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

[Semper Fidelis]

I've been told that once one settles the constituents of the New Covenant then this is the fulcrum upon which the issue is settled. Settle that New Covenant membership includes the elect alone and the Credo-baptist position naturally follows. In this thread, we had a couple of arguments that (after a bit of tightening) led to the Credo-Baptist conclusion.

I want to demonstrate where this Premise can also lead given another line of argumentation. This is a thought experiment. Assuming that the first premise is true, we can deduce a different conclusion:

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the elect alone. (Jer 31)
P2: The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15)
P3: Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
P4: Sacraments are immediately instituted by God to visibly mark out those that are in the Church. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48)
P5: There is a spiritual relation between the sign and the grace signified in a sacrament. (Gen 17:10, Matt 26:27-28)
P6: The grace signified in a sacrament is granted by the Spirit to the elect alone. (Matt 3:11, 1 Co 12:13)
P7: Baptism is a sacrament. (Matt 28:19)
P8: God has commanded, in His Word, the baptism of those that do actually profess faith and obedience to Christ. (Mar 16:15-16)
P9: God has commanded, in His Word, the baptism of the children of believing parents. (Gen 17:7, Acts 2:38)
C: Those who profess faith and obedience to Christ as well as the children of believers are to be baptized by the Church.

Now, obviously as before, the premises may be in dispute but my point is to demonstrate that one can begin with P1 and arrive at a different conclusion.

Consequently, there is no ruthless logic that jumps from P1 to the antipaedobaptist conclusion. That has to be established by other premises.

There's more to an argument than simply inferring a boatload of hidden premises from a single verse and assuming your conclusion is patently obvious.

 

[eqdj]

Hidden Premise A: The Covenant of Circumcision is the foundational (inauguration) of The Covenant of Grace.

Hidden Premise B. Once a sacrament is instituted, it remains an abiding principle of every administration of the Covenant of Grace.

Hidden Premise C: There will be no new administrations of the Covenant of Grace.

Hidden Conclusion A: Therefore, the Covenant of Grace includes the elect and their children.

Hidden Conclusion B: The eschaton will consist of the elect and their children ("They must remain (in the Covenant) until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out'").

 

[steadfast7]

I'm still new to this stuff, and am not as sharp as you were in analyzing the premises in the last exercise, but if I may observe the lack of connection between:
P3: Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
P4: Sacraments are immediately instituted by God to visibly mark out those that are in the Church. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48)
- the link between 1) the sign and its right application and 2) the covenant of grace and membership in the church is not obvious (at least not to me) in neither the flow of logic or the prooftexts.

Also, I'm really not sure that P9: God has commanded, in His Word, the baptism of the children of believing parents. (Gen 17:7, Acts 2:38) is actually a true statement. This might be an area where you have assumed something that is not patently obvious to many.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Hidden Premise A: The Covenant of Circumcision is the foundational (inauguration) of The Covenant of Grace.

Neither hidden nor existent. There is no "covenant of circumcision" to speak of. None exists and I don't have to list every administration of the CoG to make one valid argument that deals with the NC. Circumcision is an example of a sacrament not a covenant.

Hidden Premise B. Once a sacrament is instituted, it remains an abiding principle of every administration of the Covenant of Grace.

That does not need to be stated as a premise for the argument to be valid. You may haggle as to whether the premise is True but the argument is valid. I also think you meant to state that once the parties in the external administration of the COG are established, that this remains valid unless otherwise abrogated. Again, not needed for the argument to be valid but most people call the contrary "bait and switch".

Hidden Premise C: There will be no new administrations of the Covenant of Grace.

Again, the premise is not needed to make the argument valid.

Hidden Conclusion A: Therefore, the Covenant of Grace includes the elect and their children.

Not a hidden conclusion. P3-P6 establish the relationship between a sacrament and the Covenant. P4 establishes that they are signs to visibly separate members of the Church from the world. P5 and P6 note that, although some may receive a sacrament who are not elect, the spiritual benefits are only conveyed to the elect. P8 and P9 establish, by divine command, who are to receive the sacrament whether or not they are elect. The Conclusion, then, does not bear on whether or not professors or children of believers are elect but whether it is commanded, whether what is commanded is a sacrament, whether the sacrament bears any relationship to the elect or the NC. All have been established.

Hidden Conclusion B: The eschaton will consist of the elect and their children ("They must remain (in the Covenant) until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out'").

Invalid conclusion, never inferred. Neither professors or their children in this argument are presumed to be in the New Covenant. The conclusion only notes that the most one can say is that they are to be baptized and, in so doing, they are visibly separated into the Church apart from the world. They may or may not receive the thing signified but that's not necessitated by the premises. A sacrament is a sign and does not make one a member of the NC in this argument. Read it again.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm still new to this stuff, and am not as sharp as you were in analyzing the premises in the last exercise, but if I may observe the lack of connection between:
P3: Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
P4: Sacraments are immediately instituted by God to visibly mark out those that are in the Church. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48)
- the link between 1) the sign and its right application and 2) the covenant of grace and membership in the church is not obvious (at least not to me) in neither the flow of logic or the prooftexts.

1) The link between the sign and its right application is not established in P4 but P8 and P9.
2) The link between the covenant of grace and membership in the church is that sacraments are signs and seals of the COG and that God has instituted sacraments to visibly mark out the Church. The sacrament forms the bridge argument.

Also, I'm really not sure that P9: God has commanded, in His Word, the baptism of the children of believing parents. (Gen 17:7, Acts 2:38) is actually a true statement. This might be an area where you have assumed something that is not patently obvious to many.

Please exercise more care in reading the original post before responding. This is another exercise designed to show that a valid argument can be formed.

I have no intention of arguing over every premise but have demonstrated that a paedobaptist could theoretically adopt P1, which is said (by some) the issue by which the paedobaptist position stands or falls. I have demonstrated a valid argument from this premise to show otherwise.

