# Believers and their children?



## Canadian _Shawn (Oct 9, 2005)

Dear Dr. Clark,

I have been reading through your first paper on infant baptism, and before I attempt a full critique (or capitulation), I would like to put a preliminary question to you, as well as to anyone else who may be able to furnish a reply.

A large section of your first paper constantly refers to, and seems to depend on, the concept of "believer's and their children". These, you argue, are the proper subjects of baptism, just as they were the proper subjects of circumcision.

My question is this: where does the OT say that circumcision was for believer's and their children? Was it not for any male associated with Abraham's household, regardless of faith, ethnicity or age (Gen 17:7-14)? And then during the time of Israel, was it not for anyone within the territorial boundaries of that state?


Cheers,
Shawn


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 9, 2005)

Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 
Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 
Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 9, 2005)

Deuteronomy 30:1 "œAnd when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God has driven you, 2 *and return to the Lord your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you today, with all your heart and with all your soul*, 3 then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you, and he will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you. 4 If your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of heaven, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there he will take you. 5 And the Lord your God will bring you into the land that your fathers possessed, that you may possess it. And he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. 6 *And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring*, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 9, 2005)

Isa 59:21 

"And as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring," says the LORD, "from this time forth and forevermore." 


Psa 22:27 *All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. *
Psa 22:28 For kingship belongs to the LORD, and he rules over the nations. 
Psa 22:29 All the prosperous of the earth eat and worship; before him shall bow all who go down to the dust, even the one who could not keep himself alive. 
Psa 22:30 Posterity shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation; 
Psa 22:31 * they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn, that he has done it. *


*Highlighting what Scott posted:*

Gen 17:12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house *or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,* 

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

The covenant promises belong to those who believe and to their children.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn_
> My question is this: where does the OT say that circumcision was for believer's and their children? Was it not for any male associated with Abraham's household, regardless of faith, ethnicity or age (Gen 17:7-14)? And then during the time of Israel, was it not for anyone within the territorial boundaries of that state?



I think you have to understand the times in which this was administered. Slaves and servants were considered part of the whole family. The family head spoke for all. People were more communal and "familial". Notice the example of Jacob's sons convincing a pagan king to convert in order for his son marry Dinah. The king spoke for the whole people and all males were circumcised. This is a different way of thinking which our individualistic Western minds can't always understand. But God honored it anyway and held all in these families accountable to the covenant even when they had backslidden for generations.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 9, 2005)

Amen Patrick. After all did God call Abram alone ? No he called him and his family.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 9, 2005)

Shawn, 

Since you are surely aware of the OT passages that have been posted, help me to understand what you're getting at.
Are you trying to say that the covenantal paedobaptist concept of "believers and their children" is artificial - or not derived from the Old Testament - because in the Old Covenant the covenant sign was applied in a much broader sense? (I.e., that is wasn't applied ONLY to believers and their children?)
Are you wanting to know, since we argue for continuity, on what basis we have narrowed the application of the covenant sign?
Is this what you're getting at?

[Edited on 10-10-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## pastorway (Oct 10, 2005)

well alrighty then.......

for all this to work you have to prove a connection between circumcision and baptism. Something which the Scriptures never do.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> well alrighty then.......
> 
> for all this to work you have to prove a connection between circumcision and baptism. Something which the Scriptures never do.



Interesting... Even when I was a Baptist I affirmed that Col 2:11-12 established _some kind_ of connection between the two...


----------



## pastorway (Oct 10, 2005)

and you're not a Baptist anymore are you?!


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> and you're not a Baptist anymore are you?!



Touche.




Seriously, I think that one can be a Baptist and see a connection between circumcision/baptism... just so long as the definition of the "covenant community" to which that sign is applied is consistent with Baptist theology.


----------



## Canadian _Shawn (Oct 10, 2005)

Hello all,

Thank you all for posting, and re-porting Genesis 17, but its a bit distressing to see that no one answered my question. The assumption that underlies at least part of the paedobaptist argument is that baptism is for "believer's and their (infant) children." But the Abrahamic covenant does not limit circumcision to believers and their children, rather as was seen by the passages posted above, the sign belongs to any and every male, whether adult or not, in Abraham's house, and as far as Israel goes, circumcision applies to anyone residing within the borders of Israel. Faith is not a prerequisite, neither is age, neither is descent.

If (1) there is a covenant of grace, and (2) the Abrahamic covenant is an expression of the covenant of grace, and (3) the conditions, promises, and limts of that covenant continue until today, I ask: How can paedobaptists justify limiting baptism to only believers and their (infant) children, when that was clearly NOT the Abrahamic practice? 

If memory serves, Presbyterians in the Old South debated quite a bit about whether or not their slaves should be baptized, as well as their servants, grandchildren, etc. It seems to me that if you truly believe that Abraham's covenant was the covenant of grace, you would more or less have to baptize every male under your authority.

