# Non-elect infants in the CoG - Christ as mediator



## daveb

This is probably a silly question that has been answered before (looked around, didn't see anything) but I thought I'd see if I could get rid of some of my confusion.

While trying to better understand covenant theology and infant baptism a question came to mind regarding Christ's role as mediator for those who are in covenant. There are infants who are baptized into the CoG who are ultimately not of the elect, but through baptism are put in covenant status. If Christ is the mediator of the CoG what does He mediate to these infants? Does He mediate anything at all?


----------



## pastorway

No where in the Scriptures is Christ the Mediator of curses. He Mediates the New Covenant in His blood - if His blood was not shed for you then you are not in the New Covenant.

[b:51605c2f86]First London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1646[/b:51605c2f86]

Jesus Christ is made the mediator of the new and everlasting covenant of grace between God and man, ever to be perfectly and fully the prophet, priest, and king of the Church of God for evermore. 

1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 9:15; John 14:6; Isaiah 9:6, 7. 

Concerning His mediatorship, the Scripture holds forth Christ's call to His office; for none takes this honor upon Him, but He that is called of God as was Aaron, it being an action of God, whereby a special promise being made, He ordains His Son to this office; which promise is, that Christ should be made a sacrifice for sin; that He should see His seed, and prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand; all of mere free and absolute grace towards God's elect, and without any condition foreseen in them to procure it. 

Hebrews 5:4, 5, 6; Isaiah 53:10, 11; John 3:16; Romans 8:32. 

This office to be mediator, that is, to be prophet, priest, and king of the Church of God, is so proper to Christ, that neither in whole or any part thereof, it cannot be transferred from Him to any other. 

1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 7:24; Daniel 7:14; Acts 4:12; Luke 1:33; John 14:6. 

[b:51605c2f86]Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689[/b:51605c2f86]

8. Christ the Mediator 

8.1. It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, in accordance with the covenant made between them both, to be the Mediator between God and man; to be Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Savior of His Church, the Heir of all things, and the Judge of all the world. To the Lord Jesus He gave, from all eternity, a people to be His seed. These, in time, would be redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified by the Lord Jesus. 

8.2 The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being true and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of the same substance and equal with Him; 

- Who made the world, and Who upholds and governs all things which He has made, 

- did, when the fullness of time had come, take upon Himself man's nature, with all its essential properties and common infirmities, with the exception of sin. 

- He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her and the power of the Most High overshadowing her, so that He was born to a woman from the tribe of Judah, a descendant of Abraham and David, in accordance with the Scriptures. 

- Thus two whole, perfect and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; 

- So that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, yet He is one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. 

8.3. The Lord Jesus, His human nature thus united to the divine, once in the person of the Son, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure, having in Himself all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. It pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell in Him so that, being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, He might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a Mediator and Surety, a position and duty which He did not take upon Himself, but was called to perform by His Father. And the Father also put all power and judgment in His hand, and gave Him commandment to exercise the same. 

8.4. This office and duty of Mediator and Surety the Lord Jesus undertook most willingly. To discharge it, He was made under the law, and perfectly fulfilled it, and He underwent the punishment due to us, which we should have borne and suffered. He was made sin and was made a curse for us; enduring the most grievous sorrows in His Soul with the most painful sufferings in His duty. He was crucified, and died, and remained in the state of the dead, but His body did not undergo any decomposition. On the third day He rose from the dead with the same body in which He had suffered, with which He also ascended into Heaven, and there sits at the right hand of His Father making intercession, and shall return to judge men and angels at the end of the world. 

8.5. The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience and sacrifice of Himself which He, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up to God, has fully satisfied the justice of God, has procured reconciliation, and has purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of Heaven for all those whom the Father has given to Him. 

8.6. Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ until after His incarnation yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit arising from His payment were communicated to the elect in all ages from the beginning of the world through those promises, types, and sacrifices in which He was revealed and signified as the seed which should bruise the serpent's head, and also the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, for He is the same yesterday, and today, and forever. 

8.7. Christ, in His work of Mediator, acts according to both natures, each nature doing that which is proper to itself. Yet, because of the unity of His person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature. 

8.8. To all those for whom Christ has obtained eternal redemption, He certainly and effectually applies and communicates this redemption, making intercession for them, uniting them to Himself by His Spirit, revealing to them in the Word and by the Word the mystery of salvation. He persuades them to believe and obey, governing their hearts by His Word and Spirit, and overcome all their enemies by His almighty power and wisdom. This is achieved in such a manner and by such ways as are most consonant to His wonderful and unsearchable dispensation, and it is all by free and absolute grace, without any condition foreseen in them to procure it. 

8.9. This office of Mediator between God and man is proper only to Christ, Who is the Prophet, Priest, and King of the Church. Free Will of God, and this office may not be transferred from Him to any other, either in whole or in part. 

8.10. This number and order of offices is essential. Because of our ignorance we need His prophetic office. Because of our alienation from God and the imperfection of the best of our service, we need His priestly office to reconcile us and present us to God as acceptable. Because of our aversion to, and utter inability to return to God, and for our rescue and keeping from spiritual enemies, we need His kingly office to convince, subdue, draw, uphold, deliver, and preserve us until we reach His heavenly kingdom. 

Isaiah 42:1; 1 Peter 1:19, 20; Acts 3:22; Hebrews 5:5, 6; Psalms 2:6; Luke 1:33; Ephesians 1:22, 23; Hebrews 1:2; Acts 17:31; Isaiah 53:10; John 17:6; Romans 8:30; John 1:14; Galatians 4;4; Romans 8:3; Hebrews 2:14, 16, 17; Hebrews 4:15; Matthew 1:22, 23; Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 2:5; Psalms 45:7; Acts 10:38; John 3:34; Colossians 2:3; Colossians 1:19; Hebrews 7:26; John 1:14; Hebrews 7:22; Hebrews 5:5; John 5:22, 27; Matthew 28:18; Acts 2:36; Psalms 40:7, 8; Hebrews 10:5-10; John 10:18; Gal 4:4; Matthew 3:15; Galatians 3:13; Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 3:18; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Matthew 26:37, 38; Luke 22:44; Matthew 27:46; Acts 13:37; 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4; John 20:25, 27; Mark 16:19; Acts 1:9-11; Romans 8:34; Hebrews 9:24; Acts 10:42; Romans 14:9, 10; Acts 1:11; 2 Peter 2:4; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:14; Romans 3:25, 26; John 17:2; Hebrews 9:15; 1 Corinthians 4:10; Hebrews 4:2; 1 Peter 1:10, 11; Revelation 13:8; Hebrews 13:8; John 3:13; Acts 20:28; John 6:37; John 10:15, 16; John 17:9; Romans 5:10; John 17:6; Ephesians 1:9; 1 John 5:20; Romans 8:9, 14; Psalms 110:1; 1 Corinthians 15:25, 26; John 3:8; Ephesians 1:8; 1 Timothy 2:5; John 1:18; Colossians 1:21; Galatians 5:17; John 16:8; Psalms 110:3; Luke 1:74, 75


----------



## Ianterrell

2 Peter 2:20
John 15:1ff
Heb 6
Heb 10
yadda yadda yadda
blablablablablablablah


----------



## daveb

[quote:48f63a4621="Paul manata"]what does Christ mediate for the unelect covenant members???

He mediates curses.[/quote:48f63a4621]

Thanks for your post Paul.

That's the conclusion that I thought it might be. I guess to me this seems a little strange since when I think of mediation I can only think of positives, I had never considered that Christ's mediation would be against a person.

[quote:48f63a4621]ANd Hebrews 10:29 says that people count as unholy the bllod of the covenant which sanctified them.[/quote:48f63a4621]

Ok, I see how this fits.


----------



## daveb

Phillip, thanks for your input.

I understand where you are coming from. I'm just wondering how you deal with the passages Ian and Paul reference (esp. Heb 10)?


----------



## pastorway

One cannot be sanctified by the Blood of Christ and then go to hell. This denies limited atonement, persevereance of the saints, and presents a skewed view of sanctification. You cannot be sanctified without being first justified in Christ.

And we must ask, is this verse using sanctification is a salvific sense?

[b:cf3841e47a]Hebrews 10[/b:cf3841e47a]
26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. And again, "The LORD will judge His people." 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. 

Who is the "he" that was sanctified in this verse? It cannot mean the man who is apostate. He was never sanctified, he was never known by Christ. You cannot lose your sanctification or any other part of your salvation for that matter. So who is the "he"?

It is Christ, the One whose blood was shed and whose blood the apostate counts as worthlesss. Christ prayed (John 17:19), "19And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth." Christ was sanctified, [i:cf3841e47a]set apart[/i:cf3841e47a] unto God on behalf of the elect by the shedding of His blood. This shedding of blood ratified the new Covenant, and thus only those sharing in the benefit of the atonement (the elect, those for whom Christ shed His blood) are in the New Covenant in His blood.

Two others on this verse:

[b:cf3841e47a]Matthew Henry[/b:cf3841e47a]
They have counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing; that is, the blood of Christ, with which the covenant was purchased and sealed, and wherewith Christ himself was consecrated, or wherewith the apostate was sanctified, that is, baptized, visibly initiated into the new covenant by baptism, and admitted to the Lord's supper. 

[b:cf3841e47a]John Gill[/b:cf3841e47a]
"the blood of the covenant"; of the covenant of grace, because that is ratified and confirmed by it, and the blessings of it come through it; and from sanctification by it: either of the person, the apostate himself, who was sanctified or separated from others by a visible profession of religion; having given himself up to a church, to walk with it in the ordinances of the Gospel; and having submitted to baptism, and partook of the Lord's supper, and drank of the cup, "the blood of the New Testament", or "covenant": though he did not spiritually discern the body and blood of Christ in the ordinance, but counted the bread and wine, the symbols of them, as common things; or who professed himself, and was looked upon by others, to be truly sanctified by the Spirit, and to be justified by the blood of Christ, though he was not really so: or rather the Son of God himself is meant, who was sanctified, set apart, hallowed, and consecrated, as Aaron and his sons were sanctified by the sacrifices of slain beasts, to minister in the priest's office: so Christ, when he had offered himself, and shed his precious blood, by which the covenant of grace was ratified, by the same blood he was brought again from the dead, and declared to be the Son of God with power; and being set down at God's right hand, he ever lives to make intercession, which is the other part of his priestly office he is sanctified by his own blood to accomplish.

The point being, this blood of the New Covenant was not shed for all but only for the elect. If there are those who would suggest that Jesus did shed His blood for the non-elect then they need to rework their understanding of the atonement.

What else does the Bible say about this New Covenant? That everyone in this covenant (by virtue of the shed blood of Jesus) have had their sins forgiven them! This is a recurring distinguishing mark of the New Covenant.

"Their sin I will remember no more" - Jeremiah 31:31-34

"For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." - Matthew 26:28

"For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." - Hebrews 8:12

"And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance." - Hebrews 9:15


Phillip


----------



## pastorway

I agree with what he said here: "They have counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing; that is, the blood of Christ, with which the covenant was purchased and sealed, and [b:7af40ee3b1]wherewith Christ himself was consecrated[/b:7af40ee3b1]".

I do not think it wise to use the term samctification to refer to anything but the process of being conformed to the image of Christ as part of our salvation. The blood of Christ sanctifies only the elect.

Phillip


----------



## daveb

Wow, thanks for your thoughts guys! Lots to go through. A few things come to mind:

1. Seems to go back to the issue as to whether or not non-elect are in the new covenant. I must admit I'd have a hard time understanding the Heb. 10 passage if I didn't believe non-elect were in the covenant via baptism. That seems to provide the only good answer to the passage (maybe I just don't know enough).

Phillip, your point about the atonement is a good one though.

2. I don't think sanctified in Heb. 10 is only applying to the elect. I think it might be used much in the same sense as in 1 Cor. 7:14, "For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." The unbelieving husband is sanctified, but not elect. 

Perhaps those who enter the new covenant via baptism are "sanctified" in a similar fashion?


----------



## pastorway

no one has addressed the idea that as you read the text it is logical and grammatically acceptable (preferred actually) to see that the person sanctified is the Son of God. He is being trampled underfoot and His greatest act of love for His elect is being spurned and referred to as common.

To whom much is given much is required, but that in no way means that the non-elect are members of the New Covenant. And what about all the times that the New Covenant is mentioned in the Bible where it specifies that the sins of those in the covenant are forgotten and forgiven? 

Phillip


----------



## luvroftheWord

[quote:c6a1332b7c="pastorway"]no one has addressed the idea that as you read the text it is logical and grammatically acceptable (preferred actually) to see that the person sanctified is the Son of God. He is being trampled underfoot and His greatest act of love for His elect is being spurned and referred to as common.

To whom much is given much is required, but that in no way means that the non-elect are members of the New Covenant. And what about all the times that the New Covenant is mentioned in the Bible where it specifies that the sins of those in the covenant are forgotten and forgiven? 

Phillip[/quote:c6a1332b7c]

First, your presuppositions determine which interpretation is the best understanding in this instance, since the text in itself can go either way. The real questions is, whose presuppositions are justified? Furthermore, even if I take your interpretation of who "he" is in Hebrews 10:29, that still doesn't change the meaning of the passage. Only someone who is purposely trying NOT to be Covenantal can read Hebrews 10 without seeing the parallels with the Old Covenant warnings against covenant breaking.

Second, what about all the times that the New Covenant is mentioned in the Bible where it specifies that our children are included in it, just like every other covenant? (Jeremiah 30-34; Isaiah 59; Zechariah 10; Ezekiel 37)


----------



## LawrenceU

Paul,
Could you please supply the reference for that alluded statement. Not an inference, but a clear command?


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:366abfd05a="pastorway"]no one has addressed the idea that as you read the text it is logical and grammatically acceptable (preferred actually) to see that the person sanctified is the Son of God. He is being trampled underfoot and His greatest act of love for His elect is being spurned and referred to as common.

To whom much is given much is required, but that in no way means that the non-elect are members of the New Covenant. And what about all the times that the New Covenant is mentioned in the Bible where it specifies that the sins of those in the covenant are forgotten and forgiven? 

Phillip[/quote:366abfd05a]

To take this positon, you must believe that the New Covenant IS the Covenant of Grace, and we already know you are wrong about that, Phillip.  

So the answer to the question is that no infants (or adults for that matter)will in the Covenant of Grace, but they can be in the outward administration of it in its various forms, including the New Covenant.

Lawrence, Jesus has given a clear command in every passage that baptists refer to about baptism upon a profession of faith. Unless that is infallible, then we have instances of it.

And Phillip's dodge about not being [i:366abfd05a]real[/i:366abfd05a] baptism won't wash. It's really a word game. We could say the same about professions - no one has ever made a false profession, because if it was not a true reflection of their heart, it wasn't a [i:366abfd05a]real[/i:366abfd05a] profession, and so on for any number of things.


----------



## Monergism

[quote:33e7ee5668="Paul manata"]what does Christ mediate for the unelect covenant members???

He mediates curses.[/quote:33e7ee5668]


Paul,

How do the "curses" for the non-elect who are members of the New Covenant differ from the punishment of the non-elect who are not members of the New Covenant?


----------



## luvroftheWord

In 2 Peter 2, the apostle tells us that it would have been better for the false teachers to have never known the gospel than to have once known it and to then fall away from it. If everyone in hell receives the same punishment, we can only wonder why it would have been better for them before than it is now.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I do not want to belittle what Paul or Craig has said.

However, the arguments for the Paedo camp here are basic and fundamental.  Paul and Craig have basically said what Paedo always say.

It is an impossible position to determine who REALLY are the elect from a "professing baptistic position." I cannot recall Shireff, Howell, Welty, Gill, Bunyan, Malone, or any other Baptist realizing this conundrum.

After the arguments listed above, I find Baptistic attempts of explaining their position as befuddling. 

Baptists never admit, though they know full well, that NOT knowing who is or is not a true believer is an absolute crushing blow to their CENTRAL theological supposition on HOW the Regulative Principle should be upheld.

Baptists never admit that there is NO evidence of ANY command or Scripture for their "professing believers are baptized alone". 

They admit (if only in their own hearts, and not on paper) that if they were to give in on either of these points, in ANY way, their theological foundation for their entire system will crumble. 

The ONLY person I ever heard or read that admitted anything even remotely close to this, was MacArthur. he said that if infants can be found to be included in the CoG, then Baptistic Theology is done - it is over. What he fails to realize is that because of his dispensationalism, he attempts not to go in that direction. His eschatological dispensationalism keeps him safe in his own mind, not realizing, all along, that his dispensationalism destroys his position all by itself.

Baptists are left with a conundrum that cannot repair itself on the practical level. They must admit that they have no positive Scriptural warrant for baptizing professing believers (and they do not - for there is no Scripture that says "When a man, woman or child professes faith in Christ, then, and only then, should they be baptized (or something like this as a positive command)") and that they have no idea who may be saved or lost and they baptized these people anyway, then they are practically destroying their theological view...

They also must admit that they have no idea whether someone really is elect or not. The very idea of attempting to create an inwardly regenerate church body, by administering an [b:dda2f624f5]outward sign [/b:dda2f624f5]on people they are unsure are even regenerate, is so theologically ridiculous that they either cannot see this simple problem, or they are afraid to admit it. Either way, they are in grave error, and their theological position, on that account alone, should be seen as erroneous.

Think through this - Baptists administer an outward sign of regeneration on people they "think" are regenerate in order to build a VISIBLE body of believers who INTERNALLY are suppose to be regenerate. This is an indefensible position.

[quote:dda2f624f5]No where in the Scriptures is Christ the Mediator of curses. [/quote:dda2f624f5]

Phillip, you are denying the basics of what a Mediator means.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-8 when the [b:dda2f624f5]Lord Jesus [/b:dda2f624f5]is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire [b:dda2f624f5]taking vengeance [/b:dda2f624f5]on those who do not know God, and on those who [b:dda2f624f5]do not obey the gospel [/b:dda2f624f5]of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Hebrews 10:29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will [b:dda2f624f5]he [/b:dda2f624f5]be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which [b:dda2f624f5]he[/b:dda2f624f5] was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?

To say that the "he" is preferably Christ" is to not be familiar with historical theology. Owen and Pink, to my knowledge are the only ones who attempt hermeneutical and theological gymnastics (responsibly) in attempting that idea. The contrast is between the defiant rebellious sinner who is part of the covenant community in the OT with the defiant rebellious sinner who is defiant in the new covenatn community. BOTH were set apart and sanctified by theri respective covenants. BOTH are contrasted to those who count unholy thast which made them holy. The warning here, at this point, is the author's fourth warning to those apsotates. The gravity of defiance of the law of Moses under the old covenant throws into bold relief the far greater seriousness of apostasy under the new covenant. Since the blessings God has bestowed through Christ are greater than those provided through the old covenant, the rejection of those blessings entails a far more severe punishment. Contempt for a privileged relationship with God through Christ in the new covenant will involve retribution more terrible than the death penalty attached to violation of the law. There are three parallel participial clauses that articulate this. Three time: The apostate "has trampled upon the Son of God", the apostate "has treated the blood of the covenant, by which he was consecrated [to the service of God], as defiled," the apostate "has insulted the Spirit of grace." 

The phrase "by means of which he was consecrated," resumes 10:10, 14, where the subjective blessing secured by Christ's sufficient sacrifice is defined as consecration to God (cf. 13:12). This phrase in v 29 corroborates that 10:26-31 is descriptive of the Christian who has experienced the action of Christ upon his life. With biting irony, the writer envisions such a person as regarding Christ's blood as [i:dda2f624f5]koinovn [/i:dda2f624f5]("defiled," "disqualified for sacrifice"). The juxtaposition of considering defiled blood which consecrates is rhetorically forceful. A deliberate rejection of the vital power of the blood of Christ to purge sins decisively is indicated (cf. Johnsson, "Defilement," 359-60). 

Apostasy reaffirms the values of the world, which permit those who stand outside the community to regard Jesus Christ with contempt (cf. 6:6). 
(Nolland, John, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 47b: Hebrews 9-13, (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher) 1998.)


