# John 1:12-13 & baptism revisited



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 14, 2008)

In a recent post examining John 1:12-13 it has been proposed that John was positing “a qualitative difference between the constitutional makeup of the Old Covenant people of God...and the New Covenant people...”, in that “[God] has indicated through the pen of His inspired apostle that warrant for inclusion within His ‘covenant household’ (see Eph. 2:19) is predicated on faith and the new birth, no longer on natural descent.”

Thus averring the New Covenant revelation ceased the inclusion of infants, as natural descent _had_ been the ground of it, but was no more.

The author of these remarks, Dr. Bob Gonzales, in another post (#14) on this same thread, stated,

I agree that this text does not by itself forbid infant baptism. It does positively teach that legal warrant for membership in the New Covenant community is no longer predicated on one's blood ties to Abraham (v. 13) but on one's faith in Jesus Christ (v. 12). So it does provide positive warrant for believer baptism. Of course, the mere absence of a prohibition against infant baptism is not warrant for the practice according to the RPW.​
The concept of “legal right” (from the Greek _exousia_ in John 1:12) plays large in Dr. Bob’s view:

The passage predicates the divine conferral of a legal covenantal status no longer on natural descent but on supernatural descent, the fruit and evidence of which is saving faith in Jesus Christ. (Post #57)​
-----

The real question is one of *divinely bestowed legal warrant* (John 1:12). What the Credobaptist avers is that this demand for a credible profession of faith as the warrant for inclusion within God's New Covenant family _is not a substantial continuation of the state of affairs under the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants with, of course, a few minor changes, like the switch from circumcision to baptism and from the Passover to the Lord's Supper_. It is, rather, _a new state of affairs_ from a redemptive-historical standpoint. Hence, *the church and her leadership is no longer warranted by God to include physical seed in the covenant by virtue of mere blood-ties to believing parents*. To those who receive Christ and to those alone does God grant _de jure_ the privilege of New Covenant member status. [All emphases BG’s] (Ibid.)​
Before I begin my comments I would like to show two more statements by Dr. Bob:

[W]hat once characterized only a remnant within God's Old Covenant family will now be the rule characterizing the members of the New Covenant family.​
-----

I differ somewhat with Paedobaptists, however, in my explanation for the presence of non-believers in the New Covenant community. I hold that non-believers may be members of the New Covenant community _de facto_ but not _de jure_. That is, they have no warrant to be in the covenant family because the spiritual promises of the New Covenant do not belong to them. Once their true colors show (via apostasy, heretical teaching, scandalous sin, etc.), they should be removed. With regard to infants, since they are unable to provide any credible evidence of a profession of faith in Christ, which is elsewhere in Scripture represented as a sign of regeneration and a prerequisite for baptism, I do not believe I have the warrant to grant them entrance into the New Covenant community though they would have had warrant for entrance into the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant communities. (Post #83)​
I appreciate Dr. Bob’s well-thought-out and irenic presentation of the believers-only-baptism position.

What I would like to start with is a look at the status of “God’s Old Covenant family”. Dr. Bob has stated that there is

a qualitative difference between the constitutional makeup of the Old Covenant people of God...and the New Covenant people...”, in that “[God] has indicated through the pen of His inspired apostle that warrant for inclusion within His ‘covenant household’ (see Eph. 2:19) is predicated on faith and the new birth, no longer on natural descent.​
And,

The passage predicates the divine conferral of a legal covenantal status no longer on natural descent but on supernatural descent, the fruit and evidence of which is saving faith in Jesus Christ....*the church and her leadership is no longer warranted by God to include physical seed in the covenant by virtue of mere blood-ties to believing parents*. [Emphasis BG’s] (Post #57)​
I remark that it was *never* the case that God included “physical seed in the covenant by virtue of *mere* blood-ties to believing parents”! [my emphasis –SMR] 

Looking back on Abraham and his seed, Paul in Romans 4:12 says of Abraham that he was

...the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision *only*, _but who walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised_. [emphasis mine –SMR] (AV – all Scripture quotes are from the AV unless otherwise noted)

NASB: “…who are not only of the circumcision, but who also follow the steps of the faith of our father Abraham...”

ESV: “...who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith...”​
Paul in Romans 9:6 and 8 famously says,

For they are not all Israel who are of Israel....That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.​
And again, in Romans 2:28 and 29,

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.​
The significance of these sayings is that *those physical descendants of Abraham who were not believers were not counted as “the seed”, nor were they counted as Israel, or as Jews!* Concerning those who live as breakers of the law, their “circumcision is made uncircumcision.” (Ro 2:25)

In Jeremiah 9:25 and 26 it is written,

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised;

Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.​
In the _un_circumcised-in-heart house of Israel, which God did not recognize as His people, there remained a believing and faithful remnant, which was Israel indeed.

Scripture is clear that those who were unbelieving, who were without faith, though they were the seed of Abraham after the flesh, were not the seed.

So when I see it asserted that warrant for membership in New Covenant Israel is no longer based on blood ties of natural descent as per the old dispensation, but strictly on faith in Christ and the new birth, I must object and answer that inclusion into God’s house has always been by faith, and not natural descent. Those who were but Abraham’s seed after the flesh were not included in His covenant household, though they may have appeared to be.

Those who were not of faith had neither _de facto_ (as a matter of fact) nor _de jure_ (as a matter of right) membership in the Old Covenant house of God. When the LORD spoke through Moses saying to the multitude of Israel, “Ye are the children of the Lord your God....For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth” (Deut 14:1, 2), He was not addressing those whose father was the devil, who were the reprobate, though they were among the house of Israel. What they had was *an appearance* of being the _tekna Theou_ (children of God), but in fact rotten grapes on the vine of Israel. This is the purport of the apostle Paul’s making distinction between true and false Jews, being Israel or merely _of_ Israel.

Will it be said that they were _de facto_ members by virtue of their presence in the camp? And that they had the right to enter the temple to worship? They were imposters, known to God, and were considered by Him uncircumcised, as it is written: “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh” (Ro 2:28), and, “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord” (Prov 15:8), even his thoughts and prayer are abomination! (Prov 15:26, 28:9). No, their presence in the camp, and names on the scrolls of their tribes, are as vessels in a great house, some for use unto honor and some unto dishonor (2 Tim 2:20), some unto mercy, and some unto wrath, these latter “endured [by God] with much longsuffering” (Rom 9:22, 23). Just as the Jewish state of our day is an imposter “Israel”, so these reprobates were imposter Israelites. The Israel of God was holy.

The unbelievers within the house of Israel had membership neither by right nor by fact. They were tares among the wheat, or to switch metaphors, but chaff. So things did not change regarding membership in the New Covenant house of Israel. It was the same. Only those of faith are counted as the seed.

Note that the house of God in the New Covenant is the house of Israel, our king sitting on the throne of David. In Amos 9:11–15 the LORD speaks through the prophet concerning the latter days, 

In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: 

That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. (verses 11, 12)​
In the remaining three verses there appear to be prophecies concerning material blessings and promise pertaining to the land, but in Acts 15:13 ff. where James is addressing the Jerusalem council, we see him applying the Amos passage to the _spiritual_ blessings given the New Covenant house of Israel and the Gentiles which had been included into it. This hermeneutic principle shows that the material blessings promised to Israel under the Old Covenant were typical of the spiritual blessings awaiting the New Covenant house of Israel.

The material blessings, and the land promises, never were realized by Old Testament Israel – save for those periods of prosperity under David and Solomon, which themselves were types of the blessings to be received in the kingdom of David’s greater Son – and we are not to say that God’s promises failed, but that they were pictures, shadows, of the spiritual blessings promised Abraham. The church of God in the Old Covenant (Acts 7:38) was essentially the same as the church in the New, and all the promises were spiritual, painted in temporal garb.

Lest anyone object to the OT people of God being called the church (_ekklesia_), which is easier, to call old Israel the church, or to call the new church Israel? They are one body, one people, saved the same way – regenerated, justified by faith, through grace; in Galatians 3 it shows old Israel as a child under tutors, and then as a man after being renewed in faith in Christ – he is one person. When Paul speaks, he speaks as a bridge between the two ages of Israel: “...the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ...after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (vv, 24, 25).

When Peter was preaching on Solomon’s Porch (Acts 3), reiterating Moses’ warning in Deuteronomy 18:19, that whoever did not heed the Prophet (Messiah) would “be destroyed from among the people”, at that moment God revealed His judgment: as with a great cleaver cutting gristle from meat, He cut off from the people of Israel all those who in wicked unbelief denied Christ. Israel was now constituted of those who bowed the knee to the resurrected king, be they Jew or Gentile.

This is why Paul can use the terminology he does in Ephesians, telling the Gentiles that in time past they were “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel”, but now, having cleaved to Christ, they “are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God...” (Eph 2:12, 19). And again, in Hebrews 3, he says that it is one house, Moses being a servant in it, but Christ the Son and builder – “whose house we are” (Heb 3:2–6).