I obviously don't believe the argument is *true* as I reject P1 but that's not the point of the thread.

 

[eqdj]

Rich,

the premises may be in dispute

The way the OP is laid out, P9 is a non sequitur. There must be either be some necessary presuppositions or some differing definitions of words used to get to P9. I was just trying to help you get to P9.

I have no intention of arguing over every premise

That's fine.

my point is to demonstrate that one can begin with P1 and arrive at a different conclusion.

I have demonstrated a valid argument from this premise to show otherwise.

As the OP stands, until some behind the scenes assumptions have been brought out, this has not been demonstrated.

 

[steadfast7]

An aside, please help me understand. If we're not attempting to establish the truth of the premises, what's the point of putting it in the form of a valid argument?

1. All cats are reptiles
2. Bugs Bunny is a cat
3. Bugs Bunny is a reptile

Please don't take offence as I am not trying to be fecitious. I only use this cheeky example to illustrate something. In gratitude, the exercises have been helpful in teaching what a valid argument is and how it's formed, but I don't see how it advances the debate if the premises are not being checked for truthfulness.
thanks.

---------- Post added at 08:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 AM ----------

the above arugment is valid and airtight. However, because one or more of its premises are untrue, I cannot use this argument to make any propositions about cats, reptiles, or Bugs Bunny.

Rich, likewise, your argumentation may be valid, but because the premises have not been demonstrably verified, you cannot use the argument to make statements about the topics of baptism, covenant theology and the like. But you have done this, ignoring the potentially untrue premises, you proceed to make a statement about the paedobaptist position. I think this is fallacious.

 

[Hilasmos]

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the elect alone. (Jer 31)
P2: The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15)
P3: Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
P4: Sacraments are immediately instituted by God to visibly mark out those that are in the Church. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48)

The P3 to P4 connection was challenged already above, but I am still not following. If I reverse it to see if P4 can arrive at P1, it doesn't appear to be the case unless you establish that the "church" is the elect alone. Sorry if I do not follow rightly.

P4 Sacraments are immediately instituted by God to visibly mark out (serve as a sign and seal?) those that are in the church.
P3 Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
P2 The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15)
P1 The New Covenant is made with and consists of the elect alone. (Jer 31)

Wouldn't your "church" here be the elect alone since the "sign" which serves to mark them out is the same sign to mark out the COG which is an administration of the NC consisting of the elect alone?

EDIT: I guess I should have just asked before posting the above. When you use the word "church" in P4 what does that word mean?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich,

The way the OP is laid out, P9 is a non sequitur. There must be either be some necessary presuppositions or some differing definitions of words used to get to P9. I was just trying to help you get to P9.

No, if P9 is a non sequitur then so is P8. They both state the same thing: God has commanded them in His Word. I could have just made P8 say "...and the children of believers..." but broke it out into two sentences.

As the OP stands, until some behind the scenes assumptions have been brought out, this has not been demonstrated.

What hasn't been demonstrated? That the argument is in a valid form? I haven't seen evidence to the contrary yet. Every word used in the sentence has a "hidden assumption". I suppose I could have defined every term as you seem to be demanding but I didn't demand that of anybody else. It's when we get into evaluating individual premises that we need to start examining "...what do you mean by X"?

An aside, please help me understand. If we're not attempting to establish the truth of the premises, what's the point of putting it in the form of a valid argument?

1. All cats are reptiles
2. Bugs Bunny is a cat
3. Bugs Bunny is a reptile

Please don't take offence as I am not trying to be fecitious. I only use this cheeky example to illustrate something. In gratitude, the exercises have been helpful in teaching what a valid argument is and how it's formed, but I don't see how it advances the debate if the premises are not being checked for truthfulness.
thanks.

---------- Post added at 08:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:01 AM ----------

the above arugment is valid and airtight. However, because one or more of its premises are untrue, I cannot use this argument to make any propositions about cats, reptiles, or Bugs Bunny.

Rich, likewise, your argumentation may be valid, but because the premises have not been demonstrably verified, you cannot use the argument to make statements about the topics of baptism, covenant theology and the like. But you have done this, ignoring the potentially untrue premises, you proceed to make a statement about the paedobaptist position. I think this is fallacious.

Frankly, this is sort of obvious isn't it? By definition, I believe every Baptist argument that shows that children are outside the Covenant is fallacious. It has the equivalent kind of form as above (or may not even be logically valid). You did read what I said the purpose of this thread is, correct? You do know what a thought experiment is?

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the elect alone. (Jer 31)
P2: The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15)
P3: Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
P4: Sacraments are immediately instituted by God to visibly mark out those that are in the Church. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48)

The P3 to P4 connection was challenged already above, but I am still not following. If I reverse it to see if P4 can arrive at P1, it doesn't appear to be the case unless you establish that the "church" is the elect alone. Sorry if I do not follow rightly.

P4 Sacraments are immediately instituted by God to visibly mark out (serve as a sign and seal?) those that are in the church.
P3 Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
P2 The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15)
P1 The New Covenant is made with and consists of the elect alone. (Jer 31)

Wouldn't your "church" here be the elect alone since the "sign" which serves to mark them out is the same sign to mark out the COG which is an administration of the NC consisting of the elect alone?

EDIT: I guess I should have just asked before posting the above. When you use the word "church" in P4 what does that word mean?

Church consists of those who have been visibly marked out of the world by Sacraments that were instituted by God. (P4 in reverse). If I intended to say this was the elect then I would have said that the Elect have an E appear on their forehead so we know they're elect but as I omitted that piece, I assumed it was pretty clear.

I don't understand your confusion between P3 and P4. I'm simply giving full expression to the aspects of what a Sacrament are.