----------



## LawrenceU

Paul,
While I appreciate your response I believe you may have misunderstood my question. I was not addressing the issue of eternal indentification of the party being baptised. You made a rather simple statement referring to Christ's 'command' for us to baptise our children. I am totally unaware of any such command. I am all to aware of the various strains of sophistry and infernce that lead to that deduction. And that is all that it is, a deduction. It cannont unequivically be denoted as a commandment.


----------



## LawrenceU

Paul,
Sorry for the confusion. I don't know how I misread that; but it still does not change my interpretation. In your argument you seem to stress that Baptists require that only elect are to be baptised. I agree with you that only the Lord knows who are the elect. The proper statment of the baptist position would be that only those who profess belief are to be baptised. 

But then that horse has been ridden around here long before you signed on. Or for that matter before any of us were a twinkle in the eyes of our parents.

Have a great evening, brother.


----------



## Monergism

I had a question somewhat similar to the mediation question. If Christ is the high priest of the New Covenant, and if the high priest offers atonement for the people of the covenant, then how could the New Covenant not consist solely of elect individuals?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Brett,
You are confusing the visible vs invisible church. I believe Matthew and Paul have answered this above.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Brett, you are redefining the idea of "covenant" in either the Covenant of Redmeption and the Covenant of Grace mistakingly.

Do you understand the difference between these two?


----------



## Goosha

*Here some help*

I hold to a paedobaptist position but since baptists tend to be a little out numbered in these discussions, I'll go ahead and help out a bit.

Brett wrote:
"If Christ is the high priest of the New Covenant, and if the high priest offers atonement for the people of the covenant, then how could the New Covenant not consist solely of elect individuals?"

I hope nobody minds me jumping in but I like to play devil's advocate sometimes. 

If I may add onto Brett's question, I think he has a really good point. In the Old Covenant, atonement was connected to the covenant. Atonement was made for all of Israel not just a portion of Israel. Well, Christ continuing along the same connection with the covenant would also make atonement for those in covenant only His atonement is effectual unto salvation; thus, everyone in covenant is salvifically atoned for. Otherwise, you would have major discontinuity relating the covenant with atonement. The paedobaptist position creates a dispensational discontinuity between the covenants. In the Old Testament, everyone in covenant recieved atonement but paedobaptists don't believe this principle applies anymore making atonement only for the elect within the New Covenant.

Brett, does this sound in line with your question? I hope this helps explain the dilemma.


----------



## Dan....

An important distinction that you may be missing is distinguishing between essence and administration.

In its essence, the New Covenant is effectual to the elect alone. Eschatologically, when all those who are not truly His have been broken off from the covenant, all who are left will be the elect who have Christ as their mediator, the atonement being effectual to these alone.

In the here and now, we are only able to see the outward administration of the New Covenant. This outward administration of the New Covenant(which includes all those who profess faith in Christ along with their children) will include those who truly are of Christ mixed among those who are only visibly a part of the covenant, but are not actually converted.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:2d271ebc70]In the here and now, we are only able to see the outward administration of the New Covenant. This outward administration of the New Covenant([color=red:2d271ebc70][b:2d271ebc70]which includes all those who profess faith in Christ along with their children)[/b:2d271ebc70][/color:2d271ebc70] will include those who truly are of Christ mixed among those who are only visibly a part of the covenant, but are not actually converted.[/quote:2d271ebc70]

Dan, have you made the switch?


----------



## Monergism

*Re: Here some help*

[quote:70b948d82a="webmaster"]Brett, you are redefining the idea of "covenant" in either the Covenant of Redmeption and the Covenant of Grace mistakingly. 

Do you understand the difference between these two?[/quote:70b948d82a]

Maybe I am failing to make a distinction. Can you please explain the distinction that you are referring to and where I have made an error in my question about Christ's priestly work in the New Covenant?


[quote:70b948d82a="Goosha"]Brett, does this sound in line with your question?[/quote:70b948d82a]

Yes, that was what I was getting at. The continuity of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant would seem to hold for the work of the high priest as well (Christ offering up His atonement once for all instead of year by year). As you said, the high priest of the Old Covenant offered atonement for [i:70b948d82a]everyone[/i:70b948d82a] who was a member of the Old Covenant. Similarly, Christ, as high priest of the New Covenant, would do the same by offering atonement for [i:70b948d82a]everyone[/i:70b948d82a] who is a member of the New Covenant.

[quote:70b948d82a="Dan...."]In its essence, the New Covenant is effectual to the elect alone. Eschatologically, when all those who are not truly His have been broken off from the covenant, all who are left will be the elect who have Christ as their mediator, the atonement being effectual to these alone. [/quote:70b948d82a]

Dan, it seems like what you are saying is that at the end of days, Christ will separate the non-elect members of the New Covenant from the elect members, remove the non-elect from the New Covenant leaving the people of the New Covenant as consisting solely of the elect, and these members of the New Covenant will receive the atonement offered up by the high priest of the New Covenant, i.e. Christ's effectual atonement. I am assuming you would say that the atonement has already been applied to the regenerate members of the New Covenant even here and now, but if that is the case, then the atonement offered for [i:70b948d82a]everyone[/i:70b948d82a] who is a member of the New Covenant is not something that is waiting to be applied at the end of days after the separation of the non-elect and the elect (otherwise, those who are converted here and now would still be awaiting atonement!)

If that is what you are saying (if not, please correct me), then it seems like you still have the dilemma Goosha pointed out:

EITHER
(1) Christ offered atonement in a non-effectual way for the non-elect in the New Covenant
OR
(2) There is discontinuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant in that, in the Old Covenant, the high priest offered atonement for [i:70b948d82a]every[/i:70b948d82a] member of the covenant, but in the New Covenant, the high priest only offers atonement for [i:70b948d82a]some[/i:70b948d82a] members of the covenant.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Brett,

Before I answer the distinction question, clear this up:

Do you believe that every member of the OT covenant community was effectually saved based on the typological sacrificaial system and Yom Kippur (i.e. did the blood of bulls and goats save?).

If you do believe that, where in the OT do you find anything that says that Koarh, Dathan, Achan and others went to heaven? or that the the nature of the typological system was effectual for the entire encampment?

Did the generation in the wilderness go to heaven, or were they cutoff?

How do those concepts relate to the sacrificial system and the wrath of God.

(I think you are drawing too close a conclusion on the ceremonial system to the blood of Christ, for Christ alone saves, not the atonement given by a goat on behalf of the covenant community. There is a differecne between God's longsuffering and Christ's atonement).


----------



## Monergism

[quote:cf39256e00="webmaster"]Brett,

Before I answer the distinction question, clear this up:

Do you believe that every member of the OT covenant community was effectually saved based on the typological sacrificaial system and Yom Kippur (i.e. did the blood of bulls and goats save?).[/quote:cf39256e00]

Absolutely not; it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (Hebrews 10:4). I"(tm)m curious how you got the impression from my previous post that I might actually believe that. . . . Anyway, that doesn"(tm)t address my question. My point is not that Christ"(tm)s work as high priest is similar in efficacy to the high priest of the old covenant. Rather, I"(tm)m asking about the similarity in the extent of the atonement (i.e. did the high priest offer atonement for the sins of some in the covenant community or everyone in the covenant community?)


----------



## Goosha

Webmaster wrote:
"Do you believe that every member of the OT covenant community was effectually saved based on the typological sacrificaial system and Yom Kippur (i.e. did the blood of bulls and goats save?)."

Of course not. Those sacrifices are typological. But thats the whole point! If the typological sacrifices were for all of covenant Israel, why would anyone think that Christ's sacrifice (the fulfillment of the typological sacrice) not be for all of new covenant Israel? 

Hee hee! This is fun playing devil's advocate

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins


----------



## ChristianTrader

Bump

Any responses to Monergism's question?

CT


----------



## Scott Bushey

I don't believe Monergism answered the webmasters question........


----------



## ChristianTrader

[quote:f1771ee049="Scott Bushey"]I don't believe Monergism answered the webmasters question........[/quote:f1771ee049]

Humm, I thought webmaster's question was only if Monergism believed that the whole covenant community was effecutally saved based on the typological sacrificaial system.

Monergism said no he did not believe that (the rest of webmaster's question was based on if Monergism had said yes to the opening question).

Is there something else that he did not respond to?

CT


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:a216ba458f]Absolutely not; it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (Hebrews 10:4). [/quote:a216ba458f]


Right.
[quote:a216ba458f]
"Anyway, that doesn"(tm)t address my question. My point is not that Christ"(tm)s work as high priest is similar in efficacy to the high priest of the old covenant."[/quote:a216ba458f]

Actually is directly relevant.

[quote:a216ba458f]"Rather, I"(tm)m asking about the similarity in the extent of the atonement (i.e. did the high priest offer atonement for the sins of some in the covenant community or everyone in the covenant community?)"[/quote:a216ba458f]

I understand what you are asking but bear with me a moment.

Were reprobates forgiven in the OT (i.e. did they squashed by justice right away or did the sacrifice do something for them while they were within the covenant community?)"


----------



## Goosha

Webmaster writes'
[quote:84f32fa368]Were reprobates forgiven in the OT (i.e. did they squashed by justice right away or did the sacrifice do something for them while they were within the covenant community?)"[/quote:84f32fa368]

I hope to hear an answer to this. This is a really great question. 

Cordially,

Jayson Rawlins


----------



## Monergism

[quote:c2469cc1cb="webmaster"]Were reprobates forgiven in the OT (i.e. did they squashed by justice right away or did the sacrifice do something for them while they were within the covenant community?)"[/quote:c2469cc1cb]

As I understand it, the sacrifice offered for the entire covenant community (which included reprobates) served only as a picture of the real sacrifice that was needed in the Messiah. I don"(tm)t believe the sacrifice offered by the high priest in the Old Covenant, in and of itself, did anything for anyone. I think God"(tm)s patience toward the covenant community in not extending physical wrath at any given point was not because He was so moved by the sacrifice itself, but rather by the faithful obedience of His elect within the community. Take an unregenerate high priest for example. Every act he does is a sin before God. If God spared the covenant community immediate wrath, it was not because of the high priest"(tm)s request for mercy over the entire covenant community in the offering of the sacrifice. God doesn"(tm)t hear the prayers of the unregenerate. Rather, any mercy shown to the covenant community (which included the reprobate) was because of the faithful obedience of His elect. Mercy shown to the reprobate by God not "œsquashing" him right away was solely because of God"(tm)s patience and His rewarding His elect for their faithful obedience.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:708bab4946]I don"(tm)t believe the sacrifice offered by the high priest in the Old Covenant, in and of itself, did anything for anyone.[/quote:708bab4946]

This would be problematic, since this is the means by which God used for faith in the OT. If it did not benefit the Israelties, God would have to be a liar. We know bull sna goats don't "save" but then, what was their purpose?

[quote:708bab4946]but rather by the faithful obedience of His elect within the community.[/quote:708bab4946]

I would say this is Arminian. God is not pleased with works in this way, nor can works make a safe haven for the reprobate. God's wrath remains on some regardless, or so Ephesians 2 states. I know you are not Arminian, but I would ask you to rethink this. You are making a division between the OT and NT that does not exist (which is part of the answer to this whole problem).

You have to answer why God did not immediately smite the reprobate who were in covenant with Him, and what that covenant entailed.

You will also want to apply the eschatological parables in the NT about what Christ did in "purchasing the whole field" or "dragging the whole lake" etc. How the Messianic atonement has a larger scope, though a limited affect. (That's not Amyraldianism - that is a horse of another color altogether.) How does the covenant community in any age benefit from Christ's death in these respects?


----------



## Monergism

[quote:3fbec95ecf]We know bull sna goats don't "save" but then, what was their purpose?[/quote:3fbec95ecf]

As I said above:
"[i:3fbec95ecf]As I understand it, the sacrifice offered for the entire covenant community (which included reprobates) served only as a picture of the real sacrifice that was needed in the Messiah. [/i:3fbec95ecf]"


[quote:3fbec95ecf]I would say this is Arminian. God is not pleased with works in this way, nor can works make a safe haven for the reprobate.[/quote:3fbec95ecf]

So God's honoring the faithful actions of His elect by showing mercy to the covenant community is Arminian, but God's honoring the sinful sacrifices of the high priest by showing mercy to the covenant community is not? I don't believe what I've said in Arminian at all.


[quote:3fbec95ecf]You are making a division between the OT and NT that does not exist (which is part of the answer to this whole problem).[/quote:3fbec95ecf]

Actually, my challenge to your position was to explain how [i:3fbec95ecf]you[/i:3fbec95ecf] avoid making a division between the OT and NT with respect to the Old and New covenant. I don't believe you've addressed what I've asked.


[quote:3fbec95ecf]You have to answer why God did not immediately smite the reprobate who were in covenant with Him . . .[/quote:3fbec95ecf]

See my previous post.


[quote:3fbec95ecf]. . . and what that covenant entailed.[/quote:3fbec95ecf]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you asking me to explain all the purposes and aspects of the Old Covenant? One, that would be a really long answer, and two, I don't understand how telling you my understanding of the purposes and aspects of the Old Covenant would be relevant to what I've been asking you all along. You still haven't given me [i:3fbec95ecf]your[/i:3fbec95ecf] answer.


[quote:3fbec95ecf]You will also want to apply the eschatological parables in the NT about what Christ did in "purchasing the whole field" or "dragging the whole lake" etc. How the Messianic atonement has a larger scope, though a limited affect. (That's not Amyraldianism - that is a horse of another color altogether.) How does the covenant community in any age benefit from Christ's death in these respects?[/quote:3fbec95ecf]

This sounds like you're taking option 1 above ([i:3fbec95ecf]Christ offered atonement in a non-effectual way for the non-elect in the New Covenant[/i:3fbec95ecf]). If you're not, can you explain why not. This is really the crux of my question. Can you expound on what you're saying here?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

When you say:

"So God's honoring the faithful actions of His elect by showing mercy to the covenant community is Arminian," 

Yes, if it is based on WORKS - this seems to be what you said previously.

"but God's honoring the sinful sacrifices of the high priest by showing mercy to the covenant community is not?"

Correct - since that was the means by which God used in typology to point to Christ. 

Let's not fuss about some of that though....

the following I think is more on the line of the thread...

[quote:0e9706dd12]Christ offered atonement in a non-effectual way for the non-elect in the New Covenant[/quote:0e9706dd12]

This does not make any sense. How can someone not offer anything for someone else but be effectual? That does not follow. The atonement either was savingly effectual or it is not savingly effectual in that sense. We know that it is not savingly effectual for the reprobate. They go to hell, unfortunately. The cross does not save them - it is not effectual for than in that way.

Let's say this in a different way:

The cross does do some other things than simply save - it makes men inexcusable. If the covenant breaker (i.e. one in covenant with God in the CoG) does in fact break covenant with God, then, as Hebrews points out, he does not receive repentance, and then is further damned to a greater degree (Hebrews 6 and 10). The cross is negatively "effectual" (i.e. it makes things worse for the reprobate who are in the covenant but reject Christ ultimately) because of its covenantal nature. If one obeys, or if one does not obey renders ramifications on his relationship covenantally. 

The cross, then, in BOTH the OT and the NT is covenantally effectual in a positive way to save the elect and render blessing, and it is negatively damning upon covenant breakers who break covenant with God after being received into the community of God's people. Curses and blessings come out of the cross. It is NOT solely a positive action, but an eschatological action which has various consequences. Hebrews even says the reprobate may "taste" the heavenly gift but, if they are not regenerated, they reap the consequence of rejection which is the worse for them. That is the judgment of the Lamb. Since he is the covenant head, he is the one who brings both blessings and curses.


----------



## Monergism

[quote:b0a13a84d2="webmaster"]The cross, then, in BOTH the OT and the NT is covenantally effectual in a positive way to save the elect and render blessing, and it is negatively damning upon covenant breakers who break covenant with God after being received into the community of God's people. Curses and blessings come out of the cross.[/quote:b0a13a84d2]

So Christ offered atonement for the elect and the non-elect in the New Covenant, the result being that it was effectual for the non-elect in that they receive curses, as well as effectual for the elect in that they receive blessings?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Brett,

I think its the way you are trying to say it that makes it sound strange:

[quote:c2dfd75a58]So Christ [b:c2dfd75a58]offered atonement [/b:c2dfd75a58]for the elect and the non-elect in the New Covenant, the result being that it was effectual for the non-elect in that they receive curses, as well as effectual for the elect in that they receive blessings?[/quote:c2dfd75a58]

How about:

The New Covenant (with its stipulations for covenanters) encompasses the blessings and cursings of the cross of Christ. Christ made atonement which is effecutally saving for the elect only, and they alone recieve the full import of covenant blessings. As a result of the non-elect's rejection of that saving grace as covenant breakers, they receive the curses of the Lamb.


----------



## Monergism

[quote:253ee5fb7b="webmaster"]I think its the way you are trying to say it that makes it sound strange:[/quote:253ee5fb7b]

I understand why you're not comfortable with using the word "atonement." If you say that Christ made "atonement" for the New Covenant community (which you say includes non-elect), then you're saying that Christ "removed God's wrath" from those individuals. Obviously God's wrath is not "atoned" or "removed" from the non-elect, so that's why you don't accept the way I've worded it. I use the word in my statement because I see Scripture using the word when talking about the high priest's work with respect to the covenant community. 


I understand what you're saying when you talk about the New Covenant curses and blessings, but I respectfully think you are sidestepping my original question. You worded your response so that you avoid asserting that Christ atoned for the non-elect, but that's just the point. By saying that, you're saying that Christ [i:253ee5fb7b]did not[/i:253ee5fb7b] make atonement for the entire New Covenant community, only the elect within the community. Your answer then to my original question is:

(2) There is discontinuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant in that, in the Old Covenant, the high priest offered atonement for [i:253ee5fb7b]every[/i:253ee5fb7b] member of the covenant, but in the New Covenant, the high priest only offers atonement for [i:253ee5fb7b]some[/i:253ee5fb7b] members of the covenant.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:b3f7d4916a]There is discontinuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant in that, in the Old Covenant, the high priest offered atonement for every member of the covenant, but in the New Covenant, the high priest only offers atonement for some members of the covenant.[/quote:b3f7d4916a]

Brett,

No, I am not sidestepping the question at all. We are walking by steps.

The OT atonement was ONLY FOR THE ELECT and the NT atonement is ONLY FOR THE ELECT in the SAME WAY - since BOTH are founded upon the atoning work of Jesus Christ. So to use the idea of discontinuity in the OT as DIFFERENT from the NT is to create a dispensational model that does not exist. Atonement is founded by faith on the Messiah in ALL ages.

Covenant involves the community. That's every professor and their family. Atonement involves the community seen as blessing, but effecutal ONLY for the elect in that community. As a result of the non-elects non-participation in that atonement, even in the OT, they are further cursed as covenant breakers who reject the satisfaction of that atonement for them, though, as Hebrews says, they may partake of the outward blessings of that atonement (cf Hebrew 6:1-6). In that sense, and that sense alone they are part of the covenant community, not part of the atoning work.

There is no sidestepping here. This is a fundamental flaw in dispensational theology to equate the "atonement" with "covenant." These are two different ideas which work together, but in different ways.

You HAVE to make distinctions:

[quote:b3f7d4916a]in the Old Covenant, the high priest offered atonement for every member of the covenant, [/quote:b3f7d4916a]

Distinctions like: does that mean everyone was saved? No. Does that mean all were atoned for? No. Are we atalking about salvation? Are we talking about outward blessing? Is Korah, Dathan, and Achan atoned for just like Moses, Aaron and Joshua? No.

You are making blanket statements where divisions and distinctions necessarily exist, or, you wind up with a twisted form of universalism (or Amyraldianism).

[quote:b3f7d4916a]but in the New Covenant, the high priest only offers atonement for some members of the covenant.[/quote:b3f7d4916a]

No, the New Covenant works in the same way with the covenant community that the church has had in EVERY age of the progression of the Covenant of grace. That included Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and us. Every age of the church has a covenant community. Every age of the church has elect and non-elect in that covenant. Every age has saved covenant members and lost covenant members.

