3. Every single text employed to demonstrate the exclusion of children in the New Covenant merely presents a “plausible argument”. That which is merely plausible is not a “good and necessary inference”.

One does not have to demonstrate an air-tight interpretation of these texts to cause problems for credobaptism only. All one needs to do is demonstrate that there are plausible alternative understandings. “Good and necessary inference” demands that there is no other logical conclusion that can be drawn (else it is neither good nor necessary) so if other plausible explanations exist, the text cannot rightly be used UNLESS it is merely employed for support in light of the fact that the doctrine in question is irrefutably proven elsewhere.

What I am finding with every single text employed for credobaptism only, whether in the Old or New Testaments, is that it can be explained in a different light. In short, credobaptism only is defended using a series of passages that, at best, only prove it is plausible, not the unavoidable conclusion. It’s not a “good and necessary inference”.

What I would challenge credobaptists only with is this…for every text you use to support your view, ask yourself whether or not your conclusions are unavoidable or merely plausible. The hard part of this excercise is to stay within the Scriptures and not fall back upon systematic theology (which is who I used to reconcile this problem). Systematics are to be developed from biblical exegesis, not the other way around.

If you find you cannot get beyond plausibilities, a defense of credobaptism only must be made upon different grounds (again, if it all boils down to plausibilities, good and necessary inference is not present).

My offer to this discussion…give me any text you believe to be irreconcilable with any other conclusion other than one which leads to credobaptism only and I’ll demonstrate that there is a viable alternate understanding of it.

You should definitely consider the ‘over-realized’ argument one more time, as we do not argue as you have stated. We do not say one part of it is realized and one part is not, but that all of it is yet to be fully reallized. The reality depicted in Jer. 31 is not yet consummated. All of it has been realized to some degree, but none of it has been realized completely.

So the answer to your first question, would be “not yet.” And the second one would be “to some degree.”

1. I grant that, in the Scriptures, “good an necessary inference” is just as binding as that which is explicitly revealed.

2. “Good and necessary inference” must be an unavoidable conclusion in order for it to truly be a “good and necessary inference”.

My present struggle with paedobaptism is…

3. Every single text employed to demonstrate the inclusion of children in the New Covenant merely presents a “plausible argument”. That which is merely plausible is not a “good and necessary inference”.

One does not have to demonstrate an air-tight interpretation of these texts to cause problems for paedobaptism. All one needs to do is demonstrate that there are plausible alternative understandings. “Good and necessary inference” demands that there is no other logical conclusion that can be drawn (else it is neither good nor necessary) so if other plausible explanations exist, the text cannot rightly be used UNLESS it is merely employed for support in light of the fact that the doctrine in question is irrefutably proven elsewhere.

What I am finding with every single text employed for paedobaptism, whether in the Old or New Testaments, is that it can be explained in a different light. In short, paedobaptism is defended using a series of passages that, at best, only prove it is plausible, not the unavoidable conclusion. It’s not a “good and necessary inference”.

What I would challenge paedobaptists with is this…for every text you use to support your view, ask yourself whether or not your conclusions are unavoidable or merely plausible. The hard part of this excercise is to stay within the Scriptures and not fall back upon systematic theology (which is who I used to reconcile this problem). Systematics are to be developed from biblical exegesis, not the other way around.

If you find you cannot get beyond plausibilities, a defense of paedobaptism must be made upon different grounds (again, if it all boils down to plausibilities, good and necessary inference is not present).

My offer to this discussion…give me any text you believe to be irreconcilable with any other conclusion other than one which leads to paedocommunion and I’ll demonstrate that there is a viable alternate understanding of it.

“And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Question: do all those in the New Covenant have the forgiveness of sins?
Answer: Of course!

Question: Do all know the Lord in the New Covenant?
Answer: The paedobaptist says, “No.” The credobaptist says, “Yes.”

If the paedobaptist is correct, then one portion of the text is realized and the other is not. That is not entirely consistent. Whereas, the credobaptist has a consistent hermaneutic, which shows that both portions are realized.

I would definitely consider another argument.

Thanks guys!

This is patently false, Rom. 2:28-29 “A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.”

This text alone is sufficient to establish the propriety of the language; and furthermore it speaks directly to the question of manner of administration re. the covenant. The Spirit’s realm of adminstration is inward, and it is His alone. Man’s realm of administration is outward, and it is the ONLY sphere he has any access to, 1Sam.16:7.

