So according to Gal. 3 Abrahams children are those who have faith. We are part of that same covenant, as are our children, but now the sign is baptism. We do not know that they will ever believe, but they are in the church to a degree. The sign has a double edge and they will be held to a higher accountability for their life. Nonetheless, they are not the same as the children of unbelievers.
Jeremiah 31:31-34 & Infant Baptism
- Thread starter mccaffertyb7
- Start date
- Status
mccaffertyb7
Puritan Board Freshman
I think you're missing my point. You said that the New Covenant will be fully in effect when we are with Christ. I agree. And you seem to say that the New Covenant has already been enacted by Christ. I agree. If that's the case however, and the New Covenant is a time when all will know the LORD, how can you justify baptizing infants who do not even have a profession of the faith? If the New Covenant is the de jure legal constitution of the Church, then how can we purposefully baptize and include in the new covenant those who do not know the LORD?
You are asking some good questions. I would encourage you to go back and read what I posted above by Rev. Winzer. It is late here and I need to grab some rest. I will address your issues tomorrow. The blog post I sent you to addresses things you need to see concerning some of the arguments I had to deal with as a Reformed Baptist.
I would also remind you that you should peer at Jeremiah 31 with Jeremiah 32. One problem we have is dividing the scriptures into parts when they shouldn't be. It gives us lop sided understanding when we parse too much.
Jer 32:36 "Now therefore thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning this city of which you say, 'It is given into the hand of the king of Babylon by sword, by famine, and by pestilence':
Jer 32:37 Behold, I will gather them from all the countries to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation. I will bring them back to this place, and I will make them dwell in safety.
Jer 32:38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
Jer 32:39 I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them.
Jer 32:40 I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me.
Jer 32:41 I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul.
Jer 32:42 "For thus says the LORD: Just as I have brought all this great disaster upon this people, so I will bring upon them all the good that I promise them.
From the perspective of Covenant breaking one must look at who, what, when, and where. Covenant Breaking is addressed in the New Covenant, is it not?
Even in Hebrews.
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 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?
There is such a thing as Apostasy. At the same time we know that there is a perseverance for those of us who are in Christ. The issue of Covenant and Community are issues that address different areas of concern. Forgiveness and Spiritual renewal (rebirth) are the same in both testaments. Christ in you the hope of glory is the same in both the Mosaic and the New Covenant. Where does it say in Jeremiah that there are no Covenant Breakers or that man can't break the Covenant of Grace? The New Covenant differs in the fact of fulfillment and that we no longer need a Levitical Priest to tell us to know God. Malachi 2:7 states that the people were to seek knowledge of The Lord from the Levites. The Levites were given the responsibility to be the messenger of The Lord . Mal 2:7 For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.
It is late. I will check in on this tomorrow. I hope I have helped a bit.
mccaffertyb7
Puritan Board Freshman
I guess what I'm saying is: if the New Covenant has indeed been enacted, then it should be the de jure legal constitution of the Church NOW, and not just in the future. All people included in the New Covenant should know the LORD, so much as that is possible. Even though the true condition of the Church still resembles in some respects (de facto) the people of God under previous covenants with the presence of both believers and unbelievers, the Church should attempt to include in the New Covenant only those who know the LORD. Thus, people should be baptized only upon a credible profession of faith, because many infants will never know the LORD.
How would you respond to that?
mccaffertyb7
Puritan Board Freshman
Ahh, yes. You are getting to where I have been trying to go. I read Richard Pratt's "Infant Baptism in the New Covenant", and he says this: "In the first place, Jeremiah announced that the new covenant couldn't be broken. In the consummation of Christ's Kingdom, this prediction will be completely fulfilled."
So, if I can just ask you a simple question: are you in agreement with Dr. Pratt's statement above?
It has been a long time since I read Platt's understanding. I don't think I agreed with some of it. Where in Jeremiah 31 does it say that the New Covenant can't be broken or that apostasy can't happen? What is the context and who are the players involved. What is the difference between the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New? Doesn't it have to do with the types and anti-types? Isn't there the same proclamation in Jeremiah 32 as in Jeremiah 31?
