# Understanding the "Abrahamic Covenant" is key!



## Mocha

As I study the subject of "baptism", I'm becoming more and more convinced that understanding the "Abrahamic Covenant" is key! 

Over the past few weeks I have been seriously studying the "baptism" issue, and I must admit, I have begun to see the whole issue in a new and compelling light. When I began to understand the "Abrahamic Covenant" from the paedobaptist point of view, many verses in the Bible began to look very different to me. For example, God's protection of families (Noah, Lot, Rahab, etc.), the many verses that mention "you and your children", Jesus' blessing of the children, the household baptisms, a verse that mentions children of a Christian parent as being 'holy' (1 Cor. 7:14), verses that seem to show that someone that belongs to Christ can be removed (John 15, Romans 9, and Hebrews 10, etc.), external and internal aspects of the covenant, and more. I am convinced that your interpretation of the "Abahamic Covenant" and its implications will determine whether you are paeodobaptistic or baptistic. The verses and passages mentioned above can only be used as proof texts when the meaning of the "Abrahamic Covenant" is read into them, therefore, it seems to me, the best way to resolve the "baptism" issue is to understand the "Abrahamic Covenant". To study the other verses and passages that seem to support or refute infant baptism, without first understanding the Abrahamic Covenant, is just a waste of time (in my opinion).

With this in mind, I want to start this thread with one question in mind. Here's my question:

When infants were circumcised, was it a confirmation that one was in the covenant or was it the token of God's covenant promise to Abraham?

Ligon Duncan expresses the Paedobaptistic position in the following quote:



> Now that is interesting language. The covenant is the relationship which exists between Abraham and the Lord and it has existed since Genesis 12. And yet now, in Genesis 17, God is saying, look at the words again, you can look in your Hebrew text there, especially in verse 10, this is the covenant. "œThis is My covenant, which you shall keep between Me and between you and your seed after you. To be circumcised every male among you." Isn´t that an interesting way to define the covenant. God says first in verse 9, you must keep My covenant. And then He defines the covenant, not in terms of the relationship that He has with Abram, but in terms of the sign of circumcision. Isn´t that an interesting way of speaking? In this context, the closest possible identification is made between the sign of the covenant and the covenant itself. The closest possible identification is made between the covenant sign, which is circumcision, and the covenant relationship. In fact, they are so closely related that the sign is said to be the covenant and the covenant is said to be the sign. This is My covenant that every male among you shall be circumcised.
> Well, I don´t think that it would be improper at all to translate it by the way of dynamic equivalents, "œThis is My covenant sign, that every male among you be circumcised." But the literal language is, "œThis is My covenant, that you be circumcised." So what we have here is a relationship between a covenant and the covenant sign in which God is stressing the closeness between those two things. *To be in the covenant is to be in the covenant sign.* To reject the covenant sign is to reject the covenant.
> 
> ...*The sign provides an outward sign of entrance into the external covenant community. To receive circumcision, God makes clear in Genesis 17, is to be considered part of the covenant community.* Now again, notice, receiving the sign of circumcision does not in and of itself make you even part of the visible covenant community. *It confirms the fact that you are already part of the covenant community*, whether you are an adult or child. (click here to see article)




Arthur Pink expresses the Baptistic position in the following quote:



> The next thing we would observe is that circumcision was "a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had." Again we would say, Let us be on our guard against adding to God´s Word, for *nowhere does Scripture say that circumcision was a seal to anyone but to Abraham himself*; and even in his case, so far was it from communicating any spiritual blessing, it simply confirmed what was already promised to him. As a seal from God, circumcision was a divine pledge or guaranty that from him should issue that seed which would bring blessing to all nations, and that, on the same terms as justifying righteousness had become his"”by faith alone. It was not a seal of his faith, but of that righteousness which, in due time, was to be wrought out by the Messiah and Mediator. *Circumcision was not a memorial of anything which had already been actualized, but an earnest of that which was yet future"”namely, of that justifying righteousness which was to be brought in by Christ.*
> 
> But did not God enjoin that all the males of Abraham´s household, and in those of his descendants, should also be circumcised? He did, and in that very fact we find definite confirmation of what has just been said above. *What did circumcision seal to Abraham´s servants and slaves? Nothing. "Circumcision neither signed nor sealed the blessings of the covenant of Abraham to the individuals to whom it was by Divine appointment administered. It did not imply that they who were circumcised were accounted the heirs of the promises, either temporal or spiritual. It was not applied to mark them individually as heirs of the promises.* It did not imply this even to Isaac and Jacob, who are by name designated heirs with Abraham. Their interest in the promises was secured to them by God´s expressly giving them the covenant, but was not represented in their circumcision. *Circumcision marked no character, and had an individual application to no man but Abraham himself. It was the token of this covenant; and as a token or sign, no doubt applied to every promise in the covenant, but it did not designate the individual circumcised as having a personal interest in these promises.* The covenant promised a numerous seed to Abraham; circumcision, as the token of that covenant, must have been a sign of this; but it did not sign this to any other. Any other circumcised individual, except Isaac and Jacob, to whom the covenant was given by name, might have been childless.
> 
> "Circumcision did not import to any individual that any portion of the numerous seed of Abraham should descend through him. The covenant promised that all nations should be blessed in Abraham"”that the Messiah should be his descendant. But circumcision was no sign to any other that the Messiah should descend from him,"”even to Isaac and Jacob this promise was peculiarly given, and not implied in their circumcision. From some of Abraham´s race, the Messiah, according to the covenant, must descend, and circumcision was a sign of this: but this was not signed by circumcision to any one of all his race. Much less could circumcision "˜sign´ this to the strangers and slaves who were not of Abraham´s posterity. To such, even the temporal promises were not either "˜signed´ or sealed by circumcision. The covenant promised Canaan to Abraham´s descendants, but circumcision could be no sign of this to the strangers and slaves who enjoyed no inheritance in it" (Alexander Carson, 1860).
> 
> *That circumcision did not seal anything to anyone but to Abraham himself is established beyond shadow of doubt by the fact that circumcision was applied to those who had no personal interest in the covenant to which it was attached.* Not only was circumcision administered by Abraham to the servants and slaves of his household, but in Genesis 17:23 we read that he circumcised Ishmael, who was expressly excluded from that covenant! There is no evading the force of that, and it is impossible to reconcile it with the views so widely pervading upon the Abrahamic covenant. Furthermore, circumcision was not submitted to voluntarily, nor given with reference to faith, it was compulsory, and that in every instance: "He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money must needs be circumcised" (Gen. 17:13)"”those refusing, being "cut off from his people" (v. 14). How vastly different was that from Christian baptism!
> 
> *It maybe asked, If, then, circumcision sealed nothing to those who received it, except in the one case of Abraham himself, then why did God ordain it to be administered to all his male descendants?* First, because it was the *mark* He selected to distinguish from all other nations that people from whom the Messiah was to issue. Second, because it served as a *continual reminder* that from the Abrahamic stock the promised Seed would spring"”hence, soon after He appeared, circumcision was set aside by God. Third, because of *what it typically foreshadowed*. To be born naturally of the Abrahamic stock gave a title to circumcision and the earthly inheritance, which was a figure of their title to the heavenly inheritance of those born of the Spirit. The servants and slaves in Abraham´s household "bought with money" beautifully adumbrated the truth that those who enter the kingdom of Christ are "bought" by His blood. (Read point # VIII here for more on this )



The question again is: 

When infants were circumcised, was it a confirmation that one was in the covenant or was it the token of God's covenant promise to Abraham?

Ligon Duncan, representing the paedobaptist position, says "circumcision was a confirmation that one was in the covenant", and Arthur Pink, representing the baptist postion, says "circumcision was a token of God's covenant promise to Abraham". 

Which is right? I believe your answer to this question will determine which side you come down on with regard to the baptism issue!

I'm leaning towards the baptist position but I would like to be challenged on this and therefore would like to see your responses!

Mike 

PS - I was hoping to put this question in a poll but I don't know how to use it. Can anybody help me to figure how to do it?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> *WCF "” Chapter XXVIII: Of Baptism*
> 1. 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*, of 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 Church until the end of the world.
> 
> *Q. 166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered?*
> A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but *infants descending from parents*, either both, or but one of them, *professing faith in Christ*, and obedience to him, *are in that respect within the covenant*, and to be baptized.


----------



## Mocha

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> *WCF "” Chapter XXVIII: Of Baptism*
> 1. 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*, of 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 Church until the end of the world.
> 
> *Q. 166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered?*
> A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but *infants descending from parents*, either both, or but one of them, *professing faith in Christ*, and obedience to him, *are in that respect within the covenant*, and to be baptized.
Click to expand...


Gabriel,

How would you respond to Arthur Pink's argument that the covenant was made with Abraham alone and that the circumcision of an infant was a token of that covenant with Abraham and that the one being circumcised had no personal interest in the covenant?

Mike


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

The covenant was with Abraham and his offspring.


----------



## Casey

I think I may be sniffing a false dichotomy here.  Could you, perhaps, say that both are true? The new covenant is a continuation/progression of the old. Paul declared (1) that Abraham is the "œfather of all who believe" among both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 4:11-12), and (2) that all who belong to Christ "œare Abraham´s seed, and heirs according to the promise" which God gave to Abraham (Gal. 3:29).


> The covenant was with Abraham and his offspring.




[Edited on 12-12-2005 by StaunchPresbyterian]


----------



## Mocha

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> The covenant was with Abraham and his offspring.



The covenant was made with Abraham alone, but Abraham and his seed had to keep it. By keeping it, by circumcising all infants, there was a constant reminder of God's covenant. Are there any verses that prove that circumcised infants were "in" the covenant? I don't think you can say that keeping the covenant and being in the covenant are the same thing?

Mike


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> When infants were circumcised, was it a confirmation that one was in the covenant or was it the token of God's covenant promise to Abraham?



I would say this question is answered by Genesis 17:11, specifically in light of the fact that not only are the first "you" ("You shall be...") and the verb conjugation ("circumcized") plural, but that the _last_ "you" ("...a sign of the covenant between me and you") is plural as well. (For reference, here is the discussion we had earlier where I initially made mention of that verse.)


----------



## Mocha

> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> I think I may be sniffing a false dichotomy here.  Could you, perhaps, say that both are true? The new covenant is a continuation/progression of the old. Paul declared (1) that Abraham is the "œfather of all who believe" among both Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 4:11-12), and (2) that all who belong to Christ "œare Abraham´s seed, and heirs according to the promise" which God gave to Abraham (Gal. 3:29).
> 
> 
> 
> The covenant was with Abraham and his offspring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 12-12-2005 by StaunchPresbyterian]
Click to expand...


Arthur Pink says that the "Abrahamic Covenant" was made with only Abraham. It was not with the 'physical' seed and it was not even made with the 'spiritual' seed. Circumcision was a token of God's promise until the "Seed" (Christ) would come. The promises were to Abraham alone, and not believers. See Pink's quote below:



> Let us point out in the next place that *Abraham´s covenant was strictly peculiar to himself; for neither in the Old Testament nor in the New is it ever said that the covenant with Abraham was made on behalf of all believers, or that it is given to them.* The great thing that the covenant secured to Abraham was that he should have a seed, and that God would be the God of that seed; but Christians have no divine warrant that He will be the God of their seed, nor even that they shall have any children at all. As a matter of fact, many of them have no posterity; and therefore they cannot have the covenant of Abraham. The covenant of Abraham was as peculiar to himself as the one God made with Phinehas, "And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood" (Num. 25:13), and as the covenant of royalty which God made with David and his seed (2 Sam. 7:12-16). In each case a divine promise was given securing a posterity; and *had no children been born to those men, then God had broken His covenant.*
> 
> Look at the original promises made to Abraham: "And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shah be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 12:2, 3). Has God promised every Christian that He will make of him a "great nation"? or that He will make his "name great""”celebrated like the patriarch´s was and is? or that in him "all the families of the earth shall be blessed"? Surely there is no room for argument here: the very asking of such questions answers them. Nothing could be more extravagant and absurd than to suppose that any such promises as these were made to us.
> 
> If God fulfills the covenant with Abraham and his seed to every believer and his seed, then He does so in accord with the terms of the covenant itself. But *if we turn to and carefully examine its contents, it will at once appear that they were not to be fulfilled in the case of all believers, in addition to Abraham himself.* In that covenant God promises that Abraham should be "a father of many nations," that "kings shall come out of thee," that "I will give thee and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession" (Gen. 17:5-8). *But Christians are not made the fathers of many nations; kings do not come out of them; nor do their descendants occupy the land of Canaan, either literally or spiritually.* How many a godly believer has had to mourn with David: "Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure, for this is all my salvation" (2 Sam. 23:5).
> 
> *The covenant established no spiritual relation between Abraham and his offspring*; still less does it establish a spiritual relation between every believer and his babes. Abraham was not the spiritual father of his own natural offspring, for spiritual qualities cannot be propagated by carnal generation. Was he the spiritual father of Ishmael? Was he the spiritual father of Esau? No, indeed; instead, Abraham was "the father of all them that believe" (Rom. 4:11). So far as his natural descendants were concerned, Scripture declares that Abraham was "the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised" (Rom. 4:12). What could be plainer? Let us beware of adding to God´s Word. No theory or practice, no matter how venerable it be or how widely held, is tenable, if no clear Scripture can be found to warrant and establish it.



Mike


----------



## Scott Bushey

Just to clarify; It is Gods covenant that He made w/ Abraham. The sign of that relationship (to the covenant) was yesterday, circumcision and today, baptism. The believers responsibility is:

Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 
Gen 17:11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 
Gen 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 
Gen 17:13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 
Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." 

Mike previously asked:



> How would you respond to Arthur Pink's argument that the covenant was made with Abraham alone and that the circumcision of an infant was a token of that covenant with Abraham and that the one being circumcised had no personal interest in the covenant?



Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.


----------



## Mocha

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> When infants were circumcised, was it a confirmation that one was in the covenant or was it the token of God's covenant promise to Abraham?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say this question is answered by Genesis 17:11, specifically in light of the fact that not only are the first "you" ("You shall be...") and the verb conjugation ("circumcized") plural, but that the _last_ "you" ("...a sign of the covenant between me and you") is plural as well. (For reference, here is the discussion we had earlier where I initially made mention of that verse.)
Click to expand...


I'm interested in getting your response to Arthur Pink on the following quotes:



> Other promises followed, such as "unto thy seed will I give this land" (Gen. 12:7), "to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee" (Gen. 17:7), and so forth, which we shall consider later. That which immediately concerns us is the meaning of the term "seed" in these passages. The Scripture which throws the most light thereon is Galatians 3:16, 17: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."..."He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." To sum up. The promises of God were never by human procreation, the other by divine regeneration. *But the promises were not made to both of his seeds, but to one of them only, namely, the spiritual, the mystical "Christ"*"”the Redeemer and all who are legally and vitally united to Him.
> 
> ...Later, the line of Messiah´s descent was more definitely restricted; for of Isaac´s two sons, Esau was rejected and Jacob was chosen as the progenitor of Christ. Out of Jacob´s twelve sons, Judah was selected as the tribe from which the promised Seed should issue. Out of all the thousands of Judah, the family of Jesse was the one honored to give birth to the Savior (Isa. 11:1). Of Jesse´s eight sons (1 Sam. 16:10, 11), David was appointed to be the father of the Messiah. *Thus we may see that as time went on, the channel through which Abraham´s Seed should issue was more definitely narrowed down and defined, and therein and thereby God gradually made it known how His original promises to Abraham were to receive their fulfillment.* The limitation of these promises was evidenced by the rejection of Ishmael, and then of Esau, which clearly intimated that all of Abraham´s descendants were not included therein; until, ultimately, *it was seen that their fulfillment was received in Christ Himself and those united to Him.*
> 
> ...The promises were limited originally, and that limitation was evidenced more clearly by successive revelations, until *it was shown that none but Christ* (and those united to Him) were included: "And to thy seed, which is Christ" (mystical)!



Why is "seed" (plural) such a stumbling block? Arthur Pink answers:



> ...a slavish adherence to "the letter," thereby missing the "spirit" of the verse.



If I'm understanding Pink correctly, Genesis 17, even though in the plural, has reference to Christ ultimately. The seed (plural) is more and more limited until there is none but Christ. Gal. 3:16,17 shows the spiritual nature of Gen. 17:11. Pink would caution against slavishly adhering to the 'letter'.

What do you think?

Mike


----------



## Mocha

Scott,

You gave the following verses:



> Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.
> Gen 17:11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.
> Gen 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,
> Gen 17:13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.
> Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."



But none of these verses prove that the one circumcised is in the covenant. It is clear that they, by being circumcised, are visually proclaiming God's covenant promise to Abraham, but where do we actually see that those circumcised are in the covenant?

You said:



> Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.



The covenant is between me (God) and you (Abraham) and your offspring (ulimately Christ - Gal. 3:16,17). 

Mike


----------



## Scott Bushey

> But none of these verses prove that the one circumcised is in the covenant. It is clear that they, by being circumcised, are visually proclaiming God's covenant promise to Abraham, but where do we actually see that those circumcised are in the covenant?



Last post; I'm in the field.............

Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 
Gen 17:11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 
Gen 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 
Gen 17:13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 
*Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."*

By not placing the sign, acknowledging Gods command and covenant, tell me, what are these individuals spoken of in verse 14 'cut off' from?

As well, Christ himself tells the pharisee's that they are indeed 'The seed of Abraham"......

Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 
Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 
Joh 8:33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed,and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 
Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 
Joh 8:35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 
Joh 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 
Joh 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

Another example of the visible/invisible distinction.........


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Gen 17:11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.
> 
> The covenant is between me (God) and you (Abraham) and your offspring (ulimately Christ - Gal. 3:16,17).



Mike, what do you think of this in light of what I mentioned above? In verse 11, the last "you" (as well as all the others) is plural, and thus God is speaking to Abraham _and_ his offspring when He speaks of "the covenant between me and you."


----------



## Contra_Mundum

But surely Paul, by speaking of Christ as *the* Seed, is speaking in terms of an "ultimate" or ideal fulfilment in Christ. What, are we to admit that there was no reality at all to the inclusion of so many from all the tribes in the covenant? After a time, was the sign largely evacuated of meaning outside the line of David?

By a cut in the flesh a sign (an "arrow") pointed ahead to God's fulfilment, it was truly "the sign of *promise.*. And God said, "If you don't persist in this ritual, you are to be excommunicated." _But only to Abraham is this sign a mark (a seal) of God's ownership?_ So, by circumcision God is not marking off a people? Setting them apart? That part about being a "holy" nation ... ? God makes no claims on the nation? It is the seal that enforces the obedience!

Wouldn't it be true that for those whose *hearts* were circumcised, that they, _at least,_ had the seal as well as the sign? Of what does the matter of _identifying_ with Abraham consist? How is it that circumcision is not a seal unto Isaac, who identifies with the faith of his father Abraham? 

I ask that by way of concession, because I think that separating the concepts sign & seal is artificial. The issue, as I see it, is not what the rite symbolized, but the efficacy. For a tragic host, the external acts were not mixed with faith, and so were dead works. The Spirit of God was not active to save them. But these faithless Israelites, their obligation under the covenant was there! They were vomited out of the land, they were thrown back into the Mesopotamian dustbin, back to Ur, rejected by God.

And why? On what basis? For their covenant breaking harlotry! And their rebellion was testified to every day of their lives by the seal of the Covenant in their flesh.

Now for those who persevered in faith, who were regenerated by the miracle of the Spirit, the sign and seal was more than outward or superficial. It was effectual; not by a rite, but according to the election of God, by the Spirit and by faith.


----------



## Steve Owen

I'm delighted to see that someone else reads *The Divine Covenants* by Pink. I think his most important point is when he says:-


> Not only was circumcision administered by Abraham to the servants and slaves of his household, but in Genesis 17:23 we read that he circumcised Ishmael, who was expressly excluded from that covenant! There is no evading the force of that, and it is impossible to reconcile it with the views so widely pervading upon the Abrahamic covenant.



I've mentioned this before here. Gen 17:18-23 says specifically that Ishmael was not in the covenant, yet he was still circumcised. Therefore, to be circumcised did not bring one into the Abrahamic covenant. 

Gal 3:16. *'Now to Abraham and His Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.'*

Abraham's true 'seed' or descendants are Christ and those who are in Him. There is, to be sure, an earthly or physical inheritance for his physical seed who carry the physical sign (circumcision), typified by the promises to Ishmael, but the spiritual or heavenly promises are to Christ and those attached to Him by faith. * 'Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.'* These are they who have the circumcision made without hands, who have, through their union with Christ died to sin with Him and risen to new life, typified by baptism (Col 2:11-12 ). 

*'And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.'*

One more point. The Abrahamic Covenant should not be seen *as* the Everlasting Covenant. Rather it is a promise of it, a _covenant of promise_ (Eph 2:12 ). That is why the Holy Spirit can say of the Patriarchs, *'These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embrased them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth' *(Heb 11:13 ). *"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day...."* (John 8:56 ). He saw it 'afar off.'

Grace & Peace,

Martin

Martin


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> I'm interested in getting your response to Arthur Pink on the following quotes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other promises followed, such as "unto thy seed will I give this land" (Gen. 12:7), "to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee" (Gen. 17:7), and so forth, which we shall consider later. That which immediately concerns us is the meaning of the term "seed" in these passages. The Scripture which throws the most light thereon is Galatians 3:16, 17: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."..."He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." To sum up. The promises of God were never by human procreation, the other by divine regeneration. *But the promises were not made to both of his seeds, but to one of them only, namely, the spiritual, the mystical "Christ"*"”the Redeemer and all who are legally and vitally united to Him.
> 
> ...Later, the line of Messiah´s descent was more definitely restricted; for of Isaac´s two sons, Esau was rejected and Jacob was chosen as the progenitor of Christ. Out of Jacob´s twelve sons, Judah was selected as the tribe from which the promised Seed should issue. Out of all the thousands of Judah, the family of Jesse was the one honored to give birth to the Savior (Isa. 11:1). Of Jesse´s eight sons (1 Sam. 16:10, 11), David was appointed to be the father of the Messiah. *Thus we may see that as time went on, the channel through which Abraham´s Seed should issue was more definitely narrowed down and defined, and therein and thereby God gradually made it known how His original promises to Abraham were to receive their fulfillment.* The limitation of these promises was evidenced by the rejection of Ishmael, and then of Esau, which clearly intimated that all of Abraham´s descendants were not included therein; until, ultimately, *it was seen that their fulfillment was received in Christ Himself and those united to Him.*
> 
> ...The promises were limited originally, and that limitation was evidenced more clearly by successive revelations, until *it was shown that none but Christ* (and those united to Him) were included: "And to thy seed, which is Christ" (mystical)!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is "seed" (plural) such a stumbling block? Arthur Pink answers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...a slavish adherence to "the letter," thereby missing the "spirit" of the verse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I'm understanding Pink correctly, Genesis 17, even though in the plural, has reference to Christ ultimately. The seed (plural) is more and more limited until there is none but Christ. Gal. 3:16,17 shows the spiritual nature of Gen. 17:11. Pink would caution against slavishly adhering to the 'letter'.
> 
> What do you think?
Click to expand...


Sorry, I just now saw this post. As far as Pink's statement on the "letter" versus the "spirit" of a passage of Scripture, at first glance I must say it honestly sounds like a cop-out to me, and also something that many evangelicals today would say in regard to their "personal interpretation" of Scripture versus its plain exegetical meaning. If what Pink is referring to, however, is simply the principle that we must never read a Scripture on its own, but rather interpret it within the broader scheme of other Scriptures and Scripture as a whole, I naturally agree, although I think he could have worded it better if that is what he meant.

If that is what he is referring to, and in thus saying that Christ is the true and proper interpretation of Abraham's "offspring," my impression is that he is somewhat confusing it in the same way as it is possible to confuse the visible and invisible Church, or also confuse visible and invisible Israel. That is, Scripture speaks of "Israel" rather than "_an_ Israel," and speaks of "the Church" rather than "_a_ Church," yet it is clear from Scriptures like Romans 9-11 that there are some instances of those seemingly identical references that are referring to the temporal and visible, and some instances that are referring to the eternal and invisible. In light of that, it would be begging the question to automatically assume that a reference to one of those things is referring to it in either the visible or invisible sense without first looking at the context of the passage to determine what is ultimately in reference. And that is a broad hermeneutical principle applicable to other words and phrases as well, ones that can refer to different things with the same terminology. Thus, when looking at the "offspring" mentioned in Genesis 17:11, it is hardly conclusive for Pink to merely point to Galatians 3:16 and thus conclude that Christ is the sole reference in Genesis 17, in every sense.* Furthermore, with even just a brief look at the context of that passage, we immediately see much talk of a physical offspring, which questions Pink's interpretation at least, and disproves it at most.

* I want to emphasize my speaking of "every sense" of what is being referenced in Genesis 17, since I am not denying the possibility of both Christ and physical offspring being referenced; on the contrary, there are repeated cases throughout Scripture when references of such a dual nature are made, with the one pointing to the other. In fact, that is the Reformed understanding of the signs of the covenants, and the covenants themselves - being visible things that point toward invisible things of the same title and even some of the same essence. It is the same principle as the fact that the visible and invisible Church are not the same thing, but that there is nonetheless a great overlap between the two, even as acknowledged by Baptists, who presume membership in the latter based on membership in the former through profession. Likewise, the physical offspring (paralleling the visible Church) of Abraham can in many ways be seen as the sign and representation of the invisible offspring (paralleling the invisible Church), which is Christ as you noted - and that makes sense, because the invisible Church (the elect) indeed has her very identity and being in Christ.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Let's go visit Abraham, shall we. Let us go and see that family. We could go see many different families in the OT, but Abraham's is a good place to start. Here we find a covenant family. Abraham has two sons, by two different women. God is very clear: Isaac is the seed of promise, not Ishmael (Gen 17:21).

Saying that "Ishmael was not in the covenant" is flat out denying what his circumcision states, vv. 25 & 26. God certainly doesn't say that. Ishmael was in said covenant by his connection to Abraham. Now Abraham will die, but the covenant will not. Isaac is the seed by which it will be ratified, from which the Promised One will issue. Now there is Ishmael. He mocks the seed of promise, Isaac (Gen 21:9). He will not have this one to rule over him (Lk. 19:14). Ishmael thrusts himself away from the covenant of promise.

Likewise, if we visit the tents of Isaac, we shall find two sons, Jacob and Esau. Both are children of the covenant. Both are children of Isaac and Abraham. But Esau is a rebel. Jacob secures the birthright and the blessing (God uses even men's sins for his holy ends). Should not Esau have knelt before Jacob--and asked for a blessing? Yes! But he would rather plot his murder than "serve the younger."

Let us visit the tents of Jacob. Here are 12 sons, all of them in the covenant. And it is in Joseph that Israel finds the Spirit he recognizes. Joseph will assume the covenant mantle when he is gone. God ratifies Jacob's choice by giving Joseph dreams--dreams of a family exalted to the heavens, dreams of provision of grain in abundance, if only this house will serve Joseph. "Shalt thou indeed reign over us? And they hated him yet the more for his dreams, and for his words."

Man proposes, God disposes. Joseph would indeed be the savior of the family, and they would bow before him. But on earth they would not be exalted but humiliated. In their act of rebellion (envy, Acts 7:9), the brothers "eliminated" Joseph. And God used Judah's rise to covenant leadership to establish the tribe's prominence--its regal title (Gen 49:10). The Seed would come from Judah.

But did this mean the others were not in covenant? Absurd! Of course they were, including Joseph, and his posterity as well. As well with David--what business did the 10 tribes have in saying "What portion have we in David? Neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse" (1 Ki. 12:16). In David was their covenant head, and in his son, and in his Son.

Read Acts 7. It is an indictment of a rebellious nation, a covenant lawsuit. Count the number of times Stephen refers to the fathers, our fathers, your fathers, the patriarchs, the children, the sons, brethren. See how he names the names. He begins not with David or Moses but with Abraham. All these--rebels and faithful were in the covenant. Down to the ones who put to death the Just One. They were covenant-bound to submit to Jesus, and they would not. They refused. "For _envy_ they had delivered him" (Mt. 27:18).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Interesting, is it not, that God refers to Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Why not just as the God of Abraham if the Covenant was just with Abraham?

Talk about a pretext! Look how Pink develops his whole line of thinking:


> The next thing we would observe is that circumcision was "a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had." Again we would say, Let us be on our guard against adding to God´s Word, for nowhere does Scripture say that circumcision was a seal to anyone but to Abraham himself.


You can almost stop reading there. It colors everything else he writes.

So because Paul, in Romans, says "he" and talks about Abraham then circumcision was only a seal for him? That is PURE inference. The text does not demand that it be interpreted that way. If Paul had said that the seal was to him alone then it would be enough to develop a theology on.

Why wouldn't the same standard be applied to God's Covenant with Adam? A stronger textual case could be made to imply that there is no Original Sin based on the principle Pink applies. After all, God only told Adam that "he" would die.

[Edited on 12-13-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Interesting, is it not, that God refers to Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Why not just as the God of Abraham if the Covenant was just with Abraham?


Well, this is very easily answered. We know that Isaac and Jacob are in the covenant because God specifically told them both that they were, and wrote it in the Bible for us to read (Gen 26:2-5; 27:13-14 ).


> Talk about a pretext! Look how Pink develops his whole line of thinking:
> 
> 
> 
> The next thing we would observe is that circumcision was "a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had." Again we would say, Let us be on our guard against adding to God´s Word, for nowhere does Scripture say that circumcision was a seal to anyone but to Abraham himself.
> 
> 
> 
> You can almost stop reading there. It colors everything else he writes.
Click to expand...

If you have not read the book, I think you should do so before making that sort of blanket condemnation. There is a lot more to it than that. Moreover, what is the alternative to what he says? _"Let us not be on our guard against adding to God's word because Prov 30:5-6 & Rev 22:18 are not really important"_?


> So because Paul, in Romans, says "he" and talks about Abraham then circumcision was only a seal for him? That is PURE inference. The text does not demand that it be interpreted that way.


Well, I think it does actually. It certainly isn't _inference_, but a plain reading of the text. The basic rule of interpretation is that in a plain, prose, teaching text like Rom 4:11, you must take the plain meaning of the words *unless* there is another text that appears to contradict them. *Then* you can go back to the original text and say, 'Is there another possible meaning to this?' So if you can find a text that says that circumcision is a seal to anyone but Abraham, or if you can find a text that says that baptism is/was a seal to anyone at all, you can let us know, and we'll think again.


> Why wouldn't the same standard be applied to God's Covenant with Adam? A stronger textual case could be made to imply that there is no Original Sin based on the principle Pink applies. After all, God only told Adam that "he" would die.



Because Paul tells us that, *'.....Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned'* (Rom 5:12 ).

We must use the New Testament to clarify and explain the Old.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Steve Owen

Bruce wrote:-


> Saying that "Ishmael was not in the covenant" is flat out denying what his circumcision states, vv. 25 & 26. God certainly doesn't say that. Ishmael was in said covenant by his connection to Abraham.



All vs 25-26 state is that Abraham circumcised Ishmael. I think Pink knew that  His point is that in the clearest language possible, God told Abraham that Ishmael was not in the covenant, circumcision or no.
Gen 17:18-19. *'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* (or 'Seed'- cf. Gal 3:16 )* after him.'*

What is there about *"No"* that you chaps find so difficult?



> Read Acts 7. It is an indictment of a rebellious nation, a covenant lawsuit. Count the number of times Stephen refers to the fathers, our fathers, your fathers, the patriarchs, the children, the sons, brethren. See how he names the names. He begins not with David or Moses but with Abraham. All these--rebels and faithful were in the covenant. Down to the ones who put to death the Just One. They were covenant-bound to submit to Jesus, and they would not. They refused. "For envy they had delivered him" (Mt. 27:18).


They were indeed a covenant people, but most of them were not in the covenant of promise that God made with Abraham. *'Know therefore that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham'* (Gal 3:7 ). They would only be in that if they trusted in the God of Abraham and in his Seed. They wre in the Old, Mosaic covenant (typified in the promises to Ishmael- Gen 17:20 ), and of them it is written, *''....They did not continue in My covenant and I disregarded them, says the Lord'* (Heb 8:9 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 12-13-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Martin,

I'm shocked you agree with Pink! 

Yes Martin it is inference that Pink uses. As it is the only verse that speaks of the sign of circumcision as a seal it is a convenient pretext for credo baptists but it is inference nevertheless. A good starting point to read God's enduring Covenant out of the entire Scripture.

[Edited on 12-13-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Martin,
> 
> I'm shocked you agree with Pink!
> 
> Yes Martin it is inference that Pink uses. As it is the only verse that speaks of the sign of circumcision as a seal it is a convenient pretext for credo baptists but it is inference nevertheless. A good starting point to read God's enduring Covenant out of the entire Scripture.
> 
> [Edited on 12-13-2005 by SemperFideles]



It won't matter how many times I read the entire Scripture, I still won't find anywhere that circumcision is the seal of the covenant to anyone but Abraham, or that baptism is the seal of anything to anyone.