I would agree that my argument could be presented to be "cleaner" so it's more of a "if this then this" but I've provided all the pieces needed to connect Sacrament to the COG to the Elect as well as Sacrament to the visible Church to the Baptized. God is in the middle here where Sacraments have a relation to hidden things (P2, P6) as well as revealed things (P4, P8, P9).

 

[steadfast7]

Frankly, this is sort of obvious isn't it? By definition, I believe every Baptist argument that shows that children are outside the Covenant is fallacious. It has the equivalent kind of form as above (or may not even be logically valid). You did read what I said the purpose of this thread is, correct? You do know what a thought experiment is?

Whatever a thought experiment is, you obviously have an agenda and proposition to make that attempts to say something true about the topic in question. I'm arguing that given the parameters of the exercise it cannot be done soundly or persuasively. As long as the jury is still out regarding the truth of the given premises and has not been established beyond reasonable doubt, the argument, though valid, remains unsound. I recognize that truth is not your concern in this thread, but even so the truth of the premises must be demonstrated first for you to make your point regarding paedo vs. credo; and this, only by exegesis In my humble opinion.
But thanks for the exercise. It has been helpful and you have served us. Thanks for taking the time.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

In Suk,

Here's what I say in the OP:

I want to demonstrate where this Premise can also lead given another line of argumentation. This is a thought experiment. Assuming that the first premise is true, we can deduce a different conclusion:

Every other premise, except for P1, is pulled from the Westminster Confession of Faith. In other words, in my "thought experiment", a theoretical paedobaptist could be a paedobaptist who arrives at the conclusion by using a credobaptist P1 and then arriving at C from other premises he derives that don't really deal with composition of the NC.

Of course every premise has to be sustained. That goes without saying. Every time a Baptist uses Matt 28:18-20 and speaks confidently that only professing believers are disciples has the same burden of proof.

It just seems odd to me that you're pointing this out because this is how valid arguments are made all the time and you're pointing out the obvious.

My intent was not "hidden" at all. I emblazened it in the OP telling everybody what I was showing and any claims of hidden agenda would have to come from those who did not read what I said I was doing very carefully.

 

[Hilasmos]

Church consists of those who have been visibly marked out of the world by Sacraments that were instituted by God. (P4 in reverse). If I intended to say this was the elect then I would have said that the Elect have an E appear on their forehead so we know they're elect but as I omitted that piece, I assumed it was pretty clear.

P1 Sacraments are instituted by God to mark out the elect and non-elect existing within the Church
P2 Sacraments are signs and seals of the covenant of Grace
P3 The NC is an administration of the CoG
C Therefore, the NC is with the elect alone

Is this a valid argument? If not, that is why it is not clear to me. This is how I am reading your P1-P4 (apparently I am not reading it right though). Anyways, thanks for these exercises, I have enjoyed thinking through these.

 

[steadfast7]

Ok Rich. As long as you are saying that your argument accords with the WCF, then that is fine. But doesn't that mean that those who confess the LBC need not agree with your argument? That's all I was saying. The points of difference between the two positions can only be worked out by exegesis.

Also, I did not mean to accuse you of a "hidden" agenda. My apologies if that's what came across. Cheers!

 

[Herald]

I've been told that once one settles the constituents of the New Covenant then this is the fulcrum upon which the issue is settled. Settle that New Covenant membership includes the elect alone and the Credo-baptist position naturally follows. In this thread, we had a couple of arguments that (after a bit of tightening) led to the Credo-Baptist conclusion.

I want to demonstrate where this Premise can also lead given another line of argumentation. This is a thought experiment. Assuming that the first premise is true, we can deduce a different conclusion:

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the elect alone. (Jer 31)
P2: The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15)
P3: Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
P4: Sacraments are immediately instituted by God to visibly mark out those that are in the Church. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48)
P5: There is a spiritual relation between the sign and the grace signified in a sacrament. (Gen 17:10, Matt 26:27-28)
P6: The grace signified in a sacrament is granted by the Spirit to the elect alone. (Matt 3:11, 1 Co 12:13)
P7: Baptism is a sacrament. (Matt 28:19)
P8: God has commanded, in His Word, the baptism of those that do actually profess faith and obedience to Christ. (Mar 16:15-16)
P9: God has commanded, in His Word, the baptism of the children of believing parents. (Gen 17:7, Acts 2:38)
C: Those who profess faith and obedience to Christ as well as the children of believers are to be baptized by the Church.

Now, obviously as before, the premises may be in dispute but my point is to demonstrate that one can begin with P1 and arrive at a different conclusion.

Consequently, there is no ruthless logic that jumps from P1 to the antipaedobaptist conclusion. That has to be established by other premises.

There's more to an argument than simply inferring a boatload of hidden premises from a single verse and assuming your conclusion is patently obvious.

Okay Rich, let's say that a credobaptist and a paedobaptist have never really studied their respective positions. I can see where a syllogism exercise can challenge them to study their position logically. However, for those who are studied in their position I wonder how helpful a syllogism is to challenging or affirming what they believe. I agree with you that either side can take P1 and come up with both of the orthodox conclusions on baptism. But how is this different than a polemic argument in relation to the conclusion? It's quite possible that I don't appreciate nor understand syllogisms very well. What I do observe is the sharp edges at the end of each proposition that lead to the seemingly neatly packaged conclusion.

As an observation, P9 seems to expose a huge disconnect with P1. Are we to conclude that children (P9) actually profess faith and obedience to Christ (P8), and are, therefore, part of the administration of the New Covenant (P1)? It seems to me that P1 became diluted as your premises evolved. I'm not going to pick on that point too much; as I don't believe the paedo position fails because of a syllogism. The same for the credo argument. This is why a polemic argument is necessary In my humble opinion.

So I ask, what is the value of a syllogism in this instance? I may simply be missing it's value in moving the dialog further down the road. What am I missing?

