!) The Millennium: Four Views to rethink What the Bible Actually Says over against paradigms I had been taught. Or in other words, I started asking the meta-question, does the Bible actually teach that there are multiple covenants, each with its own stipulations and peculiarities; OR does it teach something else? Does the Bible actually teach pre-trib rapture; OR does it teach something else?

    And first, I noticed that there is no direct teaching in Scripture that says, “There are many Covenants, and your job is to keep them separate.” Rather, there are two covenants which we are commanded to keep separate: The New and Old.

    Second, I noticed (as you did above) that the covenant with Abraham was not the same as the Old Covenant, but preceded it by a good 430 years.

    Third, I noticed that the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant were

    (1) I will be a God to you and to your descendants;
    (2) I will give you a seed — a fascinating side trip on singular or plural here.
    (3) I will give you the land of promise.

    Fourth, I noticed that Paul ascribed to us believers every single one of the promises made to Abraham. In Christ, God becomes our God and we become His people. Abraham’s seed becomes our Savior, and we become Abraham’s seed. And we inherit the world by faith.

    Romans 4: For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

    That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”

    It was as if for the first time I noticed that Abraham wasn’t the father of the one nation of Israel, but of many nations, many goyim. And Paul plainly says that we are his children by faith.

    And I realized at that point that my only obstacles to believing in the unity of the Abrahamic and New Covenants were my beliefs that

    (old a) the Abrahamic Covenant was a physical promise concerning descendants and land, the New was a spiritual promise concerning justification and becoming a child of God. Accordingly,

    (old b) Galatians 3 could be interpreting using a ‘spiritual’ hermeneutic — Paul doesn’t literally mean that we become children of Abraham, but that Abraham is a spiritual example for us.

    But my observations above blew away (old a), which meant that (old b) was left hanging in intellectual midair. Why did I resist the plain sense of the text “it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham”? Only because it would force a radical rethink about my other beliefs. Could I justify taking the text in any way other than its plain sense?

    Not any longer.

    And there it was.

    Like

  171. I’ve been a bit busy. I’m only now getting back to this discussion since my last post.

    Ted, I said, “I should think there to be the same parallel for those born of parents who are of the new covenant. The church gives them the visible sign of baptism”

    You Responded,
    “Which church? The Roman Catholic? The New Covenant is markedly different than the Old, and necessitates ecclesial practices submitted to it, not the Old.

    Great point on 1 Cor. 11:27-29. Now apply that discernment to baptism.”

    My Response:

    Which church? Any visible church that faithfully preaches the Word, administers the sacraments, and faithfully exercises church discipline. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant in Christ. It is a continuation in revelation of the administration of God’s grace, which is one. Ultimately, there are only two covenants. The covenant of works (in the garden) and the covenant of grace (from Genesis 3:15 onward with all its progress of revelation). Adam and Eve were saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (though they neither knew His name nor the fullness of revelation with which we are privileged). They heard the promise of God’s Word and believed, naming their first son Cain, in hope of immediate fulfillment, though it was soon revealed that such immediate fulfillment was not to be theirs. On down the line God called His people out of darkness by giving them the light of His Word. Noah was saved by that same grace through faith, as was Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, Moses, David, and all who were elect of God. They looked forward to Christ in God’s promises, we look back to Christ in God’s fulfillment of those same promises, yet still forward and upward do we look for those promises, knowing that they are our inheritance in Christ. In Romans 9, Paul points out God’s free choice in election by pointing us to Israel before the coming of the Christ. We are, in essence, the same church that has ever existed from the beginning. The nature of the covenant is essentially the same, though, indeed, the New Covenant shines brighter than ever before and the nation of Israel no longer has any special significance to the people of God now that Christ has instituted His church, unified by His Holy Spirit (not necessarily visibly), and has gone to prepare a place for us, an eternal heavenly land, the heavenly city of God.

    With regard to your commendation for applying the discernment of 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 to baptism, how can you dare give such an instruction? The very Word of God only gives this to the sacrament of communion and never commands such a thing of baptism. You ought not add to His command, (if anything is added to that which is perfect, it becomes imperfect). What is more, Jesus commands that infants come unto Him, “…for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14). Circumcision, in the Old Covenant, was an outward sign of a spiritual reality just as baptism in the New Covenant is an outward sign of a spiritual reality. Paul makes it clear that all who received circumcision were not truly of the invisible covenant in which that circumcision found its ultimate reality. Just as there was a visible Israel and an invisible Israel, so too is their the visible church and the invisible church. The sacrament must be applied to the visible covenant child and, as is always the case, we should be on guard to keep the church pure. We will eventually know those who are His by their fruit and if some should grow to produce the rotten fruit of denying the signified reality then we say with John, “They went out from us, but they were not of us…” (1 John 2:19) and with Paul “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring…” (Romans 9:6-7).

    Like

  172. Jeff, nice post. I took a while to write my post and only just saw yours. It looks like we touch along similar lines. I too once pitted the covenants against each other, which makes a mess of sound understanding.

    Like

  175. Erik – “I would love to hear how you guys make sense of the OT sometime. I’ve never met a non-Reformed pastor who could do it.”

    No need to out-smart the text and resort to Bible heroes hermeneutic tricks, nor Covenantal/Christological tricks, nor “one true Church” paradigms. Just interpret as written, even as one should with the NT. No theological overlays needed, just literal, grammatical, historical interpretation.

    Erik – “Argue why the Apostles, speaking to Jews, would not explain that the sign of baptism was entirely different from the sign of circumcision, which had been given to Jews for thousands of years.”

    You don’t need me to explain it. John the Baptist din’t feel the need either (Mark 1:4) and no one was running around trying to figure out how baptism replaced circumcision. This is a yoke your theological forbears have laid on your shoulders. Sorry.

    Erik – “Not being Covenant theologians, what hope do you have to offer to a parishioner whose child dies in infancy? ”

    Unlike covenant guys, we’re not agnostics on this issue. All infants who die go immediately to heaven. Scripture is abundantly clear. If you or someone you know has had that happen, please get “Safe in the Arms of God” by MacArthur. It arose out of this very question being asked a Ligonier conferences. RC Sproul and JMac, to take 2, differ widely on this issue.

    Bob – “And the baptist alternative to WCF7:5&6?”

    Hebrews 8:6-13.

    Jeff – “Paul ascribed to us believers every single one of the promises made to Abraham”

    Where is the land promise ascribed to NT believers? And hey, while you’re at it – test out your interpretive skills: Mat. 5:5 – this earth, or the new earth?

    Luke – “With regard to your commendation for applying the discernment of 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 to baptism, how can you dare give such an instruction? The very Word of God only gives this to the sacrament of communion and never commands such a thing of baptism. You ought not add to His command, (if anything is added to that which is perfect, it becomes imperfect).”

    Whoa there sailor boy. Didn’t John the Baptist apply discernment regarding baptism (Mat. 3:7ff)? Didn’t Peter (Acts 10:47)?

    Like

  176. Ted – Where is scripture abundantly clear that all infants who die go immediately to heaven? This could lead to some really warped thinking on the pro-life issue, no?

    How do you believe people were saved in OT Israel?

    Who is primarily at work in salvation, God or man? Or is it a partnership — God does His part and we do ours?

    Like

  177. If you won’t allow us to apply circumcision to Christian baptism why should we allow you to apply John’s baptism to Christian baptism? Where do the apostles link Christian baptism to John’s baptism?

    Like

  178. Erik Charter: Richard & Ted – Not being Covenant theologians, what hope do you have to offer to a parishioner whose child dies in infancy? That child was born in sin and has not prayed to receive Jesus as his/her savior, correct?

    RS: Erik, what hope to you have to offer to a parishioner whose child dies in infancy? Can you tell the person that you (if you were the pastor) know that the child is in heaven because the parents are believers or because the child was baptized? I think we are in the same place. We must be satisfied with the choice of God in the matter. Our comfort should not be in whether a child is in heaven or not, but in God Himself.

    Romans 9:13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”
    14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
    15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.”
    16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.

    Ted: Unlike covenant guys, we’re not agnostics on this issue. All infants who die go immediately to heaven. Scripture is abundantly clear. If you or someone you know has had that happen, please get “Safe in the Arms of God” by MacArthur.

    RS: I would argue that all are born dead in sins and trespasses and by nature children of wrath. The Bible teaches with great clarity that souls are saved by grace alone and that there is no way of salvation other than having Christ by grace. Infants cannot be saved just because they die, but instead they can only be saved if they have Christ by grace. I don’t think that the Bible speaks to this issue and leaves it in the hidden counsels of God. If He elects all infants, then that is up to Him. If He elects some infants, then that is up to Him. Whatever He does is just and right. But the only hope anyone ever has is Christ.

    Like

  179. If all infants who die go immediately to heaven what age is the cutoff? How about those people who are mentally deficient? How about those who have never heard the gospel? Might we be better off not bringing people the gospel because then they’ll know and might reject it? Would God be unjust if an infant went to hell?

    Like

  180. Both Richard & Ted – What do you make of David’s confidence that he would go to his dead son after David died? On what basis did he have that confidence?

    Like

  181. Zrim: Richard, no, I’m following the Reformed hermeneutics of OT/NT continuity and discontinuity. There is nothing anywhere about placing the sign and seal of the covenant on spouses. The question is entirely out of the purview. Sorry to sound so Jesse Jackson, but the question remains moot.

    RS: No, the question is not moot. If you (or another) uses a passage of Scripture to show that infants should be baptized, then that passage should be looked at. If an infant and an unbelieving adult are made holy in the same way (by a believing spouse and parent) and one can be baptized, then it is not a moot question to assert that the other could be baptized as well. After all, all of the household of Abraham (slaves and all) were circumcised because of Abraham.

    Zrim: And when confessional Reformed Protestantism opposes pietism, it’s not because it has anything whatsoever against the mysteries of the gospel.

    RS: When certain ones of confessional Reformed Protestantism opposes something they think of pietism might be a better way to put it. Not all pietists are alike and not all confessional folks are against true piety. The Puritans were, in the eyes of many today, pietists. I think they were right. You may also not like the fact that Luther wrote a glowing introduction to a book on what many think of as overly mystic today.

    Zrim: In fact, a theology of the cross wants to protect those mysteries against the glory efforts of the pietists, epistemologists, and philosophers who would seek to give creatures the knowledge and experiences unfit for them.

    RS: But of course that would be you interpreting what knowledge and experiences are unfit for people. For the Puritans as a whole, following Calvin at this point, true piety is where the love and fear of God meet.

    Like

  182. Erik Charter: If all infants who die go immediately to heaven what age is the cutoff? How about those people who are mentally deficient? How about those who have never heard the gospel? Might we be better off not bringing people the gospel because then they’ll know and might reject it? Would God be unjust if an infant went to hell?

    RS: People do not go to hell just because they reject the Gospel, but they go to hell because they are sinners who sin. God would not be unjust if He sent every human being who ever lived to hell, that is, if He had never sent His Son to live and die in the place of sinners. So God would not be unjust to send an infant to hell because that infant is guilty in Adam. If Christ did not die live and die for that infant, then God would be unjust if He did not send that infant to hell. Yes, I know, that sounds crazy in the eyes of modern folks. But the only alternative is that heaven will have some saved by Christ and others who are saved because they die. If all infants do go to heaven, then the greatest evangelists of our day are the abortionists.

    Like

  183. RS, what do you make of Gen 17.14? How would it come about that an individual would be uncircumcised? Why would he be cut off?

    How might a Reformed person apply this to baptizing someone who clearly resists the faith?

    Like

  184. Erik Charter: Both Richard & Ted – What do you make of David’s confidence that he would go to his dead son after David died? On what basis did he have that confidence?

    RS: Did he have the same confidence with Absalom and Amnon?

    II Sam 12:22 He said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.’
    23 “But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.

    RS: Did he really have confidence that the son would go to heaven or that he (David) would go to the grave? I know that many think of it that way, but I am not all that confident that David is asserting confidence that he would go to the son in heaven. But if he did have that confidence, as King of a theocracy with prophets and the Urim and Thummim, it may be that it was revealed to him.

    Like

  185. Jeff Cagle: RS, what do you make of Gen 17.14? How would it come about that an individual would be uncircumcised? Why would he be cut off?

    RS: I don’t want to be hasty here regarding these snip decisions, but I think of circumcision as pointing to the need of a circumcised heart. Yes, it was an external sign of the covenant of God, but clearly God spoke repeatedly to those who needed circumcised hearts. So if a person was not circumcised that person was not part of the covenant community.

    Jeff C: How might a Reformed person apply this to baptizing someone who clearly resists the faith?

    RS: I would simply say that covenantal Baptist would simply say a person should be baptized when the person has evidence of a circumcised heart like the New Covenant. According to the Reformed paedobaptist I don’t see the consistency of a position that demands faith for baptism. It was not needed in the Old Testament, but instead what was needed was to be in the household or be employed by a covenant Jew. When a covenant Jew obtained a new slave, that slave was circumcised because of who he was owned by and not because he had faith. So in the modern day it would seem to me that the Reformed paedobaptist should not have any trouble baptizing adults or older children of those who live with their parents.

    Like

  186. Dunno, Ted. If Hebrews 8:6-13 is the baptist answer to WCF 7 then it looks like we are talking about Moses, not Abraham who applied the sign and seal of the righteousness he had by faith, to all his seed, including infant Isaac and unbelieving Ishmael, as well as later Esau received the same.

    Hebrews 8:9  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

    Likewise where is the command to allow women to the Lord’s supper?

    No need to out-smart the text and resort to Bible heroes hermeneutic tricks, nor Covenantal/Christological tricks, nor “one true Church” paradigms. Just interpret as written, even as one should with the NT. No theological overlays needed, just literal, grammatical, historical interpretation.

    Hear, hear, if not that thou are the man. From the P&R perspective, you are missing the forest for the trees. The promises to Abraham are primarily spiritual and the covenant of grace is one.

    Thank you.

    Like

  187. Bob S: Hear, hear, if not that thou are the man. From the P&R perspective, you are missing the forest for the trees. The promises to Abraham are primarily spiritual and the covenant of grace is one.

    RS: Men like John Owen, however, have argued that the Mosaic Covenant was not part of the covenant of grace but was something like a restatement of the covenant of works. I would also argue that if one takes as the primary covenant the Eternal Covenant within the Trinity, things do look a bit different. If that is the main covenant and all covenants with men have to be interpreted in light of that covenant, then one will look at things a bit differently.

    One example is that Mosaic Covenant. If we are convinced that in some way all covenants must be in unity, then we can see how unity with the Eternal Covenant would change our view of the Mosaic. The Mosaic would not be an essential part but could in many parts be like the ceremonial laws and the civil laws. The intent is to point to Christ.

    Like

  188. Let me begin by saying I don’t speak for other credobaptists, and they don’t speak for me. I don’t agree with Spurgeon and Ted about infant salvation. And I don’t agree with RS about the “circumcision of Christ” in Colossians 2 referencing regeneration of the heart. But I am not going to discuss this here: check out most of the good commentaries written on Colossians 2 in the last ten years (see Moo and OBrien)

    jeff: Second, I noticed (as you did above) that the covenant with Abraham was not the same as the Old Covenant, but preceded it by a good 430 years.

    mark: Thanks for noticing this.

    jeff: Fourth, I noticed that Paul ascribed to us believers every single one of the promises made to Abraham. In Christ, God becomes our God and we become His people. Abraham’s seed becomes our Savior, and we become Abraham’s seed. And we inherit the world by faith.

    Romans 4: For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.

    mark: I agree that this promise is fulfilled on the basis of Christ’s righteousness. Christ is not only the Savour, but the seed of Abraham. it is not our faith, but the object of our faith which God imputes as/unto righteousness. (Genesis 15:6)

    Questions for Jeff: How do you get from “the promise” to “every single one of the promises made to Abraham”? Are you saying that there is only one promise? Or are you saying that every single promise is part of one promise? Please answer. For example, is the promise to be the heir of the world the same as the promise to have one seed (Christ) who will bring in the righteousness? Are these two related promises or one promise? Your language about “every single one of the promises” needs explanation.

    For clarity’s sake, can you tell me what you the land promise is? Do you think it morphs from one location to the whole earth, develops from being for the non-elect children of Abraham also to being only for the elect children of Abraham (Jew and Gentile)? At some point, you are going to need to come clean about who you think the children of Abraham are. If you presume that they are the same group of people for all time, then you will need to make some distinctions within the group who get the Abrahamic covenant sign.

    Like

  189. Zrim: The covenant sign could be understood as a two-edged sword, bringing blessing to a covenant child who affirms his baptism in profession of faith and curses for the one who comes to reject it (the parallel in the Supper being those with faith are affirmed and those without faith eat and drink judgment onto themselves).

    mark: I agree that the idea of negative sanctions is how sacramentalists get the idea that what they do becomes what God does, while we are Zwinglians are left with only what we do. In other words, we know it’s God doing it, because God will kill us if we don’t do it right! Of course there is some amount of equivocation between “if we don’t do it right” and “God is doing it.”

    Gen 17:9 And God said to Abraham: “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.”

    Gen 18:19 “For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice, that the Lord may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.”

    When Jeremiah 31 contrasts the new covenant with the one made with the fathers, the contrast is to the Mosaic covenant and not to the Abraham covenant. But neither is it accurate to say that the new covenant is only a renewal of the Abrahamic covenant. As Genesis 17 and 18 describe it, the Abrahamic covenant also had its “conditional” aspects.

    One way some people (norm Shepherd in Call of Grace comes to mind) put this all together is to say that the unconditional aspect of covenants only refers to God’s promise to save a people, but that which INDIVIDUALS are part of the people is conditioned on covenant obedience.

    I refer not only of Arminians who say that Jesus died for everybody and that the difference is their faith and obedience. Instead of saying that all blessing is conditioned only on Christ’s earned and imputed righteousness, many “Reformed” folks bring into the picture the sovereign grace which enables the elect “to meet the conditions” of “the covenant”.

    This view of the new covenant separates “covenant” from election and particular redemption. Abraham stayed in because he was enabled to obey, but some who are in (some make the qualification “externally in”) get broken off because they do not obey.

    But the legal state before God of those in the new covenant does not depend on our conduct. Those who try to walk to life will never arrive there. The Christian walk is a fruit of life and a “stand in grace”.
    (Romans 5:1-2). Those in the new covenant have the law written on their hearts so they know that their imperfect obedience is NOT what partly satisfies God’s law. They look to Christ and his finished work alone.

    Like

  190. Unlike the Reformed confessions which speak of water as a means of assurance, Merdith Kline taught that the water puts individuals into a conditional covenant, and introduces them to potential curse as well as potential blessing. If there is such a thing as “being in the new covenant” but not being in Christ, what are the blessings of “being in the new covenant” for those for whom Jesus did not die?

    Of course those who don’t continue to believe the gospel are condemned. (John 3:18). But this is something different from saying that the non-elect were ever in the new covenant, and will be cursed and broken off if they don’t continue to believe..

    But Kline resists the “bent toward such a reduction of covenant to election. To do so is to substitute a logical abstraction for the historical reality…” The historical reality for Kline is the beautiful reality of covenant threats and “actual divine vengeance against the disobedience as covenantal elements”. I agree about divine vengeance but I question in what way this wrath is “covenantal”.

    Do those who are never initiated into the new covenant experience wrath? I am sure Kline would agree with me that they do. But this is something different from saying that those who experience the wrath of God were once members of the new covenant. It is something different from saying that the children born to at least one Christian parent are liable to greater wrath than the children born with no Christian parents.

    This is one reason I continue to argue that the new covenant is not like the Abrahamic covenant.

    Like

  191. Richard – You make some good points but your point about Reformed people not baptizing unwilling, unbelieving spouses and unwilling, unbelieving older children is lame-o-rama. The key is the person being baptized has to be under the believer’s authority. When I joined a URC church we had my 2nd & 3rd kids baptized. They were 5 & 10 or so. I didn’t drag my unbelieving in-laws into church and have them baptized. You need to give that argument up.

    Like

  192. Galatians 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her
    children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

    “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
    break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
    For the children of the desolate one will be more
    than those of the one who has a husband.”

    28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the
    son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.”

    Those who hear the gospel and reject it face greater condemnation but this does not prove that they ever belonged with us in the new covenant. Matthew 7 teaches us that there are those who NEVER knew the Lord. Certainly I agree that the blessing of the new covenant comes through covenant
    curse on Jesus Christ. But the question (I keep begging) is—Has Christ has kept covenant for all those in the new covenant?

    Kline and those who agree with him must say that Christ has NOT kept covenant for all those in the new covenant. Otherwise he could not speak of “dual sanctions” for those in the new covenant Kline’s precedent for this is not only the Mosaic covenant but the Abrahamic covenant. Not all the children of Abraham are children of Abraham. It was possible to be in that covenant but not be justified like Abraham was.

    Not all Israel is Israel, and there is nothing the non-elect can do about it. The non-elect could not get themselves out of the Abrahamic covenant, and they can never get themselves into Christ and the new covenant.

    Kline agrees that Jeremiah 31 sounds like “discontinuity” with earlier covenants. “Jeremiah speaks, to be sure, only of a consummation of grace; he does not mention a consummation of curses in the new Covenant.” p76. But Kline maintains this is only a matter of focus: the emphasis is on eschatological blessing but curse is not denied

    Kline then concludes: “But the theologian of today ought not to impose on himself the visionary limitations of an Old Testament prophet.”

    But why should we agree with Kline’s (Marcionite? to turn the tables on one paedobaptist!) attitude to Jeremiah? Perhaps the prophet really is seeing a new covenant which has no “dual sanctions” because it is altogether conditioned on the obedience of Christ.

    Yes, there is excommunication in the New Testament. But what Kline needs to show is that those judgments are exclusions of those who are in the new covenant. Otherwise we simply assume the paradigm with which we begin. I John 2:19 says that those who sent out “were not of us.”

    Like

  193. Erik Charter: Richard – You make some good points but your point about Reformed people not baptizing unwilling, unbelieving spouses and unwilling, unbelieving older children is lame-o-rama. The key is the person being baptized has to be under the believer’s authority. When I joined a URC church we had my 2nd & 3rd kids baptized. They were 5 & 10 or so. I didn’t drag my unbelieving in-laws into church and have them baptized. You need to give that argument up.

    RS: Well, I guess I communicate in the not very well range. I would not argue that you should drag your unbelieving in-laws to church and have them baptized. My argument is that all who were under Abraham’s household, which included unbelieving slaves and servants, were circumcised. My argument is that following your position’s line of argument in a logical line there is no reason that one could not baptize adult unbelievers if they were married to a believing spouse or lived under the authority of a believer. For example, if male X married a woman who had two sons that were 16 and 18 and they lived under his roof and they were willing to be baptized, what reasoning (following your line of argument) would you present as to why they should not be baptized? Let us say that a man was converted later in life and had the 16 and and the 18 year old boys as his own. Could they be baptized then?

    Let me spell this out a little more. The text in I Cor 7:14 speaks of children (male or female). So if the children are holy (and the text does not specify age) because of a believing parent, then why shouldn’t the older children (though unbelieving) not be baptized (following your line of argument)? To push this a little more, what if the man had an adult child living at home and was willing to be baptized out of respect for his parent or parents. From your position, moving in a logical direction, what would prevent the adult unbeliever from being baptized?

    Like

  194. Kline argues from the covenant breaking of Israelites in Romans 11:17-21. If gentiles in the new covenant are grafted into the Abrahamic covenant, then we must not say that the new covenant is
    unconditional because the Abrahamic covenant was not unconditional. Verse 21: “he may not spare you either”.

    Of course we have the promise of Romans 8:32 that all those for whom God did not spare His Son will be spared. The condition of this blessing is Christ’s obedience for the elect alone . So why is it not possible to warn folks ( He may not spare you either) without telling them that they
    have been initiated into the new covenant? I think Kline would agree that not all are in the new covenant. He doesn’t want to infant baptize everybody.

    But are there some in the new covenant who will not be spared? What good would it do to warn people in the new covenant about this if it were not possible for them to be broken off? Then again, what good would it do to warn people about any disobedience if they are such desperate sinners that they put all their hope in Christ as the only condition of all blessings?

    Since I reject the theology of paradox, I seek reconciliation of all the biblical data. This is not easy to think about, and the other side from me on the question is not stupid. I don’t want a reduction which leave out the warnings and only talks about the blessings. But I would argue that the issue in Romans 9 to 11 is not about “new covenant keeping” but about continued faith in the righteousness of Christ.

    When Romans 9:32 complains that some of the children of Abraham did not seek righteousness by faith, this does not mean that they did not work in the right way. Many jews who rejected Jesus Christs were perfectly willing to give God credit for their works. They were just not ready to be
    told by Jesus that their works were not only unprofitable but also ungodly! . The reason the works of the Israelites who stumbled were evil was not simply a lack of sincerity or moral effort. Their works
    were evil because they were done without faith in the gospel Abraham believed.

    That gospel says that God justifies the ungodly who do not work (Romans 4:5). It was not a situation of being in a covenant but failing to meet certain conditions. The problem was people not
    believing the promise of the gospel.

    Romans 10:3 “for they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. “

    This is not a “premature” anticipation of the age to come. ALREADY in Romans 9-11, Paul makes two points: 1. One could be in the Abrahamic covenant but not justified by God as an individual. With this even the Jew who stumbled could agree. Yes, they would say, we know we are elect because God has made us able to keep the covenant. Thus we teach grace but also conditional
    covenant.

    So then comes Paul’s second point, with which so many do not agree. We cannot build our own righteousness, not even if we give God the credit for our having done so by keeping covenant..

    There was a law-aspect to the Abrahamic covenant so that we can speak of some of Israel being broken off. Not all Israel is Israel. But those for whom Christ died will be spared. To tell a person that “you may not be spared either” is to warn her that she may not yet be in the new covenant.

    Like

  195. McMark: Those who hear the gospel and reject it face greater condemnation but this does not prove that they ever belonged with us in the new covenant. Matthew 7 teaches us that there are those who NEVER knew the Lord. Certainly I agree that the blessing of the new covenant comes through covenant curse on Jesus Christ. But the question (I keep begging) is—Has Christ has kept covenant for all those in the new covenant?

    Kline and those who agree with him must say that Christ has NOT kept covenant for all those in the new covenant. Otherwise he could not speak of “dual sanctions” for those in the new covenant Kline’s precedent for this is not only the Mosaic covenant but the Abrahamic covenant. Not all the children of Abraham are children of Abraham. It was possible to be in that covenant but not be justified like Abraham was.

    Not all Israel is Israel, and there is nothing the non-elect can do about it. The non-elect could not get themselves out of the Abrahamic covenant, and they can never get themselves into Christ and the new covenant.

    RS: As much as McMark and I disagree on certain things (in other words, the places he is wrong), though I am not sure he is understanding what I am saying, this is a powerful point. The most real and powerful issue is whether Christ has kept covenant for all those in the New Covenant or not. If He did die for all the sins of all those He died for (including unbelief) and impute His perfect righteousness to all of them, then how can anyone in the covenant fall from that covenant and how can anyone in that covenant ever perish?

    Like

  196. Mark: Questions for Jeff: How do you get from “the promise” to “every single one of the promises made to Abraham”? Are you saying that there is only one promise? Or are you saying that every single promise is part of one promise? Please answer. For example, is the promise to be the heir of the world the same as the promise to have one seed (Christ) who will bring in the righteousness? Are these two related promises or one promise? Your language about “every single one of the promises” needs explanation.

    Good questions. What I mean is that God declares His covenant terms to Abraham in greatest detail in Gen 17. Those terms are

    “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. 5 No longer shall your name be called Abram,[b] but your name shall be Abraham,[c] for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”

    which terms I have summarized in (1) – (3) above as “I will be your God; I will give you offspring; I will give you the land of promise.”

    It is my contention that all of (1) – (3) are also given to us, who are children of Abraham by faith.

    Obviously, (3) is the trickiest. For I certainly do not lay claim to, say, Jerusalem in this lifetime. But Paul calls this “the promise that Abraham would inherit the world” — interesting hermeneutics on his part, but he’s speaking infallibly — and says that we partake of it also. And he appears to couch it in eschatological terms, as in new heavens and new earth, but that’s another discussion.

    Working backwards, what does Paul mean by “heirs to the world”? I would argue that this is (3) expanded to include the many nations that Abraham is the father of, and has eschatological fulfillment.

    Does that make sense?

    Like

  197. Richard – I would turn the question about age on it’s head. At what age would you baptize someone because they could make a valid profession of faith on their own? It’s probably the same age that I would NOT baptize someone who had not made a valid profession of faith. You lose sight of the fact that we are more than willing to baptize someone on account of a valid profession of faith if they haven’t yet been baptized. We only disagree on infants and young children of believing parents. That’s why I think your arguments in this case are goofy.

    Like

  198. RS and Mark,

    A crucial text here is Romans 11. Paul writes,

    Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. 15 For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? 16 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.

    17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root[c] of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant towards the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity towards those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.

    Now, unless we are Arminians … anyone? … we must admit that the threat that “God will cut you off” implies two things at once:

    (1) That they are currently attached to God’s people, and
    (2) That they can be broken off from God’s people.

    How is this possible? Only if their attachment is an outward connection (that is, from man’s point of view).

    I therefore infer that people can be outwardly, visibly connected to the New Covenant without partaking of its substance by faith. This would include hypocrites within the church as well as those who “receive the word with joy” and later fall away.

    Obviously, this does not prove infant baptism! But it does dispose of the objection that the New Covenant is for believers only. From God’s point of view, only those who have faith (whether Jews or non-) are true children of Abraham and are attached to the tree. But from man’s point of view, things are different: the New Covenant is for all who profess faith, and their children — just as the Abrahamic covenant was for all who profess faith and their children.

    Like

  199. Mark McCulley – I’ve been posting here for a few weeks and I think I have the lay of the land figured out pretty well when it comes to the regulars — except for you. I am not sure what your church affiliation is. Can you reveal that? I think you mentioned you don’t vote. Are you from a smaller Reformed denomination (not PCA, OPC, or URC)? You seem to know too much about Reformed theology and argue with Richard too much to be a Baptist. I don’t think you golf as well as Ted so you can’t be an evangelical.

    Like

  200. Richard,
    I think it is pretty standard in reformed theology that the Mosaic covenant is considered to be a covenant of grace under a legal administration.

    Exodus 20:2  I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

    IOW redemption/justification precedes obedience/sanctification.
    Mileage may vary with reformed baptists.

    cheers,

    Like

  201. Jeff Cagle: RS and Mark,

    A crucial text here is Romans 11. Paul writes, Now, unless we are Arminians … anyone? … we must admit that the threat that “God will cut you off” implies two things at once:

    (1) That they are currently attached to God’s people, and
    (2) That they can be broken off from God’s people.