The Holy Spirit is the seal of the Covenant (Eph 1:13. cf. Isaiah 42:1; Rom 8:14-16 ).


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> All vs 25-26 state is that Abraham circumcised Ishmael. I think Pink knew that His point is that in the clearest language possible, God told Abraham that Ishmael was not in the covenant, circumcision or no.
> Gen 17:18-19. '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 (or 'Seed'- cf. Gal 3:16 ) after him.'
> 
> What is there about "No" that you chaps find so difficult?



Well, frankly, I don't see how you are taking the words and making them out to be a clear declaration of Ishmael's reprobation. That's one reason I suggested we all take a trip (mentally) to sit in front of Abraham's tent and see his family in operation. Do you really think that in this language God tells Abraham that Ishmael (whom Abraham clearly loves) is hell bound? That he has no chance to live in the covenant, under Isaac's headship? *I find that interpretation as improbable and unreal as you seem to find mine.*

Abraham's request for Ishmael tells us a lot more about Abraham's attitude and present faith that it does a single thing about Ishmael (v. 17: "I'm too old, and Sarah's too old"). Abe put a lot of stock in his own plans, and now God tells him those are sunk costs. "Well what about Ishmael? Can't he be the one?" God says, "I'll bless him too, but its Isaac that fulfils the promise, not Ishmael."

By your artificial separation of the sign and the thing signified, you make out Abraham's forthwith obedience (cf. vv 9, 10 with vv23, 25), and subsequent generations' obedience, an empty ritual conducted in obedience to the letter _even among the faithful devoid of inherent signification._ Circumcision itself (according to your interpretation) isn't the sign but the act of circumcising. Parents get the blessing, when they submit their children by faith to the rite. The sign means nothing to the person wearing the badge. Abraham circumcises Ishmael knowing that it is pointless and empty, because God has already told him Ishmael is not the seed of promise, not even IN the covenant. This appears to be the conclusion of your line of reasoning. And I cannot reconcile it either to the text, or the OT, or Jesus, or Paul, the whole of Scripture.


----------



## Mocha

Scott,

You said:



> Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.
> Gen 17:11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.
> Gen 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,
> Gen 17:13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.
> Gen 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
> 
> *By not placing the sign, acknowledging Gods command and covenant, tell me, what are these individuals spoken of in verse 14 'cut off' from?*



Arthur Pink said:



> The covenant of *Abraham* was as peculiar to himself as the one God made with *Phinehas*, "And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood" (Num. 25:13), and as the covenant of royalty which God made with *David* and his seed (2 Sam. 7:12-16). In each case a divine promise was given securing a posterity; and *had no children been born to those men, then God had broken His covenant.*



He will be 'cut off' from his people because he no longer reflects God's covenant to Abraham. A visual representation of the covenant made with Abraham (looking back) and of the seed [Christ] (looking forward) that would be a blessing to all the world, is absolutely essential.

Scott said:



> As well, Christ himself tells the pharisee's that they are indeed 'The seed of Abraham"......
> 
> Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
> Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
> Joh 8:33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed,and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
> Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
> Joh 8:35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
> Joh 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
> Joh 8:37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
> 
> Another example of the visible/invisible distinction.........



Abraham was the father of a twofold seed, a natural and a spiritual. Neither the 'natural' seed nor the 'spiritual' seed are in the covenant, but the 'natural' and spiritual' seed receive covenantal blessings because of their relationship to Abraham.

I'm just wondering...could it be that when the New Covenant was made with Christ, that no one actually entered the covenant, but that we simply enjoy the blessing of the covenant because we are united to Christ? Is there any New Testament passage that says Christians are "in" the covenant? 

Just thinking out loud here... 

Mike


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Bruce.


> Do you really think that in this language God tells Abraham that Ishmael (whom Abraham clearly loves) is hell bound? That he has no chance to live in the covenant, under Isaac's headship?



No, I don't think that. The Abrahamic covenant is intimately tied up with the promise of the Seed. All that is being said _here_ is that the Seed will not come through Ishmael, but Isaac. With regard to the _Everlasting Covenant_, then Ishmael is no more excluded than anybody else. If he puts his faith in the Seed, then he will be saved (Gal 3:7 ). But Ishmael showed himself to be filled with hate against Isaac, and therefore it is said, *'Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman'* (Gal 4:30 ).


> By your artificial separation of the sign and the thing signified, you make out Abraham's forthwith obedience (cf. vv 9, 10 with vv23, 25), and subsequent generations' obedience, an empty ritual conducted in obedience to the letter even among the faithful devoid of inherent signification.


It is not I who separates the sign and the thing signified; it is the Holy Spirit in the word. *'Without faith it is impossible to please God.'* If there is no faith in the one receiving the sign, then it is ultimately meaningless (Jer 9:25-26- please read this before you reply). The Jews circumcise their male offspring to this very day. What good does it do them? Is it not an empty ritual? If a Jew trusts in the Messiah, then what does it matter if he was circumcised or not (Rom 4:11-12 )?


> Circumcision itself (according to your interpretation) isn't the sign but the act of circumcising. Parents get the blessing, when they submit their children by faith to the rite. The sign means nothing to the person wearing the badge.


No. Circumcision was a sign that the Seed should come through the line of Abraham. Here is Pink again:-


> It maybe asked, If, then, circumcision sealed nothing to those who received it, except in the one case of Abraham himself, then why did God ordain it to be administered to all his male descendants? First, because it was the mark He selected to distinguish from all other nations that people from whom the Messiah was to issue. Second, because it served as a continual reminder that from the Abrahamic stock the promised Seed would spring"”hence, soon after He appeared, circumcision was set aside by God. Third, because of what it typically foreshadowed. To be born naturally of the Abrahamic stock gave a title to circumcision and the earthly inheritance, which was a figure of their title to the heavenly inheritance of those born of the Spirit. The servants and slaves in Abraham´s household "bought with money" beautifully adumbrated the truth that those who enter the kingdom of Christ are "bought" by His blood. (Read point # VIII here for more on this )



Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## CDM

Hello all, 

I'm new to the board and new to the post.

As this (baptism) has been an area of major study for me lately, I know that it is still a *weak area* for me. As a Baptist it surely was. After much prayer, study, pastoral counseling, I am now a Presbyterian but I have to admit, I still tend to wrestle with Baptistic counter arguments given to Presbyterians. The ones here are put together well I might add.

There have been several things that have helped of which I'm sure some of you are familiar with. Anyone ever read "William the Baptist"? While it's not exactly a theological treatise, it argues from speculative perspectives in regards to mode of baptism. Actually, the "œmode" debate helped greatly on the "œrecipient" debate. I´ll explain later if one were to request it of me.

Anyway, there has been 1 MAIN idea or theme that runs through my mind when I approach the baptism debates. I'll state it flatly hoping I'm understood (warning: run on sentence):

Whatever NT baptism is the Jewish mind at the time of Christ and the Apostles HAD to have some understanding of what this water ritual was and its significance. Especially if they (Apostles and Christ) were telling these very Jews that no longer does the covenant promises apply to your children. Imagine if you will, "œYour children are now excluded from any and all covenants yet before Abraham was I AM..." It seems to me they would be outraged to the point of walking away as many did in other situations.

Furthermore, this also leads me to understanding the correct mode of baptism as well. Would it not be foreign to the 1st century Jew mind to be submerged in water rather than their ritual washings and sprinklings they observed for thousands of years? Applying the element to the person? I write these things in the hopes that maybe we can put ourselves in their (Jewish) OT covenant of works, Gentile hating minds.

I am here to learn and I've already learned there are many people here more learned than I - Baptists included. 

May God bless our study of His Holy Word.


----------



## gwine

Welcome to the Puritan Board, Chris. 

It's always good to see new members. There is much to learn from everyone here.


----------



## Mocha

Chris,

You said:



> ...when looking at the "offspring" mentioned in Genesis 17:11, it is hardly conclusive for Pink to merely point to Galatians 3:16 and thus conclude that Christ is the sole reference in Genesis 17, in every sense. *Furthermore, with even just a brief look at the context of that passage, we immediately see much talk of a physical offspring, which questions Pink's interpretation at least, and disproves it at most*



I'm not sure how to answer that. Good point! Those are the kind of challenging points I'm looking for.

Mike


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Chris! 

You wrote:-


> Whatever NT baptism is the Jewish mind at the time of Christ and the Apostles HAD to have some understanding of what this water ritual was and its significance.


They had already had, of course, the baptizing of JTB followed by that of our Lord Himself (John 3:22-13; 4:1-2 ). 


> Especially if they (Apostles and Christ) were telling these very Jews that no longer does the covenant promises apply to your children. Imagine if you will, "œYour children are now excluded from any and all covenants yet before Abraham was I AM..." It seems to me they would be outraged to the point of walking away as many did in other situations.


Of course, many Jews did walk away from the Lord Jesus (John 6:66 ) and opposed the Apostles (Acts 4:1-3 ). But which covenant promises to children are you thinking of? How about these?

*'Cursed shall be the fruit of your body......Your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people.......You shall eat the flesh of your own body, the flesh of your sons and daughters whom the LORD your God has given you........then the LORD will bring upon you and your descendants extraordinary plagues....'* (Deut 28:18, 32, 53, 59 ).

Or these perhaps?

*'I will not have mercy on their children, for they are the children of harlotry.......Though they bring up their children, yet I will bereave them to the last man' *(Hosea 2:4; 9:12 ).

The covenant promises to Israel under the Mosaic covenant always were conditional, and those who imagined that their circumcision or their descent from Abraham brought them any unconditional blessings were disabused by JTB (Luke 3:7-9 ) in no uncertain terms. The fact is that there has only ever been one way of salvation. *'Whoever calls on the Name of the Lord shall be saved'* (Joel 2:32 ).

So when Peter, on the day of Pentecost, told the Jews that they had murdered their Messiah (Acts 2:36 ), they were ready to do whatever he told them (v37 ).


> Furthermore, this also leads me to understanding the correct mode of baptism as well. Would it not be foreign to the 1st century Jew mind to be submerged in water rather than their ritual washings and sprinklings they observed for thousands of years? Applying the element to the person? I write these things in the hopes that maybe we can put ourselves in their (Jewish) OT covenant of works, Gentile hating minds.



I am hoping to post something on the subject of Jewish proselyte baptism in a few days. Watch this space.

Every blessing,

Martin


----------



## Mocha

Martin,

You said:



> They were indeed a covenant people, but most of them were not in the covenant of promise that God made with Abraham. 'Know therefore that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham' (Gal 3:7 ). They would only be in that if they trusted in the God of Abraham and in his Seed. They wre in the Old, Mosaic covenant (typified in the promises to Ishmael- Gen 17:20 ), and of them it is written, ''....*They did not continue in My covenant* and I disregarded them, says the Lord' (Heb 8:9 ).



It seems to me that if Israel did 'not continue' in the covenant, it would suggest that they had been in it at some point. Am I wrong?

Also, Pink says:



> *Their interest in the promises was secured to them by God´s expressly giving them the covenant*, but was not represented in their circumcision. Circumcision marked no character, and had an individual application to no man but Abraham himself. It was the token of this covenant; and as a token or sign, no doubt *applied to every promise in the covenant*, but it did not designate the individual circumcised as having a personal interest in these promises. The covenant promised a numerous seed to Abraham; circumcision, as the token of that covenant, must have been a sign of this; but it did not sign this to any other.



It seems to me that Pink is saying that Israel was in the covenant but that circumcision is not related to being in the covenant, but instead, related to the promises of the covenant. What do you think?

Mike


----------



## Mocha

Martin,

One more question (for now):

When Genesis 17:14 says, "Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.", do you think this means cut off from the promises of the covenant?

Mike


----------



## CDM

*Reply to Martin,*



> They had already had, of course, the baptizing of JTB followed by that of our Lord Himself (John 3:22-13; 4:1-2 ).



I meant the relationship of covenants and members of it. Namely, children. But no where, not one place, are we to find a dust-up about this new covenant that isn´t extended to the children? What I mean is, don´t you think the 1st century Jewish mind would be completely taken aback that the covenants of old treated their children in a way but the new and better covenant disregards them completely? Do you believe God's covenant people in the OT treated their children as they were in covenant with God or not? More importantly, did God treat them as they were in covenant with Him?



> Of course, many Jews did walk away from the Lord Jesus (John 6:66 ) and opposed the Apostles (Acts 4:1-3 ).


 
You misunderstand me. These verses are mentioning people leaving Jesus because of teachings about other things not baptism. 

I meant if Christ and the Apostles had a message of "œThe new covenant is utterly different than that of the old. Your children have no promises and are excluded in every way." Then, we could presume to see somewhere in scripture or Jewish history that this was a problem. An uproar like the Judizers caused with requiring Gentiles to be circumcised to be in covenant with God. 

Imagine, as an example, the message "œThe shedding of blood is no longer needed to atone for sins" to the 1st century Jew. This example is completely disjoined with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So it would be a great shock to them. 



> But which covenant promises to children are you thinking of? How about these?
> 
> *'Cursed shall be the fruit of your body......Your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people.......You shall eat the flesh of your own body, the flesh of your sons and daughters whom the LORD your God has given you........then the LORD will bring upon you and your descendants extraordinary plagues....'* (Deut 28:18, 32, 53, 59 ).



What covenant is this? Is this not a foretelling of God's judgment on wicked people? I am not sure I follow your reasoning.



> Or these perhaps?
> 
> *'I will not have mercy on their children, for they are the children of harlotry.......Though they bring up their children, yet I will bereave them to the last man' *(Hosea 2:4; 9:12 ).



See above. Is it your contention that God's judgment on a people prove they are not in covenant with Him?



> The covenant promises to Israel under the Mosaic covenant always were conditional, and those who imagined that their circumcision or their descent from Abraham brought them any unconditional blessings were disabused by JTB (Luke 3:7-9 ) in no uncertain terms. The fact is that there has only ever been one way of salvation. *'Whoever calls on the Name of the Lord shall be saved'* (Joel 2:32 ).



Correct. There has only ever been one way of salvation. And my baptized "covenant children" are not guaranteed to be saved because of their baptism. 



> I am hoping to post something on the subject of Jewish proselyte baptism in a few days. Watch this space.



I Look forward to it, brother. Thank you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Martin,
> 
> I'm shocked you agree with Pink!
> 
> Yes Martin it is inference that Pink uses. As it is the only verse that speaks of the sign of circumcision as a seal it is a convenient pretext for credo baptists but it is inference nevertheless. A good starting point to read God's enduring Covenant out of the entire Scripture.
> 
> [Edited on 12-13-2005 by SemperFideles]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It won't matter how many times I read the entire Scripture, I still won't find anywhere that circumcision is the seal of the covenant to anyone but Abraham, or that baptism is the seal of anything to anyone.
> 
> The Holy Spirit is the seal of the Covenant (Eph 1:13. cf. Isaiah 42:1; Rom 8:14-16 ).
Click to expand...

Wow, I must say I find that to be an incredibly arrogant statement to state that you are not able to be convinced by Scripture and plain reason.

I would also point out another flaw in Pink's reasoning, and yours, regarding Pink's inference. It is one thing if we had no idea, whatsoever, of Covenant but the very nature of Covenant of Scriptures is that it is to the person it is made with and their progeny. In fact, in the statement of the Covenant, God tells Abraham it is NOT just to him but to him and his descendants.

Martin, YOU bear the weight of showing that the inference in Romans overthrows a normal Covenantal understanding.


----------



## Steve Owen

Hi Chris,
You wrote:-


> I meant if Christ and the Apostles had a message of "œThe new covenant is utterly different than that of the old. Your children have no promises and are excluded in every way." Then, we could presume to see somewhere in scripture or Jewish history that this was a problem. An uproar like the Judizers caused with requiring Gentiles to be circumcised to be in covenant with God.


 There was no need for any message about the difference of the New Covenant to the Old. It was already contained in Jer 31:31ff. However, it does appear that Jewish Christians continued to observe OT practices, including presumably circumcision until AD 70 (Acts 21:20-21 ).
quote]
What covenant is this? Is this not a foretelling of God's judgment on wicked people? I am not sure I follow your reasoning. [/quote]
The Deuteronomy texts are definitely part of the Mosaic Covenant. They are a warning against failing to keep the law (Deut 28:15 ). All these dire warnings actually came to pass upon the Jews during the seige of Jerusalem in AD 70 and in the years after.


> There has only ever been one way of salvation. And my baptized "covenant children" are not guaranteed to be saved because of their baptism.


Yes, but they are not in the New Covenant unless and until they know the Lord. Everyone in the NC knows the Lord (Jer 31:31-34; Heb 8:10-12 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Steve Owen

Hi Rich,


> Wow, I must say I find that to be an incredibly arrogant statement to state that you are not able to be convinced by Scripture and plain reason.


On the contrary, I am not able to be convinced *except* by Scripture, and I'm sure not seeing any from you at the moment. As for reason, that will depend whether it is worldly reason or not. You getting in a tizzy and being abusive won't help either.


> I would also point out another flaw in Pink's reasoning, and yours, regarding Pink's inference. It is one thing if we had no idea, whatsoever, of Covenant but the very nature of Covenant of Scriptures is that it is to the person it is made with and their progeny. In fact, in the statement of the Covenant, God tells Abraham it is NOT just to him but to him and his descendants.


But that text *must* be read in the light of Gal 3:16. 'To Abraham and his Seed.' But that Seed is Christ. As for what you call 'the very nature of Covenant,' that is only what paedo-baptist commentators have made it out to be. The true nature of covenant is this: the *'hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began' *(Titus 1:2 ). And that promise comes, *'To those who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God'* (John 1:13 ).


> Martin, YOU bear the weight of showing that the inference in Romans overthrows a normal Covenantal understanding.


The weight is borne by a plain reading of the text. Rom 4:11. *'And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they be uncircumcised.....'* Circumcision was the seal of the faith that Abraham had. How can it be the seal of the faith that someone else had while Abraham was still uncircumcised? That makes no sense. Moreover, _Pisteos_ carries a definite article; It is 'The righteousness of _the_ faith'- Abraham's faith.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Anyone: What is the title of the work(s) by Pink, copiously quoted in this thread? I would just like to know where (and when) he wrote the material being referenced. Obviously I am not in agreement with _these_ views of his, however they may have been moderated.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Hello Bruce.
> ...
> The Abrahamic covenant is intimately tied up with the promise of the Seed. All that is being said _here_ is that the Seed will not come through Ishmael, but Isaac. With regard to the _Everlasting Covenant_, then Ishmael is no more excluded than anybody else. If he puts his faith in the Seed, then he will be saved (Gal 3:7 ). But Ishmael showed himself to be filled with hate against Isaac, and therefore it is said, *'Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman'* (Gal 4:30 ).


What is this difference between an "everlasting covenant" that Ishamael has a right to (ref. Gen 17:7 ??? ) and the Abrahamic covenant? God speaks to Abraham covenantally in chapters 12, 13, 15, 17, 21, 22. This is all the same covenant. Carving this material up is just dispensationalism. You say that "Ishmael isn't in the covenant." How do you become a covenant rebel if you aren't in a covenant to begin with? Abraham treats Ishmael (ch. 17) as a covenant member, period. Ishmael doesn't exclude himself at this time. The "mocking" incident doesn't come until chapter 21. Again, God's language in ch. 17 does not exclude Ishmael from an interst in the Promise, even if he is not the inheritor of the line. Ishmael excludes himself, like so many other covenant breakers down the centuries.


> _ContraMundum_
> By your artificial separation of the sign and the thing signified, you make out Abraham's forthwith obedience (cf. vv 9, 10 with vv23, 25), and subsequent generations' obedience, an empty ritual conducted in obedience to the letter even among the faithful devoid of inherent signification.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not I who separates the sign and the thing signified; it is the Holy Spirit in the word. *'Without faith it is impossible to please God.'* If there is no faith in the one receiving the sign, then it is ultimately meaningless (Jer 9:25-26- please read this before you reply). The Jews circumcise their male offspring to this very day. What good does it do them? Is it not an empty ritual? If a Jew trusts in the Messiah, then what does it matter if he was circumcised or not (Rom 4:11-12 )?
Click to expand...

Martin, 
When you simply refuse to read exactly what I've written, instead imputing heretical and biblically illiterate ideas to me, I realize that its probably time to step out of the debate. This is sheer equivocation: changing the definition of a term in the middle of debate. You treat my objection to your distinctions, as I find them "artificial," as though I deny altogether any distinction between sign and thing signified.

Frankly, I'm not clarifying this for your benefit as much as for others reading the exchange. For Abraham himself, as well as the elect in his house, there are connections and correspondences between the sign and thing signified. So even you don't make absolute distinctions. The distinction you made that I objected to, and still object to as artificial, is between the _sign_ (a real thing) and the _covenant_ symbolized by the sign (another real thing). So, Gen 17:10: "This is my covenant: circumcision." Give it its due weight.


> _ContraMundum_
> Circumcision itself (according to your interpretation) isn't the sign but the act of circumcising. Parents get the blessing, when they submit their children by faith to the rite. The sign means nothing to the person wearing the badge.
> 
> 
> 
> No. Circumcision was a sign that the Seed should come through the line of Abraham. Here is Pink again:-...
Click to expand...

Whereupon we are told again that the sign has no personal meaning for anyone. I will quote from him also:


> Circumcision marked no character, and had an individual application to no man but Abraham himself.
> ---{and}---
> Circumcision neither signed nor sealed the blessings of the covenant of Abraham to the individuals to whom it was by Divine appointment administered.


So, in a way, I said too much (as you quoted me). I granted that a personal blessing to be gained under this reasoning of Pink's (and affirmed by you). But no. Even that is taken away. It is a general sign or type. It speaks "out loud," like a megaphone on the side of a tall building blaring away if perchance someone should stop a moment and listen or pay it mind. 

I cannot consent to this impoverished rendering. Where does this word have place in Pink's discourse: "I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee" (Gen. 17:7).

"Ye that fear Jehovah, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel" (Ps. 22:23). "Oh ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen. He is Jehovah our God: his judgments are in all the earth. He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:" (Ps. 105:6-10).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Hi Rich,
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I must say I find that to be an incredibly arrogant statement to state that you are not able to be convinced by Scripture and plain reason.
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, I am not able to be convinced *except* by Scripture, and I'm sure not seeing any from you at the moment. As for reason, that will depend whether it is worldly reason or not. You getting in a tizzy and being abusive won't help either.
Click to expand...

Martin,

Is there another person using your username on this forum? I think I, and others, would find it useful if one of you could post so we know which Martin we're talking with. The other guy wrote this:


> It won't matter how many times I read the entire Scripture, I still won't find anywhere that circumcision is the seal of the covenant to anyone but Abraham, or that baptism is the seal of anything to anyone.


You may want to ask him to stop misrepresenting your position.



> I would also point out another flaw in Pink's reasoning, and yours, regarding Pink's inference. It is one thing if we had no idea, whatsoever, of Covenant but the very nature of Covenant of Scriptures is that it is to the person it is made with and their progeny. In fact, in the statement of the Covenant, God tells Abraham it is NOT just to him but to him and his descendants.
> 
> 
> 
> But that text *must* be read in the light of Gal 3:16. 'To Abraham and his Seed.' But that Seed is Christ. As for what you call 'the very nature of Covenant,' that is only what paedo-baptist commentators have made it out to be. The true nature of covenant is this: the *'hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began' *(Titus 1:2 ). And that promise comes, *'To those who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God'* (John 1:13 ).
Click to expand...

So now we have to go to another text to show that the normal understanding of Covenant was changed? I thought the plain reading of the Romans text where the sign of circumcision was said to be a seal to Abraham was sufficient? You said there was no inference whatsoever. Which Martin am I debating with this time? 


> Martin, YOU bear the weight of showing that the inference in Romans overthrows a normal Covenantal understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> The weight is borne by a plain reading of the text. Rom 4:11. *'And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they be uncircumcised.....'* Circumcision was the seal of the faith that Abraham had. How can it be the seal of the faith that someone else had while Abraham was still uncircumcised? That makes no sense. Moreover, _Pisteos_ carries a definite article; It is 'The righteousness of _the_ faith'- Abraham's faith.
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...

Yes, the sign of circumcision is a seal of the faith Abraham had while still uncircumcised. You're back in this text I see now. Are you asking how it is possible for a sign to be a seal of somebody else's faithfulness covenentally?

Remember that discussion we had were it said that Jesus baptized people. That verbal tense was pretty clear wasn't it?

Yet again, you do not demonstrate how this text demands that we overthrow the normal meaning of the plain language that instituted the Covenant to keep your credobaptist deck of cards from toppling over.

[Edited on 12-14-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Mocha

Bruce,

You asked:



> Anyone: What is the title of the work(s) by Pink, copiously quoted in this thread? I would just like to know where (and when) he wrote the material being referenced. Obviously I am not in agreement with these views of his, however they may have been moderated.



Click herefor the Pink quotes that have been used in this thread.

I would be interested in your response to it!

Mike


----------



## Mocha

John Murray says:



> Infants received the sign of circumcision. It was administered to them by divine command (Gen. 17:10-12). *And circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant administered to Abraham.*(John Murray, "Christian Baptism", pg. 45)



I thought it seemed interesting that John Murray did not say, "*And circumcision was a sign and seal of the covenant administered to the one being circumcised.*"

Mike


----------



## Mocha

John Murray says:



> What was the Abrahamic covenant in the highest reaches of its meaning? Undeniably and simply: "I will be your God, and ye shall be my people" (cf. Gen. 17:7; Exod. 19:5,6; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; Jer. 31:33). In a word it is union and communion with Jehovah, the God of Israel. It was this blessing circumcision signified and sealed.



If circumcision signifies and seals union and communion with Jehovah, then which of the following would you say circumcision signifies and seals?

1) Circumcision *causes* 'union and communion' (regeneration) with Jehovah

2) Circumcision signifies and seals a 'union and communion' (regeneration) *that has already occurred*

3) Circumcision signifies and seals a 'union and communion' (regeneration) *that will occur in the future*

4) Circumcision signifies and seals a 'union and communion' (regeneration) *that is probable in the future*

If you say #4 then consider these adapted verses by Wayne Grudem:



> Can anyone forbid water for baptizing those *who will probably someday* be saved? Acts 10:47
> 
> As many of you as were baptized into Christ *will probably someday* put on Christ. Gal. 3:27
> 
> Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus *will probably someday* be baptized into his death? Romans 6:3(Wayne Grudem, "Systematic Theology", pg. 979)



If circumcision and baptism are a 'seal', then it cannot mean #3 or #4 because a seal authenticates that reality. We are left with #1 and #2. 

Does circumcison cause 'union and communion' (regeneration)? Ishmael and Esau were circumcised but were not in 'union and communion' (regenerated). Therefore #1 is out.

Does circumcision signify and seal 'union and communion' (regeneration) that has already occurred? Again, Ishmael and Esau were circumcised but were not in 'union and communion' (regenerated).

It seems to me that:

- circumcision is not a sign and seal of 'union and communion' (regeneration)

OR

- circumcision is a sign and seal of something less than 'union and communion' (regeneration)

Let me close with another quote from John Murray:



> With reference to circumcision it must be fully appreciated that it was not essentially or primarily the sign of family, racial, or national identity. Any significance which circumcision possessed along the line of national identity or privilege was secondary and derived. *Its primary and essential significance was that it was the sign and seal of the highest and richest spiritual blessing which God bestows upon men.* (John Murray, "Christian Baptism", pgs. 45-46)



The highest and richest spiritual blessing is to be justified before God. Did circumcision signify and seal this (other than Abraham)? Absolutely not (in my opinion).

Mike


----------



## biblelighthouse

Mike,

I believe Scripture teaches #2:
2) Circumcision signifies and seals a union that has already occurred.

Genesis 17:14 says, "Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." 
--- And you cannot be cut off from a covenant without first being a member of it.

The covenantal union a child has with Christ does not necessarily include regeneration. But the circumcision/baptism is not administered on the basis of regeneration. Rather, it is administered on the basis of covenant membership. The child may prove to be either a covenant keeper, or a covenant breaker.


Receiving the *sign* of regeneration is NOT the same as *possessing* regeneration.

Esau possessed the sign of regeneration (circumcision). But he did not possess regeneration itself.

Simon Magus possessed the sign of regeneration (baptism). But he did not possess regeneration itself.


----------



## Mocha

Joseph,

You said:



> Receiving the *sign* of regeneration is NOT the same as *possessing* regeneration.



But isn't receiving the "seal" of regeneration the same as "possessing" regeneration? Doesn't a 'seal' authenticate that which you already have?

Mike


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Click herefor the Pink quotes that have been used in this thread.
> 
> I would be interested in your response to it!
> 
> Mike



Mike,
Thank you. I will read it when I have time, hopefully soon. But I am still looking for its original date of publication.

Regarding a couple other comments:
As far as Murray (and other presbyterians go), the promises made to Abraham (and signed, and sealed, etc.) were not for him _only,_ but for all the elect, that is _all_ his seed, as father of the faithful. The fact that it was given to him means that it is ours, who are his decendants by faith. That which was his becomes ours as the inheritance. Otherwise, what is the promise about, "I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee in their generations" (Gen 17:7) ? As has been stated many times, we apply the sign in obedience, not as the result of prior _or interior_ knowledge of the real heart condition.

And this fact speaks to the next post as well, in which you ask what circumcision did signify and seal. In the case of any given individual, it might have been either 2 or 3/4. Take the adult. He professed faith in Christ and was submitted. But maybe his was a spurious faith. If he never truly believed, then we know in retrospect that the rite was null and void of any lasting signification. If he truly believed later on, then the sign was prospective _in fact,_ while it was made initially on mere lip service.

Circumcision was non-repeatable. For those of us outside the baptist tradition, so is baptism (provided it was Christian baptism in the first place). Now a baptist, being consistent, will command a "real" baptism when "really converted". For the first--though performed with the intent to baptize, by a minister of the gospel, and according to Christ's ordinance (Mt. 28:19)--is evacuated of meaning by the confession that it was undertaken in a faithless condition. For the baptist, the rite must follow conversion or it is meaningless. Whatever that meaning is thus depends on human sincerity.

Grudem's comments are nonsensical to a presbyterian, as they should be to a baptist also. For one thing, we would never read those verses that way, or foist upon them that sense. They were spoken in the context of a gospel presentation that was responded to, or the preaching (by letter) to those capable of rationally consenting to the doctrine. Not even Peter's language in Acts 10 demands that we suppose he had infallible knowledge of the state of the hearts of the people, but rather was acting on the visible evidence ("have received the Holy Spirit"). From Acts 8 we have no textual reason to suppose that the gifts of the Spirit were not manifest in Simon Magus, along with everyone else, by a general and generous dispensation. But he gave evidence (v. 19, 20) that he was reprobate, seeing that he tried to buy the apostolic power. Secular history confirms that he maintained his status as a false teacher and gospel opposer.

A truth can be a general truth without our being able to force a single sense upon the words. Ironically, both baptists and presbyterians baptize on the basis of "probability", (baptists on the basis: "well he "probably" means what he says!"), so Grudem's wooden treatment of the verses cited is a caricature.

Circumcision and baptism symbolize spiritual truths, realities that are infinitely more substantive than their personal and individual application. The spiritual realities they represent are greater than individual faith or apostasy by recipients of the rites. They represent the covenant of grace. Individually--that is: to the individual--they represent inclusion in that covenant. But they were/are spiritually effectual only for the elect. The Spirit makes them effectual when, where, and how he pleases. That can be in utero (as in the case of John the Baptist), that can be when the rite is performed (for example in infancy), that can be later in life (maybe when they are adult baptized!), or any time in between.

But they also have formal force. They really do represent physically that to which they are spiritually related. Thus, they can and do teach the reality they represent. They also enforce the terms of the covenant. They divide who is in the church from who is not. They define who is subject to the discipline of the church. The formal force of the rite is that which is in effect upon our embodied existence, either towards or against us. Thus God can say, "You have broken my covenant," and not be adding under his breath, "only metaphorically of course." No, they really did break it, even though they had only the external aspect of the covenant and not the reality.


This might be a good time to define the different ways we are using the term "seal" (so that we don't equivocate). I say the principal design of a seal is a testimony of authority. It is related to the "signet", as in "signet ring", etc. It is the mark of one who has the authority to affix. It may mark. It can attach. It can say (wordlessly) "do not open", or "only duly authorized may break/enter/read, etc."

You say "the seal authenticates the reality." So, which reality are we talking about? Are we talking about the independent reality of the covenant of grace, a reality that exists and is unaffected by the faithlessness of men? Or about the subjective reality of the individual person's place (or lack thereof) in that covenant?

You see, the seal belongs to the covenant. It is a part of the covenant, indeed it is _identified_ as the covenant (Gen. 17:10). It is God's covenant and God's seal. What I'm saying is that the covenant and the seal of the covenant are realities not contingent on this person or that person. Thus, the outward act considered alone cannot be first and foremost a testimony to the subjective reality, but to the objective reality--that God's covenant of grace exists, and it may be entered into.

