# Paedobaptism & the Covenants of God



## danmpem (Jun 26, 2008)

This is from the "a non-argumentative question for paedobaptists" thread.



larryjf said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> > how can we make an assumption that baptism should be administered in the same way as circumcision when girls are now baptised?
> ...



I didn't understand the last paragraph. Could you expand on that further? 

Also, how is the kingdom of David different from the nation of Moses? At the beginning of David's reign, wasn't he only king of Judah? And then, I think it was later he was king of all Israel. He was also called "king of Jerusalem". Is there any relevance between the three distinct titles and the covenant with David?

Thanks!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 26, 2008)

If David and the kingdom marks any clear, symbolic progress, I would say it was in this: that he took a fragmented and divided nation, and unified them. It also appears that his kingdom is marked by a rather significant influx of former aliens. So, there is the symbol of calling the world in to join God's people, still confined to a tiny spot on the larger map. The difference being in Messiah's age, that the whole map is now designated as his.


----------



## danmpem (Jun 26, 2008)

Thank you, Rev. Buchanan. That helped put a lot into perspective. I guess I'm still having a little trouble connecting all of that with baptism in the New Covenant. I can picture a credo making the case that they do the covenants more justice in that nowadays people who _profess_ to be believers in Christ are baptized, instead of baptizing children who may or may not be believers. How could I approach this based on the information you just gave me?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 26, 2008)

Who gets attached or "taken in" to God's people? Individuals _*and their families*_--at least that was the way it was during every age preceding this one. Which seems to be the point in question these days.

Demand an explanation for why this should be different now, or why, as the kingdom starts to expand territorially (btw, I'm speaking as an amillienialist here) there should be a different "claim" of ownership by the King? A "lesser" claim of ownership?

Everything that is _mine _is actually _God's_. This includes MY children. Did we get to this point following the pattern, only to have God now say: "I don't lay claim to those possessions of yours." If he says that "Well, now God claims everything," I reply, "Sure, and he always has." And yet he marked out the people and place which were *decisively *his. He separated those who would identify themselves with him, those whom he would publicly acknowledge.

God takes us, and everything we are and have, and disowns our children at the same time? *I don't think so*. He may put them out later on: temporarily for discipline, or permanently as a just punishment.

You could put it this way: From here (the Resurrection) on out, the difference is Christ and his kingdom on the offensive. Henceforth, man's situation is that he is encountering God's claims everywhere and always--not just in nature, but especially in the full gospel proclamation. He either runs away, or he gets swallowed up; he either submits going in, or he gets taken inside unhumbled. If he finds himself "inside" without a wedding garment he is getting thrown outside. God's kingdom is gobbling up everything. And he's keeping the fat, and spitting out the bones.

The other notion is that He is too "dainty" (in this polluted world!) to engulf any but the elect. Its up to us to keep his plate clean. _I can't accept that responsibility. _ The purified church is an eschatological fact, not an earthly, this-worldly one. I don't have a functioning "elector-detector." And I don't think he ever asked us to "bone" his plate. He invited US to HIS meal. And we are responsible for disciplining that which we can see.


----------



## MW (Jun 26, 2008)

Bruce has explained it well. In essence, grace superabounds in the NT, but in the case of infants who are excluded from covenant privileges it is apparent that grace has been restricted and sin much more abounds.


----------



## danmpem (Jun 26, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Who gets attached or "taken in" to God's people? Individuals _*and their families*_--at least that was the way it was during every age preceding this one. Which seems to be the point in question these days.
> 
> Demand an explanation for why this should be different now, or why, as the kingdom starts to expand territorially (btw, I'm speaking as an amillienialist here) there should be a different "claim" of ownership by the King? A "lesser" claim of ownership?
> 
> ...





I am going to go sit on that for while. Thank you so much, Bruce. This has help me understand a LOT.


----------

