Continuing our focus on who should be visibly admitted into the New Covenant, we come to the familiar objection by paedo-baptists who, in response to their Baptist brothers’ assertion that baptizing infants places unsaved people into the church, respond with the following according to Waldron…

Paedo-baptists object, ‘You condemn us for having unsaved church members. Yet you have unsaved church members. Thus, you are no different from us, except that you are inconsistent and hypocritical.’ We admit that there are unsaved church members in the best of [Baptist] churches. This, however, does not mean that we are inconsistent and practically no different from paedo-baptists. This paedo-baptist objection is based on confusing two different things - practical reality (de facto) and legal basis (de jure). Suppose that a Russian KGB chief claimed that there was really no difference between Russia and America, because both have innocent people behind bars. How would you reply? You would say that in Russia innocent people are in jail because of their laws, while in America they are there in spite of our laws. There is a vast legal (de jure) difference between Russia and America. Even so paedo-baptists condone by law unconverted church members. Baptists do not. Ultimately, it does make an immense practical (de facto) difference in the two systems. - pp. 351-352, A Modern Exposition

In my next post on this series, Waldron will address the application of covenant logic to the Lord’s Table.

from pp. 351-352 of Waldron’s A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession:

If the New Covenant is not identical with the Old Covenant, how can it be said that baptism is identical with circumcision?

The specified difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant prohibits the continuation of infant membership in the covenant. That specified difference is that the people of God in the New Covenant will not break the covenant as Israel did and also that all the New Covenant people of God will know the Lord (Jer. 31:34). Yes, circumcision was a sign of covenant membership and so also is baptism. We admit also that baptism should be given to all who are members of the New Covenant, to all the true New Testament circumcised. But who are they?

The covenant people is no longer a physical, but a spiritual nation (Matt. 21:43). Hence physical bloodlines do not give membership in this nation or permit participation in its covenant signs!

Baptism, therefore, professes what circumcision demanded. Circumcision did demand a new heart, indeed, but it did not profess a new heart. Baptism professes a new heart. Though there is a close relationship between baptism and circumcision, they are not identical. The paedo-baptist argument which equates the two ordinances is, therefore, invalid.

My next post will feature Waldron’s response to the paedo-baptist’s assertion that credo-baptists are no different from them because they too have unregenerate church members.

I have been, in previous posts, somewhat critical of Mark Driscoll and his tactics (and I still am critical on those grounds). However, in this post I will be in complete, 100% agreement with the quote from him which follows. It is on the subject of pastors in ministry and their responsibility to their families. Here is the quote:

“There is no office such as pastor’s wife or pastor’s children and I work very hard to ensure that our family remains our top priority over the church. Too many pastors put their ministry above their family and their wives and children get active in the church just so they can be close to their husband/daddy which is tragic. We have a normal fun family life and by God’s grace my wife and kids love Jesus, me and our church.”

I have always been of the opinion (ever since I had an opinion on this subject) that a man’s first ministry and mission field is his own family, and that they should be at the top of his list of priorities, coming even before his duties as a pastor/elder.

Steve Hays at Triablogue makes these statements among others in response to what Driscoll is saying:

i) When you marry and have kids, you acquire a prior obligation. Becoming a pastor doesn’t discharge you of this obligation. If you can’t do justice to both, either don’t enter the ministry or leave the ministry.

ii) A pastor has a higher obligation to his family than your family.

He also quotes someone named Halden who has apparently been quite critical of Driscoll’s position concerning the priority that family should take over ministry. Among other things, Halden says:

“This, to my mind, is perhaps the most clear articulation of the kind of idolatry of the family that is common among evangelical Christians in America today.”

“For my part, Driscoll’s comments are perhaps the most horrifying thing I could expect to hear from the mouth of any pastor about the priority of the family.”

I, for one, agree with Driscoll. How about you?

Amusements are proper, both as to kind and
degree–just so far as they make us better
Christians. Whenever they become hindrances
to us in our Christian living or in our holy walk
–they are harmful, however innocent they
may be in themselves.