It is also a symbol of the monergistic nature of God in salvation. God dictates, and men comply. Even Abraham we are told "was circumcised." He didn't operate on himself. He submitted to it. It was even more obvious in infants; they had nothing to do with the covenantal imposition.

Thirdly, the seal indicates an ownership claim. That which is marked with a seal is clearly the property of the sealer. In this area we are not fully objective, nor are we fully subjective. For it is God's mark of ownership (objective), and yet it is being affixed to another entity (subjective). God claims this person--but is this claiming decretive, or prescriptive? Is it both internal and external, or external only? The external claim is visible, obvious. This one belongs to the church; the church speaking for God makes the claim, "MINE," by baptizing (I realize this may be another difference in baptist theology).

And in Abraham, as in his spiritual decendents, the rite also functions subjectively as "authenticating the reality " of the righteousness which each has by faith. He receives internally that which is externally bestowed. But note: this is the "God-righteousness", the alien righteousness, that becomes his by receipt, not according to his own exercise or production.

Now both sides (baptist and presbyterian) act in both a "presumptive" fashion and in obedience to command, as they perceive that command.


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Martin,
> 
> One more question (for now):
> 
> When Genesis 17:14 says, "Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.", do you think this means cut off from the promises of the covenant?
> 
> Mike



Hi Mike,
Circumcision separated Abraham's descendants from the nations, and it was God's will for this to be so, as from them, according to the flesh, the Messiah would spring. One who was uncircumcised was indistinguishable from the world. 

Also, circumcision witnessed to every Israelite, firstly that he was a descendant of Abraham, the friend of God, and secondly that the Messiah should come from among his countrymen. One who had not this sign did not have the witness. Therefore, not to be circumcised was to be outside of God's purposes.

It is interesting that the Israelites were not circumcised while they were in the desert, Gen 17:14 notwithstanding. Presumably God saw them as being sufficiently separated from the nations while they were in the wilderness.

Blessings,

Martin


----------



## Steve Owen

*The Divine Covenants* by A.W.Pink.
Originally published in the magazine _Studies in the Scriptures_
Now published by 
_Pietan Publications_,
26, Green Farm Road,
New Ipswich,
New Hampshire 03071. No ISBN number.

I got my copy from the Met Tab bookshop.
e-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.tabernaclebookshop.org

They ship to the USA.

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> It is interesting that the Israelites were not circumcised while they were in the desert, Gen 17:14 notwithstanding. Presumably God saw them as being sufficiently separated from the nations while they were in the wilderness.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Martin


But they were in disobedience during that time. Just as Moses was for not circumcizing his children.


----------



## gwine

Right, Rich.

Joshua 5


> 2At that time the LORD said to Joshua, "Make flint knives and *circumcise the sons of Israel a second time*." 3So Joshua made flint knives and circumcised the sons of Israel at Gibeath-haaraloth. 4And this is the reason why Joshua circumcised them: all the males of the people who came out of Egypt, all the men of war, had died in the wilderness on the way after they had come out of Egypt. 5Though all the people who came out had been circumcised, yet all the people who were born on the way in the wilderness after they had come out of Egypt had not been circumcised. 6For the people of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, until all the nation, the men of war who came out of Egypt, perished, *because they did not obey the voice of the LORD*; the LORD swore to them that he would not let them see the land that the LORD had sworn to their fathers to give to us, a land flowing with milk and honey. 7So it was their children, whom he raised up in their place, that Joshua circumcised. For they were uncircumcised, because they had not been circumcised on the way. 8When the circumcising of the whole nation was finished, they remained in their places in the camp until they were healed. 9And the LORD said to Joshua, "Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you." And so the name of that place is called Gilgal to this day.



A second time? Does this mean that God was renewing his covenant with the Israelites?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Bruce, you write so many great things:


> Grudem's comments are nonsensical to a presbyterian, as they should be to a baptist also. For one thing, we would never read those verses that way, or foist upon them that sense. They were spoken in the context of a gospel presentation that was responded to, or the preaching (by letter) to those capable of rationally consenting to the doctrine. Not even Peter's language in Acts 10 demands that we suppose he had infallible knowledge of the state of the hearts of the people, but rather was acting on the visible evidence ("have received the Holy Spirit"). From Acts 8 we have no textual reason to suppose that the gifts of the Spirit were not manifest in Simon Magus, along with everyone else, by a general and generous dispensation. But he gave evidence (v. 19, 20) that he was reprobate, seeing that he tried to buy the apostolic power. Secular history confirms that he maintained his status as a false teacher and gospel opposer.


I guess for me the whole "complaint" or "concern" from my credobaptist brethren regarding "presumption" strikes me as rather odd.

I think you do a great job of distilling the issue even further. The issue is not merely how the Abrahamic Covenant is perceived as first posited, though that is certainly very central. It also has to do with whether or not baptism, at its core, is primarily an existential event.

I thought only Arminians spoke of baptism as an outward sign of an inward reality but I've read it here by Reformed baptists. I'm not saying this to be pejorative (I'm making a real effort to quit being so darn peevish to others on the boards believe it or not), I really was surprised to see that. When it all boils down, that's really what it's about - linking the sign to the inward reality for credobaptists.

I think, in addition to the perception of the Abrahamic Covenant, Reformed Baptists are really focused on only baptizing who they believe are elect. It's not that paedobaptists are trying to baptize just anybody with no credible confession for adults as our opponents would sometimes claim but I guess it's a matter of how much you let the "who's elect and reprobate" question color every issue.

It just always seems to distill down to that core issue - _we only baptize the elect_ - but said in different ways. The arguments always focus about true Covenant inclusion and true Abrahamic blessing descending to the Elect which we Presbyterians can agree with as far as it goes. Certainly only the Elect will receive the blessings of the Covenant. There will, nevertheless, be Covenant breakers in Hell.

I think the dialogue gets a bit comical sometimes because Presbyterians are trying to convince Baptists that the Covenant includes some reprobate and the Baptists are trying to convince otherwise as if that is germane to the subject of baptism. They baptize the reprobate anyway. They treat people in their Churches who are reprobate as if they're elect because they have no other evidences to suggest otherwise.

But then they turn to us and criticize us for baptizing the potential reprobate infant. Because?
- Because baptism is about an outward sign to an inward reality? No. If so then stop baptizing people in your Church because you only presume to know the inward reality (What if there is no reality?).
- Because we end up with reprobate Covenant breakers? So do you. You just don't consider them in the Covenant somehow (Is anyone in anyone in real danger in Hebrews I wonder?).
- Because we might baptize more reprobate than the Baptists do? I think that's been the suggestion. Is this a contest?

Since baptism is administered in time and space by fallible men who have not divine foreknowledge, to repeatedly insist that baptism is only for the elect is just plain weird.

[Edited on 12-15-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> It is interesting that the Israelites were not circumcised while they were in the desert, Gen 17:14 notwithstanding. Presumably God saw them as being sufficiently separated from the nations while they were in the wilderness.
> 
> 
> 
> But they were in disobedience during that time. Just as Moses was for not circumcizing his children.
Click to expand...


Perhaps, though God never says so. Indeed, He made a promise of entry to the Promised Land to them without requiring them to be circumcised at that point (Num 14:31 ). They were not 'cut off from their people' as per Gen 17:14, whereas their circumcised parents were certainly cut off from the promises.

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> It is interesting that the Israelites were not circumcised while they were in the desert, Gen 17:14 notwithstanding. Presumably God saw them as being sufficiently separated from the nations while they were in the wilderness.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> But they were in disobedience during that time. Just as Moses was for not circumcizing his children.
Click to expand...


Rich,

It is my opinion that they were _not_ in disobedience (regarding circumcision) during their time in the wilderness.

Rather, I would argue that baptism and circumcision were already linked, numerous _centuries prior_ to the advent of Christ.

In other words, the church in the wilderness (cf. Acts 7:38) did not need circumcision during their time in the wilderness, because they had already been baptized (cf. 1 Cor. 10:2).

Before you respond to this suggestion, please read about this position in more detail here.


----------



## Mocha

Rich,

You said:



> ...Reformed Baptists are really focused on only baptizing who they believe are elect.
> 
> ...It just always seems to distill down to that core issue - we (Reformed Baptists) only baptize the elect - but said in different ways.



Reformed Baptists do not baptize those they believe are elect. Instead, Reformed Baptists baptize those who give public and consistent confession or profession of faith in Christ. It is the church's responsibility to judge the profession (which they can see) and not whether they are elect (which they cannot see). 

John Piper said something that I found interesting. He said:



> Then 1 Peter 3:21 said, "Baptism. . . saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." This text frightens many Baptists away because it seems to come close to the Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican notion that the rite in and of itself saves. But in fleeing from this text we throw away a powerful argument for believer baptism. For as J.D.G. Dunn says, this is the closest thing we have to a definition which includes faith. Baptism is "an appeal to God." That is, *baptism is the cry of faith to God*. In that senses and to that degree, it is part of God's means of salvation. This should not scare us off any more than the sentence, "If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord. . . you will be saved." *The movement of the lips in the air and the movement of the body in water save only in the sense that they express the appeal and faith of the heart toward God.* (Piper's Article)



Baptism is a confessing and professing of repentence and faith. I think this truth is brought out in the following verse:



> And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and *wash away your sins*, calling on his name. (Acts 22:16)



How can baptism wash away sins? Only if it is an expression of repentance and faith!

So Reformed Baptists baptize based on the lips in the air and the body in the water expressing repentance and faith toward God. There is no 'blind' presuming going on!

Mike


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> 
> John Piper said something that I found interesting. He said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then 1 Peter 3:21 said, "Baptism. . . saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." This text frightens many Baptists away because it seems to come close to the Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican notion that the rite in and of itself saves. But in fleeing from this text we throw away a powerful argument for believer baptism. For as J.D.G. Dunn says, this is the closest thing we have to a definition which includes faith. Baptism is "an appeal to God." That is, *baptism is the cry of faith to God*. In that senses and to that degree, it is part of God's means of salvation. This should not scare us off any more than the sentence, "If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord. . . you will be saved." *The movement of the lips in the air and the movement of the body in water save only in the sense that they express the appeal and faith of the heart toward God.* (Piper's Article)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism is a confessing and professing of repentence and faith.
Click to expand...


I completely disagree with you. The recepient of baptism is utterly passive, whether infant or adult. Baptism is NOT a profession of faith, nor should it be considered as one. Baptism is a statement from GOD, not man. Baptism is how God says, "this person is Mine . . . a covenant member with Me."

The "baptism" of Noah's family was based on the faith of the family's covenant head, Noah. It was NOT based on individual professions of faith. Please read here for a more detailed look at this argument.




> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> 
> So Reformed Baptists baptize based on the lips in the air and the body in the water expressing repentance and faith toward God. There is no 'blind' presuming going on!



Yes it is blind. If it were not blind, then the apostles never would have baptized Simon Magus in Acts 8. This Scripture is a great example of the fact that *verbal* repentance and *verbal* expression of faith does NOT guarantee that the person's *heart* contains faith and is repentant.

On the contrary, their *verbal* profession makes you *assume* that the person has faith, and is repentant. Thus, according to your view of the covenant, you are only *assuming* that the person is a covenant member.

On the contrary, a Presbyterian can baptize both infants and adults with 100% assurity that he is baptizing a covenant member. 

Of course I assume that a covenant infant will express faith and repentance when he/she is old enough to do so. And of course I assume that an adult professing faith has faith and repentance. But baptism is NOT given on this assumption. Rather, it is given as an objective declaration that the recipient is a covenant member.





[Edited on 12-15-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## gwine

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> It is interesting that the Israelites were not circumcised while they were in the desert, Gen 17:14 notwithstanding. Presumably God saw them as being sufficiently separated from the nations while they were in the wilderness.
> 
> 
> 
> But they were in disobedience during that time. Just as Moses was for not circumcizing his children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps, though God never says so. Indeed, He made a promise of entry to the Promised Land to them without requiring them to be circumcised at that point (Num 14:31 ). They were not 'cut off from their people' as per Gen 17:14, whereas their circumcised parents were certainly cut off from the promises.
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...


Martin and Joseph:

How do you read this passage from Joshua?



> Jos 5:2 At that time the LORD said to Joshua, "Make flint knives and circumcise the sons of Israel a second time."
> Jos 5:3 So Joshua made flint knives and circumcised the sons of Israel at Gibeath-haaraloth.
> Jos 5:4 *And this is the reason why Joshua circumcised them*: all the males of the people who came out of Egypt, all the men of war, had died in the wilderness on the way after they had come out of Egypt.
> Jos 5:5 Though all the people who came out had been circumcised, yet all the people who were born on the way in the wilderness after they had come out of Egypt had not been circumcised.
> Jos 5:6 For the people of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, *until all the nation*, the men of war who came out of Egypt, *perished, because they did not obey the voice of the LORD*; the LORD swore to them that he would not let them see the land that the LORD had sworn to their fathers to give to us, a land flowing with milk and honey.
> Jos 5:7 *So it was their children, whom he raised up in their place, that Joshua circumcised*. For they were uncircumcised, because they had not been circumcised on the way.
> Jos 5:8 When the circumcising of the whole nation was finished, they remained in their places in the camp until they were healed.
> Jos 5:9 And the LORD said to Joshua, "Today I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you." And so the name of that place is called Gilgal to this day.


----------



## Mocha

Joseph,

You said:



> I completely disagree with you. The recepient of baptism is utterly passive, whether infant or adult. Baptism is NOT a profession of faith, nor should it be considered as one.



Then how do you deal with 1 Peter 3:21 and Acts 22:16?



> The "baptism" of Noah's family was based on the faith of the family's covenant head, Noah. It was NOT based on individual professions of faith.



But that was the Old Testament. See Bairbairn's quote:



> The difference in external form was in each case conditioned by the circumstances of the time. In circumcision it bore respect to the propagation of offspring, as it was through the production of a seed of blessing that the covenant, in its preparatory form, was to attain its realization. But when the seed in that respect had reached its culminating point in Christ, and the objects of the covenant were no longer dependent on national propagation of seed, but were to be carried forward by spiritual means and influences used in connection with the faith of Christ, the external ordinance was fitly altered, so as to express simply a change of nature and state in the individual that received it. *Undoubtedly the New Testament form less distinctly recognises the connection between parent and child - we should rather say, does not of itself recognise that connection at all; so much ought to be frankly conceded to those who disapprove of the practice of infant baptism, and will be conceded by all whose object is to ascertain the truth rather than contend for an opinion.* (Fairbairn: The Typology of Scripture, Vol I, 313-314)



You said:



> Yes it is blind. If it were not blind, then the apostles never would have baptized Simon Magus in Acts 8. This Scripture is a great example of the fact that *verbal* repentance and *verbal* expression of faith does NOT guarantee that the person's *heart* contains faith and is repentant.



Simon was baptized because he believed (Acts 8:13). The church baptized those who gave a profession of faith, not those they thought were elect. The church is only doing what they were commanded to do.



> On the contrary, their *verbal* profession makes you *assume* that the person has faith, and is repentant. Thus, according to your view of the covenant, you are only *assuming* that the person is a covenant member.



Yes that's true. If someone responds in faith and repentance, we can only assume it is real. We don't know for sure.



> On the contrary, a Presbyterian can baptize both infants and adults with 100% assurity that he is baptizing a covenant member.
> 
> Of course I assume that a covenant infant will express faith and repentance when he/she is old enough to do so. And of course I assume that an adult professing faith has faith and repentance. But baptism is NOT given on this assumption. Rather, it is given as an objective declaration that the recipient is a covenant member.



That leads us back to the big question: Does baptizing an infant mean that they are in the covenant?

John Piper says:



> *The main problem with this argument is a wrong assumption about the similarity between the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God today.* It assumes that the way God gathered his covenant people, Israel, in the Old Testament and the way he is gathering his covenant people, the Church, today is so similar that the different signs of the covenant (baptism and circumcision) can be administered in the same way to both peoples. This is a mistaken assumption.
> 
> There are differences between the new covenant people called the Church and the old covenant people called Israel. And these differences explain why it was fitting to give the old covenant sign of circumcision to the infants of Israel, and why it is not fitting to give the new covenant sign of baptism to the infants of the Church. In other words, even though there is an overlap in meaning between baptism and circumcision (seen in Romans 4:11), *circumcision and baptism don't have the same role to play in the covenant people of God because the way God constituted his people in the Old Testament and the way he is constituting the Church today are fundamentally different.*



Mike

[Edited on 12-15-2005 by Mocha]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> "But that was the Old Testament."



That's the first sentence that ever comes out of the mouth of a dispensationalist.

Being in the OT is *not* a reason for dismissing something.

Rather, if you want to demonstrate that an OT practice has been abrogated, then you must Scripturally *demonstrate* when/where God abrogated it.



> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> *Undoubtedly the New Testament form less distinctly recognises the connection between parent and child - we should rather say, does not of itself recognise that connection at all; so much ought to be frankly conceded to those who disapprove of the practice of infant baptism
> *


*

To the contrary, the New Testament is literally soaked in the connection between parent and child, and infant inclusion in the covenant.

First of all, where did God ever *remove* children from covenant inclusion? Do you really think that the congregation in Acts 2 just telepathically understood, "aha! Our children are no longer included in the covenant!"? To the contrary, Peter said the promise was still for their children too. Paul said that the children of believers are holy. And the Gospels demonstrate that Jesus treated the children of covenant members as covenant members themselves . . . in Luke 18, covenant members brought their *infants* to Jesus, and He said that the Kingdom of God *belongs* to them. --- And I have just scratched the surface. If you don't see infant inclusion in the covenant in the NT, then you aren't looking.




Originally posted by Mocha
That leads us back to the big question: Does baptizing an infant mean that they are in the covenant?

Click to expand...


On the contrary, we baptize infants because they are already in the covenant (cf. Genesis 17:14).





Originally posted by Mocha

John Piper says:




The main problem with this argument is a wrong assumption about the similarity between the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God today. It assumes that the way God gathered his covenant people, Israel, in the Old Testament and the way he is gathering his covenant people, the Church, today is so similar . . . the way God constituted his people in the Old Testament and the way he is constituting the Church today are fundamentally different.

Click to expand...



Click to expand...

*
I highly respect John Piper. But he is way off base here.

Simply read Romans 11. That chapter alone sufficiently demonstrates the unity between the OT people of God and the NT people of God. OT Israelites were the people of God. And as you can see in Romans 11, you and I have been grafted into the *same covenantal tree*.

Israel was the Church (Acts 7:38), and the Church is Israel (Galatians 6:16).


----------



## Preach

At what point does a child of believing parents become a covenant member? Is it at conception, birth, when the sign is placed upon the child? Thanks.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Preach_
> At what point does a child of believing parents become a covenant member? Is it at conception, birth, when the sign is placed upon the child? Thanks.



According to Genesis 17:14, a child would be cut off from the covenant if his parents didn't circumcise him. But how can you be cut off from something, if you aren't even a member of it in the first place? Thus, Genesis 17:14 informs us that a child is *automatically* a covenant member, *before* the covenant sign is applied.

Another thing to consider is where God said, "I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you" (Genesis 17:7). God did not say that the children would be covenant members *if* they were circumcised. And how about the unborn? Certainly Isaac was Abraham's child even before birth, and so he was already a covenant member before he was born. 

Also consider 1 Corinthians 7:14. When a covenant member has a child, God says that child is covenantally "holy". Again there is no conditional statement here. God does not say, "they are holy IF they get baptized".


If a covenant member has a child, that child is a covenant member from the moment of conception. The subsequent application of the sign (circumcision/baptism) simply ratifies this covenant inclusion . . . it does not cause it.



[Edited on 12-15-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## gwine

> To the contrary, Peter said the promise was still for their children too.



What exactly is the promise?



> 38And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself."



Is it possible to say that the promise is the gift of the Holy Spirit, based on their repenting and being baptized?

And to whom is the promise given? To everyone the Lord our God calls to himself? And who is everyone? Is it the elect only?

I know, all these questions. But I would like to know the answers, and so I keep reading and studying and praying for discernment.


----------



## biblelighthouse

Gerry,

Have you read Dr. Matt McMahon's excellent book, "A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology"?

Matt addresses Acts 2 *very* well. I highly recommend the book. You can buy a copy here:

http://www.puritanpublications.com/Books/SimpleOverview.htm


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Rich,
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Reformed Baptists are really focused on only baptizing who they believe are elect.
> 
> ...It just always seems to distill down to that core issue - we (Reformed Baptists) only baptize the elect - but said in different ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformed Baptists do not baptize those they believe are elect. Instead, Reformed Baptists baptize those who give public and consistent confession or profession of faith in Christ. It is the church's responsibility to judge the profession (which they can see) and not whether they are elect (which they cannot see).
> 
> John Piper said something that I found interesting. He said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then 1 Peter 3:21 said, "Baptism. . . saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." This text frightens many Baptists away because it seems to come close to the Catholic, Lutheran and Anglican notion that the rite in and of itself saves. But in fleeing from this text we throw away a powerful argument for believer baptism. For as J.D.G. Dunn says, this is the closest thing we have to a definition which includes faith. Baptism is "an appeal to God." That is, *baptism is the cry of faith to God*. In that senses and to that degree, it is part of God's means of salvation. This should not scare us off any more than the sentence, "If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord. . . you will be saved." *The movement of the lips in the air and the movement of the body in water save only in the sense that they express the appeal and faith of the heart toward God.* (Piper's Article)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Baptism is a confessing and professing of repentence and faith. I think this truth is brought out in the following verse:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and *wash away your sins*, calling on his name. (Acts 22:16)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can baptism wash away sins? Only if it is an expression of repentance and faith!
> 
> So Reformed Baptists baptize based on the lips in the air and the body in the water expressing repentance and faith toward God. There is no 'blind' presuming going on!
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...

Mike,

1. At it's core, the fear or concern repeatedly expressed by the Reformed Baptists always gets back to election. Look at the threads and the way the arguments are expressed. What difference does Ishmael being in the Covenant have to do with baptism except for some to show that only the elect are truly in the Covenant? OK, but how does that inform who you will baptize since you don't know who the elect are?

Even if we Presbyterians fold up our "visible", "invisible" distinction tents and agree with the Baptists that only the Elect are truly in the New Covenant it still doesn't inform us who to baptize based on that issue. If it is immaterial to the subject of who is baptized then please explain why the credo-Baptists keep returning to it?

2. It is a reasonable line of argumentation to state that the subjects of baptism ought to be confessing believers. I never claimed that it was a blind sign or that you blindly presumed anything. The issue is that, as above, when people talk about this they always say "Ah well God may not have elected the infant and you're baptizing him...." It has nothing to do with it just as "God may not have elected him..." has nothing to do with whether or not you ought to baptize the confessing believer. You baptize based on what you perceive the command to be and what you can detect with your senses and use of Godly prudence.

So what I'm arguing here is that to bring up election/reprobation, which is the credo-Baptists favorite line of argumentation apparently from what I've seen, does nothing to settle a single case of who ought to be allowed entry into a Church. You can no more baptize a single adult than we can baptize adult or child with such a standard.

The question and the debate ought to be around what are the commands and the visible indicators surrounding the issue that ought to be considered for Godly men to make the proper decision on who ought to be allowed entry into the Covenant community.


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Bruce,
You wrote:-


> I cannot consent to this impoverished rendering. Where does this word have place in Pink's discourse: "I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee" (Gen. 17:7).


That verse, as Pink points out must be read in the light of Gal 3:16 and Rom 9:6-8. He continues:-


> Let us point out in the next place that Abraham´s covenant was strictly peculiar to himself; for neither in the OT, nor in the New is it ever said that the covenant with Abraham was made on behalf of all believers, or that it is given to them. The great thing that the covenant secured to Abraham was that he should have a seed, and that God would be the God of that seed; but Christians have no divine warrant that He will be the God of their seed, nor even that they shall have any children at all. As a matter of fact, many of them have no posterity; and therefore they cannot have the covenant of Abraham. The covenant of Abraham was as particular to himself as the one God made with Phinehas (Num 25:13 ), and as the covenant of royalty which God made with David and his seed (2Sam 7:12-16 ). In each case a divine promise was given _securing a posterity_; and had no children been born to these men then God had broken His covenant.
> 
> Look at the original promise made to Abraham: "œAnd I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed" (Gen 12:2-3 ). Has God promised to every Christian that He will make of him a "œgreat nation"? Or that He will make his "œname great"?- celebrated like the patriarch´s was and is? Or that in him "œall the families of the earth shall be blessed"? Surely there is no room for argument here? The very asking of such questions answers them. Nothing could be more extravagant and absurd than to suppose that any such promises as these were made to us.
> 
> If God fulfils the covenant with Abraham and his seed to every believer and his seed, then He does so in accord with the terms of the covenant itself. But if we turn and carefully examine its contents, it will at once appear that they were not to be fulfilled in the case of all believers, in addition to Abraham himself. In that covenant, God promises that Abraham should be a "œfather of many nations, "œthat "œkings shall come out of thee," that "œI will give thee and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession" (Gen 17:5-8 ). But Christians are not made the fathers of many nations; kings do not come out of them; nor do their descendants occupy the land of Canaan, either literally or spiritually. How many a godly believer has had to mourn with David: "œAlthough my house be not so with God; yet He hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure, for this is all my salvation" (2Sam 23:5)?



Bruce continued:-


> "Ye that fear Jehovah, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel" (Ps. 22:23). "Oh ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen. He is Jehovah our God: his judgments are in all the earth. He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:" (Ps. 105:6-10).


Amen! But who is this seed of Abraham, who are descibed as fearing Jehovah? Not the majority of the Israelites who, at every opportunity went running after other gods. Gal 3:7 again: *'Know therefore that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.'* The seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is Christ and those united to Him by faith (cf. WCF Larger Catechism Q.31 ).

The fact is that there is no connection between circumcision and faith (without which it is impossible to please God). There is no mention in Gen 17 that Ishmael or Abraham's household were believers in the God of Abraham. Nor is there any suggestion in the Mosaic Law that only the children of true believers were to be circumcised. Any male born to an Israelite was circumcised, period. Faith did not come into it. 

We are told that any foreigner wishing to eat the Passover needed to have the males in his family (children and servants) circumcised (Exodus 12:48 ); but nothing is said of it being necessary that the adults should believe in Jehovah or in the promises made to Abraham. Many might wish to join themselves to Israel to enjoy their privileges and the deliverances wrought for them (cf. Esther 8:17 ) who had no conception of the Saviour that Abraham saw afar off. If they lived in the land of Israel, they had to be circumcised and might not worship other gods, but there was no further obligation upon them.

On the other hand, believers outside of Israel were not required to be circumcised unless they came to live in Israel. Melchizadek was 'a priest of God most high' and 'beyond all controversy' greater than Abraham, yet he was not circumcised. Lot was 'a righteous man' (2Peter 2:8 ) but he was not circumcised because he was not of Abraham's household. Naaman the Syrian became a true believer (2Kings 5:15 ), but he was not circumcised because he did not remain in Israel but returned to Syria.

So we may see that circumcision had nothing to do with true faith. There was, of course, a remnant saved by faith, but their physical circumcision was no different to that of their unbelieving neighbours.

Baptism, however is intimately related to faith and repentance (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12, 13, 37; 9:18; 10:47; 16:14-15 etc). It is not related to lineage (except by a faulty understanding of Acts 2:38 ). Believers are the seed of Christ (Isaiah 53:10; Heb 2:13 ) and Christ has no physical descendants. Indeed, Paul describes his circumcision and Israelite lineage as so much 'dung' compared with knowing Christ (Phil 3:8 ).

*'That which is born of the flesh is flesh'* (John 3:6 ). That was true in OT times as well as in the New. Circumcision brought no spiritual benefit whatsoever. *'For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation'* (Gal 6:15 ). Being born an Israelite brought certain advantages (Rom 3:1-2; 9:4-5 ), but they were of no ultimate benefit without faith (Rom 3:9ff). 

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Steve Owen

Rich wrote:-


> Even if we Presbyterians fold up our "visible", "invisible" distinction tents and agree with the Baptists that only the Elect are truly in the New Covenant it still doesn't inform us who to baptize based on that issue. If it is immaterial to the subject of who is baptized then please explain why the credo-Baptists keep returning to it?



Rich, to me the issue is two-fold.

1. We must follow the ordinances of God. I see no command to baptize infants.

2. The purity of the church. The church as described in the Bible is a body of believers. It must be kept pure as far as we are able. That we cannot do this absolutely is neither here nor there. We are instructed, *'Be holy as I am holy.* We can't do that either but we don't therefore give up and live like the devil! The fact that we cannot do things as we should is no reason for not trying. Bringing people into the church without a credible confession of faith pollutes the church and is therefore to be avoided.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Rich wrote:-
> 
> 
> 
> Even if we Presbyterians fold up our "visible", "invisible" distinction tents and agree with the Baptists that only the Elect are truly in the New Covenant it still doesn't inform us who to baptize based on that issue. If it is immaterial to the subject of who is baptized then please explain why the credo-Baptists keep returning to it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, to me the issue is two-fold.
> 
> 1. We must follow the ordinances of God. I see no command to baptize infants.
> 
> 2. The purity of the church. The church as described in the Bible is a body of believers. It must be kept pure as far as we are able. That we cannot do this absolutely is neither here nor there. We are instructed, *'Be holy as I am holy.* We can't do that either but we don't therefore give up and live like the devil! The fact that we cannot do things as we should is no reason for not trying. Bringing people into the church without a credible confession of faith pollutes the church and is therefore to be avoided.
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...

Those are fair answers as to why you do not baptize infants according to your convictions of what the Scriptures say but neither has anything to do with election. They are arguments based on the precepts of God and the offices He has graced us with to make Godly decisions based on those.

With respect to your two concerns:

1. Nor are we specifically commanded to baptize adults. There are obviously numerous commands and understandings to support the case but it is not as if the credo-Baptist has an explicit command either.

2. Purity is maintained by Church discipline. Discipline takes many forms - one of which is determining who will receive the sign of Baptism and gain entry into the sheepfold. Discipline also takes the form of training in righteousness all the members of the Church, young and old. It obviously also takes many other forms including putting people out.

In other words, purity is not just about keeping things out but maintaining well those things within and putting out those pollutants that you find.

The argument is, of course, immaterial if we are commanded to baptize the infants of believers. On a practical note, however, the presumption that you are maintaining purity fundamentally by who you baptize ignores the obvious fact that, even if you don't consider their children in the Covenant, they're at the Church with them anyway. They show up every Sunday with them and participate in the body life of the Church. They're just treated as if they're not in the Church but they are present and involved in the most intimate way in all body life. 

To presume purity by comforting yourself that they are "not baptized" leads to the opposite danger that you don't feel the obligation to nurture those most dear. I'm not saying that you do not nurture faith within them but it is a danger nevertheless since the clear theology communicated is that "you may be among us but you are not of us" to your own children.

You say that preserves purity - I say the opposite. As the children are presumed within the Covenant, we are diligent to train and correct based on the fact that they are in and among the Covenant people. They are not merely pagans that we drag along to all the Church functions and intimate body life but are part and parcel of the growth of the Church. We do not merely assume that just because that people are unbaptized (no matter how small) they are no threat to the body life of the Church. After all, we all know many pagan kids that we tell our children not to even play with because they are a bad influence.

Thus, intra-body purity is not maintained solely on the basis that you do not baptize your children.

[Edited on 12-16-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> So what I'm arguing here is that to bring up election/reprobation, which is the credo-Baptists favorite line of argumentation apparently from what I've seen, does nothing to settle a single case of who ought to be allowed entry into a Church. You can no more baptize a single adult than we can baptize adult or child with such a standard.
> 
> The question and the debate ought to be around what are the commands and the visible indicators surrounding the issue that ought to be considered for Godly men to make the proper decision on who ought to be allowed entry into the Covenant community.


----------



## Mocha

Joseph,

You originally said:



> The "baptism" of Noah's family was based on the faith of the family's covenant head, Noah. It was NOT based on individual professions of faith.



I responded with:



> But that was the Old Testament. See Fairbairn's quote:
> 
> "...Undoubtedly the New Testament form less distinctly recognises the connection between parent and child - we should rather say, *does not of itself recognise that connection at all*; so much ought to be frankly conceded..."



You responded with:



> That's the first sentence that ever comes out of the mouth of a dispensationalist.



I am not a dispensationalist. I just happen to see more discontinuity than you do. Since you hold to a strict continuity, you will probably label anyone with any kind of discontinuity as being dispensational. I believe there is both continuity and discontinuity. Piper expresses this well:



> There is in fact an important continuity between the signs of circumcision and baptism, but the Presbyterian representatives of Reformed theology have *undervalued the discontinuity*. This is the root difference between Baptists and Presbyterians on baptism. I am a Baptist because I believe that on this score we *honor both the continuity and discontinuity* between Israel and the church and between their respective covenant signs. (Piper's Article





> Being in the OT is *not* a reason for dismissing something.



Unless there is discontinuity in that respect.



> Rather, if you want to demonstrate that an OT practice has been abrogated, then you must Scripturally *demonstrate* when/where God abrogated it.



