Paedo-Baptism Answers Infant Baptistm Objection

[Hansseco]

A dear friend of mine brought up this objection to paedo baptism. I'd be curious if any of you have heard this argument and have thoughts on how to counter it. He says he hasn't found anyone who can raise an objection to it. Thanks!

"What seems insurmountable to me is that the new covenant is made in Christ’s blood. A person cannot be in it unless His blood be applied to them. And that blood is only applied to the elect at the moment of faith. So the paedobaptist view inevitably leaves you with unbelievers who are somehow related to Christ in some other way than a saving faith-union with him. I don’t find anywhere that admits of such a relationship."

 

[Contra_Mundum]

A dear friend of mine brought up this objection to paedo baptism. I'd be curious if any of you have heard this argument and have thoughts on how to counter it. He says he hasn't found anyone who can raise an objection to it. Thanks!

"What seems insurmountable to me is that the new covenant is made in Christ’s blood. A person cannot be in it unless His blood be applied to them. And that blood is only applied to the elect at the moment of faith. So the paedobaptist view inevitably leaves you with unbelievers who are somehow related to Christ in some other way than a saving faith-union with him. I don’t find anywhere that admits of such a relationship."

It's a variation on an old Baptist objection, not especially fresh or anything. It is predicated on Baptist assumptions about the nature of baptism and sacraments, generally. But these are not assumptions I, as a Presbyterian, share.

I think (and I know the Baptist does not) that the same argument he raises against our treatment of children of believers today may be directed against Abraham and his children (sons) who received the sign of the covenant of grace in his day. I think (and suppose this Baptist does not) that the blood of Christ was intimately related to the former sign of circumcision, just as much as it is related to the new sign of baptism. If his argument does not hold vs. Abraham and believers after him but before Christ, then it does not hold now.

 

[chuckd]

What is this "moment of faith" in children of believers? Ask a child the moment he began loving his mother and you'd receive the same blank stare.

 

[Afterthought]

They are related by profession. Baptists themselves admit this is a possible relationship to have to Christ: people taking Christ to be their Lord but not possessing him in their hearts.

"Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;" Hebrews 3:1

"Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession." Hebrews 4:14

"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)" Hebrews 10:23

Some who once professed, left the church addressed in the Hebrews, forsaking the assembling of the brethren. We know also of various other apostates in Scripture who once professed and then left. Those who leave have a more severe judgment. This judgment is not that of unbelievers but of the Lord's people, i.e., those who professed are called the Lord's people--they are all members of the church.

"26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people."

There is then a relationship of profession among those who are called the Lord's people that is not necessarily a saving relationship. The only way to be God's people is by covenant, so this relationship of profession is one of covenant: each and every one swore themselves to be the Lord's and solemnly vowed to be such by baptism and as a result claimed his promises for themselves--a promise the Lord would own if the condition of true faith--not mere profession--was met. And so the Hebrews are warned to not be like Esau who forsook his birth right: the thing that was promised (which is the essence of a covenant) to be his and was by right to be his.

"Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright."

 

[dsanch1120]

Definitely may be missing something, but that argument seems to boil down to: the new covenant (and the sign of it) is for the regenerate, not all baptized babies are saved (eventually or at the moment of baptism), therefore the sign is improperly applied. I would almost say that this is an overrealized eschatology. To the logical conclusion of this argument, shall we postpone baptism as some in the early church did to have a greater likelihood of avoiding false baptisms?
Regardless, based on the Abrahamic covenant, I believe that as God has promised to be God to me, so too He has promised to be God to my children.

 

[TylerRay]

Two questions for your friend.
1. Were Abraham and his descendants in the Covenant of Grace?
2. Is the Covenant of Grace made in Christ's blood?

The solution to the apparent conundrum is that someone may be under the outward administration of the covenant without partaking of the substance of the covenant. This was clearly true in the OT, and it is equally true in the NT.

 

[Polanus1561]

Heb. 10:29 is crucial. Baptists hold onto the view that the one sanctified is Christ and not some believer.