To sum (for the moment): God’s Israel in the Old Covenant was spiritual, with the promises of material and land blessings pictures of the spiritual blessings that would be theirs in Messiah.

We in Israel today “circumcise” our children according to the command given our father Abraham. The sacraments of baptism and circumcision “are God’s word to his elect by which God signifies and seals the promises of his covenant....[they are] instituted by God to be added to the preaching as signs and seals of the truth of the gospel.” *

Is not the promise of the Old Covenant the same as that of the New? Listen: 

And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. (Deut 30:6)​
In the Israel of God we rejoice in this word even today, in 2008.

-----

* From Herman Hanko's _We And Our Children: The Reformed Doctrine of Infant Baptism_ (RFPA 2004), p. 54.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Oct 14, 2008)

My dear brother Steve,

Someone recently made me aware of your post, and I've genuinely enjoyed reading it. I think you've offered one of the most comprehensive answers to my initial question (How does a Paedo-Baptist interpret this text?) and well-thought rejoinders to my Credo-Baptist exposition and application of the passage to the question of infant baptism. I sincerely commend you, and I think I owe you a response, especially since you evidently put some time and prayer into this post. 

Unfortunately, I've become backlogged with seminary, church, and family responsibilities (having been gone for a week). Moreover, I still have some unfinished business on another thread on the PB, as well as replies to posts on other discussion lists to which I subscribe. Additionally, I want to give your argument careful and prayerful reflection before replying. In the meantime, my fellow RB brothers are welcome to chime in. Also, I've posted my exposition and application of John 1:12-13 on RBS Tabletalk and give you permission to paste your post as a comment or add the link to this cite. 

Your brother in Christ,


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 14, 2008)

Thanks, Bob —

I'm also very busy with various responsibilities, so a leisurely response time-frame suits me perfectly as well.

Steve


----------



## CharlieJ (Oct 14, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> I remark that it was *never* the case that God included “physical seed in the covenant by virtue of *mere* blood-ties to believing parents”! [my emphasis –SMR]
> 
> .......
> 
> ...



Steve, I've been thinking about this for a while. We know that the OT law prescribes for idolaters to be cut off from the people. We also know that the nations of Israel and Judah did not do so. In fact, the Northern Kingdom had an extremely high level of apostasy.

If things are as you say - at least as I understood you - and God considered them basically just like the rest of the unbelieving world, then why all the prophets and the calls to repentance? Why does he still call "his people" back to fellowship with him when they have been apostate for generations? By then wouldn't they have forfeited the right to the covenant?

I suppose an answer could be that God is doing it for the sake of a faithful remnant, which makes sense. However, I still wonder what to make of Romans 11:28-29?

28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 

Is this speaking of an ethnic Israel? If so, doesn't it show that the national/generational aspects of the covenant of God are not dependent on belief?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 14, 2008)

Of course, it is for the remnant. It is for the believers. Define the "church" for me in the days _before_ Christ's ministry: it is coextensive with the national entity, Israel. The identity is an inseparable one. There's the visible church. There are false professors in that church. But not everyone is false, not everyone is non-elect, reprobate. Here's one who is "loved for the sake of the fathers", and certainly not his immediate father, but the fathers of faith, in particular Abraham, Isaac and Jacob:


> 1Ki 14:1 At that time Abijah the son of Jeroboam fell sick.
> 1Ki 14:2 And Jeroboam said to his wife, "Arise, and disguise yourself, that it not be known that you are the wife of Jeroboam, and go to Shiloh. Behold, Ahijah the prophet is there, who said of me that I should be king over this people.
> 1Ki 14:3 Take with you ten loaves, some cakes, and a jar of honey, and go to him. He will tell you what shall happen to the child."
> 1Ki 14:4 Jeroboam's wife did so. She arose and went to Shiloh and came to the house of Ahijah. Now Ahijah could not see, for his eyes were dim because of his age.
> ...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 14, 2008)

Hi Charlie,

You said,

If things are as you say - at least as I understood you - and God considered them basically just like the rest of the unbelieving world, then why all the prophets and the calls to repentance? Why does he still call "his people" back to fellowship with him when they have been apostate for generations? By then wouldn't they have forfeited the right to the covenant?​
They _were_ as the rest of the unbelieving world – uncircumcised in heart – and yet were in the sphere of the covenant nation; they had the oracles of God, the worship, the promises. Were there elect among the wicked, either backslidden or yet uncalled? All those in the sphere of the covenant who did not walk with God were being evangelized, and as you say, called to repentance.

In Exodus 20:6, after saying He would visit the iniquity of the fathers on children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Him, He says His way is also "shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." We know from Deut 7:9 He means "to a thousand generations". Now figure, to _this_ day in 2008 there have been perhaps 88 generations (if we give 40 years per generation) since the time of Moses (roughly 3,500 years); and He said He would be showing mercy till a _thousand!_ So, yes, He was working His elective purposes, even among an adulterous and wicked generation, calling His people to Himself through prophets, teaching priests, &etc. _I_ am a Jew, of the tribe of Levi, and could it be that one of my ancient ancestors loved the LORD, and in the line of generations of that one, the Lord showed mercy to this wretch?

You say,

I suppose an answer could be that God is doing it for the sake of a faithful remnant, which makes sense. However, I still wonder what to make of Romans 11:28-29?

28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.​
Is this speaking of an ethnic Israel? If so, doesn't it show that the national/generational aspects of the covenant of God are not dependent on belief?​
Do you have Wm. Hendriksen's commentary on Romans available to you, or Herman Hoeksema's, _Righteous By Faith Alone_? These both handle this portion of Romans well, in my view.

The Jews are the enemies of God _"for your sakes"_, that Christ is made available for the Gentiles, and they be grafted in to the olive tree of Israel; but as touching the election they are beloved for the fathers' sakes, that is Abraham's, and those to whom the covenant promises were made. Every time a Jew converts to Christ these promises are fulfilled, and these of the election are beloved. The calling pertains to the election.

I would say he is speaking of world Jewry, whether in Palestine or scattered throughout the world. The promise to love to the thousandth generation (I think He will return before that time is fulfilled) no doubt pertains to the generations descending from Abraham, Jacob, David – all the godly Israelites – _as well as to_ those descending from godly Gentile families.

I do not believe a national covenant of God exists for those who apostatized from Israel – who were cut off as noted above – even though the Lord clearly has His hand on scattered Jews here and there throughout the world, calling them to Himself. I know Messianic Jews laboring in Palestine to bring the knowledge of Messiah to the people, Jew and Arab both. These Messianic Jews are often harshly persecuted.

All the promises of the covenants were fulfilled in the Seed, Jesus of Nazareth. And those in Him are fellow heirs with Him of the Kingdom of everlasting glory.

I sometimes wonder what the great Sovereign had in mind allowing the Baptist doctrine to flourish, instead of causing it to cease, as He did with other errors. And this comes to me: Sometimes those who hold to the Presbyterian and Reformed view of salvation coming primarily through the line of generations – through godly families – tend not to fulfill the Great Commission and go out into the world to call the lost (of course some P&R churches vigorously reach out to the lost world – I think of my church in Manhattan, Redeemer PCA); but Baptists now, they are gung ho in that respect. They go into the highways and byways. They are the Lord's evangelists. It is written in Daniel 12:3,

And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.​
It may well be that many Baptists will outshine Presbyterians in the glorious kingdom.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 14, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> So when I see it asserted that warrant for membership in New Covenant Israel is no longer based on blood ties of natural descent as per the old dispensation, but strictly on faith in Christ and the new birth, I must object and answer that inclusion into God’s house has always been by faith, and not natural descent. Those who were but Abraham’s seed after the flesh were not included in His covenant household, though they may have appeared to be.


 and 

Sometimes what disturbs me most about arguments trying to establish the New Covenant as not only better but as a whole new species is what they are forced to paint the people in the Old Covenant as being about. This is why paedobaptists repeatedly insist that most arguments for the baptism of professors alone must contend with the issue of paedo-circumcision to establish the credibility of the argument. It seems to me that it's easier just to devalue the significance of circumcision.

It's _always_ been about salvation by faith alone in Christ's work alone. Is it really any wonder why the Ishmaelites and Edomites no longer circumcised their offspring after the apostasy of their forefathers? Why shouldn't Ishmael's descendants still circumcise if, as argued, he was circumcised simply because he was Abraham's offspring and for on other significant reason? The only time you hear about a notion of the Covenant belonging to men by way of crass natural descent is when it is being roundly condemned by the Prophets, by Christ, and by the Apostles.


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 14, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Is it really any wonder why the Ishmaelites and Edomites no longer circumcised their offspring after the apostasy of their forefathers? Why shouldn't Ishmael's descendants still circumcise if, as argued, he was circumcised simply because he was Abraham's offspring and for on other significant reason?