Okay, I will show Scripturally where the OT practice has been abrogated.

Gal. 6:15 - For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision...
Romans 2:28 - For no ne is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.
Gal. 5:6 - For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

Surely that shows that there is some discontinuity! Am I still a dispensationalist? 



> To the contrary, the New Testament is literally soaked in the connection between parent and child, and infant inclusion in the covenant.



I agree that Scripture, both OT and NT, shows a strong connection between parent and child, but I do not think (although I'm still working on this) that a parent can bring a child into the covenant in the NT. I agree that there a verses and passaages that seem to express that, but it's not explicit or conclusive.



> First of all, where did God ever *remove* children from covenant inclusion? Do you really think that the congregation in Acts 2 just telepathically understood, "aha! Our children are no longer included in the covenant!"? To the contrary, Peter said the promise was still for their children too. Paul said that the children of believers are holy. And the Gospels demonstrate that Jesus treated the children of covenant members as covenant members themselves . . . in Luke 18, covenant members brought their *infants* to Jesus, and He said that the Kingdom of God *belongs* to them. --- And I have just scratched the surface. If you don't see infant inclusion in the covenant in the NT, then you aren't looking.



I think a lot depends on whether you hold to a strict continuity or whether you allow for some discontinuity. I agree that if you hold to a strict continuity, you will arrive at the conclusions that you have stated.

I originally said:



> That leads us back to the big question: Does baptizing an infant mean that they are in the covenant?



You responded by saying:



> On the contrary, we baptize infants because they are already in the covenant (cf. Genesis 17:14).



Again, I think that depends on whether you hold to strict continuity or not. Presbyterians such as Bannerman, Thornwell, Dabney, Lloyd-Jones, and others, would probably not agree with you. They would hold to some sort of discontinuity. 

James Bannerman says:



> The full enjoyment of the benefits of the ordinance the infant cannot experience at the moment of its administration, in virtue of his incapacity of faith; but it may be experienced afterwards, when, in consequence of his newly formed faith in Christ, he too is made partaker of the covenant, and can look back in believing confidence on his former Baptism as a seal.



Thornwell says:



> The two classes of which the Church consists are not equally related to the idea of the church. The class of professors pertains to its essence; that of nonprofessors is an accidental result of the mode of organization...It is clear that while they (nonprofessors) are in the church by external union, in the spirit and temper of their minds they belong to the world. Like Esau, they neither understand nor prize their birthright. Of the world and in the Church this expresses precisely their status, and determines the mode in which the church should deal with them.("The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, Vol. 4, pgs. 339-340)



Dabney says:



> When our standards say, "All baptized persons are members of the Church," this by no means implies their title to all sealing ordinances, suffrage, and office. They are minor citizens in the ecclesiastical commonwealth, under tutelage, training, and instruction, and government...(Robert L. Dabney, "Systematic Theology"



You said:



> I highly respect John Piper. But he is way off base here.
> 
> Simply read Romans 11. That chapter alone sufficiently demonstrates the unity between the OT people of God and the NT people of God. OT Israelites were the people of God. And as you can see in Romans 11, you and I have been grafted into the same covenantal tree.
> 
> Israel was the Church (Acts 7:38), and the Church is Israel (Galatians 6:16).



I agree that there is continuity. I have no problem with that. But I also believe that there is some discontinuity as well, and that's seems to be why we disagree.

Joseph, thanks for the challenging questions. It's helping me to think this through!

Mike


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> I believe there is both continuity and discontinuity.



I agree. But any discontinuity must be demonstrated from Scripture. Continuity should be assumed until evidence is provided to the contrary.



> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being in the OT is *not* a reason for dismissing something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless there is discontinuity in that respect.
Click to expand...


If there is discontinuity, then you should be able to demonstrate it from Scripture. And even then, "being in the OT" would NOT be the *reason* for dismissing it. Rather the *Scriptural demonstration* would be the reason.

For example, is "being in the OT" a reason for dismissing animal sacrifice? No! Rather, we dismiss animal sacrifice now, because the book of Hebrews explicitly dismisses it. We do not dismiss it merely because it happens to be in the OT.



> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> I will show Scripturally where the OT practice has been abrogated.
> 
> Gal. 6:15 - For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision...
> Romans 2:28 - For no ne is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical.
> Gal. 5:6 - For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.



The Galatians passages do in fact reveal that the OT practice of circumcision has been abrogated. No paedobaptist would disagree! 

What you need to Scripturally demonstrate is that the *covenantal inclusion of infants* has been abrogated. Can you point to any Scripture that says, "the children of God's people are no longer automatically included in covenant with God"? Find something to that effect, and then you will have an argument against paedobaptism.



> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> 
> Surely that shows that there is some discontinuity! Am I still a dispensationalist?



I agree that there is discontinuity, whenever the Scriptures say there is discontinuity. I was not suggesting you had dispensational leanings because of your belief in discontinuity. Rather, I was picking on you for saying, "But that's in the Old Testament", as if that could be a *reason* for believing there is discontinuity on any given doctrine. Dispensationalists use that argument for a *reason* . . . "if a doctrine is OT, then it _must_ have passed away!" --- But if I misunderstood what you were trying to say, I apologize. You yourself may not be dispensational. I was just critiquing the argument you were using.



> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> 
> I agree that Scripture, both OT and NT, shows a strong connection between parent and child, but I do not think (although I'm still working on this) that a parent can bring a child into the covenant in the NT. I agree that there a verses and passaages that seem to express that, but it's not explicit or conclusive.



Hypothetically, what if there _were not_ all of these NT verses showing a "strong connection between parent and child", as you say. What difference would that make? We must assume continuity, until we see a Scripture that introduces discontinuity. 

In the OT, God said that He is the Creator. But (hypothetically) what if the NT didn't mention anything about that? Should we then assume discontinuity? Could someone else be the "God" of the NT? Marcion is an early-church guy who actually thought along these lines!

In the OT, sex with animals is prohibited. In the NT, there is *no prohibition* of this practice! Should we assume continuity, or discontinuity? Are we bound by the OT law against beastiality, or are we free to sleep with animals since the NT is silent on the subject?

Please think carefully about this quote from B. B. Warfield:

_"The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His Church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances. Among these ordinances is baptism, which standing in similar place in the New Dispensation to circumcision in the Old, is like it to be given to children. "_



> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, where did God ever *remove* children from covenant inclusion? Do you really think that the congregation in Acts 2 just telepathically understood, "aha! Our children are no longer included in the covenant!"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think a lot depends on whether you hold to a strict continuity or whether you allow for some discontinuity. I agree that if you hold to a strict continuity, you will arrive at the conclusions that you have stated.
Click to expand...


I do allow for some discontinuity, but only when taught by Scripture itself. Why do you automatically *assume* discontinuity? 

If Peter said in Acts 2, "Sorry, your children are no longer automatic covenant members", then I would have a reason to see discontinuity with this particular doctrine. But he didn't say anything like this! And neither did anyone else in the NT. In the OT, God put children into the covenant. And in the NT, He never took them out. What reason do you have for thinking that He took them out?




> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> 
> I agree that there is continuity. I have no problem with that. But I also believe that there is some discontinuity as well, and that's seems to be why we disagree.



No, we both agree that there is discontinuity.

Rather, we disagree over what should be assumed in otherwise ambiguous cases. Again, consider the example I gave regarding beastiality. The OT prohibits it, but the NT never does. So should we assume continuity, or discontinuity?

Obviously, if the NT explicitly condoned beastiality, then there would be discontinuity. But in the absence of such a radical change made clear in the text of Scripture itself, we should of course assume continuity. It is still wrong to sleep with animals. The NT has no need of repeating what the OT said, because the OT principle remains in effect by default.



> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> 
> 
> Joseph, thanks for the challenging questions. It's helping me to think this through!
> 
> Mike



Thank you, Mike. I am enjoying our discussion.

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## Steve Owen

Joseph,
I don't want to break into your discussion with Mike, which I am also enjoying, but would you answer a question for me, please?

Are the children of the devil in covenant with God?

Blessings,

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Joseph,
> I don't want to break into your discussion with Mike, which I am also enjoying, but would you answer a question for me, please?
> 
> Are the children of the devil in covenant with God?
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Martin



Yes, some of them are. They prove themselves to be covenant breakers.

For example, consider those who were broken off the covenant tree in Romans 11. They were covenant members with God, even though they were children of the devil.

On the other hand, consider Ephesians 2. There have obviously also been people who were children of the devil, and were *not* in covenant with God.

Thus, some lost people are in covenant with God, and some are not.





[Edited on 12-16-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Mocha

Joseph,

I originally said:



> I believe there is both continuity and discontinuity.



You responded by saying:



> I agree. But any discontinuity must be *demonstrated from Scripture*. Continuity should be assumed until evidence is provided to the contrary.
> 
> AND
> 
> If there is discontinuity, then you should be able to *demonstrate it from Scripture.*



Okay, I'll try and demonstrate it from Scripture.

First of all, we need to acknowledge that there is continuity with regard to the covenant of grace. Martyn Lloyd-Jones expresses this in the following quote. He says:



> ...there is only one covenant of grace, and that men in all dispensations are saved in exactly the same way. It is the same covenant of grace under the Old Testament as it is under the New. There is a difference in administration, but it is the same covenant of grace. There is only one way of salvation always, whether in the past, present, or future. (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, "Romans: Chapters 3:20-4:25", pg. 157)



But at the same time, we need to emphasize that the New Covenant administration is:

- better (Heb. 8:6)
- not like the previous administrations (Heb. 8:9)

The question that needs to be asked is, is the New Covenant administration "better" than the previous administrations because it is "better by degree", or because it is a "better and different kind"? In other words, is the New Covenant administration the same as the other administrations but to a greater degree, or is the New Covenant administration a completely different kind from the other administrations in the covenant of grace?

Fortuneately, the Greek can help us out on this. When "better" is used to describe "degree", the Greek word is "meizon". When "better" is used to describe "kind", the Greek word "kreitton" is used. Guess which Greek word is used in Hebrews 8:9? It's "kreitton", which means that the New Covenant administration is a different kind of covenant (compared to previous administrations), and not just different by degree.

To the paedobaptist, it is absolutely necessary that the "essential nature" and "membership" of all administrations of the covenant of grace be identical. Since there is clearly discontinuity in the covenant of grace (i.e. "kreitton" - a covenant of a "better" and "different kind"), the argument for an identical "essential nature" and "membership" collaspses. James White expresses the weakness of the paedobaptist view when he says the following:



> ...if one believes the Covenant of Grace began with Adam, was the essential nature and membership of the covenant the same from Adam to Abraham? From Abraham to Moses? From Moses to Christ? From Christ to the present? What covenant sign was given to covenant members from Adam to Abraham? Unless one limits "essential nature" to the mere description of everything that God does being "gracious", differences in administration...would be contrary to the needed foundation that underlies the insistence that the covenant sign should be given to all offspring of covenant members. (James White, Reformed Baptist Theological Review "The Newness of the New Covenant (Part II)", Vol. 2, No. 1, pgs. 86-87)



Joseph, I think I have been able to show clearly, from Scripture, that there is discontinuity within the administrations of the covenant of grace (i.e. - "kreitton"). If the administrations are not identical, the paedobaptist view has no foundation!

Mike


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Joseph, I think I have been able to show clearly, from Scripture, that there is discontinuity within the administrations of the covenant of grace (i.e. - "kreitton"). If the administrations are not identical, the paedobaptist view has no foundation!
> 
> Mike


Huh?

Respectfully, you have demonstrated no such thing. How is the Covenant "better" when it destroys family solidarity in the Covenant?

I love James White and consider him a personal friend but I think he has missed somthing.

It matters not that no Covenant sign was given from Adam to Abraham. What is clear is that God Covenants with a man and his offspring from Adam to Abraham. It is why a geneology of chosen men from Adam through Seth to Abraham is preserved as the promise in the protoevangelum. God covenants with a family.

Nobody is saying that the administration does not change but to suddenly destroy family solidarity in the Covenant is dramatic. It is not only completely different than an administration from Abraham to Christ but, indeed, from Adam to Christ!

You have demonstrated nothing. What you need to do is show that the idea of family solidarity within the Covenant is destroyed in the New Covenant. How, as well, is it _better_ for any man to hear that God is the God of him only and not his own children? The Scriptures are replete with statements that our children are an inheritance and that to lose them from the faith it is a curse. When was that idea abrogated? Read the first five chapters of Proverbs as a father and tell me that we ought no longer think of ourselves in Covenant with our kids as something "better".

[Edited on 12-17-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## biblelighthouse

The current administration of the covenant is *better* indeed!

That is why the covenant promises for our children are even *stronger* and *more sure* than ever!

Now _that_ is discontinuity I can be happy about!

Every Christian parent should presume his/her children are elect. Anything less is a doubting of God's promises.


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> 
> we need to emphasize that the New Covenant administration is:
> 
> - better (Heb. 8:6)
> - not like the previous administrations (Heb. 8:9)




Mike, as you know, Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 are intimately linked. With that in mind, please read this article:

http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/ric_pratt/TH.Pratt.New.Covenant.Baptism.pdf


----------



## Mocha

Joseph and Rich,

I want to respond to specific statements from your recent posts. The statements are:

Joseph said:



> What you need to *Scripturally demonstrate* is that the covenantal inclusion of infants has been abrogated. Can you point to any Scripture that says, "the children of God's people are no longer automatically included in covenant with God"? Find something to that effect, and then you will have an argument against paedobaptism.



Rich said:



> What you need to do is *show* that the idea of family solidarity within the Covenant is destroyed in the New Covenant.



Okay, in this post, I will "show" and "Scriptually demonstrate" that the covenantal inclusion of infants has been abrogated.

Suppose there was an "R" rated movie at my local movie theatre. If I'm not mistaken, here in Canada, the movie would be restricted to people 18 years of age and older. By saying that only those 18 years of age and older are able to go in and see the movie, it also means that those under the age of 18 are not able to go in and see the movie. I would be able to show, because the movie is restricted "to" those 18 years and older, that therefore those under 18 years of age are consequently restricted "from" the movie. I don't need to see words that say "Children are not allowed". The fact that the movie theatre tells me that the movie is restricted to those 18 years and older, no one would dispute that children are not allowed. It means the same thing!

With this illustration clearly in mind, I want to show that covenantal inclusion of infants has been abrogated, not because there is a Bible verse that says children are restrictred "from" the covenant, but instead, because the covenant is restricted "to" believers. By "showing" that the New Covenant administration is restricted to believers, I will have "Scriptually demonstrated" that covenantal inclusion of infants has been abrogated, because one proves the other.

In order to understand the New Covenant, I want to begin with some quotes by Richard Pratt, a paedobaptist, who supports the fact that the New Covenant is soteriological in nature. He says:



> *Without a doubt* Jeremiah distinguished the new covenant as one that would *not be broken*...
> 
> Jeremiah 31:33 speaks plainly in this regard: "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts." This feature of the new covenant demonstrates that God himself will bring about deep internal transformation in his covenant people. The words "mind" and "heart often denotes the inner person, the deeper recceses of personality, or in contemporary parlance the "soul". *Jeremiah did not see entrance into the new covenant community as entrance into an external environment, but as undergoing a spiritual, inward change*...According to Jeremiah the law of God is internalized in the participants of the new covenant. They are transformed from within.
> 
> Jeremiah was emphatic in this regard. "No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord', because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest." In these words Jeremiah characterized the time of the new covenant as a period in which it will be entirely unnecessary for anyone to encourage other covenant people to "know the Lord"...*In a word, to know God as Jeremiah spoke of it was to receive eternal salvation. So it is that in the covenant of which Jeremiah spoke salvation would come to each participant. There would be no exceptions.*
> 
> How can we believe in infant baptism when *God himself said that the new covenant would be inviolable, internalized, and include only those who know the Lord?* (Read Pratt's article here)



Why does Richard Pratt (a paedobaptist) see the New Covenant as soteriological in nature? I think it's because when you read Jeremiah 31:31-34 through the lens of Hebrews 8 and 10, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion. In these passages we see that the covenant is: 

1) restricted to those who can't break the covenant (Jer. 31:32; Heb. 8:9)
2) restricted to those who are transformed from within (Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:10; Heb. 10:16)
3) restricted to those who know the Lord in a salvific sense (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 8:11-12; Heb. 10:17)

With this in mind, we can conclude that the covenant is restricted from:

1) those who can break the covenant
2) those who are not transformed from within
3) those who do not know the Lord in a salvific sense

You may be wondering why Richard Pratt, a paedobaptist, would concede that the New Covenant is soteriological in nature? Afterall, wouldn't that prove that the covenantal inclusion of children has been abrogated? How does he deal with this evidence? Well, he deals with it by making the blessings of the content of the New Covenant fulfilled at the second coming of Christ (at the consummation) and not in the present. So this must lead to an important question: Does the Jeremiah passage (Jer. 31:31-41, Heb. 8 and 10) apply to the present or only to the cosummation of Christ?

Scripture seems to demonstrate that the Jeremiah passage applies to the present.

1) The New Covenant has already been officially enacted (Heb. 8:6) - past tense action
2) New Covenant ordinances have already been estabished (Luke 22:20 1 Cor. 11:25)
3) New Covenant officers have already been installed (Eph. 2:20; 4:11 2 Cor. 3:6)

In John 6:45, Jesus combines two Old Testament prophecies (Isaiah 54:13 and Jer. 31:34) and regards them as already being fulfilled during his life and ministry. Jesus says:

"It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God'. Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me..." (John 6:45)

So Isaiah 54:13 "all your sons will be taught of the Lord" and Jer. 31:34 "they shall all know me" are being seen as having a present fulfillment in John 6:45, and therefore it only makes sense to conclude that Jer. 31:31-34 can and does have a present fulfillment (as well as a perfect future fulfillment).

If Jeremiah 31:31-34 (Heb. 8 and 10) has a present fulfillment (as I believe Scripture demonstrates), and if Jeremiah 31:31-34 (Heb. 8 and 10) is restricted to those who 1) can't break the covenant, 2) are transformed from within, and 3) know the Lord in a salvific sense (as I believe Scripture demonstrates), then consequently it must be acknowledged that covenantal inclusion of chldren has been abrogated.

Mike


----------



## Steve Owen

Great stuff, Mike! 

Just a brief point. Pratt bases his argument (that the blessings of the NC come only at our Lord's Second Coming) on Heb 8. But the writer to the Hebrews also quotes from Jer 31 in Hebrews 10:15-18, and here the promises are firmly anchored in the present (cf. vs 18 & 19 ).

Martin


----------



## Scott Bushey

Joseph, Rich, 
We need to go back in time. Dealing with all these other secondary things is just causing the blur to become even more distorted. Stay in Genesis. If that issue cannot be dealt with first, the rest of the conversation is moot. Ya'll will argue until Christ returns.

Mike,
Have you read Witsius or Owen? Matts little primer would help.

Mike writes:



> If Jeremiah 31:31-34 (Heb. 8 and 10) has a present fulfillment (as I believe Scripture demonstrates), and if Jeremiah 31:31-34 (Heb. 8 and 10) is restricted to those who 1) can't break the covenant, 2) are transformed from within, and 3) know the Lord in a salvific sense (as I believe Scripture demonstrates), then consequently it must be acknowledged that covenantal inclusion of chldren has been abrogated.




What leads you to believe an infant cannot 'know the Lord' in a salvific sense? Your ASSERTION holds no water. As well, you call God a liar; He says that placing the sign upon our children to be eternal, everlasting! 

I will not , like Joseph and Lt. Colonel L. argue secondary issues with you or Martin. Giving you the home court advantage is irresponsible in my opinion. This is exactly why the thread has gone this far. You are totally missing the point and possibly need to rethink your understanding of covenant theology. 

Your first post was brilliant!



> As I study the subject of "baptism", I'm becoming more and more convinced that understanding the "Abrahamic Covenant" is key!
> 
> Over the past few weeks I have been seriously studying the "baptism" issue, and I must admit, I have begun to see the whole issue in a new and compelling light. When I began to understand the "Abrahamic Covenant" from the paedobaptist point of view, many verses in the Bible began to look very different to me. For example, God's protection of families (Noah, Lot, Rahab, etc.), the many verses that mention "you and your children", Jesus' blessing of the children, the household baptisms, a verse that mentions children of a Christian parent as being 'holy' (1 Cor. 7:14), verses that seem to show that someone that belongs to Christ can be removed (John 15, Romans 9, and Hebrews 10, etc.), external and internal aspects of the covenant, and more. I am convinced that your interpretation of the "Abahamic Covenant" and its implications will determine whether you are paeodobaptistic or baptistic. The verses and passages mentioned above can only be used as proof texts when the meaning of the "Abrahamic Covenant" is read into them, therefore, it seems to me, the best way to resolve the "baptism" issue is to understand the "Abrahamic Covenant". To study the other verses and passages that seem to support or refute infant baptism, without first understanding the Abrahamic Covenant, is just a waste of time (in my opinion).



What is strange to me is that you seem to have a handle on the concept above, yet the rest of the thread and your subsequent responses fly right out the window.......What we paedobaptists will not do, should not do, is let the credo/dispensationalist guide the conversation. The conversation should not leave Gen 17 until it is fully established whether or not, both parties understand what the word everlasting means and if both parties actually _believe_ God and takje him at his word.

Secondly, if the NC cannot be broken, why does the book of Hebrews warn of breaking it? Will God ever again destroy the world with water/flood? No! He covenanted with mankind and said He will not! Why is it you take Gods word in this covenant, yet in the Abrahamic covenant, when He uses the term everlasting, you doubt Him?

Gen 9:12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for *perpetual generations*: 
Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. 
Gen 9:14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: 
Gen 9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. 
Gen 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. 
Gen 9:17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth. 

You believe every jot and tittle above, yet below you don't ??? 

Gen 17:2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. 
Gen 17:3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, 
Gen 17:4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. 
Gen 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. 
Gen 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. 
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. 
Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. 
Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 
Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 
Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 
Gen 17:13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an *everlasting covenant*. 
Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. 

Perpetual/everlasting; same Hebrew word:

H5769
×¢×œ× ×¢×•×œ×
"›oÌ‚laÌ‚m "›oÌ‚laÌ‚m
o-lawm', o-lawm'
From H5956; properly concealed, that is, the vanishing point; generally time out of mind (past or future), that is, (practically) eternity; frequentative adverbially (especially with prepositional prefix) always: - always (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Compare H5331, H5703.

Mike,
Do you believe God?

The NC is not _new_ like you want to believe. It is fulfilled or consumated. The old testament saint had full advantage of Christ; looking to Him. The present day saint as well; looking back. man have always been saved in the same way all throughout scripture. So how is the NC better? It is better because the OC (the covenant of works) brought death! The NC brings life. When was the NC initiated? In Gen 3. When was it fulfilled, at calvary. Think of it as a glass being filled with water. Empty during the C.o.W and beginning to be filled up over time, fully filled at Christs crucifixion. 

Pratt even aludes to this in his article:


> Although Jeremiah´s words "œto lead them out of Egypt" indicate that he had in mind especially a contrast between the covenant with Moses and the new covenant,



The only thing he leaves out is the initiation of the NC and it's consumation.

Pratt adds:


> This overview of the structure of the passage allows us to summarize the passage in this way. To begin with, Jeremiah says that the Lord will make a new covenant that cannot be broken; it cannot fail to bring wondrous blessings from God. When Jeremiah spoke these words, God had already begun to punish his people with foreign oppression and exile. Soon, Jerusalem itself would fall to the Babylonians. What was so remarkable about having another covenant in the future when the great covenant with Moses had failed to bring eternal salvation? The remarkable thing was that new covenant would not end in failure.



Again, Mosaic contrasted to NC.

Pratt continues:


> In the second place, Jeremiah reported positive elaborations on what would happen under the administration of this new covenant (31:33-34e). The new covenant would not fail because God would do two things to ensure success. First, he would put his law in their minds and hearts (31:33c,d). The internalization of the law was God´s ideal for his people throughout OT history (e.g. Deut. 6:6; 10:16; 11:18; 30:6; Pss. 37:31; 119:34; Isa. 51:7) and was often obtained (Deut. 30:11-14; 2 Kings 23:25; 2 Chr. 31:21; Ps. 40:8; 119:11). In the new covenant, however, God would touch all his hardened and wayward people to give them hearts that loved and obeyed his law. Second, God would establish the bond of loyalty and intimacy between Himself and all of his people (31:33c-e). Unlike times before when dross corrupted the covenant community, this covenant bond would extend to every covenant person without exception. This distribution of salvation would also ensure that the new covenant could not fail.



Again, Mosaic contrasted to NC. The NC was initiated or put into motion in Gen 3.

What did Christ mean here:

Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 

Did he really mean _new_? Was it really a new commandment? If so, He broke his own rules.........

1Jo 2:8 Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.

Another one?

2Jo 1:5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. 

Yet another. 

So we now have 13 commandments??? 

Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Are you prepared to tell me Abraham, Issac and Jacob did not have this benefit?


Jer 31:34 And they *shall teach no more* every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Mike writes:


> Scripture seems to demonstrate that the Jeremiah passage applies to the present.



Since when do we not need teachers or the gospel?


Pratt illuminates:


> On the other hand, other prophets also associated the concept of "œcovenant" with Israel´s restoration from exile. The expression "œcovenant of peace" (~lv tyrB) and similar terminology appear in Isaiah 54:10 and Ezekiel 34:25; 37:26 as descriptions of the restoration period. These covenant expressions reflected a basic theological outlook which stemmed from the days of Moses: forgiveness, refreshment, renewal and blessings come to the sinful nation of Israel only as they renew covenant (e.g. Exod. 24:7-8; 34:10ff.; Deut 29; 31; Josh. 24:1-28; 2 Kings 23:2-3; 2 Chr. 34:30-32). So, it is not surprising at all that Jeremiah spoke of the divine arrangement after exile as a new covenant.



Pratt clarifies:


> With the background of the original meaning of Jeremiah 31:31-34 in mind, we are now in a position to ask how the hope of the new covenant is fulfilled in the NT era. Gaining perspective on the NT outlook will provide us with significant insight into how infant baptism fits within the new covenant.
> 
> Yet, we must be careful not to think that these NT references to Jeremiah 31 exhaust the NT outlooks on what God promised in this portion of Jeremiah. To develop a more adequate understanding of the NT perspective, we must remember that Jeremiah´s new covenant is inextricably enmeshed with a host of other promises about the return of Israel from exile. It is one fabric with the many OT expectations of a grand eternal future for the people of God after the exile.
> 
> It is well known that the NT teaches that Christ fulfilled OT promises about the restoration from exile. But these fulfillments take place in a manner unanticipated by OT prophets. Instead of happening completely and all at once, the restoration expectations were fulfilled and are being fulfilled over a long stretch of time.



I'd reread the paper and take off your baptist glasses!


[Edited on 12-18-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## biblelighthouse

Excellent post, Scott!


Baptists have a number of problems:

1) They don't recognize that the "New Covenant" was inaugurated in Genesis 3:15, LONG before the advent of Christ.

2) They don't think infants can be believers (cf. Luke 1:15,41; Acts 18:15-17).

3) They make the mistake of thinking that baptism is only for professing believers, rather than covenant members in general.

4) They fail to understand the already/not-yet nature of the covenant. Is it present tense? Yes! But is ALL of it present tense? NO! There is still future eschatological fulfillment awaiting us!

5) Most importantly of all, just as Scott has pointed out, baptists don't get Genesis 12, 15, 17, 22, etc. right. Their faulty understanding of Genesis poisons their theology throughout the rest of Scripture. Get Genesis right, and you'll get Jeremiah 31 & Hebrews 8 right!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

{Moderating}


> [Baptist's] faulty understanding of Genesis *poisons* their theology throughout the rest of Scripture.


If the goal in debating here is to perpetuate the dialog, rhetoric such as this (from either side) does not foster the right climate. Many threads are closed not because the debate is over or unfruitful, but because we Mods think that the language has escalated beyond what we are comfortable allowing. _Polemics_ have their place, but not, I think, between brethren on this board who share a great deal in common.

If your pastor is a credo, and you a paedo, and you respect him generally, would you accuse him of _any_ theological deviation from your own that you label to his face as toxic?

"Poison" is pretty drastic, all pervasive--do you really think missing out the covenantal principle leads to apostasy? Better to say "influences" or "affects" rather than "poisons", "corrodes", "corrupts", etc. I think the difference is obvious, and yet it says something similar, without injecting the worst kind of negative quality about the type of influence that you think it is. The lines are pretty clearly drawn; I doubt anyone would question whether you though the overall "influence" was positive or negative.


So again, to all, moderate your own rhetoric, or we will have to close yet another thread.

PAX...

[Edited on 12-18-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Mike,

I wish I knew what you conceded and what you did not. It would help us to continue to dialogue along some sort of path to figure out where we are truly at a disagreement.

You quoted James White in his statement that because the Covenant from Adam to Abraham had no covenant sign that it was a "support" for the notion of discontinuity you claim in the New Covenant.

I responded by demonstrating that the Covenant sign might have been different within the same Covenant of Grace but that family solidarity was preserved from Adam to Christ.

Do you concede that Dr. White's argument has no bearing on the issue of family solidarity or no?

Secondly, I asked how the contraction of the Covenant to remove children and destroy family solidarity in Covenant with God was an improvement. I do not believe you have addressed that question. Since the essential nature of the Covenant of Grace has always been salvation by Christ's righteousness from Adam to the present, how does God declaring "I am no longer God to your children" mark the New Covenant as "better"?

Finally, your statement here:


> In these passages we see that the covenant is:
> 
> 1) restricted to those who can't break the covenant (Jer. 31:32; Heb. 8:9)
> 2) restricted to those who are transformed from within (Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:10; Heb. 10:16)
> 3) restricted to those who know the Lord in a salvific sense (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 8:11-12; Heb. 10:17)
> 
> With this in mind, we can conclude that the covenant is restricted from:
> 
> 1) those who can break the covenant
> 2) those who are not transformed from within
> 3) those who do not know the Lord in a salvific sense


This is a return to the credo-Baptist argument that "We baptize the elect". How do any of those conclusions inform you, or any elder, who is the proper subject of a single act of baptism? Unless you have the mind of God you can baptize NOBODY by those criteria - adult or child.

[Edited on 12-19-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Mocha

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Great stuff, Mike!
> 
> Just a brief point. Pratt bases his argument (that the blessings of the NC come only at our Lord's Second Coming) on Heb 8. But the writer to the Hebrews also quotes from Jer 31 in Hebrews 10:15-18, and here the promises are firmly anchored in the present (cf. vs 18 & 19 ).
> 
> Martin



Thanks for the clarification Martin!

