Baptist Defense and the word "Reformed"

Long story short, I was led to Dr. Clark's web blog when some Reformed baptists were complaining about some of the stuff he was writing about --- that is Dr. Clark feels that Baptists should be excluded from the Reformed circle based on his definition of what it means to be "Reformed" (Here, here, and here). Mainly Dr. Clark excludes Baptists because they don't embrace paedo-baptism. Against my better judgment, I ended up posting on Dr. Clark's blog, who latter challenged me on some of my statements. But before I could post my reply to Dr. Clark, my friend Steve (a.k.a. Martin Marprelate) pushed Dr. Clark buttons and motivated him to remove the privileges for anyone to post again (well at least anyone that would challenge his statements, so I'm guessing Steve and I are blacklisted!). So I never got a chance to post my reply to Dr. Clark! And don't worry Steve, I'm not blaming you! :o)

At my other friend's advice (Paul), he suggested that I should post it here on my blog, since I had already put in the effort of typing out my reply. Generally I just post pictures here. I normally don't have anything innovative to write about and I certainly don't want folks to get use to idea that you'd find anything interesting here on a daily basis(!). :ob So I'll go ahead and indulge you of my boring response to Dr. Clark:

Hi Dr. Clark,
sorry I had missed some of your earlier post. I had posted something for "Confessional Baptist", and didn't realized you had posted something in the middle of my editing and then I got tied up the rest of Saturday. No, I don't necessarily equate "Reformed" with "whatever Scriptures teaches". Scriptures stands in itself as the only truth by which any confession that claims to be Biblical must be tested against (my personal views included; this is why I don't hold to infant baptism!). But what concerns me is how you are defining "Reformed".

You have stated:
"No, Keach is not Reformed. He may have agreed with the Reformed on some important and necessary doctrines but he also denied an equally necessary and essential Reformed doctrines. On Baptism, anyone or any document or any assembly that denies the Reformed doctrine of baptism is not Reformed."

But how do you know that Keach wasn't considered "Reformed" (even among his paedobaptist brothers)? Are you the final authority on what reformed is? Did the paedobaptists at that time relayed to Keach that he is not considered reformed because he didn't believe in infant baptism? As I stated before that even Baxter in his letters had considered himself Reformed ... and yet I don't recall John Owen telling him specifically that he can't call himself "Reformed" ... though Owen (as well as Keach! Read up on his Marrow of True Justification!) thoroughly addressed Baxter's errors on the doctrine of Justification. I'm not justifying Baxter when bringing this up, but it does make one wonder what these dissenters of the 16th & 17th century thought of what it meant to be "Reformed". But I can guarantee you one thing, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that they made much of a fuss over the copyrights of the word, as you are doing. I guess they had bigger fishes to fry then. But really Dr. Clark, in light of eternity, what could possibly be gained in fighting over the copyrights of the word "Reformed". Is it really worth annihilating your baptist brothers (if you still also think of them as brothers? I sure hope so, because I do expect to see you in heaven in the future, despite our differing views on baptism), when there's much common ground in our beliefs, especially in the core faith? Having said that, I'm not suggesting that the Biblical understanding of baptism is not of importance. I just don't know if it's worth fighting over the copyrights of the word "Reformed".

Now, going on with your infant baptism defense you referred me to, you wrote:

"In the gospels our Lord Jesus left us two great signs to be observed until he returns, the Lord's Supper and Baptism.13 These two new covenant signs broadly correspond to the old covenant signs of circumcision and Passover.14 We call baptism and the Lord's supper covenant signs because that is what God himself calls them. They are signs of his covenant relationship to those he loves, his people."

I don't find any Scriptural justification of your assessment that baptism in the NT corresponds to circumcision in the OT. In fact when Paul had spoken of how there was no value in physical circumcision for the new believer in the letter to the Galatians, I find it rather telling that Paul never once in that letter, suggests that baptism now replaces circumcision. Of all places to make this connection between baptism and circumcision, you'd think he'd at least mention that right in the book of Galations, if such an assumption is true! But as it seems Paul did not and it places real doubt on whether your assumptions is correct. In fact there's nothing in Scripture that makes this connection. And yes, there is that infamous verse of Colossians 2:10-12 that many claims to make the connection between circumcision and baptism, but Paul clearly points out in those verses that this is not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ. In another words, Paul is speaking of the spiritual circumcision that happens in the heart, not the physical circumcision done to the male organ of procreation spoken of in Genesis 17. Paul is talking about regeneration --- the circumcision of the heart, which is not the same as Genesis 17, where it was clearly applied regardless of evidence of faith. And as you well know, without the evidence of faith, regeneration is not to be assumed.

You wrote:
"The Passover feast was restricted to those who are able to understand God's redeeming acts because it was a sign designed to nurture and lead to growth. It was not a sign of entrance into visible covenant assembly of God's people, but served as a means of renewing the covenant of grace."

