tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post7061337074312687891..comments2024-01-24T15:46:14.823-05:00Comments on Covenant Theology: Examining Baptist Misunderstandings Concerning the CovenantsPuritan Ladhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-8345566602134067562008-07-07T08:07:00.000-04:002008-07-07T08:07:00.000-04:00Kevin: I'm not trying to justify my position base...<B>Kevin:</B> I'm not trying to justify my position based on silence. Which leads me to ask: how do you reconcile infant baptism with the Regulative Principle?<BR/><BR/><B>Response:</B> Infant Baptism is a problem with the Regulative Principle only if you differentiate it from adult baptism. Clearly, Baptism is to be part of worship in church. Why exclude the infants of believers?<BR/><BR/><B>Kevin:</B> It is clear from the context of Acts 2 that the statement by Peter'...you and for your children' is related to confessing believers not infants. It is preceded by 'repent' in v. 38 and succeeded by 'those who received his word' in v. 41.<BR/><BR/><B>Response:</B> It seems clear that Peter's message is Acts 2 relates to confessing believers in their children. If the Holy Spirit is promised to confessing believers and their children, then why exclude them from the covenant sacrament? Also, you make the jump, as many Baptists do, from "Repent and be baptized" to "All who are baptized must have repented". There is a difference, and brings us full circle to the original Baptist problem. How do we know if soneone has genuinely repented (ie. Simon Magus).<BR/><BR/><B>Kevin:</B> Have you looked at any commentaries on 1 Cor. 7? The most plain reading of the text (v 14) would seem to indicate that the husband/wife is not 'sanctified' in a spiritual sense but in a legal sense. The OT practice was that the 'unclean' spouse was to be 'put away' (cf. Ez. 10:3). Whereas in the NT, under the covenant of grace, the spouse is allowed to remain in the hope that he/she will be saved (v 16).<BR/><BR/><B>Response:</B> There are two problems with this approach. The first is that 1 Corinthians was written to the church at Corinth, not the civil magistrate. Therefore, "sanctified" is a legal sense is an insufficient explanation. Besides, any marriage is sanctified in the legal sense, believers or not. The second is the use of the word "Holy" to describe the children of believers. This word clearly refers to ecclesiastical sanctification. I have heard it argued that the term is used to differentiate between legitimate and illegimate children. That. of course, holds no water, since the children of any married couple are legitimate, believers or otherwise.Puritan Ladhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-32056288899308098382008-07-06T22:12:00.000-04:002008-07-06T22:12:00.000-04:00I'm not trying to justify my position based on sil...I'm not trying to justify my position based on silence. Which leads me to ask: how do you reconcile infant baptism with the Regulative Principle?<BR/><BR/>It is clear from the context of Acts 2 that the statement by Peter'...you and for your children' is related to confessing believers not infants. It is preceded by 'repent' in v. 38 and succeeded by 'those who received his word' in v. 41.<BR/><BR/>Have you looked at any commentaries on 1 Cor. 7? The most plain reading of the text (v 14) would seem to indicate that the husband/wife is not 'sanctified' in a spiritual sense but in a legal sense. The OT practice was that the 'unclean' spouse was to be 'put away' (cf. Ez. 10:3). Whereas in the NT, under the covenant of grace, the spouse is allowed to remain in the hope that he/she will be saved (v 16).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522858606679761337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-84777341866722447282008-07-01T14:30:00.000-04:002008-07-01T14:30:00.000-04:00Kevin: "I have several problems with padeobaptism:...<B>Kevin:</B> <I>"I have several problems with padeobaptism: 1.) Reverse chronology; using the OT to interpret the NT."</I><BR/><BR/><B>Response:</B> But Paul did this in Colossians. The point here isn't that the NT is interpreted in light of the OT (though that is valid), but that there is a clear continuation between the testaments. In other words, Old Covenant Christianity isn't as different from New Covenant Christianity as some would like to make it.<BR/><BR/><B>Kevin:</B> <I>"2.) arguments from silence,"</I><BR/><BR/><B>Response:</B> Actually, that is the Baptist argument. They are the ones who reject infant baptism due to "no specific scripture". I addressed that in the original post.<BR/><BR/><B>Kevin:</B> <I>"3.) and equivocating circumcision with baptism."</I><BR/><BR/><B>Response:</B> But aren't you doing that in the very next phrase???<BR/><BR/><B>Kevin:</B> <I>"The covenant sign in the NT is still circumcision. Since it is no longer outward it is demonstrated by baptism."</I><BR/><BR/><B>Response:</B> If true circumcision (inward) is demonstrated by baptism, like you suggest, why not give it to our children?