Help me out Rich. I thought the Ishmaelites and the other descendants of Abraham continued to practice circumcision. That's what the Muslims claim, anyway.

I've probably missed something obvious.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 14, 2008)

victorbravo said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Is it really any wonder why the Ishmaelites and Edomites no longer circumcised their offspring after the apostasy of their forefathers? Why shouldn't Ishmael's descendants still circumcise if, as argued, he was circumcised simply because he was Abraham's offspring and for on other significant reason?
> ...



I might be wrong about Ishmaelites but there's certainly not any evidence in the Sriptures that they continued to do so at least. It's hard to trust a Muslim's history of events on these things. The Saudis claim Ishmael especially. I had a Saudi Officer once present the history of his country going back to the time in "history" when Abraham took his son Ishmael to a mountain in Saudi Arabia to sacrifice him on an altar at Allah's command. Allah stayed Abraham's hand right before he sacrificed him.

After the country brief, one of the U.S. Officers said: "Hey, that's just like in the Bible!"
"Not quite", I replied.


----------



## VictorBravo (Oct 14, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I might be wrong about Ishmaelites but there's certainly not any evidence in the Sriptures that they continued to do so at least. It's hard to trust a Muslim's history of events on these things. The Saudis claim Ishmael especially. I had a Saudi Officer once present the history of his country going back to the time in "history" when Abraham took his son Ishmael to a mountain in Saudi Arabia to sacrifice him on an altar at Allah's command. Allah stayed Abraham's hand right before he sacrificed him.



Right, I've heard similar stories. I even had lunch once with an Iraqi officer sitting in the shade of a tank in the town of Ur. The birthplace of Abraham. He pointed out a stump and said it was the oak tree under which Abraham sat before leaving on his journey east.

There are pieces of the oak tree all over the middle east. Sort of like relics of the cross. 

OK, back to the topic. I agree with you re the red herring issue that tries to ignore faith in the OC. I was noting that the Muslims seem to follow the same error (they are in the covenant, or at least some covenant, merely because they are circumcised).


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 14, 2008)

Hello JB/Steve,
I would like to interact with your post. Much of what you have posted all bible based christians should welcome as truth. For sure most of us who post on the PB agree on the meaning of these verses,but we have noticed in times past that we seem to view some of the ideas differently.
What was to be done to physical Jews[ the sign of circumcision] was to uphold the nation as a type of the Holy nation of God. EX19:4-6 1Pet2:9.
The fact that not all Israel was of Israel has always been the case as you point out. The sign continued until the cross. 
A change takes place at the cross. Some things remain the same.Some change.


> 10Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.



One of the things that changed among the outward, physical types was circumcision. [The sign and seal] looking forward to the reality that is Christ,His person and work.
Here in Acts 15:1,24 we know the relationship of the sign and seal, along with the relationship of new converts to the ceremonial law was addressed.

The apostles did not say that baptism replaced circumcision here, which would have solved the issue we debate frequently. Even later on in Acts 21 we read this;


> 20And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
> 
> 21And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.


Clearly they speak of the change, that is the reformation Hebrews speaks of. 
And it is clear they understood that there was a change in the way children were spoken about. How else would you understand the language of verse 21 ? If water baptism was a replacement sign, it would not have came across as it did to them who relied on the outward carnal ordinance/circumcision.
If water baptism were simply the "new sign and seal" still looking forward to Christ, they again would have, or should have just plainly said it was so.
The fact that baptism is speaking more of Identification with, or into by those who God allows to see and hear Christ, savingly is indeed a change,or reformation.
The actual covenant promise of Christ to the seed of Abrahams does not change at all.What has changed is that now the seed of Abraham identifies through faitgh that the promise fulfilled to Jesus, psalm 16:10-11 Acts 2:31-41
is now a reality for all who believe
You-who believe
Your Children-[who believe]

Those who are afar off-[who believe]
as many as the Lord shall call- effectually[ in that they believe]

Steve, you quote from Jer.9r was right on the money when you say this; 


> In Jeremiah 9:25 and 26 it is written,
> 
> Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised;
> 
> ...



But, at this point you object by saying this;


> I must object and answer that inclusion into God’s house has always been by faith, and not natural descent. Those who were but Abraham’s seed after the flesh were not included in His covenant household, though they may have appeared to be.


I agree with this statement because of the typology of Israel as a holy nation. Israel was to be the covenant Son, but they failed nationally.
God keeps a remnant- This remnant was kept until the True Covenant Son, The True Israel came in the incarnation. Your quote of Hebrews 3 :1-6 only makes sense if in the NT. time The true Holy nation is spoken of,and that by new birth,being born of the Spirith. 1Pet 1:22- 2:9
The reality of the one new man in Christ ,


Although salvation is always the work of God, there is a difference in how the Spirit indwells the believer's now.


> 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.


 It is The Spirit who seals us,unto the day of redemption.
If there was no change at all as some declare, why not just stay with Circumcision?
Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness. That is why we are told in Col 2


> 10And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
> 
> 11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:


Regeneration solves the puzzle as the anti type. We who believe by God given faith welcome the reality of all the Living word has done for us, and to us. So when you say this; 


> The sacraments of baptism and circumcision “are God’s word to his elect by which God signifies and seals the promises of his covenant....[they are] instituted by God to be added to the preaching as signs and seals of the truth of the gospel.” *


I think you have trouble with the language of Acts15, and Acts 21 that I cited above.


When you say:


> We in Israel today “circumcise” our children according to the command given our father Abraham.


Peter does not preach that, instead he preaches what is the promise this way; 


> 29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
> 
> 30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
> 
> ...


This is what we are told signifies and seals the promises.Iconoclast


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 15, 2008)

Hello Anthony,

I can't spend too much time on this now, as I've got to prepare for a Bible Study on Job this evening — so here goes. (I'm sorry if I can't respond to your entire post.)

I wonder why you are relating circumcision to Heb 9:10 and the ceremonial law. Continuing in this vein I'm not sure what you are getting at when you say, "Here in Acts 15:1,24 we know the relationship of the sign and seal, along with the relationship of new converts to the ceremonial law was addressed."

Would you please explain to me in what way "the sign and seal" was addressed by the council, save in that it was not required? Why was it not required? Is it not because it had been replaced (though they did not overtly state this, as you note) by another covenantal sign, the Gentiles not being obligated to observe Mosaic law?

In the beginning of this same paragraph you say, "One of the things that changed among the outward, physical types was circumcision. [The sign and seal] looking forward to the reality that is Christ, His person and work."

When you say circumcision was an "outward, physical type" that was changed, are you contrasting it to baptism? Is not baptism also outward and physical? Do they not _both_ signify an inward spiritual reality? Are you saying circumcision was merely — _only_ — an outward type?

When you say (I assume you are talking of circumcision), "[The sign and seal] looking forward to the reality that is Christ, His person and work", what are you meaning? I want to make sure I understand you before answering!

If baptism did not replace circumcision, what is the relation between the two as regards each being a sign & seal of their respective administrations?

When you bring in Acts 21:21, again I'm not sure what you are getting at. The situation was there were thousands of Jews who believed in Christ _and_ were zealous of the law; these had been informed that Paul taught against Jews being circumcised, observing Moses, and the Jewish customs. Was it true? I like the way Ray Stedman's simple commentary (_When The Church Was Young_, Book 3) explains it:

Paul never taught a Jew to abandon Moses, or not to circumcise his children. What he strongly taught was that the _Gentiles_ should not be subject to these Jewish provisions. He would not allow them to come under the Jewish law, and insisted that they did not have to follow any of these Jewish provisions.

But he did not set aside the ritual for the Jews. Rather, he pointed out to them that the ritual was all symbolic, a picture pointing toward Christ. The very rituals they were performing and the sacrifices they were offering were all telling them of Jesus. Jesus' coming had filled out the picture drawn by the Old Testament sacrifices....The function of these Jewish rituals, then, was to remind them of what the Lord Jesus had come to do, and had done....There is no suggestion they should have stopped, or that it was wrong for them to do this, until God took the rituals away....Here Paul was following his own announced practice. He wrote that when he was with the Jews, he became as a Jew; when he was with the Gentiles, he became as a Gentile... 

The Jewish sacrifices ended when the temple was finally destroyed in A.D. 70, when the words of Jesus were fulfilled and Roman armies came and laid siege to the city. (pages 19-22)​
All this to say there was a transitional period between the Old and New Covenant times. Both baptism and circumcision were practiced by the Jews, although circumcision had no bearing on righteousness before God, as it did under the law, as well as — and especially — in the Abrahamic covenant, where it had been commanded for Abraham, his seed, and all the males in his house. It had been replaced by the non-bloody and universal sign (females and Gentiles included) of baptism.

