Sign and Seal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
 
The word "raca" implies one is a fool or a blockhead (empty-headed).

Someone whom utters such disgrace against his brethren deserves no less than "hellfire".

I pray the point is taken. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Now play nice.................

[Edited on 4-1-2004 by Scott Bushey]
 
Roldan (Ricky) and Tertullian (Tyler),

In recent discussions you two keep pushing each others buttons and running in circles. To the point that I find myself avoiding both of your posts because of the serious job you both do of condescending toward the "other side." When I did take the time to read what you have posted I had to speak up as a Moderator.

I am posting this publicly because the discussion and offenses have been public.

Both of you need to apologize to one another and the board and then start working at edifying each other and the forum in your discussions. We (mods and admins) will not permit persistence in these false characterizations and arrogant arguments that quickly take the discussion off topic.

Here is a brief example of what I am talking about from both of you in this latest thread you have tackled:

[quote:9245f105da][i:9245f105da]by Tertullian[/i:9245f105da]
"This makes for some good thoughts but not very good Bible"

"I think this reveals a weakness of the Paedobaptist position because it reveals that it is a tradition not a conclusion derived at from a study of Scripture"

"Not really, I think that most Paedobaptist who argue for the practice have completely different arguements then John Calvin, which makes the practice all the more questionable because it is a practice looking for an arguement"[/quote:9245f105da]

[quote:9245f105da][i:9245f105da]by Roldan[/i:9245f105da]
"Here we go again"

"Perhaps you don't have a clue"

"Anyone who REALLY understands Calvin"

"But since you seem to have ALL the answers then please buy all means enlighten us with the "Reformed" nirvana that you at 20 yrs and barely out of Dispensationalism and arminianism have reached."

"Did you not read what I said"[/quote:9245f105da]

You both need to work at conveying the proper attitude and spirit toward each other and the board in general. No more arguments witht he mods. No more warnings.

As Scott said, "Play nice." Not because we want you to, but because it is the right thing to do for anyone who is identified as a follower of Jesus Christ.

Phillip
 
:ditto:

Just so this does not become a "take sides" thing, this paedobaptist Moderator want to make clear that he agrees with Phillip.

Baptism has always been a thorny issue on the board. Be extra careful when discussing it.
:duel::rant:

I have crossed the line at times in posting and have regretted it.
 
[quote:3c10e2d01d][i:3c10e2d01d]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:3c10e2d01d]
Is the smilie a typo? Isn't it "ditto"? [/quote:3c10e2d01d]

Yes. Can we fix it
 
Fred,
I thought you could fix it.............c'mon Fred, fix it!!!
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha:bigsmile:hahahahahahaha:poke:
 
Optimus...

[quote:1c5581e1bb][i:1c5581e1bb]Originally posted by Optimus[/i:1c5581e1bb]
i think KC said that cuz you said:

"I think this reveals a weakness of the Paedobaptist position because it reveals that it is a tradition not a conclusion derived at from a study of Scripture."

KC, correct me if im wrong....
:( [/quote:1c5581e1bb]

You would be correct. What's your name, by the way.

Blessings,

KC
 
[quote:a0bc796518][i:a0bc796518]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:a0bc796518]
[quote:a0bc796518][i:a0bc796518]Originally posted by Optimus[/i:a0bc796518]
i think KC said that cuz you said:

"I think this reveals a weakness of the Paedobaptist position because it reveals that it is a tradition not a conclusion derived at from a study of Scripture."

KC, correct me if im wrong....
:( [/quote:a0bc796518]

You would be correct. What's your name, by the way.

Blessings,

KC [/quote:a0bc796518]

I apologize KC, I thought your post was in response to my second post I was confused because you quoted my second post and not my first. That is why I said that I never used the word tradition in my last post (meaning the one you quoted) because I thought you meant that one.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 4-1-2004 by Tertullian]
 
[quote:9815cef307][i:9815cef307]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:9815cef307]
Roldan (Ricky) and Tertullian (Tyler),

In recent discussions you two keep pushing each others buttons and running in circles. To the point that I find myself avoiding both of your posts because of the serious job you both do of condescending toward the "other side." When I did take the time to read what you have posted I had to speak up as a Moderator.

I am posting this publicly because the discussion and offenses have been public.