Again, I would encourage you to examine Rev. Winzer's responses in post 10 that I posted. http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/jeremiah-31-31-34-infant-baptism-83018/#post1042108
Again, I would encourage you to examine Rev. Winzer's responses in post 10 that I posted. http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/jeremiah-31-31-34-infant-baptism-83018/#post1042108
mccaffertyb7
Puritan Board Freshman
I don't know. lol.
mccaffertyb7
Puritan Board Freshman
Well, as I understand it, it seems to be more of a textual deduction. In Jeremiah 31, Jeremiah is emphasizing the dissimilarity of the new covenant when he says the new covenant is "not like the covenant I made with their fathers..." And if the covenant that was made with their fathers could be broken, then the assumption is that this new and better covenant cannot be broken. Quoting Pratt, "Without a doubt Jeremiah distinguished the new covenant as one that would not be broken..."
But, to answer your question, I don't think there is anywhere where it explicitly says that the new covenant cannot be broken or that apostasy cannot happen. Pratt's argument is that the new covenant cannot be broken, but that truth is not referring to this present age, but to the future/eternal age. Perhaps I've wrongly taken Pratt's view to be representative of the Reformed Presbyterian community.
Reverend Buchanan is really good at explaining things. Maybe he could help us out here by explaining the outward and inward workings of the Administration of the Covenant of Grace. He does this in this thread. I would encourage you to read through it.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/nature-new-covenant-64712/
Rich L. does an excellent job here.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/nature-new-covenant-64712/#post837364
I hope these help.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/nature-new-covenant-64712/
Rich L. does an excellent job here.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f122/nature-new-covenant-64712/#post837364
I hope these help.
mccaffertyb7
Puritan Board Freshman
Thank you brother. My pastor gave me that book to read. I will make sure to read through it.
Brennan,
Probably, another voice chiming in here is less--not more--helpful...
I think a simple glance back through this thread provides ample evidence that one of the great problems in discussing these matters is that we don't speak each other's language. Yes, we are using English, and common theological terminology. But we are not using this speech in ways familiar to those with whom we are trying to communicate. The fact of similarity only adds to the overall confusion.
Jer.31:34 says more than simply that "all" in the New Covenant will know the Lord. It also says that the teaching office is obsolete. Pratt's logic seems to be that:
1) clearly, the NT establishes the ongoing presence and validity of the teaching office in the New Covenant age.
2) therefore, it is reasonable to infer that Jer.31:34 cannot be baldly descriptive of an inaugurated state of affairs in the New Covenant.
3) rather, Jer.31:34 envisions an idealized New Covenant reality, a consummated and fulfilled expression, one in which the familiar office of the teacher has disappeared, being unnecesary.
4) since Jer.31:34 is not descriptive of the inaugurated but rather fulfilled New Covenant reality with respect to teachers; thus also the statement: "they shall all know me," should be reckoned descriptive of the membership in the fulfilled, spiritual, and heavenly reality, and not the membership (strictly speaking) of the merely inaugurated, temporal, and earthly state.
The distinction between the inauguration and the fulfillment, the imperfect and the perfect, is often spoken of in these terms: "Already and Not-Yet." We are presently living in-between the ages, in an overlapping time when the powers of the age-to-come have already begun to make themselves known, at the expense of the powers of this present, evil age. For believers, this involves us in a necessary tension of living in a body that is tied to the world that now is, while having within us the living, spiritual principle that belongs to the power of resurrection life--something that the current mode of existence cannot contain forever.
I believe Pratt's point is legitimate and quite helpful; but it is not the only method that Reformed handlers of this passage have used. In comparative terms, since the level of contrast in the passage itself is between the Sinai Covenant (Old or Mosaic Covenant) and the new covenant destined to replace it, it is fair to ask whether anyone under the Sinai Covenant ever had (v33) the law of God put in their minds and written on their hearts. Was anyone ever truly converted under the ministration of the Old Covenant? Did God forgive their iniquity, and remember their sins no more?
As the answer is unquestionably "yes," given the number of saints among the Israelites over the course of fifteen centuries or so that the Sinai Covenant was in force; then clearly by parity of reasoning, an absolute distinction is not being made by Jeremiah. The Old Covenant was inadequate as a final or permanent arrangement, but that is a far cry from saying that it was absolutely deficient. It was, in the main, a massively externalized system of signs, and the imposition of law (a thing good in itself, but lacking any saving power). Nevertheless, there were persons under its authority who were saved along with their father Abraham by a selfsame faith.