Cheers,
Shawn


----------



## Mayflower (Oct 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn_
> Hello all,
> 
> Thank you all for posting, and re-porting Genesis 17, but its a bit distressing to see that no one answered my question. The assumption that underlies at least part of the paedobaptist argument is that baptism is for "believer's and their (infant) children." But the Abrahamic covenant does not limit circumcision to believers and their children, rather as was seen by the passages posted above, the sign belongs to any and every male, whether adult or not, in Abraham's house, and as far as Israel goes, circumcision applies to anyone residing within the borders of Israel. Faith is not a prerequisite, neither is age, neither is descent.
> ...



Interesting question.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 10, 2005)

> Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, * "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.*
> Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, *baptizing* them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
> Mat 28:20 * teaching them to observe all that I have commanded *you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."




I see the great commission as the new dominion mandate. Just like Adam and Noah were tols to "Be fruitful and multiply" after great judgment, so are we after the cross. And the resurrection is better than any rainbow right ? ? When it rains, we admire rainbows that remind us of God's promise, (interesting that the rainbow sign comes with sprinkling rain) so why not baptism, which is a picture of cleansing, death and resurrection?

So, if cirsumcision is the cutting away to set apart or sanctify a godly seed, and it is a mark and sign placed on the physical organ that passes seed, and Christ has now come, the seed promised through the lineage and physical descendant of Abraham, why is baptism not a fit replacement to a new Spiritual lineage won by Christ and marked by the faith of Abraham ?

Yes, I would have baptized my slaves, and brought them to church with me.


----------



## Canadian _Shawn (Oct 10, 2005)

Hi Mark,

I must admit I had a bit of trouble understanding the point you were trying to make, however, I am nonetheless intrigued by what you said. Its important to me that I understand what exactly you were arguing.

Before I try to clarify what you said, let's be clear about what baptism symbolizes:
1) Inward cleansing and remission from sins (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph 5:25-27)
2) Spirit-wrought regeneration and new life (Titus 3:5)
3) the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit as God's seal testifying and guaranteeing that we will be kept safe in Christ forever (1 Cor 12:13)
3) being united with Christ in His death, burial, and ressurection (Rom 6:3-7; Col 2:11, 12).

And let's also keep my original question in mind: How can paedobaptists justify limiting baptism to 'believers and their children' when the authoritative model they look to, the Abrahamic practice of circumcions, clearly does not impose that limitation?

So let me ask you this question : Are you arguing that the great commision, and the logical outworking of paedobaptism, imply that we should give the symbol of being forgiven for our sins, of being united to Christ and regenerated by the Holy Spirit to... unbelievers? To people whom the Lord has said are condemend already for their unbelief (John 3:18)? Are you saying that you would give the sign of being a child of God, the symbol of the most intimate union with our Saviour, to people who are not part of his flock? (John 10:26)

Or, could it be, as Baptists claim, that the only people who should receive the sign of being regenerated, forgiven, cleansed, washed, ressurected, and sealed by the Spirit, are those who have repented and believed in the name of Jesus Christ?

Cheers,
Shawn


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn_
> Hello all,
> 
> Thank you all for posting, and re-porting Genesis 17, but its a bit distressing to see that no one answered my question. The assumption that underlies at least part of the paedobaptist argument is that baptism is for "believer's and their (infant) children." But the Abrahamic covenant does not limit circumcision to believers and their children, rather as was seen by the passages posted above, the sign belongs to any and every male, whether adult or not, in Abraham's house, and as far as Israel goes, circumcision applies to anyone residing within the borders of Israel. Faith is not a prerequisite, neither is age, neither is descent.


I thought I answered your question. The father spoke for all in the house including servants. All consented with him. That was what was expected and practiced back then. It's a different way of thinking to us Westerners, but that's how they did it. For you to reject the path of your father was a serious offence. 

The primary recipients of the promise was to "you and to your descendents" but always included was the rest of the non-genetic household (and their children). And the ovenant was never completely restricted to ethnic Israel anyway. Gentiles were always welcomed by God to join. There are plenty of examples, but the most notable is in Esther, when many pagans decided to convert to Judaism after the Jews defeated their enemies. 



> If (1) there is a covenant of grace, and (2) the Abrahamic covenant is an expression of the covenant of grace, and (3) the conditions, promises, and limts of that covenant continue until today, I ask: How can paedobaptists justify limiting baptism to only believers and their (infant) children, when that was clearly NOT the Abrahamic practice?



The NT church did not limit it to just children. The household baptisms in Acts prove that, even if you try to argue no infants were their. Cornelius's household probably had over 100 people in it (pretty common for centurians). They were not all his offspring. But because he was head, they all were baptized. Same with Lydia and others. These were simply following the OT model of household conversion. The primary focus of the promise was to "you and your descendents" but it always included others in your household as well, along with their children. Again, this doesn't make sense if you assume that all these people in Ancient times had Western minds and culture. But they didn't. These pratices don't make sense until you take that cultural worldview into account. 



> If memory serves, Presbyterians in the Old South debated quite a bit about whether or not their slaves should be baptized, as well as their servants, grandchildren, etc. It seems to me that if you truly believe that Abraham's covenant was the covenant of grace, you would more or less have to baptize every male under your authority.
> 
> Cheers,
> Shawn



Yes some Southerners did. And they were being consistent in doing that, or at least trying to be. The problem with the South was that the type of slavery they practiced was not the same as that practiced in the ancient world for the most part.

