# Galatians food for thought.



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 23, 2010)

Galatians 3:7-29 KJV

[7] Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
[8] And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
[9] So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
[10] For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
[11] But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
[12] And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
[13] Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
[14] That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
[15] Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
[16] Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
[17] And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God *in Christ*, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
[18] For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
[19] Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
[20] Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
[21] Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
[22] But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them *that believe*.
[23] But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
[24] Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be *justified by faith*.
[25] But_* after that faith is come*_, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
[26] For ye are all the children of God *by faith *in Christ Jesus.
[27] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
[28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
[29] And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Does this passage clearly teach that those who are in covenant are in it by faith and that according to verse 26 they are children of God by faith and according to verse 25 they are no longer under a schoolmaster AFTER faith has come? Then we see a reference to baptism in verse 27. If you are children of God by faith, we know that only those who have faith have put on Christ. This says all who have been baptized have put on Christ. Wouldn't this mean logically by reason and deduction that only those with faith should be baptized because only they are God's people?


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 24, 2010)

Any thoughts on this?


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 24, 2010)

David, if anything it would _confirm_ the covenantal promises given to Abraham and fulfilled in Christ. The covenant was accompanied by the appropriate sign (circumcision), which was applied to both the believer (Abraham) as well as his children. Galatians 3 teaches a continuity in the promise, not a reduction, which would happen if children were excluded. But the sign and the thing signified is not of benefit unless it is joined by faith (in Christ); I don't think any (Reformed) paedobaptist is going to argue differently. The covenant has its Isaacs but also its Ishmaels; it has its Jacobs but also its Esaus.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 24, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> David, if anything it would _confirm_ the covenantal promises given to Abraham and fulfilled in Christ. The covenant was accompanied by the appropriate sign (circumcision), which was applied to both the believer (Abraham) as well as his children. Galatians 3 teaches a continuity in the promise, not a reduction, which would happen if children were excluded. But the sign and the thing signified is not of benefit unless it is joined by faith (in Christ); I don't think any (Reformed) paedobaptist is going to argue differently. The covenant has its Isaacs but also its Ishmaels; it has its Jacobs but also its Esaus.


 
I don't know. The passage seems to tell me that only those with faith are actually in the covenant. Especially the part about Abraham's seed in verse 16. It basically says that there is only one seed and that seed is those with faith in Christ. Circumcision was before Christ came. Now that there is baptism why would we follow the rules of circumcision for it when only those with faith are included in the seed of Abraham? It looks like the audience this was written to did not know that only those of faith were actually in covenant. It looks like they also thought that they were under a law of works in which circumcision would have been one. Given that consideration Paul seems to be teaching something new. That only those with faith are in covenant and only those baptised have put on Christ, so given the language, it looks like Paul took it for granted that faith preceeded baptism and his audience knew that. That is the only way that the statements that those of faith are saved, and those baptized have put on Christ can not contradict each other, if one had faith and was then baptized then he would not contradict either statement because by his faith he was in Christ and then he accepted baptism. However, if one had no faith and was baptized then the passage that says those who have been baptized have put on Christ would make no sense if one is justified by faith.

This is getting so bad I might need to bring it up with my pastor. Do you think I should or should I just keep this problem to myself for awhile?


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 24, 2010)

Oh, beyond doubt, I think you should discuss it with your pastor.

I would further point you to one other consideration: consider the context of the book of Galatians. Paul is not dealing with the same subject you are reading into this. He is not talking about the recipients of baptism, but with the necessity of faith in Christ. The reference to baptism is not speaking of mode and/or recipients per se, but the need to be united by faith to Christ. Now, since he is primarily talking to recent adult converts (converted in a missionary context) who are now being seduced by Judaizers, it makes sense that he would address his comments to adult converts. In short, I think you are reading too much into chapter 3. As I said before, this chapter is one of the places I would go to in order to establish the _continuity_ of the covenant of grace.

But, by all means, speak with your pastor.


----------



## 4thmedbn (Mar 24, 2010)

Forgive me if this doesn't speak to the heart of what you're after:

First, if my memory of the context of Galatians is correct, Paul is speaking to men and women who are being assailed by the legalism of the Judaizers, and insisting that the men be circumcised in accordance to Jewish law. Are these not Gentiles who are relatively new to the idea of the Covenant which God made with men? Paul has to write instructing them (as he did also to the Romans) that circumcision is of no effect in the flesh, but that it is the circumcision of the heart that counts. This doesn't nullify the Lord's command to the Jews to be circumcised, but fulfills it. We are given a fuller understanding of circumcision, that is, the act of circumcision is not salvific, so many who were not elect among the physical nation of Israel had the mark in their flesh, to no effect.