To say, then, at any point, that GOD HONORS the actions of the priest is to misplace your OT theology. God honors His Son and Him alone in terms of works and sacrifice. The atonement made int eh OT prefigured that atonement and pointed Moses, Joshua, Aaron, etc. to have faith in the Messiah to come. ONLY those who are regenerate would benefit savingly, in ANY way, to the OT prefigured sacriofices - and int he NT this is the SAME, but we look back tot he Messiah's sacrifice which alreaedy is accomplished in time, not that which is to come.

Does this make sense?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:c7f27c88ae="webmaster"][quote:c7f27c88ae]There is discontinuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant in that, in the Old Covenant, the high priest offered atonement for every member of the covenant, but in the New Covenant, the high priest only offers atonement for some members of the covenant.[/quote:c7f27c88ae]

Brett,

No, I am not sidestepping the question at all. We are walking by steps.

The OT atonement was ONLY FOR THE ELECT and the NT atonement is ONLY FOR THE ELECT in the SAME WAY - since BOTH are founded upon the atoning work of Jesus Christ. So to use the idea of discontinuity in the OT as DIFFERENT from the NT is to create a dispensational model that does not exist. Atonement is founded by faith on the Messiah in ALL ages.

Covenant involves the community. That's every professor and their family. Atonement involves the community seen as blessing, but effecutal ONLY for the elect in that community. As a result of the non-elects non-participation in that atonement, even in the OT, they are further cursed as covenant breakers who reject the satisfaction of that atonement made in front of their very eyes day by day with animals, though, as Hebrews says, they may partake of the outward blessings of that atonement (cf Hebrew 6:1-6). In that sense, and that sense alone they are part of the covenant community, not part of the atoning work.

There is no sidestepping here. This is a fundamental flaw in dispensational theology to equate the "atonement" with "covenant." These are two different ideas which work together, but in different ways.

You HAVE to make distinctions:

[quote:c7f27c88ae]in the Old Covenant, the high priest offered atonement for every member of the covenant, [/quote:c7f27c88ae]

Distinctions like: does that mean everyone was saved? No. Does that mean all were atoned for? No. Are we atalking about salvation? Are we talking about outward blessing? Is Korah, Dathan, and Achan atoned for just like Moses, Aaron and Joshua? No.

You are making blanket statements where divisions and distinctions necessarily exist, or, you wind up with a twisted form of universalism (or Amyraldianism).

[quote:c7f27c88ae]but in the New Covenant, the high priest only offers atonement for some members of the covenant.[/quote:c7f27c88ae]

No, the New Covenant works in the same way with the covenant community that the church has had in EVERY age of the progression of the Covenant of grace. That included Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and us. Every age of the church has a covenant community. Every age of the church has elect and non-elect in that covenant. Every age has saved covenant members and lost covenant members.

To say, then, at any point, that GOD HONORS the actions of the priest is to misplace your OT theology. God honors His Son and Him alone in terms of works and sacrifice. The atonement made int eh OT prefigured that atonement and pointed Moses, Joshua, Aaron, etc. to have faith in the Messiah to come. ONLY those who are regenerate would benefit savingly, in ANY way, to the OT prefigured sacriofices - and in the NT this is the SAME, but we look back tot he Messiah's sacrifice which alreaedy is accomplished in time, not that which is to come.

You are STILL THINKING "BAPTISTICALLY" - the Covenant of Grace is NOT co-exstensive with salvation as if they both represent the exact same thing. THat is why this is fundamentally different to your thinking. If you would make salvation coexstensive with the CoR (where it belongs in God's decrees and predestiantion) this would make more sense to you, and you would understand why I said what I did above int he way I did.

Does this make sense?[/quote:c7f27c88ae]


----------



## Monergism

[quote:c4d07a0770]The OT atonement was ONLY FOR THE ELECT and the NT atonement is ONLY FOR THE ELECT in the SAME WAY [/quote:c4d07a0770]

If by this you are referring to the atonement offered by Christ, then I agree. His atonement was offered for the elect only, even the elect from the Old Covenant. However, if by this you are referring to the atonement offered by the high priest in the Old Covenant, I disagree. The high priest in the Old Covenant offered atonement for the entire covenant community, not just the elect. I don"(tm)t see how this in any way leads to universalism (or Amyraldianism). As I"(tm)ve said, the atonement offered by the high priest in the Old Covenant was in no way salvific. It served only as a copy of Christ"(tm)s work and His atonement.

[quote:c4d07a0770]since BOTH are founded upon the atoning work of Jesus Christ.[/quote:c4d07a0770]

How can the atonement in the New Covenant be founded upon the atoning work of Jesus Christ? The atonement in the New Covenant is the atoning work of Christ, for it is Christ who offers the atonement for the New Covenant?

[quote:c4d07a0770]You HAVE to make distinctions [/quote:c4d07a0770]

I have clearly distinguished between the nature of the atonement of the Old Covenant high priest and the atonement of Christ. But, you have asked for some further clarification:

[quote:c4d07a0770] [quote:c4d07a0770]in the Old Covenant, the high priest offered atonement for every member of the covenant, [/quote:c4d07a0770]

Distinctions like: does that mean everyone was saved? No. Does that mean all were atoned for? No. Are we atalking about salvation? Are we talking about outward blessing? Is Korah, Dathan, and Achan atoned for just like Moses, Aaron and Joshua? No.[/quote:c4d07a0770]

(1) Does that mean that everyone was saved? [i:c4d07a0770]Again, the atonement offered by the high priest in the Old Covenant didn"(tm)t save [b:c4d07a0770]anyone[/b:c4d07a0770]. I was never intended to save anyone. So not only is the answer no, but the basis for the answer is that, although offered for everyone, it did not save anyone, for it pictured the atonement that would be offered by Christ for his elect.[/i:c4d07a0770]

(2) Does that mean all were atoned for? [i:c4d07a0770]Yes, everyone in the old covenant community was atoned for; not by the atonement of Christ, but by the atonement offered by the high priest of the Old Covenant, which again was in no way salvific.[/i:c4d07a0770]

(3) Are we atalking about salvation? [i:c4d07a0770]This has already been answered.[/i:c4d07a0770]

(4) Are we talking about outward blessing? Is Korah, Dathan, and Achan atoned for just like Moses, Aaron and Joshua? [i:c4d07a0770]Everytime the community was spared distruction, the non-elect as well as the elect experienced an "œoutward blessing." With respect to the atonement however, in and of itself, the atonement offered was not responsible for God"(tm)s blessing the covenant community in this way. The rest of this question I think is answered in (2).[/i:c4d07a0770]


I am still thinking "œbaptistically" because as a Baptist I don"(tm)t have the problem. I affirm that the New Covenant consists of the regenerate only, and hence, the atonement offered by Christ for the New Covenant community can be for everyone in the community.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Bump. 

CT


----------



## Monergism

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Brett,
> 
> Why does Hebrews 10, then, say that covenant people will go to hell? This is the passage you're using to argue for only regenerate members in the covenant. But this same passage goes on to tell us that there will be covenant members in hell.




Paul, I obviously don´t believe that Hebrews 10 says that. First, I do not believe in Hebrews 10:29 that the apostate was ever a member of the New Covenant. Owen argues that the "œhe" who was sanctified refers to Christ. Others have argued that this refers to the apostate taking communion. I´ll be upfront with you and admit that I find this passage difficult to interpret. Hence, I interpret it _in light of clearer teachings_ about the nature of the New Covenant members. This brings us back to the initial question I´ve been asking all along.

Secondly, I don´t believe that Hebrews 10:30 speaks of God sending any of His New Covenant people to hell by His "œjudgment." I believe the author of Hebrews keeps the context of the passage he quotes in Deu. 32:36 which speaks of God protecting and vindicating His covenant people, having compassion on his servants. God, then, is _vindicating_ His people in Heb. 10:30 as He is in Deu. 32:36. That is, even though apostates will be amongst the members of the New Covenant (indeed, local churches do have non-elect members), God will repay them, taking vengeance upon them, thus vindicating His covenant people. I´d be glad to exegete this passage more fully with you if you would like.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> So, how would you reconcile this within your schema?



I never reconcile friends




> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> That is, according to *your* argument you say that Christ applies salvific benefits to all the covenant members, but then we read that covenant members will go to hell, thus in your scheme you would have people that have been "atoned for" (your language) going to hell. How could this be?



You´re begging the question at this point. You obviously interpret Hebrews 10:29-30 to mean that the apostate is a member of the New Covenant. This assumes what you need to prove, namely, that Christ doesn´t provide an offering for _all_ the people of His covenant. Could you first, then, answer my initial question and reconcile this within _your_ schema?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> I am still thinking "œbaptistically" because as a Baptist I don't have the problem. I affirm that the New Covenant consists of the regenerate only, and hence, the atonement offered by Christ for the New Covenant community can be for everyone in the community.



There is no text of Scripture, anywhere, that states the NC is solely made up of the elect.


----------



## Monergism

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> 
> I am still thinking "œbaptistically" because as a Baptist I don't have the problem. I affirm that the New Covenant consists of the regenerate only, and hence, the atonement offered by Christ for the New Covenant community can be for everyone in the community.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no text of Scripture, anywhere, that states the NC is solely made up of the elect.
Click to expand...


Which text in Scripture states that children are members of the NC? 

How does this in anyway deal with my argument?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Brett,
Children were always included. God included them previously did he not? Why do you change God when he changeth not?


----------



## Monergism

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Brett,
> Children were always included. God included them previously did he not? Why do you change God when he changeth not?



Scott,
Children were included in the _Old_ Covenant. Is this the case in the New? This is the question isn't it? I'm not changing God by pointing out discontinuities between the Old and New. The fact is, there are both continuities and discontinuities. The question is, where? 

Have you read my initial argument?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Thank you Paul.....


----------



## Ex Nihilo

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> "¢ Acts 3:25 "It is you who are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'AND IN YOUR SEED *ALL THE FAMILIES * OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.'



I can't believe I haven't noticed this before... This really cuts to the heart of the matter: "you are sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers"... doesn't this make it terribly difficult to claim that the "New Covenant" is something basically new when Peter here claims "you are sons of the covenant which God made with your fathers"... that is, you are still connected to the old covenant, and the "new covenant" is a continuation and fulfilment of the old, not a replacement? I know all paedos believe this, of course, but I just hadn't noticed this specific connection before.

And then the part about "families" in the rest of the verse just confirms that the promises to children continue, which is obviously what you were getting at.

[Edited on 7-1-2005 by Ex Nihilo]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Monergism_
> Scott,
> Children were included in the _Old_ Covenant. Is this the case in the New? This is the question isn't it? I'm not changing God by pointing out discontinuities between the Old and New. The fact is, there are both continuities and discontinuities. The question is, where?
> 
> Have you read my initial argument?



The Old Covenant is a form of the Covenant of Grace, which is promised to believers and their children. It's the same language Peter uses at Pentecost when preaching the gospel for the first time. Same covenant, different form or expression.


----------



## Monergism

Hey Paul,

It's been a while since I've had the time to make this post, but I finally had time this past weekend to type out my thoughts on Heb 10. This is what I think is going on in Heb. 10:26-31. First, let me pick up where we left off, then go from there:



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> the *whole context* of the word "judge" in Hebrews 10:27-30 is a "firery judgment that consumes the enemies of God." The whole passage is speaking of X who are going to be judged by P. Now, in V.30 you have arbitrarily said, in effect, "well this time it isn't talking about what the WHOLE passage has been building up to." What you have to do is to show that the whole chain of thought (i.e., judging X with P) changes at V. 30. *This is far from clear.*



This, Lord willing, will help clear things up (or at least give you an idea where I'm comming from on this passage):



> *Hebrews 10:26-31 (NASB) *
> 26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. 28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.




*Context:*

Chapter ten of Hebrews begins by explaining the inability of the sacrificial system under the Law to perfect those who draw near (v. 1). This is evidenced by the repetition of the sacrifices themselves. Had they been effectual to cleanse the recipient of sins, what need would there be for continual sacrifices year by year (v. 2)? Indeed, the sacrifices offered under the Law were not effectual to take away the sins of those for whom they were offered (v. 3-4). They were never intended to do so, otherwise they would not have served as a reminder of sin! They served only as a shadow, a model of what the true, effectual, once for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ would look like. For the remission of sins, the sacrifices offered according to the Law were insufficient. The Father’s wrath for sin cannot be satisfied by the death of mere animals. Rather, the seriousness of God’s hatred for sin is evidenced in the fact that remission of sins requires the death of His one and only Son. Hence, the Father sent His divine Son into the world to take on human flesh and become the only sacrifice suitable to fully and completely satisfy His wrath (v. 5-6). The sinless, unblemished Messiah, then, willingly comes to perfectly obey the will of the Father, to make atonement for the sins of His people. Hence, the former shadows are taken away as that which they pointed to has come (v. 7-9). The Father’s will, unfulfilled in the bodies continually offered according to the Law, is now fulfilled by the once and for all time offering of the body of Christ (v. 10). By it we are not potentially sanctified, but we “have been sanctified.” God’s sovereign will and its carrying out by Christ is the sole basis and cause of man’s salvation.

After contrasting the sacrifices from the Old and the New, the writer then goes on to contrast the work of the high priest from the Old and the New. Instead of repeatedly making countless offerings “time after time,” that never take away sins (v. 11); Christ makes one offering, once for all time (v. 12). Christ’s work as high priest is immeasurably superior to the high priests of the Old Covenant. Whereas they stand, never able to finish their work, Christ sits down at the right hand of God, having made complete and full satisfaction for God’s wrath. Nothing more is to be done. Nothing is left lacking. As He says in John 19:30, “It is finished.” He now waits until all of His enemies are subdued under Him (v. 13).

The intention of Christ’s offering (himself, Heb 7:27) was that sins be taken away. When He brings His offering before the Father, He does not request the possibility of full forgiveness; rather, He requests the full and complete substitutionary atonement of those for whom He intercedes. When Christ brings His offering before the Father, it is accepted. The singular offering of Christ _perfects_ those who are sanctified by it (v. 14). It is by God’s will that they be sanctified, and it is by the high priestly work of Christ that this is carried out. Those for whom Christ makes His offering are necessarily perfected by it, for Christ is a perfect high priest, a perfect offering, a perfect savior.

Immediately following the exaltation of Christ’s high priestly work in perfecting those for whom he atones, the author then goes on to cite Jeremiah 31 (v. 15-17). The author’s special attention in this quote is on the “forgiveness” found under the New Covenant (v. 18). Christ, as high priest of the New Covenant, provides an effectual offering for the people of His covenant, bringing about full forgiveness of their sins. Every member, then, of the New Covenant has a perfect high priest in Christ, has a perfect offering in Christ, and as a result has full pardon for their iniquities in Christ. 

Based upon this glorious good news, the author encourages his readers that they have confidence, by the blood of Jesus, to come before the throne of grace (v. 19). The veil blocking of the holy of holies has been removed. It was in Christ’s veil (his flesh) that He has inaugurated this new and living way in which we come before God. Because of His effectual work as their high priest, they can now enter the holy place, for there no longer remains any sin or impurity forbidding they come into the presence of the Holy One Himself (v. 21-22). 

The author then continues with an exhortation to his readers to hold fast their confession of Christ as their high priest and rest on the faithfulness of God to keep His promises (v. 23). In addition, they ought to encourage and exhort one another, and not abandon their regular assembling together as some do (v. 24-25). Not all will hold fast to their confession, and some will indeed go out from them (demonstrating that they were never truly of them, 1 John 2:19). Since they cannot know infallibly who will ultimately persevere and who will not, they must take special care to continually exhort each other so that none drift away into apostasy (Heb. 2:1). Indeed, some are already beginning to abandon the church. It is this sobering fact that leads the author to warn his readers by elaborating on the seriousness of apostasy.

When approaching the warning passage, then, we need to keep in mind the context. The author has just spoken of the glory of Christ’s priesthood and the perfection of His sacrifice for His people. The members of the New Covenant have full and complete pardon for their sins, they are absolutely pure and clean from all iniquity, and they have confidence to come before the throne of grace with full assurance that God is faithful to keep His promises. We must not understand the warning passage in such a way that this truth is lost. New Covenant members are secured by the perfect work of their high priest and savior Jesus Christ. This, then, is the context as we encounter the warning.








> *26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,*




The author begins v. 26 with “For” as he begins to explain why we ought to hold fast our confessions and encourage one another (v. 23-25). The author is going to warn his readers by describing in grave detail the position the apostate finds himself in as a result of his apostasy. First of all, the warning begins with “we.” This is the same we that have already been described earlier as having Christ as their high priest, having His atonement, having confidence, and so forth. The author is not assuming that every single recipient of his letter is regenerate; rather, in a very general way, he generously refers to his audience as believers. He is taking them at their profession (Heb. 3:1). Furthermore, he has already made it clear that it is only those who persevere that were truly partakers of Christ to begin with. As he says in Heb 3:14, _“we have become_ partakers in Christ if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end.” Christ is the high priest over the house of God (Heb. 10:21), and it is only those who persevere, the elect, that are of the house of God (Heb. 3:14). It is those who do not hold true to their profession that this text is addressing. Not those that have Christ as their high priest, but those who falsely professed Christ as their high priest.

Given this distinction, we learn something about the false professors from this passage. The author stresses that those who do apostatize have in fact received “the knowledge of the truth.” This is key to understanding the passage. By being in fellowship with the local body, the apostate has sat under the proclamation and teaching of the Gospel. He has been exposed to the overwhelming revelation of God’s truth (Heb. 6:4-5), and hence is in a totally different category from those who have not had this privilege. Judgment is much worse for those who have been exposed to the Gospel and yet still reject it than for those who have no heard at all (Matthew 11:21-24). The apostate’s knowledge, then, has placed him in a much worse state of judgment.

Furthermore, the apostate is said to be caught up in continual and willful sin. This is not an individual who has a continual struggle with sin which he is at war with. Indeed, the person here is not being brought to repentance; otherwise they would have a sacrifice for their sins. As it is, they have abandoned the One who alone can save them by continually and willfully sinning against Him. Hence, there is nothing else for them to turn to. No sacrifice for sins remains, only judgment.



> *27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. *




The apostate has no hope in Christ as his judgment bearer; rather, he is left with a “terrifying expectation of judgment.” The author develops this point by loosely citing from Isaiah 26:11:




> O LORD, Your hand is lifted up yet they do not see it. They see Your zeal for the people and are put to shame; Indeed, fire will devour Your enemies.



The LXX however renders this passage as follows:



> O Lord, thine arm is exalted, yet they knew it not: but when they know they shall be ashamed: a zeal shall seize upon an untaught people, and now fire shall devour the adversaries.



The question remains. In the context of Isaiah 26:11, who are the people? Who are the adversaries? The NASB attributes the zeal to God for His covenant people, shaming those opposed to his people. The KJV attributes the zeal (or jealousy) to those opposed to the covenant people, resulting in their shame. In both translations, however, _it is not God’s covenant people who are put to shame_. The LXX agrees at this point. However, the LXX translators have rendered this text such that God’s “zeal” (akin to Zeph. 1:18) is what seizes the “untaught people.” It could almost be read in such a way that the “untaught people” and the “adversaries” are one and the same (however, neither of which are God’s covenant people). The Masoretic text does not refer to the people as “untaught,” but rather makes clear that they are in fact God’s covenant people (i.e. not the recipients of the devouring fire). Hebrews 10:27 does not cite word for word either the MT or the LXX. The word translated fury (zelos) is the same word translated zeal in Isaiah 26:11. It is here in apposition to fire, both coming from God to consume the adversaries, literally those directly opposite or opposed to. The key point to take away from this text is that the fire, the judgment, is not coming upon God’s covenant people, but rather upon those opposed to God’s people, and hence God himself. Therefore, the judgment is indeed a fiery judgment, but the focus is on the destruction of the adversary, not on the covenant people. The same concept of God vindicating His covenant people while punishing those opposed to them will show up again in v. 30.