[Edited on 10-10-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## kceaster (Oct 10, 2005)

*Shawn....*

What did a proselyte have to do in order to be circumcized? What was assumed with the circumcision of a household?

I'll give you a clue. Look at I Cor. 7:14. Another clue: what does ekklesia mean literally?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Saiph (Oct 10, 2005)

> And let's also keep my original question in mind: How can paedobaptists justify limiting baptism to 'believers and their children' when the authoritative model they look to, the Abrahamic practice of circumcions, clearly does not impose that limitation?



I would not limit it to believers and their children. If I owned slaves I would baptize them and bring them to church with me. Because they are then under my headship and in my household. But in general, it is normative that only believers and their children be baptized. (since slavery is abolished here in the U.S.)


Isa 44:3 
For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants. 



> So let me ask you this question : Are you arguing that the great commision, and the logical outworking of paedobaptism, imply that we should give the symbol of being forgiven for our sins, of being united to Christ and regenerated by the Holy Spirit to... unbelievers? To people whom the Lord has said are condemend already for their unbelief (John 3:18)? Are you saying that you would give the sign of being a child of God, the symbol of the most intimate union with our Saviour, to people who are not part of his flock? (John 10:26)



Only God knows who He has condemmned. I am sure the sign is administered to unbelievers qite often. The point is, are those people part of the visible community of the elect ? If so why not baptize them ? A slave in my house would be in the covenant community.

Do I think we should go around with spray bottles baptizing everyone we meet ? Heck no. 

Does that answer the question ? ?

Keep in mind, others probably disagree with me on the slave issue.



[Edited on 10-10-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Poimen (Oct 10, 2005)

I agree with you Mark K: if I had slaves/servants they would be baptized as well. It happens to be that we no longer have that relationship to people in the West, but that doesn't change the covenant or 'household' dynamic as upheld in the scriptures.


[Edited on 10-10-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Canadian _Shawn (Oct 10, 2005)

So if I understand you both correctly, you would be arguing that the paedobaptist position, or rather, the wider covenantal position, is that faith is not a necessary pre-requisite for baptism, even for adults? Can you support that from the N.T.?

Cheers,
Shawn


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn_
> So if I understand you both correctly, you would be arguing that the paedobaptist position, or rather, the wider covenantal position, is that faith is not a necessary pre-requisite for baptism, even for adults? Can you support that from the N.T.?
> 
> Cheers,
> Shawn



The great commision. Judas was a disciple; Demas was a disciple. Ananias and Saphira were recipients of baptism.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 10, 2005)

Faith is not a prerequisite.




> Rom 4:9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness.
> Rom 4:10 *How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. *
> Rom 4:11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. *The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, *
> Rom 4:12 and to make him the *father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith* that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
> Rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.






> Gal 5:5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.
> Gal 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.



I do not think one can argue either way. Sometimes faith precedes the sign, sometimes it follows.

I do not advocate any specific order. The point is, do I believe the promise of God enough to place the sign on my infants. Do I have an optimistic view of the covenant and God's blessing over my family? 
Are children of believers weeds or vines ? Are they arrows in the quiver of Satan, or arrows in MY quiver used against Satan ? ?

*Isa 44:3 
For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants. 
*


----------



## Poimen (Oct 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn_
> So if I understand you both correctly, you would be arguing that the paedobaptist position, or rather, the wider covenantal position, is that faith is not a necessary pre-requisite for baptism, even for adults? Can you support that from the N.T.?
> 
> Cheers,
> Shawn



I'll answer for myself: faith is a pre-requisite for circumcision and baptism - personal professing faith is needed for one who outside of the covenant and becomes a member of the covenant but his family becomes members of that covenant without faith. Thus the faith of the believing parent or head of the household is sufficient for his households circumcision/baptism.


----------



## Canadian _Shawn (Oct 10, 2005)

I must say, I'm utterly surprised. I've never heard a Christian say that faith (and I imagine you would also say repentence) is not a necessary pre-requisite for baptism, even for adults, and that this is the great commission. Would that be considered, in Reformed circles, a proper administration of the sacraments? And what do you fellows make of Peter's interpretation of the great commission where he lays the following condition for baptism: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).

Cheers,
Shawn


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn_
> I must say, I'm utterly surprised. I've never heard a Christian say that faith (and I imagine you would also say repentence) is not a necessary pre-requisite for baptism, even for adults, and that this is the great commission. Would that be considered, in Reformed circles, a proper administration of the sacraments? And what do you fellows make of Peter's interpretation of the great commission where he lays the following condition for baptism: "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).
> 
> Cheers,
> Shawn



You seem to forget that this same Peter baptized the whole house of Cornelius. Peter, being a faithful Jew, fully understood this and never questioned the practice of household inclusion when the sign switched to baptism. 

But the demand for repentance and faith is still there.