    How is this possible? Only if their attachment is an outward connection (that is, from man’s point of view).

    RS: It is possible in the sense of a group rather than individuals. As a parable not each point should be stressed in Romans 11.

    Jeff Cagle: I therefore infer that people can be outwardly, visibly connected to the New Covenant without partaking of its substance by faith. This would include hypocrites within the church as well as those who “receive the word with joy” and later fall away.

    Obviously, this does not prove infant baptism! But it does dispose of the objection that the New Covenant is for believers only. From God’s point of view, only those who have faith (whether Jews or non-) are true children of Abraham and are attached to the tree. But from man’s point of view, things are different: the New Covenant is for all who profess faith, and their children — just as the Abrahamic covenant was for all who profess faith and their children.

    RS: But it does not dispose of the objection that the New Covenant is for believers only. As we should let clear teaching guide our understanding of the parables so we should allow clear teaching to guide us in this.

    Heb 8:10 “FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. 11 “AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, ‘KNOW THE LORD,’ FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM. 12 “FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE.”
    13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

    RS: I am sure you know that this text in Hebrews is quoting from Jeremiah, so this was the teaching from the Old Testament that in the New Covenant all would know God. I don’t think that the less clear from Romans 11, which is dealing with groups like Jew and Gentile in a way more like a parable, should overthrow the clear teaching of a didactic text.

    Like

  202. Richard, I’m not sure how your reasoning isn’t leading back to female circumcision. Does that give you any pause? If there is no distinction between children of believers and spouses of unbelievers in the NT then all of those household circumcisions, which presumably included females, wouldn’t have distinguished between between male and female in the OT. With Erik, I think you’d do well to abandon this spousal angle. It’s just not getting off the ground.

    You’re also asking questions about baptizing legal dependents in those dicey age ranges of adolescence and have not professed faith. Granted, it’s an extraordinary situation and there are plenty of angles to it, but all things being equal I see no reason to withhold baptism from those that come under the household authority of at least one believing parent. If my Baptist brother wills his kids to me upon his death, he should probably be aware that I would intend to have them baptized, which might be an understandable deal-breaker for him.

    Re confessional Reformed Protestants opposing pietism, I am speaking of those confessionalists who employ the regular use Word and sacraments as the means for their assurance, the ones you have previously described as lazy and disobedient for doing so. I am distinguishing between a sacramental piety and a conversionist pietism.

    Like

  203. Jeff, see my three posts about Meredith Kline. One of them is about Romans 11. Not that there’s not a long more to say about Romans 11. (or John 15 for that matter). About Romans 11, I am amill and have learned not only from Palmer Robertson but the Dutch. For example, Kuyper himself is fascinating about the “ingrafting”.

    Erik, knowing about something is not agreeing with it. Of course both Reformed and credobaptists often argue as if the only reason the other side disagrees is that they don’t know the alternatives. Thus we can be patronizing. For example, well, I used to be paedobaptist but I read this book and I learned this and when you read that book and learn that, then you too will follow slowly after me.

    It would be foolish to think that RS or I represent all credobaptists. Though we are both credobaptists, we differ somewhat on what circumcision means in Colossians 2 or what “new creation” means in II Cor 5. And we differ on what water baptism signifies (legal death or regeneration, RS might say both but then he might say one is the “real” one)

    But his views (and mine) on these questions are not inherently credobaptist. His but are shared by Edwards and other Banner of Truth paedobaptists. My reading of the “circumcision of Christ” in Col 2 is informed by many paedobaptist commentaries. As credobaptists, RS and I agree to an identity between election and the new covenant. Most paedobaptists have to make some kind of distinction there, even if they don’t follow Meredith Kline’s By Oath Consigned.

    I am not Reformed, because you can’t be credobaptist and Reformed. But I do believe that Christ’s death and resurrection were only for the elect, and that this needs to be taught in the gospel. My disappointment with most Reformed folks is not that they are not pacifist or credobaptist like I am. My disappointment is that so many of them don’t teach the great truths about election, atonement, and justification taught in their confessions. When “Reformed” folks keep what God has revealed about election as mere “shelf doctrines”, they open the door for the false gospel of Doug Wilson in which “covenant confusion” has supplanted Christ’s federal-surety work for the elect.

    Too often “being Reformed is more than tulip” (I agree with that) comes to mean–we refuse to be bound by tulip or the five answers of Dordt. And of course for many Reformed people, “worldview” is way more important than any selfish concern about having our sins forgiven by God.

    I’m in a house group, not because that would be my first choice, but because I can’t stand to hear the Arminianism in the PCA churches close to me. The fellow at the United Reformed church does talk about “the righteousness” but he never seems to get around to talking about election or about that righteousness being something Christ merited for the elect alone. He does talk a lot about law and politics. I try not to judge other congregations by this local sample.

    Like

  204. Erik Charter: Richard – I would turn the question about age on it’s head. At what age would you baptize someone because they could make a valid profession of faith on their own? It’s probably the same age that I would NOT baptize someone who had not made a valid profession of faith. You lose sight of the fact that we are more than willing to baptize someone on account of a valid profession of faith if they haven’t yet been baptized. We only disagree on infants and young children of believing parents. That’s why I think your arguments in this case are goofy.

    RS: Your position says these things: 1) That baptism has replaced circumcision but the covenant is still the same (more or less). 2. While the covenant is the same in its essence, it has been broadened to include more (females) and still includes infants. 3) I Cor 7:14 teaches that because children are holy in this text they can be baptized.

    Now while you may think my position is goofy, it is based on the three positions that you hold to. So if you think that my position is goofy, it may be that the three positions you hold to are off kilter at some place. I am aware that the conclusion of my argument is goofy, but it is still the logical conclusion of the three positions from above.

    I have not lost the sight that your position says that you baptize older children and adults when they come to faith, but I am applying your three positions to some cases from the Old Testament that your position does not want to hold to. I am not arguing about those that you actually do baptize, but trying to press home where your position logically will lead you if you use those positions and take them to their logical outcome.

    Like

  205. Zrim: Richard, I’m not sure how your reasoning isn’t leading back to female circumcision. Does that give you any pause? If there is no distinction between children of believers and spouses of unbelievers in the NT then all of those household circumcisions, which presumably included females, wouldn’t have distinguished between between male and female in the OT. With Erik, I think you’d do well to abandon this spousal angle. It’s just not getting off the ground.

    RS: You may not like the spousal angle, but that does not mean that it has lost its force. If you use I Cor 7:14 as a text that shows evidence for infant baptism, then that opens you up to the rest of the text as well. I am saying that the text is not teaching about baptism at all. However, if you want to make the point that the holiness of the children (text says children and not infants) is evidence that they can be baptized, then when the text says that the unbelieving spouse is holy by virtue of the believing spouse your positions demands that the text can be applied that way. If you think that the spousal position should be abandoned, then you should not use I Cor 7:14 as evidence for your position. If the spousal angle should be abandoned, then the infant baptism teaching from this text should be abandoned as well. You cannot have one without the other.

    Zrim: You’re also asking questions about baptizing legal dependents in those dicey age ranges of adolescence and have not professed faith. Granted, it’s an extraordinary situation and there are plenty of angles to it, but all things being equal I see no reason to withhold baptism from those that come under the household authority of at least one believing parent. If my Baptist brother wills his kids to me upon his death, he should probably be aware that I would intend to have them baptized, which might be an understandable deal-breaker for him.

    RS: Okay, but understand that you are moving in a certain direction when you do that. It is the logical result of your position and not many would want to go there.

    Zrim: Re confessional Reformed Protestants opposing pietism, I am speaking of those confessionalists who employ the regular use Word and sacraments as the means for their assurance, the ones you have previously described as lazy and disobedient for doing so.

    RS: Context, context, and more context.

    Zrim: I am distinguishing between a sacramental piety and a conversionist pietism.

    RS: Indeed, I still believe that people must be born from above and that this must be preached far and wide. All who are truly born from above will have some degree of piety which is (following Calvin) where the love and fear of God meet. The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was instituted by Christ and then taught by Paul in just a bit of I Cor 10 and then some in I Cor 11. Yet the new birth and the new creature and new creation are taught in many places. I do think my position is what the NT stresses and also what the OT taught as part of the New Covenant.

    Like

  206. I only play par 3 golf, and no I am not that good. But today, I hit an almost perfect shot into the last hole, and then missed the five foot put. Still a birdie. I can remember the good shots, because there are so few of them.

    Jeff, thanks for the interaction on Romans 11. I would be glad to hear more from you on the text, especially if you have read the Palmer Robertson, whether you agree or disagree with an ethnic future. You have reminded me again that one of the things we need to talk about when thinking about who’s in the new covenant is to think about the eschatoogy. As an adventist (John 3:13, Heb 11:39-40, not without us, Jesus has to come), I certainly can agree to the “not yet’.

    But the “not yet” gets tricky if it turns out that some of the “not yet justified” will one day be turned out of the “new covenant”. Of course this is a two way street. When Paul says in Romans 16: 5 that some of the elect “were in Christ before me”, we can say this means that all the elect are not yet in the new covenant. So instead of a covenant which is bigger than election, you perhaps have a covenant in which smaller in number than the elect, until Christ comes at the end. Have you read the Pratt essay, and the credobaptist response to it by James White?

    One more side question: what did it mean to whose “cut off from” the Abrahamic covenant to be cut off? if they receive the curses (negative sanctions) of the Abrahamic covenant, doesn’t that mean that they are still under its jurisdiction? I guess that question might be too theoretical, unless we were to find a text or a OT person to talk about….

    Thanks again.

    Like

  208. Richard – “For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” 1 Cor. 7.14. Note that the unbelieving wife is made holy FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN being clean. That in and of itself seems to say something about the covenant. Why do the children need to be “clean”?

    Mark – Can you tell John Piper he can’t be Reformed for me? Can you slap the URC pastor who talks about law & politics around for me? is he handing out Pat Robertson voter guides? PCA Arminians? What the heck…What is happening with that group? Arminians, The Federal Vision – how did things start to go awry with them?

    Like

  209. Different topic: Can I be a 2K guy and really like Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics? I am wary of a lot of the aspects of Neocalvinism but really love to poke fun at atheists. Bahnsen’s debate with Gordon Stein influenced my thinking a lot.

    Like

  210. Richard, but moving in a logical direction that baptizes one’s household seems better than a retro-reasoning that circumcises females. Still, you’re positing extraordinary scenarios, which can be fun as far as they go but don’t really do much except illustrate or even exaggerate the basic divide between two principled positions. Reformed hold that children of believers are to be baptized, Baptists deny it. And some Baptists, like Ted, look for ways to hang Roman conversions on the Reformed doctrine and practice (which is what set off this whole line of discussion), which seems beyond exaggeration and moves headlong into uncharitable.

    Like

  211. Erik – “Where is scripture abundantly clear that all infants who die go immediately to heaven? This could lead to some really warped thinking on the pro-life issue, no?”

    No need to stay an agnostic. Go get MacArthur’s book. Really. (John Piper likes Rom 5:14 for a starting place.)

    Same applies to you guys, Richard and M-squared. Richard, this is not helpful: “If all infants do go to heaven, then the greatest evangelists of our day are the abortionists.”

    Like

  212. Bob – “If Hebrews 8:6-13 is the baptist answer to WCF 7 then it looks like we are talking about Moses”

    You are right, of course. But the Lord in great compassion gave to Abraham an unconditional covenant that included both a physical seed and a physical seed, to Moses a conditional covenant to only a physical seed, and in the Christ an unconditional covenant to only a spiritual seed.

    So in between unconditional cov’ts was a conditional. Yet, the 2 unconditional cov’ts are not the same thing, nor was the Mosaic merely a parenthesis.

    Like

  214. Ted Bigelow: Same applies to you guys, Richard and M-squared. Richard, this is not helpful: “If all infants do go to heaven, then the greatest evangelists of our day are the abortionists.”

    RS: While you may not perceive it as helpful, it is still true. If all infants who die in infancy do go to heaven, then those who have abortions are sending the babies to heaven and those who do the abortions are helping them. Plus, we have a rather interesting issue of if the babies who go to heaven would not go to heaven if they had to live and grow up. I think we should leave that issue where the Bible leaves it. All are born dead in sin and by nature are children of wrath. Infants are worthy of hell because they are in Adam and if one or all (or any number in between) do go to heaven then it is by the grace of God alone.

    Again, it may not be helpful but let me tell you a true story. Several years ago in a city I lived in at the time a mother drowned two of her children. One was close to 12 if I recall correctly (not exactly sure of the age) and the other was younger. She said she wanted to make sure that they would go to heaven since the 12 yr old was starting to be disobedient and would be in sin before long. Again, the logic or result of a position does not make it true or not, but at times it can show that there are dangers that go along with the position. Again, I don’t see the Bible as necessarily addressing that issue. Where the Bible is silent, we should be.

    Like

  215. Erik Charter: Richard – “For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” 1 Cor. 7.14. Note that the unbelieving wife is made holy FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN being clean. That in and of itself seems to say something about the covenant. Why do the children need to be “clean”?

    RS: If “clean” means legitimate as opposed to illegitimate, then the answer seems to be rather clear. The issue in the context was why people who are divided in the house (one being a Christian and one not a Christian) should not divorce. Remember Paul was writing to a troubled church and he was answering many questions, for example, see verse 1 of chapter 7. Paul is answering the questions they had sent him. One of them appeared to have to do with should a person who became a believer divorce his or her unbelieving spouse. 7:14 is part of Paul’s giving reasons why people in that situation should not automatically divorce.

    Like

  216. Zrim: Richard, but moving in a logical direction that baptizes one’s household seems better than a retro-reasoning that circumcises females.

    RS: But circumcizing females is not even a biblical question. There is no need to go there.

    Zrim: Still, you’re positing extraordinary scenarios, which can be fun as far as they go but don’t really do much except illustrate or even exaggerate the basic divide between two principled positions.

    RS: No, these are not extraordinary scenarios in our modern day and we see those happening quite clearly and by command in the Old Testament. Abraham was commanded to circumcise all of the males in his household and that included slaves and all. Any male that was under his authority in any way was commanded to be circumcised. Your position is the one that says that baptism simply replaces circumcision. I have been trying to show you where that position leads you. You don’t like being led that way, obviously.

    Zrim: Reformed hold that children of believers are to be baptized, Baptists deny it. And some Baptists, like Ted, look for ways to hang Roman conversions on the Reformed doctrine and practice (which is what set off this whole line of discussion), which seems beyond exaggeration and moves headlong into uncharitable.

    RS: Look, it has been noticed by many before Ted that paedobaptist appear to be more susceptible to Rome. For years those there has been those from within the Reformed camp leaving for Rome. I thought the link was clear and don’t see why it is a problem for Ted to point it out. But of course I would see the reason in a different light. I think part of the reason is the lack of teaching people about the new birth and of Christ dwelling in His people. In other words, the confessional folks appear to be more susceptible to this than those who believe in some degree of piety.

    Again, this is not an effort to insult or be uncharitable, but it is simply something I have noted for several years. One can look and speculate as to causation, but at least you can understand that some would wonder why there are so many in the Reformed and confessional camp (or at least appear that way) that tend to go to Rome.

    Like

  217. Richard, I understand circumcising females isn’t in the Bible and so we ought not go there. But neither is baptizing (or circumcising) spouses. You’ve helped make my own point.

    I know you have a tick for esteeming the extraordinary over the ordinary, but the ordinary arrangement of Christian households these days is more or less the same as it ever was: believing Tom and Jane generate their own (covenant) kids. Adoptions of adolescents from backgrounds that are non-Christian or credo-baptistic by a couple in which only one is a believing and paedobaptistic may very well happen, but not enough to make any relevant point on the basic and ordinary question at hand.

    Many who go to Rome also hold to plenty of other uncontroversial doctrines. Singling out paedobaptism seems to be a function of those who already overemphasize the particular sacrament. My point is that Roman conversions are megashifts and complicated and owe to much more than one practice. If you pay closer attention to those who convert, it has much more to do with ecclesiology than sacramentology, as in the refrain: “I discovered that the RCC is the church that Jesus Christ founded.” Hardly is heard: “I went to Rome because they baptize children just like we do.” And that’s probably because nobody goes to another church to get what they’re already getting in theirs.

    Like

  218. Ted,
    Then you don’t consider the cov. of grace to be one?

    Yet with Jeff and the rest of the P&R, I believe that the essence of the covenant with Abraham and his seed Gen17, Rom.4 is the same as that with believers and their seed today. Circumcision is a sign of that covenant in the Old as baptism is in the New. No more, no less.

    cheers

    Like

  219. RS: Look, it has been noticed by many before Ted that paedobaptist appear to be more susceptible to Rome. For years those there has been those from within the Reformed camp leaving for Rome. I thought the link was clear and don’t see why it is a problem for Ted to point it out.

    The main problem with it is lack of statistical support. Both of you believe that X group is more likely to leave for Rome, but you haven’t established even the basic correlation.

    Do you have actual numbers? Because a perception based on your experiences is like, nothing at all.

    RS: I think part of the reason is the lack of teaching people about the new birth and of Christ dwelling in His people

    Err, no. Visit our church before you make comments about what is taught, if you please.

    Like

  220. Hi Mark,

    I can’t do justice to your posts at this moment (soon, though). The quick answers are

    (1) Yes, I’ve read Robertson, and yes, I think some kind of general repentance for ethnic Israel is indicated in Rom 11.

    (2) MM: Have you read the Pratt essay, and the credobaptist response to it by James White?

    If you mean Pratt’s essay on conditional and unconditional covenants, I have read it; but I haven’t read White’s response. Something didn’t sit right with me with Pratt’s take, but it’s been a long time (~10 yr) since I read it.

    (3) MM: One more side question: what did it mean to whose “cut off from” the Abrahamic covenant to be cut off?

    I take it to be equivalent to excommunication, especially because Paul quotes the OT in 1 Cor 5.13.

    That is to say, being cut off from the covenant people was an outward declaration that “we don’t know your heart, but you are acting like a pagan by refusing the sign of the covenant.”

    So it was a fallible external sign that pointed to an internal reality: If you don’t believe, your parentage won’t save you.
    (3)

    Like

  221. Just to take sides with Rs this once (he’s not often right):

    Reviewing Anthony Hoekema (Created in God’s Image) in his Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective, p328, Mark Karlberg quotes Hoekema: “To be sure, all infants are under the condemnation of Adam’s sin as soon as they are born. But the Bible clearly teaches that God will judge everyone according to his or her works. And those who die in infancy are incapable of doing any works, whether good or bad.” p165

    Karlberg comments, “this view appears to be something less than consistent Calvinism. Is not the basis of salvation the sovereign, electing purpose of God in Christ, rather than any consideration of human performance either in the case of adults or infants?”

    I agree with Karlberg. It’s not a long step from denying that anybody actually dies for imputed guilt alone to denying that anybody lives because of imputed righteousness alone.

    Like

  222. Jeff, take your time. I am way behind on a lot of stuff as well.

    Just so we know we are thinking about the same Pratt essay, it’s “Infant baptism in the New Covenant”, in Strawbridge, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism (P and R, 2003)

    and the James White is “The Newness of the New Covenant’, in Reformed Baptist Theological Review 1:2 (2004)

    In this instance, I agree with White that the book of Hebrews speaks of the reality of the new covenant without any hint that the full establishment of an already justified community is yet future.
    8:6–He Has enacted….

    Like

  224. Zrim: Richard, I understand circumcising females isn’t in the Bible and so we ought not go there. But neither is baptizing (or circumcising) spouses. You’ve helped make my own point.

    RS: No, I have not. There is not one example or command of baptizing infants, but there are many examples of adults being baptized. Many of those being baptized were surely spouses. Again, the context of I Cor 7:14 is not about baptism, but if one wants to assert that the holiness in that passage toward children is an evidence that they can be baptized, then we have to look at the other issues in the text itself.

    Zrim: I know you have a tick for esteeming the extraordinary over the ordinary,

    RS: No, it is just that I think that everyday Christianity is not ordinary but rather supernatural.

    Zrim: but the ordinary arrangement of Christian households these days is more or less the same as it ever was: believing Tom and Jane generate their own (covenant) kids. Adoptions of adolescents from backgrounds that are non-Christian or credo-baptistic by a couple in which only one is a believing and paedobaptistic may very well happen, but not enough to make any relevant point on the basic and ordinary question at hand.

    RS: But it has a lot to do with the text of I Cor 7:14 and it has a lot to do with how kids are to be viewed. Does the NT really teach us about covenant children? Does it emphasize it like you are doing?

    Zrim: Many who go to Rome also hold to plenty of other uncontroversial doctrines. Singling out paedobaptism seems to be a function of those who already overemphasize the particular sacrament.

    RS: What you are saying is correct, but still there does seem to be a lot from your group going over to Rome. I am not stressing it to the degree Ted did, but simply noting that there is something to note.

    Zrim: My point is that Roman conversions are megashifts and complicated and owe to much more than one practice. If you pay closer attention to those who convert, it has much more to do with ecclesiology than sacramentology, as in the refrain: “I discovered that the RCC is the church that Jesus Christ founded.” Hardly is heard: “I went to Rome because they baptize children just like we do.” And that’s probably because nobody goes to another church to get what they’re already getting in theirs.

    RS: Again, no terrible disagreement. However, you have to be careful making a broad distinction between ecclesiology and the sacraments. The two do meet and are related to each other. This is another point (I think) that Ted has at least alluded to.

    Like

  225. Jeff Cagle, quoting RS: Look, it has been noticed by many before Ted that paedobaptist appear to be more susceptible to Rome. For years those there has been those from within the Reformed camp leaving for Rome. I thought the link was clear and don’t see why it is a problem for Ted to point it out.

    Jeff Cagle: The main problem with it is lack of statistical support. Both of you believe that X group is more likely to leave for Rome, but you haven’t established even the basic correlation.

    RS: You are correct. But as I said, “it has been noticed before.” erhaps I should say something like from what has been noticed for years (by myself and some others) is that there are many in the Reformed camp (professing) who are leaving for Rome. Surely it is obvious (no statistics needed as if it is possible) that many in the Reformed camp now practice paedocommunion. Many (whether FV or not) seem to think of salvation in terms of infant baptism. That in and of itself is mighty close to the view of Rome. The links and ties are there whether or not there are statistics or not.

    Jeff Cagle: Do you have actual numbers? Because a perception based on your experiences is like, nothing at all.

    RS: I guess I have a different view of my experiences and perceptions. My experience (knowledge gained from practice) is based on reading and some talking to people who have gone over to Rome. I am not sure anyone has done an actual survey or if that is even possible unless it is authorized by the pope. However, that does not mean that it means nothing at all. It just means that you and perhaps many others don’t agree. The facts are the facts and I tend to believe that the people I have talked to and have read about have actually went to Rome.

    Jeff C quoting RS: I think part of the reason is the lack of teaching people about the new birth and of Christ dwelling in His people

    Jeff Cagle: Err, no. Visit our church before you make comments about what is taught, if you please.

    RS: Why would I visit your church before I make the comment I made? Notice what I actually said. I said “part of the reason.” I did not say in each and every church. However, you might notice that in the comments of Zrim (the person I was responding to) he was putting confessionalist peity on one side and conversionist piety on the other. Also involved is the issue of infant baptism and what is believed. My argument is that all children should be taught that they are sinners dead in sins and trespasses and that they must be born again. Zrim (if I remember correctly) does not think that is necessarily the correct approach.

    Like

  226. mark mcculley: Just to take sides with Rs this once (he’s not often right):

    RS: Yikes, McMark agrees with me? Where did I go wrong?

    Like

  227. Richard, re adults, I understand that some of them were spouses, but their baptisms were grounded in evidence of faith, not in being married to a believer. By the way, have you ever considered that PBists are also CBists?

    Yes, Reformed PBists go to Rome, where they use water to baptize and eat wafers and drink wine and men lead worship. So is there something suspect about using water, bread, and wine and masculine leadership now?

    I understand ecclesiology and sacramentology are related. What I don’t understand is how Reformed understandings of that relationship in any way resemble Roman understandings. Real presence isn’t transubstantiation and Presbyterian polity isn’t Episcopal or papal polity. I understand how the former may look like the latter through conversionist lenses, but this is no different from the way Catholics (like Cross) conflate Biblicism with sola scriptura and otherwise roll up the Radical Reformation with the Protestant Reformation. Quartz may look like diamond, Richard and Ted and Bryan, but there really are some important distinctions that make all the difference.

    You also suggest to Jeff that the phenomenon in Reformed churches of paedocommunionism only furthers the suspicion. But as I have already pointed out, credo-communionism and paedobaptism is the correct pairing in Reformed orthodoxy. All the instance of PCism shows is that some who conceive themselves as Reformed but rush their children to the table are in the same error as those Reformed who keep their children from the font, not that PBism leads to Romanism. And despite what you suggest, sacramental piety heartily affirms that all children should be taught that they are sinners dead in sins and trespasses and that they must be born again. But it emphasizes the external means of grace God has ordained to nurture that inward affirmation instead of a focus on the interior life and focus on self.

    Like

  228. Thanks, David R, for the update on Kline. I will check it out, but the concept was there before Kline and a lot of folks have read By Oath Consigned in the last twenty years. The idea of a “two edged sword” is out there, and does not depend on Kline.

    Kline, p76–“it is in accordance with this still only SEMI-ESCHATOLOGICAL state of affairs that the administration of the new covenant is presently characterized by dual sanctions, having anathemas to pronounce and excommunications to execute.”

    John Fesko, Word, Water and Spirit, p 354—“The fact that the church is now awaiting the consummation does not in any way mean that the covenant of grace can be broken–Jeremiah clearly says that that the new covenant us eternal. However, there is an important distinction to raise, namely the visible and the invisible church. Those who fall away were never part of the covenant of grace.”

    mark: First, notice the back and forth between the wording “the covenant of grace” and “the new covenant”. I agree with David Gordon that this is not helpful, because the construct “the covenant of grace” ignores the differences between covenants, for example between the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant. Of course, it’s typical that paedobaptists don’t deny some differences, but then, when it suits their purposes, they ignore these differences and flatten redemptive history. God gave all the covenants, therefore all the covenants are the same covenant.

    Second, I think a fair reading of what Fesko writes above takes it as him saying that the new covenant is, in this context, “the covenant of grace’. And thus he is saying that the new covenant cannot be broken. So Fesko is not saying what Kline said (or used to say). I think the way the federal visionists have used Kline (or the idea of greater negative sanctions) has caused some Reformed people to rethink the way they talk about this, and that’s a good thing.

    Parenthesis: David Gordon does not deny that there is curse associated with the Abrahamic covenant, but he makes the good point of a contrast between the Abrahamic and Sinai in which emphasis is on blessing to Abraham (he got Isaac before he got circumcision) and the emphasis is on the curses of Sinai (if it cuts me off, why I am still being put to death by it?)

    Third, let me get back to my original point, which was that we can talk about wrath without saying that the new elect are ever in the new covenant. In like manner, to Fesko’s point, we can talk about the distinction between visible and invisible church, without saying that the non-elect were in the new covenant. It even looks like that’s what Fesko is also saying, except for the “however” in the quotation above.

    Credobaptists certainly agree that not all members in their visible congregations are elect. To say that is no reason to say that the non-elect are in the new covenant. it’s a very “high church” view to equate a church with the new covenant. To agree that not all members in a visible congregation are justified or elect is in no way to agree that we should admit to semi-membership (no communion) those who have not yet professed to believe the gospel.

    Like

  229. Hi RS,

    I don’t want to push beyond this comment, so:

    * You notice that Reformed sacraments have an outward similarity to Catholic sacraments, and infer that this might be a reason for Reformed folk to “go all the way to Rome.”

    But there are two things that a reasonable thinker wants to wrestle with.

    (1) Are there things in Catholic doctrine that might prevent a Reformed person from going to Rome?

    Well, there’s doctrine of worship, predestination, justification, sola Scriptura, and more.

    (2) Are there other things in credobaptist theology that might likewise give a person a reason to go to Rome?

    Well, depending on one’s church, there could be agreement on worship (no regulative principle), agreement on free-will, tendency to believe the teacher instead of the Bible.

    There’s lots of different ways to be “partway to Rome.” To single out one of them and make it special is bad methodology, and tends towards believing spurious results.

    RS: I guess I have a different view of my experiences and perceptions. My experience (knowledge gained from practice) is based on reading and some talking to people who have gone over to Rome….

    Let me respectfully suggest that without hard numbers, that you rethink whether you know what you know. If you think about the large number of people in the world, the chance that you (or I) would just happen to know a representative sample of converts to Rome is vanishingly small.

    It’s OK to notice the connection (Geneva looks like Rome in baptism). Sure, except that the underlying theology is completely different.

    But having noticed that connection, one needs to be really, really careful about promoting the connection to a theory of causation. That takes hard work and statistics.

    Peace,
    Jeff

    Like

  230. To put Zrim’s point another way, Reformed piety tends to be objective: faith is believing the promises of God. Evangelical piety tends to be subjective: Have you asked Jesus into your heart?

    It is faith that is the instrument of justification. We do a little bit better job at drawing attention to that fact.

    Like

  231. Jeff Cagle: To put Zrim’s point another way, Reformed piety tends to be objective: faith is believing the promises of God. Evangelical piety tends to be subjective: Have you asked Jesus into your heart?

    RS: But is that faith objective to you or to God? I think I am going between the horns of your dilemma here. What does it mean to have an objective faith? Is there a difference between believing that it is true that one is justified by grace alone through faith alone and and then actually being justified by grace alone through faith alone? Is the joy a believer has subjective or objective to God? To the believer?

    Jeff C: It is faith that is the instrument of justification. We do a little bit better job at drawing attention to that fact.

    RS: Yes, better than the typical evangelical, but is that really good enough? Is faith the instrument of God or the instrument of the human soul? Is that faith what God works in the soul or what the human being works in the soul? Is that faith objective or subjective to God? Is that faith objective or subjective to the human soul?

    Like

  232. Jeff Cagle: Hi RS, I don’t want to push beyond this comment, so:

    * You notice that Reformed sacraments have an outward similarity to Catholic sacraments, and infer that this might be a reason for Reformed folk to “go all the way to Rome.”

    But there are two things that a reasonable thinker wants to wrestle with.

    (1) Are there things in Catholic doctrine that might prevent a Reformed person from going to Rome?

    Well, there’s doctrine of worship, predestination, justification, sola Scriptura, and more.

    (2) Are there other things in credobaptist theology that might likewise give a person a reason to go to Rome?

    Well, depending on one’s church, there could be agreement on worship (no regulative principle), agreement on free-will, tendency to believe the teacher instead of the Bible.

    RS: Credobaptists should believe in the regulative principle of worship, should not believe in free-will, and should not believe the teacher instead of the Bible. I am not confident that you are clear on what it means to be a credobaptist.