> *28 Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? *




The author now makes a contrast from the lesser to the greater by comparing the nature of judgment under the Old Covenant to the nature of judgment in the New Covenant. Some have suggested that this is set up to contrast the severe judgment of old covenant breakers with the much severer punishment of new covenant breakers. I don’t believe the text calls for such an interpretation.

Keeping with the context, the focus has been on the knowledge of the apostate. We should look, then, at v. 28-29 as to a contrast of the lesser revelation in the Old Testament to the greater revelation in the New. There is no question that individuals in the midst of God’s New Covenant people receive a much greater and clearer testimony of God’s truth than those if the midst of the Old. In fact, this concept begins the letter:



> God, after He spoke long ago _[OC]_ to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days _[NC]_ has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. (Heb. 1:1-2)



As has already been mentioned, the degree of punishment for an unbeliever varies depending on the amount of evidence damning him. If you set aside the Old Covenant Law, you died “without mercy” given the testimony of just two or three witnesses. How much more convicting is the evidence for setting aside Christ himself, Moses’ superior! A similar passage in Hebrews 6 makes the same point:



> For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. (Heb. 6:4-6)



Again, the apostate has been _enlightened_, has experienced God’s power and the work of the Holy Spirit, has received God’s word, and so forth, yet in the face of such overwhelming evidence, continues to reject it. Their rejection of this revelation is equivalent to rejecting the Son of God himself.

Despite the fact that the parallel involves a member of the Old Covenant, the contrast is not lost by not contrasting him with a _member_ of the New. The contrast is simply of how much more severe an individual’s punishment is with greater evidence. This is exactly the contrast made in Hebrews chapter two:



> For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it. For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will. (Heb. 2:1-4)



If God’s revelation under the Old Covenant was enough to bring about a just penalty for “every transgression and disobedience,” then how much more will this be the case in the New! Again, the contrast here is between the mode and amount of revelation provided in the Old as opposed to the New. This is the same contrast given in Hebrews 10:28-29. The amount of evidence is far more damning to the apostate among the New Covenant community that for the apostate of the Old Covenant community.

What, then, shall we say for the statement, “and has regarded as unclean _the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified_?” Does this in some way tell us that the apostate was a member of the New Covenant? I don’t believe it does for several reasons. First, there is nothing thus far in the context that even begins to speak of the apostate as a member of God’s New Covenant people. He is and will continue to be the one opposed to them. Secondly, there is some dispute on how we ought to understand the “he” that was sanctified. Even some paedobaptists suggest that this refers to Christ Himself who sanctified Himself by His own blood (John 17:19). Third, some, again, even among paedobaptists, suggests that this is simply an example of false profession, not covenant breaking. Perhaps this individual was set apart in the sense that he too,kthe Lord’s supper based upon a false profession. Finally, given the difficulty of interpreting this passage amongst paedobapitsts and Baptists alike, we ought not interpret it so as to contradict what has already been said about the nature of New Covenant membership. Our hermeneutic ought to lead us to interpret the unclear in light of the clear.



> *30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.*




To continue with his point, the author now quotes from the song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32:



> ‘Vengeance is Mine, and retribution, In due time their foot will slip; For the day of their calamity is near, And the impending things are hastening upon them.' "For the LORD will vindicate His people, And will have compassion on His servants, When He sees that their strength is gone, And there is none remaining, bond or free. (Deu. 32:35-36)



The context here in Deuteronomy 32 is of God punishing His people by provoking them to anger “with a foolish nation” (Deu. 32:21). As the nation (referred to in this context as the adversaries) begins to boast and to mock the God of Israel for not protecting His people, God then ends the chastising of His people and turns his wrath to the foolish nation. It is the foolish nation in v. 35 that is the object of God’s statements, “vengeance is mine, I will repay,” not the covenant people! Indeed, in v. 36, after God promises to pour out retribution on this nation, He then promises to “vindicate His people.” The LXX of Deu. 32.36 uses the same Greek word translated vindication as is used in Heb. 10:30 translated judge. The word can be used as either in terms of God judging in favor of you (vindication) or God judging against you. The context of Deu. 32 clearly indicates that the word is used in terms of vindication, God protecting and “having compassion on his servants.” There is no reason to remove this statement from its original context and completely reverse the meaning in Heb 10:30 to make it mean a fiery judgment. Despite the fact that the same word is also used in Heb. 10:27 to refer a fiery judgment, this is not the context in which it is being used here in v. 30. Again, the word can be translated either way, context will decide. This verse speaks God vindicating His covenant people and having compassion on them. Nothing in the context would demand us to understand it any other way. The sole recipients of God’s indignation throughout the entire passage have always been the apostates, never the covenant people. 

When we read Heb 10:30, then, there is no reason to understand the “people” as anyone other than God’s New Covenant people. There is no reason to, as most Baptists commentators do, understand the “people” as simply the “congregation.” This destroys the author’s argument. He has already established that God’s New Covenant people will not come under His wrath, for Christ fully satisfied that wrath in their behalf as their covenant high priest and offering. If you are a member of God’s New Covenant people, then, you are a recipient of God’s compassion. If you are opposed to them, you have no high priest, you have no atonement, and you have only a “terrifying expectation of judgment.” It is indeed a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God for such an individual.

In summary, the basic points of the passage are as follows. First, God’s New Covenant people have a perfect high priest in Jesus Christ who has removed all judgment from His New Covenant people. Second, if you are among these covenant people and receive the same knowledge they have, yet you do not hold fast to your confession as they do, then you prove yourself to be opposed to this covenant people and hence their covenant God as well. Third, there is a wealth of evidence damning you if you continue to reject the overwhelming revelation of God's truth given to these people. Finally, God will pour out His wrath in a terrifying judgment on all who reject this evidence and stand opposed to Him and His covenant people. The point, then, is to hold fast your confession and make sure you are truly of God’s New Covenant people.

Hebrews 10:26-31 is often used as a key text in establishing a heterogeneous New Covenant people. To do so confuses the context of v. 26-31 with that of v. 15-18. The author has already defined the nature of New Covenant membership, and he has moved on! He now deals with exhortation and warning. We have seen the great salvation awarded to the people of the New Covenant by their effectual high priest. We have seen that God protests and vindicates His New Covenant people from any future judgment, for Christ himself bore that judgment as their sin offering. We also see that if you are not of God’s New Covenant people, you have nothing to look forward to but a terrifying expectation of this judgment. Hence, you had better persevere and hold fast to your confession, thus proving to be a New Covenant member.


----------



## Monergism

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> why so long



Thorough Paul, thorough


----------



## Scott Bushey

Brett,
Much better. The Tom Cruise thing was too dated. What are you smoking?


----------



## Monergism

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Brett,
> Much better. The Tom Cruise thing was too dated. What are you smoking?



I don't recall what brand, only that I had some trouble getting it lit


----------



## Monergism

*bump*


----------



## BJClark

*Infant Baptism -- Baby Dedication*

Maybe I'm missing something here, but what is the difference between Infant Baptism and Baby Dedications? I mean other than the use of water and the terminlogy?

To me, it appears they are the exact same thing.

Parents going before God and the Community of Believers making a Covenant Promise to raise their Children up in a Christian Home, and to teach them about Salvation through Christ. Trusting God to Sanctify them "setting them apart" for God's Service.

Having been a member of both the SB Church and the Presyb. Church it seems they are both doing the same thing--except one uses water, and one doesn't.

I've not heard my pastor ever say that "infant baptism" has anything to do with a Child's salvation at that point, but only they are being set apart for God's service. and that when they are older they have to come to their own relationship with Christ, and thus choosing to Serve Him or Not. within that relationship.

So can any of you help me to understand what the 'real' difference is, other than water being used and the terminlogy?

[Edited on 9-8-2005 by BJClark]


----------



## Augusta

The water is a means of grace. A God ordained means of grace. It is efficacious by God's will not mans. We don't know who the elect are. We obey his command to give the sign to all in the covenant knowing that He knows who are his sheep and we will not until glory. 

[Edited on 9-8-2005 by Augusta]


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by BJClark_
> Maybe I'm missing something here, but what is the difference between Infant Baptism and Baby Dedications? I mean other than the use of water and the terminlogy?
> 
> To me, it appears they are the exact same thing.



First of all, there is no command from God to do either of these things and many Reformed Baptists do not practise dedications. However, there is a considerable difference between dedication and baptism. The dedication of a baby makes no assumption of the child's position before God other than that it is a sinner in need of salvation. The parents bring the baby before the Lord to ask His blessing on it and the congregation promises to support the parents in bringing up the child in a Christian manner.

Baptism at its simplest is supposed to bring the child into covenant with God, though there is no text that indicates that this is so. However some paedo-baptists presume either the election or regeneration of the infants of believers.

One practical problem with baptizing infants is that if and when they eventually come to faith, they see the command of the Lord to 'Repent and be baptized' and they must disobey either their church and parents or their Lord. I also know first-hand the terrible danger of presuming anything about one's children save that they are dead in trespasses and sins and that they are in need of a Saviour.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Baptism at its simplest is supposed to bring the child into covenant with God, though there is no text that indicates that this is so.



Wrong. 

In the OT, flesh-circumcision was the sign, and heart-circumcision was the thing signified.

In the NT, water-baptism is the sign, and Spirit-baptism is the thing signified.

Check Galatians 3:27, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 1:13, etc. --- If Spirit baptism brings people in the invisible church, then water baptism brings them into the visible church. If the Spirit is the seal of the invisible membership in the covenant, then the water is the seal of the outward membership in the covenant.

Colossians 2:11-12 is important here too. Just as heart circumcision is analgous to Spirit baptism, so is flesh circumcision analgous to water baptism. 



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> However some paedo-baptists presume either the election or regeneration of the infants of believers.



Jesus said the kingdom of God belongs to infants who are covenant members (cf. Luke 18:15-16).



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> One practical problem with baptizing infants is that if and when they eventually come to faith, they see the command of the Lord to 'Repent and be baptized' and they must disobey either their church and parents or their Lord.



One practical problem with not baptizing infants is that they are raised to doubt, and are raised to believe a lie: that they are not covenant members with God. All covenant members are supposed to be baptized, so you force your children to be disobedient to God (by not being baptized) until they finally choose to get baptized on their own. 

God tells adults that they have to be like little children to enter the kingdom of Heaven. But you turn Luke 18:17 on its head, and suggest that a child has to become more like an adult before he/she can be saved. 



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> I also know first-hand the terrible danger of presuming anything about one's children save that they are dead in trespasses and sins and that they are in need of a Saviour.



Again, Jesus Himself said that the kingdom of heaven belongs to covenant infants. But if you want to directly contradict Him, that is up to you.


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Baptism at its simplest is supposed to bring the child into covenant with God, though there is no text that indicates that this is so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> In the OT, flesh-circumcision was the sign, and heart-circumcision was the thing signified.
> 
> In the NT, water-baptism is the sign, and Spirit-baptism is the thing signified.
> 
> Check Galatians 3:27, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 1:13, etc. --- If Spirit baptism brings people in the invisible church, then water baptism brings them into the visible church. If the Spirit is the seal of the invisible membership in the covenant, then the water is the seal of the outward membership in the covenant.
Click to expand...


With respect, you have not produced any text that shows that infants are brought into the New Covenant by baptism. That is because there is no such text. You have also quoted various texts out of context. Gal 2:26-27. *'For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.'* It is by faith that one comes into the Church of Christ. Baptism is the outward sign of something that has already happened inwardly- the sign that one has already trusted in Christ for salvation and is therefore admitted into church fellowship. 1Cor 12:13 and Eph 1:13 also speak of faith as that which brings us into the covenant. I reject the concept of a 'visible' and 'invisible' church. It is deeply unhelpful. We are to strive for a pure church (2Cor 11:2 ) and while we may not achieve it, we should bring into the Church only those who make a credible confession of faith.

What did circumcision signify? Well, to Abraham it was *'The seal of the righteousness of faith which he had while still uncircumcised.'* However, it cannot have meant that to the male infants who were circumcised at eight days old. It was a sign of the promise made to Abraham of the Seed who should come (Gal 3:16 ). Abraham is the father of all who believe, not of all who are circumcised (John 8:39, 44 ), nor therefore of those who are baptized without faith.


> Colossians 2:11-12 is important here too. Just as heart circumcision is analgous to Spirit baptism, so is flesh circumcision analgous to water baptism.


That is not what the text says. It says that those who are Christ's have the true circumcision, which is not of the flesh but of the heart. Again, v12 shows us that baptism without faith is meaningless.


> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> However some paedo-baptists presume either the election or regeneration of the infants of believers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said the kingdom of God belongs to infants who are covenant members (cf. Luke 18:15-16).
Click to expand...

You omit v17 here, which is the clue to the proper interpretation of the text. It is those who come to the Lord with child-like faith, setting aside their human wisdom and worldly philosophies who enter the kingdom. Jesus certainly blessed the little children; what He did *not* do was baptize them.



> One practical problem with not baptizing infants is that they are raised to doubt, and are raised to believe a lie: that they are not covenant members with God. All covenant members are supposed to be baptized, so you force your children to be disobedient to God (by not being baptized) until they finally choose to get baptized on their own.
> 
> God tells adults that they have to be like little children to enter the kingdom of Heaven. But you turn Luke 18:17 on its head, and suggest that a child has to become more like an adult before he/she can be saved.



See above for Luke 18:17. Infants do not become covenant members by having water splashed on them. They become members as and when they become regenerate and put their trust in Christ (John 6:45; Heb 8:11). God may have another plan for imbeciles and those who die in infancy (Gen 18:25b), but for the rest of us: *'That which is born of the flesh is flesh'*. By nature, we are all children of wrath, and unless we are born again by the Spirit of God, we shall not so much as see the Kingdom of God, much less enter it.

I do not want to give the impression that I am necessarily pessimistic about the prospects for the children of believers. Not at all! My position would be, _Presumptive depravity; hopeful salvation_. It is a huge privilege to be raised in a Christian home, to be brought to church as a child, to have the Scriptures taught to you and to have an example of godly living. However, as I have said elsewhere, the most important thing that we can do for our children is to pray for them, earnestly and fervently: *'We gave them life in the flesh; You, Father, must give them life in the Spirit!'* Like Scott, I have adult children who are unregenerate (though paradoxically, I had them baptized as infants in my foolishness). I certainly do not lose hope for them. *'The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man* (that is, one whom God has declared righteous) *avails much.'* (James 5:16 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> What did circumcision signify? Well, to Abraham it was *'The seal of the righteousness of faith which he had while still uncircumcised.'* However, it cannot have meant that to the male infants who were circumcised at eight days old.



Martin, if this is the way you are going to deal with the texts, then I don't know if a fruitful discussion with you is going to be possible. You admit what Romans 4:11 says about circumcision, but since you just can't handle the fact that every OT circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, you unilaterally decide that it must only mean that for Abraham, and not for anyone else circumcised. You have created a double-standard which Scripture does not create, just so you can force Romans 4:11 to somehow fit into your credobaptistic worldview. The Bible never says that physical circumcision had one significance for some Israelites, and other significances for others. The whole point of circumcision was UNITY of sign; but you destroy this fact by suggesting that Abe's circumcision had an entirely different meaning that Ishmael's and Isaac's circumcisions. You are turning the text on its head, and adding unbiblical notions to it, just so you can grasp at the straws of your credobaptistic ideas.

One thing is encouraging to me, though. You obviously recognize how damaging Romans 4:11 is to your position, if just taken at face value. That, at least, is a step in the right direction.

". . . the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith . . ."


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> With respect, you have not produced any text that shows that infants are brought into the New Covenant by baptism.



Actually, the water baptism itself is not what brings them into covenant with God. Rather, children are automatically born covenant members (cf. Gen. 17:14), and the covenant sign is applied to them _because_ they are _already_ covenant members.


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> What did circumcision signify? Well, to Abraham it was *'The seal of the righteousness of faith which he had while still uncircumcised.'* However, it cannot have meant that to the male infants who were circumcised at eight days old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin, if this is the way you are going to deal with the texts, then I don't know if a fruitful discussion with you is going to be possible. You admit what Romans 4:11 says about circumcision, but since you just can't handle the fact that every OT circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, you unilaterally decide that it must only mean that for Abraham, and not for anyone else circumcised. You have created a double-standard which Scripture does not create, just so you can force Romans 4:11 to somehow fit into your credobaptistic worldview. The Bible never says that physical circumcision had one significance for some Israelites, and other significances for others.
Click to expand...


You are entirely mistaken, Joseph. Read through this slowly and carefully.

Rom 4:9-11. *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. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also are of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised.*

Abraham is the father of those who believe while uncircumcised (v11 ) and the father of those who are circumcised and have the same faith he had when he wasn't circumcised (v12 ). He is *not* the father of those who are or were circumcised but do not share his faith. The Jews of our Lord's time on earth thought they were Abraham's children, and were told by Him in no uncertain terms, *"You are of your father, the devil!"* (John 8:44 ). Were their circumcisions the 'sign and seal of the righteousness' of their faith? 

[BTW, Rom 4:11 is the only place where circumcision is described as a seal. The Old Testament does not describe it as such] 



> The whole point of circumcision was UNITY of sign; but you destroy this fact by suggesting that Abe's circumcision had an entirely different meaning that Ishmael's and Isaac's circumcisions. You are turning the text on its head, and adding unbiblical notions to it, just so you can grasp at the straws of your credobaptistic ideas.



Abraham knew for an absolute fact that Ishmael was not in the covenant before he circumcised him (Gen 17:18-19; 23 ). Isaac is the child of promise and entered the same covenant as his father (Gen 26:3-4 ) for he had the same faith (Gen 26:18 ). You need to read Isaiah 54 and compare it with Gal 4:21-31.


> One thing is encouraging to me, though. You obviously recognize how damaging Romans 4:11 is to your position, if just taken at face value. That, at least, is a step in the right direction.
> 
> ". . . the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith . . ."



On the contrary, Romans 4 establishes the baptistic position as I have demonstrated. 

Grace & Peace,

Matin


----------



## biblelighthouse

You are entirely mistaken, Martin. Read through this slowly and carefully.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> Abraham is the father of those who believe while uncircumcised (v11 ) and the father of those who are circumcised and have the same faith he had when he wasn't circumcised (v12 ). He is *not* the father of those who are or were circumcised but do not share his faith. The Jews of our Lord's time on earth thought they were Abraham's children, and were told by Him in no uncertain terms, *"You are of your father, the devil!"* (John 8:44 ). Were their circumcisions the 'sign and seal of the righteousness' of their faith?



No, just as Romans 4:11 says, their circumcisions were a 'sign and seal of the righteousness' of the faith of Abraham. Circumcision, from Abraham to Christ, was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, for *everyone* who was circumcised, with no exceptions. Circumcision could not be a sign and seal of one thing to Abraham, and a sign and seal of something different for everyone else.

However, when the wicked (such as the unbelieving Pharisees you mentioned) failed to exercise the faith signified by their circumcisions, they demonstrated themselves as apostate covenant breakers, and the wrath of God was upon them.

I encourage you to take a very close and thoughtful look at Genesis 17:14. If any physical child of Abraham (including Ishmael) failed to be circumcised, then he would automatically be a covenant breaker. But how can a person possibly be a covenant _breaker_ without first being a covenant _member_? Thus, Ishmael and Esau were covenant members, just as much as Isaac and Jacob. These 4 circumcisions did not bring any of them into the covenant, because all 4 of them were already automatically in the covenant.

Ishmael was a covenant member. You are ignoring Genesis 17:14, and you are making an unwarranted leap from Genesis 17:19-21. When God "establishes" His covenant with Isaac, that does not mean that Ishmael is left outside the covenant. (In fact, Genesis 17:14 does not permit him to be left outside the covenant.) Rather, in Genesis 17:19-21 God is pointing out that the ultimate covenant promises (especially the coming of Christ) would happen through Isaac. God just said He would "establish" His covenant with Isaac. He did not say that Ishmael would be left out. (Otherwise, you are pitting verse 19 against verse 14, but the Bible doesn't contradict itself!)



