On Baptism
For 12 years I enthusiastically subscribed to the Westminster standards. I signed my copy of the Solemn League and Covenant, I taught my children the catechisms, and I prayed earnestly that they would grow up to subscribe in full to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). For much of that time I was convinced that given enough time I could persuade any Baptist of the error of his ways. I even went so far as to tell some Baptists brothers that withholding baptism from their children was sinful. I grieved when Presbyterians became Baptist; and if you had told me of a man who had gone from being a Baptist to a Presbyterian only to become Baptist again I would have felt embarrassment for him. Sounds more like a ship “tossed to and fro” (Ephesians 4:14) than a man. But here I am writing to say that I am that man. Even four months ago I was certain I would always be Presbyterian. But after a period of prayer and intense study I have concluded that I was wrong. Here, in brief, I would like to explain why.
During the course of my conversations with Pastor Jacob I was introduced to a view of the covenants I hadn’t been exposed to. As I read through new material and listened to a number of sermons I began to realize that I hadn’t properly dealt with Hebrews 8:6-12: “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when 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 when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.”
As a paedobaptist I recognized that men like David, Abraham and Enoch were born again men. The law of God was written upon their hearts. Still, Hebrews spoke of a better covenant established upon better promises. In fact, God indicates that He found fault with the first covenant - hence the second. Again, He says that the new covenant is “not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers.” In the past I would have explained this passage by pointing out the greater outpouring of the Spirit in the new administration of the covenant of grace. I would have explained that the ceremonial laws had been abolished because they are fulfilled in Christ. I would have added something about the priesthood of all believers. But I wasn’t actually dealing with the main thrust of the argument. In Hebrews 8 God explains the reason for the new and better covenant. He explains, “because they continued not in my covenant.” The old covenant Church was a mixed community. It was made up of believers and unbelievers. As a result, the history of Israel is marked by a pattern of sin and whoredom. God was faithful, but His people were found often whoring after other gods. This was the pattern throughout the Old Testament… so that God could say of them, “they continued not in my covenant.” Hence the need “for a better”!
The solution, then, found in the new covenant (promised in Jeremiah 31 and reiterated in Hebrews 8) is that God would put His laws “into their mind, and write them in their hearts… And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more (10-12).”
But didn’t David have the law written upon His heart? Didn’t Enoch and Moses and Abraham and others have the law also written upon their hearts? How then could this be a better covenant?
The answer is simple and powerful. The old covenant did not change those with whom it was made, whereas the new did.* When children received the sign of the covenant they were made an offer. God had made promises. There was the promise of land, but there was also the greater spiritual promise of eternal life and forgiveness of sin. But the greater spiritual promises did not belong even then to all the members of the covenant community. The spiritual promises belonged to those who believe. Of course the sign of that covenant was circumcision. Members of it included those who believed (and therefore enjoyed the forgiveness of sins and the promise of eternal life) as well as those who did not. And so generation after generation was circumcised not because they or their parents were regenerate (or believing) but because they were members of the covenant community. They could say that God was their God, though in the most important sense to many of them He wasn’t. On the whole they were a faithless people. The pattern found in the Old Testament is one of unbelief, idolatry and spiritual whoredom. As God says in Hebrews, “they did not continue in the covenant.” God had made a covenant with the people, but the covenant did not change them. What they had was an offer. And so some believed and were saved, while the majority of the members of the covenant community lived and died in unbelief. This explains the need for a new and better covenant, which would change those with whom it was made. Now there would be no more mixed community - no mixed Church. Instead, “all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.” There would be no need now for them to “teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord” because they all would know Him. Whereas the members of the old covenant were largely unsaved, the members of the new covenant would all be saved. Whereas the old covenant came as an offer, the new covenant would actually change those with whom it is made.
