Paedobaptism

[Osage Bluestem]

Is it possible for 'covenant' children to be apart of the covenant of grace, receive the sign/baptism and not be blood bought members of God's people?

Certainly. Just the same as Israel before Christ. Everyone was in the visible covenant but only those of faith were part of the true invisible Israel.

 

[JM]

I may be off the beam, but infant baptism seemeth to me, to have more to do with the covenant of works, than grace, and do not see how an infant can receive what they do not perceive, just sayin'!

I think you are on the right track, it does seem like a covenant of works...in contracts with the covenant of grace. The c of g is entered into by grace through faith and not physical linage whereas the c of w was entered into by virtual of birth.

The way I see it, covenant children whom God regenerates and imputes faith partake in the covenant of grace, but I cannot affirm that this is the case of every child whom is made a partaker of the sacramental work of baptism (so not every baptized infant is necessarily a covenant child in the true sense). Then again, creedo baptism is no guarantee either, an unregenerated baptized adult sinner can be just as much an unregenerate adult sinner as they were before baptism. We cannot take the position that a work performed by man (the ceremony of baptism) can force the hand of God, or change the mind of God, etc. or we are not different than Rome and those in bed with her.

That would be a mixed covenant of grace, right? Where the physical descendents are in the covenant by simply being born, but are they not under their federal head Adam until they are brought into the covenant by faith? Faith is the evidence of their being in the covenant is it not? I agree that credobaptism doesn't guarantee salvation but it does guarantee the person being baptized is baptized upon their profession of faith and seeking to follow the Lord obediently by being identified with His death, burial and resurrection. A credobaptist doesn't seek to create what Presbyterians call 'covenant breakers' since we do not (Reformed Baptists anyway) believe the covenant of grace can be broken.

Baptism is given by grace. All passages relating to one falling away from grace are regarding those who are in the visible church through baptism but never entered the invisible church through faith. So falling away from the covenant of grace is possible by failing to come to faith in Christ and repent of sins.

Baptism is given by grace. All passages relating to one falling away from grace are regarding those who are in the visible church through baptism but never entered the invisible church through faith. So falling away from the covenant of grace is possible by failing to come to faith in Christ and repent of sins.

I agree if the c of g can be broken, if you can be in the covenant of grace made in the saviours blood and fall away, your position makes sense. But I have to say it is a tenuous position at best. It is the same position any Arminian postulates.

jm

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I agree if the c of g can be broken, if you can be in the covenant of grace made in the saviours blood and fall away, your position makes sense. But I have to say it is a tenuous position at best. It is the same position any Arminian postulates.

jm

The infant didn't earn the privilege of a Christian home or of Christian baptism through the faith of his parents. All that is given by grace. Man is culpable for his own personal sins and unbelief and non repentance are sins. Every person has the responsibility to seek God, believe, and repent. One who is baptized into the Church and raised in a Christian home is showered with grace and should certainly come to faith and repentance. Not doing so, breaks the covenant.

 

[AndOne]

I highly recommend the sinners and saints radio 2.0 broadcast that monergism.com posted in their mp3 section recently - A Response to John MacArthur on Infant Baptism (13-Part MP3 Series) (Monergism MP3)

It is a response to a sermon preached by John MacArthur slamming the practice. This is an issue I have struggled on and off with over the years since I became reformed and I must say that despite their edgy in-your-face style of rebuttal I think it is the best scriptural defense of padeobaptism I have ever heard. I'm still a Baptist but this one made me do a double-take. I highly recommend it but start at part 3 if you listen. Part 1 doesn't download correctly and part 2 is unrelated to the topic (though it is good). I'd be interested to hear what folks think of this.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I think you are on the right track, it does seem like a covenant of works...in contracts with the covenant of grace. The c of g is entered into by grace through faith and not physical linage whereas the c of w was entered into by virtual of birth.

Yes....one of the complications for me is thinking of the Covenants in terms of past, present, and future.

That would be a mixed covenant of grace, right?

There does seem to be some overlap or ties, it's especially evident to us with the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace, some theologians make no distinction. I feel I am grossly unqualified on this subject, so (some of) my positions are soft (still learning), until I am given more understanding. So far as mixing the covenant of grace with works, I wouldn't or do not, at least not intentionally, if I have sorry for the confusion.

Where the physical descendents are in the covenant by simply being born, but are they not under their federal head Adam until they are brought into the covenant by faith?