The physical act of circumcision was still commanded under the covenant God made with Israel, however, and so covenant children were still circumcised. There was still a covering of the covenant parents that sanctifies the child. It may be, however, that the child is not elect, and not justified, and thus, the circumcision is empty. The New Testament corollary being baptism, we may baptize a child under covenant covering/headship, in which the child is sanctified by the belief of the parents, but if the child is not elect, then the baptism does not indicate that he or she is clothed in Christ. That is, the work of baptism, just as in the work of circumcision among Jews, does not earn the individual's salvation, and does not make him heir to the promise we have from God. It is the faith in our Lord, by the Holy Spirit, through Jesus that makes these outward marks of any effect. Only then (upon regeneration) is the individual himself/herself heir and participant in the covenant. Up to that point, they live only under the "umbrella" of their parents' faith.

It's not my intention to make this thread about infant baptism, but rather to show that it is not the actions taken in the name of covenant which are salvific, but instead, the faith in Christ which saves and clothes us in him. Baptism is an outward act of obedience, just as was circumcision, that reflects the commitment of the heart. Without that commitment in the heart, it means nothing. Unless, of course, we should boast of our actions, rather than of Christ...


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 24, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> Oh, beyond doubt, I think you should discuss it with your pastor.



I hate to dissapoint him.


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 24, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, beyond doubt, I think you should discuss it with your pastor.
> ...


 
He needs to know, and he does have spiritual oversight over you.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 24, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> > Marrow Man said:
> ...


 
Would you disfellowship a member who came to you and said he doubted infant baptism?


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 24, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> Would you disfellowship a member who came to you and said he doubted infant baptism?


 
No, for that is not an heretical offense. If you were an officer, it would disqualify you and you would have to resign that office. If you were outright _rejecting_ the doctrine, then it would behoove you to appear before the Session and make that concern clear. Then they would decide how to proceed. However, if were coming to me as your pastor simply with _doubts_, then I would meet with you and discuss these things.

There are other factors that would play a role. If you were actively teaching against the doctrine and causing divisions in the congregation, of course that would be a problem. If you had children born and refused to baptize them, that might be a problem for the session (per the WCF). But simply coming to your pastor seeking counsel does not "disfellowship" you. People have all sorts of questions about the Scriptures and doctrine, and that is part of the "job" to help folks through these things.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 24, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> > Would you disfellowship a member who came to you and said he doubted infant baptism?
> ...


 
I see. The situation is that I do indeed have a child on the way that is due in September. I am currently having strong doubts about infant baptism. I'm not an officer, although I do feel like there is something God wants me to do, but I don't know what so I'm trying to discern that situation. 

However, if I was to come to a point where I rejected the doctrine and did not want to baptize the child, would it be better just to quietly leave instead of causing stress with the session? I don't want to cause any problems. I just want to obey the bible. First though I need to discern which position is indeed biblical, but right now I am certainly leaning toward the credo point of view.


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 24, 2010)

I would just say, again, that you need to talk this over with your pastor (and eventually session, if it comes to that). You are taking an honorable position -- preferring leaving quietly rather than causing turmoil in the church. However, the biblical approach is to deal with the problem head on; inform him, discuss it with him, etc. He is responsible for your spiritual oversight. Trust me, if the sheep is having trouble grazing, the shepherd will want to know.


----------



## Poimen (Mar 24, 2010)

David:

In response to your original question, I echo the spirit of Tim's response which comes more from a theological perspective rather than a strictly exegetical perspective. I do this because I think your concern or question is, in fact, not so much exegetical as it theological. 

Matthew Henry summarizes the issues rather neatly:



> It is objected that infants are not capable of the ends of baptism, having neither understanding nor faith. To this I answer: First, that they have as much understanding as the children of the Jews had, who were circumcised, and therein received the seal, both of justification (Rom. 4:11) and of sanctification (Deut. 30:6), and baptism is no more.


_Family Religion_, page 195

In other words to make more of baptism than circumcision as a sign and seal of the covenant of grace is an error in and of itself for both symbolize and declare the promises of God made to believers and their seed. That some do not embrace those promises by faith does not undermine what they mean but rather establishes what God says (see Romans 3:1-3). Children, in the view you espouse above, could not grasp the spiritual meaning of circumcision and yet were circumcised. How then can we deny them baptism on the pretext of ignorance when the former sign, according to the argument consistently applied, would have involved them them in the same state of ignorance?


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Mar 25, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> I would just say, again, that you need to talk this over with your pastor (and eventually session, if it comes to that). You are taking an honorable position -- preferring leaving quietly rather than causing turmoil in the church. However, the biblical approach is to deal with the problem head on; inform him, discuss it with him, etc. He is responsible for your spiritual oversight. Trust me, if the sheep is having trouble grazing, the shepherd will want to know.


 
Thanks. To clarify, I'm nowhere near leaving the Church. I love our Church. I just have seen these issues and am a bit nervous regarding baptism. So, I plan to pray about it and study. I was going to speak to my pastor this morning about it at our 6:30am bible study, but instead as providence would have it we both worked together to share the gospel with a young man after the study was over so, thankfully, I didn't have time. It has been a very interesting morning. This issue is so minor compared with the infinte importance of the glory of the gospel of Christ. I have a lot to think about regarding the contrast actually. I wonder if God is showing me something?


----------

