Argument for Credo-Baptism from the Nature of the New Covenant

[moral necessity]

Perhaps this might work:

1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone.
2. The sign of the New Covenant is baptism.
3. Therefore, baptism is for the elect alone.
4. Only those who give a credible confession are recognized as elect.
5. Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.

I'll think on the references.

 

[brandonadams]

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2: Jesus commanded that we baptize disciples (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36-37; 2:41; 8:12; 18:8; Matt 28:19-20)
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Perhaps this might work:

1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone.
2. The sign of the New Covenant is baptism.
3. Therefore, baptism is for the elect alone.
4. Only those who give a credible confession are recognized as elect.
5. Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.

I'll think on the references.

Missing a premise between 2 & 3.

4. "Recognized as elect" is not the same as "actually elect".

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2: Jesus commanded that we baptize disciples (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36-37; 2:41; 8:12; 18:8; Matt 28:19-20)
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.

Invalid argument. What is the missing premise between elect and "disciple"? P2 is true but what is the necessary connection between P2 & Conclusion?

 

[brandonadams]

Invalid argument. What is the missing premise between elect and "disciple"? P2 is true but what is the necessary connection between P2 & Conclusion?

Invalid objection. I didn't say anything about the elect in the Conclusion.

 

[VictorBravo]

Invalid argument. What is the missing premise between elect and "disciple"? P2 is true but what is the necessary connection between P2 & Conclusion?

Invalid objection. I didn't say anything about the elect in the Conclusion.

The objection is perfectly valid. P1 and P2 have no connection at all. You introduced disciples but didn't connect the dots.

 

[VictorBravo]

Rich, I don't like the starting point (what a surprise )

But I'll try to play by the rules--here is a sloppy and too wordy version:

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2: No Church can definitively judge who are among the Elect.
P3: A given local Church that faithfully worships and preaches the Gospel must be obedient to the commands of Christ, including the method of administration of sacraments.
P4: Baptism is the only sign allowed by which a Church may acknowledge that a potential member appears to be in the New Covenant.
P4: Baptism is required by the commands of Christ to be administered to those who appear to be in the New Covenant and who are Elect.
P5: Because no Church can judge who are among the Elect, it is called to make its determination upon appearances.
P6: The only means the Church has to determine if a potential member appears to be in the New Covenant is by hearing from him a credible profession of faith.
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.

 

[brandonadams]

The objection is perfectly valid. P1 and P2 have no connection at all. You introduced disciples but didn't connect the dots.

That wasn't his objection. His objection was the connection between P2 & Conclusion.

And your objection is also invalid. Its a premise. I don't need to connect it to P1.

 

[VictorBravo]

Brandon, both objections are valid.

If P2 has no connection to P1, there is no hope for a conclusion.

For example:

P1: All dogs have fur.

P2: This animal is a cat:

Conclusion? Not possible.

Your argument:

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2: Jesus commanded that we baptize disciples (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36-37; 2:41; 8:12; 18:8; Matt 28:19-20)
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.

P2 is functionally the same as "this animal is a cat." It does not connect with P1.

And the conclusion contains terms that are not found in either premise.

 

[brandonadams]

Victor, you are incorrect. Please allow Rich to speak to the issue. Rich, please clarify if you still believe your objection is valid.

And the conclusion contains terms that are not found in either premise.

This is the only valid objection. To modify I will remove the word "disciple" and instead say "those who confess faith" - or if you prefer, add P3: Disciples are those who profess faith

 

[VictorBravo]

Spell it out. That's what Rich asked for.

 

[brandonadams]

I did. Waiting for Rich's reply. He doesn't need you to reply for him.

Rich, is your objection the connection between P2 and Conclusion or P1 & P2?

 

[brandonadams]

If you prefer, Rich, you can comment on the following:

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2: Jesus commanded that we baptize those who confess faith (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36-37; 2:41; 8:12; 18:8; Matt 28:19-20)
P3: The administration of baptism is to be governed by Christ and His Apostles.
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.

I understand that P1 is not employed in the rest of the argument, but that is because it is irrelevant to the rest of the argument. It only becomes relevant when Rich or others import a faulty view of 1) the nature of the New Covenant and 2) baptism as a seal of the New Covenant.