Tough question. Seems all of us are born under the federal head of Adam, under the covenant of works, that much is clear. What is not clear is defining a point at which the children of believers are under the c of g. Another enigma, as Christians, are we no longer under the c of w in any respect? Christians are often quick to point out that we're "no longer under law but grace", but how about non-Christians? I am inclined to say that only upon monergistic regeneration does one enter the c of g under the federal head of Christ. So the question then becomes, can God not regenerate an infant if He so chooses? I say yes, what say you?

Faith is the evidence of their being in the covenant is it not?

Yes, saving faith in Christ manifested in Holy Spirit inspired works, or the Spirit of God working through faith in the believer is an evidence. Of course the problem with this so far as us being "fruit inspectors", is the reality of counterfeit works. Thank God for the gift of spiritual discernment.

I agree that credobaptism doesn't guarantee salvation but it does guarantee the person being baptized is baptized upon their profession of faith and seeking to follow the Lord obediently by being identified with His death, burial and resurrection.

I found an interesting article today, here is a quote:

"George Whitefield, who historians identify as the key preacher of the Great Awakening, refused to speculate on how many of his listeners had been converted. "There are so many stony-ground hearers which receive the word with joy," Whitefield said, "that I have determined to suspend my judgment till I know the tree by its fruits." - SOURCE

A credobaptist doesn't seek to create what Presbyterians call 'covenant breakers' since we do not (Reformed Baptists anyway) believe the covenant of grace can be broken.

I do not believe c of g can be broken either, and I am a paedobaptist. I openly confess that I do not have a perfect understanding of ct by any stretch of the imagination. It may be that I am inconsistent, but I cannot see it, I see as through a glass darkly. I do see where you're coming from assuming infant baptism were the entering point of the c of g, but I stand by my comment on monergistic regeneration.

 

[JM]

Thanks for all the responses folks, I do appreciate it and I will come back to comment on this thread but I'm knee deep in reading right now.

I have a lot to pray about and think over. I am definitely a Baptist and believe covenant theology supplies ample grounding for the practice of believers baptism but I'm working on how to express what I believe.

The work 'The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology' is really adding flesh to my skeletal federalism.

Anyone read Owen's exposition of Hebrews 8? It's on my list and I hope to get to it soon.

About John MacArthur...see his debate with Sproul.

I really like how the 17th century Baptists, when dealing with infant baptists, was their insistence on working toward credobaptism using the covenant theology.

A really helpful site, one that brings some of the best Reformed Baptist material found online to one spot: The Confessing Baptist | From Reformed Baptists For Reformed Baptists

jm

 

[All Souls]

I would highlight 1 Cor. 10:1-2 where Paul writes about 'our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea'. I would note the practice of household baptisms in Acts and Corinthians also.

The most helpful book is Word, Water, and Spirit.

 

[AndOne]

About John MacArthur...see his debate with Sproul.

Yea - those guys on the Sinners and Saints show pretty much said MacArthur wiped the floor with Sproul so don't think I need to listen to it. My guess is they put up a much better defense than R. C. did...

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Yea - those guys on the Sinners and Saints show pretty much said MacArthur wiped the floor with Sproul so don't think I need to listen to it. My guess is they put up a much better defense than R. C. did...

MacArthur just has an aggressive personality. He can also out debate anyone on dispensationalism but does that make dispensationalism true?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Thanks for all the responses folks, I do appreciate it and I will come back to comment on this thread but I'm knee deep in reading right now.

I have a lot to pray about and think over. I am definitely a Baptist and believe covenant theology supplies ample grounding for the practice of believers baptism but I'm working on how to express what I believe.

This thread has inspired me to purchase a copy of:

 

[JM]

The infant didn't earn the privilege of a Christian home or of Christian baptism through the faith of his parents. All that is given by grace. Man is culpable for his own personal sins and unbelief and non repentance are sins. Every person has the responsibility to seek God, believe, and repent. One who is baptized into the Church and raised in a Christian home is showered with grace and should certainly come to faith and repentance. Not doing so, breaks the covenant.

I do not believe c of g can be broken either, and I am a paedobaptist. I openly confess that I do not have a perfect understanding of ct by any stretch of the imagination. It may be that I am inconsistent, but I cannot see it, I see as through a glass darkly. I do see where you're coming from assuming infant baptism were the entering point of the c of g, but I stand by my comment on monergistic regeneration.

I'm doing my best to inquire without arguing but which is it?