This has massive implications when it comes to the subjects of baptism. As a paedobaptist I believed that if children were given the sign of the covenant in the Old Testament there could be no reason to withhold it from them in the New. They were put in the Church in the Old Testament, and as far as I could tell they hadn’t been put out in the New. I understood that the sign of the covenant belongs to those who are part of the covenant. Remember that the old covenant community was a mixed community. All received the sign whether they were changed - saved - or not. Abraham received the sign of the covenant, and his children also received the sign of the covenant; and this was the pattern, then, for generations. But being members of the covenant did not change them, though they had the offer of grace through faith in the Messiah to come. It is this specifically that Jeremiah said would one day change and which Hebrews tells us has changed. The Church is no longer a mixed community. It is no longer prone to faithlessness and harlotry because - as God promised - all know Him. This, of course, assumes that the Church is faithfully baptizing only believers. The current waywardness of many churches is due largely to the failure of those churches to discriminately baptize only those who have made a credible profession of faith.
The glory of the new covenant is that it actually changes all those with whom it is made. The members of this new covenant are Abraham’s true children, the children of faith. They are the Israel of God. In other words, members of the new covenant community are those who believe, and it is they, then, who are to receive the sign of the covenant (ie. baptism).
As a paedobaptist I had made much of the echo of the promise in Genesis 17 in Acts 2: “For the promise is unto you, and to your children.” What I failed to pay attention to was the qualifier given in that same verse: “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” The promise - no longer just an offer - is to those whom God shall call.
Consider, then, the shift that has taken place. Every time a child received the sign of the covenant his family was reminded of the offer of God. There was a reminder, first, of the promise of land made to Abraham (and his seed) and a reminder, second, that God was their God along with an implicit call to repent and believe (and take God as their God). The sign came much like the offer of the gospel. But God found fault with this covenant because it didn’t change those with whom it was made. The majority of those who received the sign of the covenant were faithless and rebellious. They all had the offer but few had the reality. Now, however, we are told of a better covenant with better promises. Every time a believer receives the sign of the covenant (in baptism) they are publicly declaring that they are in covenant with God as their Lord and Saviour. No longer does the sign of the covenant point to an offer. Rather, the sign of the covenant points to the reality that here is one whom the Lord our God has called, and one who, therefore, has believed.
If, according to Hebrews 8, the Church is no longer a mixed community it is inappropriate to treat it like a mixed community. Its members are not both those who believe and those who do not. It is not made up of believers and their children. Rather, the Church now is made up of those who believe. They are the new covenant community, and it is they - then - and they alone who should receive the sign of the new covenant. They alone should be baptized.
This is an excellent article; thank you for writing it. I also went from the paedobaptist persuasion to credobaptism after discovering the beauty of Baptist covenantal theology. As with you, Hebrews 8 played a major role in my conclusions; but I found Isaiah 42 to be even more convincing for me. Speaking of Jesus, Isaiah prophesies in verse 6 "I will give YOU as a covenant for the people..." It became entirely unavoidable to me, that not only is Jesus the mediator of the New Covenant; not only is Jesus the sacrifice given in the New Covenant; but Jesus is the New Covenant. A Covenant at its most mundamental level is an agreement between two parties with terms and stipulations, and Jesus is the agreement that God has made with His people. Jesus, by His death and resurrection, has been given as the agreement / Covenant that God has made with us by which we are saved. New Covenant membership means to have Jesus as our agreement with God. New Covenant mbershop apart from saving faith is impossible in the light of Isaiah 42 and Hebrews 8.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to hear of your new persuasions, and I will pray for you as you walk them out!
Thank you Joel
DeleteVery interesting! I find it very interesting how environment changes peoples views.
ReplyDeleteI guess I should clarify I was pretty vague in my comment. I don’t mean that in a bad way, although I am very sad at your conclusion. Just finished listening to a sermon series through Hebrews and I find it very interesting how some tie it to baptism and some don’t in the way that you did in your explanation. I am glad, however, to see that with all the discouragement that you have experienced in the last two + years that you still love the Lord and serve him daily.
DeleteIf you mean by “environment”….
Deletein Hebrews 8 and Romans 8:9 yes! Those verses are much harder to get around than the white spaces of scripture supporting infant baptism.
Thanks Peter. I appreciate your comment.