 

[Hilasmos]

Let me clarify the post I made above further. To make it clearer to myself I re-worded your P2-P4, but did not change the meaning, I think:

P1: ?

P2: The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15)
P3: The Covenant of Grace is signified and sealed with sacraments. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
P4: Sacraments are instituted by God to signify and mark out all that are in the Church [as part of the Covenant of Grace]. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48)

Here is my addition, but it seems to follow necessarily from the prior premises if you concur the Church does not equal just the elect

P5: This marked out/sealed Church consists of both elect and non-elect
P6: Elect and non-elect, therefore, belong belong to the CoG
P7: The CoG administers the New Covenant to its members

C: Therefore, the New Covenant contains elect and non-elect

My thought in this is that C is a necessary conclusion to P5-P7, and P5-P7 is a necessary outworking of P2-P4, and therefore the exclusivity of your P1 cannot head up your P2-P4

 

[MW]

Are we to conclude that children (P9) actually profess faith and obedience to Christ (P8), and are, therefore, part of the administration of the New Covenant (P1)?

I think the point is that there are "elect infants," so referring to the new covenant as made with the elect alone does not help the discussion. Rich's two threads indicate that antipaedobaptists may not claim the first premise "necessarily" leads to their distinctive conclusion.

 

[Iconoclast]

If a padeo starts with this;
P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the elect alone. (Jer 31)

The padeo then must argue that the church they speak of is not in the New Covenant!

We are told that the "church" consists of elect and non elect in the Padeo scheme.

Therefore it[the church] cannot be said to be in the NC. as p1 states the NC consists of the elect alone.

If p1 is true......no one said to be in the NC. can be lost,because none of the elect are ever lost. Your view of Covenant, and Church is not valid,but rather inconsistent.

I think this is a valid syllogism.

 

[MW]

I think this is a valid syllogism.

It misses the point that the first premise is being conceded merely for the sake of the argument. Taking the first premise at face value there is nothing to discriminate against infants because "confessional reformed baptists" hold that there are elect infants.

 

[Iconoclast]

I think this is a valid syllogism.

It misses the point that the first premise is being conceded merely for the sake of the argument. Taking the first premise at face value there is nothing to discriminate against infants because "confessional reformed baptists" hold that there are elect infants.

No, I understand that in this exercise p1 is being conceded for the sake of argument[Rich admitted as much and was just trying to further the exercise.] RB do hold that there can be elect infants, it mentions those elect infants that die in infancy. It does not address the living ones one way or another. In other words...elect infants would grow up and remain in that state. Non elect infants grow up also.
How long do you leave non elect infants, who turn into non elect teenagers, who turn into non elect adults, on your membership role?
In this exercise P1 does not allow for these persons,who you would say are [external]covenant church members
However, I think you would be hard pressed to be consistent with your ecclesiology if you attempt to maintain p1.
Your "church" is not defined as a called out assembly of believers,but rather a mix of regenerate and unregenerate members as you state that no one can know who is who.
You believing in a breakable new covenant,does not allow for p1, or you would have elect persons perishing as covenant breakers. P1 does not allow for it, in this exercise. {i am not even commenting on p3 -p9}
I think that when you try to hold your distinctives and covenant continuity with virtually no change.... you must re-define the church of God,dividing it into visible and invisible, believer and unbeliever mixed multitude, to account for all the people that pass through the doors of the building.
I know that the 1689 uses similar language,but I did not write it. I know that some of these distinctions can be helpful to explain what happens [false professors/apostates] and several verses can be seen to support your view of the biblical paradigm.
Just not sure if this is what the bible says is true in the NT.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Church consists of those who have been visibly marked out of the world by Sacraments that were instituted by God. (P4 in reverse). If I intended to say this was the elect then I would have said that the Elect have an E appear on their forehead so we know they're elect but as I omitted that piece, I assumed it was pretty clear.

P1 Sacraments are instituted by God to mark out the elect and non-elect existing within the Church
P2 Sacraments are signs and seals of the covenant of Grace
P3 The NC is an administration of the CoG
C Therefore, the NC is with the elect alone

Is this a valid argument? If not, that is why it is not clear to me. This is how I am reading your P1-P4 (apparently I am not reading it right though). Anyways, thanks for these exercises, I have enjoyed thinking through these.

You've left out some other premises that lead to the conclusion. Again, the problem is that you're trying to make an argument only proceed from one premise to build to another. There are other kinds of propositional statements that exist beside an "if that then this" kind of proposition.

Some of the propositions are definitional. That is, there are a couple that talk about Sacraments. You left out the part about the spiritual benefits of Sacraments being applied by the Holy Spirit sovereignly. I never formed my proposition to move from the Church (a visible function that Sacraments serve) to the composition of the New Covenant. I moved from the NC to Sacraments and noted that Sacraments have a visible and invisible function. God visibly uses them for the Church but He also invisibly attends to them Sovereignly. You can't ignore that bridge and then build a false set of premises and ignore these propositional elements.

Okay Rich, let's say that a credobaptist and a paedobaptist have never really studied their respective positions. I can see where a syllogism exercise can challenge them to study their position logically. However, for those who are studied in their position I wonder how helpful a syllogism is to challenging or affirming what they believe. I agree with you that either side can take P1 and come up with both of the orthodox conclusions on baptism. But how is this different than a polemic argument in relation to the conclusion? It's quite possible that I don't appreciate nor understand syllogisms very well. What I do observe is the sharp edges at the end of each proposition that lead to the seemingly neatly packaged conclusion.

As an observation, P9 seems to expose a huge disconnect with P1. Are we to conclude that children (P9) actually profess faith and obedience to Christ (P8), and are, therefore, part of the administration of the New Covenant (P1)?