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> (BTW, Rom 4:11 is the only place where circumcision is described as a seal. The Old Testament does not describe it as such)



Aha. I can see your dispensationalism shining through. Does it matter whether the verse is found in Romans or Isaiah or Revelation or the Pentateuch? It's all the Word of God, right? If the Word of God says that circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, all the way back in Abraham's time, then that is just what it was. That God chose to _explicitly_ reveal that fact in Romans 4:11 doesn't change anything.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> you need to read Isaiah 54 and compare it with Gal 4:21-31.



"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise" (Galatians 4:28)

Excellent. I fully agree. And Isaac circumcised both of his kids, both Esau and Jacob, right? Yeah, I thought so.

Likewise, since I, as a believer, am of the children of promise, I will have all my children baptized. I'm just "walking in Isaac's footsteps", if you will.


----------



## BJClark

*infant baptism*

Martin 



--Abraham knew for an absolute fact that Ishmael was not in the covenant before he circumcised him (Gen 17:18-19; 23 ). Isaac is the child of promise and entered the same covenant as his father (Gen 26:3-4 ) for he had the same faith (Gen 26:18 ). You need to read Isaiah 54 and compare it with Gal 4:21-31.--


Did Issac have the same faith as Abraham at 8 days old? Or did He grow in that faith? 

According to what I'm understanding you to be saying, there is no way Issac could have had the same faith of Abraham, so therefore the circumcision would have been moot at 8 days old. I mean, why circumcise someone you don't know for a fact will come into the Covenant Family by faith? But, your saying he knew for a FACT he was a Covenant Child, how did He know this? Because of His Faith, so are you saying Parents can't have the same faith now, that their children are also part of the Covenant family? If so, then wouldn't dedicating them to God also be moot?

If Abraham knew for a fact Ismael was not part of the covenant family, why bother having him circumcised at all? I mean wouldn't that be moot?

Abraham walked in faith, just as we are supposed to do, so if one has an infant Baptisted in (their own) FAITH, just as Abraham circumcised in His OWN FAITH, why the debate? What difference does it matter? Is it wrong to Baptise an infant in their Parents Faith that God will one day call them to Him? I don't think so, I don't think it is any different than having a Child Dedicated to the Lord as an infant. As either way, it is done so, in my own faith in God, not in my Childs faith, that God will one day call my Child to Him. 

The Bible does say that "if you train up a child in the way He should go when He is old He will not depart from it." Do some depart even for a season? sure they do. But are they departing from their faith? or are they departing from the Church Buildings for some reason?


----------



## biblelighthouse

Welcome to the Puritanboard, BJ! 

Congratulations on jumping into one of the biggest  on this board: credo vs. paedo 

This is one of my very favorite spots on the board. Enjoy!


----------



## BJClark

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the Puritanboard, BJ!
> 
> Congratulations on jumping into one of the biggest  on this board: credo vs. paedo
> 
> This is one of my very favorite spots on the board. Enjoy!



LOL, Thank you.

I found this site doing a search on the topic of Infant Baptisim, for a discussion I was having with a friend, and felt compelled to jump right in.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> "what argument can the anti-paedobaptist bring against us that could not have been brought against Abraham?" -John Calvin



 

Great quote, Paul!


It is that vein of thinking that helped me better understand passages like Romans 9:6-7, for instance. What if Sarah had said, "Abe, you can't do that! Ishmael is not your child! Only those of faith are your children, so only circumcise them." "In fact, Isaac is not your son either, since he is way too young to profess faith. So we need to presume him unregenerate just like Ishmael. Don't circumcise him until he's old enough for us to know whether he really has faith or not. Oh yeah, and forget all about God's command to circumcise on the eighth day . . . He didn't _really_ mean for you to do that . . . you're only supposed to put the covenant sign on your _real_ children, and your only _real_ children are by faith . . ."

You said it, Paul. (Or rather, Calvin.) There is not a single antipaedobaptist arguement that can't be turned right back onto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob themselves. Romans 9:6-7 (or any similar text) says that only those of faith are Abraham's children, but if that has _any bearing whatsoever_ on who receives and doesn't receive the covenant sign, then Abraham has a lot of explaining to do! After all, God said that circumcision _was_ the covenant itself (cf. Gen. 17:10). And Abraham circumcised Ishmael, thus proving he was a covenant member.



I'd like to hear Martin's explanation for these verses in conjunction with each other:

"I will establish my *covenant between me and you and your descendants* after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, *to be God to you and to your descendants after you*." (Genesis 17:7)

"*This is my covenant*, which you shall keep, between me and you and *your descendants* after you: *Every male among you shall be circumcised*." (Genesis 17:10)

"Then *Abraham took Ish'mael his son* and all the slaves born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, *and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins* that very day, as God had said to him. " (Genesis 17:23)


If I just quoted verses 7 & 10 above, then Martin would no doubt invoke Romans 9:6-7. But then verse 23 would make his entire argument fall apart, wouldn't it?


----------



## biblelighthouse

That is my single favorite paedobaptism quote.


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello BJ! 
 aboard!
You wrote in answer to me:-:-



> _Originally posted by BJClark_
> 
> 
> 
> --Abraham knew for an absolute fact that Ishmael was not in the covenant before he circumcised him (Gen 17:18-19; 23 ). Isaac is the child of promise and entered the same covenant as his father (Gen 26:3-4 ) for he had the same faith (Gen 26:18 ). You need to read Isaiah 54 and compare it with Gal 4:21-31.--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Issac have the same faith as Abraham at 8 days old? Or did He grow in that faith?
> 
> According to what I'm understanding you to be saying, there is no way Isaac could have had the same faith of Abraham, so therefore the circumcision would have been moot at 8 days old. I mean, why circumcise someone you don't know for a fact will come into the Covenant Family by faith? But, your saying he knew for a FACT he was a Covenant Child, how did He know this? Because of His Faith, so are you saying Parents can't have the same faith now, that their children are also part of the Covenant family? If so, then wouldn't dedicating them to God also be moot?
Click to expand...

Abraham's faith was established long before Isaac was born (Gen 15:6 ). However he knew beyond a doubt that Isaac was in the covenant (and that Ishmael wasn't) because God told him so (Gen 17:19 ).


> If Abraham knew for a fact Ismael was not part of the covenant family, why bother having him circumcised at all? I mean wouldn't that be moot?


Because God told him to (Gen 17:10ff).


> Abraham walked in faith, just as we are supposed to do, so if one has an infant Baptisted in (their own) FAITH, just as Abraham circumcised in His OWN FAITH, why the debate? What difference does it matter? Is it wrong to Baptise an infant in their Parents Faith that God will one day call them to Him?


Yes it is, because we have no command from the Lord to do so as Abraham had. BTW, you are supposing that circumcision and baptism are the same thing, which you have not established.


> I don't think it is any different than having a Child Dedicated to the Lord as an infant. As either way, it is done so, in my own faith in God, not in my Childs faith, that God will one day call my Child to Him.


Many Reformed Baptists do not practise baby dedications. Those who do, do so (as they see it) in response to Matt 19:14. They are bringing the child before the Lord and asking Him to bless it. They are not supposing that the child is in the Covenant.


> The Bible does say that "if you train up a child in the way He should go when He is old He will not depart from it." Do some depart even for a season? sure they do. But are they departing from their faith? or are they departing from the Church Buildings for some reason?



Those who have truly trusted in Christ will never wholly fall away (John 10:27ff). But there are those who suppose they are Christians because their church and their parents tell them so, who are never told that they are sinners in need of a Saviour, who may one day hear the Lord tell them, *"I never knew you!"* But for the grace of God, I would have been such a one.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Joseph,
I am sorry that you did not take my advice to read Gal 4 and Isaiah 54 through carefully.
You wrote:



> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> You are entirely mistaken, Martin. Read through this slowly and carefully.



I have.


> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> Abraham is the father of those who believe while uncircumcised (v11 ) and the father of those who are circumcised and have the same faith he had when he wasn't circumcised (v12 ). He is *not* the father of those who are or were circumcised but do not share his faith. The Jews of our Lord's time on earth thought they were Abraham's children, and were told by Him in no uncertain terms, *"You are of your father, the devil!"* (John 8:44 ). Were their circumcisions the 'sign and seal of the righteousness' of their faith?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just as Romans 4:11 says, their circumcisions were a 'sign and seal of the righteousness' of the faith of Abraham. Circumcision, from Abraham to Christ, was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, for *everyone* who was circumcised, with no exceptions. Circumcision could not be a sign and seal of one thing to Abraham, and a sign and seal of something different for everyone else.
Click to expand...


Joseph, read the following with Rom 4:9ff in front of you.

Let's consider four sets of people:-
1. Those who are circumcised and have the faith of Abraham.
2. Those who are not circumcised, but have the faith of Abraham.
3. Those who are circumcised, but do not have the faith of Abraham
4. Those who are not circumcised and do not have the faith of Abraham.

Now we can dismiss No. 4, but do you not see that Abraham is described as the father of Nos. 1 & 2, but not of No. 3? Now No.1 is represented by Isaac, but how does No. 2 square with your obsession with Gen 17:14? And what of No. 3, which is typically represented, I suggest, by Ishmael, of whom it is written, *'Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman'* (Gal 4:30; cf. Gen 21:10 )?

The answer is that there are two covenants (Gal 4:24 ) in view. There is one to the physical descendants of Abraham who receive a physical sign (Gal 17:14 ). This covenant promised to Abraham a great nation who would experience temporal blessings in an earthly promised land. This covenant has been fulfilled in every particular (Josh 21:45, 23:14 ). This represents No.3 above.

The other covenant is to those who are the sons of Abraham by faith, who are in union with the true Seed of Abraham (Gal 3:16 ). They receive 'a better, that is a heavenly country', 'a Kingdom that cannot be shaken.' And to them, who are *'in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation'*. They are the spiritual heirs and thay receive *'the circumcision made without hands.'* They represent Nos 1 and 2 above, the division between them being broken down in Christ (Eph 2:14-18 ).

I think that covers all your other points, except this one.
You wrote in answer to me.


> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> (BTW, Rom 4:11 is the only place where circumcision is described as a seal. The Old Testament does not describe it as such)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aha. I can see your dispensationalism shining through. Does it matter whether the verse is found in Romans or Isaiah or Revelation or the Pentateuch? It's all the Word of God, right?
Click to expand...


Ignoring your cheap shot, I can say  It is indeed, all the word of God. You miss the point again. The only place in the Bible where circumcision is described as a seal is Rom 4:11 *and it applies exclusively to Abraham*.

Rom 4:11. *'And he* [Abraham] *received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he* [Abraham] *might be the father of all who believe.'*

Surely this is clear enough!? Physical circumcision is not the seal of anything to anyone but Abraham, because no one else but he is the father of all who believe. If it were, it would _surely_ be found somewhere else in the entire Bible. And of course baptism is never described as a seal. The seal of the New Covenant is the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13 etc).

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 9-9-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Monergism

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> your only out is to say that Heb 10:30 is saying what Deut is saying.



So, my only way out is to show that the author of Hebrews doesn´t flip Moses´ words on their head? (Ok, so that was a bit sarcastic, but of course, you get my point)






> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 1. I don't grant this premise (that you asserted, btw).



Of course you don´t grant the premise (yet, hopefully). In fact, the only reason we´re discussing Heb. 10 is because you raised it as an objection to my initial argument. I then provided my _exegesis_ of the passage. You made an assertion on what you think the text means, but provided no exegesis, and, even in your response here, have provided no counter-exegesis to my position. 




> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 2. I think Calvin, Henry, et al. see that this cannot be done, but that doesn't bother you. Here's Calvin, anyway



Rather than re-post your Calvin quote, I´ll simply ask you to provide a quote where Calvin, Henry et al. provide an exegesis that actually deals with the quotations of the Old Testament texts and argue _ from this passage _ why we ought to take a 180 degree turn from the OT meaning. Maybe that's the case, but let it be shown from the text. This brings me to another point you made:




> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> if the same language is used in the OT then we interpret the NT as meaning what the OT means (a hermeneutical fallacy, btw, but I'll let it slide for my purposes, because it works in my favor).



This is supposed to be my hermeneutical principle? Of course it´s a fallacy; that is why it is not _ my _ hermeneutical principle. Rather, it is you who are affirming the consequent by concluding that if I interpret one NT quote of an OT text such that the OT context is kept, that I must then interpret _ all _ such NT passages the same way. Context, context, context. If the context of the NT passage gives us precedence to interpret it such that the quotation drops the OT context, then we let the NT writer do so and interpret him accordingly. This, however, must be shown to in fact be the context of the NT passage _ before _ we decide how the NT writer utilizes a quotation. This _ is _ a sound hermeneutical principle which apparently you, Calvin, Henry, et al. have decided to ignore for this passage. I think I can demonstrate your failure to apply this hermeneutic by looking again at your exposition of this passage:






> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> the whole context of the word "judge" in Hebrews 10:27-30 is a "firery judgment that consumes the enemies of God."



You´ve assumed that since v. 27 uses "œjudge" in the bad sense that v. 30 does as well. How do you know "œjudge" has the same meaning in both verses? What is your exegetical basis, especially in light of the fact that Moses´ context uses the term is the highest positive sense for God´s favor over His covenant people?




> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> The whole passage is speaking of X who are going to be judged by P. Now, in V.30 you have arbitrarily said, in effect, "well this time it isn't talking about what the WHOLE passage has been building up to." What you have to do is to show that the whole chain of thought (i.e., judging X with P) changes at V. 30. This is far from clear.



Where am I guilty of arbitrariness in my exegesis? I provided exactly what you asked for. Where have I erred in following the author´s flow of thought?



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> The author WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT X in v.29.....right? He said that they have done something bad...right? Above he said that because X did bad they would be judged with a fierce fire...right? Now, *we have ZERO change in V.30.*



This amounts to a restatement of your original assumption. Still, no exegetical basis provided.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> The author doesn't say, "now Im changing the group I have JUST BEEN TALKING ABOUT and also changing the type of judgment,



I´d say he does just that by the OT passage he selected. I provided my exegesis for why I think this is the case.




> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> in V.29 we are told, "How much worse punishment will X recieve?" Why? Why Mr. Author? How do we know they will receive a worse punishment? Well, we know it because we know Him who said, "VENGANCE IS MINE, and again, the Lord will JUDGE HIS PEOPLE."



You´re not justifying your position. You´re simply asserting it.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Well, that's good enough for me. If God said he will judge them I must believe Him,



That´s like me saying "œ"˜And their sins I will remember no more´ --- well, God said he doesn´t remember the sins of the new covenant people. I must believe Him."



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I like what Greg Strawbrideg has to say on the subject and so I'll leave it with him:


I appreciate Dr. Strawbridge´s frustrations. However, let me offer the same sentiment from a Baptist (as expressed already in this long discussion). I say, look at Heb. 10:14-18


> for by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, "THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," He then says, "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE." Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.


Objection: But you see, that can´t mean that Christ offered Himself for every new covenant member because that would mean every new covenant member has a propitiation. We know that can´t be right because Heb. 10:27-30 says there are some new covenant members who will not have God´s wrath propitiated for them.

No doubt the apostate passages are disputed. Obviously, we don´t set them aside because they disputed, as if they´re irrelevant to the discussion. Surely many Baptists have done this in the way of arguing for regenerate New Covenant membership. However, there are surely many Presbyterians who are guilty of arguing in the same way. Let's deal with the apostate passages. Lets deal with my origional argument, and let´s set the caricatures aside and deal with the text. 

*If you have a quote from Calvin, Henry, or anyone else who has provided has a meaningful exegetical reason to believe Moses´ context is turned upside down, then quote away. Otherwise, name dropping only serves to further draw the distinction between our ultimate authorities in this matter.*

[Edited on 9-10-2005 by Monergism]


----------



## Larry Hughes

> Physical circumcision is not the seal of anything to anyone but Abraham,



This contradicts this:



> because no one else but he is the father of all who believe.



Why? This is the heart of divorcing meaning from the signs/seals and modern individualism Vs. federal/covenant representation. Because if the seal is to Abraham who is the father of all who believe then this same seal is still the same seal to all who receive it. For this seal is not empty and meaningless to the successive receivers of it but rather holds before their very eyes that God is salvation and Him alone. It, like baptism, signifies and seals the election of the Father, the reconciliation of the Son and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit. This is where they both rest and find their validity, truth and very being. This is why they ARE and nothing else, nor does anything else negate them. It is not as if the word of God fails if people deny them.

It is similar to all of God´s signs and seals like in Joshua 4:6-7, "Let this be a sign among you, so that when your children ask later, saying, 'What do these stones mean to you?' 
then you shall say to them, 'Because the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of the LORD; when it crossed the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off ' So these stones shall become a memorial to the sons of Israel forever." In this we see that such signs (and seals by extension) are held out before successive generations to communicate what God has done for them. It is a physical communication of faith and a gracious condescension of God to our level so that we may believe.

A sign points to a reality it represents and this too is in circumcision and baptism. But they are also a seal which is an authentication. In this case Whose? God´s alone. To say the seal of circumcision is not the seal of anything to anyone but Abraham is in essence saying, "œGod´s authentication (circumcision in this case) is not really God´s authentication." The seal itself finds its authentic ground not in whom it is given but by Whom it is given (God) and by the Word of His mouth that says so. It would be quite surprising to hear from the mouth of Abraham to his own children who might ask, "œwhy was I circumcised father?" And Abraham answering, "œOh Isaac, don´t think anymore of that as it was only a sign and seal to me, it has absolutely no bearing on you that you should remember or ponder it."

ldh


----------



## Steve Owen

Larry,
with resect you are confusing signs and seals. Circumcision was certainly a _sign_ to Abraham's descendants of his faith, and so the Lord used it. As it is written:-

*'Listen to Me, you who follow after righteousness, you who seek the LORD: Look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the hole from which you were dug. Look to Abraham, your father, and to Sarah who bore you: for I called him alone, and blessed him and increased him.'* (Isiaah 51:2 ).

Thus circumcision was a sign to the Israelites. "Daddy, why have I been circumcised?" "Well, Sonny, Abraham, the father of our nation, was a man who trusted God, and our circumcision points us back to him and to his obedient faith. It also reminds us that one of the seed of Abraham is going to be the Saviour of the world (Gen 12:3 )." Alas, such witness did not seem to work with the Israelites, but that does not change the reality of the sign.

However, circumcision was a _seal_ to no one else but Abraham, and so the Scripture teaches. No amount of rationalizing can change the plain words of Rom 4:11, and they are the only words we have on the matter.

Likewise baptism is a sign to the party baptized of his faith in Christ and his ingrafting into the Church. It is also a sign to his unbelieving friends and relations that he no longer a member of this world, but of the one to come.

But baptism is not a seal of the new covenant. It is never described as such. The Holy Spirit is that which seals the truth of our faith in our hearts (Rom 8:15-16 ).

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse

Martin,

You are ignoring key passages in Genesis 17. I repeat:


I'd like to hear your explanation for these verses in conjunction with each other:

"I will establish *my covenant* between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, *to be God to you and to your descendants* after you." (Genesis 17:7)

"*This is my covenant*, which you shall keep, between me and *you and your descendants* after you: Every male among you shall *be circumcised*." (Genesis 17:10)

"*Then Abraham took Ish'mael his son* and all the slaves born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, *and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins* that very day, as God had said to him. " (Genesis 17:23)


If I just quoted verses 7 & 10 above, then you would no doubt invoke Romans 9:6-7. But then verse 23 would make your entire argument fall apart, wouldn't it?



You see, Martin, you can quote all you like from Galatians 4, Romans 4, Romans 9, etc. And I love those passages. But before you can logically use such passages as if they could somehow negate infant inclusion in the covenant, you first need to simply deal with the plain message in Genesis 17. And you have not done that yet. And if the foundation of your argument is weak or misplaced, then so is your entire argument.