 

[JTB.SDG]

A dear friend of mine brought up this objection to paedo baptism. I'd be curious if any of you have heard this argument and have thoughts on how to counter it. He says he hasn't found anyone who can raise an objection to it. Thanks!

"What seems insurmountable to me is that the new covenant is made in Christ’s blood. A person cannot be in it unless His blood be applied to them. And that blood is only applied to the elect at the moment of faith. So the paedobaptist view inevitably leaves you with unbelievers who are somehow related to Christ in some other way than a saving faith-union with him. I don’t find anywhere that admits of such a relationship."

The question makes assumptions without consulting Scripture itself. Jesus, the author and inaugurator of the new covenant, speaks in John 15 about branches in him that bear no fruit and are cut off and thrown into the fire. Who are they? Jesus again speaks in Matthew 13 about the net of fish; the net only catches a few fish in the ocean, representing the kingdom, but afterwards the fish are sorted out into the good or bad. The greatest OT prophecy of the new covenant I think baptists would say is Jeremiah 31. But even as Jeremiah speaks of the new covenant, he declares "everyone will die for their own sin" (verse 30). 1 John speaks of those "of us" walking away from the faith. It's all there if you have eyes to see it.

 

[Hansseco]

Thanks for your replies. Here is an update:
I asked these question:
Wouldn’t that suggest that the blood of Christ is less precious for Abraham and those after him and before Christ? Or that their union with Christ was not ultimately given to them on the basis of Christ’s blood?

His response:
“Not in my opinion. I don’t see a basis to make that comparison. It is reasoning by an analogy that goes way beyond the NT’s use of the example of Abraham.

I don’t see how one can escape the idea that some benefits of the death of Christ have to be conferred on nonbelievers. Which, if we are making value-based arguments, would cheapen his death far more in my opinion.”

 

[TylerRay]

Thanks for your replies. Here is an update:
I asked these question:
Wouldn’t that suggest that the blood of Christ is less precious for Abraham and those after him and before Christ? Or that their union with Christ was not ultimately given to them on the basis of Christ’s blood?

His response:
“Not in my opinion. I don’t see a basis to make that comparison. It is reasoning by an analogy that goes way beyond the NT’s use of the example of Abraham.

I don’t see how one can escape the idea that some benefits of the death of Christ have to be conferred on nonbelievers. Which, if we are making value-based arguments, would cheapen his death far more in my opinion.”

It's not reasoning by analogy. It's a question of whether Abraham was saved by the grace of God on the basis of the covenant in Christ's blood.

Is your friend a dispensationalist?

 

[J.L. Allen]

Thanks for your replies. Here is an update:
I asked these question:
Wouldn’t that suggest that the blood of Christ is less precious for Abraham and those after him and before Christ? Or that their union with Christ was not ultimately given to them on the basis of Christ’s blood?

His response:
“Not in my opinion. I don’t see a basis to make that comparison. It is reasoning by an analogy that goes way beyond the NT’s use of the example of Abraham.

I don’t see how one can escape the idea that some benefits of the death of Christ have to be conferred on nonbelievers. Which, if we are making value-based arguments, would cheapen his death far more in my opinion.”

Ah. The strict bifurcation of the OT from the NT, combined with an especially narrow reading of the NT's use of the OT, strikes again.

"...in my opinion" is very important to read here. Because it is just his opinion that Christ's death is cheapened. The whole scope of Scripture would disagree with his opinion. As other brothers have pointed out, there are many fine details in Scripture that rely on previous OT predications in order to be rightly understood, not only in the NT, but as a cohesive whole.

 

[Hansseco]

It's not reasoning by analogy. It's a question of whether Abraham was saved by the grace of God on the basis of the covenant in Christ's blood.

Is your friend a dispensationalist?

Not sure, actually. I didn’t think so before but we haven’t discussed it previously.