I don't know how many times I have to answer this question before it sinks in. I never stated that P8 depends on P9. There is no statement in P9 that says "because God has commanded the baptism of those who visibly profess that children of believers have to do so." The statements are equivalent to this:

P8: God has commanded husbands to love their wives.
P9: God has commanded children to obey their parents.

P9 does not require that children be husbands that love their wives. It is simply a propositional statement that stands on its own. As I stated earlier I could have omitted P9 and simply wrote:

P8: God has commanded, in His Word, the baptism of those that do actually profess faith and obedience to Christ as well as the children of believers.

Instead, I broke it out into two sentences. I didn't say in P8: "And not the children of believers".

It seems to me that P1 became diluted as your premises evolved. I'm not going to pick on that point too much; as I don't believe the paedo position fails because of a syllogism. The same for the credo argument. This is why a polemic argument is necessary In my humble opinion.

So I ask, what is the value of a syllogism in this instance? I may simply be missing it's value in moving the dialog further down the road. What am I missing?

As I've noted over and over, it is because there is an over-weaning confidence by some to simply assert P1 and then say: "That settles the question." I'm not merely inferring this but I've been told, flat out on many occasions that all the RB has to do is establish P1 and the paedo position falls like a deck of cards. I'm demonstrating that much more work has to be done. It might cause those who might unthinkingly jump the rail to think twice in the future and realize that more exegetical work has to be done to establish their conclusion.

Let me clarify the post I made above further. To make it clearer to myself I re-worded your P2-P4, but did not change the meaning, I think:

P1: ?

P2: The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15)
P3: The Covenant of Grace is signified and sealed with sacraments. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
P4: Sacraments are instituted by God to signify and mark out all that are in the Church [as part of the Covenant of Grace]. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48)

Here is my addition, but it seems to follow necessarily from the prior premises if you concur the Church does not equal just the elect

P5: This marked out/sealed Church consists of both elect and non-elect
P6: Elect and non-elect, therefore, belong belong to the CoG
P7: The CoG administers the New Covenant to its members

C: Therefore, the New Covenant contains elect and non-elect

My thought in this is that C is a necessary conclusion to P5-P7, and P5-P7 is a necessary outworking of P2-P4, and therefore the exclusivity of your P1 cannot head up your P2-P4

As before, re-arranging propositions and leaving out key definitional propositions about the nature of Sacraments doesn't adequately deal with all the data that is present in my argument.

If a padeo starts with this;
P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the elect alone. (Jer 31)

The padeo then must argue that the church they speak of is not in the New Covenant!

We are told that the "church" consists of elect and non elect in the Padeo scheme.

Therefore it[the church] cannot be said to be in the NC. as p1 states the NC consists of the elect alone.

If p1 is true......no one said to be in the NC. can be lost,because none of the elect are ever lost. Your view of Covenant, and Church is not valid,but rather inconsistent.

You do realize that you're describing your own position here? Do you suppose I wasn't aware that this is the case with Reformed Baptist theology? I've noted for some time that baptism actually only bears upon local Church membership in your theology and that, because of your view of the NC, the Church stands as a visible institution apart from the NC that may contain both elect and reprobate. If the view of the Church in my argument is "inconsistent" then what are you saying about your own view? Again, I'm not buying into this theology but I'm just noting that P1 doesn't get the Conclusion you want without the cost of establishing other Biblical arguments for it.

By the way, if you're not sure that the thing we call "the Church" consists of elect and unelect, what exactly do you call the body of elect and reprobate people that you meet with in worship every week?

 

[MW]

Your "church" is not defined as a called out assembly of believers,but rather a mix of regenerate and unregenerate members as you state that no one can know who is who.

A Presbyterian church is defined as a called out assembly. That is what a church is. But "called out" of what? and "called into" what? The visible church is called out of the world, not out of reprobation. The visible church is called into profession, not election. Mixture of regenerate and unregenerate men is a fact which is found in your own understanding of the church, as you acknowledged in the previous thread. And, as you have acknowledged in the past, the mixture was a reality of the church in the NT, as is clear from the warning passages.

 

[Iconoclast]

Rich, and Matthew,
Thanks for your responses.
Rich you asked:

By the way, if you're not sure that the thing we call "the Church" consists of elect and unelect, what exactly do you call the body of elect and reprobate people that you meet with in worship every week?

Rich in the 1689 ...26:3 it states this;

3._____ The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.

When it says this,and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan, I take that to mean that false professors,goats, spots in the love feasts, do not add to or are no real part of the God called church even if their name might appear on a membership role.
In the letters to the seven churches the overcomers are the real church.
The overcomers are the God called church....we are told that there were false apostles, liars,those of the synaguoge of Satan,those who held the false teaching of Balaam, false prophetess, fornicators,etc. These persons may walk in through the door and assemble with the church, but being devoid of the Spirit they cannot be rightly said to be a part of the church of God if they remain in that condition.

Matthew,
You asked this:

A Presbyterian church is defined as a called out assembly. That is what a church is. But "called out" of what? and "called into" what?

Matthew I would ask the questions "called out" By Whom. Is the church called out by God ,or by men? Are sinners called out of the world,sin and death by Spirit Baptism,,,,or by water baptism,men, parents ? If indeed the church is God called he is not going to call the ungodly who remain ungodly as part of His actual body.

The visible church is called out of the world, not out of reprobation. The visible church is called into profession, not election.,,,,

It is the elect who are called by God out of sin and darkness. They are effectually called because they are sheep to a saving belief and confession. Jn 10:26.....goats cannot do this, they cannot receive the word effectually 1cor2:14.

Mixture of regenerate and unregenerate men is a fact which is found in your own understanding of the church, as you acknowledged in the previous thread. And, as you have acknowledged in the past, the mixture was a reality of the church in the NT, as is clear from the warning passages.