Mike


----------



## Mocha

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Joseph, Rich,
> We need to go back in time. Dealing with all these other secondary things is just causing the blur to become even more distorted. Stay in Genesis. If that issue cannot be dealt with first, the rest of the conversation is moot. Ya'll will argue until Christ returns.
> 
> Mike,
> Have you read Witsius or Owen? Matts little primer would help.
> 
> Mike writes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Jeremiah 31:31-34 (Heb. 8 and 10) has a present fulfillment (as I believe Scripture demonstrates), and if Jeremiah 31:31-34 (Heb. 8 and 10) is restricted to those who 1) can't break the covenant, 2) are transformed from within, and 3) know the Lord in a salvific sense (as I believe Scripture demonstrates), then consequently it must be acknowledged that covenantal inclusion of chldren has been abrogated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What leads you to believe an infant cannot 'know the Lord' in a salvific sense? Your ASSERTION holds no water. As well, you call God a liar; He says that placing the sign upon our children to be eternal, everlasting!
> 
> I will not , like Joseph and Lt. Colonel L. argue secondary issues with you or Martin. Giving you the home court advantage is irresponsible in my opinion. This is exactly why the thread has gone this far. You are totally missing the point and possibly need to rethink your understanding of covenant theology.
> 
> Your first post was brilliant!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I study the subject of "baptism", I'm becoming more and more convinced that understanding the "Abrahamic Covenant" is key!
> 
> Over the past few weeks I have been seriously studying the "baptism" issue, and I must admit, I have begun to see the whole issue in a new and compelling light. When I began to understand the "Abrahamic Covenant" from the paedobaptist point of view, many verses in the Bible began to look very different to me. For example, God's protection of families (Noah, Lot, Rahab, etc.), the many verses that mention "you and your children", Jesus' blessing of the children, the household baptisms, a verse that mentions children of a Christian parent as being 'holy' (1 Cor. 7:14), verses that seem to show that someone that belongs to Christ can be removed (John 15, Romans 9, and Hebrews 10, etc.), external and internal aspects of the covenant, and more. I am convinced that your interpretation of the "Abahamic Covenant" and its implications will determine whether you are paeodobaptistic or baptistic. The verses and passages mentioned above can only be used as proof texts when the meaning of the "Abrahamic Covenant" is read into them, therefore, it seems to me, the best way to resolve the "baptism" issue is to understand the "Abrahamic Covenant". To study the other verses and passages that seem to support or refute infant baptism, without first understanding the Abrahamic Covenant, is just a waste of time (in my opinion).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is strange to me is that you seem to have a handle on the concept above, yet the rest of the thread and your subsequent responses fly right out the window.......What we paedobaptists will not do, should not do, is let the credo/dispensationalist guide the conversation. The conversation should not leave Gen 17 until it is fully established whether or not, both parties understand what the word everlasting means and if both parties actually _believe_ God and takje him at his word.
> 
> Secondly, if the NC cannot be broken, why does the book of Hebrews warn of breaking it? Will God ever again destroy the world with water/flood? No! He covenanted with mankind and said He will not! Why is it you take Gods word in this covenant, yet in the Abrahamic covenant, when He uses the term everlasting, you doubt Him?
> 
> Gen 9:12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for *perpetual generations*:
> Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
> Gen 9:14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
> Gen 9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
> Gen 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
> Gen 9:17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.
> 
> You believe every jot and tittle above, yet below you don't ???
> 
> Gen 17:2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
> Gen 17:3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
> Gen 17:4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
> Gen 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
> Gen 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
> Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
> Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
> Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
> Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
> Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
> Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
> Gen 17:13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an *everlasting covenant*.
> Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
> 
> Perpetual/everlasting; same Hebrew word:
> 
> H5769
> ×¢×œ× ×¢×•×œ×
> "›oÌ‚laÌ‚m "›oÌ‚laÌ‚m
> o-lawm', o-lawm'
> From H5956; properly concealed, that is, the vanishing point; generally time out of mind (past or future), that is, (practically) eternity; frequentative adverbially (especially with prepositional prefix) always: - always (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Compare H5331, H5703.
> 
> Mike,
> Do you believe God?
> 
> The NC is not _new_ like you want to believe. It is fulfilled or consumated. The old testament saint had full advantage of Christ; looking to Him. The present day saint as well; looking back. man have always been saved in the same way all throughout scripture. So how is the NC better? It is better because the OC (the covenant of works) brought death! The NC brings life. When was the NC initiated? In Gen 3. When was it fulfilled, at calvary. Think of it as a glass being filled with water. Empty during the C.o.W and beginning to be filled up over time, fully filled at Christs crucifixion.
> 
> Pratt even aludes to this in his article:
> 
> 
> 
> Although Jeremiah´s words "œto lead them out of Egypt" indicate that he had in mind especially a contrast between the covenant with Moses and the new covenant,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing he leaves out is the initiation of the NC and it's consumation.
> 
> Pratt adds:
> 
> 
> 
> This overview of the structure of the passage allows us to summarize the passage in this way. To begin with, Jeremiah says that the Lord will make a new covenant that cannot be broken; it cannot fail to bring wondrous blessings from God. When Jeremiah spoke these words, God had already begun to punish his people with foreign oppression and exile. Soon, Jerusalem itself would fall to the Babylonians. What was so remarkable about having another covenant in the future when the great covenant with Moses had failed to bring eternal salvation? The remarkable thing was that new covenant would not end in failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Mosaic contrasted to NC.
> 
> Pratt continues:
> 
> 
> 
> In the second place, Jeremiah reported positive elaborations on what would happen under the administration of this new covenant (31:33-34e). The new covenant would not fail because God would do two things to ensure success. First, he would put his law in their minds and hearts (31:33c,d). The internalization of the law was God´s ideal for his people throughout OT history (e.g. Deut. 6:6; 10:16; 11:18; 30:6; Pss. 37:31; 119:34; Isa. 51:7) and was often obtained (Deut. 30:11-14; 2 Kings 23:25; 2 Chr. 31:21; Ps. 40:8; 119:11). In the new covenant, however, God would touch all his hardened and wayward people to give them hearts that loved and obeyed his law. Second, God would establish the bond of loyalty and intimacy between Himself and all of his people (31:33c-e). Unlike times before when dross corrupted the covenant community, this covenant bond would extend to every covenant person without exception. This distribution of salvation would also ensure that the new covenant could not fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, Mosaic contrasted to NC. The NC was initiated or put into motion in Gen 3.
> 
> What did Christ mean here:
> 
> Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
> 
> Did he really mean _new_? Was it really a new commandment? If so, He broke his own rules.........
> 
> 1Jo 2:8 Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.
> 
> Another one?
> 
> 2Jo 1:5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
> 
> Yet another.
> 
> So we now have 13 commandments???
> 
> Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
> 
> Are you prepared to tell me Abraham, Issac and Jacob did not have this benefit?
> 
> 
> Jer 31:34 And they *shall teach no more* every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
> 
> Mike writes:
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture seems to demonstrate that the Jeremiah passage applies to the present.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since when do we not need teachers or the gospel?
> 
> 
> Pratt illuminates:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, other prophets also associated the concept of "œcovenant" with Israel´s restoration from exile. The expression "œcovenant of peace" (~lv tyrB) and similar terminology appear in Isaiah 54:10 and Ezekiel 34:25; 37:26 as descriptions of the restoration period. These covenant expressions reflected a basic theological outlook which stemmed from the days of Moses: forgiveness, refreshment, renewal and blessings come to the sinful nation of Israel only as they renew covenant (e.g. Exod. 24:7-8; 34:10ff.; Deut 29; 31; Josh. 24:1-28; 2 Kings 23:2-3; 2 Chr. 34:30-32). So, it is not surprising at all that Jeremiah spoke of the divine arrangement after exile as a new covenant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pratt clarifies:
> 
> 
> 
> With the background of the original meaning of Jeremiah 31:31-34 in mind, we are now in a position to ask how the hope of the new covenant is fulfilled in the NT era. Gaining perspective on the NT outlook will provide us with significant insight into how infant baptism fits within the new covenant.
> 
> Yet, we must be careful not to think that these NT references to Jeremiah 31 exhaust the NT outlooks on what God promised in this portion of Jeremiah. To develop a more adequate understanding of the NT perspective, we must remember that Jeremiah´s new covenant is inextricably enmeshed with a host of other promises about the return of Israel from exile. It is one fabric with the many OT expectations of a grand eternal future for the people of God after the exile.
> 
> It is well known that the NT teaches that Christ fulfilled OT promises about the restoration from exile. But these fulfillments take place in a manner unanticipated by OT prophets. Instead of happening completely and all at once, the restoration expectations were fulfilled and are being fulfilled over a long stretch of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd reread the paper and take off your baptist glasses!
> 
> 
> [Edited on 12-18-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Click to expand...


Scott,

I want to respond to your post but I think it deserves a thought out response and I'm going to be busy until Thursday night. I will try and respond at that time.

By the way, I still don't know which side of the argument I come down on. I find it to be a very difficult issue. I have recently be arguing from a baptistic perspective, partly because it helps me to talk this issue through, but also because it induces responses that will force me to deal with the issues.

I appreciate your challenging feedback and I'll try and respond on Thursday night (if I can).

Mike

PS - I'm not here to convince anyone. I here to be convinced myself. I need to know the answer to this issue. If my posts are causing you to  I just ask that you be patient as I work through this.


----------



## Mocha

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> Excellent post, Scott!
> 
> 
> Baptists have a number of problems:
> 
> 1) They don't recognize that the "New Covenant" was inaugurated in Genesis 3:15, LONG before the advent of Christ.
> 
> 2) They don't think infants can be believers (cf. Luke 1:15,41; Acts 18:15-17).
> 
> 3) They make the mistake of thinking that baptism is only for professing believers, rather than covenant members in general.
> 
> 4) They fail to understand the already/not-yet nature of the covenant. Is it present tense? Yes! But is ALL of it present tense? NO! There is still future eschatological fulfillment awaiting us!
> 
> 5) Most importantly of all, just as Scott has pointed out, baptists don't get Genesis 12, 15, 17, 22, etc. right. Their faulty understanding of Genesis poisons their theology throughout the rest of Scripture. Get Genesis right, and you'll get Jeremiah 31 & Hebrews 8 right!



Joseph, I find your list to be helpful. I wonder if you would mind working through this list with me? Maybe we can start with the first point. You said:



> 1) They don't recognize that the "New Covenant" was inaugurated in Genesis 3:15, LONG before the advent of Christ.



I currently believe that the covenant of grace began in the Garden in Genesis, but that the New Covenant (administration) was inagurated in the blood of Christ. Am I wrong? And if so, where did I go wrong?

Thanks for your help!

Mike


----------



## Mocha

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Mike,
> 
> I wish I knew what you conceded and what you did not. It would help us to continue to dialogue along some sort of path to figure out where we are truly at a disagreement.
> 
> You quoted James White in his statement that because the Covenant from Adam to Abraham had no covenant sign that it was a "support" for the notion of discontinuity you claim in the New Covenant.
> 
> I responded by demonstrating that the Covenant sign might have been different within the same Covenant of Grace but that family solidarity was preserved from Adam to Christ.
> 
> Do you concede that Dr. White's argument has no bearing on the issue of family solidarity or no?
> 
> Secondly, I asked how the contraction of the Covenant to remove children and destroy family solidarity in Covenant with God was an improvement. I do not believe you have addressed that question. Since the essential nature of the Covenant of Grace has always been salvation by Christ's righteousness from Adam to the present, how does God declaring "I am no longer God to your children" mark the New Covenant as "better"?
> 
> Finally, your statement here:
> 
> 
> 
> In these passages we see that the covenant is:
> 
> 1) restricted to those who can't break the covenant (Jer. 31:32; Heb. 8:9)
> 2) restricted to those who are transformed from within (Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:10; Heb. 10:16)
> 3) restricted to those who know the Lord in a salvific sense (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 8:11-12; Heb. 10:17)
> 
> With this in mind, we can conclude that the covenant is restricted from:
> 
> 1) those who can break the covenant
> 2) those who are not transformed from within
> 3) those who do not know the Lord in a salvific sense
> 
> 
> 
> This is a return to the credo-Baptist argument that "We baptize the elect". How do any of those conclusions inform you, or any elder, who is the proper subject of a single act of baptism? Unless you have the mind of God you can baptize NOBODY by those criteria - adult or child.
> 
> [Edited on 12-19-2005 by SemperFideles]
Click to expand...


Rich, you (as has Scott) have asked me some good and important questions. I appreciate the challenging questions because they force me to deal with certain issues. I'm going to try and anwser them (if I can) on Thursday night.

By the way, my Pastor (a paedobaptist) spoke to me at church on Sunday and told me not to worry about whether an infant should be baptized or not, but instead, I should focus on whether an infant is in the covenant or not. He lent me a book by Gregg Strawbridge "The Case For Covenantal Infant Baptistism", so hopefully this book will shed some valuable light on this subject.

You said:



> I wish I knew what you conceded and what you did not. It would help us to continue to dialogue along some sort of path to figure out where we are truly at a disagreement.



Right now I don't know what I believe. When I wear Paedo glasses, it makes sense. When I wear Credo glasses, it makes sense. But I know both can't be right. I know I need to come to a conclusion on some things but I don't want to jump to any conclusion if I'm not absolutely sure. 

I'll respond on Thursday!

Mike


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> Baptists have a number of problems:
> 
> 1) They don't recognize that the "New Covenant" was inaugurated in Genesis 3:15, LONG before the advent of Christ.



As Mike has pointed out, the Covenant of Grace was announced in Gen 3:16 (it was formulated in eternity past- Titus 1:2 etc). However, exactly how the Seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head remained a mystery (Col 1:26 ) until Christ came and inaugurated the New Covenant in His blood (Luke 22:20 ). Even the prophets who foretold the coming of Christ did not fully understand what it was that they were foretelling (1Peter 1:10-12 ). You need to take on board that the covenant of Gen 3:16 and the Noahic, Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are _covenants of promise_ (Eph 2:12 ), not the Covenant itself.


> 2) They don't think infants can be believers (cf. Luke 1:15,41; Acts 18:15-17).


God can do anything He wants. If He wants to make an infant leap in the womb, the Red Sea part or the sun stand still in the sky, He is able to do so. But I'm not about to base my theology on the premise that He does any of these things more than once. BTW, did you make a mistake with Acts 18:15-17?


> 3) They make the mistake of thinking that baptism is only for professing believers, rather than covenant members in general.


Gal 3:7.


> 4) They fail to understand the already/not-yet nature of the covenant. Is it present tense? Yes! But is ALL of it present tense? NO! There is still future eschatological fulfillment awaiting us!


Amen! There is certainly more to come, but everyone in the Covenant of Grace knowing the Lord is true right now as I showed earlier. In fact, it was _always_ true.


> 5) Most importantly of all, just as Scott has pointed out, baptists don't get Genesis 12, 15, 17, 22, etc. right. Their faulty understanding of Genesis poisons their theology throughout the rest of Scripture.



Yeah right! This sort of abuse is no argument. In England it's called, 'playing the man and not the ball.'


> Get Genesis right, and you'll get Jeremiah 31 & Hebrews 8 right!


 That at least we can agree on! But if The Lord Jesus Christ is not right at the centre of your understanding of Genesis, you will miss the mark. *'These are [the Scriptures] that testify of Me* (John 5:25 ). If your understanding of Genesis contradicts the plain reading of Jer 31 And Heb 8, then your understanding of Genesis is wrong.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 12-21-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Steve Owen

Scott quoted from Gen 17:-


> Gen 17:13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be _in your flesh_ an everlasting covenant.
> Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.


Then why aren't you still circumcising your male children, Scott? The verse says, _'In your flesh'_. Baptism isn't _in the flesh.'_

You will notice that there is no mention of faith in the verses above. To be sure, the fleshly descendants of Abraham are circumcising their children to this very day. However, * 'Without faith it is impossible to please God'* and *'Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.'* The true children of Abraham are those who are of faith, and it is they who should receive the sign of the New Covenant (Acts 2:41 ).



> The NC is not new like you want to believe. It is fulfilled or consumated.


The New Covenant is new in the sense being different from and replacing that which went before. Shall I trot out all the proofs of this that I posted before? They can be found on

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=13984 

See my post dated 10-12-2005.


> The old testament saint had full advantage of Christ; looking to Him


The OT saint was saved as he looked by faith to the promise of the Seed that should come, but he did not have the advantage that the NT saint has of seeing the historical Christ in the New Testament. As I posted above, who the Seed should be and how He should bruise the Serpent's head was only partly and progressively revealed; it was a mystery that was only fully revealed with the coming of our Lord (Col 1:26; 1Peter 1:10-12 ). So long as you insist upon trying to understand the covenants without placing Christ at the centre, you are in danger of making yourself like the Jews who have a veil over their faces in the reading of the OT, because, * 'The veil is taken away in Christ.'* (2Cor 3:14 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin


[Edited on 12-21-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Martin writes:


> Then why aren't you still circumcising your male children, Scott? The verse says, 'In your flesh'. Baptism isn't in the flesh.'



Because I have daughters! 

Red herring! You've missed the point. The command was in regards to covenanting. That command _then_ was to circumcise, today it is baptism.




> The OT saint was saved as he looked by faith to the promise of the Seed that should come, but he did not have the advantage that the NT saint has of seeing the historical Christ in the New Testament.



So, the OT saint was _disadvantaged_? What advantage is given the NT saint that the OT saint did not have? The reality? The fulfillment? The consumation? What you propose is that those whom walked with Jesus during His day had some sort of hand up on all of the other saints over the ages. They did not! That is exactly what Hebrews 11 is speaking of; it all comes down to faith and no specific time frame more or less beneficial.

Martin adds:


> The New Covenant is new in the sense being different from and replacing that which went before.



Specifically what is it that 'went before' that Martin that is abrogated?

[Edited on 12-21-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 3) They make the mistake of thinking that baptism is only for professing believers, rather than covenant members in general.
> 
> 
> 
> Gal 3:7.
Click to expand...

I find it remarkable the Scripture verses you use to establish your position:


> Gal 3:7
> Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham.


1. Was this always true?

2. What was the process for a proselyte to become a Jew in the Old Covenant? Would the requirement for "belief" in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob before receiving circumcision have to be of an adult nature? Would his children have to express the same faith or would they be circumcised?

3. I assume by quoting Gal 3:7 as your support for a positive command to baptize adults is that you are asserting that only those who truly believe are children of Abraham and proper subjects of baptism? Baptize the elect? Is that correct?


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Martin writes:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why aren't you still circumcising your male children, Scott? The verse says, 'In your flesh'. Baptism isn't in the flesh.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because I have daughters!
Click to expand...

Touche!  However, I hope you are not putting any covenant sign on your daughters. The _everlasting_ Abrahamic covenant says nothing about covenant signs on girls.


> Red herring! You've missed the point. The command was in regards to covenanting. That command _then_ was to circumcise, today it is baptism.


You need to make your mind up. Is the Abrahamic covenant everlasting or not?




> So, the OT saint was _disadvantaged_? What advantage is given the NT saint that the OT saint did not have? The reality? The fulfillment? The consumation?


In a word, knowledge. *'Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the Kingdom of heaven is greater than he'* (Matt 11:11 ). John the Baptist knew prophetically that Jesus was the Christ, but he did not know _how_ He would fulfil His ministry, hence his plaintive message of Matt 11:3. The meanest New Testament saint has more knowledge than he.


> What you propose is that those whom walked with Jesus during His day had some sort of hand up on all of the other saints over the ages. They did not!


Oh yes they did! *'Then He turned to His disciples and said privately, "Blessed are the eyes that see what you see; for I tell you that many kings and prophets have desired to see what you see, and have not seen it, and to hear what you hear, and have not heard it"' * (Luke 10:23-24 ). Please also read and digest Col 1:26 which I posted earlier.


> That is exactly what Hebrews 11 is speaking of; it all comes down to faith and no specific time frame more or less beneficial.


From the point of view of salvation, you are correct; the OT saints were saved by faith just as we are. But their _understanding_ was limited. Even the apostles didn't fully understand our Lord's purposes until Pentecost (cf. Acts 1:6 ), though to be sure they had saving faith well before that (Matt 16:15-17; John 6:67-68 ).



> Martin adds:
> 
> 
> 
> The New Covenant is new in the sense being different from and replacing that which went before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Specifically what is it that 'went before' that Martin that is abrogated?
Click to expand...

The New Covenant replaces the 'First' covenant (Heb 8:13 ). You need to consider why the writer to the Hebrews refers to the Mosaic Covenant as the 'First', when he knew all about the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. The New Covenant is the reality of which the other covenants were only adumbrations (Col 1:27; 2:17 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Rich,
You wrote:-


> Gal 3:7
> Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Was this always true?
Click to expand...

Yes, it was always true. To be sure there was a physical seed of Abraham who received a physical sign, but to them Christ said, *'You must be born again'* and *'You are of your father, the devil.'* Read Rom 4:11-12.


> 2. What was the process for a proselyte to become a Jew in the Old Covenant? Would the requirement for "belief" in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob before receiving circumcision have to be of an adult nature? Would his children have to express the same faith or would they be circumcised?


It appears that in OT times there was no need for a believer in Jehovah to be circumcised unless he wanted to live in the land of Israel (cf. Melchizadek, Lot and Naaman). Male children of proselytes living in Israel were in exactly the same position as Jewish children. They were circumcised, but that didn't bring make them into the children of Abraham; only faith does that. 

I am hoping to do a post on Jewish proselyte baptism shortly. I am still researching at present.


> 3. I assume by quoting Gal 3:7 as your support for a positive command to baptize adults is that you are asserting that only those who truly believe are children of Abraham and proper subjects of baptism? Baptize the elect? Is that correct?


Exactly so. The fact that we don't have infallible knowledge of people's hearts is neither here nor there. The practice of the NT was to baptize people on their profession of faith and that is what we should do. Those who are baptized without saving faith are in the same position as those who take the Lord's Supper without saving faith. It is of no relevance or benefit.

Rich, what is _your_ interpretation of Gal 3:7?

Grace & Peace,
Martin


----------



## Mocha

Scott,

I've got a little time on my hands here...so I'm going totry and respond to your post. You said:



> Joseph, Rich,
> We need to go back in time. Dealing with all these other secondary things is just causing the blur to become even more distorted. Stay in Genesis. If that issue cannot be dealt with first, the rest of the conversation is moot. Ya'll will argue until Christ returns.



I'm struggling with Genesis right now, so that's why I'm looking at other passages and verses, to see if they can possibly be helpful. Also, I'm challenging the paedo view, not because I don't accept it, but because I want to see if it can stand up to a challenge. I'm not going to accept the paedo view without challenging it from every possible angle.

One angle that I believe is the strongest against the paedo's and therefore one in which I'm interested in persuing, regards the continuity/discontinuity issue. If the administration of the Abrahamic Covenant is different in "kind" from the New Covenant administration, then you cannot automatically apply the contents of one covenant administration with the other. 

I'm not saying that John Piper and James White are necessary right in their understanding of the continuity/discontinuity issue, but I think it does present a legitimate question with regard to the paedo view. 

If I'm going to buy the paedo view, I'm going to go around and kick all the tires first (so to speak), so that I know it's a good solid positon. 



> Mike,
> Have you read Witsius or Owen? Matts little primer would help.



I have not read these guys on baptism, but I have been reading through the list found here.



> What leads you to believe an infant cannot 'know the Lord' in a salvific sense?



I'll admit that there were some special cases, but the normal biblical way of knowing the Lord is through faith. Generally speaking, if you can repent and believe, you can know the Lord.



> He says that placing the sign upon our children to be eternal, everlasting!



Wouldn't that suggest that circumcision should be eternal and everlasting too?



> You are totally missing the point and possibly need to rethink your understanding of covenant theology.



That's what I'm doing now! I have been a Reformed Baptist for a long time and now I'm honestly and sincerely trying to challenge my views and presuppositions. I am attending a paedobaptist church and my membership depends on the outcome of this study. I really want to know the answer to this issue, but I don't want to just accept the paedo view in order to become a member. As I work through this issue I'm sure I'm going to 'miss points' and say 'contradictory statements' from time to time along the way. Don't worry, I am rethinking...and rethinking...and rethinking!



> What is strange to me is that you seem to have a handle on the concept above, yet the rest of the thread and your subsequent responses fly right out the window.......



Don't forget that I'm not here to convince...but to be convinced! I understand the paedo view but I'm challenging it to make sure it rerally is Scriptural. I'm looking to the Credo's (i.e. John Piper, James White) to show me where the essential differences between Paedo's and Credo's lie. I'm responding with their arguments, and if they are wrong, I'm hoping that you Credo's will prove that in convincing fashion.



> The conversation should not leave Gen 17 until it is fully established whether or not, both parties understand what the word everlasting means and if both parties actually believe God and takje him at his word.



I agree that Gen. 17 is key "if" there is a strict continuity among the various covenant administrations. But what if (and this became an issue for me after I started this thread) there is such discontinuity among the covenant administrations that Gen. 17 does not apply to those in the New Covenant in the exact same way? Do you not agree that it is at least a legitimate question to ask and a legitimate issue to persue, especially in regard to this thread?



> Secondly, if the NC cannot be broken, why does the book of Hebrews warn of breaking it?



I agree that Heb. 10:29 seems to indicate that it is possible to be a covenant breaker in the New Covenant administration. I say "seems" because there still seems to be a question on the following phrase:

"...the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified..." (Heb. 10:29)

Who's "he" in the verse? Some say it is referring to a covenant breaker, while others say it is referring to Christ. Anyway, there seems to be enough doubt as to the true meaning of the verse, that it should not be used as a proof text to support the paedo view.

What other passages or verses in Hebrews were you thinking of?



> Will God ever again destroy the world with water/flood? No! He covenanted with mankind and said He will not! Why is it you take Gods word in this covenant, yet in the Abrahamic covenant, when He uses the term everlasting, you doubt Him?



Take a look at the following verse:



> Gen 17:13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.



What happened? Does God today say that His everlasting covenant is in your flesh? If not, why not? Could it be that there is discontinuity within the covenant?



> Mike,
> Do you believe God?



Yes, I believe God. Do I always understand Scripture? No! That's why I'm testing the various interpretations!

That's all I have time for tonight. I'll continue tomorrow!

Mike


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Rich, what is _your_ interpretation of Gal 3:7?
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> Martin


That those who believe are the children of Abraham.

Again, I want to reiterate the problem I have with connecting election to baptism. While connected they are distinct. One belongs solely to the hidden counsel of God while the other has an administration in time and space by men.

The fascinating aspect of the verse you quoted is that I would use it as a verse to show a person who wrongly disconnects the Covenant of Grace to show him: "Look here, Paul is saying we are children of Abraham. See the Covenantal language here..."

As you well noted, Gen 3:7 was true independent of administration. You keep focusing on the hidden things that were revealed. You have the benefit of hindsight to know that Esau was a Covenant breaker as were others. It is fine to speak of the Elect as being those who will truly see God but to make a hidden status the basis for something that must be administered by men is to engage in pure speculation. As I've repeatedly demonstrated, you are promised to know only your own election and none other. You know of absolutely nobody you are in Covenant with based on the bar you set.

I asked about proselytes because the subject is germane to the whole issue of command. It is not precisely true to state that circumcision only marked joining the nation of Israel. While a person could be a "God fearer", they were not in proper covenant until they obeyed the command. The answer to "Would they have to demonstrate adult faith" is a "No duh" answer.

If you're talking to Covenant heads, then, what kind of commands would you proffer? Exactly the kind of "Believe and be baptized..." that you see to those who are, in essence, "proselytes" to the Covenant. This is why I don't find the argument convincing that, because the commands in biblical narratives (as opposed to didactic teaching) are "...believe and be baptized..." compel the idea that baptism requires adult faith. It is precisely parallel to the proselyte formula in Scripture. The adults believe - the household is brought in by solidarity and it is expected that children will be raised in the faith of the father. Unbelieving children is fundamentally blamed on parents throughout Scripture. Seeing your children's children call on the name of the Lord is called an inheritance and a blessing.

[Edited on 12-22-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Mocha

Scott,

You said:



> The NC is not new like you want to believe. It is fulfilled or consumated. The old testament saint had full advantage of Christ; looking to Him. The present day saint as well; looking back. man have always been saved in the same way all throughout scripture. So how is the NC better? It is better because the OC (the covenant of works) brought death! The NC brings life. When was the NC initiated? In Gen 3. When was it fulfilled, at calvary. Think of it as a glass being filled with water. Empty during the C.o.W and beginning to be filled up over time, fully filled at Christs crucifixion.



If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that the OC is the C.o.W, and the NC is the C.o.G. 

I'm not sure I would agree. I would see the C.o.G beginning in Gen 3 and continuing until the return of Christ, at the consummation, but I would see the OC and the NC as being administrations of the C.o.G. What makes the New Covenant new? James White says:



> ...the newness of the New Covenant is seen in the extensiveness of the expression of God's grace to all in it. It is an exhaustive demonstration of grace, for all in the New Covenant experience all that is inherent in the covenant in the blood of the Son of God. It is not merely a remnant that experiences these things, but all, so that the saying, "They did not keep my covenant" cannot be said of them, for unlike the Old Covenant where there were many who did not have the law in their hearts and minds, did not know the Lord, and did not know the forgiveness of their sins, this is not the case in the New Covenant...The newness of the New Covenant in the blood of Christ is found in the reality that the better mediator, better hope, better sacrifices, mean that all, from the least to the greatest of them, know the Lord savingly. (James White, "The Newness of the New Covenant [Part II]", Reformed Baptist Theological Review [vol II No. 1], pgs. 88-89)



Obviously the question "What makes the New Covenant new?" is very important to this whole issue. If it's true that everyone in the New Covenant is saved, then you cannot say that the New Covenant was fulfilled or consummated before Christ died. 

Scott, the quotes from Pratt that you use, they do not support your position. Pratt makes it clear that the New Covenant is soteriological in nature. I don't see how you can use him to support you argument.



> What did Christ mean here:
> 
> Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
> 
> Did he really mean new? Was it really a new commandment? If so, He broke his own rules.........
> 
> 1Jo 2:8 Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.
> 
> Another one?
> 
> 2Jo 1:5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
> 
> Yet another.
> 
> So we now have 13 commandments???



In this context, I believe he is talking about something new in "degree", whereas the New Covenant is new in "kind". Apples and oranges!



> Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
> 
> Are you prepared to tell me Abraham, Issac and Jacob did not have this benefit?



Abraham, Issac and Jacob absolutely had the law written on their hearts. There is no doubt. What makes the New Covenant new (according to the Credo's) is that all within the New Covenant will have the law written on their hearts as Abraham, Issac and Jacob had.



> Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
> 
> Since when do we not need teachers or the gospel?



I wonder if we could interpret it like this:

"And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Circumcise your heart: for they shall all have their hearts circumcized, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

In other words, the emphasis is on something God will do to all covenant members.

Scott, I'll admit I've got a lot more studying to do on this. I hope thing will begin falling into place soon.

Mike


----------



## Steve Owen

Scott asked:-


> Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
> 
> Did he really mean new? Was it really a new commandment? If so, He broke his own rules.........


Well, it is not merely an old commandment renewed, it is a specific commandment to Christians. We are to love one another, not 'merely' as ourselves, but as Christ has loved us. It should be read in the light our Our Lord washing the disciples feet at the beginning of the chapter, and it is surely significant that it was uttered immediately after Judas had left.



> So we now have 13 commandments???



Well, it is certainly not of the same order as those of the second table. It is more than not lying to each other or not stealing from each other. It is to love as Christ has loved us. To put our brethren before ourselves (Acts 4:32, 34 ). Easy to write; hard to practise. 

Scott asked Mike:-


> Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
> 
> Since when do we not need teachers or the gospel?



We have covered this so many times before. Of course we need teachers and the Gospel. However, Christians (ie. those in the New Covenant) do not need to be told to know the Lord because, by definition, they already do. They will certainly need to learn more _about_ him. Do we ever stop learning about Him?

Martin

[Edited on 12-23-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

[Edited on 12-23-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Rich, what is _your_ interpretation of Gal 3:7?
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> That those who believe are the children of Abraham.
> 
> Again, I want to reiterate the problem I have with connecting election to baptism. While connected they are distinct. One belongs solely to the hidden counsel of God while the other has an administration in time and space by men.
Click to expand...


I understand what you're saying here, but in fact it is you that keeps bringing up election. I connect _faith_ to baptism, because that is what the Bible dies. It is those who _believe_ who are baptized Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41; 8:12 etc).


> The fascinating aspect of the verse you quoted is that I would use it as a verse to show a person who wrongly disconnects the Covenant of Grace to show him: "Look here, Paul is saying we are children of Abraham. See the Covenantal language here..."



I would say the same. 


> As you well noted, Gen 3:7 was true independent of administration. You keep focusing on the hidden things that were revealed. You have the benefit of hindsight to know that Esau was a Covenant breaker as were others. It is fine to speak of the Elect as being those who will truly see God but to make a hidden status the basis for something that must be administered by men is to engage in pure speculation. As I've repeatedly demonstrated, you are promised to know only your own election and none other. You know of absolutely nobody you are in Covenant with based on the bar you set.



I assume you mean Gal 3:7? You must be careful in describing Esau as a covenant breaker. Which covenant are you referring to? The Abrahamic Covenant as described in Gen 17 could only be broken by someone not being circumcised. Esau showed himself to be outside the Covenant of Grace by despising his birthright and by disobeying his parents' wishes. The rest of this is just nonsense. I have no assurance that anyone I meet is not an axe-murderer or a suicide bomber, but I don't work out my life on that basis. Likewise, I accept every professing Christian as a true believer unless and until I have cause to suspect otherwise.


> I asked about proselytes because the subject is germane to the whole issue of command. It is not precisely true to state that circumcision only marked joining the nation of Israel. While a person could be a "God fearer", they were not in proper covenant until they obeyed the command. The answer to "Would they have to demonstrate adult faith" is a "No duh" answer.


You have not answered my point about Lot and Naaman. The whole question of admission to the Synagogue is extra-biblical. I intend to write on the subject of proselyte baptism in due course, but I prefer to keep my powder dry at present.


> If you're talking to Covenant heads, then, what kind of commands would you proffer? Exactly the kind of "Believe and be baptized..." that you see to those who are, in essence, "proselytes" to the Covenant. This is why I don't find the argument convincing that, because the commands in biblical narratives (as opposed to didactic teaching) are "...believe and be baptized..." compel the idea that baptism requires adult faith. It is precisely parallel to the proselyte formula in Scripture. The adults believe - the household is brought in by solidarity and it is expected that children will be raised in the faith of the father.


That is the Old Covenant picture, but not the New Covenant (Jer 31, Heb 8 ). If you want to argue all through the 'family' conversions in Acts, I'm your man, but you will find it's been flogged to death here already. 


> Unbelieving children is fundamentally blamed on parents throughout Scripture.


I think that if you look through the OT, you will find more examples of the children of OT saints falling away than believing. Samuel, David, Jehosaphat, Hezehiah, Josiah, for example, while the children of wicked men often come to faith (Jeraboam, Ahaz, Amon). I would also suggest that Ezek 18 (the whole chapter, but especially vs 1-3 ) tends to refute you. This is not at all to deny the need to bring up one's children in the fear of the Lord, but even so, I would say that the most important thing one can do for one's children is to pray for them.


> Seeing your children's children call on the name of the Lord is called an inheritance and a blessing.



A blessing it certainly is. Whether it ever was an inheritance is questionable.