 

[Hansseco]

Recent update
(For context, he said “Paul argues that no all Israel is Israel”)
My recent response:
I just think your point is what convinces me more than anything. Abraham and those who had faith are the true Israel, yet God in the OT commanded that Abraham and his offspring and all the sons of Israel be circumcised. All the while knowing that not all who are descended from Israel are Israel, though they are circumcised.

Which argument are you saying is foreign to the NT?

His response: “I think the whole framework that you’re using to try to analyze the issue is foreign to the NT. It makes analogies and comparisons between things that the NT never does to make “if, then” type of arguments. They aren’t dumb arguments, but I think that we need to let the new covenant documents define what the new covenant is.

Baptism is associated with belief, repentance, and appealing to God for a clean conscience in the NT. The writers do not try to draw a comparison with circumcision. This is consistent with a new covenant made in Christ’s blood.”

Also, thank you all for offering your insights.

 

[JTB.SDG]

From your updates, I'm not sure if your friend is open to these thoughts. If he was, I think a lot of people could recommend good books or articles on these issues. But if he's not open to it to begin with, I don't think there's going to be any single Scripture truth that will hit the mark, just endless debate.

 

[Hansseco]

Yes. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree. It’s not really a heated debate. We are just asking questions back and forth, no animosity. It's been a good charitable discussion on both ends. I only recently developed these convictions and he's much more read on the issue than I am so I've appreciated the help.

 

[itsreed]

So, a child gets baptized without possession of true saving faith.

Simon Magus got baptized without possession of true saving faith.

Same dif.

 

[J.L. Allen]

belief, repentance, and appealing to God for a clean conscience in the NT

All the sacraments of the OT are associated with these things in the same way as baptism is in the NT. WCF VII.5-6

The writers do not try to draw a comparison with circumcision.

Paul says otherwise in Colossians 2.

“I think the whole framework that you’re using to try to analyze the issue is foreign to the NT. It makes analogies and comparisons between things that the NT never does to make “if, then” type of arguments. They aren’t dumb arguments, but I think that we need to let the new covenant documents define what the new covenant is.

Which is exactly what the NT writers are doing when they build the entirety of their arguments and beliefs upon the OT.


Tyler Ray asked if your friend is Dispensational because there seems to be something of a flavor understanding the OT that sounds rather Dispensational.

 

[dsanch1120]

Tyler Ray asked if your friend is Dispensational because there seems to be something of a flavor understanding the OT that sounds rather Dispensational.

His argument actually sounds fairly new/progressive covenantal to me. The quoting of “not all Israel is Israel” to describe the church combined with the sharp distinction between new covenant and what came before reminds me of those systems.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Let me preface the following by questioning the wisdom of posting extracts from a discussion taking place elsewhere, but having taken "inputs" from here. We end up engaging in critique of someone who is having a private (or he could believe it is relatively small in scope) conversation or back-and-forth, and he has no way of correcting our apprehensions, or otherwise defending himself among us. This is significantly different from critiquing public positions taken on blogs, articles, and even fora like the PuritanBoard; people should not expect their public or quasi-public exchanges to be free of observational comment by outsiders. I recommend people aim at not reading anything into the words of this stranger, or behind them.

I realize this Q was asked in the paedo-baptism forum, so all the responses are from PBs; but it behooves us to remember that non-PBs (Baptists) could be reading. Responses should be wary of tossing around the label of "dispensational" or assuming its presence (but possibly its influence, witting or unwitting). We are answering in an echo-chamber here.

The person with the opinion opposite of Hansseco is expressing a common Baptist perspective, whatever his choices of words. Not all Baptists are dispensational (as not all Presbyterians are "covenantal"), even if there is some rationale behind the attraction a particular macro-theory of reading the Bible "fits" with one category or another. In offering our views, we should remember that our confessional Baptist friends (some PuritanBoard members) could say very similar things, but deny connection to dispensationalism.