DeleteAnd to the anonymous person who commented about environment. I will say this I have had a tough time in the last few years seeing brothers and sisters split apart by the Covid pandemic. Although I lean very strongly towards leaving churches open, I’ve had great conversations with people who have watched their spouse, die of Covid and they did not have a problem with for the time being watching church online. They still met with families and church leaders but we’re more careful. I think to suggest this is as black-and-white as some of us are making it maybe a bit of a stretch. Being in a certain environment, and listening to preaching from one view, can sometimes create negative comments and attitudes towards those who disagree with you. Both sides are making it a theological issue and some are attacking the other. Not everyone is attacking, but there are a few people out there who’s words are very sharp to say the least.
DeleteThe promise of universal knowledge of God in the new covenant, prophesied in Jeremiah 31 (cf. Romans 8) and other places, will not reach fulfillment until Christ returns. In the meantime, there are tares, bad fish, and unfruitful branches in the church (Matthew 13; John 15; Romans 11).
ReplyDeleteSteve, this article raises a question that, in the 33 years since I was first introduced to the paedobaptist/credobaptist debate I have never heard a coherent answer to: Assuming for the moment that everything you said about the relationship between the Old and New Covenants is true, How can church leaders tell if someone is a believer or not?
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this, thank you so much for sharing. I think that a lot of Christians have a strong desire, or maybe even a NEED to make iron clad DECISIONS on certain matters...baptism being one of them. My own personal view is that uncertainty does not have to equate with a lack of faith...not when it comes to matters of tradition and even doctrine in some cases.
ReplyDeleteI'm a member of a CRC church...which I assume has similar teachings/doctine to The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. But when Covid resulted in so many churches shutting down to in person worship, well I started church hopping. I attended one service at Trinity and listened to Pastor Rheaume preach, I also started attending a local Pentecostal church which opened for outdoor worship in May of 2020....
It was at the Pentecostal church that I chose to get baptized (full immersion). I do not believe my salvation hinged on it, but I saw it as an outward expression of the faith that resides both in my head and in my heart....to be perfectly frank I think too much of an issue is made over baptism.....
Anyway I'm going to read your thoughts of Henry Hildebrandt and the CoGR in Aylmer....it seems we have shared some common experiences. I've attended chruch in Aylmer several times....probably 7 or 8....and I never had an issue with any of the preachign until a number of months back when someone by the name of Tosviga (or close to that) who is presented as a prophet was preaching, (I listened on-line) and he said that God's throne is in Greenville Ohio, where the CoGR is headquartered....that really bothered me. I also met Ray Tinsman during Aylmer's "camp meetings" in October of 2021 when the "chief apostle" came up to give at least a couple of sermons....
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI am not totally surprised to see you become a Baptist due to some of the other changes you have made, but I am surprised that you have bought in to this novel Baptist understanding of Hebrews 8-- that it teaches that since the coming of Jesus all who are in the visible church of the New Covenant are regenerate. Honestly, I am shocked that I keep running into people that claim to believe this. It is simply not true. I kept thinking that they must not be saying what they seem to be saying, but I looked into more and found that this is what many are saying. Permit me to speak to this here.
First of all, you admit that your church just might by lack of discernment admit an unbeliever. But if you do, that means that all do not know the Lord in your church in these new covenant times! Is the real meaning that "*More* will know me," or "*Most* will know me" or "all will know me except when you make a mistake?" It is simply not true that *all* do.
But wait, it gets worse. Your church is not the only church. And the fact is that since the new covenant was established, there are many in the visible church who do not know the LORD. Jesus said that it would be that way (remember the parables, the Sermon on the Mount, etc), and it has been. It was already that way while the apostles were still alive. Read Galatians or the letters to the seven churches in Revelation. Any covenant breaking people in those churches? Many other examples could be given. It is simply not true that now all who are in the visible church know the Lord.
If you say, "no, not in the visible church, but in the new covenant," then you are simply saying that the covenant of grace is made with Christ and with all the elect as his seed (which Presbyterians believe if you remember your Catechism)-- which is true in the old as well as the new and has nothing to do with how faithful the visible church is or how well we do in distinguishing credible professions. The fact is, if judging credible professions is done poorly (and you said that it is in other than faithful baptistic churches), it ends up with an unfaithful church with many covenant breakers in these new covenant times-- a church that on your theory does not exist anymore. The conclusion? Hebrews 8 cannot mean what you say it means.