    Jeff C: There’s lots of different ways to be “partway to Rome.” To single out one of them and make it special is bad methodology, and tends towards believing spurious results.

    RS: Not necessarily. It is simply pointing out a path that some take. It is not saying that it necessarily leads a person there, just noting that some take the path. In that case it is not spurious at all, but true. Some take that path. Some who were Arminian have become Reformed and then thought it was but a small step to Rome. True enough it is most likely the case that they did not understand the essentials of Reformed soteriology. But that does not negate the point that some take that path.

    Like

  233. Jeff Cagle quoting RS: I guess I have a different view of my experiences and perceptions. My experience (knowledge gained from practice) is based on reading and some talking to people who have gone over to Rome….

    Jeff Cagle: Let me respectfully suggest that without hard numbers, that you rethink whether you know what you know. If you think about the large number of people in the world, the chance that you (or I) would just happen to know a representative sample of converts to Rome is vanishingly small.

    RS: But I am not arguing about a certain percentage. I am simply arguing that some have done this and so I see it as a danger. Ted appears to be arguing it a bit stronger than I am, but he may have way more information than I do.

    Jeff Cagle: It’s OK to notice the connection (Geneva looks like Rome in baptism). Sure, except that the underlying theology is completely different.

    RS: But only if the people truly understand that underlying theology in more than hearing the words in their brain.

    Jeff Cagle: But having noticed that connection, one needs to be really, really careful about promoting the connection to a theory of causation. That takes hard work and statistics.

    RS: But I am not promoting a theory of causation. I have simply said that I have observed this. I am not sure that we need a lot of statistics to prove that. On the other hand, what I am saying is connected to other things. It is the need to preach and teach that people must be born again as a sovereign work of the grace of God and it is something He does that is not necessarily connected to the sacraments. Do you see the difference in what I am saying versus offering a theory of why the majority of people go to Rome?

    Like

  234. A question related to David R’s link to a blog with the article about Kline; the last paragraphed stated this:

    (5) Although the New Covenant itself does not pronounce the Adamic curse, it is possible for individuals to fall away from the New Covenant through unbelief, to be cut off from the covenant tree, and thus to become subject to the Adamic curse.

    This is exactly what the Lutherans say without the covenant language. Am I missing something?

    Like

  235. Good catch, John. What Kline (revised) is saying is that the new covenant itself can’t be broken but that individuals can be —that they are in the new covenant and then broken off from it. And I am saying that this conclusion is not necessary exegetically from Romans 11 or to maintain a distinction between church visible and church invisible.

    This does take us back to one of my previous questions about what it means for those in the Mosaic (and Abrahamic) covenants to be “cut off”. Kline says the old covenants had anathemas, and the new has excommunications. But if in fact those who disobeyed the old covenants were then cursed by those old covenants, then it seems that they did not in fact ever “get out of” those covenants. For example, the old (Mosaic) covenant is an administration of death and condemnation. (II Cor 3:7,9)

    I know there is a discussion about “the covenant of works” for Adam after Adam sinned. In one sense, then there is no more cov of works for Adam or for anybody else (Christ excepted). But in another sense, that one sin under the cov of works declares everybody dead guilty, condemned by the cov of works.

    It seems that some religions will let you get out, but that biblical covenants are not so easy to exit.
    To the extent we speak of an election of the non-elect so that they are included in the old covenants, this sovereign election is not gracious for these non-elect.

    The new covenant says—come in. Those who are once in shall always be in. We can say that without ignoring or denying anything taught by Romans 11.

    Like

  236. One of the reasons I like to still interact with Kline is that he sees how circumcision signifies not only cleansing but death. As Palmer Robertson explains, Christ of the Covenants, p164–“Kline follows with consistency his view that circumcision symbolized oath-curse in the Old Testament….”

    Like

  237. Ted,

    You quoted me as saying:
    “With regard to your commendation for applying the discernment of 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 to baptism, how can you dare give such an instruction? The very Word of God only gives this to the sacrament of communion and never commands such a thing of baptism. You ought not add to His command, (if anything is added to that which is perfect, it becomes imperfect).”

    Then you responded saying:
    “Whoa there sailor boy. Didn’t John the Baptist apply discernment regarding baptism (Mat. 3:7ff)? Didn’t Peter (Acts 10:47)?”

    In turn, I now respond by saying:
    Regarding Matthew 3:7, firstly, the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ are two different baptisms (see Acts 19:1-5). Secondly, the discernment here is entirely different than the discernment of 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 that I alluded to regarding infants. The discernment of 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 that has relevance to keeping infants from the table is on account of their ignorance and inability to discern. The discernment John the Baptist uses is not regarding the ignorance of infants but the hypocrisy of those teachers of the law who feigned repentance (to those who teach stricter judgment is applied [James 3:1]). Thus, this changes nothing. There is no command to keep the ignorant from having wrath baptized onto them, instead, with baptism, the entire households of believers were baptized (more on this further down).

    Peter, in Acts 10:47, speaks only to those who were keeping the Gentiles from being baptized on the basis that they were not Jews. This scarcely amounts to a command not to baptize covenant children. Rather, the question was whether Gentiles could even enter the covenant at all. It is doubtful to me that this can be used in any way other than to demonstrate that the covenant of grace, having obtained the fullness of revelation in Christ, had opened up to the Gentiles rather than to the Jews alone. Like Paul writes in Romans 9:30-33, “What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.””

    As has been said before, the Old Covenant is a covenant of grace through faith in God’s Word regarding His salvation, unto the glory of His name just as is the case in the New Covenant. The New Covenant is the fullness of revelation of the Old Covenant (all one covenant of grace; the old dispensations (beginning in Genesis 3:15) having promised Christ and the new dispensation having delivered on that promise). Note that Paul says that Israel did not succeed in reaching the law because they pursued it as if it were based on works rather than by faith. Paul is here recognizing that the law was not given that Israel would merit salvation, but rather that they might be driven to faith in God’s salvation (“salvation belongs to the LORD”), which we know is Jesus Christ. He speaks of this same thing in Galatians 3:24 saying that Israel has always only been justified by faith. This not only serves to destroy that grave heresy of calling anything other than the covenant in the Garden the covenant of works, but it also serves to show how those who were circumcised were expected to grow to a saving faith in the salvation of God.

    It was Israel’s practice, in bringing any who were outside of the covenant into their house that they be circumcised. Genesis 17:11-13 says, “You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised.” It was to this law that the sons of Jacob insincerely referred when they spoke to Hamor and Shechem regarding them coming into the same dwelling place. Compare this law also to the baptism of the entire households belonging to believers in Acts. Also consider that the Sabbath law has a similar inclusiveness of a man’s household (Exodus 20:8-11). It is certain beyond any questioning that infant baptism is the faithful practice of the church. For this reason, any who would refuse their children baptism ought rightly to be disciplined by the church. Indeed, they are so disciplined in my church. Any church that fails to baptize their infants and thus also fails to properly discipline its members is impure and must repent.

    I will be honest in confessing to you that there can be no equivocating on this matter on my part. There comes a point that it is no longer a sincere investigation after the manner of the noble Bereans. Rather it is becoming that same whispering of the serpent that has always plagued God’s people and pulled them into sinful practice, though they were familiar with His Word. “Did God really say…?” I answer firmly in this case that the answer is yes. I so answer not on my own authority, for I have no authority of my own. God really does command infant baptism in His Holy Scriptures, which are perfect. It is a tragedy that such blatant disobedience is so wide-spread in our day. Praise God that our faith is in the perfect work of Christ who merited salvation according to the covenant of works so that we might be saved in His covenant of grace rather than receiving the promise of death belonging to all whose inheritance is in Adam. I shall not direct you any more to the wearisome reading of many books (though all the reformers and all the church for the first 1500 years do adamantly testify against you). I will only direct you, and all who deny the truth of Scripture regarding this teaching, to repent unto obedience to Scripture, which instructs that infants of believers not be kept from the Lord. I had once twisted scriptures in this way. The more I read them, the more confidently do I stand here on the side of infant baptism.

    As a side note addressed to many, there are some who have been speaking with regard to the salvation of children who die in their infancy. To those outside the church, there is no reasonable hope whatsoever that such are saved, though indeed, it is always only according to God’s election that any are saved from the death found in the covenant of Adam. To those inside the church, there is good and reasonable hope that the God, who sovereignly called the parents out of darkness, has also purposed (not according to the will of any man) according to His revealed will in His Word (see Acts 2:39) to elect their children, though that election is still in the hidden counsel of God such that the believers must trust Him to be holy and just in all His purposes. This is the same for all covenant children. They are to be raised in the Lord, but should they fall away and die in their unbelief, God’s purpose in election has already been made known to us in His Word and who are we to answer back to God?

    Like

  238. to hook back up with hart’s essay at the front of this thread, I quote from Fesko, Word, Water and Spirit, p387—“If the visible church is defined materially, in terms of the individuals who profess the true religion (which is the thrust of WCF 25:2), then the visible church extends across denominational boundaries. The visible church then materially extends into institutions, such as the Roman Catholic Church, that formally are not part of the visible church. In other words, the visible church qua those who profess the true religion is within the RCC, but the RCC is not itself formally part of the visible church…”

    “However, does God draw people to Himself within the RCC only through the audible Word? Does not God also do so through the visible Word of the RCC…” And Fesko says yes, against Donatism.

    Jason Stellman might accept some part of what Fesko says. I just hope Zrim doesn’t have a problem with it.

    Like

  239. Gregg Strawbridge (p154, The Polemics of Infant Baptism, in The Case for Covenantal Comlemunion)—“How can those not admission to ‘communicant’ status be excommunicated? In 1859 the book of Discipline was revised to define that discipline only applied to ‘professed
    believers’. Thornwell urged that ‘it was no more illogical to exempt them from discipline, than to exclude them from the Lord’s table’ Accordngly, Thornwell argued that if an adult communicant member came to believe that he or she was unregenerate, such a person could simply resign their membership without discipline or sanction. This seems to provide an easy way out of the covenant sanction, as well as frame a new back door out of the covenant–one which surely did not exist for
    covenant breakers in the older era.”

    mark: i report this without any knowledge of the present practice of the various Presbyterian denominations. On the one hand, it could be said, well what are you going to do, if they want to leave? But on the other hand, if your boast is that you are not doing anything (like the baptists do) but what you are doing is what God is doing, then we need to think more about how we say “God might kill you for it.”

    Yes, if you are not justified, God will demand of you the second death. But if that’s not a sanction of the new covenant, what is the covenant curse of the new covenant? First death? If so, how can you do something to the apostate which somehow becomes what God does to the apostate? if somebody wants to talk about binding and loosing, I am open to discuss it. Was Calvin in conversation with anabaptists (not his wife) when he began to think of discipline as a third mark of the visible church?

    Like

  240. Luke: “The grave heresy of calling anything other than the covenant in the Garden the covenant of works,”

    mark: so much for those at Westminster West who talk about republication of cov of works in the Mosaic covenant.

    David Gordon, from The Law Is Not Of Faith: What is “new” or distinctive about Sinai is not the (conditional) blessing; what is new or distinctive is the conditional cursing. And Paul, knowing (as any first century Jew would have known) Israel’s actual history under those conditions, knew perfectly well that the prophets were right for pronouncing judgment on a people who rather
    consistently failed to remain obedient to their covenant duties. So, even though in theory Sinai proffered either blessing or cursing, in plain historical fact it rarely brought anything but cursing.

    Gordon: “We might, for instance, protest that Abraham’s covenant had conditions also, such as circumcision, and we surely might wish to argue that Israel at Sinai was required not only to do but also to believe. This is all well and good, but it is all pettifogging. Yes, Abraham was required to circumcise Isaac, but had God not already fulfilled His promise to give Abraham descendants, there would have been no Isaac to circumicise. So Abraham’s circumcision of Isaac was not a condition of getting Isaac; God already fulfilled the pledge to give Abraham a seed before requiring that this seed be circumcised.”

    Like

  241. I hope David Gordon won’t be dismissed as an “insincere investigator” simply because I quote him. Dr Gordon is still a paedobaptist. Also I think sincere.

    Gordon: “Paul does not, in Romans 9:32, say that Jews pursued the Law the wrong way (by works).
    The only way for one to rightly pursue the Sinai covenant is by works; the terms of that covenant
    do not say “Believe this and you will live,” but “Do this and you will live.”

    Gordon: Many English translations supply the ellipsis in Romans 9:32 wrongly, asserting “Because they did not pursue it through faith” (RSV). “Pursue” is not in the original text, and the text is better understood if the copula supplies the ellipsis: “Because it (the Sinai covenant) is not of faith (not characterized by faith), but as by works.” That is, Romans 9:32 says exactly what
    Galatians 3:12 says, except that the copula is expressed in Gal. 3:12, and only inferred at Romans
    9:32. See my “Why Israel Did Not Obtain Torah-Righteousness: A Translation Note on Romans
    9:32.” Westminster Theological Journal 54 (1992): 163-66.

    Like

  242. Mark, your hope is my command. Fesko gets it right, and is why some of us Reformed affirm Roman baptisms—to deny them seems more Donatist than not.

    Like

  243. Zrim, thanks for your answer. I was pretty sure you disagreed with Thornwell in accepting the idea that the gospel is preached through RCC sacraments. I thought you might object some to the way Fesko speaks of “individuals”.

    One more question for today, from Romans 11. When people are “cut off from the root” (call the root the Abrahamic covenant), what does that it mean? Does it mean that unbelieving Jews were at first in the new covenant (Abraham the father of as many as believe) or does it mean that the unbelieving Jews were not permitted in the new covenant ? (Also, were they but off or left in in the Abrahamic covenant)?

    When an unbelieving Gentile is cut off from the root, what does that mean? If he had to be part of the root to get cut off from it, does that mean that all those in the Abrahamic covenant were automatically in the new covenant when it was enacted? Does it mean that all in the visible church are in the new covenant? Doug Wilson thinks so.

    Also, do you happen to know what the current practice of Presbyterians is for grown up children who do not profess faith and want to leave quietly?

    Like

  244. Mark, my take is that the olive tree is the covenant of grace, since the passage is highlighting continuity from Abraham through Moses and on into the New Covenant. Perhaps you’re already aware of Kline’s discussion in KP, but in case not, here are a couple of excerpts that I’ve found extremely helpful:

    From page 343:

    Under the figure of the olive tree in Romans 11 Paul depicts the redemptive covenant institution in its ongoing administration from Abraham through the old covenant and into the new. According to the apostle’’s representation here, it is in the same tree whose lower portion includes the old covenant community (as well as the patriarchal) that the people of the new covenant participate. The picture is one of organic unity between old covenant Israel and new covenant church. Similarly, Paul elsewhere assures
    the Gentile Christians that, though formerly excluded as foreigners from citizenship in Israel, they are now fellow-citizens. For Christ has destroyed the dividing barrier and out of the two is creating one new man (Eph 2:11- 9).

    Besides the institutional continuity of the old and new covenant communities, the olive tree imagery of Romans 11 evidences the unity of the promised seed of Abraham at the second level of election in Christ
    (discussed above under the heading of Sovereign Election). For though not all the individuals who are in this covenant tree are that promised seed (as we see from the fact that branches of the tree can be broken off), the elect remnant are the constant core of the covenant tree. Such is the burden of
    Paul’’s argument in Romans 9-11. Thus, unity of the elect people, extending through old covenant times and on into the Christian church, is also of the organic character illustrated by that one living tree in which all the elect are found. The fullness of elect Israel and the fullness of the elect Gentiles together constitute one spiritual family of father Abraham, the true Israel of God.

    And from page 362:

    When ordering the polity of the new covenant church the Lord continued, as ever, to honor the family institution and its authority structure. This is clearly taught by Paul in connection with his treatment of the covenant in Romans 11:16ff. under the image of the olive tree that represents the old and new covenants in their organic institutional continuity. Directing attention to the holy root of this tree, which would be Abraham, the apostle declares that if the root is holy the rest of the tree deriving from that root is
    holy. This holiness is not that inward spiritual holiness which is the fruit of the sanctifying work of the Spirit in the elect, for it is shared by those (branches) whose nonelection is betrayed by their eventually being broken off from the olive tree. Hence the olive tree as such does not represent the election but the covenant, and the holiness attributed to the tree, root and branches, is the formal status-holiness of membership in the covenant institution. The affirmation that the holy root imparts holiness to the tree growing up from it is to be understood, therefore, as a figurative expression of the administrative principle that parental authority determines inclusively the bounds of the covenant constituency. This principle, illustrated in the first instance by the relation of Abraham (the root) to his descendants, has repeated application in each generation, beyond the ability of the olive tree metaphor to convey. Each successive part of the tree, as it were, becomes a new holy root imparting holiness to its own branching extensions. The apostle is thus teaching as an ongoing principle of covenant polity that if the parent is a member of the holy covenant, so is the child.

    Since the new covenant church is depicted in the Romans 11 imagery as an organic continuation of the old covenant community (vv.17ff.), the rootbranches principle of covenantal holiness must continue to apply to at least those Jewish branches of Abraham not cut off but continuing on as the remnant of Israel in the church of the new covenant. But surely there would not be a different policy on covenantal incorporation for Gentiles than for Jews within the church, where the partition wall between the two has disappeared. The holy parent/holy child principle must, therefore, apply to ingrafted Gentile branches as well as to Jews. Confirming all this is Paul’’s treatment of precisely this same issue in 1 Corinthians 7. There the apostle teaches that even if only one parent is a believer (a holy rootbranch) and the other profane, the holy prevails over the profane in the marriage relationship and the child of that sanctified union is holy (v.14). Also, by applying the covenantal blessing of the fifth commandment to the children of Christian parents (Eph 6:1-3; cf. Col 3:20; Exod 20:12) Paul indicates that they are not merely under the call to enter the covenant but are in the holy covenant, consigned under its terms of blessing or curse.

    Like

  245. Luke Walkup: It is certain beyond any questioning that infant baptism is the faithful practice of the church.

    RS: No, it is not beyond questioning at all. Roman Catholicism says that baptizing infants is what washes away their original sin. That is the history of infant baptism. During the 1500’s Rome could say that the faithful practice of the Church was baptizing infants to wash away their original sin and give them grace. During the Reformation people began to see how that view of infant baptism was in conflict with justification by grace alone through faith alone. So the covenantal view was developed. I might add that when an infant was baptized into the Church it was also baptized as a citizen of the nation.

    That leads us to the covenantal Baptist view. It is that only the elect are in the covenant and that infant baptism is simply a holdover of Rome and its attempt to control and give grace as it pleased from the womb to the tomb. As long as there are no commands or examples in Scripture of infant baptism, the practice of it will be in serious question. I might add that if you take a serious look at the Regulative Principle of Worship, you might also have a few questions about the practice.

    Luke Walkup: For this reason, any who would refuse their children baptism ought rightly to be disciplined by the church.

    RS: Interesting. So something of which there is no command or example in Scripture you think people should be disciplines for. Welcome to the practices of Rome.

    Luke Walkup: Indeed, they are so disciplined in my church. Any church that fails to baptize their infants and thus also fails to properly discipline its members is impure and must repent.

    RS: And here I thought the Bible spelled out the things that people should be disciplined for. This sure sounds like some form of legalism to me.

    Luke Walkup: I will be honest in confessing to you that there can be no equivocating on this matter on my part. There comes a point that it is no longer a sincere investigation after the manner of the noble Bereans.

    RS: Yes, it would appear that you are simply going to follow a practice that has no command or example in Scripture and then discipline people for something that there is no command or example in Scripture to discipline for. Welcome to Rome.

    Luke Walkup: Rather it is becoming that same whispering of the serpent that has always plagued God’s people and pulled them into sinful practice, though they were familiar with His Word. “Did God really say…?” I answer firmly in this case that the answer is yes.

    RS: But of course the woman was moved to seek her own wisdom and authority in determining what was good and evil. Since your practice is not from a command or practice in Scripture, are you so sure that you are not following the practice of Eve in wanting to follow her own wisdom in determining what was good and evil?

    Luke Walkup: I so answer not on my own authority, for I have no authority of my own. God really does command infant baptism in His Holy Scriptures, which are perfect.

    RS: Now where is that command again? Is it in Matthew 28 where the command of Jesus is for disciples to be baptized?

    Luke Walkup: It is a tragedy that such blatant disobedience is so wide-spread in our day. Praise God that our faith is in the perfect work of Christ who merited salvation according to the covenant of works so that we might be saved in His covenant of grace rather than receiving the promise of death belonging to all whose inheritance is in Adam. I shall not direct you any more to the wearisome reading of many books (though all the reformers and all the church for the first 1500 years do adamantly testify against you). I will only direct you, and all who deny the truth of Scripture regarding this teaching, to repent unto obedience to Scripture, which instructs that infants of believers not be kept from the Lord. I had once twisted scriptures in this way.

    RS: So now you twist them another way?

    Luke Walkup: The more I read them, the more confidently do I stand here on the side of infant baptism.

    RS: Fine, do so. But realize that there is no command and not example in Scripture of that practice. The only people in the New Covenant are the elect.

    Luke Walkup: As a side note addressed to many, there are some who have been speaking with regard to the salvation of children who die in their infancy. To those outside the church, there is no reasonable hope whatsoever that such are saved, though indeed, it is always only according to God’s election that any are saved from the death found in the covenant of Adam.

    RS: Why do you just assume that there is no reasonable hope for infants or children who die out of the church to be saved? Can you demonstrate that from Scripture?

    Luke Walkup: To those inside the church, there is good and reasonable hope that the God, who sovereignly called the parents out of darkness, has also purposed (not according to the will of any man) according to His revealed will in His Word (see Acts 2:39) to elect their children, though that election is still in the hidden counsel of God such that the believers must trust Him to be holy and just in all His purposes.

    RS: But Acts 2:39 is not a promise that God will elect all the children of believers. It is simply a promise that those who repent and are baptized will receive the Holy Spirit. That promise is also for all who are far off. The promise that you see is for the children of believers is also for all who are far off.

    Luke Walkup: This is the same for all covenant children. They are to be raised in the Lord, but should they fall away and die in their unbelief, God’s purpose in election has already been made known to us in His Word and who are we to answer back to God?

    RS: Indeed, who are we to answer back to God. Now where is the teaching about covenant children in the New Covenant? You might also want to check with Esau and Judas about how that being a covenant child worked out for them. You might want to check with the nation of Israel over the years to see how that covenant children concept worked out.

    Like

  246. Thanks. David R. Your quotations from Kline’s Kingdom Prologue don’t fit very well with the 5 point reference you gave earlier. In other words, the “organic” language sounds very much like Engelsma and the Protestant Reformed who reject all ideas of “conditional covenant”

    Kline, Kingdom Prologue: “For though not all the individuals who are in this covenant tree are that promised seed (as we see from the fact that branches of the tree can be broken off), the elect remnant are the constant core of the covenant tree. Such is the burden of Paul’’s argument in Romans 9-11. Thus, unity of the elect people, extending through old covenant times and on into the Christian church, is also of the organic character illustrated by that one living tree in which all the elect are found.”

    But it’s difficult to square that with Kline’s idea that the new covenant is unbreakable but that individuals must be part of the new covenant to be part of the Romans 11 root. “5) Although the New Covenant itself does not pronounce the Adamic curse, it is possible for individuals to fall away from the New Covenant through unbelief, to be cut off from the covenant tree, and thus to become subject to the Adamic curse.” I am still saying that this conclusion is not necessary exegetically from Romans 11 or to maintain a distinction between church visible and church invisible.

    I would value your input on my questions about Romans 11, David. And also about my questions about what it means for those in the Mosaic (and Abrahamic) covenants to be “cut off”. If in fact those who disobeyed the old covenants were then cursed by those old covenants, it seems that they did not in fact ever “get out of” those covenants.

    I agree with David Gordon that the basic problem here is saying “the covenant of grace”. That construct simply begs the question. When I ask if the Abrahamic covenant is the same as the new covenant, instead of answering something like–more the same than different (because it’s more about blessing than curse, or it’s more about the spiritual than the physical), or even “the new covenant is one administration of the Abrahamic covenant” or something like that, I just keep hearing “the covenant of grace”. The Abrahamic covenant is “the cov of grace”. The new covenant is ‘the cov of grace”. It does not advance the discussion very much.

    Engelsma, The Federal Vision, p164—“The Bible makes this distinction in Romans 9:6 regarding the physical, circumcised children of Abraham. Some are merely “of Israel”; others are “Israel”…To refuse to make this biblical distinction between two kinds of physical children of believing parents, to insist that all alike covenant children of God, is to teach resistible covenant grace, the falling away of covenant saints, and the dependency of God for covenant salvation upon the children.”

    Like

  247. Kline, p362, KP—“But surely there would not be a different policy on covenantal incorporation for Gentiles than for Jews within the church, where the partition wall between the two has disappeared. The holy parent/holy child principle must, therefore, apply to ingrafted Gentile branches as well as to Jews.”

    mark: I guess it’s the “surely” which really sells it! Abraham is the father of those who believe the gospel and are circumcised, and Abraham is the father of those who believe the gospel and are not
    circumcised. So far, agreed. Therefore, Abraham is the father of those who believe the gospel. Again, agreed. Therefore, since Abraham is the father of some who are circumcised and also the father of some who are not circumcised, all who believe the gospel need to be circumcised. Well, again, we all agree that this is wrong. We know Galatians.

    Well, therefore we will explain to the Jerusalem counsel what Galatians is really saying without of course ever saying it. We will explain to all who believe the gospel that water baptism signifies basically (mainly, forget the details about a seed leading up one seed, and a specific land), water baptism signifies the same realities, therefore those who have already been circumcised will need to be water baptized ( if they signify the same realities, why?) and also those who have not been
    circumcised will need to be water baptized which is the same thing.

    I am not only repeating the basic credobaptist objection from silence ( why didn’t Paul just say what John Murray and Zwingli said and make it easy on everybody). I am trying to get to the logic of saying that because Abraham is the father of all who believe, that therefore the genealogical priniciple must “therefore” continue for those who believe, both for those who are both circumcised and water baptized, and also for those who were never circumcised but who were water
    baptized. For Kline to say “surely” that principle must be carried over is nothing but beginning where he started!

    WHY must that (temporary, to begin where I start) principle continue? I am not calling anybody an Arminian, nor am I saying that the argument leads to Rome or to Arminius, but I always think of an analogy. Arminians insist that Jesus had to die for every sinner, at least in some impersonal sense in which Christ has somehow made salvation available conditioned on the sinner’s obedience to their false gospel. But when we ask Arminians— WHY must we insist on Christ’s death being
    “enough” for everybody even though it’s not effective for everybody? In other words, we tell Arminians that they think they are reading the atonement better by making it for everybody, but in reality they are making the atonement to be something different which is not the biblical atonement.

    By way of analogy (again, I am not arguing slippery slope), again I ask: why must we insist that the genealogical principle continues in the new covenant? Why must Romans 11 be teaching that unbelievers begin in the new covenant? Do you think you are reading the new covenant better by making it for more people than only the elect? To end where I started, I think this is making the new covenant to be something different which is not what the Bible says about the new covenant.

    Why? Is it because we have been brainwashed to say that, since there is only one gospel, therefore there must be only one “the covenant of grace”? Or is it because we are open to the inclusion of females in the “covenant sign” but not open to a restriction, a narrowing, so that the number of those in the new covenant cannot be (at least in the beginning) less than those who were in the Abrahamic covenant?

    Does this mean that we think everybody once in the Abrahamic covenant is first in the new covenant, if only in order for many of them to then be “cut off” from the new covenant? But again, WHY do we think this? What is wrong with saying folks were in the Abrahamic covenant who were never in the new covenant? For that matter, what is wrong with the non-conditional language of a paedobaptist like David Engelsma?

    To Engelsma, when a baptized and confessing adult rejects the gospel, that person “shows himself to be member of the covenant at all.” Engelsma, Federal Vision, p93—“Doug Wilson does not teach that performing the condition of remaining in the covenant PROVES election. Doug Wilson
    teaches that performing the condition of remaining in the covenant MAKES ELECTION EFFECTUAL. Many children, according to Wilson, refuse to perform the covenant conditions and thereby render God’s election of them null and void.”

    Doug Wilson: “Special election IS covenantal election for those who by grace persevere. For those who fall away, covenantal election devolves into reprobation.”

    The Canons of Dordt, 1:9—Election was not founded upon foreseen faith and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality or disposition in man, as the prerequisite, cause or condition on which election depends…Therefore election is the fountain of every good.”

    Like

  248. “John Murray’s Mono-Covenantalism”, by David Gordon, in By Faith Alone, edited by Gary Johnson and Guy Waters (Crossway,2006, p121

    “I am perfectly happy with retaining the covenant of works, by any label, because it was a historic covenant. What I am less happy with is the language of the covenant of grace, because this is a genuinely unbiblical use of biblical language. Biblically, covenant is always a historic arrangement, inaugurated in space and time. Once covenant refers to an over-arching divine decree or purpose to redeem the elect in Christ, confusion Is sure to follow

    p110, “What’s At Stake in Current Debates Over Justification?”, Bruce McCormack, Princeton

    “Nowadays, we are suffering from ‘creeping perichoresis’, that is, the overly expansive use of terms which have their homes in purely spiritual relations between humans who do NOT participate in a common ‘substance’ and who therefore remain distinct INDIVIDUALS. This surely has to be the relation of the human believer to the human Jesus as well.

    “What has prevented us from seeing this is, I think, the degree of residual Catholic content in the Reformation understanding of eucharistic feeding. It is in the context of his treatment of
    eucharistic feeding that Calvin borrows rhetoric from the early church… The image of vine and branches might easily be seen to connote an organic connectedness of Christ to the believer. The early church thought of an ontological union of a ‘person” in whom being is mixed with non-being (that’s us) with a ‘person’ in whom being is pure from non-being (Jesus). Where that occurs, the life communicated from the vine to the branches flows organically. To be sure, it would be difficult to understand, on this view, why the Holy Spirit would be needed as the bond joining us to Christ…

    “The difference between the relation between a vine and a branch and the relation between Christ and the believer is that the first relation is impersonal and the second is personal. The flow of
    nutrients from the vine to the branches take place automatically.But in the case of Christ and the individual believer,the ‘bearing of fruit’ takes place on the foundation of justification.”

    “The term ‘ingrafting’ is used in Romans 11 to speak of inclusion in the covenant which results in a share in all the gifts and privileges. That Paul would preface his use of the horticultural image with the affirmation that the adoption belonged to the Israelites before the Gentiles suggests that the image of ‘ingrafting’ is used as a synonym for adoption. The horticultural image is subordinated to the legal.”