Acts 21 does not prove anything about children no longer being brought into the covenant household through the sign and seal of God being placed upon them. It dealt with other things.

You stated, Anthony, that circumcision was an "outward carnal ordinance". Are you saying that what the LORD laid upon His friend Abraham was but that? It is written,

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised... (Ro 4:11)​
A seal given by God signifying righteousness is not a mere carnal ordinance!

You will forgive, I hope, my playfulness in saying earlier,



> We in Israel today “circumcise” our children according to the command given our father Abraham.



I figure folks who are used to typical language could appreciate it.

Gotta run!

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 20, 2008)

What of infants born into the new covenant house of Israel? We return to Dr. Bob’s concept of legal warrant. I would prefer just plain _warrant_, _right_, or _authority_, and even the King James’ _power_ is acceptable to me, given that the Greek is _exousia_ and understood to contain in its meanings _authority_. _Exousia_ used here is nuanced. Hengstenberg (in his commentary on John) says of its use in this place,

_Here_ power forms the antithesis to the absolute weakness and incapability of the man who lives out of Christ to attain to the sonship of God. (Vol 1, p. 40)​
And Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich’s _Lexicon_ (1979 edition) says of it’s use here, “_ability_ to do something, _capability, might, power_” (p. 278). Which is not to say _warrant_ is not correct, it is just not exclusively correct. So part of the _exousia_ given entails ability, along with right. I am a little uncomfortable with the word legal (though it has merit), as the right is as much ontologic (the right to be _*alive*_ in God, begotten of Him), as legally authorized to be alive unto and in Him. But I’m just quibbling over fine points.

Reviewing something Dr. Bob said,

I hold that non-believers may be members of the New Covenant community _de facto_ but not _de jure_. That is, they have no warrant to be in the covenant family because the spiritual promises of the New Covenant do not belong to them.... With regard to infants, since they are unable to provide any credible evidence of a profession of faith in Christ, which is elsewhere in Scripture represented as a sign of regeneration and a prerequisite for baptism, I do not believe I have the warrant to grant them entrance into the New Covenant community though they would have had warrant for entrance into the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant communities. (post #83)​
And Anthony said,

The actual covenant promise of Christ to the seed of Abrahams does not change at all. What has changed is that now the seed of Abraham identifies through faith that the promise fulfilled to Jesus, psalm 16:10-11 Acts 2:31-41
is now a reality for all who believe 
You-who believe
Your Children-[who believe] (post #11 above)​
I believe Anthony is getting at the same thing, namely, in the new covenant house of God (the house of Israel – correct nomenclature is crucial in these things!) the seed of Abraham is only identified by belief and a profession of faith, and he brings in Acts 2:31-41 in support of his view.

Let me start by saying that the LORD made a covenant not only with Abraham but with his seed: “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.”

And the nature of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed is that He would “...be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee” (Gen 17:7). The blessing of the covenant is partaking in the blessing given Abraham: the very friendship of God (Isaiah 41:8; 2 Chron 20:7; James 2:23).

Nor was it a covenant of mere external, material blessing (as noted above in my earlier post), made to a partly unbelieving nation – a “mixed bag” of people – but it was made to the genuine seed of Abraham, those of faith, those “children of promise [who] are counted for the seed.” (Ro 9:8)

Moses makes plain that the promise of God to His beloved children was _spiritual_ and not carnal:

And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. (Deut 30:6)​
_*This*_ is why Jeremiah, in describing the new covenant house of Israel, can say, “for they shall all know me, from the least to the greatest of them, saith the LORD” (Jer 31:34). The house of God in the OT is equivalent to its NT counterpart, save as regards maturity. There is *not* “a qualitative difference between the constitutional makeup of the Old Covenant people of God...and the New Covenant people of God...”, simply the difference as between an underage child in the care of tutors and guardians and one of full age.

As you brought it up, Anthony, let’s go back in spirit and visit Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. What was going on?

Those listening to Peter speaking were both local Jews and "foreign" Jews, some with family present, some without. There would have been some women, for we know that a company of women were with Peter and the apostles that day, and likely others not of their number were present.

The announcement of the Promise fulfilled – in Peter's sermon – included women as recipients ("I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy...And on My servants and on My handmaidens I will pour out in those days of My Spirit..." Acts 2:17, 18); and this inclusion of women as direct recipients was remarkable. 

And what was the Promise received? In essence it was union and friendship with God through the Person and work of Jesus Christ, the promised Seed of Abraham. This commencement of the New Covenant promise was dramatic and in the power of Jesus' resurrection, in order to jar His elect from the corrupted religion: "Save yourselves from this untoward [perverse] generation!" (2:40).

These were Jews, newly believing in the Seed, their Messiah, now themselves the spiritual seed of Abraham as well, so when Peter commanded them to be baptized, "every one of you" (38), "for the promise is unto you, and to your children..." it was clear that baptism was the mark (the "token", Gen 17:11 KJV) of submissive obedience to the administration of the New Covenant, without which one would not be counted a member, nor a friend of God.

It was not a new thing for it to be given the male infants / children; what was new was for it to be given to the girls / women! These were Jews, you would sooner tear their hearts from their bodies than tear their children from the Covenant of their God through disobedience to the ancient and irrevocable law, changed in token but not practice.

Were the children present baptized with the fathers? And the women as well? It seems clear both classes were. Had the children been denied, the newborn church would have aborted that day, for it would clearly not have been in continuity with the covenant (and promise) made with Abraham to his seed, to those “who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham” (Ro 4:12).

That women and children were present among the listeners to Peter’s sermon is clear from verses 10 & 11 of Deut 16, which speaks of the feast of weeks / Pentecost, saying,

10: And thou shalt keep the feast of weeks unto the LORD thy God.... 11: And thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, that are among you, in the place where the LORD thy God hath chosen you to place his name there.​
This feast was to be a festive one, and although it was mandated all the males were to be there, the entire family, including servants, were invited in this time of rejoicing in the city of Jerusalem, and at the temple in particular. There were women and children in the milling crowds. And listening to Peter.

To tell _these_ Jews that their children needed to believe and profess faith in Abraham’s Seed before receiving the token of the covenant would have caused riots in Jerusalem that day! I have said it before, Baptists would have been run out of town that day!

In the OT so much of covenant life depended on the headship of the patriarch, and, later, on the heads of the individual families, houses, tribes, and the nation. God dealt with houses, and families, and _the nation_ as corporate bodies. We in this 21st century are staunch individualists! The covenant promises in these days, we opine, are for _individuals_, irrespective of families!

In the days of the Theocracy, God dealt primarily with Israel, and individual houses, through those who were heads of them; the people of the nation often suffered for the acts of their kings and priests; on the family level, all under the authority of fathers, or husbands, or elder brothers, partook of their blessings _or curses_. The males were the ones accountable to God. 

Circumcision of the males was appropriate to the circumstances of ancient Israel, and the position of authority given them.

In the gospel of the New Covenant God opened to the Gentile nations His gracious salvation. When Jesus came he warned that now things would be different than under the Theocracy of old Israel; there in the families the Law of Moses was acknowledged to be the law of God, and appeal could be made up the chain of command: fathers, priests, judges, rulers, the king. But when Christ came the old authority structure of the Theocracy was set aside; for Jesus said that fathers would be set against sons, and mothers against daughters, and one’s own family members would be one’s enemies and would even put one another to death, houses divided against themselves. The priests and the rulers opposed the Christ, so there was no recourse to _their_ authority.

The _old manner_ of the headship of the father over the family was broken, and the covenant sign placed solely upon him as the covenant head was removed; now women could receive the sign themselves irrespective of their fathers or even their husbands. Sometimes loyalty to Christ separated a woman from her father and brothers. And sometimes from her husband. 

Believing parents (or even one parent – 1 Cor 7:14) brought their children into the covenant of their God, where the infant souls are raised (by the parent) in union and communion with God, and where the blessing of God is given equally, as in Christ “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female...” (Gal 3:28), but all have equal access and privilege. From infancy this expansion of the covenant blessings to include all on an equal standing before God was realized and taught.

As the covenant was removed from its limited range in old Israel and transferred to the new Israel reconstituted by its King (Matt 21:43) – the international community of God’s people, a true holy nation – the sign of membership in that covenant community was changed to accommodate the new status of all members in all nations – male, female, Jew, Greek, slave, free – in their greatly enhanced intimacy with their Lord and Savior. Jesus had finally and completely emancipated all women in His kingdom; He had _essentially_ broken the spirit of slavery as well, as now a servant humanly speaking might well be an elder in God’s Kingdom over a master in the flesh. This “servant” / elder could now demonstrate godly _servant-leadership_ to one secularly over him. The Lord turned the ways of the world upside down in His glorious kingdom.