I would also suggest that this is a novel view. Can you find any Baptists that espoused that understanding before our modern times--other than perhaps a cultish group that thought they were the only church (though even they end up having to deal with dissenters)? Men like John Gill or Charles Spurgeon certainly did not believe such. There are different views on just what Hebrews 8 does mean, but it cannot mean what you say it means-- it is simply not true that now all know the Lord in the visible church under the new covenant.
As far as the honour of the Lord is concerned, the net result of baptising those who end up departing from the faith is nearly the same in Baptist and Presbyterian Churches that are faithful. The reason? Because in both, most children who grow up in the church and then reject Christ profess faith and become full communing members before they apostatise. At least from my experience, reformed Baptists have kids that apostatise when they leave home and so do Presbyterians. When Jesus says that the kingdom belongs to infants, it seems like it is best to acknowledge that by giving them the sign. We should say what God says. If they show themselves to be false sons, we should put them out the same as we do with adults.
Hi John, thanks for your comments. I would like to respond briefly to your first comment. Doctrinally, apart from my views on baptism and exclusive psalmody, I am very much where I was 5 years ago. It is my priorities that have changed most. I am now much more in the main things. I owe that to the trials and challenges of 2020 and 2021. What mystifies me, however, is the change that I saw in my presbytery. As a member of that presbytery you know what we stood for before the lockdowns of 2020. You know well how important the covenanters were to many of us and how zealous we were for the crown rights of King Jesus. We believed - and I was thoroughly taught - to render unto Caesar what is his and to God what is God's. It grieved me to see our presbytery abandon those first principles, and it deeply troubles me that the presbytery has still not been brought to repentance. Baptist or not I do long for that day and continue to pray that there may yet be reconciliation between brothers.
DeleteSteve. as you know (for I talked to you multiple times about this), response to Covid was not, according to our Presbytery, something that ought to divide us as brothers. We were struggling to figure out the way forward and were able to discuss our differences and even to respect each other because this was not a matter that was clear cut (as seen by faithful brothers reaching different conclusions with sound Biblical warrant). You chose to label everyone who did not agree with you on this uncertain matter as compromised and unfaithful (and still do). I did not see my brothers in that light. You say you are much more in the main things. I would that that were so. It is a mark of maturity to be able to distinguish between essential matters and adiaphora.
DeleteThank you for interacting me. Whatever our differences I appreciate you and pray for you. I trust you and your family are well.
DeleteHi John. From a historical perspective I have a couple of thoughts.
Delete1 - You mentioned that Steve has "bought in to this novel Baptist understanding of Hebrews 8-- that it teaches that since the coming of Jesus all who are in the visible church of the New Covenant are regenerate."
1.1 Steve did NOT say in his blog that all members of the visible church since Christ are members of the New Covenant, or the Covenant of Grace.
1.2 Steve's view matches the HISTORIC Baptist perspective going back to the 1600's. Which is that all members of the New Covenant are regenerate. NOT all members of the visible church.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete2 Touching on the nature and the members of the Covenant of Grace, you say about Steve's understanding of the New Covenant "you are simply saying that the covenant of grace is made with Christ and with all the elect as his seed (which Presbyterians believe if you remember your Catechism)". However, there is a vital DIFFERENCE between the historic Presbyterian and Baptist views of the Covenant of Grace and the Old and New Covenants.
Delete2.1 The historic Presbyterian/paedobaptist view of the Covenant of Grace is that there is one Covenant of Grace under two administrations (WCF 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6), and that the visible church "consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children; and is the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ" includes those that profess faith and their children (WCF 25.2). Baptism is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace, of ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins ... to walk in newness of life (WCF 28.1) and that baptism is to be administered "those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized." (WCF 28.4) The Presbyterian view has consistently been of one Covenant of Grace that is the same in substance but different in administration (the difference is also termed substance/circumstance, internal/external, spiritual/natural, visible/invisible). According to the Westminster Larger Catechism, Q33 states that this Covenant of Grace was administered differently under the Old and New Testaments, and in Q166 that infants of one or both believing parents are "in that respect, within the covenant and to be baptized."
One Covenant of Grace that includes believers and their children, under two administrations has been the consistent view of Presbyterians and paedobaptists since the 1600's. There are two ways into the Covenant of Grace, by spiritual new birth, and by natural birth for children of believers.