    Like

  249. McMark: WHY must that (temporary, to begin where I start) principle continue? I am not calling anybody an Arminian, nor am I saying that the argument leads to Rome or to Arminius, but I always think of an analogy. Arminians insist that Jesus had to die for every sinner, at least in some impersonal sense in which Christ has somehow made salvation available conditioned on the sinner’s obedience to their false gospel. But when we ask Arminians— WHY must we insist on Christ’s death being enough” for everybody even though it’s not effective for everybody? In other words, we tell Arminians that they think they are reading the atonement better by making it for everybody, but in reality they are making the atonement to be something different which is not the biblical atonement.

    RS: McMark, you are really scaring me now. I find that what you have written above is a great paragraph. It also has wider implications than you chose to press. If the atonement that the Arminian sets forth is different than the biblical atonement, are you saying that it is a different gospel as well? In the last few hundred years it appears that many paedobaptists have stressed the sufficient for all but effectual for the elect view of the work of Christ. This means that they have stressed a value for the atonement over a specific view of propitiation. Covenantal Baptists (at least some), on the other hand, have put the stress on propitiation and what Christ actually intended and actually did. Let me just say that I find this very interesting in light of the views of paedobaptists and their views of infants in the covenant and then not being in the covenant. I will leave it there and simply ask your thoughts (or anyone else) on the matter.

    Like

  250. Hart began this thread making a distinction between hype and reality.

    The reality is that not all the children of Abraham are children of Abraham. It was very possible to be in the Abrahamic covenant but not be justified like Abraham was. Not all Israel is Israel, and the reality is that there is is nothing the non-elect can do about it. As of yet, despite the hype of claims of continuity, I have seen no evidence that God has ever put non-elect into Christ or His new covenant.

    Kline agrees that Jeremiah 31 SOUNDS LIKE “discontinuity” with earlier covenants. “Jeremiah speaks, to be sure, only of a consummation of grace; he does not mention a consummation of curses in the new Covenant.” p76. But Kline thinks this seeming discontinuity is hyped by folks like David Gordon and credobaptists. Well, sure, he says, the emphasis is on blessing but curse for individuals is not denied.

    Kline explains: “The theologian of today ought not to impose on himself the visionary limitations of an Old Testament prophet.”

    WHY should we agree with Kline’s “de-hyping” of Jeremiah? Perhaps the prophet really is proclaiming a new covenant is altogether conditioned on the obedience of Christ. Yes, there is excommunication in the New Testament. But what Kline needs to show is that exclusions from a visible church are also exclusions from the new covenant. I John 2:19 says that those who left us “were not of us.”

    Like

  251. Mark, it seems to me properly speaking the gospel is ordinarily no more preached through the Mass than it is through the revivalist equivalent of the altar call. Still, that doesn’t mean God can’t work extraordinarily even through these errors.

    I’m not sure what the practice of Presbyterians is with baptized children who reject their baptism. But as I have heard it from a number of PCAers, on the front end there tends to be a continuation of that which developed in the 19th century to not require for membership laity to subscribe the Standards, creating something of bifurcated membership wherein some must confess and practice the faith (officers) and others not so much (laity). This is in contrast to the continental Reformed tradition which requires both ordinary and extraordinary members to confess and practice the Reformed faith. The upshot is making them members who do not affirm paedobaptism, which some might consider a form of latitudinarianism.

    Like

  252. Richard, you say you don’t want to press the latent Romanism in Reformed paedobaptism as hard as Ted does. Yet when Luke demonstrates a willingness to hold members of a church that confess it is a great sin to neglect this ordinance (WCF 28.4.5), you brazenly welcome him to Rome and legalism. Wow. I think you’re more in agreement with Ted than you think.

    Like

  253. “The upshot is making them members who do not affirm paedobaptism, which some might consider a form of latitudinarianism.”

    Which is probably why we are seeing more and more goofiness in the PCA. Here’s a hint: Don’t worry so much about accepting everyone and growing your church. Set the bar high and maybe your church will be strong and last.

    Does the OPC do the same thing — only require officers to subscribe?

    Like

  255. Zrim: Richard, you say you don’t want to press the latent Romanism in Reformed paedobaptism as hard as Ted does. Yet when Luke demonstrates a willingness to hold members of a church that confess it is a great sin to neglect this ordinance (WCF 28.4.5), you brazenly welcome him to Rome and legalism. Wow. I think you’re more in agreement with Ted than you think.

    RS: Perhaps, perhaps. 1) I did not say that I did or did not agree with Ted, just that I did not press it as much. 2) But is it a great enough sin to discipline people, even out of the church? Where do we see in Scripture that all sins are to be disciplined? My comments about welcome to Rome were primarily about a church that would practice church discipline for something that Scripture does not command or give an example for. Neither does Scripture call it a sin. When a church takes this type of thing on themselves and goes beyond the bounds of Scripture, it does sound like Rome to me.

    Like

  256. RS: Neither does Scripture call it [baptism] a sin.

    The WCF Chapt. 28 on Baptism says in paragraph 5:

    Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,
    yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it;
    or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

    The proof texts for the clause in bold are:

    Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.
    Exod. 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

    Like

  258. Bob S quoting RS: Neither does Scripture call it [baptism] a sin.

    The WCF Chapt. 28 on Baptism says in paragraph 5:

    Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it;
    or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

    The proof texts for the clause in bold are:

    Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.

    RS: But again, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected baptism for themselves. In the context of the passage (given below) the contrast is between the people (common people) and the tax collectors (bad sinners). Not a word about infant baptism in the text or context.

    Luke 28 “I say to you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
    29 When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged God’s justice, having been baptized with the baptism of John.
    30 But the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves, not having been baptized by John.

    Exod. 4:24 And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26 So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

    RS: Yes, it is hard to disagree with the Westminster divines, but on this one (Exodus 4:24f) it needs to be done. The practice of circumcision is not part of the New Covenant and baptism is not a direct replacement for circumcision. John Currid deals with this passage in his commentary and is quite convincing in it.

    The point, however, is that this text does not provide evidence for church discipline to be carried out on those who do not BAPTIZE their children. It does tell us that a man that is going to be used of God to deliver His covenant people from the Egyptians needed to have the covenant sign of that nation on his own child. It was also (following Currid) a figure of the passing over of those who had blood on their door posts in the Passover. The sign of blood on them meant that the angel of death would pass over them and the same was true of the son of Moses.

    Like

  259. Erik, you weren’t too off the mark—our local URC extended associate membership to a credo-baptist family. Some might claim that a provisional membership is different, but I don’t see how it helps to nurture what the Reformed confess by affirming those who clearly deny it. But bingo on high bars.

    Like

  260. Richard, I understand you may take principled issue with what the Reformed confess. But when someone takes public vows that he does “…believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the inerrant and infallible Word of God, and its doctrine, summarized in the confessions of this Church, to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation” and “to submit in the Lord to the government and discipline of this church and, in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life, to heed its discipline,” it is hardly a form of legalism to hold him to those vows. If someone has your convictions on baptism then maybe taking such vows isn’t prudent in the first place.

    But I also wonder if you’d suggest legalism in the case of a Baptist church requiring a member who was baptized as an infant to renounce his baptism and be re-baptized. It seems to me that’s just being a good credo-baptist, not a legalist. See, that’s how charity is done.

    Like

  261. Thanks, Zrim, I always hated that “bifurcated” membership thing myself. The elders would always assure me that I could be a member even if I was still a dumb dispy who had never heard of the argument from circumcision. While they thought it showed their tolerant catholicity, to me it always came off as patronizing and consdescending, as in, we will take your money and laugh at you about your “vestiges of pietistic dispensationalism”, you will never teach here. Because the elders here have to believe the confession, but the members don’t. And the irony is that often the elders themselves were hostile to the doctrines of election and effective atonement.

    And as you suggest, Zrim, that kind of tolerant approach to “getting in” probably goes along with letting those baptized as infants leave quietly.

    It’s interesting to me that you notice how “extraordinary” it would be for God to preach the gospel in the Roman mass. Wouldn’t it also be “extraordinary” for God to preach the gospel in the water baptism of a church that defines it as regeneration from original sin? I understand that your anti-Donatism stipulates that the theology of those who administer the “sacraments” is of no consequence, but what if the person who adminster the sacraments is a female or “unordained”?

    I know personally of one case in which a PCA plant lacks an “ordained” paedobaptist to administer the “sacrament”. Guess what they do? They have a credobaptist guy who was “ordained” by Arminian credobaptists to come in to do the “sacrament” for them. Again, I try not to judge the whole by the sample….

    Like

  262. RS: If the atonement that the Arminian sets forth is different than the biblical atonement, are you saying that it is a different gospel as well? In the last few hundred years it appears that many paedobaptists have stressed the sufficient for all but effectual for the elect view of the work of Christ.

    mark: To answer briefly your question, I do think that the Arminian gospel is another gospel and therefore a false gospel. While I was a tolerant Calvinist for many years, 12 years ago the true God (the revealed in the Bible and described well but imperfectly in Reformed Confessions) caused me to fear Him and I repented of thinking that Arminianism was “somewhat the gospel” and flushed it down the garbage (Philippians 3). And before anybody can ask me about epistemology or about my present certainty, let me say that my hope is not in my conversion experience but in the true gospel. I feel no need to dig around down in the garbage to find some vestiges of the gospel in my past or in my parents.

    But I do object, RS, to your suggestion that tolerance for the false gospel is somehow inherently more of a paedobaptist problem than it is for credobaptists. When I was discussing the identity of the new covenant with the elect (when all the elect at last come into the new covenant), I merely made an analogy between the “the one covenant” position and the “universal conditional atonement” position. But I ruled out cause and effect. The majority of Calvinistic Baptists are as devoted to the sufficient/efficient distinction as paedobaptists who follow Dordt. It is the rare credobaptist (Nettles, Dagg) who dares to challenge the received wisdom of Spurgeon and Piper.

    Of course I don’t know anything about you or where you live, RS. if you have found many credobaptists who teach that an atonement which does not save is not enough, I sure would like to meet them and fellowship with them. Most of the “Calvinistic” credobaptists I meet are more eager to talk about what’s in their souls and how they are more sincere and give more effort than the next guy.

    Like

  263. I hear the argument all the time. Let me see if I can summarize it fairly. It goes something like this

    “All of our judgments about the truth are affected by the fact that we continue to struggle with sin– even in our understanding of spiritual truth. The ‘perfect gospel’ is known only to God. We may have a good understanding of the truth of God’s grace, and that understanding may grow until we die ; but our understanding will never be perfectly clear and complete until the resurrection. Therefore, we should not be quick to judge that people with an “Arminian” understanding of the gospel are not true Christians.

    Simply because we may have accepted the doctrines of grace does not give us the right to conclude that those who have not are not Christians. Indeed, there may be some matters of truth that they see more clearly than we, and we should be willing to learn from them, as well as share with non-elder members ‘the more consistent’ understanding of God’s grace we have been lucky enough to have learned as Reformed Christians. It is the height of arrogance to claim some kind of infallible certainty which assumes a sinlessly perfect knowledge of the truth. Those who imply that Arminians are not ‘true Christians’ need a good dose of humility, and should take the log out of their own eye before they try to become ‘truth police’ and remove the doctrinal speck from their brother’s eye. At best, we now live in a ‘semi-escathological’ gray.” End of summary.

    I have answered this many many times, RS, and here is one version of my answer to your being “scared”: As with all arguments which seek to defend the lie of the false gospel, this defense bears earmarks of the evil it endorses. Arminianism is the conviction of human sovereignty. The basic
    skepticism of this argument for tolerance assumes human sovereignty in the matter of knowledge and truth, and calls this assumption ‘humility’. (It’s like saying: we are humble, therefore what we say is only what the pope tells us to say.)

    In a nutshell, the point is that one can not have an infallible conviction about truth; therefore, one should temper the judgments he makes about the doctrinal claims of someone else with the
    understanding that “nobody’s perfect”.

    This line of reasoning is consistently opposed in the Bible. Skepticism about truth is only possible if the assumption is granted that “truth” depends on us, and our interpretive faculty makes truth
    what it is: ” We own our lips; who is our master?” (Psalm 12:4).

    According to the Bible, “truth” does not depend on us, and we do not create truth by the power of our own minds. Rather, truth depends on the revelation of God, and he has created all reality by His own Word. We do not have to know everything in order to know some things which have been revealed.

    God is able to reveal himself unambiguously to his creatures, and God will judge according to the standard of his truth (Prov.2:6; Isaiah 45:19; Psalm 96:13; Psalm 36:9; John 14:6; John
    18:37; I John 2:20, 21).

    For three reasons the argument for tolerance should be exposed as hypocritical and false in the light of the Scriptures: First, the argument must exempt itself of its own point in order to make its case. When it says that everything is gray, is that gray also? The argument is stating that all judgments about truth are “tainted” by our sin, and therefore can not be held with anything but a relative degree of certainty which is willing to grant the contrary point out of a ‘modest’ admission that it does not have enough certitude to exclude opinions which take exception to it. The refutations of errors in Dordt, for example, go way overboard and should not be a test of fellowship.

    In order to say with conviction that truth can not be known with certainty, the argument must assume the kind of certainty for itself IT CLAIMS CAN NOT EXIST Otherwise, it would have to include a disclaimer like, “Of course, because this argument is being formulated by a sinner, it could be totally wrong”, thus conceding the ultimate skepticism about truth it endorses.

    The argument defends “humility” on the basis of self-righteousness. It is an expression of the “arrogance” it condemns and recalls the statement of the Apostle Paul in Romans 2:1ff.: “Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And do you think this, O
    man, you who judge those practicing such things and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?”. God will use God’s truth to condemn those who deny it in their self righteous hypocrisy.

    Like

  264. Second, the argument for tolerance implies that conviction about the truth of the gospel is the work of man, and not a result of God’s effectual call. The argument dismisses claims to convictions as
    statements of overweening pride, as though the one making the claim were pointing to a greater level of achievement than most people are able to muster.

    The Bible exposes this assumption as false. Conviction about the truth of the true gospel is not the result of man’s work, but of the work of God. ( I Cor. 2:12; 12:3; John 16:8-11). According to the Bible, God gives a sure understanding of his truth because it is not possible for us to know truth apart from the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the lives of God’s elect (I John 2:26, 27). It is because we are not, on account of our sin, able to know the truth of the gospel by beginning with ourselves, that we require the illumination and the conviction which only comes from God as a gift of His grace.

    God does not give a foggy, ambiguous conviction about truth. He speaks with a clear voice, and does not leave up to our own imagination or private individual interpretation what He says. God grants, by the power of His own almighty hand, the ability to distinguish righteousness from un-righteousness, and gospel truth from gospel error. Therefore, RS, I reject any idea that says that since true Christians disagree about water baptism, therefore we can disagree about the gospel.

    Having shed the blood of his Son to secure the lives of his elect people, God does not leave the knowldge of this precious and glorious salvation up to the “sinfully tainted” ability of the very people who, without the illumination and wisdom God gives, are hopelessly blind to their need for forgiveness. Instead, God grants discernment in those He claims by the Word of Truth, the gospel of their salvation. (Hebrews 1:1-4; II Peter1:20, 21; II Timothy 3:15, 16; Ephesians 1:13, 14).

    Those who deny that certain conviction of the truth is possible reveal the assumption of human sovereignty where understanding the gospel is concerned. Therefore, they also deny that the knowledge of the truth– and ability to confess it– is the gift of God. If they protest and say that they DO believe that the knowledge of the truth IS the gift of God, and then proceed to say that such knowledge is “sinfully tainted” and therefore uncertain, they imply that God’s gift is dependent on the “interpretative systems ” of the sinful creatures to whom God gives it, and thus man is sinfully sovereign over the good and perfect gift of God, rendering it more and more irrelevant except as
    a “shelf doctrine”. (Richard Mouw’s self-description for definite atonement.)

    Is the knowledge of the truth that comes with the forgiveness of sins and eternal life to the elect of God something that depends on us? Are you patronizing to those who say the opposite of the gospel because “nobody’s perfect” so you want to “go pastorally easy” on someone who “doesn’t have it quite AS right as we do”?

    Third, the argument for tolerance shows itself to believe what it seeks to defend by implying that the “Arminian understanding” of the gospel is incidental to the gospel, and is, at worst, a matter of
    misguided emphasis on points which are shared by those with an understanding of the “doctrines of grace”.

    The assumption is that the difference between an ” Arminian understanding” and the understanding of those who believe the “Reformed Faith” is of no real consequence, and is made only on the
    basis of a myopic concern for theological precision foreign to the realities of everyday life. Of course, this kind of dismissive opinion of the difference between the impersonal plan of Arminianism and the
    “doctrines of grace” can only exist where the one holding this opinion has made peace with Arminian doctrine as something that is not all that bad.

    The fundamental conviction which supports all of “Arminian” theology is that God’s relationship to man depends upon man. “Arminian” theology shamelessly asserts that the reason for God’s
    election is found in the quality of moral discrimination an individual possesses (by grace of course!),. To say that my capacity for moral discrimination is the ultimate reason for my relationship to God is to say that I am the reason for my forgiveness, and that the blood of Christ was shed on the cross as a proposal and then as a tribute to my moral choices rather than as an act of divine necessity on account of my cursed inability and un-righteousness. To say and to believe such lies, is to confess a false gospel that is diametrically opposed to the gospel of the Bible (Romans 11:6; Galatians 1:6-10).

    To argue for tolerance about the gospel is to profess, with no qualms of conscience, that the difference between the two is only a matter of emphasis, or of greater or lesser consistency in affirming essentially the same truth.

    By dismissing the differences between an “Arminian understanding” and the “doctrines of grace” as incidental to the essential point of the gospel reveals belief in the lie Only if you yourself believe in a false gospel can you say that the differences between what the Canons of Dort call erors “out of hell” and the “Reformed Faith” are incidental and matters of degree, of emphasis, of greater or lesser
    consistency.

    It is the height of arrogance NOT to have a certain conviction of the truth of the gospel, because to say otherwise is to assume human sovereignty over the one thing that matters above all– the knowledge of Christ, which is eternal life. The reason we have a certain conviction about the truth of the gospel is because we have come to renounce our own wisdom and righteousness, and receive the knowledge of the truth from God as the sinner beggars we are. The knowledge God gives contains not one hint of encouragement to qualify or “adjust” the meaning of the gospel according to our preferences.

    Like

  265. Zrim: But I also wonder if you’d suggest legalism in the case of a Baptist church requiring a member who was baptized as an infant to renounce his baptism and be re-baptized. It seems to me that’s just being a good credo-baptist, not a legalist. See, that’s how charity is done.

    RS: In that case, it is simply requiring baptism for membership. It is not the same thing as carrying out church discipline who does not baptize an infant. Again, there is no example or command of infant baptism. But even if one finds that there, shouldn’t we follow Scripture in its words and examples regarding those who should be disciplined? There are many sins listed in Scripture, but not all are those that people should be disciplined out of the church for.

    Like

  266. mark mcculley: But I do object, RS, to your suggestion that tolerance for the false gospel is somehow inherently more of a paedobaptist problem than it is for credobaptists.

    RS: That was not my intent in the question, but I see how you could see that. What I am exploring (and hopefully not in a nasty way) is the connection between the position of sufficient for all but effectual for the elect position with having a covenantal position that has to include infants in the covenant. Some covenantal Baptists, who don’t hold to the position of having infants in the covenant, have put the focus on propitiation and the satisfaction of Christ for the elect. So I was not arguing concerning tolerance for a false gospel, but trying to explore how one views the covenant and then with infants in the covenant with ones view of the atonement.

    McMark: When I was discussing the identity of the new covenant with the elect (when all the elect at last come into the new covenant), I merely made an analogy between the “the one covenant” position and the “universal conditional atonement” position. But I ruled out cause and effect. The majority of Calvinistic Baptists are as devoted to the sufficient/efficient distinction as paedobaptists who follow Dordt. It is the rare credobaptist (Nettles, Dagg) who dares to challenge the received wisdom of Spurgeon and Piper.

    RS: Well, it is nice to hear that you think I am rare. I don’t follow the sufficient/efficient distinction and I strongly question the wisdom of Piper a lot and of Spurgeon in many places.

    McMark: Of course I don’t know anything about you or where you live, RS. if you have found many credobaptists who teach that an atonement which does not save is not enough, I sure would like to meet them and fellowship with them. Most of the “Calvinistic” credobaptists I meet are more eager to talk about what’s in their souls and how they are more sincere and give more effort than the next guy.

    RS: I live in a dry and dusty land where the famine of the Word has been sent by the Lord.

    Like

  267. Wouldn’t it also be “extraordinary” for God to preach the gospel in the water baptism of a church that defines it as regeneration from original sin?

    Mark, if what you mean to ask is if the doctrine held is ex opere operato then it still seems to me God is quite able to work extraordinarily through even that error. But in Belgic 34 the Reformed don’t have any trouble with speaking of baptism as a washing away of sin: “So ministers, as far as their work is concerned, give us the sacrament [of baptism] and what is visible, but our Lord gives what the sacrament signifies– namely the invisible gifts and graces; washing, purifying, and cleansing our souls of all filth and unrighteousness; renewing our hearts and filling them with all comfort; giving us true assurance of his fatherly goodness; clothing us with the ‘new man’ and stripping off the ‘old,’ with all its works.”

    I understand that your anti-Donatism stipulates that the theology of those who administer the “sacraments” is of no consequence, but what if the person who administer the sacraments is a female or “unordained”?

    I have to tell you, in my time in the CRC I have heard women preach the gospel purely. I’m no egalitarian, but I’ll take an ordained woman preaching the gospel (and hold my nose) over a man who doesn’t. If, as some informally maintain, male ordination is a mark of the true church then Rome is closer to one than the CRC? I don’t think so, more like Rome is a false church and the CRC is a wayward denomination (she has yet to deny the gospel, though her regrettable affirmation of paedocommunionism seems on par with PCAs that make members of credo-baptists).

    Like

  268. Richard, you keep pushing the credo-baptist argument per se. I get that as a CB you deny PB. My point has to do with the implications of vowing to a PB communion whilst having CB convictions or vice versa.

    Like

  269. McMark: Third, the argument for tolerance shows itself to believe what it seeks to defend by implying that the “Arminian understanding” of the gospel is incidental to the gospel, and is, at worst, a matter of misguided emphasis on points which are shared by those with an understanding of the “doctrines of grace”.

    The assumption is that the difference between an ” Arminian understanding” and the understanding of those who believe the “Reformed Faith” is of no real consequence, and is made only on the
    basis of a myopic concern for theological precision foreign to the realities of everyday life. Of course, this kind of dismissive opinion of the difference between the impersonal plan of Arminianism and the “doctrines of grace” can only exist where the one holding this opinion has made peace with Arminian doctrine as something that is not all that bad.

    RS: For the record, I also believe that when one preaches a “gospel” that depends on Arminian teaching it is a false gospel. In light of a few of your statements, I was just asking what you believed in that regard. Scripture is certainly correct when it says that ” it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” Luther was correct when he said that man must deny his ‘free-will’ in order to be saved. I too am repulsed by the teaching that Calvinism and Arminianism are just two options for those who believe the Gospel. As Thomas Goodwin intimated, there is only one kind of grace and it is a sovereign grace. As God said with clarity, “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious.” The teaching of ‘free-will’ is a direct contradiction of a real and full sovereign grace (the only kind of grace there is).

    Like

  270. Zrim: Richard, you keep pushing the credo-baptist argument per se. I get that as a CB you deny PB. My point has to do with the implications of vowing to a PB communion whilst having CB convictions or vice versa.

    RS: I was trying to point out that there is a huge difference between carrying out church discipline on those who do not baptize infants and then requiring those who had water applied as infants to be baptized on joining a church.

    I was responding to this: Zrim: ” But I also wonder if you’d suggest legalism in the case of a Baptist church requiring a member who was baptized as an infant to renounce his baptism and be re-baptized. It seems to me that’s just being a good credo-baptist, not a legalist. See, that’s how charity is done.”

    RS: In other words, to be clear, the credo-baptist is simply wanting a biblical baptism (yes, in their eyes) before one is allowed to join a church. I would also argue that a person would not be disciplined out if they changed their views and wanted their children to be sprinkled. Yet, from the side you are defending, a person can have or change his views about infant baptism and be disciplined for not having a child sprinkled. I am saying those are two way different things.

    Like

  271. Richard, and the Reformed church is wanting to see an affirmation in doctrine and practice of what that church confesses and practices. So I’m not seeing the huge difference. And I know a member wouldn’t be disciplined for wanting his children baptized in a Baptist church—he’d just be denied. But this is the nature of the question: nobody disciplines for requesting what is opposed. But one necessarily must be disciplined for withholding what is affirmed and compelled.

    And BTW, discipline has nothing to do with running people out. On the contrary, it has to do with nurturing people to repentance in order to be restored within.

    Like

  272. The discipline I am asking about is not about credobaptists refusing to do the right thing by their “covenant children”. It’s about what happens to “covenant children” who never profess the faith? What can you do, if they simply leave quietly? it’s like the question I ask a Banner of Truth sabbatarian (CB) who talks about the first day being circumstance/accident but the sabbath being “the moral law”. I ask “and when was the last time your church disciplined anybody for sabbath-breaking?” I don’t mention which elders I saw eating at the Burger King last Sunday.

    Zrim, I also know a couple of women who both know and articulate the gospel. Better that than a RCC “priest” with his false gospel.

    One mark of a Reformed church is that “baptism” becomes a testimony that an infant has at least one parent who wants their infant done. Water is thicker than blood, if blood agrees to it???

    Like

  274. RS: It is the need to preach and teach that people must be born again as a sovereign work of the grace of God and it is something He does that is not necessarily connected to the sacraments. Do you see the difference in what I am saying versus offering a theory of why the majority of people go to Rome?

    Yes, I do. Do you understand my point, which is actually what you articulated here: The Real Issue is whether or not the church preaches the Gospel. Selah.

    The question of credo- or pedo-, while important, is a distant second to that question.

    And the reason I push this point (usually with agreement from my credo- friends, who are legion) is that some, like MacArthur, like to connect the dots between paedobaptism and apostasy, or paedobaptism and unconverted church members.

    That’s incorrect. The dots to draw are between preaching the Gospel and faith, or preaching something else and unbelief.

    Does that make sense?

    Here’s another way to make the same point. You wrote above,

    RS: Credobaptists should believe in the regulative principle of worship, should not believe in free-will, and should not believe the teacher instead of the Bible. I am not confident that you are clear on what it means to be a credobaptist.

    I actually have pretty decent credobaptist credentials, and I know CBs of all stripes, from Free-Will Baptists to Southern and Missionary,to Primitive, to “Reformed”, Mennonites and non-denom Anabaptists.

    But yes: credos should believe in the regulative principle. And reject Arminianism. And be sola Scripturists.

    But what percentage actually are? Kinda small, right? And each of those doctrinal defections is a point where the credo- is theologically “connected” to Rome.

    So with credos having so many Roman connections, why poke at paedos and say, Ah-hah! That’s why your guys swim the Tiber! They believe in infant baptism!

    No. That’s easy and short-sighted. If a similarity to RC theology were the reason, then credos would defect in droves.

    —

    Finally, I think it is important to understand that the Reformed position is, in fact, that salvation is not necessarily connected to the sacraments. Read the Confession’s chapter on baptism.

    Like

  275. Jeff Cagle quoting RS: It is the need to preach and teach that people must be born again as a sovereign work of the grace of God and it is something He does that is not necessarily connected to the sacraments. Do you see the difference in what I am saying versus offering a theory of why the majority of people go to Rome?

    Jeff Cagle: Yes, I do. Do you understand my point, which is actually what you articulated here: The Real Issue is whether or not the church preaches the Gospel. Selah.

    The question of credo- or pedo-, while important, is a distant second to that question.

    RS: Yes, the issue of credo- or pedo- is far behind the issue of the Gospel. However, there are those on both sides who begin to creep into the Gospel area with their views of baptism.

    Jeff Cagle: And the reason I push this point (usually with agreement from my credo- friends, who are legion) is that some, like MacArthur, like to connect the dots between paedobaptism and apostasy, or paedobaptism and unconverted church members.

    That’s incorrect. The dots to draw are between preaching the Gospel and faith, or preaching something else and unbelief.

    Does that make sense?

    RS: Yes, but there are some where the dots SHOULD be conncted “between paedobaptism and apostasy, or paedobaptism and unconverted church members.” The problem, as with all positions, is that not all who believe in paedobaptism believe the same thing. Not all who believe in paedobaptism believe the Gospel of grace alone, but there are many who do. The same is true of the credo crowd. The real issue is the Gospel of grace alone (as you say) and yet on both sides of the baptism issue there are those that encroach on the territory of the Gospel by their views and practices of baptism.

    Like

  276. Jeff Cagle: Here’s another way to make the same point. You wrote above,

    quote of RS: Credobaptists should believe in the regulative principle of worship, should not believe in free-will, and should not believe the teacher instead of the Bible. I am not confident that you are clear on what it means to be a credobaptist.

    Jeff C: I actually have pretty decent credobaptist credentials, and I know CBs of all stripes, from Free-Will Baptists to Southern and Missionary,to Primitive, to “Reformed”, Mennonites and non-denom Anabaptists.

    But yes: credos should believe in the regulative principle. And reject Arminianism. And be sola Scripturists.

    But what percentage actually are? Kinda small, right? And each of those doctrinal defections is a point where the credo- is theologically “connected” to Rome.

    RS: To back to an older point of yours, we would need to have the specific numbers from research to answer that question. Okay, maybe not. Yes, in each of those doctrinal defections there is a connection to Rome in theology.

    Jeff C: So with credos having so many Roman connections, why poke at paedos and say, Ah-hah! That’s why your guys swim the Tiber! They believe in infant baptism!

    RS: Because that is why some guys do, though not all. Some jump in the Tiber at the point of infant baptism and the sacraments and others cross over on other issues.

    Jeff C: No. That’s easy and short-sighted. If a similarity to RC theology were the reason, then credos would defect in droves.

    RS: If one went to credos who were truly Calvinistic, the numbers would be really small. However, I have heard of those who went from credo to pedo and then to Rome. I am not claiming that the one necessarily leads to the other, but that it does in some cases.

    Jeff C: Finally, I think it is important to understand that the Reformed position is, in fact, that salvation is not necessarily connected to the sacraments. Read the Confession’s chapter on baptism.

    RS: But the Reformed position is not unified on this. Indeed the WCF does not link them with necessity, but there are many that do link them. There are those who prefer the Three Forms of Unity to the WCF. The closer the link between the two (salvation and the sacraments) the closer the link with Rome. But again, not all do this, but some do.

    Like

  277. And so, Richard (and I suppose to some extent Jeff), when the question naturally arises as to what the marks of the true church are, a question and answer I would think we all agree is of vital importance to say the least, and the P&R churches say that the second (second!) is the correct administration of the sacraments, are they unduly encroaching on the territory of the gospel? Nothing about worship (which Calvin placed before justification) or even sola scriptura (formal principle of the Reformation).