 

[VictorBravo]

I did. Waiting for Rich's reply. He doesn't need you to reply for him.

Brandon, I was not replying for Rich. I was trying to nudge you into seeing that you were ignoring the ground rules of the thread. You do not need to tell me how to moderate threads.

In case you missed it, the original post included this statement:

For the purposes of this exercise, we are assuming that P1 is True.

Your responses indicated that you were ignoring that rule for the thread.

If you don't want to abide by the thread's rules, start another one. Rich expressly asked to deal with the premises as given, not argument over whether it is true.

 

[steadfast7]

Rich, your desire to avoid lengthy commentary is being challenged. How about this:
1. True baptism is a baptism into Christ
2. Water baptism is a picture of true baptism
3. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.

Oops, I missed this one.

1. Provide the Biblical references.
2. You haven't shown a logical connection between 3 and the conclusion. You also haven't shown a connection between P1 and 2.

P1 is agreed on by both sides of the debate. The connection between P1 and P2 is plain from the word "baptism".

Luk 3:16 John answered them all, saying, "I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call--
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

I think it's clear from this that baptism (the spiritual essence) and the figure are pictured as sacramentally united. When the spiritual essence was referred to, the believers would have been reminded of their own baptism - and this was probably the whole point of the sacrament.

So, from P3 to the conclusion: Those who are in Christ ought to receive baptism, for that is what the picture represents. Who are they who are in Christ? The elect, the regenerate, the believers, the faithful, etc. Obviously, only God knows infallibly the identity of the elect, what then should be the practice of the church who baptizes? It is reasonable that the church should attempt to match the sign with the thing ones signified by the best possible means.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

You don't have to argue for credo-baptism. That is something we all believe and practice.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, I don't like the starting point (what a surprise )

But I'll try to play by the rules--here is a sloppy and too wordy version:

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2: No Church can definitively judge who are among the Elect.
P3: A given local Church that faithfully worships and preaches the Gospel must be obedient to the commands of Christ, including the method of administration of sacraments.
P4: Baptism is the only sign allowed by which a Church may acknowledge that a potential member appears to be in the New Covenant.
P4: Baptism is required by the commands of Christ to be administered to those who appear to be in the New Covenant and who are Elect.
P5: Because no Church can judge who are among the Elect, it is called to make its determination upon appearances.
P6: The only means the Church has to determine if a potential member appears to be in the New Covenant is by hearing from him a credible profession of faith.
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.

Vic,

What is the necessary connection between P1 and P2? You jump from elect to "no Church can definitively judge who are among the Elect." Also, I'd like some Scriptural references for the remaining premises.

By the way, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on why you don't like the starting point. Do you disagree with it as a true premise confessionally?

If you prefer, Rich, you can comment on the following:

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2: Jesus commanded that we baptize those who confess faith (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:36-37; 2:41; 8:12; 18:8; Matt 28:19-20)
P3: The administration of baptism is to be governed by Christ and His Apostles.
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.

I understand that P1 is not employed in the rest of the argument, but that is because it is irrelevant to the rest of the argument. It only becomes relevant when Rich or others import a faulty view of 1) the nature of the New Covenant and 2) baptism as a seal of the New Covenant.

First, you have been warned for the last time about the rules of this thread. You are being churlish in this thread.
Second, my objection clearly notes that your initial argument was invalid where I asked for a connection between elect and disciples (P1 connecting to P2) AND I asked for a connection between P2 and the Conclusion.
Thirdly, Premise 1 is a clear summary of what the 1689 LBCF teaches (see LBCF Chapter 7). I have not imported *any* view into your argument and this thread has demonstrated my care in not importing a non-LBCF view of terms into the discussion. As for your syllogism, you have already admitted your argument is invalid by ignoring P1. You may either try to logically connect P1 and P2 or you do not need to participate.

Rich, your desire to avoid lengthy commentary is being challenged. How about this:
1. True baptism is a baptism into Christ
2. Water baptism is a picture of true baptism
3. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.

Oops, I missed this one.

1. Provide the Biblical references.
2. You haven't shown a logical connection between 3 and the conclusion. You also haven't shown a connection between P1 and 2.

P1 is agreed on by both sides of the debate. The connection between P1 and P2 is plain from the word "baptism".

