• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,480
3,740
Canada
✟884,512.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Why does the unconditionality of the covenant of grace mean that infants should not be baptised?

Our dear brother AW was quick to point out a few pages back, "...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'!" To draw a line from circumcision to baptism, without recognizing the difference between the duty of a nation to circumcise as a legal obedience and the new covenant ordinance to baptize based on of faith, misses the newness of the new covenant. The old covenant was mixed at best (still working out my understanding of it) and conditional. Circumcision is opposed to the Gospel ordinance of baptism for this reason; faith is required to be baptized. The former was required of a nation regardless of faith, the latter is matter of faithful obedience, the one does not replace the other.

The law is not of faith. The former required the nation to obey and the nation would receive earthly, temporal benefits.
"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:" (Exo 19:5)
I would also say it isn't even possible that circumcision and baptism are signs or seals of the same covenant.
"If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them; Then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit." (Lev 26:3-4)
The new covenant on the other hand is different:
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: BUT THIS shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." (Jer 31:31-33)
And;
"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." (Heb 10:16-17)
What did the Jews who came to faith in Christ do when confronted with the new covenant ordinance of baptism? They were baptized upon a profession of faith and repentance...even before circumcision was abrogated. (Heb. 8:13) As Coxe points out, "The old covenant is not the new; nor that which is abolished, the same with that which remains. Until these become one, baptism and circumcision will never be found so far one that the law for applying the latter should be a sufficient warrant for the administration of the former to infants."

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.

http://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html#WCF7


The above link will help. The quotes above from Hebrews and Jeremiah also reveal something about the new covenant.

jm
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,480
3,740
Canada
✟884,512.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
What did you find so compelling?

For me the issue of who is in the church and who should be baptized is a settled issue but I'm looking credobaptism from a covenantal perspective and find it even more convincing.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 21, 2003
6,793
3,289
Central Time Zone
✟122,193.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Brother JM,

Not to stir the pot, but me thinks one of the issues of credobaptism is conditionalism, and with that, how the conditions are compatible with unconditional election. Maybe I'm not awake yet, in need of more coffee.
 
Upvote 0

bsd058

Sola and Tota Scripturist
Oct 9, 2012
606
95
Florida, USA
✟22,046.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
What did you find so compelling?

For me the issue of who is in the church and who should be baptized is a settled issue but I'm looking credobaptism from a covenantal perspective and find it even more convincing.

The podcasts were about 12 hours altogether in length, so there are lots of things to think about.

But maybe just to name a few without explanation (with the explanations they can be very convincing):

1) That baptism is the circumcision of Christ and therefore replaces circumcision. (Col 2:11-12)
2) That there was no controversy in early Christianity, yet the topic would have supposedly been a huge controversy had the early Christians walked away from the early apostolic teaching of credo-baptism so early.
3) That the children of believers are assumed to be holy/set apart in order to prove that the unbelieving spouse of a believing husband is holy/set apart, thereby implying that the children and husband are both a part of the covenant. (1 Cor 7:14)
4) That the tradition of the Jews was to state that the woman is sanctified by her relationship to her father or her husband (based upon his circumcision as a sign of him being a part of the covenant).
5) That all of Israel (men, women, and children) were baptized in the cloud and the sea into Moses. (1 Cor 10:2)
6) That the kingdom belongs to those that are like children. (Luke)
7) The promise is for the Jews and their children (covenant solidarity) thereby reversing the curse of the blood of Christ on their and their children's heads. Even though it was for those afar off, covenant solidarity seems to be an established concept with the Jews.
8) That there were whole households baptized based on the belief of of a single parent. (Acts 16:14-15)
9) It makes the covenant tree make more sense, since the children are a part of the visible church and the covenant tree represents the visible church.

These are merely some that I remember off the top of my head. But they had more. I'm finding this interesting as to how this concept is so closely related to ecclesiology and even soteriology.

I'm going to have to read some books on this topic. I'll probably start with those posted in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,480
3,740
Canada
✟884,512.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Brother JM,

Not to stir the pot, but me thinks one of the issues of credobaptism is conditionalism, and with that, how the conditions are compatible with unconditional election. Maybe I'm not awake yet, in need of more coffee.



You will have to unpack that a little more.

bsd, my insomnia was at it again last night so I did fall asleep until about 5am (got up at 7:30).