----------



## Presbyrino (Oct 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn_
> So if I understand you both correctly, you would be arguing that the paedobaptist position, or rather, the wider covenantal position, is that faith is not a necessary pre-requisite for baptism, even for adults? Can you support that from the N.T.?
> 
> Cheers,
> Shawn



Shawn, I think that is the crux of the problem, trying to come to the issue of baptism from a NT persptive only and not comming to the whole counsel of God.. What did the early church have as the Word of God, before the completion of the NT Cannon? How did the early church answer the question of baptism (or any question for that matter)? 

Pastor McMahon has a very good article on his website on this very issue, that I would recommend you read. 

Here are some quotes from his artice: Prefatory notes on Infant Baptism:

"And if I were honest with myself, I would have to admit that I already began the story of redemption at the end by reading the book of Matthew before I looked at Genesis through Malachi. *The point is, you cannot fully understand the intricacies and background of the New Testament without a thorough comprehension of the Old Testament "“ especially on this topic. * How do we know this is true? Well, a reasonable act of imitation would be to imitate the manner of God´s revealed plan of redemption "“ in other words - God began in the Old Testament. He did not begin the Bible with the Gospel of Matthew, or the theological letter to the Romans. He began with Genesis. *And it is most interesting to me that as a Reformed Baptist, my starting point for understanding certain theological topics in accordance with the Old Testament was in the New Testament. This is just a bad hermeneutic from the start. No one reads a book from back to front, and God did not have it written that way, nor did He inspire it that way.*"

"*If God wanted us to begin in the New Testament He would have started Biblical revelation with Romans as the first book of the Bible and ended "œthe baptistic hermeneutical problem" at that point.* Why would we study it that way? I understand that the Baptist then appeals to Christ and the Apostles as the greatest exegetes of the Old Testament. Great, I do as well. However, for someone to appeal solely to that kind of hermeneutic is to say the Spirit of God carried them along without having a proper foundational understanding of the Scriptures. *All must agree that they did not begin writing the New Testament without understanding the Old Testament (otherwise all their preaching is simply under the dictation theory of divine revelation which is heretical).* The New Testament writings are a form of Jewish Midrashing of the Scriptures, commenting on the Old Testament. The New Testament comments and explains the Old Testament. If Jesus did this (Luke 24:27), and Paul did this (Acts 17:2; Acts 18:28) why would we do it any other way?"

"Before the New Testament had even been written down, Paul and the Apostles were preaching exclusively from the Scriptures about Jesus Christ "“ that is, the Old Testament. When Paul stood up to preach in the synagogues, he opened the ancient scrolls and read from Isaiah, the Psalms, and the Torah - not Romans. "

"If Paul were going to teach us something about baptism in the New Testament, he would have appealed to the Scriptures to do it "“ the Old Testament. For any Baptist, then, it would be a acceptable practice to gather all the relevant passages about baptism through the whole Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments to comprehend the doctrine. But is that enough? No, this is not enough at all. Douglas Wilson states this objection succinctly, "œ*Many Christians come to baptistic solutions because they simply took a Bible and concordance and then looked up every incident of Baptism in the New Testament. This is objectionable, not because they studied the passages concerned with baptism, but because they did not look up all the passages that addressed parents, children, generations, descendents, promises, covenants, circumcision, Gentiles, Jews, olive trees, and countless other important areas*. In other words, the subject is bigger than it looks." He is right. *If we gather New Testament texts about Baptism without all the requisite study that should be done in the Old Testament, (the neglected Â¾ of the Bible) we will always end up a Baptist.*"


----------



## Poimen (Oct 10, 2005)

Why? Because we will come with Western, individualistic assumptions about the covenant instead of biblical ones (which from the beginning included believers and their seed).


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn_
> Dear Dr. Clark,
> 
> ...A large section of your first paper constantly refers to, and seems to depend on, the concept of "believer's and their children". These, you argue, are the proper subjects of baptism, just as they were the proper subjects of circumcision.
> ...



Hi Shawn,

It would be helpful for the purposes of discussion if you could also read the essay on the church as it is material to this discussion.

I think the baptism essay gives answer my answer to your question, at least implicitly. Under Abraham, initiation was certainly for believers and their children. The essay does not address explicitly the question of whether others might also properly receive initiation because its burden is to establish that there is a biblical pattern of covenant initiation for believers and their children. Whether others can be properly administered is immaterial to that question. If the narrower question is established, then it is established, regardless of what else might be true.

To address your question directly, Gen 17:10-14 makes it clear that men other than Abraham were to be circumcised, including slaves. These subjects of initiation had the social status of children. They were not legal persons (i.e., autonomous). They are image-bearers of course, and under divine protection as human beings (Gen 9), but for purposes of covenant administration, they are regarded as subsidiaries of the covenant head. They are recipients of the promises of the covenant of grace just as the children and so are included in the initiation rite. 

As I understand it, the generic Baptist view is that only believers are eligible for covenant initiation, but under Abraham unbelieving adults (or at least some whose profession we can reasonably doubt) were initiated into the covenant of grace by divine command. Thus, the Baptists must establish that whatever God did under Abraham, that pattern has been altered in the NT, so that only believers are initiated into the covenant community now.