As I hinted in my response above, two different paradigms of interpretation will almost certainly result in different ways of reading the same texts and passages. One may be better than the other, but each side believes strongly that his is the better one. Figuring out "why" the other side thinks as they do is a more valuable investigation, rather than making a snap judgment about what motive or commitment stands behind their stance. The former puts you and I in a position of empathy, of sincerely trying to understand the other side from inside of it, how it makes a rational conclusion from its starting premises. The fact I don't share those premises likely helps me understand what my own premises are, and why I hold them so dearly.

The conversation as it has been reported here shows us what the other man's premises are. No one needs to go behind them any further to find the latent or explicit "dispensationalism" or NCT that could be there. You (and I) may disagree with those premises, or find contradictions in them or flaws in the reasoning, or bring up other texts or doctrines that militate against the conclusions drawn from fewer or those having a limiting factor for relevance. But he is not even here to participate in any debate about his convictions.

Separate the individual from a critique of the position as presented. Don't presume on facts not in evidence. Try to imagine how you would feel if your stance was misrepresented. The view that was given was itself a view that interprets the Presbyterian position not from its own internal logic, but from the alien logic of the Baptist perspective. It does not "make sense" on critical (and common) Baptist principles. This should make us more compassionate, not more dismissive of people who do not understand where we're coming from. It should warn us that we also may not understand the other well enough to evaluate it thoroughly and fairly.

 

[J.L. Allen]

Let me preface the following by questioning the wisdom of posting extracts from a discussion taking place elsewhere, but having taken "inputs" from here. We end up engaging in critique of someone who is having a private (or he could believe it is relatively small in scope) conversation or back-and-forth, and he has no way of correcting our apprehensions, or otherwise defending himself among us. This is significantly different from critiquing public positions taken on blogs, articles, and even fora like the PuritanBoard; people should not expect their public or quasi-public exchanges to be free of observational comment by outsiders. I recommend people aim at not reading anything into the words of this stranger, or behind them.

I realize this Q was asked in the paedo-baptism forum, so all the responses are from PBs; but it behooves us to remember that non-PBs (Baptists) could be reading. Responses should be wary of tossing around the label of "dispensational" or assuming its presence (but possibly its influence, witting or unwitting). We are answering in an echo-chamber here.

The person with the opinion opposite of Hansseco is expressing a common Baptist perspective, whatever his choices of words. Not all Baptists are dispensational (as not all Presbyterians are "covenantal"), even if there is some rationale behind the attraction a particular macro-theory of reading the Bible "fits" with one category or another. In offering our views, we should remember that our confessional Baptist friends (some PuritanBoard members) could say very similar things, but deny connection to dispensationalism.

As I hinted in my response above, two different paradigms of interpretation will almost certainly result in different ways of reading the same texts and passages. One may be better than the other, but each side believes strongly that his is the better one. Figuring out "why" the other side thinks as they do is a more valuable investigation, rather than making a snap judgment about what motive or commitment stands behind their stance. The former puts you and I in a position of empathy, of sincerely trying to understand the other side from inside of it, how it makes a rational conclusion from its starting premises. The fact I don't share those premises likely helps me understand what my own premises are, and why I hold them so dearly.

The conversation as it has been reported here shows us what the other man's premises are. No one needs to go behind them any further to find the latent or explicit "dispensationalism" or NCT that could be there. You (and I) may disagree with those premises, or find contradictions in them or flaws in the reasoning, or bring up other texts or doctrines that militate against the conclusions drawn from fewer or those having a limiting factor for relevance. But he is not even here to participate in any debate about his convictions.

Separate the individual from a critique of the position as presented. Don't presume on facts not in evidence. Try to imagine how you would feel if your stance was misrepresented. The view that was given was itself a view that interprets the Presbyterian position not from its own internal logic, but from the alien logic of the Baptist perspective. It does not "make sense" on critical (and common) Baptist principles. This should make us more compassionate, not more dismissive of people who do not understand where we're coming from. It should warn us that we also may not understand the other well enough to evaluate it thoroughly and fairly.