But again, it’s going to come down to how much “already” versus “not-yet” you have in the present age.

To my mind (and I would appreciate some clarification), there seems to be some confusion between typology and “already/not yet.” They are not the same thing. The OC was typological of the NC. The NC was an antitype, not simply just a progression of the “already” towards the “not yet”.

This confusion regarding typology also manifested itself in a comment at the end of the program when someone said that baptism and the lord’s supper are typological. No they’re not. They’re signs of a present reality. They are not awaiting fulfillment.

I don’t believe Acts 2:39 is typological in any way. However, I’m not quite sure how to make your interpretation of Acts 2:39 work. If you believe Peter is saying that the children of believers are members of the covenant of grace and should therefore be baptized, then you also have to believe Peter is saying everyone in the world (all who are far off) are members of the covenant of grace and should therefore be baptized. It seems clear to me that Peter is simply proclaiming that the gospel is for the whole world (which is a main point of Pentecost). You mentioned your view is tied in with the free offer of the gospel – perhaps your view of the offer is muddying things? I’m not sure.

What is the antitype of the type? Children of believers in the New Covenant have covenantal promises as the children of believers did in the Old Covenant.

If you’re going to argue with credo-baptists, you can’t import your paedo assumptions. I see no reason why Isaiah 59:21 cannot be taken typologically. It seems if you want to take it literally you have a tremendous problem because God would then be a liar (God promises an unbroken chain of saints down the generations “forevermore”). I’m not sure how you can avoid that, but please let me know if I’ve missed something.

I think that James has nobly argued his position and it is the most nuanced version of the Reformed Baptist stance I have heard.

I don’t mean this rudely at all, but I would recommend that you do some more reading. See Waldron & Barcellos’ “A Reformed Baptist Manifesto” and the Nehemia Coxe & John Owen compilation “Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ”

That being said, we as confessional Reformed men are few in number and need to work together with one another for the advancement of the Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Amen. And in the spirit of semper reformanda part of that working together should include continuing to sharpen each other on this issue. If James’ one hour (really only half devoted to this topic) presentation was the most intricate you’ve heard, I would encourage you to dig some more.

I don’t believe Acts 2:39 is typological in any way. However, I’m not quite sure how to make your interpretation of Acts 2:39 work. If you believe Peter is saying that the children of believers are members of the covenant of grace and should therefore be baptized, then you also have to believe Peter is saying everyone in the world (all who are far off) are members of the covenant of grace and should therefore be baptized. It seems clear to me that Peter is simply proclaiming that the gospel is for the whole world (which is a main point of Pentecost). You mentioned your view is tied in with the free offer of the gospel – perhaps your view of the offer is muddying things? I’m not sure.

<>

If you’re going to argue with credo-baptists, you can’t import your paedo assumptions. I see no reason why Isaiah 59:21 cannot be taken typologically. It seems if you want to take it literally you have a tremendous problem because God would then be a liar (God promises an unbroken chain of saints down the generations “forevermore” – or at the very least an unbroken chain of professing saints). I’m not sure how you can avoid that, but please let me know if I’ve missed something.

<>

Thanks for this episode of Christ the Center.

I been doing some thinking on this and to further elaborate on what Camden is saying, consider this:

All the prophecies regarding the new reality brought about by the new covenant require us to understand them this way, i.e. already/not yet. Same goes for Jeremiah 31:31-34. It is ultimately speaking of a time when all will be perfect, just like other prophecies (e.g. Ez. 37:21-28, Zech 8:1-8, etc.). It is speaking of a time when all will be made new, the dwelling place of God will be with man, and he will be our God and we his people (Rev. 21). Pictures of the peace of this new reality are painted for us with images that we can understand and give us some idea of what it will be like (e.g. old people sitting in the streets while children run and play, lions lying down with sheep, all knowing the Lord, etc). Even when the NT speaks of this as an ‘already’ reality, that is God dwelling with his people (e.g. 1 Cor. 3:10-16; Eph. 2:22), it is still spoken of as a “work in progress”.

It is important to notice the corporate nature of all these NT passages. They are speaking to the church corporately, yet we tend to read them speaking to individuals (e.g. do you not know that you are God’s temple becomes my body is a temple, but the Greek for ‘you’ is plural in 1 Cor. 3:16 & 17). So when Jeremiah speaks of the days that are coming, even though they have come to some degree, he is ultimately speaking of a whole new reality in the new heavens and new earth. This is when and where all will know the Lord, where everything will be made new.