I shall return when my mind is able to function probably.

 
Upvote 0

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟28,628.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Reactions: JM
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,480
3,740
Canada
✟884,512.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
The law is not of faith. The former required the nation to obey and the nation would receive earthly, temporal benefits.

You still have not explained why the unconditionality of the covenant of grace mean that infants should not be baptised.

Moreover, the New Covenant is linked with the Davidic and Abrahamic, not the Mosaic. See my post here. Have you read either Lord and Servant or Covenant and Salvation? I dare say you will find them useful.
 
Upvote 0

JM

Confessional Free Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,480
3,740
Canada
✟884,512.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Iosias, you are the same fellow who went by AV1611, RJS and a few other handles, right? Are you Reformed again? Are you a Calvinist again? Unless I'm mistaken, and I do not believe I am, you were a Dispensationalist (who started the dispey forum), Reformed Baptist, Anglican, Brethren and than became a Roman Catholic.

If we are going to continue this discussion I need to understand where you are coming from. You also need to know this discussion is for Reformed and Calvinistic folks. You have itchy ears, always have and I do not believe it is beneficial to interact with you.

jm

The new covenant is unconditional with the sign being an inward sign, circumcision is of the heart and not related to physical linenage. It is recieved by the grace of faith with water baptism being an outward sign of our union with Christ.
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: BUT THIS shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." (Jer 31:31-33)
And;"This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." (Heb 10:16-17)
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
The new covenant is unconditional with the sign being an inward sign, circumcision is of the heart and not related to physical linenage. It is recieved by the grace of faith with water baptism being an outward sign of our union with Christ.

Yep, I was AV1611. I was a Reformed Dispensationalist (like John MacArthur) whilst I was in the brethren, before changing my mind on Baptism and church government thereby becoming a Reformed Anglican. I don't recall being a Catholic, though I did think about it but decided there were too many areas of disagreement. I seem to remember you were a dispensationalist too, and historic premil, and a fan of the hyper-calvinist, Don Fortner.

No covenant is strictly unconditional, even the Abrahamic:

Gen. 22:15-18 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said, ‘By myself I have sworn, says the LORD: Because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice

In quoting Heb 10:16-17 you stop before the writer issues a call to persevere; there are two sides to the New Covenant, God's and ours.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bsd058

Sola and Tota Scripturist
Oct 9, 2012
606
95
Florida, USA
✟22,046.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
bsd, what is your position right now? Credo of Paedo?
I haven't come to a conclusion yet. I was for credo-baptism, but I've decided I'm going to read up on ecclesiology more (I'm reading Grudem and Erickson on the matters right now and will try to utilize their cited sources to try to draw out a fair conclusion based on those studies (but might need to tweak what I believe through the years if I'm lead to believe something different based upon the evidence). It might take a while. My aim is to go wherever truth may lead. I really only desire to be honest with the text of Scripture and if that means Paedo, then so be it.

Though, I go to a church that practices credo-baptism
 
Upvote 0

Iosias

Senior Contributor
Jul 18, 2004
8,171
227
✟9,648.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Going back to why I believe in paedobaptism, partly because I accept that infants can have faith. Rich Lusk wrote an excellent book called Paedofaith.


A summary is here:

 
Upvote 0

Osage Bluestem

Galatians 5:1
Dec 27, 2010
2,488
253
Texas
Visit site
✟26,711.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't know him but I believe the NT charge of itchy ears comes from those who would accept doctrines outside of Christianity entirely and not simply trying to find the most error free form of Christianity itself. I do not fault people for trying to follow Christ in truth. We all know that there are many competing interpretations of the bible that claim to be the truth. A person with "itchy ears" would do something like accept the Koran as truth or universalism or Buddhism or Hinduism ...etc. Christian denomination skipping in this day and age is simply a sign of a Christian striving to be the best Christian he can be according to the truth. I see no fault in it. Go with God as you feel led by the scriptures.
 
Upvote 0

AndOne

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men
Apr 20, 2002
7,477
462
Florida
✟28,628.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married

He's bought into N. T. Wright and Dunn's NPP regarding justification. I only know this because I have been interacting w/ him in the SOT forums. In my opinion such a view falls outside of Christianity...
 
Upvote 0