# Faith requirement of covenant



## nwink (Mar 6, 2012)

In Louis Berkhof's "Summary of Christian Doctrine" book chapter 13 on man in the covenant of grace, he has the following quote about the covenant with Abraham (underlining is mine):

(3) The covenant with Abraham marks its formal establishment. It is the beginning of the Old Testament particularistic administration of the covenant, which is now limited to Abraham and his descendants, Faith stands out prominently as its necessary requirement, and circumcision becomes its seal. 

How did faith stand out prominently as the necessary requirement of the covenant?


----------



## J. Dean (Mar 6, 2012)

Because that's what God requires.

I know that sounds pretty terse, but that's always been the condition God requires: saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8), that without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6), a man is justified by faith apart from the law (Rom 3:28), etc.


----------



## A5pointer (Mar 6, 2012)

See Paul in Romans, he fleshes out the theology of Abraham believing God there.


----------



## nwink (Mar 6, 2012)

J. Dean, I was thinking more specifically in terms of the Genesis account -- how that requirement stands out "prominently". But maybe that's not what Berkhof had in mind, but rather addressing that covenant in light of the entirety of Scripture.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 6, 2012)

To be in covenant with God is to believe in him and in the truth of what he says. What sort of covenant is it, if people refuse to believe it and act accordingly? Or who pick-and-choose what they will adopt or not, and invent new reasons for doing so? Or invent new practices and mandates (whether easier or harder) that purport to be original and binding?

Abraham has more than one son. So does Isaac. The one who follows Abraham, adhering to the true and living God, is the one in whom the Promise/Covenant of grace flows. It's just a fact that in Ishmael and Esau one sees faithlessness, whereas in Isaac and Jacob one sees faith. It may be weak, need development, need renewal, or such-like; but who could miss in the Genesis account the fact that the one who fears the Lord is blessed? Who is blessed, where there is no fear of God? Who is judged for wickedness/faithlessness? By the end of the story, we see that even those who deserve great judgment (brothers) are spared, chiefly because of the faith of one man (Joseph). Without him maintaining his hope in God through his terrible ordeal, there would be no salvation for the family. They would have perished in their sins.


I guess, in the end it comes down to what you understand by "prominently." Does Moses need to use the language of "faith" many times over to make it plain that men must believe God, if they are to have any fruition of his offers of grace? He plainly writes, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness" (Gen.15:6). Isaac "fears" the Lord. Jacob prays and hopes in the God of his fathers, and we follow him as he obeys the Word from place to place. Fear, love, and trust characterize the patriarchs. In the end of Genesis, is not Joseph calling his brothers to stronger faith, as he instructs them in the providential ways of God? Moses "prominently" tells the people of his day to fear and obey the Lord. In a real sense, he's telling them to do what their fathers did. In a sense, the fathers do not need Moses to keep telling them to believe, because their lives reveal their faith--the faith that the sons of Israel should be emulating.

I think the issue is: what are we expecting Genesis to say, and how is it saying what it says?


----------



## J. Dean (Mar 6, 2012)

nwink said:


> J. Dean, I was thinking more specifically in terms of the Genesis account -- how that requirement stands out "prominently". But maybe that's not what Berkhof had in mind, but rather addressing that covenant in light of the entirety of Scripture.


Ahhh.. gotcha.


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 6, 2012)

The great thing about the Covenant of Grace is that it can't be earned by us (no 'work'). We obviously can't fulfill the Covenant of Works. So Jesus has to fulfill the Covenant of Works for us and gives us faith as a gift so that we can receive the Covenant of Grace. Awesome!


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 6, 2012)

What about new obedience as a condition of the covenant?

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/lutheran-reformed-differences-covenant-grace-65815/


----------



## steadfast7 (Mar 6, 2012)

nwink said:


> Faith stands out prominently as its necessary requirement, and circumcision becomes its seal.



When I read Berkhof's quote, it sounds like something a credobaptist would argue. And thus, the logical application of this would lean in the direction of credobaptism. This is where I can't help but see that infant of believers are treated on a completely different schema than what is "prominently" displayed in this concept of covenant establishment, that is, the necessity of faith in the covenant member. In my understanding of the Presbyterian view of "administration of the covenant," the act of inducting someone into the covenant is independent of that individual's faith, but rests on the faith of the parents. In other words, faith does not seem to be required in the administration which is sealed in the sacramental act - be it circumcision or baptism. 