Pay very close attention to the verses quoted above. God told Abraham that His covenant was "to be God to you and to your descendants" in verse 7. Then, in verse 10, God equates that covenant to circumcision. Finally, in verse 23, Abraham circumcises Ishmael according to God's command.

This scenario makes perfect sense according to my reckoning of the covenant and the covenant sign. But it makes no sense at all according to your reckoning. 

What does it mean in verse 7 where God says that He will be God both to Abraham and to Abraham's descendants? If you want to invoke Romans Romans 9:6-7 here, to say that the covenant in Genesis 17:7 is only with those who are Abraham's children by faith, then you have a lot of explaining to do in Genesis 17:10,23! In verse 10, God makes physical circumcision the sign of this very covenant, and in verse 23, Ishmael gets this covenant sign. Thus, Ishmael is part of the covenant spoken by God in verse 7! 

In short, God said that the covenant was "to be God to you and to your descendants", and Ishmael was part of that very covenant. (And so was Esau.)

But that clear Scriptural fact just does not jive well at all with credobaptistic theology.




[Edited on 9-10-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Thus circumcision was a sign to the Israelites. "Daddy, why have I been circumcised?" "Well, Sonny, Abraham, the father of our nation, was a man who trusted God, and our circumcision points us back to him and to his obedient faith. It also reminds us that one of the seed of Abraham is going to be the Saviour of the world (Gen 12:3 )." Alas, such witness did not seem to work with the Israelites, but that does not change the reality of the sign.



And baptism is a sign to the church. "Daddy, why have I been baptized?" "Well, Jesus was the Messiah, and our baptism points us back to Him and to the the washing of regeneration He gives to those with faith." Alas, such witness does not seem to work with some, but that does not change the reality of the sign.


----------



## BJClark

Martin,

Thank you for the welcome  They need a thank you icon...



No, as I've said, I don't see the Baptism of infants any different than I see the Dedication of Infants. Both, are like the Circumcision based on the Parents faith, not the faith of the Child. 

And trust me I know the difference between Circumcision and a (infant) Baptism, however, even with those differences they are both outward signs of the 'faith' of the Parents, and have nothing to do with the faith of the child.

If we really wanted to get technical about the circumcision being about making the child part of the convenant family, there are many people today who should NOT be circumcised at all. Many who are circumcised today do not even know what it represented thousands of years ago, to be about being in the covenant family.

This is same arguement Paul had with those at the Church in Rome, it wasn't about the Physical Circumcision, nor is it about infant baptism today, it's about the Circumcision of the heart at some point in the child's life. Does it matter if they were circumcised? No. Does it matter if they are Baptised? No. But, like Abraham, parents step out in their own faith and have their child Dedicated or Baptised.

If Baptism was that important even after salvation in following Christ, then Jesus would have told the thief on the Cross, you have to follow me in Believers Baptism before you can be with me in Paradise. Yet, He did not. 

Was the woman at the well baptised? Was the Adultress woman ever baptised? We don't know, but there is the assumption they were.
It's not recorded in the Bible that Jesus even told them they must now be Baptised. So even in that there are assumptions being made. (to my knowledge and it's possible I've just not paid attention to it, but the bible doesn't mention women being Baptised at all) So are we to assume, women should not be Baptised because the Bible doesn't mention it? I don't think so. 

But yet, the Bible speaks of Men being Baptised, and it speaks also of Men and Boys being circumcised, but nothing of women or baby girls being circumcised, so are we to assume women and baby girls were not considered part of the Covenant family because this was not required of them? I think Not!!! 

I believe it was assumed by all, that babies born into a Covenant family, be they boys or girls were PART of the Covenant Family, and if that was not the intent of God, surely He would have required baby girls and women to also be circumcised or SOMETHING to show they were also a part of the Covenant family. Lest we ALL be making a HUGE ASSUMPTION that women and girls are part of such. 

So yes, I make the assumption that My children are included in the Covenant Promise as infants, to assume otherwise would be to say to my daughters that because they are girls they are NOT included in such, and it would also tell me as a Woman, I would not be included in that Covenant Promise either. And well, I just don't see God excluding an entire Gender, based on an outward sign of a Covenant that He made.


--Those who have truly trusted in Christ will never wholly fall away (John 10:27ff). But there are those who suppose they are Christians because their church and their parents tell them so, who are never told that they are sinners in need of a Saviour, who may one day hear the Lord tell them, *"I never knew you!"* But for the grace of God, I would have been such a one.--

Then that , my dear brother was possibly the failure of their parents and their church in their teachings of the Scripture, or maybe even within their assumptions (understanding) of their teachings. If 'they' assume one thing and the church is really teaching something else.

Did your pastors or parents ever teach "ALL" Have sinned? And 'ALL' Are in need of a Savior?? Are you not considered part of the 'ALL'?? 

I know in most every church I have been in both as a Child, going to church with my grandparents and elderly neighbors, as well as in my adult life, I have been taught "ALL" have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God. When I hear the word ALL, I know that means including everyone, not excluding any, and I am part of the everyone, so therefore I too have sinned and need a Savior. And Just because someone is raised going to Church doesn't mean they are excluded from the ALL.

I've known many people to be dunked in water in many churches, who have no desire after that point to even step foot in a church or learn anything about Christ beyond that point, they have only been dunked in water and gotten wet, much like an infant baptism I suppose, the only difference being, in my opinion is one Baptism is based on FAITH (even if the faith of their Parents) and the other is done under an assumption that, that is all that they need to do in order to show a belief they say they have. 

So what, Should we now postpone ALL Baptisms until there is some sort of fruit in their lives? Be they infants or adults? I don't think so, as only God knows the heart of each person and God already knows whom He has called, who His children are and who will be His in the Future. Psalm 139:13-18; Romans 8:29-29; Romans 9:15-18.

WE, do not know, but God Himself knows whom He has called, which could be part of why Jesus Himself said, "Let the Little Children come, and do not forbid them for such is the Kingdom of Heaven." Not just that we come as Children in understanding and faith, but also because God knows whom He has called, even before they were even Born.

If a Church or Parents are truely teaching 'just because you go to church you are saved' then they are teaching falsely, and if people are believing they are saved just because their parents are saved, or that they are saved only because they were baptised as infants, then again the Pastors and Parents are not teaching the TRUE Gospel to them as Children, and that is the failure of those who were supposed to be teaching them. And they will be judged accordingly, per Scriptures on those who are teachers being judged harshly.


Bobbi Clark
Covenant Member
Pinewood Pres. (PCA) Middleburg

{edited for missing sig}

[Edited on 9-10-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## BJClark

Here is one of many articles--

http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Infant_Baptism.html

Where Does the New Covenant Teach Infant Baptism?

From the point of view of the Covenant, every command to baptize, is a command to baptize the children of believers.

Because the promise of the Covenant, God is a God not only to adult believers, but also to their children. That is why, in 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul said that children of believers are "holy." Paul deliberately used Old Covenant, ceremonial, language to teach the Corinthians that their children shouldn't be considered outside of the visible people of God. To use Old Covenant language, children of believers are "clean," and therefore have a right to share in the blessings of being a part of the visible people of God, including baptism.

Jesus made the same argument in Mark 10:14. He says that the Kingdom of God "belongs" to children of believers. In Acts 2:39, Peter specifically includes children in the fulfillment of the promise. In Ephesians 6:1 Paul addresses children as if they were in the covenant people of God .60


The Apostles Baptized the Children of Believers

In both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, God speaks to households and "saves" them. In the language of the Bible, one's house does not refer incidentally, but primarily to the children.61 The emphasis on "household" or "family" points to a continuity between the Old Covenant corporate view-point and that of the New covenant.62 Children are viewed as being part of a covenant household, a covenantal unit. The sign, in Scripture, is applied to the whole household unit.63

Scripture uses this household formula in several clear passages which show a great deal of unity between Old Covenant practice and New Covenant (baptismal) practice.64 We know that when Luke wrote Acts he was selective in his reporting. So it is important to note that proportionally, when we compare the number of household baptisms to other baptisms in Acts, household baptisms are common. In Acts, as with circumcision in the Old covenant, baptism is a household affair and the household texts prove it.

Lydia, the Jailer and Crispus.

In Philippi, in a "place of prayer," Paul and his co-workers met Lydia, a Gentile who was called "a God-fearer," i.e. someone on the fringes of the synagogue but not a full-member.65 After hearing the gospel, "the Lord opened her heart" and "she and the members of her household were baptized." It cannot be argued reasonably that there were no children in this "household." 66

Paul was jailed for his ministry to a demon possessed girl. Jesus delivered them from jail by sending an earthquake. Their jailer hears the gospel and professed his faith.

Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized....he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God -he and his whole family (Acts 16: 33,34).

As in the case of Lydia, Luke communicated the covenantal nature of baptism through the use of the oikos (household formula).

After Paul had been rejected by the synagogue in Corinth he went "next door" to the house of Titius Justus, another "God-fearing" Gentile. There "Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized" (Acts 18:8).

These patterns were identical with what occurred in Israel for 2000 years: The adult Gentile converts were circumcised along with their male children in accordance with Genesis 17:10-14. Certainly those adult converts had to confess their faith.67 Both believing adults and their children are described by the word "household."68


----------



## just_grace

*...*



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> [quote:104de97c2a]
> He Mediates the New Covenant in His blood
> [/quote:104de97c2a]
> 
> And Hebrews 10:29 says that people count as unholy the blood of the covenant which sanctified them.



[post moderated by admin]

David,
Check thyself.

Scott



[Edited on 9-10-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> [quote:104de97c2a]
> He Mediates the New Covenant in His blood
> [/quote:104de97c2a]
> 
> And Hebrews 10:29 says that people count as unholy the blood of the covenant which sanctified them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is completely uncalled for.........
> 
> [moderated by admin]
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 9-10-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Click to expand...


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Thus circumcision was a sign to the Israelites. "Daddy, why have I been circumcised?" "Well, Sonny, Abraham, the father of our nation, was a man who trusted God, and our circumcision points us back to him and to his obedient faith. It also reminds us that one of the seed of Abraham is going to be the Saviour of the world (Gen 12:3 )." Alas, such witness did not seem to work with the Israelites, but that does not change the reality of the sign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And baptism is a sign to the church. "Daddy, why have I been baptized?" "Well, Jesus was the Messiah, and our baptism points us back to Him and to the the washing of regeneration He gives to those with faith." Alas, such witness does not seem to work with some, but that does not change the reality of the sign.
Click to expand...


I take it from this post that you have conceded my major premise that circumcision was not a *seal* to anyone else but Abraham.

One difference between between circumcision and baptism is that baptism leaves no permanent mark. The Israelite carried around with him the sign of his inclusion into the 'First' (Mosaic) Covenant (the Abrahamic is different as I shall show later). Since baptism leaves no mark, it is meaningless as a sign unless accompanied by faith.


I am not ignoring your request for comment of the verses you quoted from Gen 17. I will deal with them in the next few days, but things are a wee bit busy for me just at present and keep me from doing a long post.

Blessings,

Martin


----------



## BJClark

Martin Marprelate

"I take it from this post that you have conceded my major premise that circumcision was not a *seal* to anyone else but Abraham."


Actually, it was to Abraham AND His Descendants

"One difference between circumcision and baptism is that baptism leaves no permanent mark. The Israelite carried around with him the sign of his inclusion into the 'First' (Mosaic) Covenant (the Abrahamic is different as I shall show later). Since baptism leaves no mark, it is meaningless as a sign unless accompanied by faith."

This is true that it leaves no visable sign, so why Baptise anyone, including adults who go forward one Sunday morning in a Church Service until after you have seen them living their Faith? Because even then you don't know if they have faith or if they are going forward because their parents are 'pressuring' them, or fit into the Crowd, or trying to please some pretty girl or handsome boy they are dating, or if they were raised in the Church and 'everyone' get's baptised to show they are 'Christians' and well, if I don't get "baptised" what will people think?

I know many people including Pastors Children who go forward for Baptism because 'its what people who go to Church do' they do all the outward things required of them, yet they don't have a real faith.

I imagine Judas Iscariot was such a person, though no where in the Bible does it say he was Baptised, He was still 'set apart' for God's Service, even though that service was to betray Christ, He was still doing God's will for HIS life. So because the Bible doesn't say specifically that Judas was not baptised, do we assume he wasn't just because he was the one who betrayed Christ? Or would it be reasonable to assume, that because 'everyone' who was anyone in Christ's service was being baptised, He too was baptised, because that's what all those close to Christ did? 

Even though, it may not leave an outward 'mark' like circumcision does, does not automatically mean it's not a seal, or even a sign that they are 'set apart' for God's service, even if we don't know what that Service is.

[Edited on 9-12-2005 by BJClark]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> I take it from this post that you have conceded my major premise that circumcision was not a *seal* to anyone else but Abraham.



Wrong. Read Genesis 17 again. Circumcision was the covenant, and was to be given to both Abe and his descendants. You cannot logically make it mean one thing for him, and something else for everyone else. It was the sign and seal for everyone. In any case, I don't really care to argue the sign/seal distinction with you. If you agree that circumcision was the sign for Abe and his crew, and that baptism is the sign for the NT church, then great. I'm not sure what is to be gained at this point by arguing over the "seal" portion of circumcision's significance. I think there are greater differences for us to work through first.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> One difference between between circumcision and baptism is that baptism leaves no permanent mark. The Israelite carried around with him the sign of his inclusion into the 'First' (Mosaic) Covenant (the Abrahamic is different as I shall show later). Since baptism leaves no mark, it is meaningless as a sign unless accompanied by faith.



Very very wrong. I don't have to see some mutilation of my body to know that I was baptized years ago. I know that I was baptized at the age of 19, and that knowledge has left an indelible mark on me internally. The same goes for those baptized in infancy (like Martin Luther, for example). As a kid grows up, the parents of the baptized child remind him of his baptism. And every time he sees a baptism in his church, he is reminded that he too was baptized. Baptism leaves an indelible mark in oneself internally: every time we remember our baptism, we are reminded that we are in covenant with the King.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> I am not ignoring your request for comment of the verses you quoted from Gen 17. I will deal with them in the next few days, but things are a wee bit busy for me just at present and keep me from doing a long post.



No problem, my brother! I certainly understand. There are many times I just don't have time to give long responses either. That is why I too occasionally don't respond, or only respond shortly. 

Blessings,
Joseph


----------



## Larry Hughes

Martin,

I appreciate that sentiment and likewise with much resect returned.

To clarify; I am not confusing signs and seals, hence I defined them. In short: A sign points to a greater reality than itself and thus it guides the "eye" of the soul to Christ. A seal authenticates it as official, thus that which is pointed to is authentic and not immitated by men.

My wedding ring is a sign that points to a reality which is the reality signified by the sign and that being my wife's covenant to me. Yet, the ring is a seal and is authentic, it was not given by any other than my wife.

The sign of circumcision must point to the greater reality that salvation is of the Lord alone and that of Christ alone. And this it must be to those who "see" the sign. And it must by necessity be a seal or authentic to the same, hence the promise is to you and your children and all those who are far off. The promise signified is authentic and must be if it is to be believed, trusted and rested upon. It is a gospel sign and seal and so is baptism, and thus it must communicate.

Side note on which we appear to disagree, at least in today's modern language being used: Abraham's faith was sheer trust apart from obedience to works and this alone was "the righteousness of faith". Yet, this living faith yeilded the fruit of good works. There is an infinite chasm between "obedient faith" and "living faith which yields true fruit and true good works". To be very clear, there is an infinite difference between "obedient faith" and "the obedience of faith" (Romans 1). The former is false faith while the later is true living faith of which James spoke of.

ldh

[Edited on 9-13-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Larry,
You wrote:-


> The sign of circumcision must point to the greater reality that salvation is of the Lord alone and that of Christ alone. And this it must be to those who "see" the sign. And it must by necessity be a seal or authentic to the same, hence the promise is to you and your children and all those who are far off. The promise signified is authentic and must be if it is to be believed, trusted and rested upon. It is a gospel sign and seal and so is baptism, and thus it must communicate.


Scripture please.

Martin


----------



## Larry Hughes

First a little calibration: 3 + X = 7. Can I know X without it being explicit per se? Yes, solve for X.

Now, all rapped up in a nice package sign, thing signified which leads to seal visible and seal Spiritual and the link:

Col. 2:11-13, "œand in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,"

Romans 2:29, "œBut he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God."


Ldh


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Joseph,
Finally I have time to deal with Gen 17.
You wrote:-


> I'd like to hear your explanation for these verses in conjunction with each other:
> 
> "I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you." (Genesis 17:7)
> 
> "This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised." (Genesis 17:10)
> 
> "Then Abraham took Ish'mael his son and all the slaves born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him. " (Genesis 17:23)
> 
> If I just quoted verses 7 & 10 above, then you would no doubt invoke Romans 9:6-7. But then verse 23 would make your entire argument fall apart, wouldn't it?
> 
> You see, Martin, you can quote all you like from Galatians 4, Romans 4, Romans 9, etc. And I love those passages. But before you can logically use such passages as if they could somehow negate infant inclusion in the covenant, you first need to simply deal with the plain message in Genesis 17. And you have not done that yet. And if the foundation of your argument is weak or misplaced, then so is your entire argument.



I find it amusing that it was only on Friday that you were telling e that Romans 4 decimated the Baptist position. Now that I´ve produced exegesis on Romans 4, instead of coming back and discussing that, you have shifted your position and are trying another tack. Never mind; it´s no problem.

If I look at these three verses strictly in isolation, then it appears 
1. That faith plays no part in God´s covenant since it is not mentioned or even hinted at.
2. That God will be God only to the physical descendants of Abraham.
3. That circumcision is the only way to God, and that therefore
4. The Moslem Arabs, being descendants of Abraham through Ishmael and observing circumcision, are saved and all those who are Gentiles like you and me, are lost out of hand. But if we become slaves of Jews or Moslems and are circumcised, then we can be saved. 

Obviously, it is a nonsense therefore to treat these words in isolation; we must look at the Bible as a whole. This is what Louis Berkhof says ("˜Principles of Biblical Interpretation´):-


> While the OT contains but a shadowy representation of spiritual realities, the NT presents them in the perfect light of the fullness of time. The one contains types, the other, antitypes; the one, prophecy; the other, fulfilment. The more perfect revelation of the NT illumines the pages of the Old. Sometimes NT writers furnish explicit and striking explanations of OT passages, and reveal striking depths that might easily have escaped the interpreter. Cf. Acts 2:29-31; Matt 11:10; 21:42; Gal 4:22-31; and the whole Epistle to the Hebrews.



That is not at all to say that we should ignore the OT, but we must interpret it in the clearer light that the Holy Spirit has provided in the New Testament.

Now the first question is, with whom was the Abrahamic Covenant made? Gen 17:10 tells us that it was made between God and Abraham and his descendants. Now again, if that means his physical descendants, it is of no interest whatever to me, since as far as I know, I have no Semitic blood in me. But the Hebrew word "˜zera´ which is translated "˜descendants´ or "˜seed´ is singular, and whilst it is usually a collective noun, it also can refer to a single seed or descendant (Gen 4:25; 21:13; 1Sam 1:11 etc). The Holy Spirit tells us, via Paul, that it speaks in Gen 17 of Christ, and by implication, those in Him.

*Gal 3:16, 26, 29.
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He does not say, "œAnd to seeds" as of many, but as of one, "œAnd to your Seed," who is Christ"¦"¦"¦"¦.For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus"¦"¦.And if you are Christ´s, then you are Abraham´s seed, and heirs according to the promise. *

So the covenant is not in fact with the physical descendants of Abraham, but with those who are "˜in Christ´ by grace through faith. *"˜Just as Abraham "œbelieved God and it was counted to him as righteousness", therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham´ *(Gal 3:6-7 ). It appears therefore that the covenant is not made with those who share Abraham´s genes, but with those who share his faith.

The question therefore arises, what is the significance of circumcision, and why is it made mandatory for Abraham´s physical progeny? Well, it has nothing to do with justification. Abraham was justified by faith before he was circumcised (Gen 15:6; Gal 4:3 ). 

