Covenant Children

[TubaFour]

This phrase gets bandied about in reformed circles, and especially paedobaptist circles. What does it mean? Who qualifies to be a "covenant child" and what implication does it have to the child, his or her salvation, the parents and the church in general?

I've read a bit about the topic but, I find myself getting lost in the minutae of Old Testament figures and promises as applied to our new testament economy. Many times I fail to see the connection between the OT economy and the reasoning behind the NT application.

Any help or guidance on this topic would be appreciated.

Thanks.

aL

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

This phrase gets bandied about in reformed circles, and especially paedobaptist circles. What does it mean? Who qualifies to be a "covenant child" and what implication does it have to the child, his or her salvation, the parents and the church in general?

I've read a bit about the topic but, I find myself getting lost in the minutae of Old Testament figures and promises as applied to our new testament economy. Many times I fail to see the connection between the OT economy and the reasoning behind the NT application.

Any help or guidance on this topic would be appreciated.

Thanks.

aL

Below is something originally posted on Semper Reformanda. It may start to answer your question.

In Christ,
Kenith
+++++++++++++++++++++
Covenant Privilege


Children born to Christian parents are born to great privilege. This was true of Israelites in the Old Covenant and it is true of Christians in the New Covenant.

Paul, in his letter to the church at Rome writes, “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.” (Romans 3:1-4).

The Bible doesn’t speak only of heaven. In the Scriptures Heaven and earth are both important. Who, what, how, when, and where we are born and live are important to us and impact eternity and is part of GOd's Sovereignty over our lifes and His creation.

We are not philosophical Gnostics who see the world of spirit as good, and this physical world as evil. God created both. He said of all His creation that it was “very good.” The creation is now fallen and marred by sin, yet God’s creation is still a wonder and bears witness that He is creator.

If soneone is born in the New Covenant (i.e. to Christian parents), he is born into great advantage. An Israelite was, at birth, a part of the people of God. He is warned, time and again, not to take this outward benefit for granted, and assume that he had a ticket to heaven.

This was because he had to have true faith, as did his father Abraham. An Israelite was born into a very privileged position, because he was born among God’s people who had God’s Word. These were the only people in all the earth that worshipped the true God and salvation existed no where else among men; all the rest of the world existed in absolute spiritual darkness.

To be born in and amongst God's Covenant people is sure a benefit in this life. THat is if it is used properly, and not misused, ignored or perverted. If an individual misuses the privilege that he receives by birth, and is condemned for it, that does not take away from the fact that he was still born to very real advantage.

This is what Paul is speaking of in the verses quoted above. Covenant (Christian) children today have greater benefits than that of the ancient Israelites. Children of Christians are far better off than are the children born in Arabia, where the Bible and the Christian faith are outlawed.

Does this fortunate birth guarantee heaven? No. The covenant child, like the ancient Israelite, must have true faith in Jesus Christ. If he denies Christ, then this very benefit will be a witness against him on the day of Judgement.

Does that last fact mean that the person born in a Christian home was not born in an advantageous place and time? No, he was born in a privileged position and he is responsible for that fact.

With this in mind, look at all the warnings that some of our brethren use to prove that salvation can be lost. These verses, I believe, only make sense covenantally. Can you loose salvation? No, but you can be a covenant member and go straight to hell.

This is why covenant people are told to workout your salvation with fear and trembling. It is why James could write to his fellow Christians (whom he called “the twelve tribes”) and say the things he does. It is why John could write to the churches and say “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” (1 John 2:3,4).

John tells Christians how they can objectively examine their lives to know that they are truly saved.

There are thirty some odd verses used by Arminians to prove that salvation can be lost. I believe all of those verses are rightly understood only from a covenant perspective, because, as in the Old, you can be a covenant member born to privilege and still loose your soul, if you don’t make your salvation sure through repentance, faith and new obedience to Jesus Christ.

All my children were baptised as infants. Every time I have prayed with them I pray “remember your baptism, because you are marked as belonging to the Lord,” and I inform them that they must make their salvation sure, and not take it for granted.

Question: Does the fact that some people born in the privileged position by being covenant children, but don't take advantage of their position by believing on Christ, mean that their position was not really an advantageous one?
Answer: No; their position was one of great privilege and benefit (in this world), but if they deny Christ this very privilege will bring them greater condemnation. The Scripture make this point in both the Old and New Testaments.

