Further to David Field's post on Category Confusion, here's another helpful addition on the subject: Our rule in administering of sacraments
1. membership in the New Covenant is only for the big-E elect in which case
2. baptism belongs only to the Elect and we can baptize no-one OR
3. baptism (properly, i.e., according the standards that God has given us) belongs to others than the big-E elect
4. assuming that 2. (baptizing no-one) is unacceptable then we are at 3.
5. but if 3. then EITHER the baptism of the non-Elect is nothing - just getting them wet
6. OR the baptism of the non-Elect is something. They are in some sense in the New Covenant since they have received New Covenant initiation.
7. assuming that 5. (the baptism of the non-Elect is nothing) is unacceptable then we are at 6.
8. but if 6. then there are two sorts of New Covenant people - the big-E elect New Covenant People and the non-Elect New Covenant people
9. but 8. contradicts 1.
10. so if you hold 1. and want to use it in arguing about the proper subjects of baptism, you are stuffed.
Wednesday 21 May 2008
Field on Big-E Elect
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I follow, but why in 7. does he say 5. is unacceptable. Following the logic in my head seems to take me to 5.
Erm. My head hurts.
David Field is one of the greatest bloggers of all time.
I frequently love what he writes.
I frequently disagree with him.
I frequently don't understand him.
So point 7 states that:
baptism of the non-Elect is nothing, it's merely getting them wet and this is unacceptable.
I think David argues that this doesn't hold when baptism is considered to be the "initiation rite" for the New Covenant…
David writes: "So if you want to argue that everyone in the New Covenant is a big-B believer (decretally Elect) and yet that we rightly give the New Covenant initiation rite to those little-b believers (non-Elect, those with false faith / temporary faith etc) then you must deny that the New covenant initiation rite actually initiates people into the New Covenant. That is, that the baptism of the non-Elect isn't baptism, it's just "getting them wet". And the NT evidence for that is what precisely? Non-existent, that's what."
cited from: New Covenant and antipaedobaptism
Bish - I hear ya!!! But his posts have certainly made me think more about what I think on the subject... and that can't be a bad thing...
Absolutely.
Post a Comment