Luk 3:16 John answered them all, saying, "I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call--
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

I think it's clear from this that baptism (the spiritual essence) and the figure are pictured as sacramentally united. When the spiritual essence was referred to, the believers would have been reminded of their own baptism - and this was probably the whole point of the sacrament.

So, from P3 to the conclusion: Those who are in Christ ought to receive baptism, for that is what the picture represents. Who are they who are in Christ? The elect, the regenerate, the believers, the faithful, etc. Obviously, only God knows infallibly the identity of the elect, what then should be the practice of the church who baptizes? It is reasonable that the church should attempt to match the sign with the thing ones signified by the best possible means.

No, the connection between P1 and P2 is *not* plain by the word baptism. You need to make plain what you're assuming everyone infers.

 

[VictorBravo]

Rich, I don't like the starting point (what a surprise )

But I'll try to play by the rules--here is a sloppy and too wordy version:

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2: No Church can definitively judge who are among the Elect.
P3: A given local Church that faithfully worships and preaches the Gospel must be obedient to the commands of Christ, including the method of administration of sacraments.
P4: Baptism is the only sign allowed by which a Church may acknowledge that a potential member appears to be in the New Covenant.
P4: Baptism is required by the commands of Christ to be administered to those who appear to be in the New Covenant and who are Elect.
P5: Because no Church can judge who are among the Elect, it is called to make its determination upon appearances.
P6: The only means the Church has to determine if a potential member appears to be in the New Covenant is by hearing from him a credible profession of faith.
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.

Vic,

What is the necessary connection between P1 and P2? You jump from elect to "no Church can definitively judge who are among the Elect." Also, I'd like some Scriptural references for the remaining premises.

By the way, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on why you don't like the starting point. Do you disagree with it as a true premise confessionally?

Rich, there is no connection between P1 and P2. I tried to incorporate P1 into the string through the two P4s (I meant P41 and P42 but in my haste didn’t note them very well).

I don’t like the starting point for the very reason that your exercise demonstrates: The connection between God’s knowledge and our ability to discern the members of the new covenant will never be bridged. So I wouldn’t start with “The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone” as a premise. It seems more like an inferential conclusion after a lot of other arguments.

Starting with the nature of the new covenant has always appeared to be a false start to me, precisely because I believe that the new covenant is essentially the same as the "old" covenant. As I understand it, the signs of the covenant are what has changed, and that is because of their temporal relation to Christ.

In other words, in your exercise, I am reluctant to start the argument from the nature of the New Covenant because it implies a dispensational view of the covenant itself.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, there is no connection between P1 and P2. I tried to incorporate P1 into the string through the two P4s (I meant P41 and P42 but in my haste didn’t note them very well).

I don’t like the starting point for the very reason that your exercise demonstrates: The connection between God’s knowledge and our ability to discern the members of the new covenant will never be bridged.

Thank you Vic. You have detected the reason for the exercise to begin with. I quite agree with you.

Why, if this is the case, do you believe Baptists, in debate, focus all their energy establishing Premise 1? I've been told by some Baptists that, once P1 is settled,, that the Conclusion is obvious. You concede this is not the case. I remember the very first time I asked a pillar in Reformed Baptist theology why he was not Paedo and he pointed me to a sermon series that established Premise 1. Nearly every debate I've ever listened to spends 90% of it's time on Premise 1 and that doesn't logically settle anything regarding subjects for baptism.

Again, this is not to debate Baptism per se but to clearly establish "boundaries" within Baptist theology so I'm asking this question: What does the knowledge that the NC is with the elect allow a Baptist to conclude? That is to say, where can logical inference stop and a conclusion be drawn about what benefits the elect enjoy. Where would a new argument logically begin to reach the conclusion that I presented in this exercise?

 

[VictorBravo]

Rich, I've seen plenty of arguments from the Baptist side that cause me to go "Huh?"

But I admit that I also say "Huh?" when I try to closely follow the Paedobaptist arguments too.

I can't speak to why some of us would argue in the way you mentioned. There may be hidden premises or assumptions that seem obvious to the arguer but not to you or me. That's why I thought your exercise was useful for clarifying how not to argue, or, at the very least, what is required to make the argument.

Edited to add: As for your last paragraph. I imagine I may have to take a day or two to come up with even the start of an answer.