That the mixture takes place in the physical, visble ,world that we see no one deny's.
4And the mixt multitude that was among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat?

5We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick:

6But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes.

That the scripture mentions a mixed multitude implies that their is a difference,their soul loathed the manna.

If i am given counterfeit money at the store and mix it in my wallet it does not change what is real and what is counterfeit.
If I go to deposit it at the bank, the bank teller will weed out the counterfeit. It does not mean the the true money was ever counterfeit,or they were the same at any time.
For a short time,false professors assemble among the church, but really are never God called persons.

If I take pure apple jelly and mixed vegamite into it, it does not add to the jelly,but dilutes and distorts it. [why would anyone do this?]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, and Matthew,
Thanks for your responses.
Rich you asked:

By the way, if you're not sure that the thing we call "the Church" consists of elect and unelect, what exactly do you call the body of elect and reprobate people that you meet with in worship every week?

Rich in the 1689 ...26:3 it states this;

3._____ The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.

When it says this,and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan, I take that to mean that false professors,goats, spots in the love feasts, do not add to or are no real part of the God called church even if their name might appear on a membership role.

You're misreading your own confession. It says that the purest of Churches are subject to mixture and that only some have so denigrated to become synagoguges of satan. Why did you skip past the very first part of the sentence about the purest of Churches and get the the least pure.

Now, as I said before, if you're going to disagree with your own confession about the fact that the church is subject to mixture, why does your signature line have the name Hope Reformed Baptist Church? In your understanding, Church=Elect Members Alone. (sidenote: I want to point out that my argument does not conflate the two.)

I imagine you will say: "Yeah, but Rich, if someone is found to be a false professor then we'll put him out of the Hope Reformed Baptist {insert word here other than church} because he's never been part of the Church.

I get it.

What I'm wondering is what word to insert into the title of your mixed assembly that you worship with as I'm charitably assuming it is the purest of {insert word here other than churches}.

 

[Hilasmos]

Church consists of those who have been visibly marked out of the world by Sacraments that were instituted by God. (P4 in reverse). If I intended to say this was the elect then I would have said that the Elect have an E appear on their forehead so we know they're elect but as I omitted that piece, I assumed it was pretty clear.

P1 Sacraments are instituted by God to mark out the elect and non-elect existing within the Church
P2 Sacraments are signs and seals of the covenant of Grace
P3 The NC is an administration of the CoG
C Therefore, the NC is with the elect alone

Is this a valid argument? If not, that is why it is not clear to me. This is how I am reading your P1-P4 (apparently I am not reading it right though). Anyways, thanks for these exercises, I have enjoyed thinking through these.

You've left out some other premises that lead to the conclusion. Again, the problem is that you're trying to make an argument only proceed from one premise to build to another. There are other kinds of propositional statements that exist beside an "if that then this" kind of proposition.

Some of the propositions are definitional. That is, there are a couple that talk about Sacraments. You left out the part about the spiritual benefits of Sacraments being applied by the Holy Spirit sovereignly. I never formed my proposition to move from the Church (a visible function that Sacraments serve) to the composition of the New Covenant. I moved from the NC to Sacraments and noted that Sacraments have a visible and invisible function. God visibly uses them for the Church but He also invisibly attends to them Sovereignly. You can't ignore that bridge and then build a false set of premises and ignore these propositional elements.

Originally Posted by Hilasmos
Let me clarify the post I made above further. To make it clearer to myself I re-worded your P2-P4, but did not change the meaning, I think:

P1: ?

P2: The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15)
P3: The Covenant of Grace is signified and sealed with sacraments. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
P4: Sacraments are instituted by God to signify and mark out all that are in the Church [as part of the Covenant of Grace]. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48)

Here is my addition, but it seems to follow necessarily from the prior premises if you concur the Church does not equal just the elect

P5: This marked out/sealed Church consists of both elect and non-elect
P6: Elect and non-elect, therefore, belong belong to the CoG
P7: The CoG administers the New Covenant to its members

C: Therefore, the New Covenant contains elect and non-elect

My thought in this is that C is a necessary conclusion to P5-P7, and P5-P7 is a necessary outworking of P2-P4, and therefore the exclusivity of your P1 cannot head up your P2-P4

As before, re-arranging propositions and leaving out key definitional propositions about the nature of Sacraments doesn't adequately deal with all the data that is present in my argument.[/

Thanks Rich. I was drawing from your statement in the other thread:

string true premises that logically connect to one another

Is there a particular type of syllogism that allows multiple propositions of definition or fact, without having to necessarily show its connection to its immediate syllogism?

From what I understand we are trying to do: A syllogism derives a conclusion after its first two premises (by basic definition and format of a syllogism, P1, P2, C); secondly, the conclusion of this syllogism is to serve as the next premise in the argument if one is to make a a poly-syllogism, and therefore a linked argument (by basic definition and format of a polly-syllogism, which is P1, P2, C/P3, P4, C/P5 Polysllogism). Since this is the format of creating a "linked" argument, I do not see how the below is not the case unless the conclusions I am drawing are inaccurate, which I assume is a possibility.

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the elect alone. (Jer 31)
P2: The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15

The next premise needs to draw a conclusion of these two (which I have been just assuming its conclusion since it isn't stated in your argument).

P1 - P3a: [Therefore] The covenant of Grace is with the elect alone.
P2 - P3b: Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7) (P2 of 2nd syllogism)

P1/C - P4a [Therefore] Sacraments are holy signs and seals for the elect alone.
P2 - P4b: Sacraments are immediately instituted by God to visibly mark out those that are in the Church. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48)

P1/C - P5a [Therefore]

The syllogism breaks here, P4a and P4b cannot both be true to create P5a which will serve as the next premise to continue to your argument. So, unless the conclusions to the poly-sllyogism's subservient syllogims are mistated by me, then I don't see P1-P4 as a linked argument where you can move into P5. That's how I see it at least. Do you think the conclusions I stated, which have to be assumed in your argument since they are not-stated, are drawn incorrectly? If so, what conclusion would you draw from them differently than mine?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Will,

In order to avoid the complaint that mine wasn't a perfect syllogism, I never claimed my argument was in the form of a proper syllogism. It contains multiple propositions that may or may not bear a relationship to one another. Some propositions are defined by the conclusions that precede while others are simply defined with a direct appeal to the Word.