2.2 The historic Baptist understanding is that the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace, and that it was only being progressively revealed throughout Old Testament times until it is fully discovered and made in the New Covenant. Historically Baptists have rejected the One Covenant/Two Administrations model, "The Old Covenant and the new differ in substance and not only in the manner of administration" (Coxe, A Discourse on the Covenants, p. 30 (I think this was published in 1681)). According to the 1689 London Baptist Confession (LBCF 30.2), "Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance."
Historically Baptists have believed that only those who are elect AND regenerated are in the New Covenant or (sometimes called the Covenant of Grace) while historically Presbyterians believe that believers and their children are in the the one Covenant of Grace, until such time as they reject it.
I am curious and would like an answer about your statement "the covenant of grace is made with Christ and with all the elect as his seed (which Presbyterians believe if you remember your Catechism)". Are you saying that Presbyterians believe the Covenant of Grace is made with Christ and ONLY the elect as his seed? Or that it is made with Christ and the elect ... and ALSO the children of the elect (which you did not specify). [If you say the former, as far as I can tell, this would be novel, and not a historic Presbyterian view, and actually aligns more closely with the historic Baptist view of covenants.]
I meant (but forgot) to mention that the above historic understanding of the covenants are from an excellent book entitled "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology" by Pascal Denault.
DeleteAndrew:
Delete1. The Reformed confess that the New Covenant embraces both the visible church of the called and the invisible church of the elect, but in different respects. However, we grant that the New Covenant's intended purpose is the salvation of the elect church alone.
2. Do you deny that some children are elect and regenerated, and thus are part of the invisible church of the elect? If so, does God not desire the baptism of His elect who die in infancy or are mentally handicapped, and thus cannot make confession of faith?
3. Does inclusion in the visible church entail the responsibility to receive Christ the Mediator offered to sinners in the New Covenant (ie: the gospel)? If so, is it correct to regard apostates as violating their covenant obligations?
Thanks for your comment and questions, Benjamin.
Delete1) You mention the intended purpose of the New Covenant is the salvation of the elect alone. I agree. Do you believe that Christ as the mediator of the New Covenant, is effective for the salvation of all who are in covenant with Him?
Do you believe that Abraham had two posterities referring to two different covenants, one according to promise, and the other according to flesh? (Gal 4)
Do you believe that only those who have the faith of Abraham are the true children of Abraham? (Rom 4) And are any other than the true children of Abraham, who share the faith of Abraham, in the New Covenant with Christ?
To answer your questions:
2) Yes, some children are God's elect from all time. But no, God has never desired the sign of a covenant to be administered to a person who is not in a covenant.
3) All mankind has a responsibility and obligation to receive Christ as Mediator as offered in the gospel, not just those in the visible church. It is NOT correct to view apostates as breaking their New Covenant obligations. Christ as a perfect mediator has fulfilled all obligations for those within the New Covenant. It would be correct to say that apostates have never obeyed the command to repent and trust in Christ, and have never entered into the New Covenant.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThank you for your response.
Delete1.1) The elect church alone receives gracious and salvific benefits from Christ the Mediator in His three-fold office of Prophet, Priest and King.
Thus Christ the Mediator's work as our Priest in making atonement and intercession concerns the elect church alone.
However, when we speak of certain non-salvific operations of the Mediator as King and Prophet, it seems that these also comprehend the entire visible church of the externally called.
As King, Christ is Head of the entire visible church because all confessing Christian subject themselves to His Mediatorial rule and ecclesiastical ordinances (Matthew 28:19-20).
As Prophet, Christ likewise works upon all in the visible church through His Word and Spirit in revealing the gospel (Matthew 13:1-30) though He grants spiritual enlightenment and saving faith to the elect alone (Matthew 11:27).
1.2) Yes, though I regard the two covenants in Galatians 4 as the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The Apostle Paul throughout this epistle clearly regards the Abrahamic covenant as promising salvation to the elect in Christ whereas the Sinai covenant is contrasted insofar as it declares the curse of the moral law upon sinners under the covenant of works.