Brother Osage believes the covenant of grace is mixed, containing unbelievers and believers. Brother AW believers the covenant of grace is pure, containing believers only, bought by the blood of Christ. I believe AW is more consistent with the idea of the covenant of grace based on what scripture reveals about it. I would also say AW is in good company with the likes of John Owen and many of the 17th century Reformed writers (both credo and paedo). The Westminster Standard, if I'm not mistaken, agree with Osage.

It sounds a lot like Arminianism...the covenant of grace, made in our dear Lord's blood, was made with ALL (Israel) but efficient for the ELECT only.

I would highlight 1 Cor. 10:1-2 where Paul writes about 'our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea'. I would note the practice of household baptisms in Acts and Corinthians also.

That's not really a good example All Souls. Pharaoh's army were the ones who got wet, not the Israelites, so the meaning has less to do with water and more to do with identifying the people of God with the Prophet Moses.

House hold baptisms may follow the Westminster confessional principle of 'good and necessary consequence' but is it scriptural? Does the tradition to baptize infants give a foundation for paedo ecclesiology or should scripture dictate who is in the church and who should be baptized? All Souls, do you practice house hold baptism the way you are attempting to use in this discussion? Is everyone in your household baptized, including unbelievers? Today infant baptism (in Protestant churches) is preformed based on the faith of their parents but circumcision in the old testament was based on national linage. These 'covenant' children also took part sacrificial meals, lack of faith did not bar them from participation, should this open up the Lord's Supper to infants?

I've asked this question before...if a married couple came to faith in their 50's and were baptized should their children who are in their 20's, still living at home, be baptized? If you follow the old testament pattern faith is not required. In fact the children would still be considered Israel even if they left their parents house and would be circumcised because it was a national ordinance. (Gen. 17.10-11)

Yea - those guys on the Sinners and Saints show pretty much said MacArthur wiped the floor with Sproul so don't think I need to listen to it. My guess is they put up a much better defense than R. C. did...

He did. I don't think Sproul took the discussion seriously enough. He made a few off handed comments and Johnny Mac stole the show.

MacArthur just has an aggressive personality. He can also out debate anyone on dispensationalism but does that make dispensationalism true?

I'd like to see him debate Dispey theology. He is definitely not your regular Dispey, he has embraced many covenant principles to the dismay of his Fundie friends.

I've posted more than I really wanted to already.

lol

jm

 

[Osage Bluestem]

There is nothing uncalvinistic in recognizing the distinction between the visible church and invisible church. God gives more grace to some than others. Some are blood bought some are not. All baptized are in the covenant. Those not blood bought will eventually fall away from and lose all grace given them and spend eternity in hell. Those blood bought will spend eternity with Christ and will never fall from grace. However all culpability in damnation belongs to man alone. All merit and glory in salvation belongs to God alone.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

MacArthur just has an aggressive personality. He can also out debate anyone on dispensationalism but does that make dispensationalism true?

This is a good point. I've listened to many debates, and the person more prepared and skilled at debate rhetoric is generally declared the winner. Honestly, it's somewhat entertaining to watch a debate, and can give rise to further thought for listeners, and learn how to respond to this or that, but most issues I've listened to, are hardly exhausted in a debate, so in the end they remain unsettled.

Many would agree Bahnsen won his debate with Sproul, but did that change the minds of listeners in agreement with Sproul, or did that even prove Dr. Bahnsen's point beyond a shadow of a doubt? Depends on who you ask.

I love R.C. Sproul, he is one of my favorite theologians, but I do not think he is really into debates, it is not a vocation for him, and probably not something he gets much enjoyment out of. I'd also say he probably had good fellowship with Dr. Bahnsen, as I suspect he has and does with MacArthur. I believe in-house debates should be especially friendly and charitable, with the exception of heresy, where more firmness, boldness, and sharpness with temperance and gentleness are desirable.

 

[All Souls]

That's not really a good example All Souls. Pharaoh's army were the ones who got wet, not the Israelites, so the meaning has less to do with water and more to do with identifying the people of God with the Prophet Moses.

JM, I fear I was unclear...my point of 1 Cor. 10 is not looking at who got wet but how Scripture understands the event. When Israel crossed the Sea of Reeds it is described as their 'baptism' which, I agree, does identify the people of God with the Prophet Moses. When we then consider the biblical-theological import of this, we can grasp that baptism in the NT echoes the exodus event - hence Jesus' baptism was at the Jordan which is exodus imagery - and baptism identify the people of God with Jesus.

House hold baptisms may follow the Westminster confessional principle of 'good and necessary consequence' but is it scriptural?