I know that this is an alien concept to many of my “credo-baptistism only" brethren, but it is, I believe, very biblical. (Note: credo= believer)

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

This phrase gets bandied about in reformed circles, and especially paedobaptist circles. What does it mean? Who qualifies to be a "covenant child" and what implication does it have to the child, his or her salvation, the parents and the church in general?

I've read a bit about the topic but, I find myself getting lost in the minutae of Old Testament figures and promises as applied to our new testament economy. Many times I fail to see the connection between the OT economy and the reasoning behind the NT application.

Any help or guidance on this topic would be appreciated.

Thanks.

aL

Al,

Here is another post from Semper Reformanda.

In Christ,
Kenith
+++++++++++++++++++
Some thoughts on baptism and covenant


Among evangelical Christians there are some radical differences in the understanding of how, and in what manner God’s covenant exists today and who participates in that covenant. If you’re a Baptist or have a view of baptism that is similar to the Baptist position, then your conception of the covenant will be drastically different than someone, like myself, who has a different understanding of what baptism is and who should be baptised.

Most evangelicals today have a baptistic understanding of baptism. They believe in “credo” or “believers” baptism “only.” To reject paedobaptism for a credobaptist position requires a very different understanding of some important biblical/theological matters.

Historically the great majority of evangelicals have held to the paedobaptism position. Christians who hold to “paedo” or “infant” baptism believe that new converts and the children of believers are both proper recipients of baptism. And, unlike our baptistic brethren, most of us also believe that baptism is not just an ordinance from God, but it is also a sacrament and a means of grace. We also believe it ceremonially places us in a covenantal relationship with God.

The view mentioned above is quite alien to the Baptist way of thinking. But is not alien to most historic evangelical Christian thinking. Below are the first two questions and answers from the catechism, which John Calvin wrote to instruct children in the faith.

Teacher: My child, are you a Christian in fact as well as in name?
Child: Yes, my father.
Teacher: How is this known to you?
Child: Because I am baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

You must remember several things when you read the questions and answers above. Calvin certainly did not believe in baptismal regeneration, nor did he believe that all baptised children of believers would persevere in the faith, yet he did understand that all these baptised children could rightly say that they were Christians, because they were baptised as infants.

John Calvin was truly a Calvinist. He believed in the doctrinal teachings that now bear his name. He believed that all baptised children of Christian parents were in covenant with God. Jonathan Edwards believed the same thing. I know that these things very likely don’t make much sense to most, if not all, of my Baptist/Baptistic brethren. That is because they have a radically different understanding of the meanings of both baptism and covenant than did Calvin, Edwards, the Puritans, etc... All of which were certainly very evangelical.

In a little more than 100 years after John Calvin wrote his catechism for children, the Puritans of England and the Presbyterians of Scotland produced the Westminster Confession of Faith and the accompanying Larger and Shorter Catechisms. The authors of these documents were all Calvinists and staunchly evangelical. I would like to quote from questions 94 and 95 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

Q. 94. What is baptism?
A. Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our engrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.

Q. 95. To whom is Baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; but the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptised.

Notice that these men said that baptism signified and sealed “our engrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace.” Notice also that converts and the children of believers are proper recipients of baptism. Like Calvin in the previous century, these men did not believe that the waters of baptism literally washed away original sin, but they, like Calvin, saw it as a covenant sign.

Children of believers, from the Reformed understanding, are, as were Israelites of old, born into the covenant and receive the New Covenant sign and seal, which is baptism. Does this give them an automatic ticket to heaven? No. They must, like the Israelites of old, trust and believe in the Messiah in order to inherit eternal life. Yet at the very same time they are, in this life, greatly privileged to be born in covenant with God. This too was true of the Old Covenant Israelite. Even though he could be (and often was) spiritually lost, he was still born with covenant privilege.

It is sort of like being born an American citizen. No one born here does anything to gain the privilege of such a citizenship. We have it because of our parents. Does being born an American citizen guarantee that you will prove worthy of that blessing? No it doesn’t. We can squander our citizenship in this country in many ways. In this world being born an American citizen means we are born with privileges that much of the world envies, and we can squander and loose those privileges if we live a life that is unbefitting our citizenship.