It is often said that “house baptisms” supposedly with infants in them constitute an argument from silence. There is, however, much more to it than “silence”! We in the 21st century West – as mentioned above – think in terms of individuals, but in the Biblical world – and especially among the people of God – they thought in terms of nations, tribes, and families. God dealt with the heads of nations, tribes and families, and those under them were greatly impacted by their male heads. To wit: the entire human race affected by its head, Adam. The house of Noah saved. The house of Abraham, the house of Jacob, of Achan (cursed), of Saul (mostly destroyed), of David, and so on. The redemptive purposes of God were effected through the families – the houses – of the male leaders of these families. The blessings and privileges of the family in covenant relation to God were constantly expanding and becoming more inclusive over the centuries, till in the time of the New Covenant it opened the way of salvation to the entire world. If the blessings of the covenant now narrowed – to exclude the members of the godly houses under their heads – it would have required an open declaration from God, reversing His primary means of operation. The Baptist view of mere individuals is imposing our Western individualistic paradigm upon an entirely different paradigm which was operative in the ancient world, where the family, tribe, and nation were the objects of God’s dealings. The purpose of this covenant headship over the family was to raise up godly seed, under the covenant care of the Lord. This then amounts not to silence, but the very voice of antiquity, and Biblical precedent.

Even though we do not have signs in the streets, or broadcast and written in all the media, “You shall not kill”, it is understood that this is the law, the penalty for breaking it extremely severe. Even in the silence regarding it it is known. Likewise in the early Jewish community it was understood that this was the law of God: children are to be included in the covenant – by sign and seal – upon pain of their exclusion from the House of Life, and whoever sins so against his children himself sins greatly against the God of the covenant; such a one is himself breaking the covenant. This law was so deeply ingrained in the hearts and minds of the Jewish people, that a changing of it would have required a momentous announcement, with much explanation. But there is silence. And the law of God loved and practiced for millennia speaks loudly and clearly, even in that silence. Especially in that silence!

Ancient Abraham could not see which of his children or grandchildren were to be born “merely according to the flesh” and which were not, but were, according to the electing grace of God, those of the promise (i.e., carrying forward that promise, as Isaac and Jacob, but not Ishmael and Esau). He could not see the electing decree of God; what he could see was the command given him, and he obeyed it.

Is it possible that the primary thing responsible for many folks' views on baptism is that they unlawfully exempt themselves from that command which has never been cancelled, which is that the children of Abraham are to place the sign of the covenant on their infant seed?

I have endeavored to argue that there is _not_ a discontinuity between the Old Covenant people of God and those people of the New, but they are equal in that they are both believing – living by faith – and holy, separated unto the Lord. The unbelieving portion of the nation was not Israel or the seed, but chaff, tares. The promises to the elect were spiritual, depicted in material terms, though understood by them to be pictures – object lessons – of spiritual blessings to be fully received when Messiah came and His kingdom established.

I would like to show the nature and status of the elect infants in the households and the church in upcoming posts.

I have come upon an interesting book I had in the paedobaptism section of my library, _The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant: An Historical Study of the Significance of Infant Baptism in the Presbyterian Church in America_, by Dr. Lewis Bevins Schenck (Yale Univ. Press, 1940; reprinted by Wipf and Stock, 2001). [Looking to get a link to it I see it is now published by P&R, and available.] Obviously this is not about our modern PCA, but is speaking generically of the history of the Presbyterian church in our country.

Chapter 3 is titled, “The Threat Of Revivalism To the Presbyterian Doctrine Of Children In The Covenant”. What an eye-opener this chapter is to the cause of the prevalence of baptistic views in modern evangelicalism. Although Whitefield didn’t foster it, his friend Gilbert Tennant (and family) promoted – much in the style of the later C.G. Finney – a style of evangelism that _required_ a strong emotional repentance and “experience” of salvation among all the congregations they preached in, not accepting the Presbyterian standard of children raised quietly as elect children of God from birth. This became the paradigm of spiritual life in many of the P&R communions, and many were the promoters and preachers of it, although there were defenders of the Old School (notably Chas. Hodge), who held with Calvin and his views, the WCF and other Presbyterian standards. If you didn’t have a dramatic experience of being lost in view of the Law, and salvation in view of the Savior’s grace you-ward, you were not considered regenerated. Of course infants and young children rarely fell into that class. And so the P&R began to consider their children, even though baptized, unregenerate and lost. Even though they baptized their infants, in their thinking about their children’s place in the covenant they were essentially baptistic. This revivalism mentality has indelibly marked American Christianity, and has made deep inroads into the Presbyterian and Reformed churches of our own day.

I would like to look at Calvin’s views on the subject of infants in the covenant, which I was made aware of in a new light by this reading.

Medical doctors discern that babies only a few hours old can distinguish the voice of their mothers from the voices of other women. Cannot infants likewise know the voice of their God? But more on this later.

Steve


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 20, 2008)

Steve,
Thank you for the last two posts. I am sorry I have not been able to respond in a timely fashion as work and many other duties have kept me from it. I have been thinking of several responses which I will start on after dinner, Lord willing.
It should not be much of a surprise that as I read your posts,there is much I am in agreement with you on. I will try to clarify some of my post that you asked about. I will also try to ask you see where we view it differently.


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 20, 2008)

Steve,
In post #12 you asked;


> I wonder why you are relating circumcision to Heb 9:10 and the ceremonial law. Continuing in this vein I'm not sure what you are getting at when you say, "Here in Acts 15:1,24 we know the relationship of the sign and seal, along with the relationship of new converts to the ceremonial law was addressed."
> 
> Would you please explain to me in what way "the sign and seal" was addressed by the council, save in that it was not required? Why was it not required? Is it not because it had been replaced (though they did not overtly state this, as you note) by another covenantal sign, the Gentiles not being obligated to observe Mosaic law?


Most all of the commentaries I have link the ceremonial law with the discussion of what to do with the gentiles in Acts 15. For example here is a bit of A.W.Pink on this section of Hebrews 9:10;


> "And carnal ordinances" which refers, most probably, to the whole system of laws pertaining to diet and manner of life. "Which stood only in," this is emphatic; the rites of Judaism were solely external and fleshly, there being nothing spiritual joined with them. Thus their insufficiency to procure spiritual and eternal blessings was evident: legal meats and drinks could not nourish the soul; ceremonial washings could not purify the heart.
> 
> "Imposed until the time of reformation." "The word for ‘imposed’ is properly ‘lying on them,’ that is, as a burden. There was a weight in all these legal rites and ceremonies, which is called a yoke, and too heavy for the people to bear (Acts 15:10). And if the imposition of them be principally intended, as we render the word ‘impose,’ it respects the bondage they were brought into by them. Men may have a weight lying on them, and yet not be brought into bondage thereby. But these things were so ‘imposed’ on them, as that they might feel their weight and groan under the burden of it. Of this bondage the apostle treats at large in the epistle to the Galatians. And it was impossible that those things should perfect a church-state, which in themselves were such a burden, and effective of such a bondage" (John Owen).
> 
> The institutions of the Levitical service possessed a general character of externality and materialty: as verse 13 of our chapter says, they sanctified "to the purifying of the flesh," but they reached not the dire needs of the soul. Therefore they were not designed to continue forever, but for a determined and limited season, namely, "unto the time of reformation," which expression respected the appearing of the promised Messiah to inaugurate the new and better covenant: see Luke 1:68-74. "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law; to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Gal. 4:4, 5).


 And here is Adam Clarke:


> Verse 10. In meats and drinks, and divers washings] He had already mentioned eucharistic and sacrificial offerings, and nothing properly remained but the different kinds of clean and unclean animals which were used, or forbidden to be used, as articles of food; together with the different kinds or drinks, washings, baptismoiv, baptisms, immersions, sprinklings and washings of the body and the clothes, and carnal ordinances, or things which had respect merely to the body, and could have no moral influence upon the soul, unless considered in reference to that of which they were the similitudes, or figures.
> 
> Carnal ordinances] dikaiwmata sarkov? Rites and ceremonies pertaining merely to the body. The word carnal is not used here, nor scarcely in any part of the New Testament, in that catachrestical or degrading sense in which many preachers and professors of Christianity take the liberty to use it.
> 
> ...



So in Acts 15, as in the book of Hebrews we are given a very clear explanation of how every major type,law, principle, and all ceremonies find an answer and completion in The cross of Christ. In Acts 15:5
Do we circumcise them- no
do we command them to keep the law of Moses - no 
in verses 7-11 the internal work of the Spirit is spoken of/ purifying their *Hearts* by faith. It winds up with vs, 10-11


> 10Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
> 
> 11But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.


Steve when you ask this;


> Would you please explain to me in what way "the sign and seal" was addressed by the council, save in that it was not required? Why was it not required? Is it not because it had been replaced (though they did not overtly state this, as you note) by another covenantal sign, the Gentiles not being obligated to observe Mosaic law?