Yet Baptists read Jeremiah to be saying this is true of the church right now, but as you can see from the “already” passages above it is still a work in progress. Yes it is true now to some degree for the individuals that are saved, but as long as we are in this age we have to realize that there are people in covenant with God (in the church) who do not know the Lord. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 that when he said to separate from the sexually immoral, he was not talking about those in the world, but the church. So when he says in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers since we are the temple of the living God and quotes the prophets’ call for believers to go out from their midst, he isn’t telling the church to separate from the world. He is telling them that as the temple of God it needs to be holy and pure in order to fully enjoy this reality. And this will only happen in the age to come.

The days are coming that Jeremiah spoke of, and Rev. 21 speaks of their fulfillment. Yet for now we live in tension between this age and the age to come, and passages such as Jeremiah do not provide any warrant to stop initiating believer’s children in to the church and the covenant of God’s grace, based on the reasoning that an infant “can’t possibly know the Lord”.

Because the word “baptism” occurs in both? Are you suggesting that no credobaptist has ever interacted with those verses or just that you disagree with them? Those verses are completely compatible with the credobaptist position just as Acts 2:39 is.

1. “The dual sanctions of blessing and curse still apply because those who have a mere external relation to the covenant are REALLY ‘IN’ the covenant, just not ‘of’ the covenant”
2. “That sounds to me like you don’t want to make distinctions about how people are IN the covenant.”
3. “one [covenant] with two ways of relating to it or being IN it”
4. “Therefore there are two different people IN the covenant and their relationship to it is not the same”

By external relation to it I mean they only experience the outward administration of it, not the spiritual substance of it, namely Christ and his benefits. This doesn’t mean that they are outside of the covenant though. Again they are IN it and their relation to it is external (or outward) only.

I admit I may have added confusion when I said, “and FV baptize children but say if you fall away it is due to only being temporally elect (but you’re REALLY were in the covenant during that time).” And also when I said, “It was because you seem to not like the internal/external distinction since it isn’t biblical language, and you desire to be able to say that someone is REALLY in the covenant by virtue of baptism.” I should have said FULLY instead of REALLY. That is what I take you to mean when you desire not to make distinctions about how people IN the covenant relate to it. You seem to want to tell them they’re elect because they’re IN the covenant. You seem to want to make distinctions between the types of election (like James did on the program, which I took to mean one way to be in the covenant) instead of types of relation to the covenant by those IN it. This still doesn’t solve the issue you have with the internal/external relation however. The question still remains how do I know if I am (to put in FV terms) decretally elect vs. temporally elect. Do you like that question better than how do I know if I have an internal relation to the covenant that I’m IN? The answer would be the same for both, i.e. do you have faith (a certain knowledge and hearty trust that God grants forgiveness of sins, righteousness, and eternal life on the basis of Christ’s merits)? That’s how you know you’re relation to the covenant!

But I’m hesitant to make distinctions regarding election because I don’t any biblical warrant for doing so. What I do see though is a distinction in the relationship to the covenant by those who are IN it.

Yes I see a distinction between the COR and the COG.

I think I’ve made it clear from the above how I see Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-31. And the same goes for John 15:1-6. But not only do we have to make sense out of those verses, but also others like 1 John 2:19, Mt. 7:21-23, Rom. 2:29. I haven’t seen a better (read: more biblical) way to do this than to make the distinction in the relationship to the covenant by those IN it.

Could you tell me how you think Israel understood circumcision? Was Isaac aware that Esau was not REALLY in the covenant?

And if you want to say that Isaac was not REALLY in the covenant, I should ask whether you believe in a distinction between the eternal Covenant of Redemption and the historical Covenant of Grace such that the COR was made between the persons of the Trinity on behalf of the elect, while the COG was made between Christ and believers with those believers’ children. If you DON’T see such a distinction, I understand why you’re stumbling over my position (and actually, I’m just following M.G. Kline at this point). If you DO see such a distinction, I’m at a real loss to understand why we’re debating this.

One final question: How do you understand Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-31?

Right. So the more helpful way to talk about this is to use the terms “covenant” and “election.” Being baptized, or being in the covenant does not make one elect. That is what fundamentally sets me apart from the FV. My understanding of their argument is that a baptized person IS elect, and that everything that baptism signifies (for them: blessing), including election, can be lost if a person fall away.