Like all analogies this one is not perfect, but I do hope it makes the point. Israelites had great privilege because they were born into God’s covenant people. Many if not most, because of sin and unbelief, squander that great privilege, but that does not mean that the privileges were not then and are not now very real. They certainly were, and still are. Look at what Paul says in Romans on this very subject. He writes:

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? (Rom 2:28-3:3)

In the above text Paul makes the point that the true Jew, the one who was saved, is a true Jew not because of outward inheritance or circumcision, but because of inward circumcision. Yet he still drives home the point that the ethnic Jew, even if he should loose his covenantal blessings because of unbelief, was still born with real privileges because he was born a Jew and a member of God’s covenant people (i.e. outward circumcision).

My children were born into a covenant relationship with God. They were born and are now, according to Paul in 1 Cor. 7, “holy.” Paul also makes the point that if neither of the parents of certain children is a believer, than those children are “unclean.” Here are his words “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” This is covenantal language. Notice that even the unbelieving spouse is declared “sanctified” (i.e. holy [Gk hagiazo]). Paul also tells the church members at Corinth that if neither parent is a believer the children are than “unclean” (Gk: akathartos). How can this be? I believe it only makes sense when viewed covenantally.

The children of believers in the New Covenant, like the children of believers in the Old Covenant, are born to privileges that others outside the covenant don’t possess (unless grafted into it upon conversion). But they can and often do lose those privileges because of unbelief.

Does this mean the covenantal blessings were not real? Certainly not. They are very real, but just like privileges we possess by our own U.S. citizenship, which we have by being born in America, they can be wasted and lost by sin and unbelief.

Dominus vobiscum,
Kenith

 

[TubaFour]

Merci, Cajun Huguenot,

Why can't a credo baptist hold to the position of your first reply. In other words, why wouldn't the covenant children of a credobaptist enjoy all the benefits of being covenant children, etc., without the necessity of their baptism until they do profess a true faith in Christ?

Sure, the children of those who deny the view expressed in your first post also might enjoy covenant blessing whether or not their parents acknowledge it or not, but I guess the point I am trying to make is that why does baptism have to be rolled into the discussion of covenant children? I can see the former but it doesn't seem to follow that a covenant child is one to be baptized.

My position of baptism has evolved, but it's still in flux. I've read compelling arguments from both sides...

aL

 

[JM]

I've never understood the term...

Both Jacob and Esau were covenant children and yet only one was saved. Now we have to come up with something, covenant breakers! huh. I thought the new covenant was a better [expression as some will say] of the everlasting covenant? If the covenant is everlasting then how can one break the covenant?

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

God's covenant with Abraham and his seed is also everlasting, yet many of Israel are not Israel and those ingrafted into the covenant (olive tree) can be cut off (i.e. removed from the covennat) as well, but the Olive tree (the covenant people) remain even though branches have been cut off and grafted in.

There is one people of God (the olive tree) and God's covenant with them is everlasting even if some branches are cut off and other sgrafted in.

In Christ,
Kenith

 

[msortwell]

O.K., I'm recklessly shooting from the hip here . . . But I tend to think of the terms "covenant children" and "children of the promise" as synonymous.

Mike

 

[TubaFour]

Mike,

It's good to see you back around here.

Could you elaborate on your response? I am not sure I'm tracking with you.

aL

 

[msortwell]

Mike,

It's good to see you back around here.

Could you elaborate on your response? I am not sure I'm tracking with you.

aL

Back? I haven't left. I 've just been watching you tilting at theological windmills.

Relative to the question at hand. As a covenantal Baptist, I see the continuity of OT picture of the circumcision (performed upon children, in accordance with God's covenant with Abraham, hence, covenant children) best sustained by the administration of the NT sacrament of baptism when the object of the baptism is a "child of the promise." God's covenant with Abraham was, after all, a promise.

Acts 7:2-8
2 And he [Stephen] said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,
3 And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.
4 Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.
5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.
6 And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years.
7 And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place.
8 And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs. KJV

Rom 9:7-8
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. KJV

Gal 3:29
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. KJV

Based upon these texts, I would conclude that the true children of the promise (a.k.a, coventant children) are new believers.

Your Baptist Friend,

Mike

 

[TubaFour]

Back? I haven't left. I 've just been watching you tilting at theological windmills.

Relative to the question at hand. As a covenantal Baptist, I see the continuity of OT picture of the circumcision (performed upon children, in accordance with God's covenant with Abraham, hence, covenant children) best sustained by the administration of the NT sacrament of baptism when the object of the baptism is a "child of the promise." God's covenant with Abraham was, after all, a promise.

