Dancing With The Baptists On Covenant Theology & Infant Baptism

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.

The paedobaptist, following Scripture, looks at the history of redemption and covenant history and sees that which each covenantal progression the children and the parents were, without fail, part of the family of God. We see nothing in the New Testament that changes that pattern and steadfastly insist that if there were to be a change to that long established pattern there would be a need for an explicit word in the new covenant that the children are NOT to be included. There is no explicit word to that end. Not even close.

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.

More could be said but to what end? It is very seldom the case that Baptists are convicted on this point (though it does happen) and from the Baptist perspective it is also the case that very seldom do paedobaptists decide to believe that their children stand in no relation of belonging to the one covenant of grace since Baptists believe that only the elect belong to the covenant of grace and deny that one can be within the administrative reach of the covenant without being in the covenant and so having the substance of the covenant (Christ).

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.

Of course that is quite the charge against the paedobaptist of being guilty of “diluting the nature of the New Covenant.” As you surely understand, we here think the same of y’all.

The Bible & National Israel’s Lack Of A Future In The Kingdom Of God

I.) Matthew 21:19: “He said to it, ‘May you never bear fruit again.’ Immediately the tree withered.”

The tree really withered; the disciples “saw it withered from the roots” (Mark 11:20).

The sudden death of the fig tree (symbolic of Israel) dramatized coming judgment on a nation bearing leaves of ritual but no fruit of righteousness.

Jesus here in cursing the fig tree finds the consequence that it is indeed cursed and teaches that God is done with National Israel in terms of having any relevance in relation to redemption or to the eschatological future. Individual Jews may well bow to Christ (and we pray that many will) but the nation of Israel is irrelevant to God. He cursed it. It is dead to Him.

II.) Matthew 21:43 “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”

The Kingdom of God which was contained within the Israel of God in the OT is taken from Israel. Israel is no longer in any way associated with the Kingdom of God. National Israel is dead to God.

III.) Luke 13:6 He also spoke this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it and found none. 7 Then he said to the keeper of his vineyard, ‘Look, for three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree and find none. Cut it down; why does it cumbereth up the ground?’ 8 But he answered and said to him, ‘Sir, let it alone this year also, until I dig around it and fertilize it. 9 [c]And if it bears fruit, well. But if not, after that you can cut it down.’ ”

The timeline between the events described in Luke 13 and Jesus’ crucifixion is not precisely defined in the Gospels, but it is generally understood to be around one to two years. This indicates that Israel’s time was up. It did not bear fruit as the Mt. 21:43 passage explicitly teaches and so it was cut down in AD 70 and God is done with national Israel.

The parable of the wicked vinedressers (Mt. 21) really does seal that God is done with national Israel. Yet, we have much more than Matthew 21 to hang our hat on that God has eternally cursed any idea of National Israel. The Dispensationalists were able to revive Israel but that revival was completely man-centered and that revived Israel in terms of redemption means absolutely nothing. Frankly, the preoccupation of the Church with Israel for the last 150 years smells of sulfur.  Revived Israel has been a major detraction from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The violent rejection by the Bagels of 1st century Israel’s Messiah – of the Father’s beloved son – has, as its appropriate consequence, the termination of the Kingdom so far as the Bagels as a nation are concerned.

Interpretations of Romans 13 that find Israel grafted back into the Olive tree after AD 70 are plainly in error.

From the Mailbox; Why Do You Say The CREC Belongs To The Left?

Dear Pastor,

Can you tell me why you say that the CREC is a Christian denomination that is on the left? As a Pastor in the CREC I think I should know this.

Kent

Bret Responds,

Hello Kent,

Thank you for writing and asking.

Of course, I am speaking of the denominational spokesmen like Doug Wilson, Uri Brito, and Rich Lusk. Even if you’re not on the left yourself those people who are the face of the denomination you’re part of are on the left. If the wife I’m married to is a whore it says something about me if I stay married to her.

These are my observations thus about the CREC

1.) They are Alienists (multiculturalists). They insist that race does not exist or that race is a social construct. They keep pushing for documents to be accepted by the denomination that will codify those beliefs. Nobody of any stature before the rise of Franz Boas believed this. Franz Boas non-Christian Gnostic anthropology is what is informing the CREC’s push when it comes to race issues. This is a position on the left.

2.) Doug Wilson is on record as advocating voting for a female for political office (Sarah Palin). This is a position on the left.

3.) Doug Wilson has said

“Our family would be much more involved on an active personal level if terrorists overran Israel that we would if terrorists overran Vermont.”

This is a take from the left. It is a confusion of categories. It is a reversal of the Ordo Amoris to love the stranger and alien over your own countrymen. It is Alienism.