Thus, it is possible to understand in the promise of the institution of the New Covenant a perfectly legitimate hyperbolic assertion of the power and efficacy of the mainly spiritual and internal covenant of forgiveness--a helpful new (resumed, from Abraham) emphasis on grace in preference to works. It is not the case that Jeremiah offers a weak comparative: "some" saved, versus "all" saved. The literary context militates against such a read, as he indicts the covenant people en masse. We might rephrase Jeremiah's claim: whereas "no one" was saved under the Old Covenant (another hyperbolic assertion); yet "everyone" is saved under the New Covenant. This is an intentionally stark, but not strictly literal comparison.
We don't need to pit this alternative against Pratt entirely. His recognition of the final, perfected New Covenant condition in the terms of Jer.31:34 most certainly is admitted by virtually anyone who treats the basic contrasting terms as comparative in history. Beyond history, there is only the stark contrast between condemnation in the Covenant of Works, and forgiveness in the Covenant of Grace.
Probably, another voice chiming in here is less--not more--helpful...
I think a simple glance back through this thread provides ample evidence that one of the great problems in discussing these matters is that we don't speak each other's language. Yes, we are using English, and common theological terminology. But we are not using this speech in ways familiar to those with whom we are trying to communicate. The fact of similarity only adds to the overall confusion.
Jer.31:34 says more than simply that "all" in the New Covenant will know the Lord. It also says that the teaching office is obsolete. Pratt's logic seems to be that:
1) clearly, the NT establishes the ongoing presence and validity of the teaching office in the New Covenant age.
2) therefore, it is reasonable to infer that Jer.31:34 cannot be baldly descriptive of an inaugurated state of affairs in the New Covenant.
3) rather, Jer.31:34 envisions an idealized New Covenant reality, a consummated and fulfilled expression, one in which the familiar office of the teacher has disappeared, being unnecesary.
4) since Jer.31:34 is not descriptive of the inaugurated but rather fulfilled New Covenant reality with respect to teachers; thus also the statement: "they shall all know me," should be reckoned descriptive of the membership in the fulfilled, spiritual, and heavenly reality, and not the membership (strictly speaking) of the merely inaugurated, temporal, and earthly state.
The distinction between the inauguration and the fulfillment, the imperfect and the perfect, is often spoken of in these terms: "Already and Not-Yet." We are presently living in-between the ages, in an overlapping time when the powers of the age-to-come have already begun to make themselves known, at the expense of the powers of this present, evil age. For believers, this involves us in a necessary tension of living in a body that is tied to the world that now is, while having within us the living, spiritual principle that belongs to the power of resurrection life--something that the current mode of existence cannot contain forever.
I believe Pratt's point is legitimate and quite helpful; but it is not the only method that Reformed handlers of this passage have used. In comparative terms, since the level of contrast in the passage itself is between the Sinai Covenant (Old or Mosaic Covenant) and the new covenant destined to replace it, it is fair to ask whether anyone under the Sinai Covenant ever had (v33) the law of God put in their minds and written on their hearts. Was anyone ever truly converted under the ministration of the Old Covenant? Did God forgive their iniquity, and remember their sins no more?
As the answer is unquestionably "yes," given the number of saints among the Israelites over the course of fifteen centuries or so that the Sinai Covenant was in force; then clearly by parity of reasoning, an absolute distinction is not being made by Jeremiah. The Old Covenant was inadequate as a final or permanent arrangement, but that is a far cry from saying that it was absolutely deficient. It was, in the main, a massively externalized system of signs, and the imposition of law (a thing good in itself, but lacking any saving power). Nevertheless, there were persons under its authority who were saved along with their father Abraham by a selfsame faith.
Thus, it is possible to understand in the promise of the institution of the New Covenant a perfectly legitimate hyperbolic assertion of the power and efficacy of the mainly spiritual and internal covenant of forgiveness--a helpful new (resumed, from Abraham) emphasis on grace in preference to works. It is not the case that Jeremiah offers a weak comparative: "some" saved, versus "all" saved. The literary context militates against such a read, as he indicts the covenant people en masse. We might rephrase Jeremiah's claim: whereas "no one" was saved under the Old Covenant (another hyperbolic assertion); yet "everyone" is saved under the New Covenant. This is an intentionally stark, but not strictly literal comparison.