This is why I asked you to read the two essays. If the term "œOld Covenant" is used very narrowly by Paul to refer to the Mosaic epoch, as seems clear in 2 Cor 3 (by Hebrews and in Jer 31) then Abraham is not, strictly speaking, an "œold covenant" figure. He is a pre-Christian or proto-Christian figure and this is how Paul seems to view him in Rom 3-4 and Gal 3-4. 

In that case, the presumption would seem to lie with general, substantial continuity between Abraham and New Covenant practice. I say "œsubstantial" to distinguish between substance and accidents. Circumcision was accidental to covenant initiation. It was capable of being changed. It does not appear that the proper subjects of covenant initiation have changed.

It seems clear to me (as to most paedobaptsts) that just as there were those under Abraham who were not covenant children but were subsidiaries of the head of household received covenant initiation. This is the ground for appealing to the example of Acts 16. Whether "œoikos" contains children, it must contain adults. Do we know that everyone of them came to faith? Luke does not say? Why not? The pattern of Abraham is assumed. This would seem to be the best explanation of Paul's language in 1 Cor 7. How else can children of believers be considered ritually "holy" and thus eligible for covenant initiation, unless Paul assumes a strong continuity with Abraham?

Remember, covenant initiation does not confer righteousness before God. It initiates. It initiates folk into the authorized, official sphere of God´s saving work. The promise of initiation is that whoever believes has what the sign signifies. To those who actually do believe, it guarantees that the promise is true not only generally, but specifically. 

Thus, regarding the administration of covenant initiation the question is not "œhas one believed" but to whom has God commanded that the sign and seal be applied? The command in Genesis 17 is quite clear and there is no equally clear revocation of that command in the NT. Hence the presumption of continuity with Abraham, the father of all who believe, 

rsc

ps. I did a quick electronic check of the web page: http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/Infant_Baptism.html. I don't think I used the expression "believer's and their children." This is ungrammatical. I did say: "Both believing adults and their children are described by the word 'household.'" My theology might be wrong, but, in this case anyway, my grammar wasn't.


----------



## Canadian _Shawn (Oct 10, 2005)

Oops! How did I miss that grammatical mistake! 

--S http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/images/smilies/tongue.gif


----------



## Saiph (Oct 10, 2005)

I do not think faith is a prerequisite, because we do not know who has true faith and who does not.

Are you trying to say rather that profession of faith is a prerequisite ?

Also, would not infants be baptized based on the faith and profession of their parents then ?

[Edited on 10-10-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Canadian _Shawn (Oct 10, 2005)

So I'll continue reading those papers,

But in the meantime something else occured to me: did God really make the promise of salvation to Abraham and his descendants? On a certain reading of the OT, it looks possible, but as far as Galatians 3:16 is concerned, the answer may be no. In fact, could it be that the promise was not to Abraham and his descendants (and by extension believers and their children), but to Christ. 

"Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ." (Galatians 3:16) 

How are we united to Christ? "...for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal 3:26,27).

So it seems that the promise is not to believers and their children, but to Christ, and only those who belong to him in faith are considered heirs. In essence, this verse is saying that the idea of inheriting God's promise through descent is a mistaken, or typological one. I think that may be evidence for the Baptistic view of a change in administration of the covenant signs.

Cheers,
Shawn


PS:
"The point is, you cannot fully understand the intricacies and background of the New Testament without a thorough comprehension of the Old Testament" 

"And it is most interesting to me that as a Reformed Baptist, my starting point for understanding certain theological topics in accordance with the Old Testament was in the New Testament. This is just a bad hermeneutic from the start. No one reads a book from back to front, and God did not have it written that way, nor did He inspire it that way."

This, of course, is not a hard and fast rule. In many, if not most, circumstances, the OT is composed of signs, shadows, and types that are impossible for us to understand except in light of the NT. So to interpret the NT in light of the OT may actually be the wrong hermeneutic, especially if our hermeneutic is more covenantal than Christological "...these are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ."


----------



## Saiph (Oct 10, 2005)

> But in the meantime something else occured to me: did God really make the promise of salvation to Abraham and his descendants?



Was Jesus a Jew ?

It is both aspects of being physical and spiritual. Not one or the other. Relying on the heritage only is a sin, but relying on pietistic solipsisms of you and the Bible alone, disconnected from Church history, denying godly family heritage, which goes all the way all the way back to Abraham, is also sin.


----------



## pastorway (Oct 10, 2005)

ah yes, the inspired and infallible history and tradition of the church, which if followed would have us all unReformed and standing with Rome.


----------



## Canadian _Shawn (Oct 10, 2005)

Hi Mark,

It may just be me, but I'm reading a little bit of a personal attack in your post. I hope that's not the case. I did find what you wrote a little puzzling, though. 

First, you accused me of "pietistic solipsism." You do realize the Pietists were Lutherans, ie: paedobaptists, who were protesting against the deadness of their State churches. A deadness that is common, I must say, to the vast majority of churches that practice paedobaptism (but no wonder, considering that faith is not a condition of membership in their churches).