1.3) Yes, if we grant that regenerate infants and regenerate mentally disabled possess the seed of saving faith proper to their capacities.
2) Do you deny that regenerate infants who die in infancy and regenerate mentally disabled are in covenant with God? If they are in covenant with God, how do you know God desires to withhold His covenant sign from some from these members of His elect church?
3.1) While all who encounter the gospel are required to receive Christ in faith, the reprobate within the visible church who are externally brought under the church's preaching, discipline and ordinances have greater responsibility than pagans or Muslims. These alone have "tasted the heavenly gift" (Hebrews 6:4) and "trodden under foot the Son of God" (Hebrews 10:29) and are branches "casts forth" from the Vine (John 15:5).
3.2) You refer to repentance and faith as commanded by the gospel, but deny they are obligations of the New Covenant. But are not "gospel" and "New Covenant" synonymous? Is a "command" not also an "obligation"? This seems to be a distinction without a difference.
Hey Steve, I just heard about this article and came on to read it. I am disappointed by your departure from the Reformed perspective on the church and the standing of our children within the covenant. I hope that this might change again in the future.
ReplyDeleteAs some of those reading this might know, both Steve and I have been comrades in the Presbyterian/Reformed camp in the struggle for the freedom of the church under the Lordship of Christ.
I appreciate his critique of “dead orthodoxy” and “apostasy.” You will find that dead orthodoxy and apostasy in both churches that baptize babies and those that baptize adults who make a verbal profession of faith.
I have also been an ally with Jacob Reaume in this battle for the truth and the Lordship of Christ ever since 2020. I don’t adopt the same covenantal theology as Jacob, but appreciate him on many different points in theology. I see him as a colleague and an ally.
In other words, I am still an ally with Jacob and Steve, but we should be extremely careful not to transfer the issues of the last three years into the sphere of covenantal theology. I see life and light in various Reformed/Presbyterian churches and in Baptist Churches.
That being said, I would encourage all the readers of this post to grab your children and take them through the Red Sea, take them into the ark with you. Why? Because Jesus is Lord.
Thanks Nathan for this. I am thankful for you.
DeleteVery sad to see your decline. Consider that you put in history of imperfect people in the presbyterian church. Well no Duh, look back 500 years of ups and downs. Same with Israel. So the fact you had a bad presbytery has nothing to do with the doctrine of baptism. Yet you include it. This belies some of what is going on in your mind. You should consider this.
ReplyDeleteNew covenant better covenant all these are terms only to show how they tried to explain to Jews that the fulfillment of the covenant has come to the next stage, Messiah has come. It does not change or become a different one. It is still the Cov of Grace.
Some aspects of the administration were changed, those that pointed to, were copies, shadows of the Messia's Work. Water baptism, not to be confused with scriptures speaking about Holy Spirit Baptism, was the replaced sign so women could be included in the seal of God's promise on the gospel and covenant.
Hold the truth, do not be one of those who weaken and waver as your sinful presbyterian brothers did. Do not cave because they did.
I don't know your past but if you were raised presbyterian maybe you did not study the covenants adequately or the subject of baptism as one like myself who was a baptist until God opened my eyes and then I had to really study the subjects. I had to know all the arguments and scriptures for both sides to answer all the objections of the other side. Of course the church today, the visible earthly aspect of the covenant, is a mixed multitude still. Do not mix up the visible with the eternal aspect of the covenant. This is one great error of the baptists. You cannot know who is in the eternal covenant, so before man we are justified by works as James says. The promise is still to believers and their children, the covenant promise, and yet it is only eternally applied to the elect, as many as the Lord calls. Stop and think of a pregnant believing jewish woman who is told her next baby born after pentecost will not be in the covenant, my people, like her older children. The out cry would have been loud, how can this be a better covenant? There would have had to be more answers to this than to circumcision in Galatians.
ReplyDeletePlease slow down and do some serious study of the subjects more than you ever have in the past. No need to publish this. It is out of compassion for you and all you have been through. There is so much error in the baptist doctrines from misunderstanding the definition of the word, to not being really reformed, but dispensational.
Hey brother, have been thinking of you and praying for you. Was very glad to read this. I hope you are doing well.
ReplyDelete