How do your amusements influence your
spiritual life? They may be very pleasing to you.
They may afford great gratification. But what is
their effect on you, as a Christian? Are they
hindering your love for Christ, and your growth
in grace? We ought to be honest enough with
ourselves, to answer these questions truthfully,
and then act accordingly.

-from Grace Gems, J. R. Miller, “In Green Pastures”

Following my post yesterday which focused on some statements from the 1689 Baptist Confession, this post looks also at a statement contained in both the Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith. Notice, though, the difference in how they are presented.

WCF (7.2-3a) -

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace;

LBC (7.2) -

2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace

Notice how the Westminster Confession appears to set up, first, a covenant of works, and then second, a covenant of grace. This appears to make the covenant of grace the same type of covenant as the covenant of works. According to the WCF, the first covenant was broken, so God set up another one which, according to Presbyterians, can also be broken. This is why I say that the WCF appears to set up both the covenant of works and covenant of grace as similar types of covenants.

Consider, though, Waldron’s remarks in his exposition of this chapter of the Baptist Confession:

‘The covenant of grace’ is in this chapter viewed as the ground of every sinner’s salvation, from the fall of Adam onward…The Bible, however, never uses the word ‘covenant’ to refer to an overarching covenant of grace which spans the whole of human history. Each use of the term to refer to a divine covenant in the Bible refers to a covenant made by God at some specific historical epoch. None of these covenants may simply be equated with what the [Baptist] Confession describes as ‘the covenant of grace’. Presbyterians have often spoken as if the covenant with Abraham were the covenant of grace, but this identification ignores its typical elements and its beginning in the lifetime of Abraham, not immediately after the fall…Thus it is crucial to maintain a clear distinction between the covenant of grace and the biblical, divine covenants. The divine covenants undoubtedly suggest this terminology [covenant of grace], but no one of them ought to be equated with it. - p.107, A Modern Exposition

This is from the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 7, Of God’s Covenant with Man:

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace;

Unlike the Westminster Confession of Faith, which sets up two covenants, one of works and one of grace, and then describes that second one within the framework of dual administrations (one Old Testament and one New), the 1689 Baptist Confession instead puts forth a view that the covenant of grace has one administration which is progressively revealed throughout history until it achieves its full and final discovery in the New Testament.

Here is the Baptist Confession at the same point as the WCF quoted above:

2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

3. This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.

Same Waldron, in his Modern Exposition of the 1689 Confession, says this:

The Baptist Confession does not artificially limit the development in the covenant of grace to mere changes in its external administration or sacraments. Furthermore, it does not limit its discussion of the revelation of the covenant of grace to a (somewhat narrow) dual presentation of Old and New Covenant administrations of the covenant of grace. Rather, it introduces the idea of progressive revelation, beginning with ‘Adam’, proceeding through ‘farther steps’ until ‘the full discovery’ of the covenant of grace in the New Testament. The presentation of the Westminster Confession of Faith tends to minimize the diversity of God’s covenantal dealings and miss the progress in the characteristics of covenant community. The presentation of the Baptist Confession, with its use of the idea of progressive revelation, provides a balance between unity and diversity and a broader perspective on God’s covenantal dealings.

I may do a series of posts using Waldron’s exposition on the 1689 Baptist Confession, and my next post on this subject will probably be on the distinction which needs to be made between what Waldron calls “the divine covenants”, and the covenant of grace.

Question 35: What is effectual calling?

Answer: Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, to convince us of our sin and misery, to enlighten our minds in the knowledge of Christ, to renew our wills, and thus persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel.

Scripture: 2 Timothy 1:9; John 6:44, 45; 16:8-11; Acts 2:37; 26:18; Ezekiel 36:26; Romans 8:30; 1 Corinthians 1:24; 12:3.

from A Baptist Catechism

To this precious truth let us bow; and if the efficacious grace of God has reached our hearts, let us ascribe its discriminating choice to the sovereign pleasure of that Divine and supreme Will, which rules among the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of earth, and to which no creature dare say, “What are you doing?”