The point I was trying to make is that the * very fact*that the Apostles do not state anything at all about any need for a replacement sign might indicate that a "sign" is no longer necessary.[not because it was replaced by another sign].
If a replacement sign was given, this would have been the perfect place to explain it! They could have just said very plainly that now Gentiles who believe and their household are given an outward sign.
The focus is only inward and spiritual . Their* hearts *were purified.
William Gouge on Hebrews 9 said this in reference to the types and shadows


> Their end was to shadow and typify truth. When those truths were accomplished, their end was out, so as there was no further end or use of them.
> How great is their folly who, in this present time of the gospel, receive those abrogated rites. They are more foolish than such as burn dim candles in
> bright sunshine.



Steve, I am going to break my response up section by section, so I do not set a puritanboard record for the longest posts on record let me start another one now


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 21, 2008)

Steve,
You also asked this;


> When you say circumcision was an "outward, physical type" that was changed, are you contrasting it to baptism? Is not baptism also outward and physical? Do they not both signify an inward spiritual reality? Are you saying circumcision was merely — only — an outward type?



I believe circumcision in the OC. was meant to speak about the regeneration that is only possible In Christ.
What was outward and typical did not signify"an inward spiritual reality" unless the person who received it was elect.Which everyone understands.
But rather in Romans 4;


> 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which *he had*


*that he might be the father of all them that believe *
In speaking about Abrahams seed, ie, not the outward physical seeds[plural,national Israel as a whole]
but rather-


> 14That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
> 16Now 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.


 You agree with this in your second post, but it seems like you are seeing the seed as plural,rather than singular.here


> And the nature of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed is that He would “...be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee” (Gen 17:7). The blessing of the covenant is partaking in the blessing given Abraham: the very friendship of God (Isaiah 41:8; 2 Chron 20:7; James 2:23).


 The seed after thee/ It is not every single child of all jewish people ever born! Everyone knows this is not so, and you post this same fact in the next few lines of your post;


> Nor was it a covenant of mere external, material blessing (as noted above in my earlier post), made to a partly unbelieving nation – a “mixed bag” of people – but it was made to the genuine seed of Abraham, those of faith, those “children of promise [who] are counted for the seed.” (Ro 9:8)
> 
> Moses makes plain that the promise of God to His beloved children was spiritual and not carnal:
> 
> And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. (Deut 30:6)



I am in total agreement here. you also post this:


> And what was the Promise received? In essence it was union and friendship with God through the Person and work of Jesus Christ, the promised Seed of Abraham. This commencement of the New Covenant promise was dramatic and in the power of Jesus' resurrection, in order to jar His elect from the corrupted religion: "Save yourselves from this untoward [perverse] generation!" (2:40).
> 
> These were Jews, newly believing in the Seed, their Messiah, now themselves the spiritual seed of Abraham as well


 But when you finish this quote you point out from acts 2, that the promise is to you and your children.Acts 2:39 does not stop with you and your children,
So you would say that if baptism is the replacement sign that the believer and his children should be given a replacement sign and be included in the "outward,and visible administation of the church, and covenant of grace, although they might not be savingly united to Christ in the covenant of redemption.
What I tried to get at with Acts 2 is this;Let me illustrate it this way-
39For the promise is unto *you* [The believer gets water baptism]

For the promise is to *your children*[ they get water baptism and are included as church members and in covenant with God,unless they show that they are not? by failing to "improve their baptism"]

For the promise is to *all that are afar off*[ if water baptism is a sign of the promise, then of necessity all that are far off should also be given water baptism as a sign of the promise until they show they do not believe?]

For the promise is to * even as many as the LORD our God shall call. *
[ The children of God are scattered worldwide, as we do not know who they are, all in Adam must also be given the sign of the promise,ie water baptism, so we do not leave out anyone who might be called]

Steve, I am not trying to be obtuse here. If in the OC. God primarily called his elect from households in Israel . Now the field is the world.
There is no verse that says baptism is equal to circumcision. why assume an equivolence.
God saved many in households before the sign given to Abraham.Those among the godly line between Adam and Abraham had no external sign.


The promised * SEED* is Christ.
We can only be * In saving union with Christ* by Spirit Baptism.
Christ has already come.Why do we have to go back to any sign that was in type or shadow? Col 2 speaks regeneration; not any sign, but actual


> 11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
> 
> 12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
> 
> 13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 21, 2008)

Another point you made was :


> You stated, Anthony, that circumcision was an "outward carnal ordinance". Are you saying that what the LORD laid upon His friend Abraham was but that? It is written,
> 
> And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised... (Ro 4:11)
> A seal given by God signifying righteousness is not a mere carnal ordinance!


Steve, all the laws and ordinances were Holy Just and good. I do not mean to suggest otherwise. I meant it in this sense.


> The expression "ordinances of divine service" calls for a word or two by way of explanation. The word which is here rendered "ordinances’’ (margin "ceremonies") signifies rites, statutes, institutions. They were the appointments of God, which He alone had the right to prescribe, and which His people were under solemn bonds of observing, and that without any alteration or deviation. These "ordinances" were of "divine service" which is a single word in the original. In its verbal form it is found in Hebrews 8:5, "to serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." In the New Testament it is always found in connection with religious or divine service: in Acts 24:14, Philippians 3:3 it is translated "worship." It signifies to serve in godly fear or trembling, thus implying an holy awe and reverence for the One served—cf. Hebrews 12:28. Thus, the complete clause means that under the Mosaic economy God gave His people authoritative enactments to direct their worship of Him. This law of worship was a hedge which Jehovah placed around Israel to keep them from the abominations of the heathen. It was concerning this very thing that God had so many controversies with His people under the old covenant.
> 
> Care needs to be duly paid to the tense which the apostle here used: he said not "verily the first covenant has also ordinances, of divine service," but "had". He is obviously referring to the past. The Mosaic economy had those ordinances from the time God covenanted with Israel at Sinai. But that covenant was no longer in force; it had been Divinely annulled. The "verily the first covenant had also ordinances of Divine worship," clearly intimates that the new covenant too has Divine "ordinances." We press this because there are some who now affirm that even Christian baptism and the Lord’s supper are "Jewish" ceremonies, which belong not to this present dispensation. But this error is sufficiently refuted by this word "also"—found in the very epistle which was written to prove that Judaism has given place to Christianity!
> 
> "And a worldly sanctuary." The reference is (as the next verse plainly shows) to the Tabernacle, which Moses made in all things according to the pattern shown him in the mount. Many have been sorely puzzled as to why the Holy Spirit should designate the holy sanctuary of Jehovah a "worldly" one. Yet this adjective should not present any difficulty. It is not used invidiously, still less as denoting anything which is evil. "Worldly" is not here opposed to "spiritual,’’ but as that which belongs to the earth rather than to the heavens. Thus the force of "worldly" here emphasizes the fact that the Mosaic economy was but a transient one, and not eternal. The tabernacle was made here in this world, out of perishing materials found in the world, and was but a portable tent, which might at pleasure be taken down and set up again; while the efficacy of its services extended only unto worldly things, and procured not that which was vital and eternal. Note how in Hebrews 9:24 the "holy places made with hands" are set in antithesis from "heaven itself."


In comparison to the reality all of the types,and shadows pale in comparison
again here;


> "Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith He, thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount" (verse 5). Here the apostle furnishes further proof of what he had said at the beginning of verse 4. The presence of the type necessarily implies the absence of the Antitype (cf. Hebrews 9:8-10), because the very nature of a type is to symbolize visibly an absent and unseen reality. From the Divine viewpoint, Judaism was set aside, ended, when God rent the veil of the temple (Matthew 27:51); but from the human, it was not abolished till Titus destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Israel’s priests still served, but the only significance of their ministry was a typical one.
> 
> The design of the Spirit in verse 5 is obvious. There was something above and beyond the material tabernacle which God prescribed to Moses: that which he built, only furnished a faint foreshadowing of spiritual and heavenly realities, which are now actualized by Christ on High. The entire ministry of Israel’s priests had to do with earthly and carnal things, which provided but a dim outline of things above. The word "example" signifies type, and is rendered "figures" in Hebrews 9:24. The term "shadow" means an adumbration, and is opposed to the substance or reality; see Colossians 2:17, Hebrews 10:1. "Shadows" are but fading and transitory, have no substance of themselves, and but darkly represent.
> 
> "See, saith He, thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount." "This passage is found in Exodus 25:40, and the apostle adduces it here on purpose, so that he might prove that the whole service according to the Law was nothing more than a picture, as it were, designed to shadow forth what is found spiritually in Christ" (John Calvin).


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 21, 2008)

To tell these Jews that their children needed to believe and profess faith in Abraham’s Seed before receiving the token of the covenant would have caused riots in Jerusalem that day! I have said it before, Baptists would have been run out of town that day!

You are probably right with this one.That is why it was a transitional period,and it was not until years later that it comes to a head in Acts 15. 
When I brought up acts 21, I was trying to show that much of the offence ofthe cross was this very issue as it was clear they [Jews] understood a major change had taken place.