And as for the claim that I am disconnected from Church history... Well, I'm sure my Catholic and Orthodox friends would get a good chuckle at a Protestant accusing a Baptist of being disconnected from Church history! Mark, you do realize that covenant theology only appeared in the 17th century (with Cocceius and Witsius) and that the main arguments for infant baptism throughout history even to our own day have largely rested on baptismal regeneration and superstitious sacramentalism don't you? The kind of sacramentalism which is still practiced by members of your own Communion, I might add (as a good-natured barb, not as an insult). So yes, from that kind of Church history I will gladly disconnect myself, because it means staying true to Scripture. Sola scriptura, you know. So in a sense, yah, it does come down to me and my Bible. "Unless I can be convinced by 

And for the record, I don't think differentiating between the administrations of different covenant to be a "sin." I see the difference between creedo and paedobaptists as being an exegetical and hermeneutical problem, though, of course, wrong practice is sinful, and usually results in widespread spiritual decline. 


Cheers,
Shawn

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture or clear reasoning that I am in error "“ for popes and councils [and Protestant theologians, Ed.] have often erred and contradicted themselves "“ I cannot recant, for I am subject to the Scriptures I have quoted; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. It is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against one´s conscience. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. So help me God. Amen"


----------



## Saiph (Oct 10, 2005)

Pastorway,

All men are indeed fallible. There is not one church father, reformer, puritan, or christian author that is pure and free from error. Yet, to stand alone, trustng in our abilities and the bible alone, never reading these historical contributers to hear what the Spirit taught through them, testing it all with scripture as the Bereans did, would be grave arrogance would it not ? ?

Sola Scriptura means we do not hold tradition or the teachings of men against or above scripture, not that we don't honor great men that have elightened us with teaching illumined by the Holy Spirit along side scripture.


Sorry if I was confusing or unclear on that brother.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 10, 2005)

Shawn,




> It may just be me, but I'm reading a little bit of a personal attack in your post. I hope that's not the case. I did find what you wrote a little puzzling, though.



No way, and I sincerely apologize if I came across that way.




> First, you accused me of "pietistic solipsism."



I did not brother. I did not mean you Shawn, but one in general.
Again I apologize for not stating that is was not an accusation.




> You do realize the Pietists were Lutherans, ie: paedobaptists, who were protesting against the deadness of their State churches. A deadness that is common, I must say, to the vast majority of churches that practice paedobaptism (but no wonder, considering that faith is not a condition of membership in their churches).



I am using pietistic in the sense of being suspicious of everything related to Church History and hiding away from it.




> And as for the claim that I am disconnected from Church history... Well, I'm sure my Catholic and Orthodox friends would get a good chuckle at a Protestant accusing a Baptist of being disconnected from Church history!



Read my post to Pastorway to see more of what I meant.




> Mark, you do realize that covenant theology only appeared in the 17th century (with Cocceius and Witsius) and that the main arguments for infant baptism throughout history even to our own day have largely rested on baptismal regeneration and superstitious sacramentalism don't you? The kind of sacramentalism which is still practiced by members of your own Communion, I might add (as a good-natured barb, not as an insult). So yes, from that kind of Church history I will gladly disconnect myself, because it means staying true to Scripture. Sola scriptura, you know. So in a sense, yah, it does come down to me and my Bible.


 
I humbly disagree. I was coverted away from dispensationalism to covenant thelogy by reading Augustine, and Aquinas.

[Edited on 10-10-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 10, 2005)

> Mark, you do realize that covenant theology only appeared in the 17th century (with Cocceius and Witsius) and that the main arguments for infant baptism throughout history even to our own day have largely rested on baptismal regeneration and superstitious sacramentalism don't you?




Really,
I thought CT was a biblically based theory. The main argument for CT is BR???


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 10, 2005)

Phillip, I don't think the question is that men are infallible or that tradition is infallible. I would, though, have all to consider that in the writings of the Reformation (of Luther, Calivn, Bucer, Bullinger, et. al.) they quote men like Augustine so many times that people spend thier whole lives trying to piece it all togther. In other words, though men are fallible, there is still a common concensus for essential church doctrine and understanding. That is why, as most reformers believe (both now and then) that sacraments are part of the _esse_ of the church.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 10, 2005)

> ...that covenant theology only appeared in the 17th century (with Cocceius and Witsius)"¦



Shawn,

This is a widely published though quite false account of the history of covenant theology. This view was promulgated particularly in the late 19th century and in the early part of the 20th century. 

In fact, the major elements that were synthesized to become Reformed federal theology all existed to a significant degree in the patristic church. 

Other scholars have come to the same conclusion. For a brief, popular survey see: http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/History_Covenant_Theology.htm

You should also see Vos' history of covenant theology:
http://www.biblicaltheology.org/dcrt.pdf

See also: J. L. Duncan, III, "˜The Covenant Idea in Ante-Nicene Theology´, PhD. Thesis (Edinburgh, 1995). 