 

[louis_jp]

Perhaps this might work:

1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone.
2. The sign of the New Covenant is baptism.
3. Therefore, baptism is for the elect alone.
4. Only those who give a credible confession are recognized as elect.
5. Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.

I'll think on the references.

Rich, can you clarify what the problem is with this argument? How is there a missing premise between 2 and 3?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, I've seen plenty of arguments from the Baptist side that cause me to go "Huh?"

But I admit that I also say "Huh?" when I try to closely follow the Paedobaptist arguments too.

I can't speak to why some of us would argue in the way you mentioned. There may be hidden premises or assumptions that seem obvious to the arguer but not to you or me. That's why I thought your exercise was useful for clarifying how not to argue, or, at the very least, what is required to make the argument.

Edited to add: As for your last paragraph. I imagine I may have to take a day or two to come up with even the start of an answer.

Yeah, I'm not trying to impugn all Baptists the quality of individual arguments. I cringe at who represents the paedo view quite often (perhaps people cringe at my own defenses).

I've just been at this discussion for 5 years now and it is where nearly all the energy is spent. It's been repeated so many times, I suppose, that many don't seem to even question whether P1 logically undergirds the conclusion in any way.

I'd be interested in your thoughts about my other questions.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Perhaps this might work:

1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone.
2. The sign of the New Covenant is baptism.
3. Therefore, baptism is for the elect alone.
4. Only those who give a credible confession are recognized as elect.
5. Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.

I'll think on the references.

Rich, can you clarify what the problem is with this argument? How is there a missing premise between 2 and 3?

Louis,

I looked back and actually noted a problem between 2 and 3.

I've had limited time to deal with every syllogism. For one thing, it would help if folks had actually provided the Scirpture references as requested. That said, I should have noted the problem between 3 and 4 more specifically. As Vic has noted, there is not an identical relationship between "recognized as elect" and "elect alone". 3 actually contradicts the conclusion because if "baptism is for the elect alone" and some are baptized that are "recognized as elect" that are not elect then baptism is not for the elect alone.

 

[Hilasmos]

P1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone
P2. The elect are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)
P3. The sons of Abraham are those of faith (Gal. 3:7)
P4. Those of faith give expression to their son-hood through baptism (Col. 2:11-12; Rom 6)

Conclusion: Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.

 

[steadfast7]

Rich, your desire to avoid lengthy commentary is being challenged. How about this:
1. True baptism is a baptism into Christ
2. Water baptism is a picture of true baptism
3. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.

Oops, I missed this one.

1. Provide the Biblical references.
2. You haven't shown a logical connection between 3 and the conclusion. You also haven't shown a connection between P1 and 2.

P1 is agreed on by both sides of the debate. The connection between P1 and P2 is plain from the word "baptism".

Luk 3:16 John answered them all, saying, "I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Rom 6:3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call--
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

I think it's clear from this that baptism (the spiritual essence) and the figure are pictured as sacramentally united. When the spiritual essence was referred to, the believers would have been reminded of their own baptism - and this was probably the whole point of the sacrament.

So, from P3 to the conclusion: Those who are in Christ ought to receive baptism, for that is what the picture represents. Who are they who are in Christ? The elect, the regenerate, the believers, the faithful, etc. Obviously, only God knows infallibly the identity of the elect, what then should be the practice of the church who baptizes? It is reasonable that the church should attempt to match the sign with the thing ones signified by the best possible means.

No, the connection between P1 and P2 is *not* plain by the word baptism. You need to make plain what you're assuming everyone infers.

In the syllogism:
1. All have sinned
2. I am part of the all
3. I have sinned
The connection between P1 and P2 is made plain by the term "all." In the syllogism,
1. True baptism is baptism into Christ
2. Water baptism (as practiced by the apostles, if it's more clear) is a picture of true baptism
3. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.
The connection between P1 and P2 is made plain by the term "baptism." Granted, the baptism performed by the Spirit and the baptism performed by man is not identical, but there is ample evidence in scripture of their sacramental unity.

