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?