Other scholars such as Everett Ferguson calls Irenaeus a "covenant theologian." W. C. van Unnik argues that diatheke as Irenaeus used it, should be translated covenant. 

The Protestant theologians began working with explicit "covenantal" categories quite early. Oecolampadius wrote about the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis) as early as 1523. Zwingli was using covenantal language about the same time. Luther used covenantal language throughout his ministry as did Calvin. Bullinger wrote a treatise on the covenant of grace in the 30's. 

The Heidelberg Theologians developed these threads by 1561 into what we would recognize as a reasonably well-developed federal theology. 

Thus, Reformed federal theology antedated Cocceius by rather a number of years.

As to superstition and "sacramentalism," where exactly do you see that in the orthodox Reformed from the last 4 centuries?

rsc


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn_
> Mark, you do realize that covenant theology only appeared in the 17th century (with Cocceius and Witsius) and that the main arguments for infant baptism throughout history even to our own day have largely rested on baptismal regeneration and superstitious sacramentalism don't you? The kind of sacramentalism which is still practiced by members of your own Communion, I might add (as a good-natured barb, not as an insult). So yes, from that kind of Church history I will gladly disconnect myself, because it means staying true to Scripture. Sola scriptura, you know. So in a sense, yah, it does come down to me and my Bible.



Shawn,

You would do very well to read Dr. Clark's post, and especially to read Dr. Ligon Duncan's writings on Covenant Theology in the Church Fathers.

But I would also ask you if you realize that wat you have just stated is standard propoganda that has little relation to the truth, even among Baptist theologians.

I would encourage you, for instance, to make such a comment about Witsius and the origin of Covenant theology in the presence of Sam Waldron, Walt Chantry, Rich Barcellos or any good 1689er, and see if they take them seriously. (They won't.)


----------



## Philip A (Oct 10, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I would encourage you, for instance, to make such a comment about Witsius and the origin of Covenant theology in the presence of Sam Waldron, Walt Chantry, Rich Barcellos or any good 1689er, and see if they take them seriously. (They won't.)





Fred is quite right. Though we would all get a good laugh out of it. 

To say that CT did not exist before Witsius or Cocceius is like saying that there were no Calvinists before the Synod of Dort, or no Trinitarians before the Council of Nicea.

You are a Trinitarian Calvinist, aren't you? 

(note:  smiley indicates joke)

[Edited on 10-10-2005 by Philip A]


----------



## Canadian _Shawn (Oct 11, 2005)

Sorry guys,

I obviously didn't state my point clearly. I thought that what was being said was that if I embraced Church history, I would also embrace infant baptism. My rejoinder was to say that (1) the main argument for infant baptism from church history revolves around baptismal regeneration - something we all reject as being false, and (2) Protestantism is largely a 'modern' occurance, and yet its relative age does not affect the truth of Protestantism which is grounded in the Bible and not history.

I suspect that even though some scholars may find elements of covenant theology in the Church Fathers, its is a highly debatable topic. My former systematics professor, Douglas Farrow, is a foremost authority on Irenaeus, and he's not Reformed. I'll have to ask him his opinion about the link between Irenaeus and the Reformers. In any case, whether covenant theology was developed in the 17th or 16th centuries, we can hardly appeal to Church history for holding to it. We can, however, appeal to the Bible, which is the point of the exegetical arguments we've been making.

I hope that clears things up. Sorry to confuse. I'll just continue with my studies now! 

Cheers,
Shawn


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Canadian _Shawn_
> ...I suspect that even though some scholars may find elements of covenant theology in the Church Fathers, its is a highly debatable topic. My former systematics professor, Douglas Farrow, is a foremost authority on Irenaeus, and he's not Reformed. I'll have to ask him his opinion about the link between Irenaeus and the Reformers.



Shawn,

A mild correction: That versions of covenant theology existed well before the Reformation is not some novel speculation, It is a conclusion to which a number of scholars from a variety of backgrounds have arrived. 

In the spirit of _ad fontes_ let me encourage you to read for yourself Irenaeus and other of the orthodox fathers. You may be surprised how often and thoroughly they appealed to the notion of the covenant of grace to unify the history of redemption. They had two external threats to which they had to respond: Jewish criticism of Christianity (we worship a criminal) and the Gnostic dualism. 

The other elements (e.g., Adamic probation before the fall; Adam's federal headship) of what became Reformed federal theology (RFT) were also present in many of the other fathers and medieval theologians (e.g., Anselm, Lombard, Thomas) who did not write as explicitly in covenantal terms. 

The point is that the early Reformed theologians harvested what were by then quite traditional themes in Patristic and Medieval theology to express their protestant convictions. 

Let me be clear: I am not arguing that one can find a fully developed version of RFT before the 16th c. That would be a silly argument. I am arguing that there are genuine, organic, connections between the RFT of the 1560's and earlier epochs of the church. 