    So I’m not wild about this suggestion that the second mark is so distant from the first or that to bolster its place and priority in the confessional standards is to encroach upon the first mark. My sense is that latitudinarianism is afoot in such sentiments. Additionally, for those of us who do believe that the sacraments are the gospel made visible, which is to say there is an organic relationship between the audible and visual gospel, it’s hard to swallow this implication that “there’s the gospel and then there’s the sacraments,” as if there is little to no connection.

    Like

  278. Zrim, that’s a decent point. I was just trying to say that dinging Reformed folk for their (correct ;o) sacramental views while ignoring the huge swaths of credos who believe in … say, Arminianism … is possibly in bad taste.

    Like

  279. Jeff Cagle: Zrim, that’s a decent point. I was just trying to say that dinging Reformed folk for their (correct ;o) sacramental views while ignoring the huge swaths of credos who believe in … say, Arminianism … is possibly in bad taste.

    RS: Just for the sake of clarity, I am not sure one can be an Arminian in reality and be a credo-Baptist.

    Like

  280. Jeff, got it. As if charging latent Romanism wasn’t in bad enough taste. Sigh.

    Richard, I know plenty of Arminian credos, and they’re real. At least, when I pinch them they yelp.

    Like

  281. Rs, did you ever take a course in philosophy, OR do you use the word “real” in an innocent and naive manner? It’s “real” if you say so?

    Are you for “real”? Where do you live?

    Like

  282. The larger point, RS, is that the “paedo –> Rome” connection is a very common credo talking point.

    But when pressed on the details, it turns out to be nothing more than a talking point, a rhetorical slippery-slope argument. Why is it used? Possibly, people believe that it’s true. I’m sure you do. I trust you aren’t one of those who says things just to keep people on the reservation!!

    But if you were to question, “How do I know that it’s true?”, it might turn out to be unfounded.

    Or so I’ve heard from some people who know some people.

    Like

  283. Richard,

    I must point out that the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Bible does not teach infant baptism. Sadly for you, it is an impossible burden because the Bible does teach infant baptism. Don’t give me the line about thinking “the Bible spelled out the things that people should be disciplined for.” We discipline anyone who refuses to confess the Triune God and the bible, i.e. unitarians (though indeed we first strive to bring them to an understanding that is obedient to Scripture). In the case of God’s Triunity, there are no places that spell out that such denial is wrong or that explicitly commands that we must teach the Triunity of God. Nevertheless, we do teach the Triunity of God according to Scriptures. In cases regarding this doctrine as with infant baptism, God’s Word must be read with care so as to ascertain what it teaches by good and necessary consequences (that is part of the regulative principle). I have already pointed out the varied continuity between the sign of circumcision and that of baptism. There has been no substantive challenge in your post on the basis of Scripture. You have simply flung dust into the air in hopes of hitting my eyes.

    John Calvin was a champion of the doctrines of Grace, read the sections in Book 4 of his Institutes on baptism and his destruction, using the sword of God’s word, of the arguments against infant baptism that he met in his day. The arguments against paedo-baptism of his day are the same obfuscations that are thrown up by today’s credo-baptists and both are thus equally susceptible to scattering when the light shines in on them.

    To various folks,

    As for the questions of the continuity of the covenant of grace through all dispensations, it is not incongruous that the law (note, the law itself) is explicitly works based after the manner of the original failed covenant, for Paul writes in Romans 5:20-21, “Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

    But the purpose of the giving of this law was unto grace, not unto works. Thus His writing in Galatians 3:21-24 saying, “Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.” Do not forget that Paul explains Genesis 15:6, that Abraham was justified by faith, in Romans 4. It is this same point that is alluded to in Romans 9 when Paul explains Exodus 33:19. God was able to justly be merciful to whosoever He pleased on the basis of what He planned to do in Jesus Christ. He united them to Christ, according to His Spirit since before the foundations of the earth. He spoke His promises to them in due time that their faith might be made manifest and their union with Christ gave them the blessings of faith, justification, sanctification, and the glorification that is to come. Though they could not keep the law, God gave it to them that they might, by way of sanctification, be conformed to the image of His son and be driven all the more to confess their faith in that Salvation belonging to the LORD, though He had not as yet been revealed in His fullness. For we know that He called His people unto good works, which He had prepared beforehand that they might walk in them. All the traits belonging to believers in the New Testament can be seen in the believers in the Old Testament, though indeed, the revelation was shadowy in those days because they did not have that light that shined into the darkness which we now have since the coming of the Christ.

    This makes the refusal of the teachers of Israel to accept Jesus as the Christ, and their crucifying Him on charges of blasphemy to be all the more damnable. For they should have been able to recognize Him and have hope in Him, but they were not of His fold according to the secret working of God’s Spirit, and thus they would not come unto Him.

    Like

  284. Zrim: And so, Richard (and I suppose to some extent Jeff), when the question naturally arises as to what the marks of the true church are, a question and answer I would think we all agree is of vital importance to say the least, and the P&R churches say that the second (second!) is the correct administration of the sacraments, are they unduly encroaching on the territory of the gospel? Nothing about worship (which Calvin placed before justification) or even sola scriptura (formal principle of the Reformation).

    RS: Which causes other issues to arise. Do we follow Calvin as the RC folks follow the pope? Did Calvin speak with infallibility? Paul said very clearly that he was not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel. Unless I am taking that verse out of its context, there is a territory of the Gospel that can be encroached by the sacraments.

    Zrim: So I’m not wild about this suggestion that the second mark is so distant from the first or that to bolster its place and priority in the confessional standards is to encroach upon the first mark. My sense is that latitudinarianism is afoot in such sentiments. Additionally, for those of us who do believe that the sacraments are the gospel made visible, which is to say there is an organic relationship between the audible and visual gospel, it’s hard to swallow this implication that “there’s the gospel and then there’s the sacraments,” as if there is little to no connection.

    RS: This is why some of us think that the Reformers did not reform the sacraments enough, though indeed Calvin thought the preaching of the Word must be done when giving the sacrament. Again, Christ did not send Paul to baptize but to preach the Gospel. I think that gives us a distance that the early confessions may not recognize.

    Like

  285. Zrim: Richard, I know plenty of Arminian credos, and they’re real. At least, when I pinch them they yelp.

    RS: A credo-Baptist (as I understand it) is one that believes in covenantal theology and because of his view of covenantal theology is a Baptist. I can only say that I don’t know of and have never heard of a covenantal theologian or pastor that was an Arminian.

    Like

  286. mark mcculley: Rs, did you ever take a course in philosophy,

    RS: Many, many courses in philosophy. In fact, I majored in it.

    McMark: OR do you use the word “real” in an innocent and naive manner?

    RS: It depends on the context. Real is opposed to nominalism and real can be opposed to a practice versus a theory and so on.

    McMark: It’s “real” if you say so?

    RS: It is real to me if it is real to me, really.

    McMark: Are you for “real”?

    RS: Well, there is a lot of reality as opposed to nominalism as regards to me. I have a fair amount of substance to me as opposed to non-substance.

    McMark: Where do you live?

    RS: The real “I” lives in my real body. That body is in different locations at different times, but “I” live in this quite real body.

    Like

  287. RS: The term ‘credobaptist’ in the literature I’m familiar with refers to anyone who believes that baptism ought to be administered subsequent to a credible profession of faith. Wikilink.

    I’m sorry to say that both paedos and credos keep some shady company.

    Like

  288. Richard, my parenthetical point about Calvin wasn’t to say we have a Protestant Pope in him. It was to say that of all the things our church fathers could have chosen to make the second mark (worship, sola scriptura) they chose the sacraments. Though, I have heard of some wanting worship to be a fourth mark, which, I have to say, as the only tradition with something like the RPW (and Calvin’s own prioritizing in “The Necessity of Reforming the Church” to back it up), it isn’t a shabby idea.

    And when I think covenantal theology I think paedobaptism, and when I think credo-baptism I think Dispensationalism (and when I think Disp’ism I think Arminianism). At least, when I was at the Baptist Seminary and realizing I was indeed not a Baptist and looking to transfer to the Reformed Seminary down the Beltline, the Dispies all told me that the evils of PBism flow directly from covenantal theology.

    Like

  289. Just to add to that, the arguments that you and Ted put forward are point-for-point identical to 16th c. Anabaptist arguments (e.g. Menno Simons). So while I appreciate that you are a 5-pointer, I also recognize that your arguments on baptism have no Reformed foundation at all.

    It’s not like your theology (usually called ‘Covenant Baptist’ or ‘Reformed Baptist’) is a reforming of the Reformation. Rather, it is an amalgam of Reformed thought and resurrected Anabaptist thought.

    The place where it hiccups is in applying a ‘spiritualizing’ hermeneutic to Gal 3 without warrant; and further (Ted) postulating a ‘physical’ and ‘spiritual’ covenant without Scriptural warrant.

    Like

  291. Plus, what Jeff says about the definition of CBism. Again, PBs are baptists, too, you know, so why do you guys get the name? Next those who practice PC will want to be called Communionists. Hey now.

    Like

  293. Dunno. But I praise God for Dallas dispies; they did a pretty good job of discipling me and getting me to take Eph 1 seriously. I wouldn’t have become Presbyterian without them.

    Like

  294. Luke Walkup: Richard, I must point out that the burden of proof is on you to prove that the Bible does not teach infant baptism. Sadly for you, it is an impossible burden because the Bible does teach infant baptism.

    RS: Well, if it is that clear then it should be easy to show it. There is no instance of the practice of infant baptism in the Bible and there is no command. When the Bible commands baptism, it tells us to baptize disciples. When the Bible gives examples of those baptized, it gives examples of believers being baptized. When the Bible sets out the New Covenant, it says that all who are in that covenant know God. When the Bible speaks of the work of Christ and for those whom Christ died, it speaks of Him dying for the elect, that is, those with whom He covenanted with the Father to die for. So far the evidence is quite weighty against it.

    Luke Walkup: Don’t give me the line about thinking “the Bible spelled out the things that people should be disciplined for.”

    RS: The Bible gives us various lists of things that demonstrate that a person is not a believer and then of things people do in the context of discipline. I am sorry that you seem to think that the Bible is not sufficient in these things.

    Luke Walkup: We discipline anyone who refuses to confess the Triune God and the bible, i.e. unitarians (though indeed we first strive to bring them to an understanding that is obedient to Scripture). In the case of God’s Triunity, there are no places that spell out that such denial is wrong or that explicitly commands that we must teach the Triunity of God. Nevertheless, we do teach the Triunity of God according to Scriptures.

    RS: The word “Trinity” is simply a word that is shorthand for what the Bible teaches about the nature of God. There is one God and that one God is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The one God exists as three “Persons” and as such we have a word that sets out the clear teaching of the one God. Infant baptism does not have that.

    Luke Walkup: In cases regarding this doctrine as with infant baptism, God’s Word must be read with care so as to ascertain what it teaches by good and necessary consequences (that is part of the regulative principle). I have already pointed out the varied continuity between the sign of circumcision and that of baptism. There has been no substantive challenge in your post on the basis of Scripture. You have simply flung dust into the air in hopes of hitting my eyes.

    RS: Not so, there is simply no real evidence that baptism replaces circumcision on a one to one basis. Add to that Jesus is the guarantee of a better covenant (Heb 7:22), “is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises” (Heb 8:6), the first covenant was not faultless and so a second one was needed (Heb 8:7), so God effected a new covenant (Heb 8:8). “When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.” (Heb 8:13). Circumcision was of the old covenant and now we have a new covenant.

    Luke Walkup: John Calvin was a champion of the doctrines of Grace, read the sections in Book 4 of his Institutes on baptism and his destruction, using the sword of God’s word, of the arguments against infant baptism that he met in his day.

    RS: You must excuse me if I don’t think that Calvin or the pope spoke ex cathedra. However, I have read Calvin on this and simply did not find his arguments (in light of the New Covenant) convincing at all.

    Luke Walkup: The arguments against paedo-baptism of his day are the same obfuscations that are thrown up by today’s credo-baptists and both are thus equally susceptible to scattering when the light shines in on them.

    RS: Well, maybe not all the same at all. Calvin did not answer all the objections and perhaps not even the main ones. Jesus Christ, God in human flesh, convenanted with the Father to live and to die for His elect. All those that He lived and died for are in the covenant and so will be saved. Only those that Christ died for are in the New Covenant and so partakers of His grace. Christ cannot possibly lose any of those He died for. Therefore, it is incumbent on you to show that infants can be in the covenant of grace and then be able at some later point to remove themselves.

    Like

  295. Jeff Cagle: Just to add to that, the arguments that you and Ted put forward are point-for-point identical to 16th c. Anabaptist arguments (e.g. Menno Simons). So while I appreciate that you are a 5-pointer, I also recognize that your arguments on baptism have no Reformed foundation at all.

    RS: I am glad to note that you are not arguing that they lack biblical foundation, which I continue to think is the most important foundation of all. The Reformation teaches us sola scriptura rather than looking to the Reformed documents as primary in the argument. The WCF also teaches that Scripture is the final authority.

    Jeff Cagle: It’s not like your theology (usually called ‘Covenant Baptist’ or ‘Reformed Baptist’) is a reforming of the Reformation. Rather, it is an amalgam of Reformed thought and resurrected Anabaptist thought.

    RS: I would argue that it is a resurrection of the biblical thought as justification by grace alone through faith alone was a resurrection of the biblical though in that area. The Reformers did not really reform in the area of the sacraments.

    Jeff Cagle: The place where it hiccups is in applying a ‘spiritualizing’ hermeneutic to Gal 3 without warrant; and further (Ted) postulating a ‘physical’ and ‘spiritual’ covenant without Scriptural warrant.

    RS: But of course there is spiritual warrant. Allow me to give a few verses below.

    Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

    Romans 9:1 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
    6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.” 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

    Galatians 3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.
    Galatians 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.
    Galatians 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

    RS: Only those who are of faith are the seed of Abraham in the New Covenant. All the promises are to Abraham and his seed, but the text says there is one seed and that is Christ. Therefore, you must belong to Christ to be known as the seed of Abraham and to have the promise.

    Like

  296. Richard,

    I always appreciate your posts, agree or not. Just for clarification, we (Presbyterians) wouldn’t say infants are in the covenant of grace. That is confusing, and there is no instance of the Bible using such language. We would say infants of believers have been set apart to believe in the covenant of grace and are privileged to be raised among the covenant people. I think it is the use of the term covenant that is making it difficult, and I admit that Reformed Presbyterians are not always clear in explaining the term. Sometimes we mean the covenant as a synonym for salvation, and other times covenant means visible church or visible people of God which includes elect and non-elect. For example, in the OPC Book of Church Order it states, “And so, in the New Testament no less than in the Old, the children of believers have an interest in the covenant and a right to the covenant sign and to the outward privileges of the covenant people, the church. In the New Testament, baptism has replaced circumcision as the covenant sign. Therefore, by the covenant sign of baptism the children of believers are to be distinguished from the world and solemnly admitted into the visible church.” Not that you agree but does that help to see the our distinction in the word “covenant?”

    Like

  297. Richard,

    Now you have gotten me interested again in your true identity. Is the R in RC Richard? I have heard that RC say this before: RS: The real “I” lives in my real body. That body is in different locations at different times, but “I” live in this quite real body. Or, is that just something that a lot of philosophy majors say? Have you ever said this before: “That is a fig-newton of your imagination?” Or, “do you dig it.” Or another: “RC stands for radical corruption” Good Lord, I hope you are not the RC I am thinking of. You are retired now, I believe, and so probably have lots of time to read blogs and post on them. Hopefully, I am wrong.

    Like

  298. todd: Richard, I always appreciate your posts, agree or not. Just for clarification, we (Presbyterians) wouldn’t say infants are in the covenant of grace. That is confusing, and there is no instance of the Bible using such language.

    RS: Sorry I am confusing, not to mention confused. But since I hold that those those who are the elect from all eternity are the ones in the New Covenant, I tend to go in that direction.

    Todd: We would say infants of believers have been set apart to believe in the covenant of grace and are privileged to be raised among the covenant people.

    RS: What covenant are they baptized into? Are all infants of all believers set apart to believe in the covenant of grace? Are the covenant people those who are in the New Covenant or some other covenant?

    Todd: I think it is the use of the term covenant that is making it difficult, and I admit that Reformed Presbyterians are not always clear in explaining the term. Sometimes we mean the covenant as a synonym for salvation, and other times covenant means visible church or visible people of God which includes elect and non-elect.

    RS: But what covenant are infants baptized into as members of the visible church?

    Todd: For example, in the OPC Book of Church Order it states, “And so, in the New Testament no less than in the Old, the children of believers have an interest in the covenant and a right to the covenant sign and to the outward privileges of the covenant people, the church.

    RS: In my disordered mind when I hear New Testament I translate it as New Covenant. So in the Old Covenant and in the New Covenant the children have an interest in the covenant. Again, and pardon me for asking this question again, but I am getting a charley horse between the ears, what covenant (if not the New Covenant) do they have an interest in? By the way, I am asking this as a real question and not some rhetorical device. I think of the church (biblical definition) as the body of Christ, so again I think of the Church as being synonymous with the New Covenant in His blood.

    Todd: In the New Testament, baptism has replaced circumcision as the covenant sign. Therefore, by the covenant sign of baptism the children of believers are to be distinguished from the world and solemnly admitted into the visible church.” Not that you agree but does that help to see the our distinction in the word “covenant?”

    RS: I guess my confusion still abounds. Believe it or not I was once a Presbyterian, though I admit that perhaps I didn’t understand it that well and so I have descended into the covenantal Baptist view. But I still don’t see what covenant the infant is in if not the New Covenant which I am unable to separate from the eternal covenant of grace.

    Like

  299. John Yeazel: Richard, Now you have gotten me interested again in your true identity. Is the R in RC Richard? I have heard that RC say this before: RS: The real “I” lives in my real body. That body is in different locations at different times, but “I” live in this quite real body. Or, is that just something that a lot of philosophy majors say?

    RS: My first name is not Robert and my middle name is not Charles. My last name, when it is misprounounced, does not rhyme with growl. I think that some people (philosophy majors or not) dwell some on what the “I” means. If the thief on the cross, for example, entered into Paradise when he died then he was not identitcal with his body. The body was still on the cross but the “I” of that man was in Paradise.

    John Yeazel: Have you ever said this before: “That is a fig-newton of your imagination?”

    RS: Yes, I have said that. At least I think I have said that unless it is a fig-newton of my imagination that I said that.

    John Yeazel: Or, “do you dig it.”

    RS: No, I really don’t dig that expression.

    John Yeazel: Or another: “RC stands for radical corruption”

    RS: No, don’t think I have used that one.

    John Yeazel: Good Lord, I hope you are not the RC I am thinking of.

    RS: You can just call me Richard and I am not the Roman Catholic you are thinking of.

    John Yeazel: You are retired now, I believe, and so probably have lots of time to read blogs and post on them. Hopefully, I am wrong.

    RS: Well, I am not retired, but you are wrong on lots of stuff : – )

    Like

  301. Richard – What kind of Presbyterian Church were you in? You’re as bad as the CTC guys — you used to be one of us! Finally the truth comes out. Next we’ll learn that Ted Bigelow is Machen’s mom’s grand-nephew or something…

    Like

  302. Richard,

    The problem is with the phrase “baptized into.” Babies of believers are not baptized into a covenant. By virtue of their birth (only formally recognized by their baptism) they have been set apart to be raised in the covenant community. God is a God to our children, not in the sense that they are all elect, but as God sets apart children of believers. Look at Cain for example. God was a God to Cain; came down pastorally to help him, yet Cain was not elect. So I would not use the language that babies are baptized into a covenant.

    Like

  303. Todd: “We (Presbyterians) wouldn’t say infants are in the covenant of grace. That is confusing, and there is no instance of the Bible using such language. We would say infants of believers have been set apart to believe in the covenant of grace and are privileged to be raised among the covenant people.”

    mark: I don’t want to pick on Todd (not at all), but I do want to show the problem with generalizing about “covenant theology”, “we Presbyterians”, or all paedobaptists, or all credobaptists. There is not, and has not never been just one kind of “covenant theology”. You can check out the historical surveys of folks like Ferry, Wenger, and Mark Karlberg. The “covenant theology” of David Gordon is not like the “covenant theology” of John Murray. The way Meredith Kline interprets the Reformed Confessions about “covenant” is not the way Norman Shepherd reads those Confessions. The “recast” CT of John Murray and Richard Gaffin (and Dan Fuller) talks about law-grace antithesis in a very different way than Calvin and Luther did.

    This is why I have been attempting to think not directly about water baptism but about the distinctions between covenants. I think exploring how the new covenant fulfills the Abrahamic covenant is an important discussion to have, but that won’t happen if we dismiss all who notice the genealogical principle in the Abrahamic covenant (and say it’s temporary) as dispensationalists who can’t see the gospel signified in circumcision.

    Nor can a decent discussion happen if we credobaptists don’t think through texts like Colossians 2. What is the “circumcision of Christ” which fulfills the sign of physical circumcision, and why does the next verse talk about baptism and faith? Why a baptism with hands? And so on. No need for me to add more quotations. If Kline is wrong about a “double-edged sword”, then what IS the present relationship between election and (new) covenant?

    One added note. I know Anabaptist history, and there is not one 16th century Anabaptist who taught unconditional election or substitutionary atonement for the elect alone. So it will not do to assume that credobaptists who DO believe the gospel have an Arminian view of Christ’s positive laws for churches.

    By way of analogy, Zwingli was a paedobaptist but he did not have a “Reformed view” of Christ’s command concerning the Supper and water. So perhaps it could be acknowledged that not everything every credobaptist is saying about water baptism is Arminian or assumes that salvation is conditioned on the sinner (as Anabaptists and those who follow Alexander Campbell teach).

    Since I have read Menno and Hubmaier and Sattler and Marpeck, people can continue to bluff and bluster that what I am saying is only what these non-magisteral (non-state-church) anabaptists were saying. That’s one way not to think about what I am saying. I am not suggesting that I am saying something which has never been said before. But Robert Haldane was not an Arminian. Roger Williams was not an Arminian. Boyce and Dagg were not Arminians.

    One more thing. We are not all credobaptists. To say that you are both a credobaptist and also a paedobaptist is like John Piper saying that he’s both an Arminian and a Calvinist. (He is not. He is not even without antithesis, but that’s for another day.) Now, I have heard some paedobaptists explain how infant baptism is “really” a better picture of the gospel, since the infant is not a decider and so forth. Sometimes, when these paedobaptists sit down, other paedobaptists whisper in their ears: “don’t forget there is only one baptism, not two kinds, so the thing signified is the same no matter if it’s not an infant.”

    My point is not simply that paedobaptists contradict each other (of course, they do, see Watson’s book, but credobaptists contradict each other as well). I am saying that what we say about the nature of water baptism (efficacy, significance, etc) is going to be different if we practice infant baptism. Even when you fence the table from those who have not yet professed the gospel (whether they are baptized children or adults baptized as children), you are still going to tell these folks there can be no credobaptism for them. Therefore, don’t be saying: we are all credobaptists now. You won’t give credobaptism even to those who come in repentance from Arminianism.

    And no, we are not all anabaptists now either. Some of us are just waiting for the time when we can take Constantine’s place.

    If you want to read back to Todd’s quotation at the beginning (we don’t say they are in the covenant), well it’s not something you would read in many books defending paedobaptism. (but check out Engelsma above) But of course it’s something I have heard even from elders in the PCA. Of course some of these same elders also explain Romans 9 by assuring us that hard hearts are the default setting and that God had nothing to do with it.

    Like

  304. Mark, to say PBs are also CBs is admittedly imprecise. But all that is meant is that PBs baptize both children of believers and professing adults not previously baptized. By that measure, PBs baptize way more than CBs, so why do you guys get the nickname? Kidding.

    Like

  305. Erik Charter: Richard – What kind of Presbyterian Church were you in?

    RS: RPCNA

    Eric Charter: You’re as bad as the CTC guys — you used to be one of us!

    RS: Ouch, but at least I didn’t swim the river, I just went under the water for a bit.

    Eric Charter: Finally the truth comes out. Next we’ll learn that Ted Bigelow is Machen’s mom’s grand-nephew or something…

    RS: I heard he was Machen’s cousin.

    Like

  306. todd: Richard, The problem is with the phrase “baptized into.” Babies of believers are not baptized into a covenant. By virtue of their birth (only formally recognized by their baptism) they have been set apart to be raised in the covenant community. God is a God to our children, not in the sense that they are all elect, but as God sets apart children of believers. Look at Cain for example. God was a God to Cain; came down pastorally to help him, yet Cain was not elect. So I would not use the language that babies are baptized into a covenant.

    RS: Would you say that the children of the Israelite people were in the covenant? I don’t think I am trying to lay a trap, but instead I am trying to understand your position.

    Like

  307. Zrim: “wouldn’t be disciplined for wanting his children baptized in a Baptist church—he’d just be denied.”

    mark: For some reason, I am trying to be precise today. Each time I read this sentence, I keep guessing at the intent of the author. First, I thought you were talking about somebody who wanted to be a member of a paedobaptist church but who still wanted his children to wait for credobaptism in a credobaptist church. But second, I thought, no, he’s saying something more obvious, this mixed up confused somebody wants a credobaptist church to do a paedobaptism. (Of course I know some liberal mennonites who would do it, also some “evangelical free”). But right, a credobaptist church wouldn’t do it. But then third, i think maybe I still don’t understand, something in the context….

    Which baptist seminary, Zrim? Any five pointers there at the time? Did you care at the time?

    Jeff, when you talked about some “Reformed Mennonites”, you weren’t talking about the very small denomination here in Lancaster County that calls itself that, were you? I visited with them once, and the “reformed” in their denomination has nothing to do with the gospel, but has to do with dress and tradition….

    Like

  308. Mark,

    I wasn’t trying to speak for all reformed, I was summarizing what we traditionally mean by “in the covenant.” With your definition of covenant meaning covenant of grace – or gospel, we would never say babies are baptized into the covenant of grace. What some mean (and I don’t use that language of in the covenant because it is confusing) is simply babies given privileges to be raised hearing the gospel and being among the redeemed, and responsibilities higher than the outsider to believe this gospel. And I am fully aware of the differences in covenant theology among Reformed (I am much more in line with Kline than Murray if that helps).

    Richard, I would not say the children of Israel were in the covenant if you mean all saved by the covenant of grace. They were all in the national cov. between God and Israel, and they were given privileges (Rom 9:4&5) to hear and see the cov of grace administered (sacrifices, types, promises, etc…) and unique responsibilities (it will be more tolerable for…) to believe it.

    I think the difference between is us that while we agree on justification (the essential), credos tend to see only two types of relationships God has with people – saved and unsaved, elect and non-elect. Paedos agree with these two categories, but see a third category operating in this life only, and that is God’s relationship with non-elect church members, those who have taken on the sign as adults or at birth were given the sign and live among God’s people (visible church). While this relationship is not a saving relationship by any means, God is still a God to them as he was to Cain. Jesus laid his hands on and blessed the babies of Israel. That blessing was not a saving blessing, we should not assume those babies were all elect. That blessing was the blessing of being set apart to be born and raised among the covenant people, hearing the gospel, seeing God’s glory displayed in a way the babies of other nations could not witness. This blessing in itself does not save them, only believing the gospel does, but the blessing did mean something. Our baptizing babies is the equivalent of Jesus laying his hands on Israelite babies and blessing them.

    Like

  309. Todd: “God is still a God to them as he was to Cain. Jesus laid his hands on and blessed the babies of Israel. That blessing was not a saving blessing, we should not assume those babies were all elect. That blessing was the blessing of being set apart to be born and raised among the covenant people, hearing the gospel, seeing God’s glory displayed in a way the babies of other nations could not witness”.

    mark: is the blessing a “double-edged sword”, with possibly a greater curse for them than for those raised outside “the” covenant community? Do you agree with Kline and Zrim about that? Is God the God of those who are “cut off” from a covenant?

    Which covenant did the already circumcised people who refused John’s “baptism of repentance” get “cut off” from? Are those not circumcised not obligated to do the entire law?

    As for “the covenant of grace”, I DO NOT say that. Saying that is the problem. We need to say which “covenant” we mean. Do we mean “new covenant”? Do we think the “new covenant” is the same covenant as God made with Abraham? In agreeing that the covenant God made with Abraham is about the righteousness of Christ, do we then need to deny that the covenant God made with Abraham had significance for Abraham that it never had for other people?

    In what way do we avoid being “gnostic”? Does it mean that we don’t make any distinction between the non-elect children God promised Abraham and the elect children God promised the righteousness of Abraham’s seed? And if we don’t make that distinction, must we deny that God promised Abraham any non-elect children?

    “John Murray’s Mono-Covenantalism”, by David Gordon, in By Faith Alone, edited by Gary Johnson and Guy Waters (Crossway,2006, p121

    “I am perfectly happy with retaining the covenant of works, by any label, because it was a historic covenant. What I am less happy with is the language of the covenant of grace, because this is a genuinely unbiblical use of biblical language. Biblically, covenant is always a historic arrangement, inaugurated in space and time. Once covenant refers to an over-arching divine decree or purpose to redeem the elect in Christ, confusion Is sure to follow.”

    Like

  310. The death of Jesus Christ is the only and complete judicial satisfaction for the sins of the elect But this satisfaction was never intended to be enough for the sins of the non-elect. It’s not enough to talk about the guaranteed success of the atonement for the elect, because we also need to talk about the justice of the atonement and to do that we need to talk about God’s imputation of the sins of the elect to Christ.

    It might sound rhetorically neat to say that Christ’s death is enough for the non-elect, but until somebody explains what Christ’s death did for the non-elect, the result is deceptive language.

    I Peter 1:18–”knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. 20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.”

    The Bible uses “commercial” language to talk about the blood of Christ being precious. One death once for all time is the only death Christ had to die for those whose sins were imputed to Him. God’s justice demanded the death of Christ because certain sins had been charged to Him by God the Trinity.

    The old formula from Lombard was used in the political compromise of the Synod of Dordt, “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect”. In our day many who think themselves more prudent than God don’t want to talk about the word “elect” so instead they say— sufficient for all, efficient for the believer.

    We need to undrstand not only the extent of the atonement but its nature. You can’t understand the nature of the atonement without knowing about its extent. But you can know about the extent and still not know about the justice of the atonement.

    If we don’t understand how and why Christ’s death is enough for the elect, denying that Christ’s death works for the non-elect will not explain the gospel. Why did Christ need to die for the elect?

    The regeneration of the elect does not satisfy God’s justice. Justification is what happens when God legally joins the elect to that death (which was already for their sins). There is no “union” more basic and real than this legal counting. by God.