If faith were the _necessary requirement_, and circumcision the seal of faith, then how does credobaptism (in the New Covenant) not logically follow?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 7, 2012)

Dennis,
How is what you're arguing not an equally "logical application" against infant-circumcision?

Instead of pursuing an argument-by-analogy _against_ infant-baptism, it seems to me like you should be working through the question of how infant-circumcision doesn't fail the "test" you are creating, relative to the sign-of-covenant (and obviously it can't since it has such a clear commandment), since faith is so clearly necessary for the proper administration of such a sign under any administration, and its blessing is only apprehensible to faith at any time.


----------



## steadfast7 (Mar 7, 2012)

Again, I'm just trying to read what's there: if faith is the necessary requirement in the administration, and circumcision is its seal, then shouldn't the faith precede the seal? I am assuming that the seal, or mark of authenticity, being applied to the member, refers to his faith whereby he rightfully _enters_ the covenant. Now, I know that baptists and paedobaptists have different interpretations of what circumcision is a sign of, and we are all in agreement of the clear Old Testament commandment that male infants receive it. This leads me to think that its application to infants is operating on some other principle.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 7, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> This leads me to think that its application to infants is operating on some other principle.


And this (above) is why, as long as you are able see things only this way, your efforts to comprehend (not necessarily to agree with) our opinions are going to be frustrated. 

You know what you know about baptism, before anything the OT has to say on this subject (or on a wider "umbrella" concept) is brought to bear. Hence, our position remains inscrutable to you, because we do not think the NT _alone_ is sufficient to teach us Christian doctrine.

I already recommended that you apply your objection to circumcision, and work your own way out of the "dilemma," trying to think like a paedobaptist, in order to see how that issue might be overcome. I'm not advising you to "become" a paedobaptist; just conduct a thought experiment. Surely, if your real objective is sympathy and understanding (without intent to adopt those beliefs) you can see the benefit of gaining an "inside" perspective--not just "inside observations"--that you can then take "outside," and subject it to analysis from your home perspective.

I say this with some genuine affection for you, Dennis, but we have been over this ground _so many times by now,_ and I truly think that if your goal is to understand the view from "this side," then you need to spend some time piecing the logic together. Too often, it seems like your quest for explanations are just excuses for new statements that our conclusions are incompatible with your axioms.


----------



## moral necessity (Mar 7, 2012)

I like it when differences are discussed in a charitable manner like this. It welcomes the other to sort the topic out for himself, and guides him for how to do so. Good leadership, Bruce!

Blessings!


----------



## steadfast7 (Mar 7, 2012)

Rev. B, I appreciate your exhortation. I am genuinely wanting to know how the Berkhof quote squares with infant baptism and am waiting for an answer. I can see clearly how Abraham's faith, which preceded circumcision, was sealed with circumcision. Paul argues this clearly. My query is whether or not the administration of infant baptism operates on a different principle than solely that of faith. Is the principle, essentially, that the parent will have faith _for_ the infant until he can have his own faith? I really am wanting to clarify this. thanks.


----------



## MW (Mar 7, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> My query is whether or not the administration of infant baptism operates on a different principle than solely that of faith. Is the principle, essentially, that the parent will have faith _for_ the infant until he can have his own faith? I really am wanting to clarify this. thanks.



The seal functions on the principle of faith alone. God has His elect among the infants of believers to whom He has purposed to give faith, and the sign functions as a seal to their faith. That much is evident in the salvation of Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, and millions of others of God's elect. In the case of Abraham the sign was given to him when he was uncircumcised so as to show that faith is reckoned for righteousness even among the uncircumcision. That is all. Romans 4 refers to the history of salvation, not to the order of its application.


----------



## steadfast7 (Mar 7, 2012)

Thanks Rev. Winzer for those points. There are certainly God's elect among both baptised and not baptised infants. Now, what correlation does the sign and the thing signified have with the person who is receiving it? Isn't it a one to one correlation? Or, is the sign only an indicator of the fact _that_ faith is necessary, not that _this_ particular person is a bearer of faith?