Both of you need to apologize to one another and the board and then start working at edifying each other and the forum in your discussions. We (mods and admins) will not permit persistence in these false characterizations and arrogant arguments that quickly take the discussion off topic.

Here is a brief example of what I am talking about from both of you in this latest thread you have tackled:

[quote:9815cef307][i:9815cef307]by Tertullian[/i:9815cef307]
"This makes for some good thoughts but not very good Bible"

"I think this reveals a weakness of the Paedobaptist position because it reveals that it is a tradition not a conclusion derived at from a study of Scripture"

"Not really, I think that most Paedobaptist who argue for the practice have completely different arguements then John Calvin, which makes the practice all the more questionable because it is a practice looking for an arguement"[/quote:9815cef307]

[quote:9815cef307][i:9815cef307]by Roldan[/i:9815cef307]
"Here we go again"

"Perhaps you don't have a clue"

"Anyone who REALLY understands Calvin"

"But since you seem to have ALL the answers then please buy all means enlighten us with the "Reformed" nirvana that you at 20 yrs and barely out of Dispensationalism and arminianism have reached."

"Did you not read what I said"[/quote:9815cef307]

You both need to work at conveying the proper attitude and spirit toward each other and the board in general. No more arguments witht he mods. No more warnings.

As Scott said, "Play nice." Not because we want you to, but because it is the right thing to do for anyone who is identified as a follower of Jesus Christ.

Phillip [/quote:9815cef307]

Now that is fair. Since you did take the time to see what I and others have been seeing for months now.

And I will admit that I have recently been annoyed to the breaking point and therefore as a Brother in Christ must openely request the forgiveness of all who took offense by my tone.

Pastorway, I appreciate you being fair and honest in doing what you do and also would like to apologize for any disrespect that came from my fingers.

we cool?:D
 
Tyler...

[quote:93f9afb9c2]I apologize KC, I thought your post was in response to my second post I was confused because you quoted my second post and not my first. That is why I said that I never used the word tradition in my last post (meaning the one you quoted) because I thought you meant that one.

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[/quote:93f9afb9c2]

No problem. You're okay.

Blessings,

KC
 
Dennis...

Thanks for the info. You may want to include it as part of your signature line as suggested by the moderators.

Blessings,

KC
 
Dennis...

[quote:572d375abf][i:572d375abf]Originally posted by Optimus[/i:572d375abf]
oops, i must have skipped that part.

it's coming:) [/quote:572d375abf]

Good to know and congrats on your new son.

BTW, who is older, you or Ricky, and by how much, if you don't mind me being nosey. Having two sons, I always ask that.

In Christ,

KC
 
[quote:bab0f74237]
who is older, you or Ricky, and by how much, if you don't mind me being nosey.
[/quote:bab0f74237]

he is older. He's turning 29 on may 24th, and i just turned 21 on march 25th. ima a yungin
 
Thanks Bruce and Matt for your answers.

It seems that the difference between credos and paedos on this issue hinges on a different approach to Abraham. Romans 4 is very clear that circumcision was a sign and seal to Abraham, while saying nothing explicit about anyone else. While credos are willing to think that therefore Abraham is the only one of whom this is true, paedos are unwilling to assert any essential difference between Abraham's circumcision and anyone else's (with some disagreement about whether a seal is inevitably attached to a sign or not).

So for a credo baptist, what justification is there for thinking that circumcision could be one thing for Abraham and another thing for Ishmael, Isaac, Esau or Jacob (assuming I've represented your position correctly --otherwise just set me straight)?

For a paedo baptist, what warrant is there to think that a seal is ever a seal of judgment? If you hold to the other alternative how can something that was a sign and seal for Abraham be applied to someone else only as a sign and become a seal later on?
 
It goes back to your original question! Romans 4 is clear that circumcision for Abraham was a seal of the righteousness by faith that was already present before he was circumcised!!

Just as the Spirit is a seal for those whom He indwells, and not for any others!

Abraham had faith and was counted righteous (he was justified) and so the outward sign became a seal of the inward reality that existed before the sign was applied.

Likewise, the Spirit serves as a seal for those who already have Him indwelling them, and baptism is the outward sign that follows to publicly proclaim the inward reality.