    The gospel talks about Christ being “made sin” (II Cor 5:21) by the imputation of all the sins of the elect, and not only about Christ being made a “sin-offering”. The atonement has commercial and legal merit, not only because Christ can and does do things by measure (healing some but not others) but also because the Bible speaks about being bought by Christ’s death from the accusations of the law..

    Like

  311. Regarding whether or not the children of believers (“covenant children” as we PBs like to call them) are “in the covenant”: It really depends on what one mean by this. Since God administers His covenant of grace organically, in the line of successive generations (Gen. 17:7), we may speak of the children of believers being “in the covenant” externally, in the sense that they are members of the visible church and are “in the covenant” in that they are under the external administration of the covenant (i.e., beneficiaries of the church’s ministry of Word, sacrament, and discipline; and given all the privileges and duties of non-communicant membership, such as pastoral care, oversight and instruction/catechesis, dutiful attendance upon the ordinary means of grace, etc.). But if by “in the covenant” one means that they are necessarily or automatically saved, then that is not true of all covenant children. Reprobate covenant children are not “in the covenant” with respect to the spiritual essence of the covenant or in terms of vital, living union with Christ, and sooner or later they manifest themselves as dead branches that do not abide in the Vine and which are ultimately pruned from the vine (Jn. 15:1-8). (I think Berkhof in his Systematic Theology distinguishes between being in the covenant legally, and being in the covenant vitally.)

    Like

  312. Todd: Richard, I would not say the children of Israel were in the covenant if you mean all saved by the covenant of grace. They were all in the national cov. between God and Israel, and they were given privileges (Rom 9:4&5) to hear and see the cov of grace administered (sacrifices, types, promises, etc…) and unique responsibilities (it will be more tolerable for…) to believe it.

    RS: So the infants of the Israelites were in the national covenant between God and Israel and not the covenant of grace (at least as how I use it), but were given the privileges to hear and see the covenant of grace administered. This means that you identify something of the covenant of Moses with the covenant of grace since the children were able to see and hear it administered.

    Todd: think the difference between is us that while we agree on justification (the essential), credos tend to see only two types of relationships God has with people – saved and unsaved, elect and non-elect. Paedos agree with these two categories, but see a third category operating in this life only, and that is God’s relationship with non-elect church members, those who have taken on the sign as adults or at birth were given the sign and live among God’s people (visible church). While this relationship is not a saving relationship by any means, God is still a God to them as he was to Cain. Jesus laid his hands on and blessed the babies of Israel. That blessing was not a saving blessing, we should not assume those babies were all elect. That blessing was the blessing of being set apart to be born and raised among the covenant people, hearing the gospel, seeing God’s glory displayed in a way the babies of other nations could not witness. This blessing in itself does not save them, only believing the gospel does, but the blessing did mean something. Our baptizing babies is the equivalent of Jesus laying his hands on Israelite babies and blessing them.

    RS: But is there any covenant that they (the infants) are in or a part of? If baptism (now) is the sign of the covenant, then putting the sign on them means what? Is baptism still a seal of the covenant? Your view is a little new to me and so I am asking questions to make sure I understand it.

    Like

  313. McMark: “John Murray’s Mono-Covenantalism”, by David Gordon, in By Faith Alone, edited by Gary Johnson and Guy Waters (Crossway,2006, p121

    “I am perfectly happy with retaining the covenant of works, by any label, because it was a historic covenant. What I am less happy with is the language of the covenant of grace, because this is a genuinely unbiblical use of biblical language. Biblically, covenant is always a historic arrangement, inaugurated in space and time. Once covenant refers to an over-arching divine decree or purpose to redeem the elect in Christ, confusion Is sure to follow.”

    RS: But the Bible does refer to this eternal agreement as a covenant. There was an eternal plan in the Godhead and the Bible plainly (I think) reveals this. The term “covenant” can simply mean swearing or taking an oath.

    Christ was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world
    From Genesis 3 we see that grace was already part of the plan
    In Genesis 9 God established His covenant with humans and that without conditions.
    In II Samuel 23 God make an everlasting covenant with David, which is interpreted to mean that God admitted David into an interest in the everlasting covenant.

    In Eph 2:12 the covenants of promise are mentioned
    All through the OT we see the types of Christ involved as men (as seen in the NT) looked ahead to Christ.
    Ephesians 3:11 speaks of the eternal purpose of God in Chirst.
    Luke 22:22 speaks of Christ going as it was determined. When was that determined?
    John 6 tells us that Christ came from heaven to do the will of the Father
    John 17 speaks of those that the Father had given to the Son
    Heb 3:2 speaks of Christ being faithful to the One that had appointed Him.

    So from eternity there was an agreement in the Godhead to redeem the elect. This agreement in the Godhead is seen in the grace of God in saving sinners. One can call it an everlasting covenant or a covenant of grace, but this everlasting covenant is what makes sense of the other covenants (IMO). The New Covenant, then, seems to be the fullest expression of the everlasting covenant where the elect of God are seen to be purchased by grace alone. I have a hard time seeing how it can bring confusion rather than clarity.

    Like

  314. Mark, your second thought was it (our CB friend wants his CB church to baptize his child). The context was Richard trying to distinguish between a Reformed church disciplining a member for withholding baptism for his child and a Baptist church not disciplining for our friend coming to PB convictions and asking his Baptist church to baptize his child. I believe Richard’s point was that by disciplining, Reformed make too much out of baptism, while Baptists have their priorities straight by simply denying the request. But on top of the fact that nobody disciplines for a request that is out of accord but they do for withholding what is confessed to be in accord, we can press it further by asking what a Baptist church would do if our friend somehow found a way to have his child baptized. It seems to me a good Baptist church would indulge discipline for applying what is denied and thus being actively out of accord. Assuming so, Richard’s point fails again because both Reformed and Baptists have a sacramentology that is expected of its members and when a member errs comes under discipline.

    And, yes, my understanding is that the EV Free denom is the only “Protestant” denom that practices both PB and CB, but not in a Reformed sort of way (i.e. both children of believers and professing believers not previously baptized), rather in a compromised way (i.e. we don’t want to upset anyone, so if you don’t want your child baptized, ok, but if you do, that’s groovy, too, and obviously we’ll dunk any adult who digs it, but far be it from us to add any notion of it being an issue of obedience either way like those uptight Reformed).

    Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary (mid-90s). Yes, my ST prof was a good Calvinist and was actually instrumental in affirming no tonly that there is much more to being Reformed than being Calvinist (Richard Muller, anynone?), but also that Calvinism and paedobaptism align, whereas Dispensationalism and credo-baptism align. Yes, I cared greatly at the time and still do.

    Like

  315. “The covenant of grace” brings confusion because it keeps people from asking which “covenant” they should be talking about. And I am not only making a “biblicist” point here (though that also). We have a “covenant overload” these days, in which people use the word, without defining it,as a shorthand and a soundbite, instead of thinking through what they want to say or what people will understand when they use the word.

    When we could be saying “the gospel” or Christ and His work, we say “covenant” and think that helps people. But the difference between what Geoff (and Todd) are saying and what Doug Wilson (and Leithart and Lusk) are saying is pretty far. I know not all people are as up-tight as I am about not being mistaken for Doug Wilson, but this is not a credobaptist point I am making.

    Let me explain. There are credobaptists who like to think of themselves as “covenant theologians” except for the subjects of baptism who tend to ignore the difference between the Abrahamic and the Sinai covenants. They act as if both those covenants are the same covenant, all part of one “the covenant of grace”. Sure, we all agree that there is continuity and fulfillment, but some of us see the Mosaic covenant as an interruption also (Kline, Horton, all who talk about republication of cov of works). But to get back to the credobaptists like Malone (and possibly RS) who talk “the covenant of grace and ignore the historic covenants, a paedobaptist arguing with Malone has to say to Malone, look, dude, when the NT says old, it’s not talking about the Abrahamic but about the Mosaic.

    My point is not to get into the texts and do the debate here, but to show why we can’t be lazy and reduce everything down to “the covenant”. Rs, have you read Mike Horton’s book introducing covenants? What do you think of his distinctions between the before the ages “covenant of redemption” and the historic covenants?

    Like

  316. Zrim: Mark, your second thought was it (our CB friend wants his CB church to baptize his child). The context was Richard trying to distinguish between a Reformed church disciplining a member for withholding baptism for his child and a Baptist church not disciplining for our friend coming to PB convictions and asking his Baptist church to baptize his child. I believe Richard’s point was that by disciplining, Reformed make too much out of baptism, while Baptists have their priorities straight by simply denying the request. But on top of the fact that nobody disciplines for a request that is out of accord but they do for withholding what is confessed to be in accord, we can press it further by asking what a Baptist church would do if our friend somehow found a way to have his child baptized. It seems to me a good Baptist church would indulge discipline for applying what is denied and thus being actively out of accord. Assuming so, Richard’s point fails again because both Reformed and Baptists have a sacramentology that is expected of its members and when a member errs comes under discipline.

    RS:
    Point A: Luke Walkup’s church disciplines those who do not baptize their children.
    My argument is that infant baptism is not commanded and there is no example in the Bible. Added to that we see that all those in the New Covenant know the Lord.

    Point B: The Bible is our guide in the things we are to exercise church discipline over. We don’t find infant baptism or anything like it being used or implied in the exercise of church discipline.

    Point C: A person in a Baptist church comes to the conviction of PB. The person is not disciplined and would still be a member. I have known solidly calvinistic Baptist churches that allowed the people to go elsewhere and have their children “baptized” and still remain members.

    Conclusion: The two cases are not even close to the same. It is a misuse of church discipline when people are disciplined for not baptizing their children and is stressing something that is not (at the least) clearly taught in the New Covenant.

    Like

  317. Bob S –

    If you’re still reading this thread: you said, “Ted, Then you don’t consider the cov. of grace to be one?”

    Nope. And neither do you. If you do, you make the New Covenant either equal to the CoG, or you make it a subset of it.

    Either way, in the NC “all know the Lord and ALL have their sins forgiven.” But since you won’t allow that to be true for those allegedly brought into the covenant by baptism, you end up denying both the CoG and the NC.

    Ask yourself this: when a male was circumcised in the AC or Mosaic Cov’t, was he in the covenant? Yes or no?

    Like

  318. Didn’t Grand Baptist Seminary change its name? Wasn’t Carl Hoch there? His All Things New book was useful but exasperating. The only person from there I read now (besides the ex Moody Church guy) is Michael Witmer, who was trained by Calvin guys, and who is a good writer. Though Witmer’s book on Rob Bell was very Arminian (despite the intro from Horton), his new book on death is very good, with great questions and honesty. (Of course I don’t agree with him about the intermediate state, but that’s me). Witmer’s book on heaven vs earth is also quite good, despite the neo-Cal (Mouw) transformationist directions he takes it in in the end.

    Who was your prof?

    I am still a little confused about the hypothetical scenario, but maybe it doesn’t matter and I was up late talking to guys in California. If the guy is a credobaptist, why would he want his infants done by anybody? On the other hand, if his children are now believers and never got infant baptism, a paedo wouldn’t say— too late now, no baptism for you. We won’t baptize anybody whose parents should have had it done already?

    As some folks said to John Baptist— water? no, we already did that when we were circumcised.

    Like I said, it’s early and now I can’t get the soup nazi out of my head. No soup for you.

    Like

  319. Richard, then those Calvinistic Baptist churches that overlooked members acting out of accord with their convictions wouldn’t qualify as good Baptist churches. I know you’re trying to portray Reformed as a little too overwrought over baptism, but I wonder if you understand how my point props up even those with whom Reformed take great umbrage (as in Belgic 34). Good Baptists take seriously the doctrine and practice of their members.

    However, I will admit that, as you suggest in your Point C, there are a lot of Baptists that don’t, which is a great irony in my mind: to elevate baptismal sacramentology to such a height so as to identify by it and even suggest that PB is latent Romanism(!) and then overlook members who behave in contradiction to it.

    Like

  320. These discussions on baptism and covenant get confusing and hard to follow. And besides, it seems to me that they cloud the issue and are a distraction to what the Gospel actually is. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper follow after the Gospel don’t they? These discusssions of covenant and baptism also seem related to the union with Christ issue. Are covenant and union similar words? When someone says one can be in legal covenant but not vital covenant is one saying that one can be in legal union with Christ without being in vital union? Should’nt we be discussion imputation, ie., what it is, if it is actually defined and described in the scriptures and when it takes place rather than baptism and covenant? That seems like a much more critical issue to me. Some seem to be equating water baptism with imputation and regeneration, or, something close to that. That seems to be a distraction and a clouding of the issue of imputation. If we don’t have righteousness, either infused or imputed, we have no reconciliation with God.

    Like

  321. Mark, yes on Hoch and agreed on Witmer. My ST prof was Joe Crawford.

    Our hypo-friend is a member of a CB church who had CB convictions but comes to PB convictions, so that’s why he’d want his kids baptized. And, correct, if his children were never baptized as infants but are believers they are now professors who stand in need of baptism.

    But isn’t the AIDS ribbon more relevant here? “Who? Who won’t wear ze rrred rrrribbon?”

    Like

  322. mark mcculley: “The covenant of grace” brings confusion because it keeps people from asking which “covenant” they should be talking about. And I am not only making a “biblicist” point here (though that also). We have a “covenant overload” these days, in which people use the word, without defining it,as a shorthand and a soundbite, instead of thinking through what they want to say or what people will understand when they use the word.

    RS: Perhaps it (covenant of grace, everlasting covenant) can bring confusion, but I have found that it brings clarity. It is the unifying covenant that makes sense of the whole Bible and God’s determination to glorify Himself. All the other covenants relate to it.

    McMark: When we could be saying “the gospel” or Christ and His work, we say “covenant” and think that helps people. But the difference between what Geoff (and Todd) are saying and what Doug Wilson (and Leithart and Lusk) are saying is pretty far. I know not all people are as up-tight as I am about not being mistaken for Doug Wilson, but this is not a credobaptist point I am making.

    RS: Good point.

    McMark: Let me explain. There are credobaptists who like to think of themselves as “covenant theologians” except for the subjects of baptism who tend to ignore the difference between the Abrahamic and the Sinai covenants. They act as if both those covenants are the same covenant, all part of one “the covenant of grace”. Sure, we all agree that there is continuity and fulfillment, but some of us see the Mosaic covenant as an interruption also (Kline, Horton, all who talk about republication of cov of works). But to get back to the credobaptists like Malone (and possibly RS) who talk “the covenant of grace and ignore the historic covenants, a paedobaptist arguing with Malone has to say to Malone, look, dude, when the NT says old, it’s not talking about the Abrahamic but about the Mosaic.

    RS: I adhere to the distinction between the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic. I would also see the Mosaic as a republication (or sorts) of the covenant of works. But John Owen and Nehemaiah Coxe wrote about that a long time ago.

    McMark: My point is not to get into the texts and do the debate here, but to show why we can’t be lazy and reduce everything down to “the covenant”. Rs, have you read Mike Horton’s book introducing covenants? What do you think of his distinctions between the before the ages “covenant of redemption” and the historic covenants?

    RS: I tend to avoid Horton these day as he has way too much of the Dutch for me. If the covenant of redemption is the same thing as the everlasting covenant, then it sounds like a great distinction. So should I read that book? Is it really that important?

    Like

  323. RS “But is there any covenant that they (the infants) are in or a part of? If baptism (now) is the sign of the covenant, then putting the sign on them means what? Is baptism still a seal of the covenant? Your view is a little new to me and so I am asking questions to make sure I understand it.”

    Todd: My view is not new but I am trying to explain in a way that I hoped would be helpful. The difficulty is in defining “being a part of.” Being set apart to believe in a covenant, which is what infant baptism publicly signifies, is not the same as being part of it, as in receiving the saving benefits of the covenant promise. Heb 10:29 “How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?”

    Here a non-elect person has been sanctified, here meaning set apart, to believe the gospel, but refused. His judgment is more severe than the outsider because he was given the sign and set apart. Baptism sets the child apart to believe the covenant promise, faith receives the promise. Now some use the language of these non-elect being “baptized into the covenant” to refer to the infant baptized, which I don’t believe is Biblical to say in the new covenant so I wouldn’t use that language, but what they mean is accurate, which is what I previously stated and what Geoff wrote above.

    Mark, you asked too many questions, and they are a bit to general for me to begin responding to. Can you narrow them down to one specific question?

    Like

  324. Todd: My view is not new but I am trying to explain in a way that I hoped would be helpful. The difficulty is in defining “being a part of.” Being set apart to believe in a covenant, which is what infant baptism publicly signifies, is not the same as being part of it, as in receiving the saving benefits of the covenant promise. Heb 10:29 “How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?”

    Here a non-elect person has been sanctified, here meaning set apart, to believe the gospel, but refused. His judgment is more severe than the outsider because he was given the sign and set apart. Baptism sets the child apart to believe the covenant promise, faith receives the promise. Now some use the language of these non-elect being “baptized into the covenant” to refer to the infant baptized, which I don’t believe is Biblical to say in the new covenant so I wouldn’t use that language, but what they mean is accurate, which is what I previously stated and what Geoff wrote above.

    Geoff Willour: Regarding whether or not the children of believers (“covenant children” as we PBs like to call them) are “in the covenant”: It really depends on what one mean by this. Since God administers His covenant of grace organically, in the line of successive generations (Gen. 17:7), we may speak of the children of believers being “in the covenant” externally, in the sense that they are members of the visible church and are “in the covenant” in that they are under the external administration of the covenant (i.e., beneficiaries of the church’s ministry of Word, sacrament, and discipline; and given all the privileges and duties of non-communicant membership, such as pastoral care, oversight and instruction/catechesis, dutiful attendance upon the ordinary means of grace, etc.). But if by “in the covenant” one means that they are necessarily or automatically saved, then that is not true of all covenant children. Reprobate covenant children are not “in the covenant” with respect to the spiritual essence of the covenant or in terms of vital, living union with Christ, and sooner or later they manifest themselves as dead branches that do not abide in the Vine and which are ultimately pruned from the vine (Jn. 15:1-8). (I think Berkhof in his Systematic Theology distinguishes between being in the covenant legally, and being in the covenant vitally.)

    RS: Todd and Geoff, thanks for your efforts. Whether you think of it as new or not, and I thought I had read a lot on the subject and talked to many, many folks about this, what you are saying is at the least sounding new to my ears. I have some things to chew on. Thanks again.

    Like

  325. RS,

    I look at each of the verses you mentioned – Rom 2, Rom 9, and Gal 3 – and read them to mean something more literal: Those without faith are not legitimately (i.e., in God’s sight) part of the Abrahamic Covenant.

    After, Paul does not say, “He is a Jew but not a part of the New Covenant…”, but “He is not a Jew who is one outwardly.”

    Like

  326. RS: Perhaps it (covenant of grace, everlasting covenant) can bring confusion, but I have found that it brings clarity. It is the unifying covenant that makes sense of the whole Bible and God’s determination to glorify Himself. All the other covenants relate to it.

    mark: It brings false clarity. By ignoring the different covenant “cuts in history”, it fails to make the point about continuity it wants to make. Sometimes what’s simple can be clear but wrong. For
    example, to say that Jesus Christ died for every sinner is clear, but it’s wrong. But it’s simple enough that almost every chlld in the USA is taught that lie. (I suppose Mormon children are taught that Jesus suffered in the garden for every sinner….)

    Listen, child, since we don’t know if Jesus died for you, let’s not talk about election, but let’s say you are in the covenant, and let’s say God loves you covenantally, and covenant love is not common grace, but we won’t say that Jesus died for you…..

    Remember that my quotation about confusion was from a paedo-baptist (David Gordon) who is working from the Vos-Kline side of things. The credobaptist folks (many associated with Banner of Truth) who want to keep using the one unified “the covenant of grace” are people who want
    to deny that Jesus Christ is a law-giver, who want to teach Sabbath and tithe continuity (and often ignore the details of discontinuity). Some of these credobaptists are even theonomists on political law (athough most of the BOT folks are too sweet on Flavel and Manton to go there.)

    And of course I don’t know where you are on these issues, RS. When you say “the covenant of grace”, you might just mean “the gospel”, or you could mean “God’s decree of election”. But I do think distinctions are important to avoid false clarity. You might think you mean the same
    thing a paedobaptist thinks about “the covenant”, but what that other guy thinks about infant baptism is not an accident but indicates that what he means by “covenant” is not what you mean. Either that, or it shows that you need to be consistent with your view on “the covenant”
    and include infants in before you can cut them off!

    David Gordon: The terms of the Sinai administration itself, being made with one peculiar nation and excluding others through dietary, ceremonial, and other laws, prevented the entire fulfillment of the
    Abrahamic promise, even while it preserved memory of that promise and even while it preserved the integrity of Abraham’s “seed” by prohibiting intermarriage with Gentiles. Paul thus understood the
    Sinai covenant to be both subservient to the purpose of the earlier Abrahamic covenant (by preserving the integrity of Abraham’s “seed” and the promises made thereto) and an obstacle to
    the fulfillment of that covenant. Ironically, Sinai was necessary (to preserve the “seed” and the promise) but Sinai was also a barrier (by excluding Gentiles, they could not be blessed). For Paul, this means that the Sinai administration must have been temporary; instituted as a vehicle to carry both the Abrahamic promise and the Abrahamic “seed” until that moment when the “Seed” would come through whom the promise would be fulfilled and the nations would be blessed (3:19).”

    Geoff and Todd seem to have distianced themselves from any idea that infants are “in the covenant” and thus subject perhaps to “covenant curses”. Nevertheless, how are infants “blessed with sign and covenant community” otherwise different from any other infants, since all infants are born guilty in Adam and all need that righteousness, and none of them is promised that righteousness, unless God gives them faith in the gospel?

    Dispensationalists can’t see the newness of the new covenant, because they can’t let go of the idea that the Abrahamic covenant promised land unconditionally to ethnic Israel, and they want
    to see that old covenant kept. And paedobaptists can’t see much of the newness of the new covenant, because they won’t let go of the genealogical principle even though the promise to Abraham has been fulfilled in Christ.

    So, RS, it does make sense that a paedobaptist would think that Abrahamic covenant is no different from the new covenant (except for details we should ignore), but I don’t think it makes much sense for a non-dispy credobaptist to argue that the new covenant is no different
    from the Abrahamic covenant. (Of course, if you want to make it simple, you could agree with the caricature that all credobaptists are dispys but some are too stupid to know it.)

    Like

  327. Thanks, Zrim. Joe Crawford. Does he continue to teach there? Has he written anything I should be reading? btw, could I ask you where you live and what you do, Zrim? I probably should know by now, but I really haven’t been around so long. (It just seems like it, when you get tired of my stuff.)

    Like

  328. Jeff on Rom 2, Rom 9, and Gal 3 –: Those without faith are not legitimately (i.e., in God’s sight) part of the Abrahamic Covenant. After, Paul does not say, “He is a Jew but not a part of the New
    Covenant…”, but “He is not a Jew who is one outwardly.”

    mark: Interesting. Would that mean that “cut off” means “never really in”? I am not asking about the eternal state of Ishmael or Esau or anybody. I am entertaining the idea that this is what “cut off” means in texts like Genesis 17. Of course that’s not my first idea when I read the text. But sometimes my first idea is not so good. Also, my second and third….But the idea of being cursed by a covenant you were never really in, well it’s interesting and makes me remember Bahnsen’s reading of the prophets (to the gentiles) in his Theonomy book.

    Thanks for continuing to think on this, Jeff. Your help is appreciated. And I don’t mean that in a Harold Camping (telephone click) thanks for sharing kind of way.

    Like

  329. Hebrews 10:28-29, “Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the One who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which He was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace.”

    The text suggests the idea of making the blood unclean, or profaning the sacred. This text is also one which is often used to teach some third inbetween kind of “grace” which is common to both elect and non-elect.

    The text is also used to teach that the new covenant can be broken, and that the covenant is bigger than election, and that covenant grace is for more than only the elect. The idea seems to be that God has some grace for everybody, more grace for those in the covenant, and even more grace for the elect.

    The Hebrews 10 warning is not saying that an apostate was in the new covenant. I do not think it is even saying that the apostate appeared to be in the new covenant, although this is a possible interpretation if you want to work out the visible church and invisible church contrast.

    The “Son of God” is the closest antecedent of the pronoun “he” in the phrase “the covenant by which he was sanctified”. Of course we need to remember that “sanctify” does not mean to get better and better, as most systematic theology would have it. “Sanctify” is to set apart before God, both in the Old Testament context of Hebrews 10, (blood of the covenant, Zechariah 9:11, Ex 24:8) and in John 17. “And for their sake I sanctify myself, that they shall also be sanctified.”

    Those who profane the death of Christ teach that Christ sanctified Himself in common for every sinner so that maybe (and maybe not) every sinner will be sanctified. This often (not always) goes along with an idea of a “covenant condition” which can make Christ’s common death something special.

    “We see Him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God He would taste death for every… (Hebrews 2:10). The verses which follow tell us every “son to glory”, every ”those who are sanctified”, every “the children God has given me”.

    Those who profane the death of Christ tell us that the One crowned with glory was sanctified for more than are sanctified. They dishonor Christ by telling the children God gave Him that Christ died also for those who are not and who will never be children of God.

    That Christ sanctified Himself does not mean that Christ got better and better but that Christ set Himself apart to die for a people set apart before the creation of the world. These elect people are one day sanctified by faith given by Christ’s Spirit, but before that, in both the Old and New Testaments, God’s elect are set apart by the death, by the blood of Christ.

    If Christ died in common for some sinners who are not elect, then it is not the blood of Christ which sanctifies. It is not special, and it does not do anything special. God forbid!

    Like

  330. Mark,

    I do not think the new covenant can be broken, or that one can be cut off from the new covenant, if that helps.

    Like

  331. thanks, Todd, that does help, especially the second part. (Kline says it’s unbreakable but that individuals can be broken from.) Sorry for so many questions, Todd.

    mark: is the blessing a “double-edged sword”, with possibly a greater curse for them than for those raised outside a “covenant” community?

    I think you would say yes to that, Todd. I can see how we can think of the gospel as a two-edged sword, not only as a means of life but also a “savor of death” to those who are perishing. But I don’t see that of water baptism. But then again, I am somebody with “Zwinglian” notions about the “efficacy to bless” of water baptism.

    So that leaves five questions, and you want me to pick one.

    Is God the God of those who are “cut off” from a covenant? (What does “be your God” mean?)

    Which covenant did the already circumcised people who refused John’s “baptism of repentance” get “cut off” from?

    Are those not circumcised not obligated to do the entire law?

    Do we think the “new covenant” is the same covenant as God made with Abraham?

    Should we deny that the covenant God made with Abraham had significance for Abraham that it never had for other people?

    —–
    ok, I pick #2. Which covenant did the already circumcised people who refused John’s baptism get “cut off” from?

    I pick it, not because it’s the most difficult, but because it’s the most interesting to me.

    I think of my teacher John Howard Yoder, the smartest man I ever met. He would never answer our questions. But he would take a long time to tell us what was wrong with the way we asked our questions. Lots of students got scared to ask too many questions!

    This question does come bearing assumptions.
    1. Though John Baptist did command repentance, no text says that any Jew got “cut off” for not doing what John said. And surely many Jews never heard John Baptist.
    2. So the simple answer seems to be that all the circumcised were in the Abrahamic and the Mosaic covenants. But it’s being suggested by Jeff (maybe also you) perhaps that the unrepentant were never really in the Abrahamic either. So that just leaves—–represented already in “the Adamic covenant”….

    Again, Todd, pick any one question you want and help. if you want me to, then I will just thank you with no follow-up. I hope you know that this is not me debating but thinking out loud. Thanks.

    Like

  332. Mark: Interesting. Would that mean that “cut off” means “never really in”?

    (windup) I view the Federal Vision as having followed Shepherd in making the visible into an absolute perspective. This is reflected in the Federal Vision statement: We further affirm that the visible Church is the true Church of Christ, and not an “approximate” Church.

    The anabaptists, meanwhile, make the visible and invisible into two completely unrelated perspectives. Either you’re in the invisible church, or you’re not in the church at all, and the visible church has nothing to do with it. This is why good anabaptists flout church membership.

    (Pitch) But in fact, there is truth — and the Church — as God sees it. And there is truth — and the Church — as we see it.

    We make observations, use inductive reasoning, use logic and arrive at model of The Way Things Really Are. People who run off the rails are usually those who either absolutize our models as reality (e..g, strict empiricists) or who drive a huge wedge between the models and the reality (e.g., postmodernists).

    But in fact, God gave us faculties for grasping reality imperfectly.

    The same is true with the Church. The true Church as God sees it (Calvin’s phrase) consists always and only of those with saving faith. That’s Rom 2.

    The Church as we see it consists of those who profess the faith, together with their children. Why children? Because God set it up that way in Gen 15 and 17.

    But leaving aside the children, if a person professes faith, he is attached in an outward, visible way to the New Covenant. He is given a title (Christian), a sign of attachment (baptism), and is under a government (church government). He is given access to the sacraments as a means of grace, which of course are efficacious only through faith.

    If he ceases to profess faith, he is broken off. If he repents and re-professes faith, he can be grafted back in.

    All of this happens at the outward, “as man sees it” level, which is real as-far-as-we-can-see. At the “as God sees it” level, he becomes a part of the church “for Really Real” when he possesses saving faith and is transferred from one kingdom to the other.

    The only difficulty is that Scripture sometimes speaks of the outward reality without obvious signal. This happens in the parable of the soils, or in John 15. The Arminians run off the rails by attributing these passages to “what God sees” instead of “what man sees”, corresponding to the empiricist above.

    Likewise, the Anabaptists run off the rails by pushing the visible reality too far away from the invisible (corresponding to the postmodernist above). The visible church is a strictly human institution for the anabaptist, possibly even corrupt and wicked, and there is no correlation between the visible and invisible realities.

    The Reformed person says that the visible church is our best approximation of the invisible church. We include our children only because God has commanded it so, and we infer from this that our children are likely elect (not necessary possessing faith at this time, but elect).

    Likewise, governmental decisions of the church (membership admission, excommunication) are imperfect flags of our best understanding of reality: We believe that you are likely a believer, or are likely an unbeliever.

    So “cut off” means “goes from in to out in the empirical perspective” or “declared not likely to be in from God’s perspective.”

    Like

  333. mark mcculley quoting RS: Perhaps it (covenant of grace, everlasting covenant) can bring confusion, but I have found that it brings clarity. It is the unifying covenant that makes sense of the whole Bible and God’s determination to glorify Himself. All the other covenants relate to it.

    mark: It brings false clarity. By ignoring the different covenant “cuts in history”, it fails to make the point about continuity it wants to make. Sometimes what’s simple can be clear but wrong.