Acts 7:2-8
2 And he [Stephen] said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,
3 And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.
4 Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.
5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.
6 And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years.
7 And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve me in this place.
8 And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs. KJV

Rom 9:7-8
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. KJV

Gal 3:29
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. KJV

Based upon these texts, I would conclude that the true children of the promise (a.k.a, coventant children) are new believers.

Your Baptist Friend,

Mike

Mike,
It's been fun around here lately, wouldn't you say??!! Glad you got to stand back and just "watch"...

I do understand your POV. But, for the sake of this discussion let me ask you a few questions. If I may paraphrase you, you're essentially saying that only true children of God are the children of promise which you use as a synonym for covenant children. I don't think a paedobaptist would disagree with that assessment (at least the first part of it). Whether covenant children are synonymous with children of promise perhaps I can see a paedobaptist saying that's where they'd differ. I suppose it's a question about who is included in the "visible" covenant community, whether or not they ultimately believe. Right?

1Co7
2To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you[b] to peace. 16Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

These verses seem to make the most sense in a covenantal framework. Otherwise there's no basis no make these sort of assertions. It's as though the holiness of the children of one unbelieving parent is dependent on the salvation of the other parent. But, again, I understand that holiness to be "external," i.e., not unto salvation.

On the flip side of the coin, I would believe that a child can have true faith-- do you? If a child can have true faith would you be averse to baptising him or her?

Also. do you see a connection between circumcision and baptism? I think the connection is actually clear. But, of course that connection doesn't mean that baptism is identical to circumcision... But, again, it's a seemingly compelling position for the paedobaptist.

Anyway, I'm rambling now. I have to admit that my thoughts on the topic are fuzzy at best. I think I am partly wresling with my baptist roots.

Blessings,

aL

 

[msortwell]

. . . Whether covenant children are synonymous with children of promise perhaps I can see a pedobaptist saying that's where they'd differ. I suppose it's a question about who is included in the "visible" covenant community, whether or not they ultimately believe. Right?

I ask my conservative paedobaptist brethren, where is the biblical basis for your understanding of the term, “covenant children?” They have a reverence for the Word and gather their theology from the Scriptures. Do they derive this term from somewhere other than the reference to the children under God’s covenant to Abraham? Since they draw their basis for baptizing their infants (at least in part) from the order to Abraham to circumcise his offspring, it would only be consistent that the same reference is their foundation for their understanding of “covenant children.” In as much as the male biological offspring of Abraham were all to be circumcised (irrespective of whether or not they eventually would come to salvific faith and become a true child of Abraham), the pedobaptists hold that the NT rite (baptism) is to be administered to the biological offspring of believers.

Again, where we part in our convictions is that we disagree upon who should be considered the visible covenant community. I believe that professing believers constitute the visible church. Hence, those who profess to take on believers, take upon themselves the appearance of being new born children of God. If the full number of persons confessing Christ constitute the visible church, then why would we look beyond those recently entering into the visible church (new “visible” babes in Christ) for candidates for baptism, for visible “Covenant Children?”

1Co7
2To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you[b] to peace. 16Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

These verses seem to make the most sense in a covenantal framework. Otherwise there's no basis no make these sort of assertions. It's as though the holiness of the children of one unbelieving parent is dependent on the salvation of the other parent. But, again, I understand that holiness to be "external," i.e., not unto salvation.

Few would attempt to interpret the “holiness” attributed to the children as indicative that they will surely be saved. Rather, the cited verses seem to affirm the promise made in Prov 22:6. But it seems a bit of a stretch to parlay these verses into a mandate to baptize our infant offspring.

On the flip side of the coin, I would believe that a child can have true faith-- do you? If a child can have true faith would you be averse to baptising him or her?

I agree that a child can have true faith. At what age can they come to a genuine faith? I do not know.

Also. do you see a connection between circumcision and baptism? I think the connection is actually clear. But, of course that connection doesn't mean that baptism is identical to circumcision... But, again, it's a seemingly compelling position for the paedobaptist.

I see a clear link between circumcision and baptism.

Col 2:10-12
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. KJV

True, the two are not identical. The question is, If circumcision was administered to new members of the visible Israel in the OT, why do we not apply baptism to new members of the visible “Israel of God,” the newly professing members of the visible church, now?