And if Doug insists that it is not Alienism because his wife, and grandchildren putatively have so much Jewish blood in them then it is Kinism which Doug derisively calls “skinism.” A derision that only rises as from the left.

Doug Wilson is the face of your denomination (whether you like it or not) and when he speaks he paints everyone who is part of the denomination. Doug is, as I have said repeatedly now, a man who is holding down the right side of the left, yet even as on the right side of the left he is on the left.

4.) The inclusion by the CREC of both Baptists and non-Baptists in one denomination is a position that only the left could embrace. Reformed Baptists and Reformed non-Baptists are different expressions of the Christian faith so significant that to combine them in one denomination communicates that the denomination doesn’t understand the idea of distinctions. This is a position of the left.

5.) Then there is the whole Federal Vision thing which is humanist to its core since it advocates works salvation. This is the position of humanism and so is on the left. Individual Pastors may not agree with Federal Vision theology but if they are in a denomination that salutes it they are in a denomination that is on the left.

6.) I know for a fact that Wilson has been phoning Pastors of other denominations in order to warn those Pastors against young men who the CREC have deemed unworthy because those young men took up race realist views. This is a position on the left.

You may be my Brother in Christ Pastor Kent and as such it is my responsibility to tell you that you are in a denomination that is on the left.

Where Tucker Carlson Gets It Wrong In His Interview With Nick Fuentes

“The reality of a multiethnic country requires you to sort of set aside community or group interests in favor of corporate interest, universal interests, national interests, and you have to do that or else it doesn’t work.”
Tucker Carlson
Interview Nick Fuentes

With this quote Tucker Carlson in his interview w/ Fuentes reveals he is a classical liberal. Classical liberalism has, as its watchword, the necessity for tolerance and this classically liberal tolerance is what Carlson vomits above.

Allow me to suggest that it is a death wish for white Christians (and that is who Tucker is talking about here) to continue to set aside our community and group interests because the eventuality of doing so means that we become an ever increasing minority in the nation our father’s built. White Christians have spent the last 60 plus years setting aside white Christian community and group interest in favor of corporate, universal, and national interests and the result is that we have a nation that no longer works for anybody. If White Christians continue to set aside their community or group interests white people will indeed finally be replaced.

Carlson is just gravely wrong here.

Klavan Compares Holocaust to Crucifixion … McAtee Recoils

“Let me tell you what the holocaust was. This will drive some of you crazy but it’s true. The holocaust was the Crucifixion on iMax. It was for those who missed the point the first time that this is who we are (this is who people are). That we will take up … if you don’t think that Jesus bled when little children were led into a gas chamber you don’t know who Jesus Christ is. I don’t care what you say. I don’t care how many times you tell me ‘Christ is King,’ you don’t understand. You don’t understand what is going on, you know.”

Andrew Klavin
Author – “The Great Good Thing: A Secular Jew Comes to Faith in Christ.”

1.) The holocaust was the Crucifixion on iMax? Sorry Andrew but no amount of suffering on the part of all people groups combined or by one solo people group alone can compare in any degree to the sufferings of Christ.

2.) Mr. Klaven, it’s probably hard for you to understand but the Bagels did not suffer in any way they did not deserve nor in any way more expansive than any number of other people groups in history. Bagels did not suffer in any way they did not deserve because what all people deserve is eternal death. The surprise is not that Bagels were treated the way the way they were treated during what is called the holocaust. The surprise is that there are any people group doesn’t suffer that way all the time always.

Further, Bagels did not suffer in any way deeper, larger, or more expansive than many other people groups in history is proven by history itself. The Christians murdered during the Holodomor by the Bagel Bolsheviks was much worse in terms of total numbers. The Khmer who were tortured and murdered during the work of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia was, per capita, far far worse than what the Bagels suffered. The Chinese people during the reign of Mao suffered far more than Bagels. The Armenians suffered per capita far more hardships at the hands of the Muslims ( “Donmeh” – Crypto Bagels) than the Bagels suffered in WW II. You Bagels do not have a corner on suffering, persecutions, or hardships, though the way you act one would think you did think that was the case.

3.) Jesus Christ bled and died once. He has not bled again for any reason for anybody since that time. This is not to say that Christ doesn’t have compassion on those (children and adults) who He has claimed for His own.

4.) It remains an open question whether any Bagels died by being gassed in any oven. The evidence of gas chambers is contested to this day.

4.) This whole quote is just one emotional jag by Klavin meant to make Christian white men feel guilty once again over the poor mistreated Bagels. Would that Bagels would feel guilty about crucifying Christ.

5.) As a whole what this jag does is it seeks to exchange the faith of Christianity for the new faith of Holocaustianity.