The FV folks are concerned about the objectivity of Christ in the sacraments, and I think there is something helpful about that concern (although, as I’ve said before, they arrive at the wrong answer to their own concern). When Reformed folk start navel-gazing and asking “how do I know I’m really elect/invisibly related to the covenant, then they lose their sanity or we lose them to Lutheranism, Romanism, etc. I think it is better to baptize believers and their children, keep pointing them away from themselves to Christ, and use discipline appropriately when one of them proves to be an unbeliever. So to answer your question, “How do I know what my baptism signified?” I would answer: Did Christ die for YOUR sins? If the answer is “Yes,” then your baptism signifies your having been engrafted into Christ. If the answer is “No,” then your baptism signifies your ultimate doom in the floodwaters of God’s judgment.

I really don’t see why this is so difficult.

There wasn’t a reply to you last reply to me, so here’s my reply:

It wasn’t because you want to see baptism as signifying both blessing and curse that I asked if you were sympathetic to the FV. It was because you seem to not like the internal/external distinction since it isn’t biblical language, and you desire to be able to say that someone is REALLY in the covenant by virtue of baptism. That sounds to me like you don’t want to make distinctions about how people are in the covenant. That you want to say one is either in or out, and if you’ve been baptized, you’re in. That’s FV, and this is what leads to their distortion of the gospel.

How does seeing baptism as blessing and curse depending on the presence or absence of faith remove the need for distinguishing between an internal and external relation to THE covenant (not 2 covenants by the way – not an internal and external, but one with two ways of relating to it or being in it)? The same question could be asked about baptism. That is, “How do I know what my baptism signified?” The answer is the same as it is for how you know which way you relate to the covenant of grace, which is to say, if you have faith then your baptism signified blessing (and you have an internal/spiritual relation to the covenant, i.e. you are not only in it but also of it).
So are we really on the same side? You know they say that too.

I’m not sympathetic to the FV at all. Perhaps they raise some interesting questions or have some valid concerns, but the answers they offer are completely contrary to the gospel. And to use covenant theology to aid and abet another gospel is disgusting! Besides, which FV proponent do you know who sees baptism as anything other than blessing?

I wasn’t really trying to pick a fight. My point is just that seeing baptism as signifying salvation for those who have faith and condemnation for those who do not have faith is a more helpful approach than the internal/external distinction. For instance, while we all know who is in the “external” covenant, how do you know who is in the “internal” covenant? That is all I meant by approximating the baptistic angst. We’re on the same side, here – just using different language.

The dual sanctions of blessing and curse still apply because those who have a mere external relation to the covenant are really ‘in’ the covenant, just not ‘of’ the covenant, so I don’t have any “baptistic angst” over who’s really in or out. Of course baptized persons are members of the church, visible that is; but to suggest that we can’t make internal/external distinctions because it’s not biblical language and since they will be “pruned off” is absurd. We make that distinction when it comes to believers’ relation to the world (“in but not of”). Why is it so hard to see and accept this in relation to the church and the covenant? It wasn’t that hard for the apostle John (1 Jn. 2:19).

While I’m absolutely sympathetic to the case you’ve made, and while I understand that the Reformed have historically used the language of “internal” and “external” with regard to membership in the covenant of grace, I’m not sure that language is ultimately helpful and I’m fairly sure it is not biblical.

That is why I find the concrete, covenantal phenomenon of dual sanctions of blessing and curse more helpful. That way, not only are we using categories that arise from real, historical instances of covenant and from the biblical text, but we don’t have to approximate the baptistic angst over who is REALLY in and who is REALLY out. Baptized persons are members of the Church, and even if we happen to miss the evidence that a particular baptized person demonstrated unbelief, the warning passages in Hebrews are no less eschatologically true and applied to those people than the ones we do notice and discipline. Baptized unbelievers WILL be pruned off the covenant olive tree – either by the Church, or by the Lord on the Last Day.

Having said that, I appreciate that James talked about baptism and the “engrafting” of the believer into Christ (LC 29:1). But why do I rarely hear that from Particular Baptists? I came out of broad evangelicalism to the 5 points at the feet of James White, who ALWAYS spoke of baptism as a human work.