For instance, I could form an argument like this.

P1: Rich is a son.
P2: Rich is a father.
C: Rich is a son and a father.

P3: Rich is married to Sonya.
P4: Rich is a Marine.
C2: Rich is a son, father, and is a Marine married to Sonya.

You seem to be losing track of the fact that some of the propositions are synthetic statements directly inferred by Scripture and I'm not trying to draw any conclusions from a preceding set of synthetic statements.

Let's look at it again:

P1: The New Covenant is made with and consists of the elect alone. (Jer 31)
P2: The New Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. (Heb 9:15)
C1: The COG is made with and consists of the elect alone.

Don't have to break here but I will to show that we're now going to move to the full definition of what a Sacrament is and how it bears a relation to the COG and the Church.

P3: Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7) (Connection to C1 where CoG is introduced)
P4: Sacraments are immediately instituted by God to visibly mark out those who are in the Church. (Rom 15:8, Ex 12:48) (Synthetic statement: Sacraments are...)
P5: There is a spiritual relation between the sign and the grace signified in a sacrament. (Gen 17:10, Matt 26:27-28) (Synthetic statement: relationship between sign and grace signified...)
P6: The grace signified in a sacrament is granted by the Spirit to the elect alone. (Matt 3:11, 1 Co 12:13) (Synthetic statement: Grace is attended by the Holy Spirit to the elect alone)
C2: Sacraments serve a spiritual and visible purpose. On the one hand, they seal the grace signified to those who belong to the CoG *and* they visibly mark out the Church from the world. (Combination of P3-P6)

P7: Baptism is a sacrament. (Matt 28:19) (Connection to C2 where Sacrament is fully defined)
P8: God has commanded, in His Word, the baptism of those that do actually profess faith and obedience to Christ. (Mar 16:15-16) (Synthetic statement)
P9: God has commanded, in His Word, the baptism of the children of believing parents. (Gen 17:7, Acts 2:38) (Synthetic statement)
C3: Those who profess faith and obedience to Christ as well as the children of believers are to be baptized by the Church. (P8-P9 combined)

Other conclusions that could follow:

P10: Some who are baptized are elect.
C4: Some who are baptized are in the CoG but all are in the Church.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

As I look back over this, the final conclusion could really be established by P8 and P9 alone.

My argument defines three things:

P1-P2: What is the composition of the NC an CoG?
P3-P6: What is the nature of a sacrament?
P8-P9: Who has God commanded to be baptized?

P7 bridges to P3-P6 while the nature of the Sacrament connects to the CoG. In other words, I've given enough propositions to draw a variety of conclusions and formed into a variety of syllogisms. One you cannot draw is this:

P1/C - P4a [Therefore] Sacraments are holy signs and seals for the elect alone.

Nowhere in the propositions need it be inferred or concluded that Sacraments serve only this purpose.
Going back to my example. Your logical inference looks like this:

P1: Rich is a son.
P2: Rich is a father.
C: A father is a son.

You're confusing P1 and P2 as analytic statements when they are synthetic statements.

You could have said:

Sacraments are holy signs for the elect and the grace exhibited is really granted to them by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Hilasmos]

Thanks Rich, I am not trying to be disagreeable, and this is really not about debating baptism for me (I am stil learning a lot in this area); I am just interested and fascinated by the art of constructing an argument since you introduced this to the forums.

Some propositions are defined by the conclusions that precede while others are simply defined with a direct appeal to the Word.

For instance, I could form an argument like this.

P1: Rich is a son.
P2: Rich is a father.
C: Rich is a son and a father.

P3: Rich is married to Sonya.
P4: Rich is a Marine.
C2: Rich is a son, father, and is a Marine married to Sonya.

Apart from the conclusion basically being a truism, it can still be tested as valid by breaking it down into a poly format:

P1: Rich is a son.
P2: Rich is a father.
C: Rich is a son and a father.
P3: Rich is married to Sonya
C: Rich is a son and a father married to Sonya
P4: Rich is a Marine
C3: Rich is a son, father, and is a Marine married to Sonya

What I would be interested to see is a valid argument that would not be valid when translated into formal poly format (apart from the one in the OP of course ).

 

[Hilasmos]

Originally Posted by Hilasmos
P1/C - P4a [Therefore] Sacraments are holy signs and seals for the elect alone.

Nowhere in the propositions need it be inferred or concluded that Sacraments serve only this purpose.
Going back to my example. Your logical inference looks like this:

P1: Rich is a son.
P2: Rich is a father.
C: A father is a son

.

I don't follow:

P1: Rich is a son = P1: [Therefore] The covenant of Grace is with the elect alone.
P2: Rich is a Father = P2: Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
P3: A father is a son = [Therefore] Sacraments are holy signs and seals for the elect alone.

In your C both the subject and what is predicated are the predicates of P1 and P2 (which makes it invalid); in my C the subject is the subject of P2 and predicates the predicate of P1.

You could have said:


Sacraments are holy signs for the elect and the grace exhibited is really granted to them by the Holy Spirit

Where does the second half of this proposition come from in the prior propositions?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

What I would be interested to see is a valid argument that would not be valid when translated into formal poly format (apart from the one in the OP of course ).

I probably clouded the first thread by giving an example that was in the form of a proper syllogism. I have noted that I'm only looking for a valid argument.