We don't need to pit this alternative against Pratt entirely. His recognition of the final, perfected New Covenant condition in the terms of Jer.31:34 most certainly is admitted by virtually anyone who treats the basic contrasting terms as comparative in history. Beyond history, there is only the stark contrast between condemnation in the Covenant of Works, and forgiveness in the Covenant of Grace.
Last edited:
Thank You! Thank You! Thank You, Bruce.
Hemustincrease
Puritan Board Freshman
Galatians 3:29
"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Children born under the Old Covenant were circumcised/born into a physical nation (just as slaves/aliens were).
We (believers) who live under the New Covenant were born again/baptized into a spiritual nation. Entry requirements for the New Covenant are spiritual new birth, leading to personal faith and repentance. Entry requirements for the Old Covenant were physical birth or physical circumstances.
Nobody is born of the flesh into Christ. Nobody ever was, since time began!
Nobody becomes an heir of the promise/a member of the New Covenant by physical birth or because of the faith of their parents. Nobody ever did!
The glory of Jeremiah 31, with the beautiful promises and blessings, is directly related to those who are ‘born again of the Spirit’. There is no placing of the law in the hearts of babies (and never was) simply because those babies were born to believing parents (or parent). There is no forgiveness of iniquity (and never was) for the children of believers based simply on the faith of their parents or their sprinkling as a baby. Outside of spiritual regeneration, nobody, no matter who their earthly parents might be (or have been), has or can or will ever ‘know the Lord’.
"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Children born under the Old Covenant were circumcised/born into a physical nation (just as slaves/aliens were).
We (believers) who live under the New Covenant were born again/baptized into a spiritual nation. Entry requirements for the New Covenant are spiritual new birth, leading to personal faith and repentance. Entry requirements for the Old Covenant were physical birth or physical circumstances.
Nobody is born of the flesh into Christ. Nobody ever was, since time began!
Nobody becomes an heir of the promise/a member of the New Covenant by physical birth or because of the faith of their parents. Nobody ever did!
The glory of Jeremiah 31, with the beautiful promises and blessings, is directly related to those who are ‘born again of the Spirit’. There is no placing of the law in the hearts of babies (and never was) simply because those babies were born to believing parents (or parent). There is no forgiveness of iniquity (and never was) for the children of believers based simply on the faith of their parents or their sprinkling as a baby. Outside of spiritual regeneration, nobody, no matter who their earthly parents might be (or have been), has or can or will ever ‘know the Lord’.
Craig.Scott
Puritan Board Freshman
If one were to permit Jeremiah 31 alone to teach us on the nature of the new covenant, i would understand the difficulty, but let us remember that it is not alone in speaking of the new covenant to come:
Isaiah 65:22-23
22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23 They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them.
Ezekiel 37:24-25
24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.
In Christ
Isaiah 65:22-23
22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23 They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them.
Ezekiel 37:24-25
24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.
In Christ
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Once the Mediator comes and we know Him, all other mediators - prophets, priests and kings - become superfluous. See Joel 2: there is a democratisation of these offices in the New Testament in that in Christ all of God's true people are in a real sense prophets, priests and kings, without the formal and outward trappings of office.
The Baptist take on this passage has the problem that if the Lord intended His New Covenant people to only consist of the regenerate, He would have given power to His elders/overseers to discern them. As it is you have people who do not know the Lord in Baptist churches and accepted into the New Covenant by baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
The Baptist take on this passage has the problem that if the Lord intended His New Covenant people to only consist of the regenerate, He would have given power to His elders/overseers to discern them. As it is you have people who do not know the Lord in Baptist churches and accepted into the New Covenant by baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
I grew up in a Baptist environment as well. However, I don't think the Baptist (dispensational?) view really solves all the problems here. Baptists also baptize unbelievers, no matter how hard they try to do otherwise; so the alternative seems in that view baptism must not be a sign of the covenant (lest these unbelievers be "part" of it), which raises additional problems.
So perhaps a good approach would be to try to understand this passage in Jeremiah on its own terms, as opposed to a paedo/credo-baptistic view?
So perhaps a good approach would be to try to understand this passage in Jeremiah on its own terms, as opposed to a paedo/credo-baptistic view?