> When you bring in Acts 21:21, again I'm not sure what you are getting at. The situation was there were thousands of Jews who believed in Christ and were zealous of the law; these had been informed that Paul taught against Jews being circumcised, observing Moses, and the Jewish customs. Was it true? I like the way Ray Stedman's simple commentary (When The Church Was Young, Book 3) explains it:
> 
> Paul never taught a Jew to abandon Moses, or not to circumcise his children. What he strongly taught was that the Gentiles should not be subject to these Jewish provisions. He would not allow them to come under the Jewish law, and insisted that they did not have to follow any of these Jewish provisions.
> 
> ...


I do not agree with Ray Stedman's point of view here. Every indication is that they should not go back to the old when the new has come.
God destroyed the temple 70ad to leave no doubt,and that the covenant curses of Deut 28-29 were coming upon the evil generation just as Jesus had promised.
I will try to do more tommorow, as you posted many other good points to consider as well as the recommended reading. I am burning out a bit tonight however. I will re-read the posts again next time so as to not avoid the force of what you are suggesting and try to give a helpful response.Hope I have made some things clear. You are helping me understand the other position even though it does not seem to be the case. Thank you again for your responses.


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 21, 2008)

Steve,
I agree with almost the whole last half of your post,regarding households.


> It is often said that “house baptisms” supposedly with infants in them constitute an argument from silence. There is, however, much more to it than “silence”! We in the 21st century West – as mentioned above – think in terms of individuals, but in the Biblical world – and especially among the people of God – they thought in terms of nations, tribes, and families. God dealt with the heads of nations, tribes and families, and those under them were greatly impacted by their male heads. To wit: the entire human race affected by its head, Adam. The house of Noah saved. The house of Abraham, the house of Jacob, of Achan (cursed), of Saul (mostly destroyed), of David, and so on. The redemptive purposes of God were effected through the families – the houses – of the male leaders of these families. The blessings and privileges of the family in covenant relation to God were constantly expanding and becoming more inclusive over the centuries, till in the time of the New Covenant it opened the way of salvation to the entire world. If the blessings of the covenant now narrowed – to exclude the members of the godly houses under their heads – it would have required an open declaration from God, reversing His primary means of operation. The Baptist view of mere individuals is imposing our Western individualistic paradigm upon an entirely different paradigm which was operative in the ancient world, where the family, tribe, and nation were the objects of God’s dealings. The purpose of this covenant headship over the family was to raise up godly seed, under the covenant care of the Lord. This then amounts not to silence, but the very voice of antiquity, and Biblical precedent.


 This OC. paradigm is accurate. The force of the verses in the OC.concerning households is very strong. I think much of your thinking,and many other padeo brothers in here[PB] is much stronger and what is found most often in Baptist churches. Dennis Mcfadden , and Bill, and others often lament the lack of a stronger household view. 
While it is not totally absent by any means there is no where near the level of understanding of the abundance of verses dealing with promises to the offspring. It is this strength of biblical argumentation that makes many a Reformed Baptist feel closer ties to "the truly reformed" than to the charles finney,john r rice type of fundamentalist . That is what makes it so ironic to me ,that at the same time it is the difference on this very issue/
chidren of believer's/what constitutes the body of Christ, that is the most frequent pronounced difference.
I have had similar discussions with Matthew. He also suggests this idea of looking at the bigger corporate picture,rather than individuals.
I have always viewed salvation as individual and personal which you alluded to in another thread .
Once saved however each living stone is built up * in the body*


> 19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
> 
> 20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
> 
> ...


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 21, 2008)

I have come upon an interesting book I had in the paedobaptism section of my library, The Presbyterian Doctrine of Children in the Covenant: An Historical Study of the Significance of Infant Baptism in the Presbyterian Church in America, by Dr. Lewis Bevins Schenck (Yale Univ. Press, 1940; reprinted by Wipf and Stock, 2001). [Looking to get a link to it I see it is now published by P&R, and available.] Obviously this is not about our modern PCA, but is speaking generically of the history of the Presbyterian church in our country.

I ordered this book last night.I found it on Alibris. I have been fortunate to have heard many Reformed Baptist pastors warn of Finney and the" new measures" that he thought was God glorifying. Later on he even realized they were strange fire[Lev10] before the Lord.


----------



## Iconoclast (Oct 21, 2008)

In the remaining three verses there appear to be prophecies concerning material blessings and promise pertaining to the land, but in Acts 15:13 ff. where James is addressing the Jerusalem council, we see him applying the Amos passage to the spiritual blessings given the New Covenant house of Israel and the Gentiles which had been included into it. This hermeneutic principle shows that the material blessings promised to Israel under the Old Covenant were typical of the spiritual blessings awaiting the New Covenant house of Israel.

The material blessings, and the land promises, never were realized by Old Testament Israel – save for those periods of prosperity under David and Solomon, which themselves were types of the blessings to be received in the kingdom of David’s greater Son – and we are not to say that God’s promises failed, but that they were pictures, shadows, of the spiritual blessings promised Abraham. The church of God in the Old Covenant (Acts 7:38) was essentially the same as the church in the New, and all the promises were spiritual, painted in temporal garb.

This is another important area of study. Let me ask you a question
The enjoyment of the material blessings,physically and temporarily was * conditional upon obedience* 
The Spiritual promise is however ,unconditional
I have trouble with the idea of persons said to be in covenant with God savingly[in some sense, or enjoying some of the benefits of the covenant of grace, but * not actually saved?* 
I do not see as big of a distinction between the Covenant of Redemption, and the Covenant of Grace. Those who come near to believers,yet remain unsaved,goats ,tares, false brethren are all the more condemned as a rsult of the exposure to the Divine word,lived and spoken by the elect.


> 20For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
> 
> 21For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
> 
> 22But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 21, 2008)

Hello Anthony,

Before I briefly answer a couple or so of your points, let me say, _*please*_ do not feel obliged to respond to all that I am writing, as my primary purpose here is to respond to Dr. Bob’s exposition of John 1:12 and 13, and some other of his remarks in that same thread. I surely cannot take on all the Baptists in the world (I think you outnumber we paedos!), and my available time to post is severely limited. Thanks for understanding!

1. When I said to you,

I wonder why you are relating circumcision to Heb 9:10 and the ceremonial law. Continuing in this vein I'm not sure what you are getting at when you say, "Here in Acts 15:1,24 we know the relationship of the sign and seal, along with the relationship of new converts to the ceremonial law was addressed.”​
Your reply was,



> Most all of the commentaries I have link the ceremonial law with the discussion of what to do with the gentiles in Acts 15. For example here is a bit of A.W.Pink on this section of Hebrews 9:10;
> 
> "And carnal ordinances" which refers, most probably, to the whole system of laws pertaining to diet and manner of life. "Which stood only in," this is emphatic; the rites of Judaism were solely external and fleshly, there being nothing spiritual joined with them...​



Anthony, this is really a digression. I am not discussing ceremonial law. But more on that below.

I wish you would present Pink in a more balanced way. (I’m using the hardcopy of his Hebrews commentary). On page 473, a little way into chapter 40, he says, “Here in the 9th chapter he [Paul – Cf. p. 18] takes up the services and sacrifices which belonged unto the priestly office in the tabernacle.”

This chapter has nothing to do with circumcision. It was not instituted by Moses, although it became incorporated into Mosaic law. As the Lord Jesus said, “Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers)...” (John 7:22). Circumcision is not of “the services and sacrifices which belonged unto the priestly office in the tabernacle.” It’s _primary_ significance derives from Abraham, especially as it pertains to my discussion of it.

Further, you misrepresent Pink by how you have quoted him above: “...the rites of Judaism were solely external and fleshly, there being nothing spiritual joined with them...”

Five paragraphs earlier he said (commenting on Heb 9:9), 

“Which was a figure,” is the Holy Spirit’s affirmation that the structure, fabric, furniture and rites of the tabernacle were all vested with a Divine and spiritual significance. That the truly regenerate among Israel were acquainted with this fact is illustrated by the prayer of David, “Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law” (Psa. 119:18) p. 480.​

2. Our conversation:



> Steve: To tell these Jews that their children needed to believe and profess faith in Abraham’s Seed before receiving the token of the covenant would have caused riots in Jerusalem that day! I have said it before, Baptists would have been run out of town that day!
> 
> Anthony: You are probably right with this one.



Do you not know? You have just given away the store.


3. You said, “I do not agree with Ray Stedman's point of view here. Every indication is that they should not go back to the old when the new has come.”

Why then did Paul, after the Jerusalem council, take Timothy and have him circumcised (Acts 16:3) if “they should not go back to the old”? Why in Acts 21:23–26 did Paul agree to partake of the Jewish ritual of purification? What did he mean when he said in 1 Cor 9:20, “And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law...”?

