Of course our disagreement here is NOT primarily infant Baptism, but as you know something far deeper and more significant. The issue is the nature of the covenant. Baptists, like Rev. Bushsong presuppose discontinuity between the old covenant and the new and better covenant. They see the new and better covenant as largely unrelated to the old covenant and because the new and better covenant is a different covenant the Baptist “reasons” that children should not (MUST NOT) be brought to the baptismal font. The new and better covenant is so discontinuous with the old covenant that whereas the old covenant was inclusive of parents and seed the new covenant is inclusive of ONLY “age appropriate” (however that is subjectively defined) confessors. In this commitment to discontinuity the new emphasis finds baptism being primarily about the promises of the one being baptized to be committed to God whereas in the paedo-covenant conviction baptism is NOT primarily about the promises of the one being baptized but is primarily about God’s promises to us to be our God and to take us and our seed as His people. Now surely, as all Reformed Baptism ceremonies communicate, there is a reciprocal promise on the part of God’s people to walk in newness of life. Still, the emphasis for paedobaptists in Baptism is on God is the one doing the saving (and Baptizing) and not, such as one finds in Baptist baptisms, the emphasis being on the communicants resolve to say “I have decided to follow Jesus.” (Hence, the reason that song is so often played in Baptism services.)
One problem here (and there are a multitude of problems) is that all of this presupposes that God works His salvation differently between the Old covenant and the New and Better covenant. In the old covenant, Baptists teach implicitly, God’s salvation was inferior vis-a-vis the New Covenant and therefore a salvation upgrade was required. That salvation upgrade is found in the fact that God has done away with the corporate dimension of salvation wherein the children go with the parents.
When the paedo-Baptists look at the old covenant and new and better covenant they see continuity. They understand “new and better” to be “new and better” because what was only promissory in the old testament is now fulfilled in and with the coming of the magnificent Lord Jesus Christ. Christ did not come to bring in a salvation unrelated to the old covenant but rather Christ comes to fulfill all that was promised in the old covenant. As such, the paedobaptist, understanding the continuity between the covenants, following Scripture, brings God’s covenant seed to the baptismal font in obedience to God’s commands and promises.
This last point is underscored by the fact there is not one peep in the NT of protest against any refusal to baptize covenant seed and this despite the fact that the Jews were OUTRAGED that the Gentiles were coming into the covenant. So, the Baptists ask us to believe that the Jews were silent in the NT record about their children being kept out of the covenant while the NT record records their outrage about Gentiles coming in? This is an argument from silence but the silence is so loud here that it is deafening.
As to the original post … yes, it clearly is the case that Baptists by disobediently not bringing God’s seed to the baptismal font are assuming that God’s seed given to them are outside the covenant and what else can that mean except that Baptists presuppose their children are vipers in diapers? When Baptists raise their children faithfully in the covenant (and many do) their practice is better than their belief. Felicitous inconsistency, thy name is Baptist.
Paedobaptists believe that there is one uninterrupted scarlet thread of salvation that runs from Genesis to Revelation and and that one uninterrupted scarlet thread of salvation has always included God’s covenant seed. To teach otherwise breaks the unity of Scripture.
Rev. Tim Bushsong wrote,
1 & 2: The “newness” of the NC is tied-in with that covenant’s head-for-head integrity; that is, all who are “in” are truly in, salvifically, whereas in the OC, only those who were of faith were *truly* in.
BLMc responds,
This is not true as is clearly taught with Jesus parable about tares and wheat and with the book of Hebrews (6 & 10) warnings against falling away. Also there is I John’s statement,
“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.” (2:19)
Clearly there was some kind of covenantal relationship as seen in the fact that these folks were part of the community. Paul explains all this in Romans 9 where he says that;
“For they are not all Israel, who are descendants from Israel.”
In the old and worse covenant not all in the covenant had the essence of the covenant and yet they are held responsible as covenant breakers. One cannot break the covenant unless one belongs to the covenant. So in the NT not all who are related to the new covenant have the essence of the covenant (Christ) and so they “go out from us.”
It would be literally impossible to warn against covenant breaking if it was not possible in some sense to break covenant.
Rev. Bushsong writes,
3: That is apples/oranges – spiritual benefits have to do with sin/blessing. You assume what has yet to be proven – that obedience requires baby-baptizing.
BLMc replies,
Obedience requiring Baby baptism has been proven so often and so thoroughly through the centuries that to suggest that “it is not proven” is whistling past the graveyard. As Bahnsen liked to say …”I may not have persuaded you. That is not my bailiwick but I have clearly provided the proof.”
Rev. Bushsong writes,
Look: As I said in the vid, I (Baptist) get all the blessings of covenant theology without diluting the nature of the NC. That’s the line we Baptists will not cross.
BLMc replies,
You assume what has yet to be proven, to wit, that obedience does not require baby-baptizing.