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
Brennan,
I will risk chiming in as well, and will try to be simple. Rev. Buchanan addressed Jeremiah 31 very well in his post above. I don't think more needs to be said on that. But... I suspect you will still be bothered by the impression you have (and keep repeating) that paedobaptists baptize unbelieving and unregenerate people, and credobaptists don't. That's a fair concern. It sounds like paedobaptists have no respect for saving faith. Many Baptists I know have been taught that this is the case.
How might your thinking change as you consider the following two points?
1. Nearly ALL churches baptize unbelieving and unregenerate people. Yes, some children who're baptized as infants turn away from the faith. But some people baptized as adults do too, proving that the churches that baptized them can't really be sure that anyone they baptize is a true, lasting Christian. It isn't really belief that's the basis for baptism in any church, since we can't detect saving faith with certainty. Rather, churches baptize those who give evidence that they belong to Christ and who are going to be discipled. Credobaptists require a personal profession of faith as that evidence, while faithful paedobaptists require either a personal profession OR the profession of a parent (since belonging to a Christian home is seen as evidence of belonging to Christ and makes one a disciple who's being trained in the faith... even though it's possible that child, like anyone who once belonged visibly, will someday turn away).
2. It is presumptuous and untrue for us to assume that we, as smarter adults, have true faith and are regenerate while our young children surely are not. As Randy briefly pointed out in his first post, who are we to say such a thing? Our hope must never be in one's ability to declare faith with some requisite amount of sincerity. Rather, our hope is in the work of the Spirit to implant the new life that gives faith. We baptize children because we are looking to God, who speaks of the inclusion of believers' children, and not to them or to how much faith they can or cannot articulate.
Until these two points are grasped, I suspect it will be difficult to accept paedobaptist thinking no matter how well Jeremiah 31 is explained. In fairness, there are credobaptists who do grasp these points and still believe the biblical standard for baptism includes a personal profession of faith. But it sounds to me as if you have not yet come to think in terms of these points. Until you do, I'm not sure you're ready to really understand a Reformed paedobaptist, much less become one.
Does that make sense?
I will risk chiming in as well, and will try to be simple. Rev. Buchanan addressed Jeremiah 31 very well in his post above. I don't think more needs to be said on that. But... I suspect you will still be bothered by the impression you have (and keep repeating) that paedobaptists baptize unbelieving and unregenerate people, and credobaptists don't. That's a fair concern. It sounds like paedobaptists have no respect for saving faith. Many Baptists I know have been taught that this is the case.
How might your thinking change as you consider the following two points?
1. Nearly ALL churches baptize unbelieving and unregenerate people. Yes, some children who're baptized as infants turn away from the faith. But some people baptized as adults do too, proving that the churches that baptized them can't really be sure that anyone they baptize is a true, lasting Christian. It isn't really belief that's the basis for baptism in any church, since we can't detect saving faith with certainty. Rather, churches baptize those who give evidence that they belong to Christ and who are going to be discipled. Credobaptists require a personal profession of faith as that evidence, while faithful paedobaptists require either a personal profession OR the profession of a parent (since belonging to a Christian home is seen as evidence of belonging to Christ and makes one a disciple who's being trained in the faith... even though it's possible that child, like anyone who once belonged visibly, will someday turn away).
2. It is presumptuous and untrue for us to assume that we, as smarter adults, have true faith and are regenerate while our young children surely are not. As Randy briefly pointed out in his first post, who are we to say such a thing? Our hope must never be in one's ability to declare faith with some requisite amount of sincerity. Rather, our hope is in the work of the Spirit to implant the new life that gives faith. We baptize children because we are looking to God, who speaks of the inclusion of believers' children, and not to them or to how much faith they can or cannot articulate.
Until these two points are grasped, I suspect it will be difficult to accept paedobaptist thinking no matter how well Jeremiah 31 is explained. In fairness, there are credobaptists who do grasp these points and still believe the biblical standard for baptism includes a personal profession of faith. But it sounds to me as if you have not yet come to think in terms of these points. Until you do, I'm not sure you're ready to really understand a Reformed paedobaptist, much less become one.
Does that make sense?
Hemustincrease
Puritan Board Freshman
Baptism is an act of obedience on the part of the one who has been born again of the Spirit.