According to Scriptures, the Lord never stated that the Passover was restricted to those who are able to "understand God's redeeming acts", so your assessment above is wrong. Those who participated in the Passover were both believers and unbelievers as noted in Exodus 12:3, when the Lord addressed the practice of the Passover to be told to "the whole community of Israel". And it is because of the practice of the Passover, that the plague passed the doors of the whole community of the nation Israel made of mixed believers and unbelievers (Exodus 12:12). This is same mixed multitudes of believers and unbelievers of the nation Israel that left Egypt and the same mixed multitude that would later grumble in the desert and create an idol in defiance to God.

So in your defense, it is your assumption that the manner of which circumcision and Passover were practiced in the OT should be modeled in the practices of the NT ordinances (baptism and the Lord's supper respectively)... that is according to Scriptures, those who participated in these OT practices were believers and unbelievers within Israel. And this is why you apply baptism to those in the physical church regardless of profession of faith. At the same time (ironically), you (an opponent of the Federal Vision) just made the defense for the FV'ers to also invite those who are "part" of the church regardless of professed of faith in Christ, to participate in the Lord's supper! As wrong as the FV'ers are on their doctrine, I'd say under your assumptions, the FV'ers are more consistent in their practices of these ordinances than you are (that is, you'd only allow believers to the Lord's supper). You are correct to ban those who have no evidence of spiritual regeneration from the Lord's table, but under your own assumptions of modeling after the practices of the OT into the NT ordinances, I find you inconsistent.

You wrote:
"The proper question therefore, is not where does Scripture explicitly teach infant baptism, but rather where does it reverse God's command to Abraham to administer the covenant sign and seal to children of believing parents."

Read Galatians. The sign of God's covenant to Abraham was circumcision applied to males only. As argued by Paul, the circumcision of the male's organ of procreation is of no value to the believer but so harms the Gospel if to be continued (Galatians 5:2). Did you ever ask yourself why the Lord chose the male organ of procreation as a sign to his covenant with Abraham? I understand that it was to separate Israel as a nation ... but why the male organ of procreation? The answer is --- Lineage. The Lord promised to Abraham that the Messiah would come from his line. This sign would point to Christ. And when the Messiah finally came, the practice was abrogated. This is not to say that the Covenant of Grace has ended, but only that the purpose of circumcision has finished (in that the sign itself would point to a descendant of Abraham who would be the promised Messiah) since the covenant the Lord made with Abraham has been fulfilled in Christ. The purpose of all the OT covenants were to "build up" to the manifestation of the Covenant of Grace, which is the New Covenant. Again, if baptism is the replacement of circumcision, Paul would have clearly mapped that out for the Galatians when he wrote his letter to the Galatians. But Paul did not. Your defense of making that connection between circumcision and baptism cannot hold water in light of the book of Galatians.

So now we're left with your defense by inference, which I've never been bought into it. I find it, inconclusive. The problem with defending purely by inferences (because the rest of the defense wasn't substantial), you can defend anything with it, but adds nothing to what you're actually trying to defend. It's the same argument evolutionists make when they have no evidence of the missing link! But this isn't the only reason why I don't find any Biblical support for infant baptism. What really convinces me of credo-baptism, is what Scriptures states in reference to Baptism. Every reference of baptism in the NT relates closely to soteriological terms that can only be true of believers ---

"having been buried with him [Christ] in baptism and raised with him through your faith",

"Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?",

"and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also --- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.",

etc.

No Dr. Clark, Scriptures clearly states that the ordinances of NT are for believers ONLY. With Scriptures like these, this "good and necessary inferences" that paedobaptists stand by is not really as good, nor necessary in light of Scriptures. Actually, it is bad. It is sacrilegious to suggest that apart from faith, unbelievers can have "some" connection with Christ's death or His resurrection. This is an insult to the Son of God. As we believe in the doctrines of Grace, the Lord only died for the elect. Unbelievers, who have no evidence of faith, does not reap any New Covenant blessings of Christ's work on the cross and hence should not be baptized.

Lastly, the seal of His saving grace in the New Covenant is not Baptism, it is the Holy Spirit (2 Cor 1:22, Eph 1:13, Eph 4:30). This is why the New Covenant is like no other covenant, in that it can never be broken as stated in Jeremiah, since it is the Holy Spirit who is the seal/deposit of our faith, seals the elect to this covenant. This is what makes Perseverance of the Saints possible! It's the seal of the Lord through His Holy Spirit that keeps us in the covenant! It is not by choice, nor any parent's beliefs. It is this regeneration by the Holy Spirit, that grants one membership to the New Covenant and is made evident by the fruits of the Spirit. As John notes, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Jade

And Dr. Clark, if you're reading this, I want you to know that you're always welcome to post here. I won't lock this thread or any thread just because I might not have an answer to your defense or to anyone that would challenge my Biblical understanding ... the way I see it, the truth will always be made evident in the eyes of believers.