    RS: I find it brings clarity because it is speaking of God’s eternal purpose which actually shines light on each covenant. If God has a bigger purpose for a particular covenant and that purpose is seen in light of the connection with the eternal covenant, then instead of bringing confusion it brings clarity.

    McMark: Remember that my quotation about confusion was from a paedo-baptist (David Gordon) who is working from the Vos-Kline side of things.

    RS: Yes, I did and do remember that.

    McMark: And of course I don’t know where you are on these issues, RS. When you say “the covenant of grace”, you might just mean “the gospel”, or you could mean “God’s decree of election”.

    RS: I think of the covenant of grace as the same thing as God’s eternal covenant that is carried out and revealed by the other covenants. It is the eternal covenant and the eternal purpose and plan of God that gives the covenants that He made with man their real meaning and purpose. This eternal purpose helps us to see God’s purpose in promising that the seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent. The seed of the woman can then be traced to Noah, then Abraham, and then all the way to Christ. But all of this goes back to His eternal purpose and plan which is then revealed differently in the other covenants.

    Like

  334. I’m still trying to figure out the significance of the discussion of baptism and covenants. I think Mark is going somewhere with it but I am not sure where yet. They must have gotten cut off from the New Covenant or the Gospel. Is the point that the Abrahamic covenant is not really the Gospel? What significance does that have for the Jews? Does it have ramifications for how we interpret Romans 11? If the Abrahamic or Sinai covenants are not the Gospel, what was the point of the covenants? I think Mark alluded that the purpose of the covenants were to preserve the land and produce the seed. The covenants then had no salvific qualities to them. The Jews, or anyone who lived before Christ’s death and resurrection, needed their sin forgiven and the imputed righteousness of Christ too. From my understanding many covenant theologians regard the Abrahamic covenant to be salvific. I think Mark is saying that none of the covenants are salvific. But I may be wrong.

    Like

  335. Mark: Is God the God of those who are “cut off” from a covenant? (What does “be your God” mean?)

    Todd: Well, yes, but not in a saving sense. When the Lord calls the children of Israel “my children” in Ezek 16:21, he does not necessarily mean they are his children in a saving sense, but that he had set them apart in circumcision as his – again, with special privileges and responsibilities beyond the pagan child outside the covenant community. We paedos believe the Lord maintains this relationship with the children of believer(s) in the NC also – God is a God to our children still. What it fully means only God knows, but we can see the pastoral heart of God for his cov. people who are non-elect with Cain, and with Jesus laying hands on the Israelite babies, and in Jesus weeping over Jerusalem.

    Mark: Which covenant did the already circumcised people who refused John’s “baptism of repentance” get “cut off” from?

    Todd: The non-believing Jews are guilty under the Adamic covenant and also their guilt is intensified by breaking the covenant between God and Israel.

    Mark: Are those not circumcised not obligated to do the entire law?

    Todd: Not sure what you mean, but the Gentiles were not obligated to keep the Mosaic law, but I may be missing your point.

    Mark: Do we think the “new covenant” is the same covenant as God made with Abraham?

    Todd: The cov with Abraham was the gospel (Gal 3:8), so, yes, but the new covenant is the fulfillment of the cov with Abraham.

    Mark: Should we deny that the covenant God made with Abraham had significance for Abraham that it never had for other people?

    Todd: What do you mean significance? The cov God made with Abraham was the gospel presented in picture – land and seed – fulfilled in Christ – church and New heavens and Earth.

    Mark: Though John Baptist did command repentance, no text says that any Jew got “cut off” for not doing what John said. And surely many Jews never heard John Baptist.

    Todd: Agreed – but their refusal to heed John is the outworking of Jeremiah 31:32 – the Law covenant which condemned them

    Mark: So the simple answer seems to be that all the circumcised were in the Abrahamic and the Mosaic covenants.

    Todd: Not to sound too Clintonesque, but it depends what you mean by “in.” If by in you mean receiving the saving benefits of the Abrahamic covenant, then no, if by in you mean set apart in the covenant community where the promises to Abraham were taught and pictured, then yes. The latter is what we mean by “in.”

    Like

  336. Thanks, Jeff. Lots for me to think about.

    1. You think in terms of balance and extremes. Not numbers. You think you are in the middle somwhere between anabaptists and the federal visionists not because the numbers are there with you in the middle, but because the logic takes you there. I get that.

    2. But how then do you explain federal visionists. Do you do the Zrim and repeat the mantra that FV is just doing anabaptism in reverse? I still don’t know what that soundbite means, and maybe one day Zrim will explain it to me. I know he’s saying: both wrong, but also he seems to be saying “wrong in the same way, wrong for the same reason.”

    To get to my question. Do you explain federal visionists as being caught in the same trap on “visibility” as the anabaptists, or do you explain the federal visionists as being stuck because they are being reflexively reactionary to anabaptism (remember James Jordon’s old collection on “The Failure of Baptist Culture”? Jordan also was doing the old give two extremes and put yourself in the middle paradigm. Gary North loved to do that.)

    By way of analogy, there are “covenant theologians” like David Gordon who are attempting a positive account of the continuity and discontinuity of the covenants. yes, they have a position, but they are trying not to define the position by anti-dispensationalism. (of course, you could say he is trying to define his position by anti-John Murrayism, but I don’t think so, and his comments at the end of his Murray essay are quite gracious). I have digressed. Maybe I am asking the impossible: if there were no anabaptist “other” and no “objective sacramental RC other”, then how would you talk about covenant and church?

    I need to stop for thinking. But 3. Think Roger Williams. Are you saying he is the most perfect anabaptist because he ended up only seeker? But a) This is not his decision alone. When the puritans came to america, they had been told by the other—we are the only game in town, and if you don’t like it, get out. But then, when these same folks were in power in New England, they said to Roger Williams—-there is no other place to go and be part of the one visible (and Reformed) church, so you can get out, indeed you must, but don’t think you can be the visible church out there the way we are here, and then Roger Williams went back to England and a lot of folks there took his side against the New England puritans, and I am sure you know the rest of the story…

    but b) You probably know that ‘the anabaptists” themselves had this same discussion between themselves. There were some “spiritualists” who said, now we are out, and the thing to do is to stay out of any visibility, and then there were the other anabaptists, the majority, the ones who won, who said, no, we want visibility, we need it, and the marks of the church cannot be only preaching and “sacrament by the ordained” but must also include discipline and for that we need leadership, well you can read the Schleithem Confession for yourself.

    So I guess I am saying if you have this ideal “the perfect anabaptist” in your mind, then you can come up to your next anabaptist and tell him, you are not acting like a good anabaptist is supposed to act. You can say, even though I am not an anabaptist, I know what a pacifist is supposed to do and to say, so why aren’t you doing and saying what I think you should do?

    So i would deconstruct the difference between you assume between your “perfect anabaptist” and your “perfect Reformed covenantalist”. And one way to do that is to ask–who is this perfect Reformed guy who “gets it” about visibility? The federal visionists think they are the perfect type to avoid any hint or vestige of anabaptism. But then some of you guys start talking about the phenomenology of being “cut off” in a way that sounds way too subjective for the federal visionists. I mean, they might think you are “really” pietists and baptists at heart….

    Thanks so much, Jeff. I mean it.

    Like

  337. Jeff, I do appreciate your remarks. If I reacted by thinking you wanted to position me somewhere beside Roger Williams and ignore the difference between spiritualist and anabaptist, I don’t want to react by positioning you somewhere near James Jordan. Sorry if I did that.

    I like how you bracket the infant baptism thing (“God set it up that way in Gen 17), because believe it or not, my ultimate concern is not about water baptism either but about the nature of the visible church. I think one of the unexamined differences here is the idea of one universal visible church. (Most of us agree that there’s one “invisible church”, that is, the ecclesia which will be gathered only on that last day (Hebrews 11:39-40)

    Indeed, you don’t have to be paedobaptist to talk one universal church, but Dallas dispies when they talk one church are talking “invisible church”. This is why the conversation Zrim and are/were having about the Roman sacrament preaching gospel and being part of the “one visible church” (even though the RCC church is not) is more important than it may seem.

    If you want this “one visible church” , then you might find “the one covenant” useful, and then you might find it useful to do more than say that the new covenant fulfills the Abrahamic covenant. You might, Zwingli thought, as he was doing Bible study with people who became anabaptists, you might want to say that the new covenant IS the Abrahamic covenant, and then from there you can keep your infants in “the covenant”.

    Yes, we don’t deny that regeneration or the imputed righteousness of Christ (one or the other, not both, in Colossians 2) is the true fulfillment of circumcison, because it was all along, there was only one gospel, but not denying that, why not also say that baptism always means water done with hands, and having said that, why not say also that water baptism fulfills the circumcision, not denying of course that “the circumcision of Christ” did that, but let’s focus on one sign being the type of another sign, and not only that, let’s say that the two signs signify the same thing, really, except for details (like before Christ has come and after) and then you get back to one sign, one church, one covenant.

    And it gets a big tricky there for a little bit, because you got some already circumcised people saying, one sign and we already have it, but after a while things get straight again, because in a generation you have children who never got the circumcision, and then they get the same sign, except now it’s water baptism. And yes, some small changes are indeed involved, seventh day to first day, and the land is not local anymore but the entire earth, and some ethnic folks were never really in the first place and they get seen now as having never been in, but for all that, no biggie, nothing goes off the rails, one church…..

    It would be wrong to say anabaptists are perfectionist when it comes to ecclesiology. But neither are we agnostics (ecclesial antinomianism). It’s one thing to say that the empire and its military industrial complex is not your home and never was your home, but it would be quite another thing to say there is no visible congregation good enough for you, and yet another thing to say that the only visible congregations good enough for you have to be paedobaptist.

    There are plenty of credobaptists stuck in paedobaptist congregations because they can’t take one more Fanny Crosby tune, and also hopefully, because they are hearing gospel. But I know some paedobaptists also stuck in credobaptist congregations (that don’t sing Fanny Crosby, that do have gospel), because they are not perfectionists and because they are too tired to evangelise native americans (Roger Williams).

    It’s not a case of reading “perfect church” inductively from what God’s providence has granted us at the moment. It’s just ordinary “one step in front of another”. Take no thought for tomorrow, which has its own trouble. It’s not “inner exile”. It’s not “interior immigration”. It’s not “I can’t wait for Jesus to come, I want it now.” Leonard Cohen: there’s a crack in it, that’s how the light gets through.

    And it’s already not gray, if we have been called by the gospel, our only hope.

    Like

  338. Thanks, Todd, just a very quick follow-up.

    Todd: Not sure what you mean, but the Gentiles were not obligated to keep the Mosaic law, but I may be missing your point.

    mark: no, you are not missing the point. This is very much part of my point. We have to ask which law, and to do that, we have to ask which covenant. And paedobaptists have to ask the question (or should ask it) just as much as credobaptists do.

    Of course, there is Bahnsen’s argument from the prophets that gentiles are bound by the Mosaic economy. But let’s just plain ignore that for now. We can’t just say “the law’. Now, we can “moral law or ceremonial law” and then ask which is which and answer, well the ceremonial is the part which is not moral and the moral is the part which is not ceremonial, and sometime we are going to have to ask: which law, which covenant. Hebrews: change of covenant, change of law. Not change of gospel.

    Mark: Do we think the “new covenant” is the same covenant as God made with Abraham?

    Todd: The cov with Abraham was the gospel (Gal 3:8), so, yes, but the new covenant is the fulfillment of the cov with Abraham.

    mark: Have you seen those politicians answer questions by answering a different question? Not that there’s anything wrong with that! I certainly agree that the new covenant is the fulfillment of the covenant God had with Abraham. And I certainly agree that there’s one gospel, and that it was preached to Abraham. It does not clarify but confuses to say that the gospel is the covenant. The covenant has a promise about gospel, yes. But Abraham had two sons…but you know Galatians as well as I do.

    The son of the bonds-woman was never really in the Abrahamic covenant? I think that’s an unlikely revisionist reading of Galatians, and also of Genesis. I certainly don’t think that’s what Paul is saying or needed to say.

    Like

  339. Mark,

    I may be answering a different question because yours is not clear to me. It may be the weakness of on-line discussion, but if you could make your questions more specific and clear it would be easier answering them.

    “The son of the bonds-woman was never really in the Abrahamic covenant?”

    You need to explain this. What do you mean that Ishmael was in the Abrahamic covenant?

    Like

  340. Ted

    If you’re still reading this thread: you said, “Ted, Then you don’t consider the cov. of grace to be one?”
    Nope. And neither do you. If you do, you make the New Covenant either equal to the CoG, or you make it a subset of it.

    That depends. The P&r don’t thinks so. Baptists obviously do.

    Either way, in the NC “all know the Lord and ALL have their sins forgiven.” But since you won’t allow that to be true for those allegedly brought into the covenant by baptism, you end up denying both the CoG and the NC.

    Those who are brought in in the sense you speak, confess. Yet circumcision/baptism brings the seed of believers into the external administration of the covenant with its priviledges of nurture in the Lord and hearing the gospel.

    Ask yourself this: when a male was circumcised in the AC or Mosaic Cov’t, was he in the covenant? Yes or no?

    Again, yes, he was in the covenant externally – or if you prefer the external covenant or the external administration of the covenant.

    IOW since Romans considers Abraham to be elect/saved/in the covenant and circumcision was the token or sign of the covenant and that applied to all Abraham’s seed, so too baptism in the New Testamant/new covenant. It’s the same covenant in essence, different administrations/dispensations.

    Or WCF 7 of God’s Covenant with Man, Paragraphs 5,6 again, but in toto:

    V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel:
    under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come: which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called, the Old Testament.

    VI. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory [NB. which incidentally is why it is the NEW Covenant]; yet, in them, it is held forth in more fulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament.
    There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.

    Thank you.

    Like

  341. which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory; yet, in them, it is held forth in more fulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy [NB. which incidentally is why it is the NEW Covenant]

    Correction to previous post. (Man this fallible private judgment thing is a real drag. I wonder if they ever have that problem over at CtC?)

    Like

  342. Mark:

    1. You think in terms of balance and extremes. Not numbers. You think you are in the middle somwhere between anabaptists and the federal visionists not because the numbers are there with you in the middle, but because the logic takes you there.

    You’re mostly right — I did structure the argument that way. The funny thing is, I don’t actually think of it as “extreme here, extreme there, so hit the middle.”

    Instead, I think of it as “here’s the true doctrine, and a couple of examples of distortions of it.”

    So yes: the logic takes me there. And actually, it’s Jesus’ logic that takes me there. We have teachers. Are they shepherds or wolves? Check the fruit to know the root.

    We have people responding to the gospel. What kind of soil are they? Watch for perseverance.

    We have wheat and we have tares. Which are which? God sorts them out at the judgment.

    So already, we are alerted to the fact that there is an ontological reality (‘as God sees it’) and an empirical reality (‘as we see it’), and the first is ‘more real’ than the second, but the second is not an illusion — which would be Gnostic.

    Then it’s just a matter of applying that broad principle to the Church.

    Mark: Do you explain federal visionists as being caught in the same trap on “visibility” as the anabaptists, or do you explain the federal visionists as being stuck because they are being reflexively reactionary to anabaptism?

    Very interesting question. I’d say mostly reactionary against, as an uninteresting answer. I had a longer one, but it asked if I could pretty please erase it.

    Mark: … believe it or not, my ultimate concern is not about water baptism either but about the nature of the visible church.

    YEEESSS, exactly. Chapter 3 of Murray’s book is excellent on that point, and it was the turning point for me on the question of baptism.

    Here’s something to think about. How is it that Paul says to the Galatians, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace”?

    I might be being too oblique here.

    Mark: And it gets a big tricky there for a little bit, because you got some already circumcised people saying, one sign and we already have it, but after a while things get straight again, because in a generation you have children who never got the circumcision, and then they get the same sign, except now it’s water baptism…

    Actually, the two-sign problem makes sense in terms of redemptive history. Circumcision, of course, symbolized cleanness. But not just the fact of cleanness (God circumcises the heart by faith), but also the cleanness of Abraham’s future seed, Jesus (Gal 3.16). Male procreative organ, uncleanness removed, seed will be clean.

    Baptism, OTOH, symbolizes not only cleanness (God washes away sins by faith) but also the fulfillment of the promise. For baptism symbolizes the outpouring of the Spirit, who was promised to God’s people by the prophets.

    So it makes sense to baptize the circumcised as a way of saying, “Promise kept.”

    Like

  343. Tell me, you who think that the Abrahamic covenant is the new covenant, do you not listen to the laws of the Abrahamic covenant? Ishmael was one of Abraham’s son but not in Abraham’s covenant? Was he in and then out? Or was he never “really” (ontologically, as God sees it but we can’t) in it? If he was never “really” in, does that mean that Engelsma and the Protestant Reformed are correct to say that there are no conditions in “the covenant”?

    Galatians 4: 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

    “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear;
    break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor!
    For the children of the desolate one will be more
    than those of the one who has a husband.”
    28 Now YOU , BROTHERS, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.”

    mark: but how could Paul know that they were brothers? God knows, but we don’t know with infallibable certainty If you have read the chapters in Galatians that come before this, we know why Paul thinks they are brothers. It’s not because of some unique apostolic or prophetic knowledge. Rather, Paul appeals to them on the basis of their experience of receiving “the blessing of Abraham”, the gift of the Holy Spirit. Paul does not appeal to them because their circumcision proves that they were (at least at one time) in the Abrahamic covenant.

    Like

  344. Mark: Ishmael never “in” ontologically (else, he would have stayed in), but “in” epistemically for a time.

    And, his “being in” in the external sense conveyed some benefit — albeit external only — that set him apart from generic Gentiles.

    Like

  345. thanks, again, Jeff, for the interaction. You wrote:
    We have teachers. Are they shepherds or wolves? Check the fruit to know the root.
    We have people responding to the gospel. What kind of soil are they? Watch for perseverance.
    We have wheat and we have tares. Which are which? God sorts them out at the judgment.

    mark: I am wondering why you think these points speak to my concerns about covenants and “one universal visible catholic church”. Do you think there’s something uniquely “Reformed” about them, and that anabaptists wouldn’t have the same concerns about discernment and making judgments? Did you read what I wrote about the contest between the “spiritualists” and the much bigger majority of Anabaptists who wanted discipline, leadership, and visibility?

    Are you still trying to put all Anabaptists in the box you want them in, which seems to be some kind of “perfectionist individualism”? If you know the Amish, individualism is not the word you think of. Instead, they have “legalistic” visibility.

    If anything, it’s Reformed folks who don’t want to check fruit (which includes doctrine, fruit cannot be discerned apart from gospel doctrine, because there are “dead works”). Indeed, one of your key arguments for infant inclusion (in “the covenant”, or “the external covenant”) is that we can’t know, even though you do fence the table against infant members, and then open the table to them, based on a discernment process not inherently different from what credobaptists do. (Of course, you can always appeal to your past and say, well in the baptist church I was raised in they were all into emotion and walking the aisle, therefore all credobaptist churches are like that, and no paedobaptist churches ever did the revivalism thing.)

    So why would you think credobaptists don’t care about perseverance in the gospel? I do need to say here what I have said before about historical anabaptists, that none of them had the gospel, so of course none of them persevered in the gospel. Mormons persevere in Mormonism, Romanists continue in Romanism, but if the gospel is not the object of faith, it matters not, even if their children are better behaved than yours. I feel sure we agree about that.

    My point is to ask why you would assume that credobaptists who do believe the gospel (a category I think you would agree is not an empty set) are somehow supposed to be so perfectionist that they don’t bother with institutions and judgment? My guess is that you are using the label “anabaptism” as a general category for everything you don’t like about the way evangelicals do church. But historic anabaptists were never against confessions, denominations, or institutions. So maybe this is simply a problem in labeling, in semantics. But if you introduce a distinction between evangelicals and credobaptists who are confessional about the gospel, that will get in the way of the “we are in the moderate middle” self-concept.

    To be fair, to give you credit, Jeff, your third point above does get to a difference between credobaptists and the Reformed. When you say “we'” are wheat and tares, Tonto always asks: who is the we? The Bible text itself says that the field is the world, not the church. When Augustine misused the text against the Donatists, he not only denied the right of the church to make judgments and discriminate between professions, but also aligned himself with the world (the earthly city) in the interests of keeping the whole world in the one church. And Calvin and Luther did much the same, to the extent they made preaching and sacraments the only marks of the church, and did not do discipline (except by the authority of the magistrate, thus magisterial reformers). Luther called this “gradualism”, being “pastoral”, this making do with “what has come about with the passing of time”. (Otherwise, Luther warned, we will be left without enough Christians!)

    Now, I know that my summary is way too simple to be fair about Geneva, and I am very interested in the influences on Calvin when he writes about discipline. But my point is that there is a debate between the puritan side of the Reformed and those like you who want to say, well we try to know but we can’t know perfectly, so God sorts it out in the end. Well, we all agree that only God infallibly judges in the end, but some of us (credobaptists included) do not think that rules out discipline in visible churches. Except where you fence the table from infants, we with-hold water baptism from them.

    Like

  346. Jeff: How is it that Paul says to the Galatians, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace”? I might be being too oblique here.

    mark: yep, need more help here. I have the same problem myself. I tend to speak in short-hand, a couple of words which signal to me lots of stuff, but the problem is other folks don’t understand what I am saying. Sorry, Todd. But if you have time, yes, Jeff, could you explain your argument here, and also how it plays into your larger thesis. Thanks.

    Jeff: Actually, the two-sign problem makes sense in terms of redemptive history. Circumcision, of course, symbolized cleanness.

    mark: The more we talk about RH the better I like it. Not that I don’t want to talk about “order of salvation’, (see me jump on those “union” threads) but when we are talking covenants, it’s just not helpful to reduce it down and say “well, it’s all gospel”. I think you agree. Of course there is the question about if the Lord’s Supper is the sign of the new covenant, or if it’s water baptism, or if it’s both.

    But more importantly (to me) is a denial, an antithesis. Here it is—circumcision did not symbolize water baptism. Colossians 2 teaches that circumcision symbolizes (among other things) “the circumcision of Christ”. But many (not all) paedobaptists read Col 2 as if it were saying that one sign signified the other sign.

    One side comment here, which I have talked about before. There is no question that Romans 2 speaks of circumcision as being about regeneration (as do many texts in the OT). But there is an exegetical discussion to be had about what it means in the Colossian 2 context. I think it has to do with federal identity with Christ’s death in order to be cut off from the “body of death” (those guilty in Adam). But again, this is not a credobaptist vs paedobaptist debate, because many credos think it is about regeneration, and the commentators who push for a reference to Christ’s death are more often paedobaptists than not. And in any case, be it “cleaness” or Christ’s death, the point is that it’s not water baptism which is the antitype, the fulfillment…

    Jeff: But not just the fact of cleanness (God circumcises the heart by faith), but also the cleanness of Abraham’s future seed, Jesus (Gal 3.16). Male procreative organ, uncleanness removed, seed will be clean. Baptism, OTOH, symbolizes not only cleanness (God washes away sins by faith) but also the fulfillment of the promise. For baptism symbolizes the outpouring of the Spirit, who was promised to God’s people by the prophets.

    mark: I don’t have a big problem with any of that, except I would never want to leave out reference to identification with Christ’s death. I don’t think there’s water in Romans 6, but I do think water baptism is a symbol of the legal reality of Romans 6, which is not about the Spirit but about union with Christ by means of Christ’s death as “justification from sin”.

    But the question about the meaning of the water symbol is not the issue here. Rather– is circumcision a sign pointing to another sign, which is water? I say no. Col 2 teaches that circumcision points to the circumcision of Christ. (And I assume, as I think you do also, that this is not talking about Christ’s literal 8th day circumcision.)

    Jeff: So it makes sense to baptize the circumcised as a way of saying, “Promise kept.”

    mark: Well, I don’t want to run around saying that people on the other side don’t “make any sense.” Sure, Zwingli’s solution (we don’t want baptismal regeneration so how then do we argue for infant baptism) has a logic to it, you can make it sound simple. But the simple idea that water baptism replaces circumcision, or that circumcision points to water baptism, is simply a bad idea, one that is not biblical.

    I do like that “promise kept”. No matter what we say about the circumcised sons of the bondswoman being “really” in the covenant or not, Abraham was really their father, and the sign of circumcision in them was saying “promise to Abraham kept!”. We can say that, without agreeing about the nature of the promise to all the heirs of Abraham.

    And also, we can say that circumcision was FOR ABRAHAM a seal of the righteousness Abraham had, no matter if we disagree about which heirs of Abraham are promised something about that righteousness. Even for those who were not children of Abraham, the righteousness is for them and when they believe the gospel, they become children of Abraham.

    Which btw is why you can’t have your cake and eat it. You can’t say, on the one hand, nobody knows who the righteousness is for, and so it’s an objective sign. And then, on the other hand, even though we don’t know who it’s for, we are not going to give the sign to all sinners, but only to our children, not to as many as the Lord calls, but all of them.

    And then as Hodge said, if they want to erase their names from the book, that’s on them.

    Like

  347. famous neo-Cal Richard Mouw, “Learning from Dutch Calvinist Splits”, p154—“Calvinist thinkers have been eager to portray Anabaptist thought and practice as unworthy of serious theological engagement, but Belke’s careful study (Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals) shows that Calvin’s own frustrations with with anabaptists had to do with the fact that the anabaptists ‘out-Calvinisted’ the Reformed community on at least two important points.

    Mouw: “The first was church discipline. The Calvinists were very critical of the Lutherans and the Catholics for their lack of attention to the role of discipline in the Christian community. The anabaptists, however, took discipline even further than the Calvinists. The Calvinists responded by calling the Anabaptists perfectionist.”
    from The Challenge of Cultural Discipleship, Eerdmans, 2012

    Herman Hoeksema: “And all that opposed them and refused to believe and proclaim this theory of common grace, they proudly and disdainfully branded as Anabaptist.”, p16, The Protestant Reformed Churches in America (1936)

    Like

  348. Hi again Bob S – you are the man – funny comments –

    I asked you: Ask yourself this: when a male was circumcised in the AC or Mosaic Cov’t, was he in the covenant? Yes or no?

    You answered, “Again, yes, he was in the covenant externally – or if you prefer the external covenant or the external administration of the covenant.”

    Where does Abraham, Moses, or God ever speak of an external/internal attribute in the administration of their covenants?

    Look instead at what is said:

    “A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. “But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.””

    One is either in or out of the covenant based on circumcision. So simple even i can understand it.

    When is a new-born male a covenant member in the Mosaic covenant? Lev. 12:1-8 shows that once he is circumcised on the 8th day an offering is to be made for him 33 days later. Thus Jesus was placed into the Mosaic cov’t on either the 8th day after birth. Before that date he was outside the Mosaic Cov’t. From that day forward he was in the Mosaic Cov’t. (in fact, praise God, He fulfilled it!).

    Covenant members could walk away from the LORD and the Cov’t, but they were never “externally attached” to it. They were either in it, or out of it.

    If you take a step back and look at the forest for a moment, you might notice that never does Scripture speak of any “external/internal” covenant stuff. Not once in the OT, not once in the NT. You are either in, or you’re out.

    In the New Covenant, you either “know the Lord” and are regenerated, or you aren’t. So when you write about external administration, I can’t connect it with anything in Scripture.

    And if I’m right about this, then do you really want to believe something that has no basis in Scripture? Your soul is too precious for that.

    Like

  349. Mark,

    I would value your input on my questions about Romans 11, David. And also about my questions about what it means for those in the Mosaic (and Abrahamic) covenants to be “cut off”. If in fact those who disobeyed the old covenants were then cursed by those old covenants, it seems that they did not in fact ever “get out of” those covenants.

    Thanks for the chance to think this through, and sorry for the delay. I haven’t had a chance to read all the comments related to this, and I wish I could keep up with all the frequent posters, but oh well….

    Anyway, here’s how I would answer your question (assuming I understand it):

    The olive tree represents the unfolding of the Abrahamic promise over the course of its two historical administrations, namely, the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant. The emphasis in Romans 11 is on historical continuity (i.e., grace administered along family lines), but I will try to describe some of the areas of discontinuity since I think this gets to the crux of the issue concerning your questions.

    One aspect of discontinuity is that (unlike the NC) the MC is not soteriological except in terms of its typological connection to the NC. Abstracted from its fulfillment, the MC is a law covenant (not gospel) contracted with national Israel (not with the elect), promising temporal prosperity (not eternal blessedness) contingent on obedience (theirs, not that of a Mediator), and threatening temporal curses in case of transgression.

    This leads to another aspect of discontinuity, namely that unlike the NC, a profession of faith is not required for inclusion in the MC, rather, the only requirement is Israelite parentage. (For this reason, there is no need for a visible/invisible distinction with respect to inclusion in the MC.) Of course being included was no guarantee of blessedness since, in the event of national disobedience, you would fall under the covenant curses and suffer such things as plague, famine, military defeat, exile, etc.

    However, only the elect remnant could see through to what the MC typified, that is, the promise of Christ and the heavenly inheritance, and only they appropriated it by faith, and were thus included in the NC “before the time.” (The label “covenant of grace” is necessary as a way of labeling this “intrusion” of the NC back into earlier periods of redemptive history. Though I do sympathize with T.D. Gordon’s reaction against those who abuse the concept and erroneously flatten redemptive history.)

    With the redemptive-historical transition from Moses to Christ, the “natural branches are broken off” (i.e, all those Israelites who had been “in” by virtue of the MC, but could not remain “in” under the terms of the NC because they lacked a credible profession of faith).

    Does this help any? I’m sure this could have been said better and with more nuance, and I’m certainly open to correction by any of the professional theologians here (and the amateurs too).

    Like

  350. Thanks, David R, for getting back to this. I also appreciate the opportunity to think through the details again. I do appreciate your focus on discontinuity, but of course that won’t distract me from your presumption that the genealogical principle continues.

    You wrote: “The olive tree represents the unfolding of the Abrahamic promise over the course of its two historical administrations, namely, the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant.”

    mark: 1. I object to the idea that these two (later) covenants are “administrations” of some other covenant, whether you call that other covenant “the Abrahamic covenant” or “the covenant of grace”. To me, that simply begs the question and assumes continuity about the genealogical principle.
    In this construct, sure there is discontinuity, hence “administrations” but the continuity is presumed more basic.

    2. This is not (only) a “biblicist” response to terminology. From the Galatians 4 text, we can agree that Abraham is father not only of the circumcised who believe the gospel (and of the uncircumcised who believe the gospel) but also father of the circumcised who don’t believe the gospel. This difference in types of fatherhood goes to the question of discontinuity between covenants.