----------



## MW (Mar 7, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> Thanks Rev. Winzer for those points. There are certainly God's elect among both baptised and not baptised infants. Now, what correlation does the sign and the thing signified have with the person who is receiving it? Isn't it a one to one correlation? Or, is the sign only an indicator of the fact _that_ faith is necessary, not that _this_ particular person is a bearer of faith?



According to Romans 3:1-4, there is not a one to one correlation. What if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid! The expression of moral disgust places this query on the same level as the question, Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Ultimately the sign is an indicator of God's faithfulness. Where faith is joined in the recipient of the sign it is a testimony of the faith of God, never of some quality in the person. This is why I could never be an Anabaptist. The very process of thinking is Pelagian to the core. The fact that some Anabaptists have renounced the Pelagian roots of their persuasion in relation to soteriology does not alleviate the fact that they remain Pelagian in relation to sacramentology.


----------



## steadfast7 (Mar 8, 2012)

Rev. Winzer, can you elaborate a bit on why Anabaptist soteriology is essentially Pelagian at its core?


----------



## MW (Mar 8, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> Rev. Winzer, can you elaborate a bit on why Anabaptist soteriology is essentially Pelagian at its core?



Salvation and justification drop into the background and "following Jesus" is brought front and centre of the theology. See The Theology of Anabaptism
by Robert Friedmann, available here: The Theology of Anabaptism by Robert Friedmann Part Three. Note especially the following: "That he follows Christ in his words and commands: that alone is what saves him."


----------



## steadfast7 (Mar 9, 2012)

Yes, that does seem quite pelagian! In their practice of baptism, however, they don't view it sacramentally, but only as a symbol of faith/act of obedience. Do they view this as having salvific efficacy (like the Restoration movement)?

Coming back to baptism, doesn't the fact that all churches screen adult baptismal candidates prior to administering baptism indicate that there is a one-to-one relationship between the sign and the one receiving it? Presumably, we screen candidates to ensure that waters of baptism has direct application on them as individuals, no?


----------



## MW (Mar 9, 2012)

steadfast7 said:


> Yes, that does seem quite pelagian! In their practice of baptism, however, they don't view it sacramentally, but only as a symbol of faith/act of obedience. Do they view this as having salvific efficacy (like the Restoration movement)?



To return to the original point, it is made a symbol of the person's faith rather than a sign and seal of God's faithfulness. That is the Pelagian roots of Anabaptist theology which is carried over into the sacraments.



steadfast7 said:


> Coming back to baptism, doesn't the fact that all churches screen adult baptismal candidates prior to administering baptism indicate that there is a one-to-one relationship between the sign and the one receiving it? Presumably, we screen candidates to ensure that waters of baptism has direct application on them as individuals, no?



In Presbyterian practice there is no "sifting process," as if it were the duty of church overseers to scrutinise the faith of the candidate to ensure it is genuine. That judgment is left to the Searcher of hearts. The ordinance is administered trusting that the Lord knows those that are His and will show Himself true to them. There is no one to one correspondence because a profession of faith does not guarantee the possession of faith. That belongs to the Lord to give.


----------



## travstar (Mar 9, 2012)

In reference to the OP, many of the phrases Berkhof previously used made it through the cuts to the Summary. He fleshes everything out more (i.e., shows one why it is so prominent) in the larger versions, which were the precursors to that short version. The Summary is a concise form of the Manual, which is a concise version of his systematic.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 9, 2012)

*Dennis*


> Coming back to baptism, doesn't the fact that all churches screen adult baptismal candidates prior to administering baptism indicate that there is a one-to-one relationship between the sign and the one receiving it? Presumably, we screen candidates to ensure that waters of baptism has direct application on them as individuals, no?



How much "screening" does their need to be re adult baptism? Traditionally Presbyterian churches have looked for a "credible" profession of faith with respect to baptism, and a "accredited" profession of faith with respect to the Lord's Supper.

What is a "credible" profession of faith?



> And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:36-37)



The Apostle Paul couldn't even remember who he had baptised


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


----------



## MW (Mar 9, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> What is a "credible" profession of faith?
> 
> 
> 
> > And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:36-37)



The baptism of Lydia and her household is another case worthy of notice: "whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul," Acts 16:14.


----------