So even though that language is in the London Confession, this is leading up to my question: In what sense do Particular Baptists believe in the means of grace? The means of grace are a hallmark of Reformed theology, and yet, even after spending about 5 years under James White’s tutelage, I never encountered the idea of the means of grace until I attended Wednesday night Bible studies with Kim Riddlebarger at Christ Reformed Church. When I thought James White defined Reformed theology, I was taught that the Holy Spirit only operated immediately (or, perhaps, there may have been exceptions to the rule that He operates immediately). I always understood James White to mean that we were engrafted into Christ (if I ever heard that) by an immediate, regenerative act of the Holy Spirit which produced the faith by which I was engrafted into Christ. True, being baptized was an act of obedience that was no more optional than any other act of obedience we have been commanded to do, but the engrafting had really and truly happened sans baptism.

I ask this in a spirit of honest inquiry into understanding more about what James Dolezal means about Particular Baptists descending from same magisterial Reformation as the Lutherans, Calvinists and Anglicans.

By the way, I greatly enjoy Christ the Center. I listen every Saturday. Keep up the great work brother’s.

Me sentiments exactly concerning the non-typological nature of the children in regard to the covenant!

While it is possible for Particular Baptists to be in agreement with the language used in the Reformed documents to articulate the doctrine of baptism, it is not possible to be Reformed and withhold baptism from the children of believers no matter how much one says, “I’m Baptist because I’m Reformed.” The Reformed have articulated not only what they believe regarding baptism, but many things, and the least of which is not the covenants and the church. So tell me how adopting the language used in articulating the doctrine of baptism, while denying it to the children of believers due to a refusal to consistently make the same distinctions the Reformed do regarding the covenants and the church, makes one Reformed. It doesn’t.

This refusal is seen when James states his reason for being Baptist based on his take on the already/not yet. He states that the church is the eschatological people of God because Christ is the eschatological Son and the church is vitally in Christ by faith. So far so good. But if asked to point out this church he is unable, because he is talking about the invisible church when he defines it this way. Yet when we are discussing baptism and its function in the the church, we are talking about the visible administration of the covenant of grace. Normally at this point the Baptist says that he is only trying to make sure the visible church resembles as closely as possible the invisible church. So the only option this reasoning leaves us is that there is no room for infants in the invisible church (i.e. it is impossible to be a part of the invisible church until one reaches a certain level of mental maturity and can understand and respond in faith). Therefore all infants who die in infancy must be damned. This is a conclusion I’m sure most Baptists don’t want to make, but nevertheless this is the logical end of their position. Thankfully their confession makes room in the invisible church for elect infants dying in infancy, even though they don’t make room for them in the visible church. But wait a minute, I thought they were trying to resemble as closely as possible the visible church with the invisible. Hmmm…

Now the distinctions made regarding the elect: the eschatological and the typological. James says the typological elect gives way to the eschatological elect. So whereas in the OT we had both typological elect and eschatological elect, now we only have eschatological elect. So there is only one way to be in the covenant now, and that is all the way. There is no longer any “outward only” way to be in the covenant. (Here again is a refusal to make the same distinctions as the Reformed.) This is similar to the the FV, but instead of saying to infants you’re in all the way, the Baptists say you’re not in at all. This hits on the saving sense of the covenant just as the above hits on the invisible sense of the church; but just as before, as long as we still live in this age we have to make room for and deal with the external and physical aspects. Why is it that the Baptists are uncomfortable dealing with the realities of this age? Also when did the Reformed make distinctions regarding election? (As an aside: Nick, do you think this is “very powerful” when coming from the FV? If not, how can it be when coming from James?)

James also said that he applies the same scrutiny to both sacraments, but where is the biblical warrant for this? Is it the historical narratives, where we have people asking what they must do to be saved when pricked in their conscience and are told to repent and be baptized? Are we to form our worship practices based on historical narrative? Or is it in the Great Commission, which is often cited as a command to baptize disciples (which cannot be the children in your home that you are raising in the ways of the Lord)instead of making disciples by baptizing and teaching them. In order to be honest, one has to say that there is no explicit, didactic teaching to apply the same scrutiny to baptism as Paul commands the Corinthians to do with the Lord’s Supper. If there was then there would be no debate.

Finally, the question to be asked regarding the seed is not whether or not it gives way as does the typological temple, priesthood, sacrifices, and land. Of course Christ fulfills the seed promise as he did the others. So just as I’m no longer looking for the Messiah to be born of woman, neither am I looking to build a temple, establish a priesthood, offer sacrifices, or conquer a land. The question instead, when it comes to applying the sign of the covenant to children of believers, is whether or not initiating children into the covenant of grace and covenant community is typological. I don’t see any NT text that says so.