False professors may indeed be baptized with water but the outward sign is not the entry requirement into the New Covenant is it? Biblically speaking, water Baptism follows the baptism of the Spirit, it does not proceed it. It symbolizes what has already taken place, not what ‘might’ take place in the future. The inner baptism of the Spirit is the only means of entry into the New Covenant and Jeremiah provides a beautiful picture of the fruit of that baptism. Forgiveness, a knowledge of God and a love for His law. These things are New Covenant blessings (every member of the New Covenant receives them) and are not inherited through fleshly means but through the work of the Spirit. They apply only to the spiritual seed of Abraham. Paedo Baptist churches are filled with people who are told that they are members of the New Covenant because their parents are and because they were baptised (by water, not by the Spirit) as babies. Yet many of these will not be forgiven, will not know God and will not love His law. So what then was Jeremiah prophesying? He did not say ‘some’ will know me or ‘some’ will be forgiven or ‘some’ will have my law written upon their hearts.
The New Covenant consists 100% of born again believers. This is one of the glorious things about it which makes it so much better than the Old Covenant. That there will be tares growing up alongside the wheat (here on earth) which we may not be able to discern readily is a fact our Lord warns us about. Yet nowhere does He tell us that these unbelieving, unregenerate men and women, boys and girls are actually part of His justified and sanctified New Covenant people.
False professors may indeed be baptized with water but the outward sign is not the entry requirement into the New Covenant is it? Biblically speaking, water Baptism follows the baptism of the Spirit, it does not proceed it. It symbolizes what has already taken place, not what ‘might’ take place in the future. The inner baptism of the Spirit is the only means of entry into the New Covenant and Jeremiah provides a beautiful picture of the fruit of that baptism. Forgiveness, a knowledge of God and a love for His law. These things are New Covenant blessings (every member of the New Covenant receives them) and are not inherited through fleshly means but through the work of the Spirit. They apply only to the spiritual seed of Abraham. Paedo Baptist churches are filled with people who are told that they are members of the New Covenant because their parents are and because they were baptised (by water, not by the Spirit) as babies. Yet many of these will not be forgiven, will not know God and will not love His law. So what then was Jeremiah prophesying? He did not say ‘some’ will know me or ‘some’ will be forgiven or ‘some’ will have my law written upon their hearts.
The New Covenant consists 100% of born again believers. This is one of the glorious things about it which makes it so much better than the Old Covenant. That there will be tares growing up alongside the wheat (here on earth) which we may not be able to discern readily is a fact our Lord warns us about. Yet nowhere does He tell us that these unbelieving, unregenerate men and women, boys and girls are actually part of His justified and sanctified New Covenant people.
Last edited:
Hemustincrease
Puritan Board Freshman
Are you saying that Christ cannot keep His own? That one who once ‘belonged’ to Him, might not belong to Him for eternity? Where do you find such a teaching in Scripture? I see in Scripture only two kinds of people. Those who belong to Christ and never can be lost and those who do not belong to Christ (the way of salvation being open to them whilst the day of grace remains).
For a credo baptist to baptize one who has made a credible profession of faith, but then proves himself to be an apostate, in no way diminishes the power of Christ to keep His own to the end. Rather it simply proves that this false professor never did belong to Him in the first place. However, according to what you have said, baptized babies (the children of believers) do automatically belong to Christ, but that there is a very real possibility that He might not keep hold of them to the end.
My children often say to me “Mummy, I don’t know whether or not I am saved” or “Mummy, I don’t know if I will go to be with Christ when I die, because I don’t know if I belong to Him or not.” My answer is always the same. I point them to Christ, to the promises of Scripture and urge them to keep on seeking, keep on asking etc. However, a paedo baptist would perhaps answer such a question with almost a rebuke. “You do belong to Christ because you were born to a Christian parent and were baptized as a baby” but would also then go on to say “but of course, you might not always belong to Christ”.
I will not tell my children that they are saved. I will only ever point them to Christ and to His promises. Their ‘belonging’ to Him is purely and wholly a work of the Spirit and has nothing whatsoever to do with their fleshly heritage. If they are His, His Spirit will assure them of their safety in Christ. But it seems to me a very sad thing indeed, to tell children that they belong to the most wonderful Savior this world could ever know, the most precious and altogether lovely Redeemer of sinful men........to teach them of all the promises and blessings rendered upon those who belong to Him.......and yet to then also tell them that belonging to this Savior does not come with any kind of assurance whatsoever. For this most precious of Saviors might just let go of them so that one day they no longer belong to Him at all.
mccaffertyb7
Puritan Board Freshman
Bruce,
Incredibly helpful. Thank you very much.