*Gal 4:9-10.
Does this blessedness [non-imputation of sin] come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised but while uncircumcised. *

So circumcision had nothing to do with justification or righteousness, either for Abraham or anyone else. Otherwise Paul´s argument falls to the ground. Abraham, like Abel, like Enoch, like Noah, knew the blessings of God´s grace while uncircumcised. Melchizedek also, who is *"˜beyond all contradiction´ * greater than Abraham (Heb 7:7 ) was not circumcised so far as we know.

What then is the significance of circumcision? Or as Paul puts it, 
*"˜What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God´* (Rom 3:1-2 ). So the main benefit of circumcision was the receiving of the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul later points out some subsidiary benefits (Rom 9:4-5 ), but he goes on to point out that these benefits were of no effect to *"˜Israel after the flesh´*, but applied only to *"˜the children of promise.´* What is never said of circumcision is that it is *"˜a seal of the righteousness of faith´ *to anyone but Abraham (Rom 4:11 ). I´m sorry if that messes up your theology, but that is the plain reading of the text as I have pointed out before. 

So we see that there are two seeds of Abraham: a physical seed (*"˜Israel after the flesh´* ) represented typologically by Ishmael (cf. Gen 17:20; Gal 4:25 ), and* "˜the children of promise´ *represented by Isaac, the miracle child (Gen 17:19, 21; 25:5,11; Isaiah 54:1; Gal 4:28 ). Now you will say, "˜but Isaac was circumcised!´ So he was, but Paul says to the Galatians, whom he is telling NOT to be circumcised, *"˜Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.'* Isaac represents the true Israelite who appears in these verses:-

*Rom 2:28-29.
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Sprit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. 

Phil 3:3.
For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. *

And with much respect (sic) to Larry, Colossians 2:11-12 is saying the same thing. The true Israelite, the child of the promise, in other words, the Christian, needs no physical circumcision, since he has what circumcision symbolizes, a penitent circumcised heart. And his baptism symbolizes what has already happened to him; he has died to sin and risen again to life through his God-given faith in the resurrection of Christ (cf. Rom 10:9 ).

You wrote:-


> Pay very close attention to the verses quoted above. God told Abraham that His covenant was "to be God to you and to your descendants" in verse 7. Then, in verse 10, God equates that covenant to circumcision. Finally, in verse 23, Abraham circumcises Ishmael according to God's command.
> 
> This scenario makes perfect sense according to my reckoning of the covenant and the covenant sign. But it makes no sense at all according to your reckoning.


On the contrary, it makes perfect sense to me. God was indeed a God to Abraham´s fleshly descendants. He brought them out of Egypt, he gave them the law to worship Him by, made a great nation of them, and punished them for their wicked ways. *"˜And you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one thing has failed of all the good things that the LORD your God spoke concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one word of them has failed´ *(Josh 23:15 ).

But the covenant made with Israel after the flesh was not the Covenant of Grace, as your own Confession makes clear.


> Larger Catechism
> Q.31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
> Ans. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed.


And to his elect, the miraculous children of the barren woman, God invokes a covenant even older than the Abrahamic; one in which circumcision plays no part.

*Isaiah 54:9-10
"œFor this is like the waters of Noah to Me; for as I have sworn that the wates of Noah would no longer cover the earth, so I have sworn that I would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you. For the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed, but My kindness shall not depart from yopu, nor shall My covenant of peace be removed," says the LORD who has mercy on you. * 

You wrote:-


> What does it mean in verse 7 where God says that He will be God both to Abraham and to Abraham's descendants? If you want to invoke Romans 9:6-7 here, to say that the covenant in Genesis 17:7 is only with those who are Abraham's children by faith, then you have a lot of explaining to do in Genesis 17:10,23! In verse 10, God makes physical circumcision the sign of this very covenant, and in verse 23, Ishmael gets this covenant sign. Thus, Ishmael is part of the covenant spoken by God in verse 7!


Joseph, you just need to read Gen 17:18-21 to see that Ishmael is not in the same covenant as Isaac. Just look at the plain text! The son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman (Gen 21:10; Gal 4:30 ). But New Testament Christians are exclusively sons of the free woman (Gal 4:28, 31 ), and to them, *"˜Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation´* (Gal 6:15 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Bobby,
I'm sorry that I haven't had time to address all of your points, but I think you'll find that most of them have been debated here before, especially the so-called 'oikos' formula. I also think you'll find that even Presbyterians such as R.C.Sproul concede that the 'household baptisms' do not constitute evidence for infant baptism.

However, if you'd like to debate this, or 1Cor 7:14, why not open another thread so as to avoid getting this one cluttered?

Every blessing,

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> But the covenant made with Israel after the flesh was not the Covenant of Grace, as your own Confession makes clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Larger Catechism
> Q.31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
> Ans. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed.
Click to expand...


If I hear one more person use this ridiculous argument, I am going to insist that he be instantly thrashed and thrown into the stocks for a fortnight.

Stop using this false argument! It is nonsense, apparently born from an unwillingness to study the entire confession. 

The Westminster Confession of Faith plainly says that infants are included in the Covenant of Grace, just like their parents:



> CHAPTER XXVIII.
> Of Baptism.
> 
> I. *Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament*, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him *a sign and seal of the covenant of grace*, or his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Churchy until the end of the world.
> 
> 
> IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also *the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized*.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia




----------



## Steve Owen

Well, I do actually know that the W.C.F. is not a Baptist document. 

However LC. Q.31 is there, like the proverbial pork pie at a Bar Mitzvah, and I note that you haven't managed to reconcile it with the extract that you quoted.

Moreover, that point was a very minor one in the argument I presented.
Do you have nothing to say on the rest of it?

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Well, I do actually know that the W.C.F. is not a Baptist document.



That's because it is based on Scripture.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> However LC. Q.31 is there, like the proverbial pork pie at a Bar Mitzvah, and I note that you haven't managed to reconcile it with the extract that you quoted.



There is nothing to reconcile. Q. 31 of the WLC states a truth that does not contradict the WCF in any way. Q. 31 was penned by men who unanimously agreed on the inclusion of infants in the covenant of grace, so your assertion that Q. 31 says otherwise is nonsense.

Q. 31 correctly says that the covenant of grace was made with the elect. I don't know of any Presbyterian who would disagree. However, was that covenant made *only* with the elect, or are others also included? Q. 31 is silent on this question. But thankfully, chapter 28 of the WCF answers it. 


As for your way of dealing with Genesis 17, I am debating whether to bother responding. You openly admit that you won't accept the text as it stands regarding infant inclusion in the covenant & the spiritual nature of the covenant, you reject the clear teaching of the passage that Ishmael is a covenant member, and you import numerous fallacious baptistic presuppositions into the discussion, in order to try to force the text into your baptistic box. 

If you are determined to start with your baptistic presuppositions, rather than simply with the text that is before you, I don't know how productive discussion is going to be. After all, if your presuppositions are baptistic, then your conclusions will necessarily lead to credobaptism, regardless of what Scripture says.

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Larry Hughes

Oh well, I tried.

Joseph I read your article. Very eye opening and noble to take that approach.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> And with much respect (sic) to Larry, Colossians 2:11-12 is saying the same thing. The true Israelite, the child of the promise, in other words, the Christian, needs no physical circumcision, since he has what circumcision symbolizes, a penitent circumcised heart. And his baptism symbolizes what has already happened to him; he has died to sin and risen again to life through his God-given faith in the resurrection of Christ (cf. Rom 10:9 ).



I'm sorry, but I just can't stand to let this one go . . .

You said, "The true Israelite, the child of the promise . . . needs no physical circumcision . . ."

That comment is such nonsense that I can't stand to let it pass without comment.

Just read Ezekiel 44:9. God required (and still requires) the outward sign, as well as the inward sign. 

In the OT, the outward sign was circumcision, and in the NT, the outward sign is water baptism.


The true Israelite in the OT most certainly needed physical circumcision. Without it, he would have been rejecting God, and would have been rejected by God.

The true Israelite in the NT doesn't need physical circumcision, because he has a different covenant sign that points to the same reality of heart circumcision. That different sign is water baptism.


In Colossians 2:11-12, Paul _cannot_ be putting down OT circumcision. To do that would be to contradict God Himself. Rather, Paul puts down the NT _continuation_ of circumcision, since there is to be no more spilling of blood since Christ's death and resurrection, and since NT water baptism has now fully replaced circumcision.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Oh well, I tried.
> 
> Joseph I read your article. Very eye opening and noble to take that approach.



Thank you, Larry!


----------



## Steve Owen

Well, if you think that Chapter XXX (not XXVIII as you stated) of the WCF is compatible with LCF. 31, then you are very easily satisfied. If you have no response to my post, in which I dealt with Gen 17 as requested, then doubtless you are well advised to keep silent (Prov 17:28 ). However, perhaps you would like to look at the text below, especially vs 18-21, and tell me how you work out that Ishmael and Isaac are in the same covenant, especially in the light of Gal 4:21ff.

Gen 17:17-23
* The Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, "Shall a child be born to a man who is 100 years old? And shall Sarah, who is 90 years old bear a child?" And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!" Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.  But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this set time next year."

Then He finished talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.

So Abraham took Ishmael his son, all who were bought in his house with money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very same day, as God had commanded him.*

However, if you are determined to start with your paedo-baptistic presuppositions, rather than simply with the text that is before you, I don't know how productive discussion is going to be. After all, if your presuppositions are paedo-baptistic, then your conclusions will necessarily lead to paedo-baptism.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## biblelighthouse

Martin,

Suppose you make this statement: 
"American women are brilliant!"

Does it therefore follow that American men are stupid?

Or, does it follow that British women are dumb?

of course not!!!


Talking about group "A" without mentioning group "B" is NOT equivalent to saying something negative about group "B". If I say that you are a good preacher, and don't mention anyone else, is does not therefore follow that all other preachers are "not good".



You are consistently making the same simple error in every case:


Just because God established his covenant with Isaac, doesn't mean that Ishmael was excluded. 

Just because Q.31 of the WLC mentions the elect, doesn't mean that all others are excluded.

Just because faith-confessors are explicitly said to be baptized in Acts 2, doesn't mean that infants were left out.

etc., etc., etc.


In every case, you are taking pure silence, and then reading your baptistic presuppositions into it. But God never said Ishmael was a non-covenant-member, Q.31 of the WCF does not say that the non-elect are always non-covenant-members, and Acts 2 does not say that infants weren't baptized.

Please quit playing fast and loose with silent texts. You assume that silence proves far too much.


----------



## Steve Owen

> Martin,
> 
> Suppose you make this statement:
> "American women are brilliant!"
> 
> Does it therefore follow that American men are stupid?
> 
> Or, does it follow that British women are dumb?
> 
> of course not!!!


Joseph, if I say, "American women are brilliant", it does not entitle you to make any assumptions about American men or British women, save that, if I thought that they too were brilliant, I would have said, "Americans are brilliant," or "women are brilliant" which I did not say. Therefore you may reasonably deduce that I do *not* think American men and/or British women are brilliant, though it would be wrong to suppose that I therefore think they are 'dumb.'

So when the Larger Catechism says:-


> Q.31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
> Ans. The C of G was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed.



I make the reasonable assumption that if the divines had thought that the C of G was made with anybody else, they would have said so. Since they asked themselves a straight and simple question, they had a duty to tell the whole truth by way of answer. If they wilfully kept back important knowledge from the catechumens, then they have sinned grievously.

Moreover, I say that if a Covenant of *Grace* were made with the vessels of wrath, prepared for destruction, then grace is no more grace.

You continue:-


> Just because God established his covenant with Isaac, doesn't mean that Ishmael was excluded.



Oh yes it does! First of all, you are ignoring the Regulative Principle of Scripture, established by the very reformers you claim to be following. Secondly, God specifically says that Ishmael is excluded. * 'And Abraham said, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!" Then God said, "No!"*

How much clearer do you need it?


> Just because faith-confessors are explicitly said to be baptized in Acts 2, doesn't mean that infants were left out.


Wrong again. Luke tells us exactly who were baptized. Those who *'gladly received his words.'* If another bunch of people were baptized as well, he would have told us. Anyway, how did these mythical infants * 'continue steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and in prayers'*(v42 ). Did the apostles allow infants to take the Lord's Supper? 

Come on, Joseph! Please think about these things. Your presuppositions are leading you into a cul-de-sac.

Martin

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Larry Hughes

Joseph,

What he conveniently calls presuppositions are in fact reading forward from the whole council of God. When in fact it is just as easy to call the individualistic rendering of "Those who 'gladly received his words.'" as infant exclusive a presup & even rationalistic at that because it rests in the same text itself. Esp. in light of the OT. As a matter of fact the way it has been tossed out would qualify it as ad hom. & as such can be flung right back.

It is the same rationalization that goes to "going down into the water & then back up again as immersion support. I'm a geologist & a hydrogeologist at that. I've written class papers in which me and a team where out gathering stream measurement data. (tue event) I took the measurements while Glenn & James stayed on the bank recording the data I shouted from in the stream (standing mind you not immersed). We reported that we "went down into the stream" since physics & experience proves yhat water flows down hill/grad. Then we came up from the stream to gather other data. Now a listener could rationalize this to the piont of absurdity & ask, "why did you immerse yourselves in the water". Of course that would merely get a laugh from the crowd.

Also, to clarify it is illogical to argue from what is to what is not. That alone is a problem.

His whole paradigm renders every text in Acts individualistic & while to be fair our paradigm reads the same covenantally. He will rationalize "household" away as individual to support the paradigm and we would render it based upon the OT as the same - covenantal paradigm.

L


----------



## biblelighthouse

Amen, Larry!


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> Martin,
> 
> Suppose you make this statement:
> "American women are brilliant!"
> 
> Does it therefore follow that American men are stupid?
> 
> Or, does it follow that British women are dumb?
> 
> of course not!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph, if I say, "American women are brilliant", it does not entitle you to make any assumptions about American men or British women, *save that, if I thought that they too were brilliant, I would have said, "Americans are brilliant," or "women are brilliant" which I did not say. Therefore you may reasonably deduce that I do not think American men and/or British women are brilliant . . . *
Click to expand...


Martin,

This is complete nonsense. I believe you are missing out on one of the simplest rules of logic.

The foundational statement of your post is illogical. Thus, the rest of your post is moot, as well.


It is very common in the Bible, in literature, and in everyday speech to make a statement about one group while omitting the other group, *without* implying anything negative whatsoever about the group that is left out.

You are wrong to disagree with this. Therefore, the rest of the assumptions made in your post are wrong as well.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> It is very common in the Bible, in literature, and in everyday speech to make a statement about one group while omitting the other group, *without* implying anything negative whatsoever about the group that is left out.




Just to show how ubiquitous this simple logic is, I will demonstrate my case by pointing out a saying used by Jif peanut butter:







So, what can we deduce from the statement that "choosy moms choose Jif"? 

Should we conclude that choosy dads do not choose Jif?

Should we assume that choosy women who are not parents do not choose Jif?

Should we deduce that choosy moms don't choose any other kind of food than Jif peanut butter?


Give me a break, Martin. Speaking about group "A" while omitting group "B" proves NOTHING about group "B". --- You assume that silence proves far too much.


----------



## Steve Owen

> Just to show how ubiquitous this simple logic is, I will demonstrate my case by pointing out a saying used by Jif peanut butter:
> 
> * CHOOSY MUMS CHOOSE JIF*
> 
> So, what can we deduce from the statement that "choosy moms choose Jif"?
> 
> Should we conclude that choosy dads do not choose Jif?
> 
> Should we assume that choosy women who are not parents do not choose Jif?
> 
> Should we deduce that choosy moms don't choose any other kind of food than Jif peanut butter?



Oh boy! This is hard work!
Joseph, look at what the Scripture says,

*Every word of God is pure........Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar* (Prov 30:5-6 ).

How you interpret an advertizement is up to you. It is a matter of no importance. But when you read, * 'Choosy mums choose Jif'*, it is a statement solely about choosy mums. Dads, choosy or otherwise, may also choose Jif, but you may not reasonably deduce that from the statement. It was open to the advertizers to say, 'Choosy *parents* choose Jif', but they didn't. However, it doesn't actually matter a hoot because no one believes what advertizers say anyway.

As for the WCF, though doubtless more important than an ad, it is man's word and not God's and I suppose you can interpret it how you like. I, however, would sooner discuss what *is* in the text than what isn't.

When you come to the word of God, things become infinitely more important. That is why the Reformers put forward the _ Regulative Principle_. The general rule on this is that we must have positive Biblical warrant for what is done in the Church of God. Listen to John Hooper, who deserves to be heard since he gave his life for the Reformation in England.


> The Scriptures are the law of God; none may set aside their commands or add to their injunctions. Christ's Kingdom is a spiritual one......neither the Pope nor King may govern the church......Christ alone is the Governor of His church.....The scripture and the apostles' churches [i.e. as seen in the NT- Martin] are solely to be followed, and no man's authority....*There is nothing to be done in the church but is commanded...by the word of God....*


Now it is superfluous to note that their is no command to baptize infants in the word of God. But when you, Joseph, take Acts 2:41, which tells us who was baptized on the day of Pentecost, ignore the qualification in v42, and add the words, _'and their infant children'_ in your own mind, then you are both adding to and taking away from the word of God. Think about it, Joseph, and meditate on Rev 22:18-19 while you're at it.

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Oh boy! This is hard work!
> Joseph, look at what the Scripture says,
> 
> *Every word of God is pure........Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar* (Prov 30:5-6 ).
> 
> How you interpret an advertizement is up to you. It is a matter of no importance. But when you read, * 'Choosy mums choose Jif'*, it is a statement solely about choosy mums. Dads, choosy or otherwise, may also choose Jif, but you may not reasonably deduce that from the statement. It was open to the advertizers to say, 'Choosy *parents* choose Jif', but they didn't. However, it doesn't actually matter a hoot because no one believes what advertizers say anyway.



Martin, I was arguing from the lesser to the greater . . . if even a layman writing a silly advertisement understands that silence proves nothing, then so should a respectable preacher with decades of experience.

However, it is not at all difficult to demonstrate the same truth from Scripture itself, from creeds, from confessions, from scientific writings, from literature, etc. In other words, you are missing out on a point of logic that is ubiquitous.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> As for the WCF, though doubtless more important than an ad, it is man's word and not God's and I suppose you can interpret it how you like. I, however, would sooner discuss what *is* in the text than what isn't.



And yet, ironically, *you* are the one quibbling over what isn't in the text of WLC Q.31! And then when I demonstrate that the truth is more fully expounded in the WCF, in chapter 28, you dismiss the evidence and have the audacity to suggest that the Westminster divines were blatantly contradicting themselves! 



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> When you come to the word of God, things become infinitely more important. That is why the Reformers put forward the _ Regulative Principle_. The general rule on this is that we must have positive Biblical warrant for what is done in the Church of God. Listen to John Hooper, who deserves to be heard since he gave his life for the Reformation in England.
> 
> 
> 
> The Scriptures are the law of God; none may set aside their commands or add to their injunctions. Christ's Kingdom is a spiritual one......neither the Pope nor King may govern the church......Christ alone is the Governor of His church.....The scripture and the apostles' churches [i.e. as seen in the NT- Martin] are solely to be followed, and no man's authority....*There is nothing to be done in the church but is commanded...by the word of God....*
> 
> 
> 
> Now it is superfluous to note that their is no command to baptize infants in the word of God.
Click to expand...


If your logic is true, then by your own admission, you engage in sin any time you permit a woman to partake of the Lord's Supper, because there is no command to give communion to women in the Word of God.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> But when you, Joseph, take Acts 2:41, which tells us who was baptized on the day of Pentecost, ignore the qualification in v42, and add the words, _'and their infant children'_ in your own mind, then you are both adding to and taking away from the word of God. Think about it, Joseph, and meditate on Rev 22:18-19 while you're at it.



Again, as I have already pointed out regarding the Lord's Supper, Scripture itself does not explicitly tell us to give it to women, and yet witholding it from them would _break_ the regulative principle, rather than keep it.