Act 10:47 [Peter says] "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

Is it not plain here that water baptism is the picture of their having received the Spirit? And is this theme not picked up on by Paul:

1Co 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Paul does *not* say there are two distinct baptisms; rather, one is the sign, and one is the referrent. All I'm arguing in these verses is for the unity of symbolism between water baptism and baptism into Christ. There is one baptism in Christ, that accomplishes one thing, and this is pictured in water baptism. The overlap between the physical sign and the spiritual reality cannot be denied. For you to see the disconnect between P1 and P2 suggests that you see two independent uses of the word "baptism" that do not overlap. Looking forward to your thoughts.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

P1. The New Covenant is made with the elect alone
P2. The elect are the sons of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29)
P3. The sons of Abraham are those of faith (Gal. 3:7)
P4. Those of faith give expression to their son-hood through baptism (Col. 2:11-12; Rom 6)

Conclusion: Therefore, baptism is only for those who give a credible confession.

What is the connection of P4 to the conclusion? Connect "give expression" to "those who give a credible confession" please.

Paul does *not* say there are two distinct baptisms; rather, one is the sign, and one is the referrent. All I'm arguing in these verses is for the unity of symbolism between water baptism and baptism into Christ. There is one baptism in Christ, that accomplishes one thing, and this is pictured in water baptism. The overlap between the physical sign and the spiritual reality cannot be denied. For you to see the disconnect between P1 and P2 suggests that you see two independent uses of the word "baptism" that do not overlap. Looking forward to your thoughts.

My thought is that you're ignoring P1 and jumping into your own premises. You're also stating things in your explanation that you could make explicit in your premises rather than long explanations in paragraph form.

 

[steadfast7]

The paragraphs highlight the scripture prooftexts that you so long to see. It seems my inexperience with logical syllogisms is getting the best of me. I simply do not see the trouble you're having making the connection. if anyone else (paedo or credo) would care to PM me, I'd appreciate getting help exposing my fallacy. Thanks.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

In Suk,

P1 in this discussion is not: "True baptism is a baptism into Christ"

You're ignoring the exercise. Here is how your syllogism looks:

P1:The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2. True baptism is a baptism into Christ
P3. Water baptism is a picture of true baptism
P4. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.

Between P1 and P2 you could include a sentence about how the Elect are baptized into Christ.
Between P4 and the Conclusion, you need to connect Water Baptism to "...those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ."

 

[steadfast7]

In Suk,

P1 in this discussion is not: "True baptism is a baptism into Christ"

You're ignoring the exercise. Here is how your syllogism looks:

P1:The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2. True baptism is a baptism into Christ
P3. Water baptism is a picture of true baptism
P4. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.

Between P1 and P2 you could include a sentence about how the Elect are baptized into Christ.
Between P4 and the Conclusion, you need to connect Water Baptism to "...those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ."

Ah, I understand..
ok, how's this:
P1:The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2. The elect are baptised into Christ
P3. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.
P4. As far as can be recognized by the Church, they are in Christ who make a credible profession of faith
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

What book would be simple and easy for me to learn it. I have tried reading books on logic and still have a connection problem.

I would personally run something along the lines that would be covenantal.

It would look like this.

P1. The Covenants are progressive in nature.
P2. The Covenants become more revealing and more narrowly defined as they historically proceed.
P3. The Covenant made with Abraham as head included both elect and non elect as covenant children.
P4. The Covenants proceeding reveal the Messiah more distinctly.
P5. The New Covenant has only one Federal Head, Christ our Father
P6. The New Covenant has only the elect as Covenant Children who are in Christ.

Conclusion: The term Covenant Children has been narrowed and defined between Abraham's Covenant Children and the Covenant Children of Christ as our New Covenant Federal Head.

If I am not mistaken one must proceed from one syllogism to the next to build arguments. One syllogism doesn't complete the process of argumentation.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Ah, I understand..
ok, how's this:
P1:The New Covenant is made with and consists of the Elect Alone.
P2. The elect are baptised into Christ
P3. Water baptism is a picture of baptism into Christ.
P4. As far as can be recognized by the Church, they are in Christ who make a credible profession of faith
Conclusion: Therefore, only those who give a credible confession of faith in Christ are to be baptized by the Church.

In Suk,

I don't know if you're reading the rest of this thread or just my response to your thread but you're repeating the same problem identified earlier.

"As far as can be recognized" already admits there is not an identical relationship between the elect and those who make a credible confession of faith.

As I noted earlier, I'm perfectly content with the answer that Baptists don't baptize on the basis of P1.