Blessings,

Mike

 

[heymikey80]

Few would attempt to interpret the “holiness” attributed to the children as indicative that they will surely be saved.

Few would attempt to interpret the external confession of belief as indicative that they will surely be saved either, wouldn't you say?

But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. Luke 8:13
​

There is defection from either indicator.

 

[heymikey80]

True, the two are not identical. The question is, If circumcision was administered to new members of the visible Israel in the OT, why do we not apply baptism to new members of the visible “Israel of God,” the newly professing members of the visible church, now?

Um, we do. In fact we apply baptism to every newly-professing member of the visible church. Just not at the time they profess, in the case of those baptized in infancy.

Those who defected from Israel to another nation and then returned actually couldn't be re-circumcised, either. The parallel is apparent.

There's no stated qualification against minor children in the households being baptized, and that's unusual if there should've been. There are whole extended households being baptized in the early church. In fact there is no case documented of each individual member of such a household being interviewed individually to determine if they confessed their personal faith.

 

[heymikey80]

I believe that professing believers constitute the visible church. Hence, those who profess to take on believers, take upon themselves the appearance of being new born children of God. If the full number of persons confessing Christ constitute the visible church, then why would we look beyond those recently entering into the visible church (new “visible” babes in Christ) for candidates for baptism, for visible “Covenant Children?”

Well, the reason we baptize children of believers is because we don't believe the visible church is per-individual only, but also per-family. Scripture records this relationship as being with families, who were baptized as a whole.

Interpreting this, then, where confession is a practical impossibility, we shift to the promises to families to determine who to baptize in this case.

I think we both agree we're trying to determine who Christ wants in the visible church. That means we have to grapple with who He and His disciples say should be part of it.

 

[msortwell]

Um, we do. In fact we apply baptism to every newly-professing member of the visible church. Just not at the time they profess, in the case of those baptized in infancy.

How are these two statements not mutually inconsistent? You are claiming to "every newly-professing member of the visible church" but you do not baptize you children after they, God willing, confess Christ. Wouldn't they then be "newly-professing members?"

Those who defected from Israel to another nation and then returned actually couldn't be re-circumcised, either. The parallel is apparent.

O.K., however I would not advocate rebaptizing a baptized member of the body who left the church, or was placed under disicipline, and later repented and returned. The paralles seems to be sustained with either model.

There's no stated qualification against minor children in the households being baptized, and that's unusual if there should've been. There are whole extended households being baptized in the early church. In fact there is no case documented of each individual member of such a household being interviewed individually to determine if they confessed their personal faith.

As you know, the argument regarding households being baptized is built from silence. Additionally, there are several cases where the Scriptures document those recently professing Christ as the recipients of baptism.

As I have stated before, I acknowledge that infant baptism cannot be proven wrong from Scripture. But I see the appropriate continuity from OT to NT sustained by credobaptism by immersion.

Blessings,

Mike

 

[heymikey80]

How are these two statements not mutually inconsistent? You are claiming to "every newly-professing member of the visible church" but you do not baptize you children after they, God willing, confess Christ. Wouldn't they then be "newly-professing members?"

They're mutually consistent because we don't see baptism as intended after profession. The infant-baptized person is someone baptized (perfect tense), but the baptism has occurred before his profession.

Baptism in Acts occurs before the Spirit shows His influence (in Ephesus), after the Spirit shows His influence (Cornelius' family), with profession (Philippian jailer), with no mention of profession (jailer's family, Cornelius' family, Lydia's household). The coincidence of baptism does not seem to have one reliable location in Apostolic practice.

And when historical precedent's added to it, the early church baptized infants.

O.K., however I would not advocate rebaptizing a baptized member of the body who left the church, or was placed under disicipline, and later repented and returned. The parallels seems to be sustained with either model.

I'm sorry if my words seemed to imply that, I didn't mean to imply it. I was pointing out that in continuity with circumcision, the baptized infant wouldn't be rebaptized, but maybe I abbreviated the argument a little too quickly. The person circumcised would've been circumcised before his defection, in infancy. So the person baptized in infancy wouldn't be rebaptized.

As you know, the argument regarding households being baptized is built from silence. Additionally, there are several cases where the Scriptures document those recently professing Christ as the recipients of baptism.

The argument regarding households is not silent. The argument regarding treatment of children and infants is an argument from silence. That's a big difference. Households were baptized. Four of them were baptized by name in the New Testament.