Rev. Buchanan,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think the man is being attacked. It's not uncommon for us to try to make sense of a view by seemingly relevant associations. In my experience and by what is being described, I think of Dispensationalism. I don't mean the term as an insult to the man or to anyone else. I agree; the information is scant. Yet, this is where making associations is helpful for me. The associations are by no means designed to psychoanalyze the man but are intended to piece together the limited information.

My disagreement with Baptists is a sharp one, and I make no attempt to hide that. However, if I've overstated my point, then I am fine to walk it back.

His argument actually sounds fairly new/progressive covenantal to me. The quoting of “not all Israel is Israel” to describe the church combined with the sharp distinction between new covenant and what came before reminds me of those systems.

That very well could be. I'd have to look more into the distinctions.

 

[TylerRay]

The person with the opinion opposite of Hansseco is expressing a common Baptist perspective, whatever his choices of words. Not all Baptists are dispensational (as not all Presbyterians are "covenantal"), even if there is some rationale behind the attraction a particular macro-theory of reading the Bible "fits" with one category or another. In offering our views, we should remember that our confessional Baptist friends (some PuritanBoard members) could say very similar things, but deny connection to dispensationalism.

Granted that the gentleman is unable to respond to what has been said here, the quotes provided do not sound like a covenantal Baptist perspective; they come across as heavily dispensational. I think a confessional Baptist would have the same assessment.

Perhaps you weren't thinking of me in particular when you wrote this, but I felt compelled to respond because I'm the one who dropped the "d word." In doing so I was asking an honest question, as our friend's interaction with the individual should be informed by an understanding of the theological framework he holds. If he's dealing with a dispensationalist, a NCT guy, or whatever, it behoves him to know it.

I agree, however, that trying to analyze the person's theological position on this thread would be a vain and fruitless endeavor. I was trying to help our brother seek further information from his friend so as to know how to talk to him.

 

[Hansseco]

Granted that the gentleman is unable to respond to what has been said here, the quotes provided do not sound like a covenantal Baptist perspective; they come across as heavily dispensational. I think a confessional Baptist would have the same assessment.

Perhaps you weren't thinking of me in particular when you wrote this, but I felt compelled to respond because I'm the one who dropped the "d word." In doing so I was asking an honest question, as our friend's interaction with the individual should be informed by an understanding of the theological framework he holds. If he's dealing with a dispensationalist, a NCT guy, or whatever, it behoves him to know it.

I agree, however, that trying to analyze the person's theological position on this thread would be a vain and fruitless endeavor. I was trying to help our brother seek further information from his friend so as to know how to talk to him.

So I asked my friend, and he stated that he is not dispensational but aligns more with the covenantal Baptist perspective. I'm not very familiar with this perspective. This is not from my good friend, but I am curious, as someone who is, for lack of a better term, a novice regarding paedo-baptist theology. I read this article: https://founders.org/articles/an-analysis-of-reformed-infant-baptism/, and my friend affirmed his agreement with it. I am planning to purchase a few different books on these two perspectives in particular so I can better understand them. But would love to hear how my paedo brothers would respond to the first two objections from this article made under the headings: The Covenant of Grace, and Hermeneutics.

 

[Jude24]

So I asked my friend, and he stated that he is not dispensational but aligns more with the covenantal Baptist perspective. I'm not very familiar with this perspective. This is not from my good friend, but I am curious, as someone who is, for lack of a better term, a novice regarding paedo-baptist theology. I read this article: https://founders.org/articles/an-analysis-of-reformed-infant-baptism/, and my friend affirmed his agreement with it. I am planning to purchase a few different books on these two perspectives in particular so I can better understand them. But would love to hear how my paedo brothers would respond to the first two objections from this article made under the headings: The Covenant of Grace, and Hermeneutics.

Coming from a paedobaptist who is currently attending a 1689 federalism believing Baptist church, there are several problematic sections in this article.

