Polanus1561
Puritan Board Senior
Andrew, would there be any problems discussing your questions here while being a Pastoral Intern? I trust you see I am asking out of concern.
Paedo-Baptism Answers "Believers and their children"
- Thread starter Blood-Bought Pilgrim
- Start date
Blood-Bought Pilgrim
Puritan Board Sophomore
I mean that what was the remnant in the OT-- those who are elect and truly saved by grace-- seem to me to constitute the whole of the covenant people in the New Covenant. They are no longer a small remnant of the people of God.
Blood-Bought Pilgrim
Puritan Board Sophomore
It's on my mind. I feel free to discuss these questions because I am not under any vows of subscription as such-- but I do fully realize that if I do continue to be more persuaded by the 1689 view I cannot continue on my current ecclesiastical path.
This seems like an odd conviction, to me. 2Ths.2:3 says, "that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first." The criticism some Presbyterians have of the Baptist view is that it has an overrealized eschatology. The idea that in the present (penultimate) age, the church of the New Covenant is so pure it has no "visible administration" at all; it only has a Spirit-administration, it is only perfectly administered unto the elect.
I see how that view may be found and held; but a text like 2Ths.2:3 (or Heb.6:4-9) says to me that the church of the NT, no less than the church of the OT, is an outward administration for the covenant, and one that does contain (at different degrees at different times) false sons in her pale. I look around the world today, and I see much of the church appears to be given over to idolatry. The faithful church is much smaller, though perhaps if the Lord tarries, it will in the future be more robust and larger. The Reformation was an effort by the remnant church to assert itself, in the end being driven out and new structures formed to carry on a faithful effort. Which has subsequently undergone similar growth and various corruptions, while the remnant perseveres and tries to purify itself.
Blood-Bought Pilgrim
Puritan Board Sophomore
I see the connection you are drawing here. It is certainly undeniable that many professing believers are not true believers/recipients of grace. I see that as an aspect of the already/not yet tension. We live in a fallen world with fallible human judgment. Without opening a whole separate discussion, I'd say I don't think that necessarily means we have to consider those people as part of the covenant-- but of course again that goes straight back to the debate on what exactly the nature of the New Covenant is.
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Senior
@NM_Presby I hope you have read the Pratt article on Jer 31 i linked elsewhere
Blood-Bought Pilgrim
Puritan Board Sophomore
I have indeed!
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Senior
Great. If you have zoomed in on the NC issue, I suggest the NC chapter in the crossway book too. Blessings.
Blood-Bought Pilgrim
Puritan Board Sophomore
Thank you. I have that book and I'm planning on reading several chapters from it soon as part of this study, so I'll make sure I include that one.
I just read this point you made earlier, hence your lean to RB. I saw where your post was going and attempted to respond to that objection before you brought it up. I brought it up to explain what happens when children of believers are baptized despite any spiritual qualification such as a profession of faith.
I see that these children being in part of a 'covenant community' get to experience a greater measure of common grace. (based on the audience, it goes without saying this [paedobaptism] does not have salvific benefits, and nor does credobaptism ensure that that person is really saved.)
In going back to the reason for baptism, it's a command and a gift as a useful means of worship. A recent realization I had in growing to love God and the practice of baptizing both children and believers, even more, is it reflects the eternal construct of when/how God foreknew, predestined(s), called(s), justified(ies), and glorified(ies) believers.
To practice only credobaptism suggests an Arminian lean where a dead body (Eph 2.1) is able to reach out of the grave and pull itself out.
I'm inclined to agree with you, as to where the real debate is centered. I'm prepared to be corrected, but I do not think that the Baptist NC-conception of the church thinks of it as an administration of the covenant. Which may seem strange, since I'm sure most Baptist pastors would see themselves reflected in the first vv of 2Cor.3, which speaks of ministers and ministration; but perhaps this is only understood in mystical terms? Where I picture the church being the ongoing manifestation (still in the world) of the covenanted kingdom that was before the Incarnation; the alternative conception seems to remove the covenant out of this world, even while the participants still occupy their bodies in it.
Blood-Bought Pilgrim
Puritan Board Sophomore
Blood-Bought Pilgrim
Puritan Board Sophomore
This great question. In most of the baptist stuff I've read they do tend to avoid talking about any kind of outward administration. Though I'm generally finding myself in agreement with it, one of the lingering questions for me about the 1689 perspective is how they think of/talk about the visible church community. Perhaps if I haven't found answers in my reading that will be another question to ask on here down the line.
Interesting, I can see how that would happen.
Consider a lecture by Ligon Duncan from RTS. I like his style of giving a fair shake to opposing positions. Here, he simply teaches about the biblical basis for baptism in church. In the end, he gives an example of how his church had baptisms for babies and adults in separate services and eventually combined them as an improved display of God's rescue of sinners:
https://subsplash.com/reformtheosem_copy/learn-about-rts/mi/+bzrc3r6
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Senior
Hebrews 10:29 is key here
Blood-Bought Pilgrim
Puritan Board Sophomore
Agreed, though I think this verse poses challenges for both perspectives. From a Reformed Baptist perspective, it must be answered how people who are not covenant members can be spoken of as sanctified by the blood of the covenant. That is definitely a challenge. However I think it is equally difficult for the paedobaptist perspective to explain how one can be under the covenant mediation of Christ, sanctified by his blood (in the sense of being in the covenant), and yet not be saved. Both are challenging things to answer, and both sides have their explanation-- I'm not sure which I find more convincing yet.
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Senior
I just leave Acts 20:28 to this without further discussion.
And the some most RB sees the he who was sanctified to refer to Jesus.
Ok, I remembered this and feel forced to share it. 
Here’s the inspiration for it.
tinysa.com/sermon/2223143874418
There is a video and the use of the whiteboard is helpful!
Here’s the inspiration for it.
tinysa.com/sermon/2223143874418
There is a video and the use of the whiteboard is helpful!
Andrew, as a former Reformed Baptist myself, it was the paedobaptist position that eventually convinced me. Baptists argue that paedobaptists baptise unbelievers. But I came to see that Baptists also baptise unbelievers. Only God infallibly knows who is a believer. Thus the paedobaptist yet- not yet aspect of the covenant, to my mind, best accounts for this.