A person's treatment and ministry to his family is a concern in many and various ways throughout the New Testament. The implications of a household covenant are there, and they're somewhat less than silent. Paul addresses treatment of others in the household as quite important in most of his letters. He also sets the belief of all a person's family as critical among elders and deacons in the church.

To me the silence argument is odd for its omission of any directive against child baptism. Children are definitely given directives in Scripture as Christians (Ep 6:1, e.g.). Households are baptized. Surely it'd come up. So the question of continuity would definitely come up. How continuous would this New Covenant be, if baptism has continuity with circumcision? How would the visible sign of faith be applied in the New Covenant, if the earlier visible sign of faith were applied in infancy?

As I have stated before, I acknowledge that infant baptism cannot be proven wrong from Scripture. But I see the appropriate continuity from OT to NT sustained by credobaptism by immersion.

I'd say it achieves much of the continuity, but it implies some unusual things about that continuity, too.

What bothers me about its continuity? A few things. Continuity with Ishmael, for one. Ishmael is Abraham's natural child, destined not to be established in covenant with God, and yet God explicitly commands his circumcision.

There's also the idea that the new sign of faith is more restrictive, when there's actually an intentional command that the old sign of faith be given to infants. I just don't get why. Have the people of God been redefined? Aren't the descendants of faithful fathers beloved by God? What has been applied to them in visible signs in times past, and why does that no longer apply today?

There's also a minor issue dealing with statements assuming infant circumcision on the part of the sons of Abraham. If that continuity holds sway between circumcision and baptism, then there are different conclusions about applicability in a Baptist view -- if not neglect of the infancy-sign issue, as in Romans 4. But again, it's a minor issue that isn't emphasized. It's just a different issue of continuity.

In Presbyterian thought that continuity carries down to the sign occurring prior to the awareness of the child that they've entered into covenant with God. In the case of infant baptism the sign is more what God intends for us than from examining an attribute of the person baptized.

And maybe that's the point. In Baptist churches visible children of covenant families don't receive the same visible sign. The visible church is defined on the basis of confession instead of a covenant that speaks to families. And that means the visible children of the covenant aren't in the visible church.

 

[msortwell]

The OT picture is fulfilled by those who are in Christ. They are the true seed of Abraham. They are the rightful recipient of the sign of the covenant.

Gen 17:9-10
9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. KJV

Gal 3:29
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.KJV

Where does the text imply that the NT Children of the flesh are the children of the promise?

Louis Berkhof in his book "Systematic Theology" concedes the following.

It may be said at the outset that there is no explicit command in the Bible to baptize children, and that there is not a singel instance in which we are plainly told that children were baptized.​

He then goes on to explain, in a fashion similar to some of the arguments that you have offered, why he holds to a paedobaptist view. Again, I'll not condemn my brethren for holding a paedobaptist view. But I do believe that they are misinterpreting the Scriptures on this matter.

Blessings,

Mike

 

[heymikey80]

Where does the text imply that the NT Children of the flesh are the children of the promise?

Where does the text imply that the OT children of the flesh are the children of the promise? And yet they receive the sign because they're his natural children:

Gen 17:10 "every male among you shall be circumcised."

Gen 17:18-19 And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before You!" But God said, "No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son

Gen 17:20-21 "As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him ... But My covenant I will establish with Isaac"

Gen 17:23 Then Abraham took Ishmael his son, ... and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the very same day, as God had said to him.
​

What's God's treatment of all this?

Rom 11:28b ... from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers​

Again, I'll not condemn my brethren for holding a paedobaptist view. But I do believe that they are misinterpreting the Scriptures on this matter.

And it's very much the same with me. I think credobaptists are misinterpreting Scripture on this matter. Is it a condemnable thing? No. It's just a misinterpretation.

 

[JM]

Should we baptize unbelieving servants [for those who can afford them] as well just because they're in the household?

 

[eph3Nine]

Should we baptize unbelieving servants [for those who can afford them] as well just because they're in the household?

You shouldnt be baptizing ANYONE.... The ONE and ONLY baptism today that God recognizes is the ONE baptism of Eph. 4:5. It is a SPIRIT baptism and places on IN the Body of Christ. NONE other is necessary nor required, in fact to ADD to the ONE that God provided would be to make the Cross of NONE EFFECT.

THOSE instructions you are seeking to apply to yourself were given to another audience at another time who were under another gospel.