1: Third, the Reformed Paedobaptist doctrine of the covenant of grace ascribes saving power to the OT covenants of promise. But this is impossible since the OT covenants of promise, including the Abrahamic covenant, were established on the shed blood of animals and imperfect human mediators. The OT covenants of promise commanded their members to trust the Lord, to love the Lord, and obey the Lord. But the OT covenants did not provide their members with the power to obey their commands. The shed blood of animals and human mediators never gave grace needed for regeneration, justification, sanctification, and perseverance. That only comes from the shed blood of Christ and His mediation. The paedobaptist notion of a “saving substance” in the OT covenants is foreign to the Bible.
The old testament speaks frequently about the need to circumcise the hearts as well as the body (Jeremiah 4:4, Deuteronomy 10: 12-17). We are still commanded to trust the Lord, love the Lord, and obey the Lord just as much as the people of Israel were. We are also unable to keep these commands without prior regeneration from Christ. There is no difference between the people of Israel and us today. The mosaic administration of the covenant was never set up to be a covenant that was somehow meant to be kept apart from the grace of God. My question to this author is if there was no saving substance in the OT then how were the OT saints saved? Look at Genesis 17:7. When God makes a covenant to Abraham, he promises to be his God. This is a union with God-not some external following of the commandments. The error in this statement is attempting to say that the OT people were under a separate covenant that only required external obedience and not an inward change. There is no separate covenant. Only one covenant of grace with different outward administrations.

2: Third, unbelievers were never in the covenant of grace (because of numbers 1 and 2). The covenant of grace was only made with the elect in Christ. It effectually saves all its members because they are under Christ’s effectual mediation. Therefore, since unbelieving infants (and unbelievers of any kind) were not part of the covenant of grace under the old covenant, then neither are they part of the covenant of grace under the new covenant.
Agreed. Not all Israel was truly Israel as you have stated. However, there is an outward and an inward participation of the covenant. The elect in Christ fully and completely take part of the covenant of grace, but, just as in the OT, there are those who are only outwardly participating. They are not part of the CoG inwardly, but they are certainly identified as participating in the outward administration. This is no different than in the OT. The burden of proof is on the Baptist to prove there is a separation between the covenants of the OT and NT.

3: Paedobaptists are conflicted about whether the case laws of Israel should apply to the United States as theonomic reconstructionism teaches.......Paedobaptists are conflicted about whether the infants of believers should be admitted to the Lord’s Supper because they were admitted at Passover
This is faulty reasoning. Just because all Paedobaptists do not agree does not somehow make it incorrect. For example, some Baptists are Arminian. This fact does not at all disprove credobaptism. I'm honestly not sure why this was included in this article as support for the credobaptist position.

4: Reformed Baptists believe that the sign of circumcision (Gen 17:11) is fulfilled at the cross of Christ and in “heart circumcision.”

As mentioned above, paedobaptists also agree with this....and so does the OT. This was always the point of circumcision. This one was surprising that baptists would affirm this, as they usually state that circumcision was only an ethnic sign. This point seems to prove paedobaptism more than it does credobaptism.

Additionally, the entire RPW section does not make sense. The RPW does not explicitly say that we can only follow NT principles to my knowledge. Also, the RPW does not determine what you include and do not in worship. It only states that it must be based on Biblical principle. It is a method of worship, not a list that everyone agrees on.

 

[MyCrows]

Maybe read 1 Corinthians ch. 10, and Galatians ch. 3 with your friend, and talk about how the the church today compares and contrasts with Israel (the church under age).

After the sharp distinction between the OT and NT, (in regards to the CoG), is lessened, the things being discussed seem to be are a natural fit.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

J.L. Allen & TylerRay
I wasn't picking out anyone in particular for criticism. My concern is for persons and also the PuritanBoard as a whole. Whoever the opinion-holder is, he's our neighbor. If it was me, I would be annoyed if I was characterized as "dispensational" in some way, since I don't see myself as such and in fact have many problems with that position. This fellow might also feel slighted, even if no one meant to ruffle his feathers; but in any case he is not free (without signing up here) to rebut the association.

What this person's category of views are isn't actually the topic of the thread; but rather, initially it was for answering Hansseco who wanted to know how a paedobaptist would respond to a specific objection. That it was quoted from another source was irrelevant to the original responses to our own member and his query.