If circumcision was a seal for Abraham of something he already possessed, then why do some believe that it can also be a seal for someone who does not possess saving faith? That is discontinuity!!

Phillip
 
Circumcision for Avrahm was a seal because it was done from the gift of faith.

Baptism is a seal when that same gift of faith is present in the recipient.

The promise of God makes us believe He has granted that gift to our infants.

Either way you cut it, Baptists also administer baptism on faith. Human testimony is nothing. People can lie about their conversion.

[Edited on 4-1-2004 by Wintermute]
 
[quote:208810d1a1][i:208810d1a1]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:208810d1a1]
It goes back to your original question! Romans 4 is clear that circumcision for Abraham was a seal of the righteousness by faith that was already present before he was circumcised!!

Just as the Spirit is a seal for those whom He indwells, and not for any others!

Abraham had faith and was counted righteous (he was justified) and so the outward sign became a seal of the inward reality that existed before the sign was applied.

Likewise, the Spirit serves as a seal for those who already have Him indwelling them, and baptism is the outward sign that follows to publicly proclaim the inward reality.

Phillip [/quote:208810d1a1]


Yes, Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.

Circumcision is technically not a guarantee that father Ab. had faith or even righteousness, what circumcision guarantees is God's promise, that righteousness will be credited on the basis of faith alone.

Saying this another way is that circumcision is the sign that authenticates the truth of God's promise, that HE will accredit righteousness to the one who has faith.

What is certified is not necessarily truth about Abraham or any one else circumcised, but a truth of God.

Circumcision certifies the truth of God's promise in the gospel, that all who have faith with be accounted righteous.

Therefore becoming the sign/seal of God's promise.

Baptism same thing as sign and seal.

[Edited on 4-1-2004 by Roldan]
 
BUT.....there is only one verse in the whole Bible that talks about circumcision as a seal. None that speak that way of baptism. So you have to admit that you are saying that circumcision equals baptism without any discontinuity. But then you can't baptize females! D'oh

[b:1f4e960dc4]Romans 4[/b:1f4e960dc4]
9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. [u:1f4e960dc4]11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised[/u:1f4e960dc4], that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

Circumcision was for Abraham a seal of the righteousness by faith that he already possessed.

How then do you say that one who does not possess faith can have a seal? There is nothing to seal unless faith is present. Then again, baptism is never referred to as a seal! It does not seal our faith.

Phillip
 
[quote:f2183cad9a][i:f2183cad9a]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:f2183cad9a]

How then do you say that one who does not possess faith can have a seal? There is nothing to seal unless faith is present. Then again, baptism is never referred to as a seal! It does not seal our faith.

Phillip [/quote:f2183cad9a]
Pastor Way great point!

I say this because itanswers py3ak's question why Baptist think that Romans 4 called circumcision a seal of the justification that [b:f2183cad9a] Abraham [/b:f2183cad9a] had already received. If God had first sealed Abraham and then pronounced him justified by faith, Paul's argument would have made no sense, therefore the order is essential because unless circumcision had sealed Abraham's past justification a person could argued against Paul that not even Abraham could be justified apart from circumcision and therefore if all those who are of Abraham's seed are to be justified like Abraham they must also be circumcised but Paul easily shows that Abraham was justified apart from circumcision and so the true children of Abraham can be justified the same way that Abraham was, namely, by faith.

Circumcision did not seal everybody who was circumcised justification- for then we would have God promising to justify and breaking his promise- rather circumcision sealed the fact that Abraham had been justified by faith apart from works of the law for by the works of the law noone will be justifed.


To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 4-1-2004 by Tertullian]
 
[quote:c0fd33132c][i:c0fd33132c]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:c0fd33132c]
BUT.....there is only one verse in the whole Bible that talks about circumcision as a seal. None that speak that way of baptism. So you have to admit that you are saying that circumcision equals baptism without any discontinuity. But then you can't baptize females! D'oh

[b:c0fd33132c]Romans 4[/b:c0fd33132c]
9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. [u:c0fd33132c]11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised[/u:c0fd33132c], that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.

Circumcision was for Abraham a seal of the righteousness by faith that he already possessed.

How then do you say that one who does not possess faith can have a seal? There is nothing to seal unless faith is present. Then again, baptism is never referred to as a seal! It does not seal our faith.