Incredibly helpful. Thank you very much.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
Jo,
I don't think it is fair to characterize the paedobaptist position as you have above. I, for example, pray regularly for my children and instruct them so that they too might be saved. However, I do not treat them as if they are outside of a Christian home or as though they are outside of the church. As Matthew Henry said, they have been enrolled in the school of Christ. Also, from the 1689 London Confession, 29:1
"Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the person who is baptised - a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."
It sounds like the sign of the covenant. Is it not?
I don't think it is fair to characterize the paedobaptist position as you have above. I, for example, pray regularly for my children and instruct them so that they too might be saved. However, I do not treat them as if they are outside of a Christian home or as though they are outside of the church. As Matthew Henry said, they have been enrolled in the school of Christ. Also, from the 1689 London Confession, 29:1
"Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the person who is baptised - a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."
It sounds like the sign of the covenant. Is it not?
mccaffertyb7
Puritan Board Freshman
Hi Jack,
thanks for your thoughts. Perhaps I wasn't totally clear in all of my previous posts - I'm not under the impression that credobaptists don't baptize unregenerate or unbelieving people. I'm well aware that they do. Certainly, there are apostates within Baptist churches - men and women who have been baptized upon a credible profession of faith, but then walked away from the LORD. I think what I'm trying to grapple with is this: if the New Covenant is the legal constitution of the Church in this age and the New Covenant consists of those who know the Lord, then there would seem to be a need to show intense effort to only include within the New Covenant those who have a credible profession of faith. Why? Because we want to ensure that the actual condition of the Church resembles the legal constitution of the Church as closely as possible. Of course, there must be the recognition that the actual condition of the Church still resembles the condition of the people of God under previous covenants, which means that there will be both believers and unbelievers. But we are trying, as much as it is possible in this fallen world, to only include those in the New Covenant who have credible professions. Am I making sense? And that is the difference between infants and adults. Because although infants may indeed be regenerate, they have not made a credible profession of faith. Therefore, it would seem to be rash to include them within the New Covenant before being reasonably convinced that they actually do possess faith in God. (Are you saying that Presbyterians are reasonably convinced that infants do possess faith in God?) The goal is to limit the amount of apostates as much as possible, because in so doing, the actual state of the church most closely resembles the legal constitution of the Church. If that is the case, it would seem to preclude baptizing infants.
I'm eager to hear your thoughts.
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
Jo, Reformed believers have traditionally used the phrases "visible church" and "invisible church" to distinguish between those who visibly belong to Christ (because they are a part of his church) and those who belong invisibly (because they have saving faith, which is something no one on earth can see with certainty). When I said that paedobaptists believe the children of believers "belong," I used the word "visibly" to indicate that I meant they are part of the observable church. Forgive me for assuming you would catch the meaning of that term. It's insider speak, I know.
Part of the paedobaptist position, if I may speak for it, is that the children of believers are included in the visible church. And it is those in the visible church, who are being discipled, that we baptize... since we cannot know with certainty who is part of the invisible church.
Hemustincrease
Puritan Board Freshman
‘Fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection” This applies only to regenerate, born again, Holy Spirit baptized believers. Unregenerate people have no such fellowship with Christ, no matter who their earthly parents happen to be. The only way to be reconciled with God is through Jesus Christ. Once a person truly is justified, they belong to Him and are no longer their own. This belonging is eternal. You cannot (and never have been able to) ‘belong to Christ’ via your parents faith.
‘engrafted into Christ’ those who are truly in Christ will never cease to be in Him. Again, this can only apply to those who have been born again ‘of the Spirit’ not of the flesh.
‘remission of sins’ outside of Christ there is no remission of sins. Equally, one cannot be in the New Covenant and not have full remission of their sins. Thus, to say that a child is in the New Covenant but then pray for the remission of their sins appears contradictory and confusing.
‘newness of life’ members of the New Covenant are ‘new creations’ in Christ Jesus. This refers to a baptism of the Holy Spirit, such that water baptism would follow and symbolize.