I'm not sure I have the time to put it into a polysyllogism. I've been too busy and, frankly, I don't claim to be an expert in such things. I'm just trying to note that propositions can build arguments and, if the argument is valid, and supported by propositions then it can be sustained.

Originally Posted by Hilasmos
P1/C - P4a [Therefore] Sacraments are holy signs and seals for the elect alone.

Nowhere in the propositions need it be inferred or concluded that Sacraments serve only this purpose.
Going back to my example. Your logical inference looks like this:

P1: Rich is a son.
P2: Rich is a father.
C: A father is a son

.

I don't follow:

P1: Rich is a son = P1: [Therefore] The covenant of Grace is with the elect alone.
P2: Rich is a Father = P2: Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. (Rom 4:11, Gen 17:7)
P3: A father is a son = [Therefore] Sacraments are holy signs and seals for the elect alone.

You just did what I said was unwarranted and you should see how goofy the syllogism is by concluding that P1 and P2 are proposed to simply make the idea of Rich=father and Rich=son. In this way of looking at it, no information is added. Father is said to be true of Rich by definition as is son. We could reverse this by your logic and conclude:

A son is a father.

It does not follow because they were never proposed in a way to make the ideas communicable.

P1 is not an analytic statement and neither is P2. You've turned synthetic statements into analytic statements and this is the problem with your conclusion that Sacraments are for the elect alone when the synthetic statement in P2 does not exhaust the meaning of the word Sacrament.

Look at it this way:

P1: Rich is a Marine.
P2: Rich is a father.
C: A Marine is a father.

That's unwarranted when the first two propositions are synthetic and not analytic.

You could have said:


Sacraments are holy signs for the elect and the grace exhibited is really granted to them by the Holy Spirit

Where does the second half of this proposition come from in the prior propositions?

As I've said, it's not the prior proposition but the synthetic statements that lead to what a Sacrament is.

A Sacrament:
a. Is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace.
b. Marks out the Church from the world.
c. Seals the grace signified to the elect alone by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Thus, when you look at all the synthetic statements you can find that grace is exhibited in the Sacrament but only actually granted by the Holy Spirit to the elect.

 

[Hilasmos]

You just did what I said was unwarranted and you should see how goofy the syllogism is by concluding that P1 and P2 are proposed to simply make the idea of Rich=father and Rich=son. In this way of looking at it, no information is added. Father is said to be true of Rich by definition as is son. We could reverse this by your logic and conclude:

A son is a father.

It does not follow because they were never proposed in a way to make the ideas communicable.

P1 is not an analytic statement and neither is P2. You've turned synthetic statements into analytic statements and this is the problem with your conclusion that Sacraments are for the elect alone when the synthetic statement in P2 does not exhaust the meaning of the word Sacrament.

Look at it this way:

P1: Rich is a Marine.
P2: Rich is a father.
C: A Marine is a father.

That's unwarranted when the first two propositions are synthetic and not analytic.

Kind of lost me on this. I put them side by side to show how my P1-P3 is not similar at all to your P1-P3. If my conclusion is invalid, which it may be, I don't think it is because of form. For starters, I am not assigning (equaling "=") the predicate to the subject (meaning, I am not saying the CoG = the elect). Secondly, whenever you take a definite subject and assign to it an indefinite predicate, the reverse is invalid (if you were to make your predicates definite, then your syllogism would be valid). I am not assigning the predicates to the subject to begin with, but regardless, I was not thinking of my predicates as indefinite (which is why the two syllogisms are not parallel, which was my only point about that). I think my syllogism may be invalid, based on what you said, concerning what P2 does or does not say as truth. Anyways, moving beyond that...

You've turned synthetic statements into analytic statements and this is the problem with your conclusion that Sacraments are for the elect alone when the synthetic statement in P2 does not exhaust the meaning of the word Sacrament.

Whether a proposition is analytic or synthetic does not determine whether I can draw a certain conclusion or not. Analytic and synthetic only has to do with how we know something is true, not what that truth actually tells us, or what we can conclude from it.

P1 Bachelors are unmarried (analytic)
P2 John is a bachelor (synthetic)
C Therefore, John is not married

P1 Everyone in my house is married (synthetic)
P2 John is in my house (synthetic)
C Therefore, John is not a bachelor

P1 and P2 are synthetic statements, and they do not exhaust what is true about Everyone or John in the least bit; but based on the truth stated, the truth about marital status has been exhausted. I can rightly conclude C.

Thus, your point about "Baptism is a sign and seal of the CoG" and being synthetic is not the issue, in my opinion. The issue is how we interpret this statement. I interprete "Baptism is a sign and seal of the CoG" as:

The sign and seal is not applied to the CoG (meaing, the CoG is not being baptized), thus there must be another assumed subject of the sign. So, Baptism is the seal, a "stamp" (a guarantee even), signifying the stampee's being owned by the CoG. So to paraphrase, Baptism is a sign and seal that one belongs to the CoG. (if this is wrong then I concede).

Moving along, my view point asks if this is true or not? Yes, it is synthetic, and the meaning of baptism is not exhausted in this, but if what it states is true (which the truth of the propositions are being assumed) then how exclusionary can we be with what is stated based on the proposition itself? When looking at the terminology used, and how I am reading it, when something is sealed (gauranteed, irrevocably decided) it seems to suggest an absolute (synthetic or not). Baptism is a public display (sign) and guarantee of the irrevocable truth (seal) of belonging to the CoG (and only the elect belong to the CoG).

All that to say, I don't think the issue is analytic or synthetic (unless you mean something else by this), but how you are defining your terms differently than me to arrive at a non absolute statement (since synthetic statments can be absolutes) -- which, in turn, if you define sign/seal to allow a non-absolute, it allows your following propositions to not just be assertions of truth that end up contracting a former assertion truth.