<BR/><BR/><B>Kevin:</B> <I>"Baptism is important because it is a profession of faith (cf. Mt. 10:32; Lu. 12:8). This act in the first century, as it is today in certain countries, has dire consequences; even death. This is the context in which baptism is communicated in the NT. As such, I don't think they early Christians had problems determining who were truly regenerate or not..."</I><BR/><BR/><B>Response:</B> Even the First Century Church had their share of false converts. Judas and Simon Magus come to mind, both of whom were given the sacraments. See original post.<BR/><BR/><B>Kevin:</B> <I>"We can't protect the sacraments of the church absolutely. The point is that we are stewards and as such it is our duty to protect them as best we can and leave the rest to God."</I><BR/><BR/><B>Response:</B> I agree.<BR/><BR/><B>Kevin:</B> <I>"Why baptize children of regenerate parents when we know that not every one of those children are the elect of God? Cain? Esau? Mt. 10:35-36?"</I><BR/><BR/>How do you know that the parents are regenerate? That is the biggest problem with the Baptist approach to Baptism. They are unable to consistently practice what they say they believe. One on hand, they hold that Baptism is only for the regenerate, yet readily admit that they have no way of knowing who the elect actually are.<BR/><BR/>As far as why we baptize the children of professing believers, it's for the same reason Esau was circumcised. He was a child of Abraham, up until the time when it was clear that he really wasn't Abraham's seed (spiritually - Gal. 3:7). <BR/><BR/>In light of this question, I would also ask, Why baptize professing believers when we know that not every one of the professing believers are the elect of God? Why limit this practice to only their children? You are correct in that we should protect the sacraments as much as we can. We don't know who is really elect of God, whether it be those who profess their faith, or their covenant children. We have expectations, but no presumptions. The expectations are that professing believers, along with their children are in Covenant with God, and should receive the sign and seal of the covenant of grace. That was physical circumcision in the Old Covenant, and Spiritual circumcision (baptism) in the new.<BR/><BR/>As I stated, I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that I've settled this 400 year old debate, but I merely attempted to answer specific objections, especially concerning who God's Covenants are made with, and whether or not people can enter falsely into the New Covenant.Puritan Ladhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-77358182479226670402008-07-01T10:31:00.000-04:002008-07-01T10:31:00.000-04:00Puritan Lad,I have several problems with padeobapt...Puritan Lad,<BR/><BR/>I have several problems with padeobaptism: 1.) Reverse chronology; using the OT to interpret the NT., 2.) arguments from silence, 3.) and equivocating circumcision with baptism.<BR/><BR/>The covenant sign in the NT is still circumcision. Since it is no longer outward it is demonstrated by baptism.<BR/><BR/>Baptism is important because it is a profession of faith (cf. Mt. 10:32; Lu. 12:8). This act in the first century, as it is today in certain countries, has dire consequences; even death. This is the context in which baptism is communicated in the NT. As such, I don't think they early Christians had problems determining who were truly regenerate or not...<BR/><BR/>We can't protect the sacraments of the church absolutely. The point is that we are stewards and as such it is our duty to protect them as best we can and leave the rest to God.<BR/><BR/>Why baptize children of regenerate parents when we know that not every one of those children are the elect of God? Cain? Esau? Mt. 10:35-36Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522858606679761337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-49391268808180819532008-06-30T14:02:00.000-04:002008-06-30T14:02:00.000-04:00Thanks Kevin,Two thoughts.1.) I think the proper ...Thanks Kevin,<BR/><BR/>Two thoughts.<BR/><BR/><I>1.) I think the proper interpretation of Col. 2:11-12 is that the sign of the New Covenant is regeneration (circumcision made without hands) not baptism.</I><BR/><BR/>My pastor offers the following helpful exegesis of that passage. Note particularly the pronoun usage.<BR/><BR/>Colossians 2:11-12 is a fascinating passage. Paul describes how we as Christians have been circumcised “in Him,” which is of course “in Christ.” That circumcision, “in Him”, wasn’t done with a knife in the hands of a man, but is a spiritual act accomplished by our union with Christ. Specifically, as verse 12 completes verse 11, you, the Christian, were circumcised by being baptized (“having been buried with Him in baptism.”) Therefore, whatever circumcision meant, baptism now means. The transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant is made obvious by this transfer of a sign. Then a new phrase begins with the repetition of “in Him,” not “in which” (it is the same Greek word as the beginning of verse 11). “In Him you were also raised up.” Just as you died with Christ you have been made alive with Christ. Thus the sign of baptism is not so intimately connected with the symbolism of burial and resurrection, but with the transferred significance of circumcision. Clearly, that significance of circumcision was given by God as a sign of his covenant promise, a promise given “to you and to your children.” Hence, the sign was given to you and to your children.