Martin

[Edited on 12-24-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Mocha

Rich,

You said:



> You quoted James White in his statement that because the Covenant from Adam to Abraham had no covenant sign that it was a "support" for the notion of discontinuity you claim in the New Covenant.
> 
> I responded by demonstrating that the Covenant sign might have been different within the same Covenant of Grace but that family solidarity was preserved from Adam to Christ.
> 
> Do you concede that Dr. White's argument has no bearing on the issue of family solidarity or no?



I don't think the importance of family changes within the C.o.G, because family is always important to God. But there may be a different way in which God gathers His people. If God is gathering His people another way, who are we to say it's not fair? 



> Secondly, I asked how the contraction of the Covenant to remove children and destroy family solidarity in Covenant with God was an improvement. I do not believe you have addressed that question. Since the essential nature of the Covenant of Grace has always been salvation by Christ's righteousness from Adam to the present, how does God declaring "I am no longer God to your children" mark the New Covenant as "better"?



John Piper says:



> Turn with me to Romans 9:6-8:
> 
> But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; (7) nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "through Isaac [not Ishmael] your descendants will be named." (8) That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
> 
> What's relevant in this text for our purpose is that *there were two "Israels"*: a physical Israel and a spiritual Israel. Verse 6b: "They are not all Israel [i.e., true spiritual Israel] who are descended from Israel [i.e., physical, religious Israel]." Yet God ordained that the whole, larger, physical, religious, national people of Israel be known as his covenant people and receive the sign of the covenant and the outward blessings of the covenant - such as the promised land (Genesis 17:8).
> 
> The covenant people in the Old Testament were mixed. *They were all physical Israelites who were circumcised*, but within that national-ethnic group there was a remnant of the true Israel, the true children of God (verse 8). This is the way God designed it to be: *he bound himself by covenant to an ethnic people and their descendants*; he gave them all the sign of the covenant, circumcision, but *he worked within that ethnic group to call out a true people for himself.* Piper's Article



According to Piper, family solidarity in the covenant was with respect to physical Israel, to an ethnic people and their descendants. In the New Covenant, God does not deal with a physical/ethnic people in the same way. 

Piper goes on to say:



> For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman [Ishmael, born to Hagar] and one by the free woman [Isaac, born to Sarah]. (23) But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. . . . (28) And you brethren [the Church], like Isaac, are children of promise."
> 
> Now who is "you brethren"? They are the Church. The Church is not to be a mixed heritage like Abraham's seed. The Church is not to be like Israel - a physical multitude and in it a small remnant of true saints. The Church is the saints, by definition. The Church continues the remnant. As verse 28 says, the Church is "like Isaac, children of promise."
> 
> The people of the covenant in the Old Testament were made up of Israel according to the flesh - an ethnic, national, religious people containing "children of the flesh" and "children of God." Therefore it was fitting that circumcision was given to all the children of the flesh.
> 
> *But the people of the new covenant, called the Church of Jesus Christ, is being built in a fundamentally different way.* The church is not based on any ethnic, national distinctives but on the reality of faith alone, by grace alone in the power of the Holy Spirit. *The Church is not a continuation of Israel as a whole*; it is an *continuation of the true Israel, the remnant* -not the children of the flesh, but the children of promise.[/b]




If Piper is right, then family solidarity within the covenant is discontinued. Then how is the covenant better? The covenant is better because children of the flesh are no longer in it, and therefore all within it are truely chldren of promise.

Yes, I know this is the Credo view, but I would like to see a Paedo response. I would like to see a convincing argument that Piper and the Credo's are wrong!



> This is a return to the credo-Baptist argument that "We baptize the elect". How do any of those conclusions inform you, or any elder, who is the proper subject of a single act of baptism? Unless you have the mind of God you can baptize NOBODY by those criteria - adult or child.



Credo's don't baptize the elect. Credo's only baptize those who profess faith in Christ. There's a major difference there!

Mike


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Rich,
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You quoted James White in his statement that because the Covenant from Adam to Abraham had no covenant sign that it was a "support" for the notion of discontinuity you claim in the New Covenant.
> 
> I responded by demonstrating that the Covenant sign might have been different within the same Covenant of Grace but that family solidarity was preserved from Adam to Christ.
> 
> Do you concede that Dr. White's argument has no bearing on the issue of family solidarity or no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the importance of family changes within the C.o.G, because family is always important to God. But there may be a different way in which God gathers His people. If God is gathering His people another way, who are we to say it's not fair?
Click to expand...

I was not concerned with what was fair. I really could care less about fairness. I know we all deserve eternal hellfire. Here was the strain of Dr. White's argument:

1. Between Adam and Abraham the COG existed with no sign of Covenant inclusion.
2. A discontinuity exists in going from "No Sign" to "Sign" with Abraham.

Ergo, the fact that the COG in the New Covenant does not include children is just another discontinuity and you silly paedobaptists just don't get that discontinuities exist.

The argument does not follow. The issue is that, from Adam to Christ, family solidarity is preserved in the Covenant. It is the nature of the way in which God deals with His chosen people and from whom He elects and into whom He elects. Then, without an explicit statement, the solidarity is sharply broken. No longer is God the God of a man and His children but a man only.

That is a SHARP discontinuity of a completely different kind and not merely the change of a sign. Dr. White's argument is not only weak but really has no bearing, in my humble opinion, on the issue at hand.



> Secondly, I asked how the contraction of the Covenant to remove children and destroy family solidarity in Covenant with God was an improvement. I do not believe you have addressed that question. Since the essential nature of the Covenant of Grace has always been salvation by Christ's righteousness from Adam to the present, how does God declaring "I am no longer God to your children" mark the New Covenant as "better"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Piper says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turn with me to Romans 9:6-8:
> 
> But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; (7) nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "through Isaac [not Ishmael] your descendants will be named." (8) That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
> 
> What's relevant in this text for our purpose is that *there were two "Israels"*: a physical Israel and a spiritual Israel. Verse 6b: "They are not all Israel [i.e., true spiritual Israel] who are descended from Israel [i.e., physical, religious Israel]." Yet God ordained that the whole, larger, physical, religious, national people of Israel be known as his covenant people and receive the sign of the covenant and the outward blessings of the covenant - such as the promised land (Genesis 17:8).
> 
> The covenant people in the Old Testament were mixed. *They were all physical Israelites who were circumcised*, but within that national-ethnic group there was a remnant of the true Israel, the true children of God (verse 8). This is the way God designed it to be: *he bound himself by covenant to an ethnic people and their descendants*; he gave them all the sign of the covenant, circumcision, but *he worked within that ethnic group to call out a true people for himself.* Piper's Article
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Piper, family solidarity in the covenant was with respect to physical Israel, to an ethnic people and their descendants. In the New Covenant, God does not deal with a physical/ethnic people in the same way.
> 
> Piper goes on to say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman [Ishmael, born to Hagar] and one by the free woman [Isaac, born to Sarah]. (23) But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. . . . (28) And you brethren [the Church], like Isaac, are children of promise."
> 
> Now who is "you brethren"? They are the Church. The Church is not to be a mixed heritage like Abraham's seed. The Church is not to be like Israel - a physical multitude and in it a small remnant of true saints. The Church is the saints, by definition. The Church continues the remnant. As verse 28 says, the Church is "like Isaac, children of promise."
> 
> The people of the covenant in the Old Testament were made up of Israel according to the flesh - an ethnic, national, religious people containing "children of the flesh" and "children of God." Therefore it was fitting that circumcision was given to all the children of the flesh.
> 
> *But the people of the new covenant, called the Church of Jesus Christ, is being built in a fundamentally different way.* The church is not based on any ethnic, national distinctives but on the reality of faith alone, by grace alone in the power of the Holy Spirit. *The Church is not a continuation of Israel as a whole*; it is an *continuation of the true Israel, the remnant* -not the children of the flesh, but the children of promise.[/b]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If Piper is right, then family solidarity within the covenant is discontinued. Then how is the covenant better? The covenant is better because children of the flesh are no longer in it, and therefore all within it are truely chldren of promise.
> 
> Yes, I know this is the Credo view, but I would like to see a Paedo response. I would like to see a convincing argument that Piper and the Credo's are wrong!
Click to expand...


I'm almost at a loss at where to begin with this because it is so problematic on so many levels.

1. Do you believe that when God is showing affection to a man's children that they be saved that He is faking it? When God calls it a curse that a man's children should turn from the faith is that a mere fleshly thing? When God calls children an inheritance from the Lord and that a man is blessed whose quiver is full of them, is this a fleshly blessing only? When is blessedness ever just physical? When is apostasy ever crassly referred to as just abandoning some tribal affiliation?

2. Again, there is a fundamental issue where Piper and others repeatedly refer to the New Covenant as only including the Elect (we baptize the Elect right?). It's interesting that Piper quotes these verses as if all Reformed folk don't understand that there are some that appeared to run in the faith that failed ultimately because of the purposes of God.

a. Do Baptists think they are adding to the idea of soteriology the idea that only the Elect will truly be saved?
b. Were the non-elect saved under the Old Covenant with Abraham?
c. Were the non-elect saved under the Covenant of Grace at all?

If only the Elect were ever really saved then how, fundamentally have things changed in the New Covenant? It seems that Baptists are arguing that God set up a fake system to confuse those in Israel (and before) that their children were blessed and that blessing only including some sort of national thing that had no soteriological signficance to their family as a whole? That He commanded them to educate and train their children in the faith, else they apostasize, seems to be with His fingers crossed behind His back. None of those commands is at all meaningful in the ultimate sense because they were never part of an everlasting Covenant but merely a purely physical covenant.

I'm certain some will find my summation thus far to be crass but I have trouble finding better words. Forgive me if you're offended. Nevertheless, the sub-covenantal stuff people are reading into the Abramic Covenant is completely extra-Biblical and done to preserve a system of doctrine they're foisting upon the Scriptures. I used the analogy of planetary orbits before and I'll return to it again. It takes so much energy to explain away so much of the talk of Covenantal blessing that it becomes an exercise in absurdity to go to every passage that deals with a man and his children and recast it in credo-Baptist light. Go to every verse and say to yourself: "This is purely physical here..." and discover how torturous it is.

I never understand the credo-Baptist line of argumentation because, FOR THE SAME REASONS, God should have told Abraham only to circumcise adults who showed true faith. Indeed, by this line of argumentation, credo-Baptists ought to be credo-Circumcisers. Paul is speaking of the Covenant with Abraham and, ultimately Israel who were circusmcised, when He states that "Not all Israel was Israel". He is speaking of men in the past, under the OC, and that only the Elect were truly saved. To me, Credo-Baptism only makes sense if you're a true Dispensationalist. When Reformed Baptists come to this issue of Election and true inclusion in the COG, it makes no sense for God to command the circumcision of children since only the elect would be saved under that administration as well and since the true Covenant only included the Elect.

I therefore still fail to see the "better" aspect of the Covenant because:
1. In the COG from Adam to Abraham only the Elect were saved but God was God of a man and His children.
2. In the COG from Abraham to Christ only the Elect were saved but God was God of a man and His children.
3. In the New Covenant within the COG, only the Elect are saved but God is the God of just the man.

You, and Piper, state 3. as saying "The New Covenant is perfect and includes just the true believers" but it is just the same as saying Number 3.

So how is this better?

This is like a beach ball that one is trying to hold down under the water and as it pops to the surface a bunch of splashing occurs to distract attention - lots of talk about how the New Covenant is with only the Elect - just long enough to get the beach ball submerged again. I'm left scratching my head thinking "But Abraham also had the blessing of a perfect Covenant with God but He also got to consider His kids, from the womb, as part of this loving relationship with God."



> This is a return to the credo-Baptist argument that "We baptize the elect". How do any of those conclusions inform you, or any elder, who is the proper subject of a single act of baptism? Unless you have the mind of God you can baptize NOBODY by those criteria - adult or child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Credo's don't baptize the elect. Credo's only baptize those who profess faith in Christ. There's a major difference there!
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...

Mike,

I know that's what they say is the difference but look at Piper's argument! The New Covenant includes only the Elect... 

{Crickets chirping}

There were reprobate in the Old Covenant but the New Covenant is better...

In other words, there are no reprobate in the New Covenant because Credos wait to baptize until professed faith so that no reprobate are baptized? Is that what I'm supposed to conclude?

But they DO baptize the reprobate?

They also state that the only commands to baptize are to those who believe. BUT THAT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN THE ISSUE OF THE PERFECTION OF THE COVENANT AS INCLUDING ONLY THE ELECT UNLESS CREDO-BAPTISTS CLAIM THE ABILITY TO KNOW THE ELECT FROM THE REPROBATE. 

I'm just so frustrated. Again, credos use so much paper (or internet storage) affirming the idea that only the Elect are saved in their polemics as if that issue is not established in Reformed Theology. IT BEARS NOT ONE MINUTE UPON WHETHER A MAN WHO PROFESSES IS BAPTIZED! Why? Because the men who agree to baptize him have no infallible knowledge of his heart!

If you believe that Baptists are not saying "Baptize the Elect" then why bring Piper's quotes in that are all about the New Covenant including only the Elect? It's about the only argument they have, that's why. It has no foundation because they can't even live by that standard.

Oh, they'll say that no commands in Scripture say anything about Baptism except to "...believe and be baptized...." It is weak for at least two reasons:

1. Biblical narratives are a weak place to develop a theology. It is the reason why neo-Pentacostalism has such a faulty view of the "second baptism of the Spirit" in their theology. They base their Theology on narratives is Acts that don't develop or flesh out the ideas of the Holy Spirit in the same way didactic teaching elsewhere does.

2. If you're talking to adults then you're going to tell them to believe and be baptized. If you're dealing with adults, both credo and paedo baptists are going to interview and test the sincerity of the confession. Children are thereafter assumed to be in Covenant with God as an unbroken quality of God's Covenant. Proselyte believers had the same requirements to believe. Unfortunately I believe Martin to be very well read on the issue of Proselyte believers but he pours in his credo Baptist views to not be able to see the parallels more strikingly. Read Alfred Edersheim's work (he was a Presbyterian and knew much of the subject).

In the end, you end up with an argument, based on weak inference, that we are to baptize only adults. There is nothing that even approaches a command clear enough to overthrow the established Covenantal pattern of family solidarity. In fact, I believe Acts 2:39 clearly restates family solidarity and that only those whose theology requires them to recast it cannot see it.

Thanks for the continued dialogue Brother. Don't mistake my passion for anger. These discussions are very edifying.

[Edited on 12-26-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Mocha

Rich,

You said:



> Here was the strain of Dr. White's argument:
> 
> 1. Between Adam and Abraham the COG existed with no sign of Covenant inclusion.
> 2. A discontinuity exists in going from "No Sign" to "Sign" with Abraham.



Let me review his statement. James White was responding to a quote by Jeff Neil, so let me give you the quote to help set the context of James White's respnse. Jeff Neil said: 



> But the question remains, How is the new covenant different? Does the newness pertain to its essential nature, making it qualitatively different from the previous covenant, or does the newness pertain to membership - or both? Those who would utilize the Hebrews passage to argue against paedobaptism would say that the new covenant is new in both respects.



James White begins his responsse to Niell by saying:



> ..."covenant theology" must, as a necessary element, include the assertion that the essential nature and membership of all administrations of the Covenant of Grace are identical...



I think James White is trying to show (by quoting Niell) that paedobaptists do not believe that the New Covenant is different (or new) in its "nature" or "membership". White wants to show that paedobaptists must hold that all administrations of the COG are identical. Paedobaptists cannot admit that there is a difference in any administrations of the COG (with regard to its nature or membership) or else their hermeneutics fail. In order to point out that there is a difference among the administrations of the COG, White says:



> ...if one believes the Covenant of Grace began with Adam, was the essential nature and membership of the covenant the same from Adam to Abraham?...What covenant sign was given to covenant members from Adam to Abraham?...differences in administrations...would be contrary to the needed foundation that underlies the insistence that the covenant sign should be given to all offspring of covenant members.



In other words, if there is a covenant administration that does not have or does not require a covenant sign to represent being in the covenant, then obviously all the administrations can't be identical in nature and membership.

You said:



> The argument does not follow. The issue is that, from Adam to Christ, family solidarity is preserved in the Covenant. It is the nature of the way in which God deals with His chosen people and from whom He elects and into whom He elects.



The point is that God can work differently among the covenant administrations. The lack of a covenant sign from Adam to Abraham is proof of this.



> That is a SHARP discontinuity of a completely different kind and not merely the change of a sign.



What kind of discontinuity is it? 



> Do you believe that when God is showing affection to a man's children that they be saved that He is faking it?



God has a sincere desire that ALL children be saved (not just the children of believers), but ultimately only the elect will be saved.



> When God calls it a curse that a man's children should turn from the faith is that a mere fleshly thing? When God calls children an inheritance from the Lord and that a man is blessed whose quiver is full of them, is this a fleshly blessing only? When is blessedness ever just physical? When is apostasy ever crassly referred to as just abandoning some tribal affiliation?



I must confess I find Piper's view attractive. If circumcision was a sign and seal of the infants inclusion in the covenant, it makes more sense (to me) that that administration was completely different from the New Covenant, which is soteriological in nature. I'm not saying the Abrahamic Covenant was not spiritual at all. It's just that you didn't need to be spiritual at all to enter that covenant.



> Again, there is a fundamental issue where Piper and others repeatedly refer to the New Covenant as only including the Elect (we baptize the Elect right?). It's interesting that Piper quotes these verses as if all Reformed folk don't understand that there are some that appeared to run in the faith that failed ultimately because of the purposes of God.



Baptists baptize believers (not elect) . Anyone who was baptized but had a false profession were never actually in the New Covenant.



> If only the Elect were ever really saved then how, fundamentally have things changed in the New Covenant?



I think you're missing the point. We all know that only the elect (from whatever administration of the COG) will be saved. In previous adminisrations of the COG unbelievers could enter. In the New Covenant administration of the COG, only believers can enter. That's the fundamental change (from a credo perspective).



> It seems that Baptists are arguing that God set up a fake system to confuse those in Israel (and before) that their children were blessed and that blessing only including some sort of national thing that had no soteriological signficance to their family as a whole? That He commanded them to educate and train their children in the faith, else they apostasize, seems to be with His fingers crossed behind His back. None of those commands is at all meaningful in the ultimate sense because they were never part of an everlasting Covenant but merely a purely physical covenant.



It seems to me that you don't really understand the credo view. I know paedo's who can clearly articulate the credo view and yet disagree with it. I think paedo's and credo's have excellent points on both sides. That why this issue is such a difficult one. If someone is not struggling with it, I wonder if he/she has really tried to understand both sides?



> *I never understand the credo-Baptist line of argumentation* because, FOR THE SAME REASONS, God should have told Abraham only to circumcise adults who showed true faith.



You are trying to apply the nature and membership of the New Covenant to the Abrahamic Covenant. Once you understand that the nature and membership of those two covenant administrations are different by "kind" and not "degree". you will beginm to understand the credo position.



> I therefore still fail to see the "better" aspect of the Covenant because:
> 1. In the COG from Adam to Abraham only the Elect were saved but God was God of a man and His children.
> 2. In the COG from Abraham to Christ only the Elect were saved but God was God of a man and His children.
> 3. In the New Covenant within the COG, only the Elect are saved but God is the God of just the man.
> 
> You, and Piper, state 3. as saying "The New Covenant is perfect and includes just the true believers" but it is just the same as saying Number 3.
> 
> So how is this better?



I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here, but the credo position is that the New Covenant is not like the Old Covenant. In what way? Well, for one thing, it's unbreakable!



> I'm left scratching my head thinking "But Abraham also had the blessing of a perfect Covenant with God but He also got to consider His kids, from the womb, as part of this loving relationship with God."



If Abraham had a perfect covenant administration, then why was there the promise of a different one, different in "kind"? Where will most of these kids under the Abrahamic Covenant end up? Separated from the love of God!

I said:



> Credo's don't baptize the elect. Credo's only baptize those who profess faith in Christ. There's a major difference there!



You responded:



> Mike,
> 
> I know that's what they say is the difference but look at Piper's argument! The New Covenant includes only the Elect...



i) Credo's baptize only professing believers
ii) Credo's believe the elect will be in the NC when there is saving faith
iii) Credo's believe that if there is not actual saving faith, then that person is not, and never has been, in the New Covenant



> There were reprobate in the Old Covenant but the New Covenant is better...
> 
> In other words, there are no reprobate in the New Covenant because Credos wait to baptize until professed faith so that no reprobate are baptized? Is that what I'm supposed to conclude?



Credo's wait because it is a sign and a seal to the believer of their union with Christ. If someone professes faith, they are professing union with Christ, and therefore, they can put on their wedding ring (so to speak), sealing the truth that the baptism represents, to him/her. If the faith of the professer is not real, then the sign and seal is not true for him/her.



> But they DO baptize the reprobate?



Credo's baptize professing believers. There is no doubt that some of these professions are not real, so yes, credo's can unknowingly baptize the reprobate. But still, the church has been commissioned to baptized those professing faith in Christ. 

I think it was Martin who asked on another thread: How do you know that at least one of the parents are of the elect when you are baptizing an infant. It seems the paedo's are in a similar situation.



> They also state that the only commands to baptize are to those who believe. BUT THAT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN THE ISSUE OF THE PERFECTION OF THE COVENANT AS INCLUDING ONLY THE ELECT UNLESS CREDO-BAPTISTS CLAIM THE ABILITY TO KNOW THE ELECT FROM THE REPROBATE.



The church baptizes those who proffess faith, and God brings the elect into the covenant. The church simply preaches and obeys what God says. 



> ...the men who agree to baptize him have no infallible knowledge of his heart!



Where does the Bible say there needs to be infallible knowledge of the heart of the one being baptized?



> If you believe that Baptists are not saying "Baptize the Elect" then why bring Piper's quotes in that are all about the New Covenant including only the Elect? It's about the only argument they have, that's why. It has no foundation because they can't even live by that standard.



Again, you are mixing two ideas that need to be kept separate:

- Credo's baptize those who proffess faith
- The New Covenant includes only the elect

You are making it seem that credo's baptize the elect, or, credo's baptize only those who will be in the NC. Neither is true!



> Oh, they'll say that no commands in Scripture say anything about Baptism except to "...believe and be baptized..



Hey, that's enough to prove that believers should be baptized. No doubt. But I would agree with you that's it's not enough to prove that infants should not be baptized. 



> In the end, you end up with an argument, based on weak inference, that we are to baptize only adults.



I wish there was a verse, one way or the other, that would make it clear whether the paedo or credo view is Scriptural. 



> There is nothing that even approaches a command clear enough to overthrow the established Covenantal pattern of family solidarity.



Well I don't know about that! Jer., Ezek. and Heb. need to be considered. If the New Covenant is different in "kind", the covenantal pattern of family solidarity stands on shaky ground. 



> In fact, I believe Acts 2:39 clearly restates family solidarity and that only those whose theology requires them to recast it cannot see it.



Everyone is a candidate for this promise if they believe. I don't see how this verse supports family solidarity, especially if you read the whole verse.



> Thanks for the continued dialogue Brother. Don't mistake my passion for anger. These discussions are very edifying.



Don't worry, I know that theological discussions can become passionate at times. I'm challenged by your questions and points and I find it helpful in thinking through many points. 

By the way, if you're interested in hearing some teaching on the covenant administrations from a credo point of view, listen to this 13 part series. I found it helpful. You may not agree with it, but at least you will understsnd why the credo's believe what they do.

Mike


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Mike,

I'm going to avoid responding line by line because I think you missed my point. I admit I am but a man and can err in understanding the position of the credo-Baptists. Nevertheless, I believe you are fundamentally missing the point I am trying to make regarding credo-Baptists.

Yet again I will state that the issue of the identity of the Elect must be treated separately than those who are candidates for Baptism. As you seem to understand, credo-Baptists base their baptism upon confession.

BUT THEY ARGUE FOR CREDO-BAPTISM BASED ON ELECTION.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Don't get me wrong, the discussion of who truly belongs within the New Covenant is a worthy subject. I don't agree that the New Covenant consists only of the Elect but, EVEN IF IT DID, it still would not inform the issue of who is the subject of Baptism.

You state I am misrepresenting the issue by saying "We Baptize the Elect". I keep doing that so that credo-Baptists will abandon the line of argumentation regarding the perfection of the New Covenant in establishing who the proper subjects of Baptism are.

I'm not really confusing the two issues - I'm really trying to show that the argument is a baseless one in terms of trying to establish that adult professors should be baptized.

Assume, for instance, that I join the credo-Baptists in the one argument: only the Elect are within the New Covenant. I might still be a firm paedo-Baptist in spite of that conviction. One issue does not inform the other.

You state that I'm misrepresenting credo-Baptists but it is they who keep returning to the "New Covenant is a perfect Covenant" line of argumentation to establish SOMETHING. That SOMETHING is that only professing believers ought to be baptized. The two are unrelated.

I say, therefore, they ought to abandon that line of argumentation with regard to the subject of who ought to be baptized.

I'll respond to the other stuff when I have the time. In the meantime, I really need you to understand the problem here.

If, as you say, credo-Baptists base the subject of who ought to be baptized upon profession then why do they (and you) keep using, as their primary argument, the notion that the New Covenant consists only of the Elect?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> I think James White is trying to show (by quoting Niell) that paedobaptists do not believe that the New Covenant is different (or new) in its "nature" or "membership". White wants to show that paedobaptists must hold that all administrations of the COG are identical. Paedobaptists cannot admit that there is a difference in any administrations of the COG (with regard to its nature or membership) or else their hermeneutics fail. In order to point out that there is a difference among the administrations of the COG, White says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...if one believes the Covenant of Grace began with Adam, was the essential nature and membership of the covenant the same from Adam to Abraham?...What covenant sign was given to covenant members from Adam to Abraham?...differences in administrations...would be contrary to the needed foundation that underlies the insistence that the covenant sign should be given to all offspring of covenant members.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, if there is a covenant administration that does not have or does not require a covenant sign to represent being in the covenant, then obviously all the administrations can't be identical in nature and membership.
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The argument does not follow. The issue is that, from Adam to Christ, family solidarity is preserved in the Covenant. It is the nature of the way in which God deals with His chosen people and from whom He elects and into whom He elects.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is that God can work differently among the covenant administrations. The lack of a covenant sign from Adam to Abraham is proof of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a SHARP discontinuity of a completely different kind and not merely the change of a sign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What kind of discontinuity is it?
Click to expand...

Can somebody help me discover if my writing is unclear at this point? I must confess I thought I labored pretty hard to answer this question.

1. NO. Paedobaptists do NOT insist that the administration must be identical. That is what I was so emphatic about. It is apparently obvious to the casual observer that there is no circumcision in the COG until Abraham and that circumcision is replaced with baptism in the New Covenant according to paedobaptists. Do you really believe Calvin is so obtuse as to miss this obvious point?

2. To state it again, the SHARP discontinuity is that from Adam to Noah, God is the God of a man and his children. From Noah to Abraham, God is the God of a man and his children. From Abraham to Christ, God is the God of a man and his children. Credo-Baptists state that God, in the New Covenant, is *NO LONGER THE GOD OF A MAN AND HIS CHILDREN*. The bolded part is the sharp discontinuity. All of those periods are within the same Covenant of Grace - saved by faith in Christ Jesus.

Thus, Dr. White's argument does not follow. We do not insist that all administrations of the Covenant of Grace are identical in terms of administration. We recognize that neither Adam nor Seth nor Enoch nor Noah were circumcised and yet they are in the geneology of Christ. What IS important, is that God covenants with them and their children in the COG. When He covenants with Abraham within the same COG in an administration that adds a sign He still covenants with the man and his children.

God's established covenantal pattern is to Covenant with a man and His children. Nothing is proven by showing that a sign change occurs and I don't know why it is viewed as a substantive argument.

[Edited on 12-28-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Mocha

Rich,

You said:



> If, as you say, credo-Baptists base the subject of who ought to be baptized upon profession then why do they (and you) keep using, as their primary argument, the notion that the New Covenant consists only of the Elect?



Can these 6 promises apply to anyone else but the elect?

1) *Regeneration*

- "And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them" Ez 11:19

2) *Sanctification*

- "I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them." Ez 11:19-20

3) *Adoption*

- "And they shall be my people, and I will be their God." Ez 11:20

4) *Personal Communion*

- "And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each brother, saying, 'Know the LORD', for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD." Jer. 31:34

5) *Justification*

- "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness, and from all your idols.

6) *Glorification*

- "Behold, I will gather them from all the countries to which I drove them in my anger and my wrath and in great indignation. I will bring them back to this place, and I will make them dwell in safety. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me forever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul." Jer. 32:37-41

These passages seem to indicate that only the elect will be in the covenant.

As for who should be baptized, well, we at least know that it should include those who profess faith, because the Bible tells us that much. Are all who are baptized in the covenant? No! Only those who have saving faith are in the covenant (according to the prophets and the book of Hebrews).

I'm not sure if that's the answer you're looking for...but it was worth a try. 


Mike


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Mike,

I'm not trying to be obnoxious. No, it does not answer my question. All of those are only efficient for the Elect. We agree violently on the point that only the Elect will be or ever were saved within the COG.

Notice, however, how you have to SHIFT to begin talking about profession because you recognize that the decision on who to baptize within the Church has absolutely no bearing on knowledge of who is elect. Certainly the elect are baptized (usually) but that is not the reason why they are baptized. The profession is (for adults that is).

[Edited on 12-28-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Mocha

Rich,

You said:



> Paedobaptists do NOT insist that the administration must be identical.



If the "nature" and "membership" of the New Covenant administration is different in "kind", then on what grounds would a paedo use for insisting on infant baptism?



> Credo-Baptists state that God, in the New Covenant, is NO LONGER THE GOD OF A MAN AND HIS CHILDREN.



The New Covenant is "not like the covenant that I made with their fathers..." (Jer. 31:32). It is different in "kind", not "degree". If this is true, how can you look to the Abrahamic Covenant administration to prove something about the New Covenant administration? 

God always has and alway will work through families, but does this necessarily mean that God must always gather His elect the same way? It seems that he doesn't.

Mike


----------



## Mocha

Rich,

You said:



> ...you recognize that the decision on who to baptize within the Church has absolutely no bearing on knowledge of who is elect.



That's right. Credo's baptize upon confession of faith, not upon a knowledge of who is elect. However, Scripture does suggest that believers are the elect (although only God knows if the profession is real or not).

Take a look at the following verse:

"...who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." (1 Tim. 4:10).

What is the "especially" referring to? I believe it's referring to the elect. Jesus is the Savior of those who believe, and that can only mean the "elect".



> Certainly the elect are baptized (usually) but that is not the reason why they are baptized.



Why are they baptized? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Mike


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Rich,
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paedobaptists do NOT insist that the administration must be identical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the "nature" and "membership" of the New Covenant administration is different in "kind", then on what grounds would a paedo use for insisting on infant baptism?
Click to expand...

That the sign is different does not change the fact that the way in which God covenants is with a man and his children just as in other administrations of the COG. I believe we have a stronger argument in saying that God includes a man and his children in every administration of the COG (in which in every administration a man is saved by faith in Christ) so the New Covenant is no different unless explicitly abrogated by God in His Word.



> Credo-Baptists state that God, in the New Covenant, is NO LONGER THE GOD OF A MAN AND HIS CHILDREN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New Covenant is "not like the covenant that I made with their fathers..." (Jer. 31:32). It is different in "kind", not "degree". If this is true, how can you look to the Abrahamic Covenant administration to prove something about the New Covenant administration?
> 
> God always has and alway will work through families, but does this necessarily mean that God must always gather His elect the same way? It seems that he doesn't.
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...

If God reveals His established Covenant nature to be with a man and his children then you cannot merely jump to that conclusion. It's a nice theory but the burden is on the credo-Baptist to DEMONSTRATE that God's Covenantal nature has changed. It's rather like you demanding that I demonstrate that God still finds a sin reprehensible unless it is restated in the NT Scriptures.

As stated before, we must assume continuity unless the NT demands discontinuity. There is nothing that approaches anything but weak inference to support the idea that God's Covenantal nature has changed in the NC administration.


----------



## Mocha

Rich,

You said:



> That the sign is different does not change the fact that the way in which God covenants is with a man and his children just as in other administrations of the COG. I believe we have a stronger argument in saying that God includes a man and his children in every administration of the COG (in which in every administration a man is saved by faith in Christ) so the New Covenant is no different unless explicitly abrogated by God in His Word.



God has not always had a covenant sign, so you can't say He continues it because He always has. 



> If God reveals His established Covenant nature to be with a man and his children then you cannot merely jump to that conclusion. It's a nice theory but the burden is on the credo-Baptist to DEMONSTRATE that God's Covenantal nature has changed. It's rather like you demanding that I demonstrate that God still finds a sin reprehensible unless it is restated in the NT Scriptures.



"...not like the covenant I made with their fathers..." (Jer. 31:32)



> ...we must assume continuity unless the NT demands discontinuity.



"But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better (in kind), since it is enacted on better promises." (Heb. 8:6)

The New Covenant is of a different "kind".