Household baptisms are found mentioned in scripture:

Acts 16.15 "When she and her household were baptized, she urged us, saying, ‘If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come and stay at my home.’ And she prevailed upon us."

1 Corinthians 1.16 "I did baptize also the household of Stephanas"

I would also question how you're determining what is 'scriptural', something is surely biblical if it is consistent with biblical principles.

do you practice house hold baptism the way you are attempting to use in this discussion? Is everyone in your household baptized, including unbelievers?

The question is what is a household? In the ancient Near East and the Graeco-Roman period a household was very different from a twenty-first Century Western household. The household should be baptised, however the composition of the household is not mandated by scripture but the cultural period.

These 'covenant' children also took part sacrificial meals, lack of faith did not bar them from participation, should this open up the Lord's Supper to infants?

Yes, I advocate paedocommunion

Check out Covenant Children and Covenant Meals: Biblical Evidence for Infant Communion

I've asked this question before...if a married couple came to faith in their 50's and were baptized should their children who are in their 20's, still living at home, be baptized?

I don't think so since in our culture we would not class their children as being under their parent's authority. We need to translate the biblical principle of household baptism into the twenty-first century.

My own view is that baptism tells a story into which we enter; so Wright has noted the various themes:

Through the water to freedom...Through the water to new life...Through the water into God’s new covenant...Through the water into God’s new world... Through the water into the new life of belonging to Jesus...Through the water to become part of God’s purpose for the world.

 

[JM]

All Souls, thank you for replying. I don't mean to be dismissive but everything you posted is driven by the need to find a place for infants, believers and unbelievers, in the covenant of grace. It is an assumption that ignores what the Bible teaches about the (unconditional) covenant of grace.

I highly recommend the following title. It was written by infant baptists who come to believe credobaptism was the normative practice of the early church. They continue to be infant baptists but other reasons.

Osage, I was not saying infant baptism is Arminian, but the comparison is valid. Both the Arminian and the infant baptist limit the mediatorial work of Christ to substance (believers) and circumstance (unbelievers who God is trying to save through covenant).

Another problem with the paedobaptist position that all physical infants of believers are in the New Covenant is that it does violation to the doctrine of particular redemption. Every New Covenant member has Jesus Christ as his effectual Mediator (Matthew 1:21). As Ridderbos says: "God's people are those for whom Christ sheds his blood of the covenant. They share in the remission of sins brought about by him and in the unbreakable communion with God in the New Covenant that he has made possible." To call unregenerate infants "God's people" and members of the New Covenant for "whom Christ sheds his blood of the covenant" violates particular redemption simply because no one can be in the New Covenant without the effectual mediatorial sacrifice that establishes the covenant with every member. Fred Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone quoted by Denault in The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology
​

According to Arminian Dispensationalist writer Charles Ryrie, the infant baptist Johannes Cocceius, who had a big influence on the federal theology of the WCF, used covenantalism to move away from the doctrines of predestination.

"Cocceius's contribution was in detailing and systemizing of the idea of the covenant, giving a more prominent part to man in contrast with the rigorous predestinatarianism of his day..." Dispensationalism (p 186)
​

Is it a stretch to say that Cocceius and the Arminians have similar ideas about the mediatorial work of Christ? I don't think so.

Could we start at the beginning? What does the Bible reveal about the covenant of grace (aka the new covenant)?

Thanks folks.

jm
PS: I will admit that a speakers style may influence the listener but we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss the content of the debate.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Scripture gives us the simple answer. "The promise is for you and your children...." Acts 2:39. If children of believers weren't included God wouldn't have inspired that scripture.

 

[JM]

Hey brother, I pray all is well with you and your family.

Scripture gives us the simple answer. "The promise is for you and your children...." Acts 2:39. If children of believers weren't included God wouldn't have inspired that scripture.

The rest of it, "...and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

The qualifying part of the verse is "God shall call."

Just ordered:

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Hey brother, I pray all is well with you and your family.

The rest of it, "...and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

The qualifying part of the verse is "God shall call."

Just ordered:

Being a child of a Christian is being called since you are raised in the faith. Everyone who hears the gospel has been called by the gospel call.

 

[Iosias]

It is an assumption that ignores what the Bible teaches about the (unconditional) covenant of grace.

Why does the unconditionality of the covenant of grace mean that infants should not be baptised?

 

[Iosias]

Could we start at the beginning? What does the Bible reveal about the covenant of grace (aka the new covenant)?

You're assuming the covenant of grace is synonymous with the new covenant; let's actually start at the beginning and ask what a covenant is and where they can be found.