I do not add to the Word of God; neither do it take away from it. I endeavor to study the whole council of Scripture. And when I do so, I clearly see covenant baptism, not individualistic baptism. When you read Deut. 30:6 and mentally remove "and your descendants", you take away from the Word of God. When you ignore the plain statement in Luke 18:15-17 that the kingdom of God belongs to infants, you take away from the Word of God. When you see that children were included in the church from Abraham until Christ, and that there is no Scriptural statement removing them from the Church, you break the regulative principle by removing them yourself.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Martin said that a disciple is someone who can be elect or non-elect.
> 
> Martin defined disciple this way.
> 
> So, by pure logic, the class of "disciples" does not = the class of "elect ones."
> 
> Since their are *both* elect and non-elect disciples then "disciple" does not = "non-elect" either.
> 
> So, disciple = the class of elect and non-elect who profess faith.
> 
> Any statement about this entire class is about all its members.
> 
> Martin's position is that there is no command to baptise our children.
> 
> Likewise, there is no command to baptise the "elect" (since I've proven that, even according to Martin, a command to baptise disciples is not a command to baptise the elect).
> 
> So, where is Martin;s command to do so?
> 
> Indeed, since Jesus commands us to baptise disciples then we must all agree, even according to Martin, that the Lord of the covenant (you know, the One who served the Lord's supper to Judas), commands us to baptise both elect and non-elect.
> 
> So, I guess the question for the baptist is; Why does Jesus command us to give the sign of the covenant to non-elect?


----------



## Steve Owen

Joseph wrote:-



> Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
> But when you, Joseph, take Acts 2:41, which tells us who was baptized on the day of Pentecost, ignore the qualification in v42, and add the words, 'and their infant children' in your own mind, then you are both adding to and taking away from the word of God. Think about it, Joseph, and meditate on Rev 22:18-19 while you're at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, as I have already pointed out regarding the Lord's Supper, Scripture itself does not explicitly tell us to give it to women, and yet witholding it from them would break the regulative principle, rather than keep it.
Click to expand...


1. Is it correct, therefore, that you think it is in order to add the words 'and their children' to the text of Acts 2:41? Yes or no.

2. I had the question about the Lord's Supper when I first came on this board. Why are people so obsessed with it? I answered it then. If you want me to answer it again, I am perfectly happy to do so, but please start another thread. This is the Baptism forum, not the Lord's Supper forum. 


> I do not add to the Word of God; neither do it take away from it. I endeavour to study the whole council of Scripture.



Well, answer my first question above then.


> And when I do so, I clearly see covenant baptism, not individualistic baptism. When you read Deut. 30:6 and mentally remove "and your descendants", you take away from the Word of God.



I too see covenant baptism, just not your sort. If I mentally removed those words from Deut 30:6, I would indeed be taking away from the word of God. But I don't do that. Why don't you start a new thread on Deut 30:6 instead of ducking the issue here.


> When you ignore the plain statement in Luke 18:15-17 that the kingdom of God belongs to infants, you take away from the Word of God.



I do not do so. I exegete it correctly and do not insert baptism when it is not even remotely mentioned. Why don't you start a thread on _that_ instead of throwing out red herrings on this thread?


> When you see that children were included in the church from Abraham until Christ, and that there is no Scriptural statement removing them from the Church, you break the regulative principle by removing them yourself.


Acts 7:38 is the only place in Scripture where the Israelites are described as an _ekklesia_: 'The congregation in the wilderness'. Interestingly, the time descibed there was the *only* time when Israelite infants were *not* circumcised (Josh 5:5 ).  Again, why don't you start a thread on that as well, and stick to the point here instead of constantly running for cover?

I spent a long time at your request dealing with the texts you quoted in Gen 17. You have never dealt with my post, but instead have brought up one red herring after another. I don't know if there are any unbiased people reading these exchanges, but I hope they draw the logical conclusions.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> Acts 7:38 is the only place in Scripture where the Israelites are described as an _ekklesia_: 'The congregation in the wilderness'. Interestingly, the time descibed there was the *only* time when Israelite infants were *not* circumcised (Josh 5:5 ).



Exellent point. They were not circumcised because they had just been _baptized_ (1 Cor. 10:2). 



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> I spent a long time at your request dealing with the texts you quoted in Gen 17. You have never dealt with my post, but instead have brought up one red herring after another. I don't know if there are any unbiased people reading these exchanges, but I hope they draw the logical conclusions.



I hope they draw logical conclusions as well. I have introduced no red herrings. Rather, I have gone to great pains to show that you are both Biblically and logically way off base. But you just continuously dismiss my arguments out of hand.

You are the one who charged me with adding to Scripture. I simply responded by pointing out that you are doing the same thing by permitting women in the Lord's Supper. My point was that _neither_ of us are adding to Scripture . . . rather, we just use good and necessary inferences based on Scripture. We both rightfully infer that women should partake of communion. Likewise, I rightfully infer that infants should partake of baptism.


But here is the root of my issue with you right now:

I would be happy to talk more with you regarding Genesis 17, Acts 2, etc. But your lack of understanding regarding elementary logic makes fruitful communication impossible. If I say that "American women are smart", it does NOT follow that American men are therefore dumb. Silence proves nothing. It is no different in Scripture. If the Bible says that believers were baptized, it does NOT follow that infants were not baptized. Silence proves nothing. *You* are the one adding to Scripture when you import your anti-covenantal presuppositions into the text.





[Edited on 9-16-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Martin said that a disciple is someone who can be elect or non-elect.
> 
> Martin defined disciple this way.
> 
> So, by pure logic, the class of "disciples" does not = the class of "elect ones."
> 
> Since their are *both* elect and non-elect disciples then "disciple" does not = "non-elect" either.
> 
> So, disciple = the class of elect and non-elect who profess faith.
> 
> Any statement about this entire class is about all its members.
> 
> Martin's position is that there is no command to baptise our children.
> 
> Likewise, there is no command to baptise the "elect" (since I've proven that, even according to Martin, a command to baptise disciples is not a command to baptise the elect).
> 
> So, where is Martin;s command to do so?
> 
> Indeed, since Jesus commands us to baptise disciples then we must all agree, even according to Martin, that the Lord of the covenant (you know, the One who served the Lord's supper to Judas), commands us to baptise both elect and non-elect.
> 
> So, I guess the question for the baptist is; Why does Jesus command us to give the sign of the covenant to non-elect?



Proverbs 26:12.

Martin


----------



## Steve Owen

> Excellent point. They were not circumcised because they had just been baptized (1 Cor. 10:2).


Into whom were they baptized, Joseph?


> I would be happy to talk more with you regarding Genesis 17, Acts 2, etc. But your lack of understanding regarding elementary logic makes fruitful communication impossible. If I say that "American women are smart", it does NOT follow that American men are therefore dumb.



Here is proof positive that you never read my posts! Go back and look at my post on this and actually see what it says. Better yet, here it is:-


> Joseph, if I say, "American women are brilliant", it does not entitle you to make any assumptions about American men or British women, save that, if I thought that they too were brilliant, I would have said, "Americans are brilliant," or "women are brilliant" which I did not say. Therefore you may reasonably deduce that I do not think American men and/or British women are brilliant . . .



Where do I say that anybody is dumb?

But then again, if you are an example of American manhood.........:bigsmile:

Martin


----------



## Monergism

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Martin said that a disciple is someone who can be elect or non-elect.
> 
> Martin defined disciple this way.
> 
> So, by pure logic, the class of "disciples" does not = the class of "elect ones."
> 
> Since their are *both* elect and non-elect disciples then "disciple" does not = "non-elect" either.
> 
> So, disciple = the class of elect and non-elect who profess faith.
> 
> Any statement about this entire class is about all its members.
> 
> Martin's position is that there is no command to baptise our children.
> 
> Likewise, there is no command to baptise the "elect" (since I've proven that, even according to Martin, a command to baptise disciples is not a command to baptise the elect).
> 
> So, where is Martin;s command to do so?
> 
> Indeed, since Jesus commands us to baptise disciples then we must all agree, even according to Martin, that the Lord of the covenant (you know, the One who served the Lord's supper to Judas), commands us to baptise both elect and non-elect.
> 
> So, I guess the question for the baptist is; Why does Jesus command us to give the sign of the covenant to non-elect?



Paul,

Just to jump in on this conversation as well, Jesus commands us to give the sign to disciples, as you have noted. He has also told us that there are false disciples, as you have noted. Inevitably, the church will end up baptizing false disciples who are not elect; and so yes, when God commands us to baptize disciples, this will include the non-elect. As a Baptist, I have absolutly no problem with this. Indeed, I´ll join you in refuting an argument for believer´s baptism that does have a problem with it.

So, where does that leave me as a Baptist? It leaves me with a clear command to baptize disciples, and, yet still, the lack of a command to baptize non-disciples. . . .


----------



## Monergism

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 4. So, I ask you to be consistent. That is to say, since in Deuteronomy "the Lord will judge His people" did not have a bad judgment in mind (but rather vindication) then you say this is what it means in Hebrews 10. That is, if the same language is used in the OT then we interpret the NT as meaning what the OT means (a hermeneutical fallacy, btw, but I'll let it slide for my purposes, because it works in my favor).



I´ve already responded to this. It is not my hermeneutic.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> So, let's be consistent. In I Cor 5 we read about church discipline. The church is Israel! So, Paul is telling Israel how to discipline its members. What does he say? he says "exprell the wicked from among you." Now, in the OT that *ALWAYS* means to remove someone from the external covenant! So, if Monergism is to be consistent then he must agree that non-elect are in the covenant since people can be removed from it.




In 1 Cor 5, Paul didn´t "œtotally flip Moses´ words on their heads." Again, we look at both the OT context AND the NT context so as to determine how the HT writer utilizes the OT passage in his quotation. We do this passage by passage, context by context. 

What, then, is the context of 1 Cor. 5? Paul is commanding the local church to engage in the practice of church discipline. That is, to remove the unrepentant sinner from the fellowship of the church. He is calling for holiness amongst the church community. 

In support of his call for church purity, he quotes several OT passages: "œREMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES." Each instance the quote appears in the OT, it does indeed refer to a command for Israel to remove sinful individuals from the covenant community. I´m happy to grant that, because that is the OT context. But where in 1 Cor. 5 does Paul draw the conclusion you draw? Where does Paul say anything about the New Covenant in 1 Cor 5? Where does Paul draw an analogy between expulsion from the old covenant and expulsion from the _new coveant_? His analogy goes, just as the wicked man was expelled from Israel, so also the wicked man is to be expelled from the local _church_. Indeed. Paul says, "œDo you not judge those who are within the *church*?" (1 Cor. 5:12). He is addressing the local church, not the New Covenant. There is nothing in 1 Cor. 5 that equates the local church with the New Covenant. This is something you have read into the text. 

So, even here in 1 Cor. 5, Paul does indeed keep the context of the OT quote. He applies it analogously to the issue facing the church at Corinth. Just because he applies the principle found in the OT context to the local church doesn´t mean the OT context is "œflipped;" not at all. In fact, it would be your hermeneutic you apply to Heb. 10 that would create a train wreck of 1 Cor. 5. Let´s try taking the 180 degree opposite meaning of the OT context and apply it here in Paul´s exhortation. We would, then, *NOT* remove the wicked man from among ourselves. Obviously, this is not the case.




> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Or, I guess you can hold to your ultimate authority by allowing the author of Hebrews to have to mean what Moses meant, but the author of the Corinthians didn't mean what Moses meant by using *the exact same language* for removal from the visable covenant.



Again, since it´s an unargued assumption that Paul is referring to the "œvisable covenant" in 1 Cor. 5, you´re objection has no foundation. You would have to prove that local church = New Covenant for the objectoin to carry weight. 1 Cor. 5 doesn´t argue or assume such.

I hope this demonstrates just how much you are assuming when you approach these apostate passages. Your presumption that the New Covenant contains non-elect is absolutely foundational to your interpretation of apostate passages. However, when it comes time for you to argue that the New Covenant contains non-elect, you appeal to your interpretation of the apostate passages. The circularity at this point should be obvious.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> But from my perspective I'll assume, based on my argument, that Judge is being used the same in that passage and it is you who has to render the passage unintelligible by switching what the author has been talking about the entire passage.



If my argument for the author´s flow of thought it unintelligible, then demonstrate it. Quote me and point out the unintelligibility of the author´s flow of thought according to my exegesis. Is it unintelligible, or is it simply contrary to what you think it should mean?

As far as my original argument, is Christ the High Priest for each and every member of the New Covenant or not? If so, on your account of things, why didn´t Christ make an offering for each member of His covenant?


----------



## Monergism

> _Originally posted by Monergism_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 4. So, I ask you to be consistent. That is to say, since in Deuteronomy "the Lord will judge His people" did not have a bad judgment in mind (but rather vindication) then you say this is what it means in Hebrews 10. That is, if the same language is used in the OT then we interpret the NT as meaning what the OT means (a hermeneutical fallacy, btw, but I'll let it slide for my purposes, because it works in my favor).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I´ve already responded to this. It is not my hermeneutic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> So, let's be consistent. In I Cor 5 we read about church discipline. The church is Israel! So, Paul is telling Israel how to discipline its members. What does he say? he says "exprell the wicked from among you." Now, in the OT that *ALWAYS* means to remove someone from the external covenant! So, if Monergism is to be consistent then he must agree that non-elect are in the covenant since people can be removed from it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In 1 Cor 5, Paul didn´t "œtotally flip Moses´ words on their heads." Again, we look at both the OT context AND the NT context so as to determine how the HT writer utilizes the OT passage in his quotation. We do this passage by passage, context by context.
> 
> What, then, is the context of 1 Cor. 5? Paul is commanding the local church to engage in the practice of church discipline. That is, to remove the unrepentant sinner from the fellowship of the church. He is calling for holiness amongst the church community.
> 
> In support of his call for church purity, he quotes several OT passages: "œREMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES." Each instance the quote appears in the OT, it does indeed refer to a command for Israel to remove sinful individuals from the covenant community. I´m happy to grant that, because that is the OT context. But where in 1 Cor. 5 does Paul draw the conclusion you draw? Where does Paul say anything about the New Covenant in 1 Cor 5? Where does Paul draw an analogy between expulsion from the old covenant and expulsion from the _new coveant_? His analogy goes, just as the wicked man was expelled from Israel, so also the wicked man is to be expelled from the local _church_. Indeed. Paul says, "œDo you not judge those who are within the *church*?" (1 Cor. 5:12). He is addressing the local church, not the New Covenant. There is nothing in 1 Cor. 5 that equates the local church with the New Covenant. This is something you have read into the text.
> 
> So, even here in 1 Cor. 5, Paul does indeed keep the context of the OT quote. He applies it analogously to the issue facing the church at Corinth. Just because he applies the principle found in the OT context to the local church doesn´t mean the OT context is "œflipped;" not at all. In fact, it would be your hermeneutic you apply to Heb. 10 that would create a train wreck of 1 Cor. 5. Let´s try taking the 180 degree opposite meaning of the OT context and apply it here in Paul´s exhortation. We would, then, *NOT* remove the wicked man from among ourselves. Obviously, this is not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Or, I guess you can hold to your ultimate authority by allowing the author of Hebrews to have to mean what Moses meant, but the author of the Corinthians didn't mean what Moses meant by using *the exact same language* for removal from the visable covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, since it´s an unargued assumption that Paul is referring to the "œvisable covenant" in 1 Cor. 5, you´re objection has no foundation. You would have to prove that local church = New Covenant for the objectoin to carry weight. 1 Cor. 5 doesn´t argue or assume such.
> 
> I hope this demonstrates just how much you are assuming when you approach these apostate passages. Your presumption that the New Covenant contains non-elect is absolutely foundational to your interpretation of apostate passages. However, when it comes time for you to argue that the New Covenant contains non-elect, you appeal to your interpretation of the apostate passages. The circularity at this point should be obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> But from my perspective I'll assume, based on my argument, that Judge is being used the same in that passage and it is you who has to render the passage unintelligible by switching what the author has been talking about the entire passage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If my argument for the author´s flow of thought it unintelligible, then demonstrate it. Quote me and point out the unintelligibility of the author´s flow of thought according to my exegesis. Is it unintelligible, or is it simply contrary to what you think it should mean?
> 
> As far as my original argument, is Christ the High Priest for each and every member of the New Covenant or not? If so, on your account of things, why didn´t Christ make an offering for each member of His covenant?
Click to expand...

*Bump*


----------



## BJClark

Martin,

I'm curious, in your opinion, who is considered part of a household?

Are infants included in a persons household or not?

Again it appears you are assuming there were no infants in any of these households, while many of us assume there were at least some infants in these households, and thus assume as part of those households they were also baptised. 


1Cr 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

Act 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought [us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there]. And she constrained us.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/choice/1127231393-7316.html

A-1	Noun	Strong's Number: 3624	Greek: oikos
is translated "household" in Act 16:15; 1Cr 1:16; in the AV of 2Ti 4:19 (RV, "house"). See HOUSE, No. 1. 

1) a house

a) an inhabited house, home

b) any building whatever

1) of a palace

2) the house of God, the tabernacle

c) any dwelling place

1) of the human body as the abode of demons that possess it

2) of tents, and huts, and later, of the nests, stalls, lairs, of animals

3) the place where one has fixed his residence, one's settled abode, domicile

2) the inmates of a house, all the persons forming one family, a household

a) the family of God, of the Christian Church, of the church of the Old and New Testaments

3) stock, family, descendants of one
For Synonyms see entry 5867


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Bobbi,
Thank you for listing all the possible meanings of _oikos_. It is important to note that it doesn't always have to mean 'household.' However, when we read:-

1Cor 1:16. * And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.*

There can be little doubt that it means Stephanas's household or family. Did Stephanas have any infant children? Was he even married? We don't know. What I do know is that there is no example of infant baptism or any instruction to baptize infants in the NT, so it would be very foolish to make the assumption that any infant children he might hypothetically have had would have been baptized. However, in the case of Stephanas, we are given additional information which is helpful to us:-

1Cor 16:15-16. *'I urge you, brethren- you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints- that you also submit to such, and to everyone who works and labours with us.'*

Since it is unlikely that Stephanas's infant children had devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints, or that Paul would have urged the Corinthians to submit to babies, I think we may take it as read that Stephanas did not have infant children.

With regard to Lydia, there is no mention of her husband. "Come into _my_ house" she says. I think we may assume that she was single or widowed, and in all events, she would have been most unlikely to cart babies all round 1st Century Greece as she pursued her trade. Her household probably consisted of a couple of house slaves who were by the river with her, heard Paul preach, and were converted and baptized with her.

In times of revival, it is not unusual for whole families of adults to be converted together, and to be baptized together in Baptist churches. My wife and I were converted at almost the same time and baptized together, so that on that day you could say that salvation had come to the Marprelate household. However, our small children were not converted and therefore not baptized.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Arguments from silence should be banned from this board.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Monergism_
> 
> As far as my original argument, is Christ the High Priest for each and every member of the New Covenant or not? If so, on your account of things, why didn´t Christ make an offering for each member of His covenant?



http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=11859


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Arguments from silence should be banned from this board.



 The whole Paedo-baptist case is an argument from silence, the _oikos_ argument in particular. :bigsmile:

Martin


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

You often suffer from delusions.


----------



## ChristianTrader

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Arguments from silence should be banned from this board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole Paedo-baptist case is an argument from silence, the _oikos_ argument in particular. :bigsmile:
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...


The whole debate (both sides) can be portrayed as an argument from silence.

Credo's argue that if God had wanted us to baptize the children of believers then He would have said exactly that.

Paedo's argue that God has revealed that the children of covenant members are to be admitted to the Covenant of Grace by the covenant sign and He has never said anything different, so we should continue to do the same.

So the argument is who can justify their argument from silence.

CT


----------



## Scott Bushey

From this moment, stating that the person position is from 'silence' is now banned unless of course the person leveling the charge is willing to relinquish all other biblical positions derived from silence.


----------