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second." (Heb. 8:7)

What fault did the first covenant have that the New Covenant made better?

"...not like the covenant that I made with their fathers...for they did not continue in my covenant." (Heb. 8:9)

Those in the New Covenant will continue in it. In other words, only believers will be in it. 

Doesn't it seem like the NT is demanding discontinuity?

Mike


----------



## Mocha

Rich,

Here's a quick diary of my baptism journey so far (if I can remeber correctly).

1) Hebrew 10:29 was the very first verse that made me doubt my credo convictions.

2) The second thing that challenged my credo convictions was "The Great Commision". It was pointed out that believers are to be baptized, but you cannot use that verse to say that infants should not. It made sense.

3) The third thing that challenged my credo convictions was that there was an external and internal part of the covenant. 

4) The fouth thing that challenged my credo convictions was the possibility of there being non-elect in the covenant.

5) Once I got to the point where all these things were possible, I began to see how many of the paedo verses made sense.

6) A problem for me is that circumcision and baptism are a 'seal'. This creates a major problems for me. If circumcision is a guarantee or promise of having what it represents, and if it represents something spiritual, then if that spiritual whatever is lost, it never was a "seal". It makes a mockery of God's promise.

7) I then thought maybe circumcision was a sign and seal of Abraham's covenant with God, and that only Abraham was actually in the covenant. But I now see that these infants were actually in the covenant.

8) At this point and time, I see the Abrahamic Covenant as being "different" than the New Covenant. This allows the 'seal' to have a physical reality. It resolves the tension I was struggling with. It also allows the New Covenant 'seal' to have a spiritual reality and fits nicely with passages in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hebrews.

I'm not saying that I have rejected the paedo view, but at this point and time, the credo view makes the most sense to me. Discontinuity deals with the 'seal' problem. 

This is just to give you a brief idea of where I've been and where I'm at.

Mike


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Rich,
You wrote:-


> Yet again I will state that the issue of the identity of the Elect must be treated separately than those who are candidates for Baptism. As you seem to understand, credo-Baptists base their baptism upon confession.
> 
> BUT THEY ARGUE FOR CREDO-BAPTISM BASED ON ELECTION.
> 
> Do you see what I'm saying?



Rich, I think you are either missing the point or you are trying to fog the issue with dialectic. Credo-baptism is based upon the word of God. In Jer 31 and Heb 8, we are told in the clearest language possible that everyone in the New Covenant knows the Lord. Therefore these are the suitable subjects for baptism. The problem is that we don't know infallibly who these people are. *But we do know that true knowledge of the Lord is not hereditary* (John 1:10-13 etc), and therefore we do not baptize the infants of believers (and how would we know infallibly if _they_ are believers?), but follow the command of the Lord in Matt 28 and the example and practice of the Apostles as found in Acts.


> Don't get me wrong, the discussion of who truly belongs within the New Covenant is a worthy subject. I don't agree that the New Covenant consists only of the Elect but, EVEN IF IT DID, it still would not inform the issue of who is the subject of Baptism.



With respect, it does. *Only the elect are in the New Covenant, only they receive the seal of the New Covenant (the Holy Spirit) and therefore only they should ideally receive the outward sign of the New Covenant.* The trouble is, we don't know who they are. As Spurgeon said, if the Lord had painted a yellow stripe down the backs of the elect, then we would only preach to the elect, only give Gospel invitations to the elect and only baptize the elect. It would save a whole lot of trouble. But the Lord, in His wisdom, has not made things that easy for us. Therefore we follow the command of the Lord and the example and practice of the Apostles and baptize on a profession of faith. When mistakes are made, as they were even by the first Christians (Acts 8:13 ) we don't necessarily blame ourselves any more than they did; but we follow their example and expel the reprobate from the church (Acts 8:21 ).


> You state I am misrepresenting the issue by saying "We Baptize the Elect". I keep doing that so that credo-Baptists will abandon the line of argumentation regarding the perfection of the New Covenant in establishing who the proper subjects of Baptism are.



With respect, you are misrepresenting Baptists. We would never say that we baptize only the elect; but the elect are nonetheless the only proper subjects for baptism. To place the sign of the New Covenant upon someone whom you have no reason to suppose is in the New Covenant is, to say the least, wrong practice.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Rich,
> 
> Here's a quick diary of my baptism journey so far (if I can remeber correctly).
> 
> 1) Hebrew 10:29 was the very first verse that made me doubt my credo convictions.
> 
> 2) The second thing that challenged my credo convictions was "The Great Commision". It was pointed out that believers are to be baptized, but you cannot use that verse to say that infants should not. It made sense.
> 
> 3) The third thing that challenged my credo convictions was that there was an external and internal part of the covenant.
> 
> 4) The fouth thing that challenged my credo convictions was the possibility of there being non-elect in the covenant.
> 
> 5) Once I got to the point where all these things were possible, I began to see how many of the paedo verses made sense.
> 
> 6) A problem for me is that circumcision and baptism are a 'seal'. This creates a major problems for me. If circumcision is a guarantee or promise of having what it represents, and if it represents something spiritual, then if that spiritual whatever is lost, it never was a "seal". It makes a mockery of God's promise.
> 
> 7) I then thought maybe circumcision was a sign and seal of Abraham's covenant with God, and that only Abraham was actually in the covenant. But I now see that these infants were actually in the covenant.
> 
> 8) At this point and time, I see the Abrahamic Covenant as being "different" than the New Covenant. This allows the 'seal' to have a physical reality. It resolves the tension I was struggling with. It also allows the New Covenant 'seal' to have a spiritual reality and fits nicely with passages in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hebrews.
> 
> I'm not saying that I have rejected the paedo view, but at this point and time, the credo view makes the most sense to me. Discontinuity deals with the 'seal' problem.
> 
> This is just to give you a brief idea of where I've been and where I'm at.
> 
> Mike



Problem 6 should be handled easily by statement 3. The seal is covenantal; it effects both the visible and invisible body of believers.

Mike,
Are you honestly telling me that what is described in the Jer and Ezek passages was not present in the OT? And why the warning passages in the NT/Hebrews if the NC cannot be broken?

And just for the record, your rationale is what is causing the discontinuity/dispensationalism.

[Edited on 12-28-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Mike,
You wrote:-


> 1) Hebrew 10:29 was the very first verse that made me doubt my credo convictions.


*'Of how much worse punishment , do you suppose, will he be thought worthy of who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the lood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing and insulted the Spirit of Grace?'*
You may already realize this, but if you assume that the _'he'_ in *'By which he was sanctified'* should really be _'He'_ and refer to *'the Son of God'*, which is in fact the nearest antecedent, then your problem disappears.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> With respect, you are misrepresenting Baptists. We would never say that we baptize only the elect; *but the elect are nonetheless the only proper subjects for baptism.* To place the sign of the New Covenant upon someone whom you have no reason to suppose is in the New Covenant is, to say the least, wrong practice.
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin


Martin,

I confuse nothing. You confirm precisely what I'm saying. It is why you go through so much trouble establishing that the New Covenant includes only the Elect.

*YOU* fog the issue by focusing on election and then you accuse me of misrepresenting your position after spending all your time in your dialogue establishing that only the Elect should be baptized. I don't know if you can step back and see how fundamentally silly it is that you defend yourself against the charge by engaging in more of the same.

If baptism of sincere professors is what you believe the preceptive will of God is then fine. That is a reasonable line of argumentation. When you spend 90% of your argument dealing with the Elect then you establish NOTHING other than the nature of the New Covenant but certainly NOT whether those recipients ought to be old or young. After all, election does not depend on he who runs or wills but Him who elects.

[Edited on 12-28-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Rich,
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the sign is different does not change the fact that the way in which God covenants is with a man and his children just as in other administrations of the COG. I believe we have a stronger argument in saying that God includes a man and his children in every administration of the COG (in which in every administration a man is saved by faith in Christ) so the New Covenant is no different unless explicitly abrogated by God in His Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God has not always had a covenant sign, so you can't say He continues it because He always has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God reveals His established Covenant nature to be with a man and his children then you cannot merely jump to that conclusion. It's a nice theory but the burden is on the credo-Baptist to DEMONSTRATE that God's Covenantal nature has changed. It's rather like you demanding that I demonstrate that God still finds a sin reprehensible unless it is restated in the NT Scriptures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...not like the covenant I made with their fathers..." (Jer. 31:32)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...we must assume continuity unless the NT demands discontinuity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better (in kind), since it is enacted on better promises." (Heb. 8:6)
> 
> The New Covenant is of a different "kind".
> 
> "For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second." (Heb. 8:7)
> 
> What fault did the first covenant have that the New Covenant made better?
> 
> "...not like the covenant that I made with their fathers...for they did not continue in my covenant." (Heb. 8:9)
> 
> Those in the New Covenant will continue in it. In other words, only believers will be in it.
> 
> Doesn't it seem like the NT is demanding discontinuity?
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...

No, because it would overthrow the passages that show that we are really part of the perfect Covenant made with Abraham and that we are wild shoots grafted into the ever-existent Olive tree.

Consider this passage as confirmation that the Covenant will be established more strongly between a man and his children:


> Mal 4:5-6
> See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse."


A better promise indeed. Much more excellent both in terms of spreading beyond Judea and into the world but in the children.


----------



## Steve Owen

> No, because it would overthrow the passages that show that we are really part of the perfect Covenant made with Abraham and that we are wild shoots grafted into the ever-existent Olive tree.



We are part of the perfect Covenant made between the Persons of the Trinity before time began; of which the Abrahamic covenant was an adumbration, and which is realized in the New Covenant in our Lord's blood.


> Consider this passage as confirmation that the Covenant will be established more strongly between a man and his children:
> Quote:
> Mal 4:5-6
> See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse."
> 
> A better promise indeed. Much more excellent both in terms of spreading beyond Judea and into the world but in the children.



Better indeed, because it speaks of the love that comes with the New Birth. *'For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love'* (Gal 5:6 ).

Martin


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> *Better* indeed, because it speaks of the love that comes with the New Birth.



The New Brith is not in the OT? What does "better" in this regard mean? Your statement is confusing because I am sure you don't mean that OT beleivers were not "birthed anew" by the Spirit (cf. John 3:1-10) which is an OT idea.

From your sentence it seems to me you are saying the NC is "better" because in it there is love and the new birth. Was that not "in" the OT?


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> If baptism of sincere professors is what you believe the preceptive will of God is then fine. That is a reasonable line of argumentation. When you spend 90% of your argument dealing with the Elect then you establish NOTHING other than the nature of the New Covenant but certainly NOT whether those recipients ought to be old or young. After all, election does not depend on he who runs or wills but Him who elects.


Well, I'll try once more, but I really don't think you're listening.

The New Covenant is made with the elect only.
Baptism is the outward sign of the New Covenant.
*THEREFORE*
Ideally we would baptize only the elect.
*BUT*
We don't know who the elect are.
*THEREFORE*
We follow the instructions of our Lord and the practice of the Apostles and baptize those who give a credible profession of faith.

What you find so difficult to understand about that I cannot imagine. 

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Martin,

I'm listening. I understand your arguments which is why I find the line of argumentation to be lame.

You are quite right that you DON'T know who the elect are which is why it has no bearing upon who you baptize. The discussions about the New Covenant become matters that have no practical significance in the visible life of the Church because membership in the New Covenant is completely hidden from you as you ascribe membership to election. 

Since you act completely independently of knowing who is in the New Covenant within your Church, and presumption only, it does not inform who you baptize. The PROFESSION does, NOT the election. You have baptized not a single soul because you KNEW he was elect. You baptized because he professed. Others might presume election in the infants they baptize. Can they just use your formula and get to the end point by adding "and children of believers" to the last conclusion?

You spend a lot of time arguing for the perfection of the New Covenant as relates to confessor baptism that you PRESUME that your argument informs the issue. You are banging your head because you think it ought to be more persuasive. It is not. Perhaps you ought to really evaluate whether you can move from the Perfection of the Covenant to your conclusion. You cannot.

Imagine if, in every issue of a Church member's behavior in the Church, we spent 90% of our time saying that "...the Covenant is perfect and contains only the Elect...." It would seriously cloud the believer's understanding of what he is supposed to do.

We obey based on PRECEPT and not upon the DECRETIVE Will of God. You repeatedly cloud the issue because, I believe, you have very little to work with in the precepts and have only the hidden counsel left to work with.

[Edited on 12-29-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> No, because it would overthrow the passages that show that we are really part of the perfect Covenant made with Abraham and that we are wild shoots grafted into the ever-existent Olive tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are part of the perfect Covenant made between the Persons of the Trinity before time began; of which the Abrahamic covenant was an adumbration, and which is realized in the New Covenant in our Lord's blood.
> 
> 
> 
> Consider this passage as confirmation that the Covenant will be established more strongly between a man and his children:
> Quote:
> Mal 4:5-6
> See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse."
> 
> A better promise indeed. Much more excellent both in terms of spreading beyond Judea and into the world but in the children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better indeed, because it speaks of the love that comes with the New Birth. *'For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love'* (Gal 5:6 ).
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...

Martin,

I don't know if you realize how your interpretations reinforce to me how cold Calvinism is without Covenant theology.

What does the prophet mean when he states that the hearts of the fathers will be turned to their children and children to fathers as a promise in the Day of the Lord?

You seem to delight in any idea that would mean our children are no different than the children of pagans. It seems you have to remain coldly rational to be consistent and avoid any delight that God gives us in the promises He made to the OT saints regarding their children.

It is just so dissonant with the testimony of the OT saints. I know you see things differently but it is really sad to me.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> I don't know if you realize how your interpretations reinforce to me how cold Calvinism is without Covenant theology.



Exceedingly.


----------



## Mocha

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Rich,
> 
> Here's a quick diary of my baptism journey so far (if I can remeber correctly).
> 
> 1) Hebrew 10:29 was the very first verse that made me doubt my credo convictions.
> 
> 2) The second thing that challenged my credo convictions was "The Great Commision". It was pointed out that believers are to be baptized, but you cannot use that verse to say that infants should not. It made sense.
> 
> 3) The third thing that challenged my credo convictions was that there was an external and internal part of the covenant.
> 
> 4) The fouth thing that challenged my credo convictions was the possibility of there being non-elect in the covenant.
> 
> 5) Once I got to the point where all these things were possible, I began to see how many of the paedo verses made sense.
> 
> 6) A problem for me is that circumcision and baptism are a 'seal'. This creates a major problems for me. If circumcision is a guarantee or promise of having what it represents, and if it represents something spiritual, then if that spiritual whatever is lost, it never was a "seal". It makes a mockery of God's promise.
> 
> 7) I then thought maybe circumcision was a sign and seal of Abraham's covenant with God, and that only Abraham was actually in the covenant. But I now see that these infants were actually in the covenant.
> 
> 8) At this point and time, I see the Abrahamic Covenant as being "different" than the New Covenant. This allows the 'seal' to have a physical reality. It resolves the tension I was struggling with. It also allows the New Covenant 'seal' to have a spiritual reality and fits nicely with passages in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hebrews.
> 
> I'm not saying that I have rejected the paedo view, but at this point and time, the credo view makes the most sense to me. Discontinuity deals with the 'seal' problem.
> 
> This is just to give you a brief idea of where I've been and where I'm at.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem 6 should be handled easily by statement 3. The seal is covenantal; it effects both the visible and invisible body of believers.
Click to expand...


Scott, do you know why I got turned off by this visible/invisible aspect of the covenant? It was because of the following quote:



> These three notions - union and communion with God, the removal of defilement, and the righteousness of faith - are, obviously, not antithetical. They are mutually complementary, and, taken together, *they indicate the deep soteric richness of the blessing that circumcision* signifies and *seals.*(John Murray, "Christian Baptism", pg. 48)



If I'm understanding John Murray correctly, he's saying that circumcision "seals" these three things. Did an infant have these three things "sealed" to him when he was circumcised? Were these three things real for him at that point and time? 

In my opinion (at this point and time), I believe infants were circumcised but did not 'seal' what John Murray claims. I believe it 'sealed' something else. Probably some physical association with Abraham. So, I agree that circumcision is a 'sign' and a 'seal', but what does it 'sign' and 'seal'? That's the question. I feel that John Murray (and others that hold that position) are wrong. 




> Mike,
> Are you honestly telling me that what is described in the Jer and Ezek passages was not present in the OT? And why the warning passages in the NT/Hebrews if the NC cannot be broken?



Before the New Covenant administration, God's covenant was with physical Israel (including a remnant that is spiritual Israel). But in the New Covenant administration, God's Covenant is with spiritual Israel (including a remnant that is also physical Israel). The OT did have a remnant that were already receiving the blessings that are found in Jer. and Ezek., but what makes the New Covenant "better" or "different" is that it could not be broken (as well as other reasons). So, yes, I'm honestly telling you that what is described in the Jer and Ezek passages was not present in the OT, because in the OT the covenant could be broken. That's one of the key items of the New Covenant! 



> And just for the record, your rationale is what is causing the discontinuity/dispensationalism.



If my rationale is wrong, point it out to me. I don't mind working through it. In fact, that's the whole purpose of my involvement here.

Mike



[Edited on 12-29-2005 by Mocha]


----------



## Mocha

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Hello Mike,
> You wrote:-
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Hebrew 10:29 was the very first verse that made me doubt my credo convictions.
> 
> 
> 
> *'Of how much worse punishment , do you suppose, will he be thought worthy of who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the lood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing and insulted the Spirit of Grace?'*
> You may already realize this, but if you assume that the _'he'_ in *'By which he was sanctified'* should really be _'He'_ and refer to *'the Son of God'*, which is in fact the nearest antecedent, then your problem disappears.
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...


Martin,

Here is a post from another forum that seemed pretty convincing that the "he" in Hebrews 10:29 could not be Christ. BTW, this post was from a Credo.



> it is important that the main subject of the sentence is this individual who is deserving (AXIWQHSEQAI) punishment. the three participles are semantically subordinate to this verb and the prepositional phrase EN Wi hHGIASQH is semantically subordinate to TO hAIMA (this is what the diagram clearly shows). i see no reason from the grammar that any greek speaker would ever take TON hUION as the antecedent of hHGIASQH. i think this may be a case of trying to smooth out a difficult text because it is not in accordance with ones theology. unless someone can point out a semantic or pragmatic reason from the text itself (not other Scriptures and theologizing) why the proposed reading is warranted. if not, i strongly suggest that these current assertions that Christ is sanctified by His own blood be abandoned. thanks. (Quote by Doug Hoxworth)



See his diagram below. 



> How much severer punishment | do you think | he will
> deserve
> ----------------------------------------------who---has
> trampled under foot -> the Son of God,
> ----------------------------------------------and---has
> regarded -> the blood of the covenant = as unclean
> 
> by which he was sanctified,
> ----------------------------------------------and---has
> insulted -> the Spirit of grace?



It seems pretty convincing to me. Do you have any sources that can refute this?

Mike


----------



## Me Died Blue

I would also ask in what sense _Christ_ can be said to _become_ sanctified.


----------



## Mocha

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Rich,
> 
> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That the sign is different does not change the fact that the way in which God covenants is with a man and his children just as in other administrations of the COG. I believe we have a stronger argument in saying that God includes a man and his children in every administration of the COG (in which in every administration a man is saved by faith in Christ) so the New Covenant is no different unless explicitly abrogated by God in His Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God has not always had a covenant sign, so you can't say He continues it because He always has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If God reveals His established Covenant nature to be with a man and his children then you cannot merely jump to that conclusion. It's a nice theory but the burden is on the credo-Baptist to DEMONSTRATE that God's Covenantal nature has changed. It's rather like you demanding that I demonstrate that God still finds a sin reprehensible unless it is restated in the NT Scriptures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "...not like the covenant I made with their fathers..." (Jer. 31:32)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...we must assume continuity unless the NT demands discontinuity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better (in kind), since it is enacted on better promises." (Heb. 8:6)
> 
> The New Covenant is of a different "kind".
> 
> "For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second." (Heb. 8:7)
> 
> What fault did the first covenant have that the New Covenant made better?
> 
> "...not like the covenant that I made with their fathers...for they did not continue in my covenant." (Heb. 8:9)
> 
> Those in the New Covenant will continue in it. In other words, only believers will be in it.
> 
> Doesn't it seem like the NT is demanding discontinuity?
> 
> Mike
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, because it would overthrow the passages that show that we are really part of the perfect Covenant made with Abraham and that we are wild shoots grafted into the ever-existent Olive tree.
> 
> Consider this passage as confirmation that the Covenant will be established more strongly between a man and his children:
> 
> 
> 
> Mal 4:5-6
> See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A better promise indeed. Much more excellent both in terms of spreading beyond Judea and into the world but in the children.
Click to expand...


I don't think you can use Mal. 4:5-6 to prove that the Covenant will be established more strongly between a man and his children. This passage is looking forward to the ministry of John the Baptist, where he will call people to repentance. We see this in the following verses:



> ...your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John...and he will go before him (the Lord) in the spirit of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children... (Luke 1:13,17)



One commentary on Luke (by Joel Green) says the following about Luke 1:17:



> One aspect of John's ministry will be "to turn the hearts of fathers to their children." This clause is a little surprising given subsequent teaching in Luke subordinating family ties to the demands of discipleship (12:53; cf. 9:59; 14:26). At the same time, this clause is borrowed from Mal 4:6, and is one of the ways in which Luke fills out his portrait of John's mission by drawing on material related to eschatological Elijah (cf. Sir 48:10). By this means Luke also stresses the orientation of John's ministry around calling people to repentance in their daily lives. (Joel B. Green, "The Gospel of Luke", The New International Commentary on the New Testament, pg. 76)



Again, I don't think you can use Mal. 4:5-6 to prove your point.

Mike


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> I would also ask in what sense _Christ_ can be said to _become_ sanctified.





Is not sanctification a process redeemed sinners undergo?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Sure, Mal. 4:5-6 is speaking of John the Baptist. That's not the issue. _What do the words mean?_ Why are they there? It's as if we are picking out the term "Elijah" and the rest of the words are meaningless? Why be satisfied with the excessively general interpretation: "He's calling Israel back to God"? There is more to it than that...


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> I would also ask in what sense _Christ_ can be said to _become_ sanctified.



Very little time to reply at present, but might I refer you to John 3:19?

Blessings,

Martin


----------



## CDM

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> I would also ask in what sense _Christ_ can be said to _become_ sanctified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very little time to reply at present, but might I refer you to John 3:19?
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...


And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. -John 3:19 (ESV)

Are you saying Christ _becomes_ sanctified by coming into the world (incarnation)?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> Again, I don't think you can use Mal. 4:5-6 to prove your point.
> 
> Mike


Mike,

I think if one is looking for ways to explain away passages, one will find a way.

One of the things the Scriptures repeatedly lament is that fathers have not taught their children or that children turn away from the faith of their fathers. Either way it is viewed as a curse where seeing your children's children call on the name of the Lord is a blessing.

I intended to prove nothing. It is merely one more piece that falls more naturally into a Covenantal framework and one more piece that has to be refit to work within the credo framework.

You keep trying to convince me that because Christ's ministry is "better" or "more perfect" that children are somehow an inherent imperfection in the Old Covenant. I can understand that idea in a man who has no children and has not prayed with his infant children. I cannot understand how a father can read the Scriptures, see the loving language of the Proverbs or the Psalms, and the joy expressed in the spiritual blessing of children and then say that children in the Covenant were an imperfection.

Yes the Covenant was improved. It was expanded beyond Judea. Yes, some branches were pruned. Yes, there was neither Greek nor Jew, male nor female, slave nor free anymore in Christ Jesus. No man could puff his chest out and say "God loves me more because I descend physically from Abraham."

BUT I also believe the promises to a father and his children were improved as well. When a shoot is grafted into a tree it begins to generate and branch out from the moment it is grafted in and receives life. The New Covenant is not merely more excellent because new shoots are being grafted in much more (and from more nations) than before but also because the shoots that are grafted are more productive.

It is not an EITHER OR but it is BOTH AND. I agree that the Covenant has been improved as every man and woman receives the Spirit, the Gospel spreads from Jew to God-fearer to Samaritan to Gentile, AND fathers and their children are drawn closer together and apostasy occurs with less regularity than in the old covenant so that we can rejoice at the blessing of seeing our grandchildren calling on the name of the Lord.

What is remarkable about this discussion is that I would challenge any credo-Baptist to use the idea expressed to any man whose 18 year old son has just spit in his face and told him that he hates God. Minister to him with the idea that "After all, the New Covenant is a better Covenant. Your son's apostasy is not a curse at all. It is an improvement in the Covenant that your son now hates God."

God forbid any man comfort a grieving father with such words and yet, in theological musings divorced from their practical implications, we can talk about children as if they were always some sort of disposable element of the Covenant.

How sad...


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> I would also ask in what sense _Christ_ can be said to _become_ sanctified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very little time to reply at present, but might I refer you to John 3:19?
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...


John 3:19 (ESV) states "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil."

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I honestly do not see how that applies to the notion of Jesus somehow becoming sanctified.


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> I would also ask in what sense _Christ_ can be said to _become_ sanctified.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very little time to reply at present, but might I refer you to John 3:19?
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Martin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John 3:19 (ESV) states "And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil."
> 
> Perhaps I'm missing something, but I honestly do not see how that applies to the notion of Jesus somehow becoming sanctified.
Click to expand...


Doh! I meant John 17:19. Sorry!

Martin


----------



## pastorway

John 17:19 
And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.

Sancitification is not always used as if the person being "sanctified" is in need of salvation. It means other things too, even as the verse in 1 Cor 7:14 proves.



[Edited on 12-29-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Steve Owen

> Better indeed, because it speaks of the love that comes with the New Birth. 'For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love' (Gal 5:6 ).
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin,
> 
> I don't know if you realize how your interpretations reinforce to me how cold Calvinism is without Covenant theology.
Click to expand...


Rich, I'm sorry that you find love and the New Birth leave you cold, but that is your problem.


> What does the prophet mean when he states that the hearts of the fathers will be turned to their children and children to fathers as a promise in the Day of the Lord?



Precisely what he says, but it has nothing to do with circumcision or baptism unless you decide to read it in. 


> You seem to delight in any idea that would mean our children are no different than the children of pagans. It seems you have to remain coldly rational to be consistent and avoid any delight that God gives us in the promises He made to the OT saints regarding their children.



The glory of the Gospel is that *'Christ died for the ungodly'* and that He came *'Not to call the righteous but sinners to repntance,'* If you have young children, I do hope for their sakes that they are ungodly sinners, because they're the only people that Christ has anything to do with.
*'And I say to you that many will come from the east and west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth'* (Matt 8:11-12 ).


> It is just so dissonant with the testimony of the OT saints.


It is not. It is the truth, the wonder and the glory of the Gospel. Christ died for the ungodly. Praise His name!

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better indeed, because it speaks of the love that comes with the New Birth. 'For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love' (Gal 5:6 ).
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin,
> 
> I don't know if you realize how your interpretations reinforce to me how cold Calvinism is without Covenant theology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rich, I'm sorry that you find love and the New Birth leave you cold, but that is your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> What does the prophet mean when he states that the hearts of the fathers will be turned to their children and children to fathers as a promise in the Day of the Lord?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Precisely what he says, but it has nothing to do with circumcision or baptism unless you decide to read it in.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to delight in any idea that would mean our children are no different than the children of pagans. It seems you have to remain coldly rational to be consistent and avoid any delight that God gives us in the promises He made to the OT saints regarding their children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The glory of the Gospel is that *'Christ died for the ungodly'* and that He came *'Not to call the righteous but sinners to repntance,'* If you have young children, I do hope for their sakes that they are ungodly sinners, because they're the only people that Christ has anything to do with.
> *'And I say to you that many will come from the east and west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth'* (Matt 8:11-12 ).
> 
> 
> 
> It is just so dissonant with the testimony of the OT saints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not. It is the truth, the wonder and the glory of the Gospel. Christ died for the ungodly. Praise His name!
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...

Yes, I realize you do not see it as cold. I said that I viewed it as cold and not because I hate love and the New Birth. I stated that I view your theology as cold and dissonant but I did not expect it to sway your view.

It is remarkable to me, however, that a theology can exclude one's own children in the most important relationship in one's life and some merely delight in it without wrestling with it. To eagerly seek to disconnect oneself spiritually from his offspring when passages teach otherwise is not delightful to me.

I speak of delighting in children and you don't even interact with the love a father has for his children but jump coldly to the idea of hell for my Covenant offspring.

Here are my children, my Godly inheritance. They are the apple of my eye:

http://www.L..us/LeinoCovenantChildren.jpg


[Edited on 12-29-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> John 17:19
> And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.
> 
> Sancitification is not always used as if the person being "sanctified" is in need of salvation. It means other things too, even as the verse in 1 Cor 7:14 proves.
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 12-29-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Mocha

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Sure, Mal. 4:5-6 is speaking of John the Baptist. That's not the issue. _What do the words mean?_ Why are they there? It's as if we are picking out the term "Elijah" and the rest of the words are meaningless? Why be satisfied with the excessively general interpretation: "He's calling Israel back to God"? There is more to it than that...



Here's John Piper's take on Mal. 4:5-6. he says:



> When Elijah preaches, and cries out for people to get ready to meet on the great and terrible day of the Lord what happens? Verse 6: "And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse."
> 
> His aim is to spare people from being cursed. That's the mercy we saw in verse 5. But to spare people from being cursed people must be changed. *Specifically, it it says their hearts must be changed.* And even more specifically it says that the disposition of the heart toward fathers and children must be changed.
> 
> Some take this verse to refer to the fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob, so that the meaning is simply this"”that the people will return to the faith of the fathers. But the problem with this is that it says that Elijah will also turn the fathers hearts toward the children. It would be unlikely that God would speak of Elijah changing the hearts of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. So I take it in its simpler sense: ordinary living fathers and ordinary living children *will have their hearts changed toward each other.*(Piper's Sermon)



If I understand John Piper correctly, he is saying that God will change the hearts of fathers and children. 

Can you show me where the passage suggests a covenantal sense rather than a salvific one?

Mike

[Edited on 12-29-2005 by Mocha]


----------



## pastorway

I guess Jesus missed the covenantal outworking turning hearts within the family when He stated emphatically:



> Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to "˜set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law´; and "˜a man´s enemies will be those of his own household.´



Now THAT is cold! But that is truth. 

All the hyperbole aside, and all the false allegations about how certian people here view chiuldren and families, we have to honestly admit that there is no promise given in Scripture whereby we can say that God is BOUND to save the children of believers. Election is not based upon or influenced by your physical lineage. That is exactly why the physical descendents of Abraham are not the children of promise!

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> I guess Jesus missed the covenantal outworking turning hearts within the family when He stated emphatically:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to "˜set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law´; and "˜a man´s enemies will be those of his own household.´
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now THAT is cold! But that is truth.
> 
> All the hyperbole aside, and all the false allegations about how certian people here view chiuldren and families, we have to honestly admit that there is no promise given in Scripture whereby we can say that God is BOUND to save the children of believers. Election is not based upon or influenced by your physical lineage. That is exactly why the physical descendents of Abraham are not the children of promise!
> 
> Phillip
Click to expand...


The above is true, however, God is held by His covenant that he made. he even validates it to the Pharisees:

Joh 8:33 *They answered him, We be Abraham's seed*, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 
Joh 8:34 *Jesus answered them*, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 
Joh 8:35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 
Joh 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 
Joh 8:37 *I know that ye are Abraham's seed*; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.

You are intermingling two different principles. The visible and the invisible.

[Edited on 12-30-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Mocha

Rich,

You said:



> You keep trying to convince me that because Christ's ministry is "better" or "more perfect" that children are somehow an inherent imperfection in the Old Covenant.



Let me respond to that by sharing similar reasoning.

How would you respond to an Arminian who sees "election" as being cold hearted and unfair on God's part? I'm guessing, but I think you would probably explain to him that election is really God giving grace, mercy and love to underserving people who were on their way to hell. You would probably point out that man in his natural state does not want anything to do with God, and the fact that God would work at all in the lives of undeserving people, shows how gracious he really is.

In the same way, when people feel it's cold hearted and unfair on God's part not to include unbelievers in the New Covenant (whether infant or adult), it should be pointed out that the fault of previous administrations of the COG, was that, "they did not continue in my covenant". The New Covenant is faultless because all will be believers and therfore will continue in the covenant. This necessarily means, that unbelievers (whether infant or adult) cannot be in the New Covenant administration of the COG. The emphasis should be on the gracious faultlessness of the New Covenant.



> BUT I also believe the promises to a father and his children were improved as well. When a shoot is grafted into a tree it begins to generate and branch out from the moment it is grafted in and receives life. The New Covenant is not merely more excellent because new shoots are being grafted in much more (and from more nations) than before but also because the shoots that are grafted are more productive.



Yes I agree that the promises have improved! If a father and his children are born again, they can celebrate the fact that their position in the New Covenant is forever. This truth, I'm sure, has been a real source of comfort for many families attending a funeral.