<BR/><BR/><I>2.) Baptism is simply an outward demonstration of an inward change wrought by the Holy Spirit.</I> <BR/><BR/>Perhaps I should have built up to this particular post, but I dealt with that briefly <A HREF="http://covenant-theology.blogspot.com/2007/01/defense-of-infant-baptism.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. This is a common Baptist argument, but it provokes the question, "How do you know if "an inward change" has been "wrought by the Holy Spirit"? It is similar to the argument that I hear so often, "Salvation is a prerequisite for baptism". It seems to be what you are suggesting, but again, how do we know if someone is truly saved? What is the evidence that we look for? It certainly could not be a mere profession of faith. For you would agree, I suppose, that not all who profess faith in Christ are truly saved. Was Peter mistaken when he baptized Simon Magus, who turned out to be unregenerate?<BR/><BR/>The Baptist would counter with the argument that they would never knowingly baptize an unregenerate person (this was on one of the "Voice of the Sheep" discussions). Of course, neither would a Presbyterian, but that isn't really the question. If we presume that only those who have experienced "inward change wrought by the Holy Spirit" can be baptized, then we have a solemn duty to make sure that only those are baptized. So how do we tell?<BR/><BR/>The answer is, of course, we can't. We really have no way of truly knowing who is a true convert. Humans can be easily deceived, and have been quite often, (even the Apostle Peter). What both Presbyterians and Baptists look for is a profession of faith in Christ. Whether or not that profession is genuine will be played out over that person's life. Therefore baptism cannot be simply "outward demonstration of an inward change", but rather a sign and seal of God's Covenant to those who, to our best knowledge, are in God's Covenant of grace. The expectation, for both the Baptist and the Presbyterian, is that those who profess faith in Christ are truly converted. Sadly, we also both recognize that this isn't always the case.<BR/><BR/>The Presbyterian, however, has an additional expectation. We expect that the children of Christians will themselves be raised as Christians, for the promise of the Holy Spirit is to both the believer and his children. God views the children of just one believer as holy, otherwise they would be unclean. Again, we know that things don't always work out this way, as many children of believers go astray and stay astray. We don't presume that anyone is truly saved, but we do have expectations in both cases, and both expectations are biblical.Puritan Ladhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-85937500381308986132008-06-30T13:22:00.000-04:002008-06-30T13:22:00.000-04:00I think the proper interpretation of Col. 2:11-12 ...I think the proper interpretation of Col. 2:11-12 is that the sign of the New Covenant is regeneration (circumcision made without hands) not baptism. Baptism is simply an outward demonstration of an inward change wrought by the Holy Spirit.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13522858606679761337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-32237558817100334442008-06-14T21:55:00.000-04:002008-06-14T21:55:00.000-04:00Thanks William. I'll get a revised and clarified ...Thanks William. I'll get a revised and clarified version up soon.<BR/><BR/>In the meantime, I've been contacted by the Chuck Baldwin Campaign to do some blogging for him. I plan to have that up soon as well, and it will keep me busy through November.Puritan Ladhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-62739998232057947382008-06-14T10:25:00.000-04:002008-06-14T10:25:00.000-04:00I do plan to join PB in the not to distant future....I do plan to join PB in the not to distant future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-14027023846390081312008-06-14T10:22:00.000-04:002008-06-14T10:22:00.000-04:00Thanks. I will tell you that I did not misundersta...Thanks. I will tell you that I did not misunderstand, and that I agree with what you say. I hope you do post it again. Perhaps at Puritan Board. It may cause me to join and participate. Thanks again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-32418485902231740832008-06-13T10:02:00.000-04:002008-06-13T10:02:00.000-04:00Hey William,I may repost that article at a later t...Hey William,<BR/><BR/>I may repost that article at a later time, but I want to give a little more thought to the wording. Seems as though my main point was misunderstood.Puritan Ladhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02240560332777968090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34749839.post-21584229440141743332008-06-13T09:58:00.000-04:002008-06-13T09:58:00.000-04:00Why did you remove the post "Casual Christianity: ...Why did you remove the post "Casual Christianity: The Spirit of Our Age" of June 10?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com