But let us pass for a moment to a more experimental and practical view of this subject. The question has often been asked by the trembling lip, “How may I be assured of an interest in the eternal purpose and everlasting love of God? By what evidence may I conclude that I am one whom he predestinated?” Listen to the words of the Apostle, addressed to the Thessalonian saints, “Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.” But how did he know this? Had he read their names in the Lamb’s book of Life? No! See how he solves the mystery: “For our Gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance.” By this he knew their election of God. And by a similar test you must bring the question to an issue. Has the Gospel come to your heart by the Holy Spirit? In other words, have you been called by the inward call? Have you fled as a poor sinner to Christ, and is he all your salvation and all your desire? Assume the truth of nothing, take nothing for granted as to your salvation, until thus is the case.

from Grace Gems

And as to our regards to each other, in our church-communion, we esteem it our duty to walk with each other in all humility and brotherly love: to watch over each other’s conversation; to stir up one another to love and good works; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as we have opportunity, to worship God according to his revealed will; and, when the case requires, to warn, rebuke, and admonish one another, according to the rules of the Gospel.

- from the 1729 Goat Yard Declaration of Faith, John Gill - Pastor

NOTE: Update below re: the household of Stephanas

Instead of calling the events in the NT where groups of people are baptized together as household ‘baptisms’, which is what many brothers and sisters exclusively refer to them as, I think they should also be called household ‘conversions’, and I think the ones which contain any details at all give us a pretty clear picture that the ‘households’ were not only baptized, but were also converted to Christ. This will be a very quick look at the events in the NT where households were involved.

First, we will look at the ones with no information as to what took place to those in the household prior to their baptism.

1. Lydia

And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to the riverside, where we supposed there was a place of prayer, and we sat down and spoke to the women who had come together. One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay. And she prevailed upon us. - Acts 16:13-15

NOTE: There is no information as to what transpired with the members of Lydia’s household before they were baptized. To say that nothing happened at all is to assume way too much and reads far too much into what is not recorded.

2. Stephanus

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) - 1 Cor. 1:14-16

NOTE: Again, there is no information at all regarding what transpired with respect to the household of Stephanus prior to their baptism. And, for that matter, there is no information regarding what transpired with respect to Stephanus himself as well.

UPDATE: Thanks to a dear brother of mine, I need to revise this portion concerning the household of Stephanas and make it clearly known that the Scripture actually states that his household WAS converted, and not just baptized. In 1 Cor. 16:15, Paul says, “Now I urge you, brothers, you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints“. So, not only were they baptized, but they were also converted!

Next, we will briefly look at the NT events surrounding household baptisms which contain more information concerning what took place with the households themselves.

3. Cornelius

Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days. - Acts 10:47-48

And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household. - Acts 11:12-14

NOTE: Not only did all those along with Cornelius in his household receive the Holy Spirit, but Cornelius was told ahead of time (as recounted by Peter to those in Jeruslaem) by the angel that what Peter would proclaim to them would result in his whole household being saved. So, you have the household of Cornelius being saved and baptized.

4. Jailer

Then he brought them out and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household. And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God. - Acts 16:3-34

NOTE: The jailer’s household heard the same gospel message that he did, they were baptized at the same time as he was, and they rejoiced with him (the Greek for ‘rejoice’ actually means to exult, to be exceedingly joyful - picture people jumping for joy).

5. Crispus

Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. - Acts 18:8

NOTE: The text is clear that the entire household of Crispus believed.

So, of the household events in the NT that contain any information at all about the members of the households themselves, we have overwhelming evidence from the texts that they 1) were converted, 2) received the Holy Spirit, 3) were saved, 4) rejoiced with exceeding joy, and 5) had faith. These are not descriptions of the main characters of each event, but specifically of those within the households. These don’t sound like people who were not changed by the gospel that flowed into their ears. Oh, and yes, they were baptized too. But I think the emphasis should not be on the fact that they were baptized, but rather on the truth that they were converted to Christ! These households were regenerated! Praise God!

I pray my entire household likewise will one day be wholly converted to the living Christ.

Using stock film footage from BBC nature films, this video follows God’s most amazing natural creations of water and wildlife. The images are set to Alison Krauss’ haunting acapella rendition of “Down in the River to Pray”