> It is not an EITHER OR but it is BOTH AND. I agree that the Covenant has been improved as every man and woman receives the Spirit, the Gospel spreads from Jew to God-fearer to Samaritan to Gentile, AND fathers and their children are drawn closer together and apostasy occurs with less regularity than in the old covenant so that we can rejoice at the blessing of seeing our grandchildren calling on the name of the Lord.



You seem to be down playing the fact that the New Covenant administration is different in "kind". It is different and better in "kind" primarily because it cannot be broken, because all within it know God in a salvific sense and want to (and can) live for him. I just can't see how unbeievers can be part of the New Covenant administration.



> What is remarkable about this discussion is that I would challenge any credo-Baptist to use the idea expressed to any man whose 18 year old son has just spit in his face and told him that he hates God. Minister to him with the idea that "After all, the New Covenant is a better Covenant. Your son's apostasy is not a curse at all. It is an improvement in the Covenant that your son now hates God."
> 
> God forbid any man comfort a grieving father with such words and yet, in theological musings divorced from their practical implications, we can talk about children as if they were always some sort of disposable element of the Covenant.



First of all, if a son tells his Christian father he hates God, how will telling him that he's in the covenant make any difference? He needs to be told that he is not right with God and that he needs to run to Christ for forgiveness. 

Rich, I don't think the credo view is as cold as you're making it out to be.

Mike


----------



## Scott Bushey

Mike writes:


> You seem to be down playing the fact that the New Covenant administration is different in "kind". It is different and better in "kind" primarily because it cannot be broken, because all within it know God in a salvific sense and want to (and can) live for him. I just can't see how unbeievers can be part of the New Covenant administration.



Mike, again I ask, how is this any different from the time of Adam. The elect cannot break covenant. _Unbelievers_ are part of the covenant as they were over the ages, externally/visibly only.

[Edited on 12-30-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Sure, Mal. 4:5-6 is speaking of John the Baptist. That's not the issue. _What do the words mean?_ Why are they there? It's as if we are picking out the term "Elijah" and the rest of the words are meaningless? Why be satisfied with the excessively general interpretation: "He's calling Israel back to God"? There is more to it than that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's John Piper's take on Mal. 4:5-6. he says:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Elijah preaches, and cries out for people to get ready to meet on the great and terrible day of the Lord what happens? Verse 6: "And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse."
> 
> His aim is to spare people from being cursed. That's the mercy we saw in verse 5. But to spare people from being cursed people must be changed. *Specifically, it it says their hearts must be changed.* And even more specifically it says that the disposition of the heart toward fathers and children must be changed.
> 
> Some take this verse to refer to the fathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob, so that the meaning is simply this"”that the people will return to the faith of the fathers. But the problem with this is that it says that Elijah will also turn the fathers hearts toward the children. It would be unlikely that God would speak of Elijah changing the hearts of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. So I take it in its simpler sense: ordinary living fathers and ordinary living children *will have their hearts changed toward each other.*(Piper's Sermon)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I understand John Piper correctly, he is saying that God will change the hearts of fathers and children.
> 
> Can you show me where the passage suggests a covenantal sense rather than a salvific one?
> 
> Mike
> 
> [Edited on 12-29-2005 by Mocha]
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be either/or? We have established at least something of the grammatical/linguistic meaning of the text (thank you pastor Piper!), now move on to "why". Why does God say such things? and why here? Could this have anything to do with other passages that speak of fathers and sons? Gen. 17:7? Ex. 2:24? 1 Ki. 18:36-37? Is. 59:15b-*21*(!) Hos. 11:1?

[Edited on 12-30-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Contra_Mundum

When we say "new/different in KIND" rather than "new/different by replacement" (which designation I am willing to grant at this point without argument, but compare the Greek Heb. 8:13, and Heb. 12:24 re. the _new_ covenant), this does not relieve said person from defining exactly what he means by it. FOR EXAMPLE:

When I say this is a new/different kind of CAR from that one, I might be talking about a sedan vs. a stationwagon. Or maybe (a bit more radically) a sedan vs. a minivan. Or maybe a sedan vs. a 15 passenger van. Or maybe a futuristic concept car vs. a Model T. But we are still talking CARS here, at least defined as 4-wheels on the ground, and not a TRUCK. So _something_ doesn't change. We can't be talking a _new_ CAR, when we have a late model sedan compared with a digital camera!

So when you say "oh, its a new KIND of covenant," you first need to define what the non-negotiable parts of a "covenant" are, so that you have some kind of baseline from which to explain _how_ the new covenant is NEW, but still a COVENANT.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Again Mike I'm disinterested in what is fair but, rather, what is God's nature and how children being a disposable element of the Covenant is an "improvement" or marks it as "better". Simply saying something is different in kind or improves because its promises are better fails to answer the question.

Reading into the "better" and "improved" and saying "Ah yes, it must mean God no longer includes children - that is MUCH better..." makes little sense unless God has stated such.

I have presented the alternative, Covenantal view that it is better ALSO in the way that God turns a father to his children and the children to his father.



> What is remarkable about this discussion is that I would challenge any credo-Baptist to use the idea expressed to any man whose 18 year old son has just spit in his face and told him that he hates God. Minister to him with the idea that "After all, the New Covenant is a better Covenant. Your son's apostasy is not a curse at all. It is an improvement in the Covenant that your son now hates God."
> 
> God forbid any man comfort a grieving father with such words and yet, in theological musings divorced from their practical implications, we can talk about children as if they were always some sort of disposable element of the Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, if a son tells his Christian father he hates God, how will telling him that he's in the covenant make any difference? He needs to be told that he is not right with God and that he needs to run to Christ for forgiveness.
Click to expand...

You miss my point. I'm not dealing with how a paedobaptist would comfort the man. I'm trying to show that the idea that a man's child is outside the Covenant brings no joy to any man. When even a Baptist's child turns his back on the faith it is a terribly sad thing. Reformed credo-Baptists mark the idea that "Ah well God never Elected him" as some sort of indifferent thing confined to the secret counsel of God that should not affect the heart of a believer. According to the credo-Baptist theology, a true believer should mark the son rejecting the faith with indifference since the child was never in the Covenant to begin with. To grieve over such an event would be inconsistent with one's confession. I've just never met a man who meets such an event with anything but sorrow because who doesn't want the blessing of sharing the love of God with your flesh and blood? There are those who talk around this very real longing (which is a very Biblical longing) with dispassion.



> Rich, I don't think the credo view is as cold as you're making it out to be.


I respect every man's right to come to his own conclusions based on his own Biblical convictions. I find it very cold as do many in the OPC and PCA that I talk to about it. I was talking to Dr. Horton about this over lunch one time and he told me a story of a Professor at Westminster (whose name escapes me) that had special sessions with students to talk issues of Covenant. At one point a Reformed Baptist student made comments akin to those commonly made in this thread and others and he just began to weep.

I intend to sway nobody over to my camp by appealing to an emotional plea or some sort of "Gosh stop making me sad" argument. I'm just honestly sharing that the Reformed Baptist view on the place of children strikes many of us as cold and extremely sad. It is not hyperbolic or mean-spirited. It's just our reaction because our heart is caught up in the matter.

Obviously, if I was convinced of the credo-Baptist position I would believe it was not cold at all. I am not however so I don't believe God has excluded my childrent from the Covenant. Don't confuse my criticism of Baptist theology with criticism of God. Some believe them to be the same so I can understand how it causes some rancor.

I consider it cold when somebody is telling me that God considers my children nothing more than those who are just holy enough that I shouldn't abandon them.

[Edited on 12-30-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> I guess Jesus missed the covenantal outworking turning hearts within the family when He stated emphatically:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to "˜set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law´; and "˜a man´s enemies will be those of his own household.´
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now THAT is cold! But that is truth.
> 
> All the hyperbole aside, and all the false allegations about how certian people here view chiuldren and families, we have to honestly admit that there is no promise given in Scripture whereby we can say that God is BOUND to save the children of believers. Election is not based upon or influenced by your physical lineage. That is exactly why the physical descendents of Abraham are not the children of promise!
> 
> Phillip
Click to expand...

I didn't say that God is BOUND to save the children of believers. If you can show me where I did then I will recant.

I stated that God has promised to be God of me and my children. I am a wretched sinner saved by Grace. When my children pray with me they thank Him for Christ's righteousness and that, apart from Christ, they are dead in their sins and trespasses.

Why are you so angry?


----------



## pastorway

angry?

hahahahaha

Just goes to show how much of communication is non-verbal physical cues.

I am not angry at all. But I am tired of the attitudes and condescention and assumptions that are made on this forum in these discussions. Everybody talks, nobody listens.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

OK. I'm glad you're not angry.

Can you show me where I stated that God is bound to save our children so we can seek to understand each other better?


----------



## pastorway

I never claimed that you personally said that. I said that we all must admit that that God never made such a promise.

Phillip


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

To help pastorway there, and I agree with him - 

If I might say it this way: God is not obliged to save ANYONE. He has, though, decreed to save the elect in Christ. That, however, has absolutely nothing to do with how children are viewed in covenant, or not, or how the CoG works with those who are non elect since the CoG is not coextensive with salvation. That is where particular baptists go wrong. The CoR is coextensive with election, but the CoG is not. Once that distinguishing element is made, life on the Puritanboard on this topic will be resolved.

But that does not forgive us for bad exegetical work or misunderstanding the difference between a covenantal promise and a soteriological promise. Genesis 17, for example is not a soteriological promise, it is a covenantal promise, which is a different subset of the work of redemption. God deals soteriologically in His decrees through the CoR and in the CoG to us, as well as providing covenantally sound statements which surround covenantal ideologies (such as the way we should understand Genesis 17 or its restatement by Peter in Acts 2, also coupling the prophecy of Joel and the Psalms). One has to be very careful in the manner they deal with covenantal concepts.


----------



## non dignus

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> The CoR is coextensive with election, but the CoG is not. Once that distinguishing element is made, life on the Puritanboard on this topic will be resolved.





Pastorway, 
You mentioned this passage: _ "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to "˜set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law´; and "˜a man´s enemies will be those of his own household.´_ "

With due respect, aren't the words of Christ here irrelevant to the discussion as He is probably speaking of Jews and Christian converts? Isn't He speaking in terms of progress, not digression? (Progress would be moving from OC to NC. Digression would be moving from NC to apostacy)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> The CoR is coextensive with election, but the CoG is not. Once that distinguishing element is made, life on the Puritanboard on this topic will be resolved.


Agreed. Of course, there is the rub...


----------



## non dignus

From Mocha:


> Here's my question:
> 
> When infants were circumcised, was it a confirmation that one was in the covenant or was it the token of God's covenant promise to Abraham?


All arguments to douse infant baptism will splatter infant circumcision as well. 

Abraham wanted an heir. Is it not significant the sign was placed on the reproductive organ, the instrument for producing children? Would it not stand to reason that the child would be included in the covenant *in every way* (and that rather we are included in the Child) ?

The _families_ of the earth will be blessed. The whole thing is about the children and then the children aren't even included?


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> The CoR is coextensive with election, but the CoG is not. Once that distinguishing element is made, life on the Puritanboard on this topic will be resolved.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Of course, there is the rub...
Click to expand...


There indeed is the rub. The fact is that the WCF knows nothing of a Covenant or Council of Redemption. It was added later in the SSK by (I believe) only two of the Westminster Divines. It is my opinion that this duplication cannot be justified in Scripture and makes covenant theology unnecessarily complicated.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by Mocha_
> 
> Martin,
> 
> Here is a post from another forum that seemed pretty convincing that the "he" in Hebrews 10:29 could not be Christ. BTW, this post was from a Credo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is important that the main subject of the sentence is this individual who is deserving (AXIWQHSEQAI) punishment. the three participles are semantically subordinate to this verb and the prepositional phrase EN Wi hHGIASQH is semantically subordinate to TO hAIMA (this is what the diagram clearly shows). i see no reason from the grammar that any greek speaker would ever take TON hUION as the antecedent of hHGIASQH. i think this may be a case of trying to smooth out a difficult text because it is not in accordance with ones theology. unless someone can point out a semantic or pragmatic reason from the text itself (not other Scriptures and theologizing) why the proposed reading is warranted. if not, i strongly suggest that these current assertions that Christ is sanctified by His own blood be abandoned. thanks. (Quote by Doug Hoxworth)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See his diagram below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much severer punishment | do you think | he will
> deserve
> ----------------------------------------------who---has
> trampled under foot -> the Son of God,
> ----------------------------------------------and---has
> regarded -> the blood of the covenant = as unclean
> 
> by which he was sanctified,
> ----------------------------------------------and---has
> insulted -> the Spirit of grace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It seems pretty convincing to me. Do you have any sources that can refute this?
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...


Well, I don't think it's correct. As I said, "The Son of God" is the nearest antecedent, but I think grammatically the "he" could be either Christ or the apostate. John Owen (Congregational), James Haldane (Baptist) and John Brown of Edinburgh (Presbyterian) in their commentaries accept that either could be correct.

However, to say that someone can be sanctified by the blood of Christ and then fall away is proving a whole lot more than Paedo-baptists would wish to. If I believed that, I would not be a Paedo-baptist, but an Arminian.

Blessings,

Martin


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> The CoR is coextensive with election, but the CoG is not. Once that distinguishing element is made, life on the Puritanboard on this topic will be resolved.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Of course, there is the rub...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There indeed is the rub. The fact is that the WCF knows nothing of a Covenant or Council of Redemption. It was added later in the SSK by (I believe) only two of the Westminster Divines.
Click to expand...


The WCF actually does make the distinction between the CoW/CoG (chapter 7) and the decrees of God (the CoR) in chapter 3. They made the practical difference instead of the theological differecne (which they espoused in thier writings). Thus, the WCF is pressed more as a practical guide to theology than a systematic theology fully stated. The SOSK is a practcial commentary on the WCF by far more than 2 who were involved in writing the WCF.

I am unsure why you would say that only 2 beleived the CoR. That is _grossly_ inaccurate. I'd check some of their actual works which utilize the term innumerably. Both the English and Scottish Presbyterian church ministers and theologians wrote on this subject exstensively. As per example, for a reprint of a classic - check "The Covenant of Life Opened" by Samuel Rutherford (which we just released) that gives entire chapters over to explaining this concept as central to any theological view of the Bible.

Prior to the WCF, you can find it exstensively in the works of the Reformers. Turretin for example, is classic: 

Francis Turretin´s View Of The Covenant Of Grace And Its Distinctions, With Critical Notes Following 
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonCovenantConceptsTurretin.htm

Without defining this, one will always mix up the Decrees (chapter 3) with the practical outworking of how those decrees work int he lives of men (chapter 7). That is why the rub remains.


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Matthew,
In reply to my post:-


> There indeed is the rub. The fact is that the WCF knows nothing of a Covenant or Council of Redemption. It was added later in the SSK by (I believe) only two of the Westminster Divines.



You wrote:-


> I am unsure why you would say that only 2 believed the CoR. That is grossly inaccurate.



I did not say that only two of the Westminster Divines believed in the CoR. I said that it is not found in the WCF proper, but only in the _Sum of Saving Knowledge_ which, as I understand it, was not written by all the Divines but only by two of them. Certainly the SSK is not in my copy of the Westminster Confession. Whether others of the Divines 'believed' it, I cannot say. I only know that they did not put it in the WCF which I understand to be your standard of orthodoxy.

I also know that Turretine does not mention the CoR by name, though I note that you claim to find it in embryo in his works. Personally, I do not find a need to conjure up another covenant which is not named in the Bible. If the WCF can do without it, surely you can too? I would suggest that you turn your attention to the _Covenants of Promise_ which are at least mentioned in the Bible (Eph 2:12 ). I have brought them up several times, but no one seems to want to talk about them.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Personally, I do not find a need to conjure up another covenant which is not named in the Bible. If the WCF can do without it, surely you can too?



Martin, although we all of course agree that it is not mentioned _by that name_ in Scripture any more than the "Trinity" is mentioned _by that name_ - yet as Matt pointed out in his book on Covenant Theology, what the term is used to describe is in fact specifically referred to in Scripture, namely as the "counsel of peace" (Zechariah 6:13).

With regard to its presence in the WCF, Fred Greco explained it succinctly and well in a previous thread:



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> That is because the Confession does not take a hard and fast distinction between the Covenant of Grace and Covenant of Redemption. It instead views the Covenant of Grace from two perspectives: visible/temporal and invisible/eternal.
> 
> There is no real substantive difference.





> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> It's really simple, and this is true of all Westminster Calvinists:
> 
> Either
> 1. There is a Covenant of Grace and a Covenant of Redemption, with the former including both elect and reprobate, and the latter only the elect. This was the position of Rutherford and others.
> 
> OR
> 
> 2. There is only a Covenant of Grace, with two aspects to the covenant, one external (including both elect and reprobate) and internal (including only the elect). This was the position of Thomas Boston and others.
> 
> There is no other position consistent with the Confession.



Personally, I do not have much need or desire to use the term "Covenant of Redemption," as I have found the internal/external distinction in the Covenant of Grace to be much more effective in getting what we are really talking about across to people. But attempting to biblically critique the aspects of Covenant Theology for which paedobaptists are arguing by saying, "The Covenant of Redemption isn't in Scripture, or even the WCF" truly does no more to what we are arguing for than a Jehovah's Witness pointing out that there is no use of the term "Trinity" in Scripture.

This _very_ issue was also discussed fairly recently here.


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Chris,


> Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
> Personally, I do not find a need to conjure up another covenant which is not named in the Bible. If the WCF can do without it, surely you can too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin, although we all of course agree that it is not mentioned by that name in Scripture any more than the "Trinity" is mentioned by that name - yet as Matt pointed out in his book on Covenant Theology, what the term is used to describe is in fact specifically referred to in Scripture, namely as the "counsel of peace" (Zechariah 6:13).
Click to expand...


I think one needs to be very careful about using the 'Trinity' argument. The Doctrine of the Trinity, like all other doctrines, is as true as Scripture makes it, and no further. In fact we all agree that the Bible teaches that there is one God in three Persons and it is a helpful shorthand to refer to it as the 'Trinity.' However, using the terms _Covenant of Grace_ and _Covenant of Redemption_ is very confusing, because these terms are *not* universally agreed. For example, I can agree wholeheartedly with the _Larger Catechism_ Q.31, but it is most unhelpful to be told, "Ah! That's not the CoG, that's the CoR!" when the Catechism itself clearly is speaking of the CoG.

In fact, of course, I deny that there is any Covenant made in eternity which has reference to the non-elect. Our Lord Himself makes it clear that the promises to children in the O.T. refer not to physical offspring, but to spiritual. John 6:45. *'It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught by God." Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.'* As one would expect, our Lord's words are reiterated by Paul (Rom 2:28-29; 4:11-12; Gal 3:7 etc).


> yet as Matt pointed out in his book on Covenant Theology, what the term is used to describe is in fact specifically referred to in Scripture, namely as the "counsel of peace" (Zechariah 6:13).



If you and/or Matthew are suggesting that there can be a 'Council' or 'Covenant' of Peace between the Lord and the non-elect, you are mistaken, because, *'"There is no peace," says my God, "For the wicked"'* (Isaiah 57:21 ).



> Personally, I do not have much need or desire to use the term "Covenant of Redemption," as I have found the internal/external distinction in the Covenant of Grace to be much more effective in getting what we are really talking about across to people.



I'm sure that you will find that your approach is more helpful, though that does not mean that I agree with it.


> But attempting to biblically critique the aspects of Covenant Theology for which paedobaptists are arguing by saying, "The Covenant of Redemption isn't in Scripture, or even the WCF" truly does no more to what we are arguing for than a Jehovah's Witness pointing out that there is no use of the term "Trinity" in Scripture.



As I said, be *very* careful how you use this argument. It could be used to justify the most awful, unbiblical heresy. I know it can be helpful, but we need to be exceedingly careful about inventing terms that cannot be found in the word of God. I can go with a CoW and a CoG because I can find the concept clearly in the Scriptures (Rom 5:12ff etc), but a CoR is a step too far!

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Martin, _I'll let others explain_, but your post is the empitome of "I have no idea what Covenant Theology teaches." Honestly.

No on ever said that God has an eternal counsel with the non-elect called the Counsel of Peace. (?????) I'd first find out WHAT Covenant Theology teaches before trying to piece together what you THINK Covenant Theology teaches. It would help all around. If you read "A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology" there is no way you would say what you said in this last post. Not only would Covenant Theologians not agree with your assessment, but they would be upset that you are posing false information as if you knew what you were talking about. If you ask me to explain, I'd direct you to actually read _slowly_ ASOCT instead of skimming it.


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Martin, _I'll let others explain_, but your post is the empitome of "I have no idea what Covenant Theology teaches." Honestly.
> 
> No on ever said that God has an eternal counsel with the non-elect called the Counsel of Peace. (?????) I'd first find out WHAT Covenant Theology teaches before trying to piece together what you THINK Covenant Theology teaches. It would help all around. If you read "A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology" there is no way you would say what you said in this last post. Not only would Covenant Theologians not agree with your assessment, but they would be upset that you are posing false information as if you knew what you were talking about. If you ask me to explain, I'd direct you to actually read _slowly_ ASOCT instead of skimming it.



Matthew,
I was replying to what Chris wrote, and prefaced my remarks with the word *'If'.* If you actualy read the post instead of getting in a tizzy and firing off ad homs, it would be beneficial. 

I have read your _Simple Overview_ and critiqued it at some length on a previous thread as you well know.
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=13984&page=1

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Martin, _I'll let others explain_, but your post is the empitome of "I have no idea what Covenant Theology teaches." Honestly.
> 
> No on ever said that God has an eternal counsel with the non-elect called the Counsel of Peace. (?????) I'd first find out WHAT Covenant Theology teaches before trying to piece together what you THINK Covenant Theology teaches. It would help all around. If you read "A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology" there is no way you would say what you said in this last post. Not only would Covenant Theologians not agree with your assessment, but they would be upset that you are posing false information as if you knew what you were talking about. If you ask me to explain, I'd direct you to actually read _slowly_ ASOCT instead of skimming it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew,
> I was replying to what Chris wrote, and prefaced my remarks with the word *'If'.* If you actualy read the post instead of getting in a tizzy and firing off ad homs, it would be beneficial.
> 
> I have read your _Simple Overview_ and critiqued it at some length on a previous thread as you well know.
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin
Click to expand...




> .......you and/or Matthew are suggesting



martin,
Even if you were replying to Chris, you included Dr. McMahon in the response; to which he responded.


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> I think one needs to be very careful about using the 'Trinity' argument. The Doctrine of the Trinity, like all other doctrines, is as true as Scripture makes it, and no further. In fact we all agree that the Bible teaches that there is one God in three Persons and it is a helpful shorthand to refer to it as the 'Trinity.' However, using the terms _Covenant of Grace_ and _Covenant of Redemption_ is very confusing, because these terms are *not* universally agreed.



I agree we must certainly be careful in making sure it does not become a meaningless mantra or sorts, and that it is not used to justify any random doctrine that pops up. But not everyone who calls themselves "Christians" agrees on the Trinity - and even though you and I both agree they are not in fact Christians if they truly understand and believe what they are claiming, they are there nonetheless. My sole point is simply that universal agreement on a term not mentioned verbatim in Scripture, even by all truly orthodox believers, is not _required_ for the term to truly represent a biblical concept - otherwise we could not even use any specific terms to refer to either of the five points!



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> For example, I can agree wholeheartedly with the _Larger Catechism_ Q.31, but it is most unhelpful to be told, "Ah! That's not the CoG, that's the CoR!" when the Catechism itself clearly is speaking of the CoG.



Again, here is one example of the fact that the Assembly ultimately adopted the view of Boston rather than Rutherford for the language of the Confession - namely referring only to the Covenant of Grace, but with an internal and external aspect respectively, rather than referring to a Covenant of Redemption and a Covenant of Grace respectively. And like Scripture, the Confession was written to be read as a whole, every part in light of every other part - and in doing so, those two different aspects of the Covenant of Grace come out just as definitely as if the Covenant of Grace/Covenant of Redemption language had been used.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> In fact, of course, I deny that there is any Covenant made in eternity which has reference to the non-elect. Our Lord Himself makes it clear that the promises to children in the O.T. refer not to physical offspring, but to spiritual.



I would agree with these statements as they refer to the internal aspect of the Covenant of Grace (or the Covenant of Redemption). But I would also say that to stop there is an over-simplification biblically - for we all agree that the non-elect have no place or promises in the invisible Church. But to automatically conclude that the visible Church is the exact same story simply does not follow.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> John 6:45. *'It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught by God." Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.'* As one would expect, our Lord's words are reiterated by Paul (Rom 2:28-29; 4:11-12; Gal 3:7 etc).



This is an excellent example of how there are different senses or aspects of the same phrase, and how such phrases are used in different ways (often without explicit qualification) just as much by Scripture as by the Confession.

Here we are told that "everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to [Christ]." But you and I would both surely agree that every person, elect and reprobate alike, has heard from and learned of God and of His character and Law through general revelation. Yet we both equally agree that that is not the kind of "hearing" this passage is referring to, but that it is only referring to those who hear and learn from God via _special revelation_.

But this passage does not explicitly clarify that it is referring to that kind of hearing, and not the learning of general revelation. In fact, on first glance it may seem to be referring to both, since it explicitly refers simply to "everyone who has heard and learned." So why do you and I believe that it is only referring to hearing and learning through special revelation, and excludes general revelation? Because of our systematic theology, coming from viewing this verse in light of the whole of Scripture and every other verse. So it is with the mention of the Covenant of Grace in the Confession. It does not distinguish between the internal and external aspects any more explicitly than Jesus distinguished between special and general revelation in His statement - yet that Confessional distinction (which is at heart equivalent to the distinction between the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace) is clearly seen when each reference is viewed in light of the theology of the Confession as a whole.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> yet as Matt pointed out in his book on Covenant Theology, what the term is used to describe is in fact specifically referred to in Scripture, namely as the "counsel of peace" (Zechariah 6:13).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you and/or Matthew are suggesting that there can be a 'Council' or 'Covenant' of Peace between the Lord and the non-elect, you are mistaken, because, *'"There is no peace," says my God, "For the wicked"'* (Isaiah 57:21 ).
Click to expand...


As Matt pointed out above, this is truly a very basic misunderstanding of what we are claiming. For as he explained in his book, and as I tried to make clear in my previous post, the essence of the "counsel of peace" corresponds to what we call the Covenant of Redemption (or the internal aspect of the Covenant of Grace), not the Covenant of Grace (or the external aspect of the Covenant of Grace) - for the counsel of peace in Zechariah 6 speaks of a counsel between the Father and the Son with specific reference to the Son as the "priest," as we know that His work as our high priest is concerned with His redemption on the Cross, which is solely for the elect; hence our understanding of the eternal pact between the Father and the Son being concerned with the elect alone, and thus it being an _invisible_ (or internal, or eternal) one in nature, not having reference as such to the _visible_ (or external, or temporal) Church.




> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> 
> But attempting to biblically critique the aspects of Covenant Theology for which paedobaptists are arguing by saying, "The Covenant of Redemption isn't in Scripture, or even the WCF" truly does no more to what we are arguing for than a Jehovah's Witness pointing out that there is no use of the term "Trinity" in Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, be *very* careful how you use this argument. It could be used to justify the most awful, unbiblical heresy. I know it can be helpful, but we need to be exceedingly careful about inventing terms that cannot be found in the word of God.
Click to expand...


Agreed.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> I can go with a CoW and a CoG because I can find the concept clearly in the Scriptures (Rom 5:12ff etc), but a CoR is a step too far!



Do you believe in the counsel of peace from Zechariah 6 being in essence what I described it as above, referring to a pact in eternity past between the Father and the Son with specific reference to the Son's priestly role?



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin



Same to you, brother.


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Chris,


> [quote}
> Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
> For example, I can agree wholeheartedly with the Larger Catechism Q.31, but it is most unhelpful to be told, "Ah! That's not the CoG, that's the CoR!" when the Catechism itself clearly is speaking of the CoG.



Again, here is one example of the fact that the Assembly ultimately adopted the view of Boston rather than Rutherford for the language of the Confession - namely referring only to the Covenant of Grace, but with an internal and external aspect respectively, rather than referring to a Covenant of Redemption and a Covenant of Grace respectively. And like Scripture, the Confession was written to be read as a whole, every part in light of every other part - and in doing so, those two different aspects of the Covenant of Grace come out just as definitely as if the Covenant of Grace/Covenant of Redemption language had been used. [/quote]

When I speak of the Covenant of Grace, I speak of it as it is found in the BCF 1689. 7:2-3. This is also how the WCF Larger Catechism speaks of it in Q31.

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._

As I wrote above,


> In fact, of course, I deny that there is any Covenant made in eternity which has reference to the non-elect. Our Lord Himself makes it clear that the promises to children in the O.T. refer not to physical offspring, but to spiritual. John 6:45. 'It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught by God." Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.' As one would expect, our Lord's words are reiterated by Paul (Rom 2:28-29; 4:11-12; Gal 3:7 etc).



To this you replied:-


> Here we are told that "everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to [Christ]." But you and I would both surely agree that every person, elect and reprobate alike, has heard from and learned of God and of His character and Law through general revelation. Yet we both equally agree that that is not the kind of "hearing" this passage is referring to, but that it is only referring to those who hear and learn from God via special revelation.



Well no, actually I don't agree. In John 6:45, the emphasis is on the learning. Everybody 'hears' of God in general revelation (Psalm 19:1-4 ), but not everybody 'learns' of Him through it. Paul refers to this in Rom 1:19-20. The first step in my own conversion was actually general revelation. Obviously, one then needs the special revelation of Scripture, but our Lord is speaking of the learning, the 'Effectual Call' of God, which can come in many ways, but inevitably draws one to Christ.

I am sorry I misunderstood you about the 'Council of Peace.' You seemed to be referring to an 'external' covenant at that point. I thought it seemed a bit strange!

You continued:-


> hence our understanding of the eternal pact between the Father and the Son being concerned with the elect alone, and thus it being an invisible (or internal, or eternal) one in nature, not having reference as such to the visible (or external, or temporal) Church.



As you may be aware, I believe that this is a false dichotome. A church is an assembly of Christians and it is visible. A church is the people portrayed in Acts 2:44-47 and 1Cor 1:2-9 and it must be kept pure. As it is written, *'Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.'*


> Do you believe in the counsel of peace from Zechariah 6 being in essence what I described it as above, referring to a pact in eternity past between the Father and the Son with specific reference to the Son's priestly role?


Yes, but I refer to it as the Covenant of Grace, which is where the confusion lies.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## non dignus

Forgive me if I''m being a pest,

_"As it is written, 'Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.' "_

Are you saying the baby Isaac was in the external covenant???


----------



## CDM

> So when you say "oh, its a new KIND of covenant," you first need to define what the non-negotiable parts of a "covenant" are, so that you have some kind of baseline from which to explain _how_ the new covenant is NEW, but still a COVENANT.



Absolutely. Thank you for focusing on this point. Many here can benefit if we direct our energies on WHAT IS the new covenant. As a preemptive follow-up question, I'd like to ask, for clarity, how unbelievers can be part of the New Covenant administration?


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> Forgive me if I''m being a pest,



Not in the least.


> _"As it is written, 'Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.' "_
> 
> Are you saying the baby Isaac was in the external covenant???



No. Paul, not I, is saying that Isaac is in the covenant and Ishmael (the son of the bondwoman) isn't (cf. Gen 17:18-19 ). As you may have gathered, I do not accept the internal/external, visible/invisible distinctions so popular among Presbyterians.

You might like to look at the _Isaiah 54_ thread on the _Covenant Theology_ forum.

Blessings,

Martin


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> 
> 
> 
> So when you say "oh, its a new KIND of covenant," you first need to define what the non-negotiable parts of a "covenant" are, so that you have some kind of baseline from which to explain _how_ the new covenant is NEW, but still a COVENANT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely. Thank you for focusing on this point. Many here can benefit if we direct our energies on WHAT IS the new covenant. As a preemptive follow-up question, I'd like to ask, for clarity, *how unbelievers can be part of the New Covenant administration?*
Click to expand...

In the way no different from the inclusion of unbelievers in the Old Covenant administration. They experienced the external aspects, but took no real part in the spiritual. Faithless Israelites received nothing of eternal value from God. They "ate and drank judgment to themselves." Same goes for those who are attached to the New Covenant outwardly, but have no blessed experience of grace.




This isn't especially relevant to our exchange, but I was looking for a place to post it: just something attributed to Spurgeon, a good quote (kind of contextless) but well spoken, as far as it goes--


> The doctrine of the covenant lies at the root of all true theology. It has been said that he who well understands the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, is a master of diviniity. I am persuaded that most of the mistakes which men make concerning the doctrines of Scripture, are based upon fundamental errors with regard to the covenant of law and of grace.
> Charles Haddon Spurgeon, _Sermons on the Covenant,_ Wilmington, DE, Cross Publishing, 1980), 5.
> 
> (quoted in "The Covenant Idea in Irenaeus of Lyons: An Introduction and Survey," by Ligon Duncan)



[Edited on 1-6-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------