Thus, I can only conclude (I say this accepting that there may be other possible conclusions) that the paedo baptist must either believe that the New Covenant community is a mixed community (for which there is no evidence whatsoever in all of Scripture, and the opposite is plainly taught in many places, including the text this thread is centered upon), and that children of believers automatically become members of that community purely by physical birth/circumstances and that it is entirely possible to begin life as a member of Christ and end life outside of Christ. Or, they must believe that being born to a Christian parent automatically means the child will be truly saved.
I’m not suggesting that paedobaptists don’t pray for their children or urge them to Christ etc. Not at all! I am just honing in an what appears to me to be a contradiction. On the one hand they tell them that they automatically ‘belong to Christ’ and the only evidence required for this is their belonging to Christian parents or parent (whether by birth or adoption etc), yet on the other hand they are praying for their children to ‘belong to Christ’. The point I was trying to make is simply this....do they belong to Christ or do they not? If they do, then why pray for them to be saved? They already are! If they do not, then why baptize them (and tell them they belong to Christ) as those who already have fellowship with Christ and are engrafted into Him, with full remission of their sins and living in newness of life (ie being born again) when you don’t believe that to be the case?
What would you tell a child, whose parents professed faith in Christ when they were babies, had them baptized and then some years later, both parents proved to be apostates. What position then does the child have? Are they (still?) members of the New Covenant or not? If everything rests upon the faith of the parents, the position of the child is fragile indeed, for not a few seemingly Godly parents have turned apostate. Or would you counsel that child that their baptism (on account of it having been done in good faith etc) was the entrance into the New Covenant regardless of the now lack of faith of their parents? Or would you just turn back to Scripture and urge the child to repent of their own sins and trust in Christ alone for their salvation turning their eyes rightly away from their earthly birth and unto the new birth which Christ says nobody can be saved without?
Hemustincrease
Puritan Board Freshman
OK. I am familiar with those terms, but had taken the
bit literally. Sorry for the bunny trail.
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
Jo,
Without becoming quite wordy (I only meant to make a brief comment in this thread anyway) I was asking basically if baptism was the "covenant sign". It sounds to me that even from the 1689 Confession, it is. If it is, then you can't avoid the problem of baptizing those who eventually are apostate. The idea that only people who are truly regenerated can be baptized is impossible to adhere perfectly to (that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try, if that is God's command).
Additionally, if it is the "covenant sign" then the arguments against baptizing children could be raised against circumcising children. Both are given as signs of the covenant, signify membership, cleansing from sin, repentance, etc. Paul even calls believers in the NT the "circumcision". People focusing on the "new covenant" like to try to emphasize the differences, but there are really more similarities between the old and the new than they are often willing to admit
Lastly, I wonder if you think Paul's admonition to children in Eph 6:1--3 is written to say, your children? Children in the church or just "believing" children? For my part, I am quite certain it is an admonition for all children in Christian homes at the very least, and yet the letter was addressed to the "saints" and the "faithful". Were the children considered part of the church? what is the sign of belonging to the church? Regardless as to whether you baptize your children or not, you do treat them as though they are part of the church, and expect them to live their lives as Christians. There is something different about them as opposed to children born in non-Christian homes, and for that I am thankful.
Without becoming quite wordy (I only meant to make a brief comment in this thread anyway) I was asking basically if baptism was the "covenant sign". It sounds to me that even from the 1689 Confession, it is. If it is, then you can't avoid the problem of baptizing those who eventually are apostate. The idea that only people who are truly regenerated can be baptized is impossible to adhere perfectly to (that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try, if that is God's command).
Additionally, if it is the "covenant sign" then the arguments against baptizing children could be raised against circumcising children. Both are given as signs of the covenant, signify membership, cleansing from sin, repentance, etc. Paul even calls believers in the NT the "circumcision". People focusing on the "new covenant" like to try to emphasize the differences, but there are really more similarities between the old and the new than they are often willing to admit
Lastly, I wonder if you think Paul's admonition to children in Eph 6:1--3 is written to say, your children? Children in the church or just "believing" children? For my part, I am quite certain it is an admonition for all children in Christian homes at the very least, and yet the letter was addressed to the "saints" and the "faithful". Were the children considered part of the church? what is the sign of belonging to the church? Regardless as to whether you baptize your children or not, you do treat them as though they are part of the church, and expect them to live their lives as Christians. There is something different about them as opposed to children born in non-Christian homes, and for that I am thankful.
- Status