Kent Muhling at Third Mill fields a question from a Baptist writer:
I am a Reformed Baptist. One of my objections to infant baptism is that the new covenant cannot be broken (Jer 31:31-34), and thus that the sign should only be applied to believers. Why do Presbyterians argue that the new covenant can be broken, especially in light of Jeremiah 31:31-34?
Click here to read Kent’s answer. Remember, we here at Reformation Faith Today love our Baptist brethren. In fact, one of us is Baptistic (Randy) and the other two are former Baptists (Les and Rob). But hey, these make for good friendly interaction, though most of what I have to say about I have already said.
May 12, 2008 at 11:37 am
Great resource - a well-written, concise point of view. There are many things in it I will reserve judgment on, as they are new to me, but at the least this should help both “sides” understand the progression of this viewpoint.
Reminds me of several Catholic websites that have these great little 3 or 4 paragraph answers to big questions. Easy to digest, even if one were to disagree. I struggle to find the balance in my own writing (and even just my thoughts) of fullness and brevity.
In Him,
May 21, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Hi, Les, I’ve been meaning to comment on the Infant Baptism post but haven’t gotten around to reading all of the comments, though I did remember reading Pratt’s article last year when I was going through the issue my self. Obviously the whole debate on baptism extends much further than the actual act itself into things such as the nature of the church, the covenant, and generally one’s overall biblical framework (covenant [though I know people that are covenant baptists], dispensational, just plain confused, etc.).
I don’t know if this has already been mentioned or not in the IB post, but one thing I’ve thought of after having discussed this issue with my Baptist brothers has to do with the severe warnings in Hebrews 6 and 10.
There are many interpretations (lost their salvation, hypothetical, unregenerate apostates who received much light, etc.)
Some Baptist brothers that I have discussed these passages with were quick to say that God uses warning signs in the Bible as a way of preserving His elect. So even though He will preserve them, His warnings are a means by which they are preserved. This logic would then apply to other passages such as Romans 11 (cut off) and John 15 (cut off), concluding that all New Covenant warnings are in a sense hypothetical warnings. However, the flaw that I found with this interpretation is that it is completely undermined by the follow up verse in each of the warnings in Hebrews 6 & 10:
Hebrews 6:9
BUT, beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way.
Hebrews 10:39
BUT we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.
So if you are going to use warnings as a means of preserving a person from falling away, you would be undercutting the seriousness of your “threat” by following up with a, “but…we aren’t talking about you, so don’t panic.”
Also, Hebrews 10:30 says that the Lord will judge His people. I can’t imagine interpreting it any other way than it’s plain meaning.
Any whoo, just a few thoughts.