    3. Yes, there is only one gospel, and there is only one elect “remnant” (the group left). But it’s for this very reason we cannot equate election and Abrahamic covenant, but we can equate election and the new covenant. (Not all the elect are in the new covenant yet, but they will be, and none of the non-elect are.) And sure, I have just begged the question myself, but that’s my point—your way of saying it assumes that because election and Abrahamic covenant are different, then election and new covenant are different.

    4. Why say the olive tree represents THE PROMISE OF the Abrahamic covenant? a. Which promise would that be? The promise of the Holy Spirit, so that nations of all languages are blessed by the gospel of the Seed? Or is it the genealogical promise to Abraham? I am saying you can’t assume that both these promises are one promise, and at the least, you need to be specific about what the promise is.

    5. Why not say instead that the root, the olive tree, represents the Abrahamic covenant itself? Why isolate one promise from that covenant and then explain this promise as being “administered” in two other covenants? My suggestion is that you want to acknowledge discontinuities without giving up Zwingli’s system, otherwise your ecclesiology is going to get zapped.

    And of course you could say the same back—I want to give lip-service to the continuity of the gospel, but the vestiges of “dispensationalism” are so deep in me that…and so on.

    You wrote: (The label “covenant of grace” is necessary as a way of labeling this “intrusion” of the NC back into earlier periods of redemptive history. Though I do sympathize with T.D. Gordon’s reaction against those who abuse the concept and erroneously flatten redemptive history.)

    mark: I appreciate the Klinean nuances of that word “intrusion”. Of course, as I have shown, Kline himself tends to use the word “intrusion” for the demands, the conditions, the covenant curses, the present-already judgments. But of course, you are not bound to kline’s emphasis, and why should you not speak of “intrusions” into the past by an unconditional grace founded on the completed covenant work of Jesus Christ?

    But does reading the Abrahamic covenant from the perspective of the new justify calling that Abrahamic covenant “part of the one covenant of grace”, and thus keeping the genealogical principle and its demand today, because hey, guess what, the new covenant also is an “administration” of “the one covenant of grace”?

    David, though you yourself didn’t say “the covenant of grace”, you got the same effect by talking about the “one promise differently administered”. And then you conclude that the expression is “necessary”. Well, maybe this ahistorical “the covenant of grace” concept is necessary if you want to keep Zwingli’s argument for infant baptism, but David Gordon does not think so. Gordon is no credobaptist, despite the bad things Gentry and Leithart say about his RH focus.

    To be clear, Gordon is not only worried about the “abuse” of the concept. He is saying that the concept itself leads to confusion. It replaces the biblical data about covenants with something else which is not there, and thus causes folks to miss what is there. And I guess you disagree with him,
    but I think you can say everything you want to say about continuity without saying “the one covenant” or “the promise”.

    Thanks again, David!

    Like

  351. Mark,

    mark: 1. I object to the idea that these two (later) covenants are “administrations” of some other covenant, whether you call that other covenant “the Abrahamic covenant” or “the covenant of grace”. To me, that simply begs the question and assumes continuity about the genealogical principle..

    True, I didn’t argue the point so much as call it the way I see it.

    From the Galatians 4 text, we can agree that Abraham is father not only of the circumcised who believe the gospel (and of the uncircumcised who believe the gospel) but also father of the circumcised who don’t believe the gospel. This difference in types of fatherhood goes to the question of discontinuity between covenants.

    If you’re talking about discontinuity between the MC and the NC, I’m not sure how this argues for discontinuity, since there are circumcised believers under both of those covenants (and unbelievers too in my view, though not in yours I suppose) so you would have to acknowledge at least that much continuity.

    Why say the olive tree represents THE PROMISE OF the Abrahamic covenant? a. Which promise would that be? The promise of the Holy Spirit, so that nations of all languages are blessed by the gospel of the Seed? Or is it the genealogical promise to Abraham? I am saying you can’t assume that both these promises are one promise, and at the least, you need to be specific about what the promise is.

    I didn’t specify because the Romans 11 context is clearly about the gospel promise. Of course prior to the NC era, all of Abe’s seed were heirs of the genealogical promise (though not all were heirs of the spiritual promise).

    And then you conclude that the expression [“covenant of grace”] is “necessary”.

    The reason I think it is necessary is that the Mosaic Covenant in and of itself does not distinguish between believers and unbelievers. But do we really want to say that Saul and David were in covenant with God in the same way (assuming the latter was a believer and the former wasn’t)? Perhaps you would just want to say that David, unlike Saul, was in the New Covenant. But the NC doesn’t begin till the death of Christ, so there was no New Covenant. So we have to speak of an intrusion of the NC back into redemptive history (I believe Kline spoke of the intrusion of blessing as well as judgment, but I’ll have to check to be sure) to which OT saints could connect through the types and shadows. And once we do that I think we’re speaking of a transcendent covenant of grace.

    Not sure if this helps or muddies…

    Like

  352. David R: True, I didn’t argue the point so much as call it the way I see it.

    mark: Thanks. The way I see it is that you want to talk about the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant, but you don’t want to talk about the Abrahamic covenant. Fair enough that Romans 11 doesn’t use the “covenant” word. (It’s interesting to me that there are only ten references to the word “covenant” in all of Paul’s letter. But then again, he didn’t have the advantages of covenant theology.)

    You will point to the discontinuity between the Mosaic and the new, and I assume (with David Gordon) you would also point to the discontinuity between the Abrahamic and the Mosaic, but the one thing you don’t want to talk about is the discontinuity between the Abrahamic and the new. Even if you don’t simply equate the Abrahamic and the new, you equate “the one promise of the Abrahamic covenant” with the new covenant, ignoring the other promises of the AC. So when you talk discontinuity, you talk Moses, not Abraham. At least that’s the way it seems as I see it.

    Now one question we could think about (together) is in what sense are those who are in the Abrahamic covenant (before Christ came and finished the work) and who DO believe the gospel are also at the same time, as soon as they are justified, “in the new covenant”. Theologically, I don’t think I have a problem with that “before the time” of yours.

    For example, I think it’s not only possible but necessary to say that Abraham was justified (not only in his conscience) by God’s imputation of Christ’s righteousness “before the time” that Christ had brought in that righteousness. I reject “eternal justification” (not the decree to justify) and also the idea that all the elect were justified at one time at the cross, so that the reconciliation accomplished is received by imputation at that time. I reject those ideas as being unbiblical. So in principle it seems I should have no objection to thinking that the elect remnant in the Abrahamic covenant are also in the new covenant “before the time”. But I really can’t make much sense of that given the future emphasis of texts like Jeremiah 31 (in those days I will).

    Order of salvation “before the time”, yes. Paul was “in Christ” after some other folks were “in Christ”, Romans 16. But redemptive history, two covenants at once, or one ahistorical “covenant” transcending all the other covenants, no. (But again, I don’t object to a historical, before the ages decree, the “covenant of redemption” idea, but I don’t understand just now how to conflate that (biblically or even systematically) with “the new covenant”. Maybe you can help me with that!

    David R: If you’re talking about discontinuity between the MC and the NC, I’m not sure how this argues for discontinuity, since there are circumcised believers under both of those covenants (and unbelievers too in my view, though not in yours I suppose) so you would have to acknowledge at least that much continuity.

    mark: 1. Again, I want you to also to be talking about the AC, there are circumcised believers in the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 17, not all of them for sure, but some of the circumcised believe the gospel)
    2. Of course I think there are unbelievers in the Mosaic and in the Abrahamic covenants! That’s a big part of my point. The final point is that the new covenant is NOT LIKE the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants. But the first point is for us not to forget that there are unbelievers in both the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants, and not simply because of our lack of infallible discernment. There are unbelievers in those two old covenants by design, because of the temporary genealogical principle of those two covenants. But of course you don’t think that principle is temporary because you think it carries over to the new covenant.

    This is pretty basic, David. I hope you at least understand what I am saying here (not looking for agreement). OF COURSE I am saying that there are unbelievers in the two old covenants, that they were supposed to be. And now I remember that you didn’t have time to look at all the posts in this thread, because I raised the question about “cut off”—were they in first then out or never “really in”?

    And of course I got several different answers from paedobaptists, with some more like Kline (two edged sword) and others using an “external/internal” distinction and others saying “well there’s one gospel and thus one covenant”, etc

    But to get back to your point above, which is about me acknowledging the presence of circumcised believers in the new covenant, after Jesus has risen, finished the work, and you are not talking about the old believers in “before the time”, but about that first generation of circumcised believers “not cut off from the root” because indeed they do believe the gospel and are now alive to see the Seed and the new covenant enacted.

    Sure, there is the one generation. But
    1. Even they were commanded ( I think) to be water baptized. The old sign of the old covenant is not good enough. They have the old sign. Yes, it signifies the gospel (plus some other promises to Abraham). But the new sign is commanded also. The old sign didn’t point to the new sign.
    2. It’s only one generation. And I disagree with Doug Wilson’s account (have you read Unto a Thousand Generations?) about the continuing significance of circumcision for anybody, even the believers who are also the physical seed of Abraham.

    Circumcision? Doesn’t matter. Uncircumcision? It doesn’t matter either.

    And then Paul warns the Galatians—if you let yourself be circumcised, Christ will be of no profit to you….

    Surely he meant— if you let yourself be circumcised for that reason, Christ will be of no….

    Like

  353. 1 Corinthians 7:18 Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision.

    1 Corinthians 7:19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.

    Galatians 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.

    Galatians 5:2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.

    Galatians 5:3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.

    Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

    Galatians 5:11 But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed.

    Galatians 6:15
    For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

    Like

  354. Mark,

    You will point to the discontinuity between the Mosaic and the new, and I assume (with David Gordon) you would also point to the discontinuity between the Abrahamic and the Mosaic, but the one thing you don’t want to talk about is the discontinuity between the Abrahamic and the new. Even if you don’t simply equate the Abrahamic and the new, you equate “the one promise of the Abrahamic covenant” with the new covenant, ignoring the other promises of the AC. So when you talk discontinuity, you talk Moses, not Abraham. At least that’s the way it seems as I see it.

    Wish I had more time for this, but I’m trying to keep up…. I’m not sure what you mean by “other promises” of the AC. The AC is essentially a promise that Abe and his descendants would be heirs of the (eschatological) world, no? Abraham is the root by virtue of whom natural branches spring forth, some of whom will eventually be broken off for their unbelief (e.g., Ishmael, Esau, and eventually the entire Israelite nation with the exception of the faith-professing remnant) and others of whom will remain by faith. When wild branches are grafted in, each graft becomes a new “root,” as it were, bringing forth more new branches, some of which will be broken off while others remain by faith.

    The AC is essentially the gospel covenant “before the time,” which Abe (as well as his believing progeny) entered into by faith and was justified. Would you agree? Perhaps you want to say that Abe’s reprobate descendants, since they enjoyed temporal blessings, were also included. But Ishmael and Esau were among those who enjoyed that privilege, yet ultimately they were excluded. And in fact the entire nation of Israel, for all of its privileges, was also ultimately excluded (except for the remnant).

    But the issue of covenant inclusion isn’t really determined by whether or not one acknowledges a covenant of grace (i.e., inclusion in the NT “before the time”), is it? Since even the London Baptist Confession acknowledges that.

    Like

  355. David R and McMark,

    This may be far too simple and already hashed out in this discussion, I’ve tried to follow it fairly unsuccessfully, but has it already been argued that the AC was still in effect during the mosaic admin(remnant are saved truly) as a substratum, if you will, running underneath the typological mosaic administration? So, we have an overarching COG, since the fall, but then a typological administration whose ‘working principle’ is works(not of faith)-the Mosaic, that has the AC as a substratum of it(mosaic) so that the AC though eclipsed by the mosaic as an visible administration until the NC was nonetheless operative and now realized in the NC? It’s entirely possible that I’ve missed the ‘boat’ on this discussion but there it is.

    Like

  356. Thanks again, David R. I don’t have a lot of time now either, so I will try not to stretch this out.

    David: The AC is essentially the gospel covenant “before the time,” which Abe (as well as his believing progeny) entered into by faith and was justified.

    mark: Not to repeat what I have written, or even to refer you back to specific posts, but no. I agree with David Gordon (and many others) that once you say “the gospel covenant” and you want to include in that concept all the biblical covenants, thus “flattening them out” and ignoring the differences for the sake of what you have already decided is “essential”, then you are going to miss the significance of redemptive-history. The children of Abraham had two mothers, and thus there were many who entered that covenant by birth only and not by faith.

    To be specific, if the Abrahamic covenant is an objective promise to anybody that –if and when they believe the gospel— they will be saved by the righteousness of Christ, then what shall we say about the “genealogical principle”? Is that principle temporary and no more in force now that the promise to Abraham that he (Abraham, not us) would have many children and that one of those children would be the Redeemer, now that this promise has been fulfilled, and Christ has been circumcised on day eight, died for our sins and raised for our justification?

    If that genealogical principle is not temporary but continues until there is no more marriage and family, then how is that promise/ principle different from the promise to Abraham about the possession of the land? Is it still also “unconditional” for the physical (even if unbelieving) seed of Abraham? Why do you keep the genealogical principle in the “essentially one” promise, on the other hand, if you think the land aspect is temporary?

    I guess I should do more here than simply ask more questions, but I am trying to get you to think about what I call the “other promises” involved in the Abrahamic covenant. These “non-essential” promises are temporary, having to do with historical discontinuities as for example the case of one ceremonial sign (circumcision) being replaced by another ceremonial sign (water baptism).

    So you allow that one sign can be REPLACED by another sign, but not that anything else can come to its end in the fulfillment by Christ. Of course you don’t deny that the “circumcision of Christ” is the fulfillment of the circumcision sign, but you still insist that the genealogical principle will remain in place.

    David: Perhaps you want to say that Abe’s reprobate descendants, since they enjoyed temporal blessings, were also included.

    mark: Well, I have the advantage of saying that Abe’s non-elect seed were in the covenant with Abe, but not in the new covenant, and certainly not in some ahistorical “the covenant of grace”. So credobaptists don’t have much trouble with saying that election is not the same as the Abrahamic covenant, because the non-elect are in THAT COVENANT.

    Paedobaptists have more trouble, because they either equate the AC with the new covenant or put it into their “the covenant of grace”. Some like Hodge wrote about two covenants with Abraham, one in which only the elect were included. And there’s Doug Wilson on the other end saying that election becomes non-election because of the conditionality of “the” covenant. And then there’s David Engelsma saying that election and “the” covenant ARE the same, but of course the Protestant Reformed are not only talking about “the” new covenant but about “the covenant of grace”.

    One question I hinted at a few posts back is the idea of “the new covenant” being back there for Abraham “before the time”. That would be–to me of course-quite different from saying that the Abrahamic covenant simply is the new covenant and that both (along with other covenants) are “the covenant of grace”. But, if you remember, I had trouble also with the concept even of a NC before the time.

    David: But Ishmael and Esau were among those who enjoyed that privilege, yet ultimately they were excluded. And in fact the entire nation of Israel, for all of its privileges, was also ultimately excluded (except for the remnant)

    mark: As I have pointed out, there is diversity here as well among covenant theologians. To some “excluded” means “never really in the first place”. For others, it means something like “externally in but not internally in”. And for many others, it seems obvious that you had to be in first to get the sanctions, negative or positive.

    David: But the issue of covenant inclusion isn’t really determined by whether or not one acknowledges a covenant of grace (i.e., inclusion in the NT “before the time”), is it? Since even the London Baptist Confession acknowledges that.

    mark: Well, David, if you really mean “a” covenant, we all agree that the new covenant is “a covenant of grace”, no matter what it said about other covenants. And your language above says “inclusion in the NT”, but I don’t want to make too much of that, because I don’t think you were agreeing with me that the new covenant is not “the one covenant”.

    I think you mean the second London Confession (1689, the Sabbatarian version which imitates WCF), but if you look at the specifics, you will discover some cognitive dissonance even there for what “the covenant of grace” means. And of course there are many of us who prefer the first London Baptist confession (1642).

    Many paedobaptists assume that they agree with each other when they say “the covenant of grace” when in fact they don’t. All the more reason not to assume that credobaptists using that particular phrase mean that “the covenant” includes as essential the genealogical principle.

    But again, thanks, David R, with my respects. Some of us have more “enthusiasm for opposition” than others.

    Like

  357. Now some evangelicals will only baptize people that have made what they consider to be a valid profession of faith. But Abraham was commanded to circumcise every one of his children, no matter who their mother was. And we think that’s important and essential duty in “the covenant of grace” but of course we ourselves will only baptize children if their parents have made what we consider a valid profession of faith.

    Of course you might experiment and go to a liberal church where they will pretty much baptize any child no matter if their parents go to church at all. And certainly the real significance of every one of Abraham’s children receiving the sign of circumcision was to point to the coming of Christ, and certainly we also now agree that Christ has come.

    So some liberals might tell you that the righteousness sealed in the sacrament is not about any one individual, and therefore they think the sign can be given to just anyone. But we ourselves know that the sacrament signifies that one of the parents has a valid profession of faith, not that we infallibly know that, and also we take comfort that the water baptism is not only an objective sign but reminds us that our own children will have God as their God, and are ingrafted and regenerated, not that we know that for sure in every case, but it’s way more likely to be the case with those in “the covenant”, so we get comfort from God from that because when we do the sacrament we know we are not the ones doing it

    For us it is more about what God does for the children of believing parents than it is what a new believer does for God. And when we say what God does for our children, we are not right now thinking about the curses of the Mosaic covenantal economy. Nor do we want to spend all that much time thinking either about God casting out the son of Abraham who had the slave mother.

    Of course we can’t deny that covenant curse is one example of what God does for the children of believing parents. I mean, but if you want to be technical, when the ordained clergyman says “you” it does not mean “you all” does he? Because yes we know people who get married might get divorced, and we know that some who are in “the covenant” might exclude themselves from it.

    So yes, if you want to be technical, we say our children but we don’t say ALL the children. Truth is, for some of our children there will be more sanctions than for children not born to believing parents, but let’s not get into that, we would rather talk about the covenant, especially if we can substitute the c word instead of talking about election.

    Because election is God’s business. I mean, the Bible does not tell who the elect are. And yes I guess that the Bible does speak about an elect remnant of grace. But we don’t know who they are. So we don’t have to talk about election. We can talk about the atonement. So we don’t have to talk about election. Perry Miller was not all wrong you know. We can say “for his people”. We don’t have to talk about election. The TRs will know who we are talking about and the rest of the people don’t need to know exactly what their dear pastor means. You see it’s kinda like a code language. We don’t have to talk about election We can talk about “the covenant”. And if you use the c word on a regular basis, you gotta figure that people pretty well know what it means.

    Like

  358. the second London Baptist— “that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.”

    mark: There is some confusion here, but it seems that “this covenant” is what is often named “the covenant of redemption”, that is, the purpose (before the ages) of the Father, Son and Spirit to save elect sinners in Christ. Two questions often come up: 1. should this purpose be called “covenant”, if covenant means a “cut in history”? 2. and related, to what extent should this “covenant” concept be conflated with the (also ahistorical) idea of one “the covenant of grace”?

    Like

  359. Sean,

    This may be far too simple and already hashed out in this discussion, I’ve tried to follow it fairly unsuccessfully, but has it already been argued that the AC was still in effect during the mosaic admin(remnant are saved truly) as a substratum, if you will, running underneath the typological mosaic administration? So, we have an overarching COG, since the fall, but then a typological administration whose ‘working principle’ is works(not of faith)-the Mosaic, that has the AC as a substratum of it(mosaic) so that the AC though eclipsed by the mosaic as an visible administration until the NC was nonetheless operative and now realized in the NC? It’s entirely possible that I’ve missed the ‘boat’ on this discussion but there it is.

    That’s pretty much how see it, since I agree with Kline on most things (insofar as I understand him). Mark too seems to appreciate the acknowledgement of discontinuity (contra monocovenantalism), but the notion of a covenant of grace (even with lots of caveats) gives him hives. Obviously he’s correct that some paedobaptists abuse the CoG concept to erase the law-gospel distinction between the MC and the NC, but that doesn’t mean we should throw the (ahem) baby out with the baptismal water. But Mark is convinced that the genealogical principle is one of the types that disappears.

    A related thought: I’m starting to believe there are questions about the MC (and Kline’s view of it) that can’t really be answered definitively, like: Is it an “administration” of the CoG, or is it a “subservient covenant” differing in “substance” from the CoG? Gordon and Irons said that Kline’s view is the latter, but Ferry says Kline’s view is the former. But since the MC functions to typify the NC, I’m wondering if the answer isn’t both/and. IOW, OT saints who made right use of the MC recognized that it pointed to something beyond itself and were, by means of the MC types (works principle included), connected with the gospel. FWIW.

    Like

  360. Mark,

    David: The AC is essentially the gospel covenant “before the time,” which Abe (as well as his believing progeny) entered into by faith and was justified.

    mark: Not to repeat what I have written, or even to refer you back to specific posts, but no. I agree with David Gordon (and many others) that once you say “the gospel covenant” and you want to include in that concept all the biblical covenants, thus “flattening them out” and ignoring the differences for the sake of what you have already decided is “essential”, then you are going to miss the significance of redemptive-history. The children of Abraham had two mothers, and thus there were many who entered that covenant by birth only and not by faith.

    I am trying my utmost not to flatten out any covenants or ignore any distinctions. It is true of course that Abraham’s kids had two mothers, but only one of those mothers gave birth to children of promise and most of even her children were not such. But the Abrahamic covenant doesn’t promise temporal blessings for their own sakes, but as a pledge of heaven to those with eyes to see. As in the New Covenant, it is partaking in the thing signified, not the sign that is crucial.

    By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, fellow heirs of the same promise; for he was looking for the city which has foundations, whose architect and builder is God. By faith even Sarah herself received ability to conceive, even beyond the proper time of life, since she considered Him faithful who had promised. Therefore there was born even of one man, and him as good as dead at that, as many descendants as the stars of heaven in number, and innumerable as the sand which is by the seashore.

    All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them (Hebrews 11:8-16)

    Like

  361. Mark,

    To be specific, if the Abrahamic covenant is an objective promise to anybody that –if and when they believe the gospel— they will be saved by the righteousness of Christ, then what shall we say about the “genealogical principle”? Is that principle temporary and no more in force now that the promise to Abraham that he (Abraham, not us) would have many children and that one of those children would be the Redeemer, now that this promise has been fulfilled, and Christ has been circumcised on day eight, died for our sins and raised for our justification?

    I don’t see any biblical evidence that the genealogical principle is (merely) a type that ends with the coming of the promised Seed. (Child bearing of course far transcends the Mosaic Covenant.)

    If that genealogical principle is not temporary but continues until there is no more marriage and family, then how is that promise/ principle different from the promise to Abraham about the possession of the land? Is it still also “unconditional” for the physical (even if unbelieving) seed of Abraham? Why do you keep the genealogical principle in the “essentially one” promise, on the other hand, if you think the land aspect is temporary?

    Simply because the land promise is confined to the MC system of types and shadows that ended, but child-bearing isn’t. The AC promise is unconditional only for the elect. Those who inherited the earthly land (only) did not inherit the promise (according to the NT).

    Like

  362. Mark, IOW, while the promise of land (the sign that is, not what it signifies) is limited to the MC, that the promise extends to “you and your children” transcends the MC, transcends even the AC, and even transcends the economy of redemption, since the same principle was operative prior to the fall.

    Like

  363. david : I’m starting to believe there are questions about the MC (and Kline’s view of it) that can’t really be answered definitively, like: Is it an “administration” of the CoG, or is it a “subservient covenant” differing in “substance” from the CoG? Gordon and Irons said that Kline’s view is the latter, but Ferry says Kline’s view is the former. But since the MC functions to typify the NC, I’m wondering if the answer isn’t both/and.

    mark: In other words, it doesn’t matter to you as long as you can keep some a-historical “the CoG” because if you lose that, maybe there is still only one gospel, but we are going to lose the genealogical principle and you need to keep that or there will be a narrowing and restriction so that we arrive at a NEW covenant in which there are no non-elect people, because if that happens, then even your definition of church will have to change….
    But I notice that even in your sentence above don’t stick with “the CoG” language. You say the MC typifies the NC. Correct. You don’t say it typifies “the CoG”. Perhaps because you think the MC is part of “the CoG”

    david:OT saints who made right use of the MC recognized that it pointed to something beyond itself and were, by means of the MC types (works principle included), connected with the gospel.

    mark: now, who wouldn’t agree with that? Hey, even dispies would agree with “connection”. But it’s one thing to say that an old covenant points to the gospel, and another thing to say that an old covenant is the same as the new covenant, and even another different thing to say (what the Bible does not say) that all these covenants are all part of one “the CoG”..

    david: But the Abrahamic covenant doesn’t promise temporal blessings for their own sakes, but as a pledge of heaven to those with eyes to see. As in the New Covenant, it is partaking in the thing signified, not the sign that is crucial.

    mark: Of course that begs the question, which is–what are those things (plural) signified by the A sign of circumcision? Probably the phrase “temporal blessings” could be discussed, but it’s a convenient short-hand for something we should be able to agree about. I certainly agree that God’s promise to Abraham that Abraham will have children and that one of these children will be
    the one seed who brings in the righteousness is for the sake of promising eternal life and forgiveness to all who believe the gospel.

    But for how long a time were these “temporal blessings” promised? Did God promise anybody else besides Abraham what God promised to Abraham? To cut to the chase, did God even promise us we will have children? Certainly God does not promise any of us that one of our children will
    be the one seed who brings in the righteousness. So when we say “temporary” or “temporal”, we are thinking either about what God promised uniquely to Abraham or what God promised one covenanted people until such time as the Christ would come. And now Christ has come.

    Mark review:To be specific, if the Abrahamic covenant is an objective promise to anybody that –if and when they believe the gospel— they will be saved by the righteousness of Christ, then what shall we say about the “genealogical principle”? Is that principle temporary and no longer in force now that the promise to Abraham that he (Abraham, not us) would have many children and that one of those children would be the Redeemer, now that this promise has been fulfilled in Christ?

    david: I don’t see any biblical evidence that the genealogical principle is (merely) a type that ends with the coming of the promised Seed. (Child bearing of course far transcends the Mosaic Covenant.)

    mark: We are getting to it, I think. One, child bearing is something that happened since Eve, before the Abrahamic covenant and which continues until all the elect are brought into the new covenant. So there’s nothing specifically “Abrahamic” about child-bearing. Yes, God’s seed-promise to Eve certainly points to the gospel. Two, when we are talking about the A covenant, we are not talking about just any child bearing, because Abraham is commanded to circumcise all his children and this ritual is a sign also about God’s specific promise to Abraham, which is about the time between that promise and its fulfillment in Christ.

    So we should t agree that the sign of circumcision has ceased to have any covenantal significance, but instead since Zwingli (And of course Cyprian wrote some about this argument long before Zwingli) we still have people insisting that ritual circumcision continues to have covenantal significance because (presto) water baptism now signifies the exact same thing/ things that circumcision did. Different form, but exact same significance. (Of course this can get a little tricky, because paedobaptists don’t agree about what this significance is. And of course neither do
    credobaptists agree on what ritual water signifies.)

    david: Simply because the land promise is confined to the MC system of types and shadows that ended, but child-bearing isn’t.

    mark: I understand the assertion, but I am looking for arguments which display the difference. If you assume there’s only two choices, either dispies or covenant theology, then you tend to say that either the land or the genealogica principle has ended. But there are at least two other logical possibilities. One is a paedobaptist dipy, who could say that both the land and the genealogical principle continue. The other is people like me who claim that both have ended.

    I suppose one way for me to understand, David, why you think the genealogical principle continues is for you to explain why you think the land promise is “confined” and now ended. If we could see why you think that about the land, then perhaps we could begin to see why you don’t think that about children who being born after Christ was born.

    Just generic “child-bearing” is not something specific or inherent to the A covenant. So I have to assume that what you mean by “child-bearing” is something more pregnant with meaning than simply that some humans will continue to be parents of other children. But unless that
    meaning is “merely” some mystical and comfortable experience that you cannot explain but feel, I for one would like to know why it’s important for our children ought to grow up thinking that they are
    Christians (but fenced from the table until they have a creditable profession of faith).

    David: The AC promise is unconditional only for the elect. Those who inherited the earthly land (only) did not inherit the promise (according to the NT).

    mark: and there you go again, back to “the promise”. So there were no conditional promises attached? If the promise of land inheritance is not “the promise” but is indeed something God did talk to Abraham about, doesn’t that mean that we should talk about promises (plural)
    to Abraham?

    Like

  364. Acts 2: 37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, as many as whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” 40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

    Sounds a little individualistic— perhaps we need to use the analogy of Scripture to adjust the “each of you” and the person count of 3000, because it’s too American and modern to think that God ever deals directly with individuals. Isn’t it?

    But let that go, let’s look at all of verse 39

    “the” promise is for

    1. you
    2. your children
    3. as many as the Lord our God calls to Himself

    I suppose the credobaptist narrows this to saying
    1. you if you are one of those whom God has elected and will effectually call
    2. your children if any of them are those whom God has elected and will effectually call
    3. “save yourselves”, meaning “save your self ” as many selves as hear and believe the gospel.

    And I suppose some (not all) paedobaptist would say that, if this is the proper reading of the text, then there would be redundancy. If we were going to focus on that “as many as the Lord shall” call as the limit which qualifies 1 and 2, then Peter could have just skipped 1 and 2, and “merely” said: “to as many as the Lord shall call”.

    But instead Peter added “and to your children”, which must mean “something” (maybe we can’t explain it, and yes maybe it’s only the external call and maybe it’s more negative sanctions), but still that phrase must mean something, so what could it be, since this was said before many times by the law and the prophets?

    I need to stop trying to put words in people’s mouths. You can see me cringe when I hear some other credobaptists defend credobaptism, so I don’t want to impute to you (you all) what some other paedobaptist wrote somewhere.

    But I do want to look at all that verse 39. What is this promise? Is it a conditional promise? Is it law? Is it an offer? Does “you” mean “you all”? Does “your children” mean “all your children”? Is the call in view in verse 39 the effectual call? What is the call in the OT texts this Acts 2 text is echoing?

    Ok, I like to hand out homework. Good night.

    Like

  365. Rich Lusk, “Future Justification”, in A Faith that is Never Alone, p352—“James is pointing out that the same faith that clung to God’s promise(s) in Genesis 15 concerning the seed grew into mature obedience in Genesis 22, so that it could offer the seed back to God.”

    Like

  366. David R,

    I know what you mean, but I’m not sure Galatians lets us view the MC in a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ use as it regards ties to the AC and it’s fulfillment in the NC. The MC is ‘not of faith’ as a principle of essence. It does serve a pedagogical function as it regards the gospel but I’m not sure that that is better categorized as an admin of the COG and not a subservient covenant. IOW, I’m gonna lean towards Irons and Gordon.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.