Yeah, they do. They just haven’t put the pieces together yet to get this outcome because they think in little boxes. If anyone can understand this, it will be you.

I’m simply saying that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Attempts to “infuse” the Gospel into a baby through sprinkling or giving it bread and wine (signs of willingness to die!) are turned into substitutes for the Gospel, rather than testimonies by those who have believed.

I do not see p-baptism as putting the unbeliever outside the obligations of the NC nor that God is merely concerned with his “cov’t people” via baptism.

If baptism puts on “into Covenant,” then those who are not “in” are not under obligation. Also, things probably look different from inside the PB fishbowl. From the outside, it looks like a human demarcation, just one more ethnic or social distinction among many. This entirely misrepresents the Gospel.

First, p-b does not negate F&R any more than saying communion does. As signs of the cov’t both sacraments demand F&R.

Certainly, which is why well-meaning PBs invented paedofaith. Since our babies are Covenant children, they must be Christians, and if they are Christians, then they must believe! The crazy leaps in logic made by some very intelligent people just make me shake my head. Besides being far-fetched, it’s entirely against the grain of not only the New Testament, but also the Old.

Does the meal not place the unbeliever outside the cov’t?

No. It places them outside of those commissioned to preach and die for the Gospel, much like Israel’s priesthood within Israel itself. But not it is not just Israel who must “hear.” Architecturally, the mediators are within the “water” boundary (the Laver, the tent) and the hearers are the “blood” boundary (Israel, but now ALL nations). I’ve tried to explain this to my FV friends but they either can’t or won’t understand it.

Does the meal not call for F&R? Second, why baptise at all if F&R are what makes for cov’t?

See above. The Covenant boundary is now not merely Israel but “all nations.” So what do paedobaptists do? Their weird understanding of baptism as a Covenant boundary marker makes them think that Jesus’ command was to baptise one nation at a time in some sort of “civil baptism,” rather than as a command to baptise believing Gentiles (ethnoi) now and not merely Jews. Once again, I shake my head in bewilderment.

I feel like your heightened emphasis on the “plerao” of Christ should put an end to all sacraments.

Very good point. This is because the sacramentalists see the sacraments as a means of salvation, rather than as a testimony. Certainly, baptism “saved” (delivered) the first fruits saints from the old order, but they were baptised because they believed. Faith puts you into the Head and baptism puts you into the Body (the saints who have heard your testimony). Baptism doesn’t “infuse” the Spirit into anybody. God blesses the baptizand’s obedience, as He did at Jesus’ baptism. The sacraments are a means of testifying (liturgically). In baptism, we make a vow. In the table, we maintain the vow. In Church discipline, the Church maintains the meaning of the vow. And what does the vow mean? Personal repentance and faith.

You say that Christ’s ministry ends all bloodshed and that p-b precludes that conclusion.

This is because the hereditary / tribal / national sign of “blood” was about the death of the flesh. Paedobaptism celebrates the fruit of the womb. You gents can deny it, but if it looks like a dog, feels like a dog, and smells like a dog, it isn’t a cat. Witness Uri’s (God love ‘im) ecstatic exclamation that “another child of God was born into the world.” Scary. And unbiblical.

But this then begs the question of what do the sacraments then symbolise and declare?

Who was baptised? Those who declared their faith and would in most cases fill up the sufferings of Jesus and possibly die. That’s what the sacraments declare. When Jesus said to Peter “feed my sheep” He wasn’t talking about little children, but sacrificial disciples being “fattened” for the slaughter. The focus on offspring is not only past its use-by-date (now that the Son has come), it’s almost idolatrous when it twists NT texts like this. There’s a reason that neither Jesus nor Paul had offspring, and why Paul referred to Timothy as his “son.” Things have moved on. The sacraments declare that we are prophets who eat with God on the sea.

As sacraments they are demarcations by nature and this seems to be what you are trying to establish: there are no markers b/t humanity any longer, so that even calling one an “unbeliever” is to deny the NC. How can you not have an unbeliever/believer distinction?

As above, the demarcation is between preachers and hearers. Both are under Covenant. Like Abel (“hebel”), Solomon (as the preacher) was the shepherd in Israel, declaring everything that could be seen without faith to be “mist,” that is, a temporary veil. Then, of course, like Cain, he went and built himself a godless city!

Yep. As it was then, the only difference being that baptism makes every individual a Noah.

2) baptism is in no way a covenant marker, but that only F&R are?
There’s no “Covenant marker” because, as it was in Noah’s day, this Covenant concerns “all flesh.” As above, baptism is not about “who can come in.” Baptism is for the mediators of the Covenant – the “angels” with the ev-ANGEL – in place of the angels who administered the Old Covenant.