Now, as the thread has gone along, that outside conversation has been embedded in this thread, exposing more of it and the back-and-forth as Hansseco took what he gleaned here and used it in his replies elsewhere (in some manner). What's happening, therefore, is an unsafe situation is developing; wherein responders here are being drawn into a proxy-debate of sorts. The outside-guy is actually going back-and-forth with a crowd of people, and he doesn't even know that he's being batted around and evaluated. We also aren't first-hand connected to his comments in the totality of their presentation context. He might have very different things to say, or say them differently, if only he knew.

I recommend to anyone, not just for this thread and its commentators: don't set yourself up to provide answers you are not ready to give. You are wiser to admit you don't know the "right" or "best" response, but that doesn't mean you are surrendering your position to another side in a debate and granting him superiority. Children don't take candy from strangers, simply because the stranger has a smooth sounding comeback to a child's parent-given instruction to refuse. They shouldn't assume their position is weak and false, because they only have their position to hold on and not the full reasoning in their possession. That day will come. And so will come the day when one has the answers and the agility to field questions and challenges, even or especially if they come from friends and loved ones.

My original response in the thread was for Hansseco's sake, for teaching and taking a single step along a long path of developing his (and other reader's) knowledge and maturity in the faith; and not for the sake of taking that reply to someone else, which then might draw me unwittingly into that conversation. I'm not part of that conversation or (mild) debate. I certainly don't know enough about that person to pigeonhole his larger theological framework.

Peace to all who are part of this thread.

 

[J.L. Allen]

J.L. Allen & TylerRay
I wasn't picking out anyone in particular for criticism. My concern is for persons and also the PuritanBoard as a whole. Whoever the opinion-holder is, he's our neighbor. If it was me, I would be annoyed if I was characterized as "dispensational" in some way, since I don't see myself as such and in fact have many problems with that position. This fellow might also feel slighted, even if no one meant to ruffle his feathers; but in any case he is not free (without signing up here) to rebut the association.

What this person's category of views are isn't actually the topic of the thread; but rather, initially it was for answering Hansseco who wanted to know how a paedobaptist would respond to a specific objection. That it was quoted from another source was irrelevant to the original responses to our own member and his query.

Now, as the thread has gone along, that outside conversation has been embedded in this thread, exposing more of it and the back-and-forth as Hansseco took what he gleaned here and used it in his replies elsewhere (in some manner). What's happening, therefore, is an unsafe situation is developing; wherein responders here are being drawn into a proxy-debate of sorts. The outside-guy is actually going back-and-forth with a crowd of people, and he doesn't even know that he's being batted around and evaluated. We also aren't first-hand connected to his comments in the totality of their presentation context. He might have very different things to say, or say them differently, if only he knew.

I recommend to anyone, not just for this thread and its commentators: don't set yourself up to provide answers you are not ready to give. You are wiser to admit you don't know the "right" or "best" response, but that doesn't mean you are surrendering your position to another side in a debate and granting him superiority. Children don't take candy from strangers, simply because the stranger has a smooth sounding comeback to a child's parent-given instruction to refuse. They shouldn't assume their position is weak and false, because they only have their position to hold on and not the full reasoning in their possession. That day will come. And so will come the day when one has the answers and the agility to field questions and challenges, even or especially if they come from friends and loved ones.

My original response in the thread was for Hansseco's sake, for teaching and taking a single step along a long path of developing his (and other reader's) knowledge and maturity in the faith; and not for the sake of taking that reply to someone else, which then might draw me unwittingly into that conversation. I'm not part of that conversation or (mild) debate. I certainly don't know enough about that person to pigeonhole his larger theological framework.

Peace to all who are part of this thread.

Rev. Buchanan,

Not to sound like deja vu all over again, but thank you for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your sensitivity and wisdom. I have a clearer understanding of where you're coming from.