Phillip [/quote:c0fd33132c]

Yes, Abraham possesed faith before circumcision to show that circumcision is the sign of promise to all those who believe like Abraham. Baptism becomes a seal when faith is present.:bigsmile:
 
[quote:1543c5bc50]Yes, Abraham possesed faith before circumcision to show that circumcision is the sign of promise to all those who believe like Abraham.[/quote:1543c5bc50]

Wow! So Abraham was actually a GENTILE when he first believed? And he and his children became JEWS when they were circumcised. So for an adult to be brought into covenant with God in the OT, they must first have had faith. Then they received the covenant sign.

Hmmm. That sounds an awful lot like what we find in the NT when adults outside the covenant were brought in. They first believed. Then they received the sign of baptism. Could it be, then, that what we see going on in the book of Acts is NOT new to the NT at all, but is actually a repetition of OT covenant principles? Nah, that sounds too much like covenantal baptism.
 
[quote:4dfa8c1c08]
So you have to admit that you are saying that circumcision equals baptism without any discontinuity. But then you can't baptize females! D'oh

[/quote:4dfa8c1c08]

You lost me. Do baptists not allow women to take communion then ? ?

Baptism replaces circumcision not by virtue of being the same sign, but because baptism has always overshadowed it as a type of the Spirit at creation, preservation of Noah and his covenant family in the Flood, The Red Sea, Jordan, various ceremonial washings, ad infinitum . . . .

The promised SEED was born a man. Therefore the sign of circumcision is fulfilled. The sign was placed on the organ that passes seed. The promise of God to Abraham's seed. The seed of the woman. (protoevengelion)
 
Hey LuvroftheWord,

I thank you for your last post... your made some great points overall. Of course I might not agree with everything you say but please know that I respect your position and you and consider you in Christian love to be my coworker in Christ. Therefore I only commented on your post to see if we are on the same page or if we differ here about what the Old Covenant taught about how a person entered the kingdom of God and was justified before God...

[quote:fcb81d8081][i:fcb81d8081]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:fcb81d8081]
[quote:fcb81d8081]Yes, Abraham possesed faith before circumcision to show that circumcision is the sign of promise to all those who believe like Abraham.[/quote:fcb81d8081]

Wow! So Abraham was actually a GENTILE when he first believed? And he and his children became JEWS when they were circumcised. [/quote:fcb81d8081]

Abraham was not a gentile but he was "justified before God" meaning that he was already in the Covenant. Circumcision did not give Abraham right standing with God but it "sealed" what Abraham already had. Also Abraham's children (or at the very minimal males) did not get the covenant sign to get into the Covenant but because they were already in it.


[quote:fcb81d8081] So for an adult to be brought into covenant with God in the OT, they must first have had faith. Then they received the covenant sign. [/quote:fcb81d8081]

The standards of God has not changed in order to enter the Kingdom of God one must be born again and regenerated (John 3:5). Paul himself made this point when he argued that he is not a Jew who was one outwardly but he is a Jew who is one inwardly (see Rom 2:28-29, 9:6). Those who do not have regeneration but were circumcised were still counted among the uncircumcised while those who were regenerated but not circumcised were counted among the circumcised. Regeneration is all one needs to enter the kingdom one does not need circumcision or baptism to be justified before God one only needs faith.

[quote:fcb81d8081] Hmmm. That sounds an awful lot like what we find in the NT when adults outside the covenant were brought in. They first believed. Then they received the sign of baptism. Could it be, then, that what we see going on in the book of Acts is NOT new to the NT at all, but is actually a repetition of OT covenant principles? Nah, that sounds too much like covenantal baptism. [/quote:fcb81d8081]

Acts continues to emphasis the fact that the Kingdom of God is spiritual and that one needs to be regenerated and have faith to be justified before God. The Old always taught this of course the New only stated this more clearly then every before.

One does not enter the Kingdom because of whose parents they have that was the mistake of the Pharisees (as I am sure you would agree) but Christ was quick to tell them that their father was Satan not God. The flesh counts for nothing it is a new creation that matters. "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation" (Gal 6:15). Baptism nor circumcision places a person in Covenant with God only God's free unmerited grace can do that. (I think both sides can agree with that)

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


[Edited on 4-2-2004 by Tertullian]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top