_I_ am a Jew, and if I had had a son instead of a daughter I would have had him circumcised. Are you telling me I am not allowed this? Is it wrong for Messianic Jews to have their sons circumcised? It would depend on the reason, right? Should Italians or Irish change their names to conceal their ethnic identity? Of course we are all citizens of the kingdom of Heaven, but there are still Irishmen and Italians. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28)

But we still recognize the different sexes, employers and servants, Jews and Greeks, right? Circumcision may be strictly an ethnic marker, having nothing to do with righteousness before God (as in Abraham’s line, and Israel’s), or keeping God’s law.

It is permissible – lawful – to observe the Jewish customs, feast days, holy days, dietary laws, circumcision, etc, provided it is not desired for law-keeping righteousness. We Jews have the freedom to observe these Jewish things, and the freedom to not observe them.

“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” (Galatians 6:15, 16)​
I will let you have the last word, and onlookers may decide what is correct according to their judgment. Thank you for your gracious exchanges, Anthony.

P.S. I just saw your last post (#21).

You said,

Let me ask you a question
The enjoyment of the material blessings, physically and temporarily was *conditional upon obedience* 
The Spiritual promise is however, unconditional
I have trouble with the idea of persons said to be in covenant with God savingly[in some sense, or enjoying some of the benefits of the covenant of grace, but *not actually saved?*​
God saves his elect unconditionally, and their hearts are won to grateful obedience and love. Still, there are warnings to the elect, which do them good to hear. Jesus said, “If a man love me, he will keep my words....He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings...” (John 14:23, 24). And, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt 7:21). Of course there are “conditions” to salvation, but they were fulfilled in Christ, and in Him we fulfill them by virtue of His Spirit in us. “...the righteousness of the law...[is] fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Ro 8:4)

In the OP it is clearly stated that the “material blessings” of the Old Covenant were types of the spiritual blessings in Messiah’s coming kingdom, and were given to the elect only, the unbelievers considered neither Abraham’s true seed nor Israel, though they were _of_ Israel. Those were not in God’s covenant, though they were in the sphere of God’s covenant people. Sometimes (all the time?) the reprobates outnumbered the elect remnant.

God “maketh his sun to shine on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” (Matt 5:45)

One is in the covenant, or not. There is no half-way place. One is in Christ or not. It was the same in the ancient church as it is now. There are nominal “Christians” in the church, who partake of the benefits of godly society, but they are under wrath:

But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth...? (Psalm 50:16–22)​
Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 22, 2008)

I don’t want to discourage anyone from posting in this thread, it’s just that I would like to keep it focused: a response to Dr. Bob’s OP in the How does a Paedobaptist relate the teaching of John 1:12-13 to infant baptism? thread.

I recall what happened in _his_ thread: it meandered so widely that it went to 4 pages and dealt with many topics, often completely missing the thrust of the OP.

I will next be considering, Where do infants figure in those verses?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 27, 2008)

The following quote is from the OP in Dr. Bob’s thread, How does a Paedobaptist relate the teaching of John 1:12-13 to infant baptism?:



> ...can we assert that individuals who make no credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ, that is, who have not "received him" or "believed in his name," have _legal access_ to New Covenant member status? In simpler language, how can the teaching of John 1:12-13 be made to support Paedobaptism?



----------

Be it known I do not hope to convert die-hard Credos by my efforts here, but rather to confirm and edify my fellow Paedos in the truth, that they not be led astray by antipaedobaptist arguments, and that they have withal to understand and defend the Biblical position; and also to bring over those few Credos who are leaning in our direction. And, last but not least, to give a reasonable – and patently Biblical – answer to Dr. Bob’s question, “How does a Paedobaptist relate the teaching of John 1:12-13 to infant baptism?”

Let me ask a few rhetorical questions first: Can an infant “receive Him”, even though they have not the capacity to “believe”? 

Does an infant receive his or her mother? That is, receive her heart into his own?

Is regeneration *always* limited to adults, resulting in a profession of faith?

So much of this discussion hinges on this: What did the covenant God make with Abraham consist of? I think I have shown in some of the above posts that it entailed an unconditional promise to “...be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee” (Gen 17:7). In Genesis 12:1 ff. and 15:1 ff. the LORD makes gracious promises to Abraham and his seed, and in verse 6 we read, “And he believed in the LORD, and he counted it to him for righteousness.” After that He delineated the terms of the covenant:

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.

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.

And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

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.

And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

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.

He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

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. (Genesis 17:7–14)​
For failure to put the token of the covenant on a male child, that one is out of the sphere of the covenant, cut off from the people. But Scripture makes it clear that failure to have the inward thing signified by the token likewise removed one from the covenant. This I have shown with a number of Scriptures in post #1.

The LORD shows through Moses it was a _spiritual_ promise given Abraham concerning his children:

And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. (Deut 30:6)​
A crucial matter is *when* this heart circumcision of the children was effected, and what it consisted of. We know of John the Baptist that he was sanctified / set apart in his mother’s womb, regenerated – while yet unborn – by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15). Calvin says of this,

Let us not attempt, then, to impose a law upon God to keep him from sanctifying whom he pleases, just as he sanctified this child, inasmuch as his power is not lessened. (_Institutes_, Book IV, chapter XVI, Sect. 17; Battles Edition)​
Slightly earlier Calvin says,

But how ([the Anabaptists] ask) are infants, unendowed with knowledge of good or evil, regenerated? We reply that God’s work, though beyond our understanding, is still not annulled. Now it is perfectly clear that those infants who are to be saved (as some are surely saved from that early age) are previously regenerated by the Lord. For if they bear with them an inborn corruption from their mother’s womb, they must be cleansed of it before they can be admitted into God’s kingdom, for nothing polluted or defiled may enter there (Rev. 21:27). If they are born sinners, as both David and Paul affirm (Eph. 2:3; Ps. 51:5), either they remain unpleasing and hateful to God, or they must be justified. And what further do we seek, when the Judge himself plainly declares that entry into heavenly life opens only to men who are born anew (John 3:3)? (Ibid.)​Thus John the Baptist (as noted above) and Jeremiah are exemplars of the Lord working in this manner with children. Did He not say to young Jeremiah, 

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (Jer 1:5)​
Talking of Christ, Calvin says,

Truly Christ was sanctified from earliest infancy in order that he might sanctify in himself his elect from every age without distinction. For, to wipe out the guilt of the disobedience which had been committed in our flesh, he took that very flesh that in it, for our sake, and in our stead, he might achieve perfect obedience. Thus, he was conceived of the Holy Spirit in order that, in the flesh taken, fully imbued with the holiness of the Spirit, he might impart that holiness to us. If we have in Christ the most perfect example of all the graces which God bestows upon his children, in this respect also he will be for us proof that the age of infancy is not utterly averse to sanctification. (Ibid., Sect. 18)​

In sum: 

1. John 1:12 and 13 say nothing of children, but speak of adults who receive Christ by faith even as Abraham did (“[they] believed in the LORD, and he counted it to [them] for righteousness” – see Genesis 15:6) , and thus being counted as Abraham’s seed (Gal 3:29), the promise concerning Abraham’s children was theirs. In other words, those in John 1:12 and 13 who received Christ, even them that believed on his name, received this promise, which was equally applicable in new covenant Israel: 

And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. (Deut 30:6)​
This is not “baptismal regeneration” in the children’s cases, as the regeneration occurred prior to baptism, and similarly in the old dispensation with circumcision – though sometimes conversion occurred later in life, either in childhood or adulthood. Neither does the promise – in its essential form in the Deuteronomy 30:6 quote above – warrant the assurance that _all_ the children of believers are elect, which we have ample evidence concerning in the Scriptures. Yet we raise them as if they were, for such is our loving duty.

2. Examples: Was not Jacob separated unto God from the womb? (Gen 25:23) Was not Samson “a Nazarite unto God from the womb”? (Judges 13:5) Was not Samuel devoted to the LORD from the womb? (1 Sam 1:11, 19) Was not David (as well as his greater Son)? Psalm 22:9, 10; 139:13–16. 

3. It is an error to say we have “two covenants” and “two mediators” in the context we are talking of now. Of course, if one were comparing the Mosaic with the New as Paul does in Hebrews 8, one may affirm such. That he there speaks of the Mosaic is clear from verse 9:

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.​
But there is a “...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” (Gal 3:17).

So there are not two mediators (as we are not considering the Mosaic) but one, Christ, for He was revealed in type by the slain animals to Abraham in Genesis 15:9, 10, 17 – _*He*_ was the one whose body was rent for the sins of Abraham and his seed, _*He*_ mediated between Abraham and God.

There is – and ever was – “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time” (1 Tim 2:5, 6).

One covenant, one sign and seal (in different forms for the two administrations), one mediator, one faith, one promise, one hope, one God and Father of us all.


----------