I hope the answers have satisfied the OPs inquiry.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Responding to the OP's concern for his friend's view, which was:

"What seems insurmountable to me is that the new covenant is made in Christ’s blood. A person cannot be in it unless His blood be applied to them. And that blood is only applied to the elect at the moment of faith. So the paedobaptist view inevitably leaves you with unbelievers who are somehow related to Christ in some other way than a saving faith-union with him. I don’t find anywhere that admits of such a relationship."​

The sentences, "And that blood is only applied to the elect at the moment of faith. So the paedobaptist view inevitably leaves you with unbelievers who are somehow related to Christ in some other way than a saving faith-union with him.", are significant. That is, are they true or not?

In a sense, it is true that the blood is only applied to the elect at the moment of faith, as before that moment I was a child of wrath: "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." (Eph 2:2, 3).

But in another sense it was applied to me from eternity:

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." KJV (Eph 1:4,5,6)

That it was to be applied to me from eternity and not merely "at the moment of faith" is clear. So what about the statement in the OP of, "unbelievers who are somehow related to Christ in some other way than a saving faith-union with him."?

Unbelievers are not related to Christ in the manner just stated. In the OT sign and seal of the covenant of grace, which was circumcision, all the children were not necessarily elect, but for the sake of the elect children among them, all were circumcised. Exactly the same in the New Covenant period is the case: for the sake of the elect children among them, all are baptized. The others, the reprobate among them, were not in God’s covenant, despite appearances.

As regards the "covenantal Baptist perspective" on this, it is made clearer in Joel Beeke and Mark Jones’ A Puritan Theology, where they write:

“The debate [between baptists and paedobaptists] focused on how the Abrahamic covenant relates to the new covenant. The question…is whether we may speak of the Abrahamic covenant (singular, so the Reformed) or Abrahamic covenants (plural, so the Baptists). The antipaedobaptists had to speak of two covenants made with Abraham: works and grace. By doing so they were able to argue that circumcision belonged to the Abrahamic covenant of works and not to the Abrahamic covenant of grace. Reformed paedobaptists would view this as forced exegesis that is wholly unpersuasive—particularly in light of Romans 4:11—and a major departure from classic Reformed covenant theology.” (A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life, Beeke and Jones, p 740-41)​

 

[Hansseco]

Thanks Steve!

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Cody / @Hansseco ,

Here's a thread from almost 4 years ago on PB that may be edifying and of interest to you, Critique of Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology (Renihan), and I start extended commenting and critique in post #58. The relatively recent "1689 covenantal Baptist perspective" is important to understand.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

"What seems insurmountable to me is that the new covenant is made in Christ’s blood. A person cannot be in it unless His blood be applied to them. And that blood is only applied to the elect at the moment of faith. So the paedobaptist view inevitably leaves you with unbelievers who are somehow related to Christ in some other way than a saving faith-union with him. I don’t find anywhere that admits of such a relationship."

The problem with this objection is that one should apply this exact same objection to someone who professes faith in Christ.

The Reformed Baptist repeatedly points to the perfection of the NC and that all who are members are regenerate because Christ cannot mediate for any who are not elect.

The problem is this:
profession ≠ regeneration/election

This is why the LBCF does not even admit that baptism admits a person to the Covenant of Grace but to the local Church only. This is why a person may be baptized by profession of faith but may never have been really baptized because they never truly had faith.

Reformed confessions insist that the Covenant of Grace is made with Christ and, in Him, all the elect. The reprobate are not in Christ whether baptized as infants or as professors.

The flaw in Baptist thinking is presuming that the notion that the New Covenant has Christ as Mediator means that only those who profess Christ are to be baptized into the Church. Baptism is viewed (wrongly) as a signification that the Church has determined that the party baptized is truly in Christ and truly in the New Covenant. It is not. It is a sign that the person baptized has been set apart, visibly, from the world to become a disciple and to be taught all that Christ has commanded. It is not administered at the end of this discipline process but at its beginning because the Chruch is the place where persons are baptized as disciples and we depend upon the Holy Spirit to regenerate as the Church proclaims the Gospel and teaches what Christ commands.