I am also arguing that there have been a variety of covenant theologies in the history of the church. It is not the case that if someone adopts a covenantal motif that they are necessarily orthodox or come to correct conclusions. That's why the qualifier "Reformed" or "Protestant" is so important. There was a highly developed Franciscan covenant theology in the late middle ages, exemplified by Gabriel Biel who taught that God had made a covenant: (_facientibus quod in se est, Deus non denegat gratiam _- Rev Kok surely remembers this from CH602!) "to those who do what lies within them, God does not deny grace." In a sense the entire Reformation was a rebellion against a perverse covenant theology. Luther referred to the _"facere"_ repeatedly in his writings. Indeed, some Lutherans have argued (not convincingly in my view) that "covenant" theology is incompatible with Protestantism altogether. It was the Reformed concern to rehabilitate this very biblical category (_Berith_ occurs hundreds of times in the Hebrew scriptures)

This at least shows that "covenant" was an active category centuries years before the Reformation and an active consideration in the formation of the Reformation. 

I agree that the nature of the biblical covenant theology can only be determined by exegesis and systematic theology, not history. Historical theology should not be prescriptive (except in the case it accurately describes a given tradition with which one identifies). Scripture is the ultimate norm. 

My intent here, however, is to stamp out, as much as possible, the notion that RFT developed in the mid-17th century and is therefore just some idiosyncratic Dutch way of handling Scripture. Rather, covenant theology is a catholic and very traditional way of handling Scripture especially as juxtaposed with e.g., Dispensationalism, the roots of which really are quite modern and which really is a novelty.

rsc

[Edited on 10-11-2005 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 11, 2005)

Dr. Clark's posts in this thread make me want to attend WSC.


----------



## Poimen (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Dr. Clark's posts in this thread make me want to attend WSC.



As an _alma mater_ I highly recommend it. 

Packed with Reformed theological goodness, WSC includes all your essential daily tools to exegete scripture. Um, um good!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



... And I likely _would_ attend there. But I cannot afford it and going into debt is not something I'd consider doing.


----------



## Canadian _Shawn (Oct 11, 2005)

Hi Dr. Clark,

I would definetely be interested in reading Irenaeus on the covenants - would that be in the Apostolic Preaching or Against the Heresies or both? And what will I find there? As you pointed out there are many covenant theologies, and I've never read anyone say there aren't any covenants in the Bible... so what about Irenaeus in particular would link him to Reformed Covenant Theology? Does he have the three-fold notion of a covenant of redemption, works, and grace? Or just the covenant of grace?

Cheers,
Shawn


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 11, 2005)

Dr Clark,
Would you kindly point me to the portions of Irenaeus that you have in mind as being distinctly _covenantal_? It has been some time since I read much of the Church Fathers, but I can't recall seeing anything in Irenaeus specifically about the covenant(s). No doubt my memory is playing me false.

Many thanks,

Martin


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Dr Clark,
> Would you kindly point me to the portions of Irenaeus that you have in mind as being distinctly _covenantal_? It has been some time since I read much of the Church Fathers, but I can't recall seeing anything in Irenaeus specifically about the covenant(s). No doubt my memory is playing me false.
> 
> ...



Dear Martin and Shawn,

No, one ought not read back later developments into Irenaneus or into any of the Fathers, but he (and they) did make an argument from the unity of the covenant of grace. 

I find that the diatheke functioned in the Fathers in five ways:
1. to stress the moral obligations of Christianity;
2. to show God´s grace in including the Gentiles in the Abrahamic blessings;
3. to deny that Jews/Israel received the promises simply because they were physical descendents of Abraham;
4. to demonstrate the unity of the divine economy of salvation (i.e., the unity of the covenant of grace);
5 to explain the discontinuity between the old and new covenants in Scripture.

This is the sort of thing one finds in the Epistle of Barnabas (ante 150 AD). In ch. 4 of his Epistle, he warned his readers about "works of iniquity" and the "errors of the present." He made an argument about the effective transfer of the administration o f God´s favor from Jewish as a national people to Gentiles (quoting Daniel 7:7,8,24 as proof texts). He says that the Christian ought not to say that (Epistle, 4:6) the "covenant is theirs and ours" because they "thus finally lost it, after Moses had already received it" (at Sinai).

The covenant for Barnabas was personal and cosmic, interior and national. ï€ªDiatheke has a twofold sense: a national, temporary administration and personal, permanent relations between God and the Christian. He also connected to God´s fulfilling of "the promise he made to the Fathers" which occurred in the incarnation.

Christ is the fulfillment of the promises. Israel = those who believe in "our beloved Jesus." The true circumcision is the spiritual circumcision (ch.9). The OT is composed of types (ch´s 7-12) of Christ (food, the red heifer, the brass serpent, types of baptism, types of the cross; the Christian sabbath vs. The Jewish sabbath [ch.15]). For Barnabas, Christ is God with us, having made us his temple (ch.16). These are all covenantal allusions and evidence of a covenantal hermeneutic.

1 Clement quotes Barnabas extensively and it is usually dated sub 100, hence Barnabas is considerably earlier than 150.

Justin Martyr (in his Dialogue with Trypho) appealed repeatedly to the notion of a continuing covenant. He calls (ch 11) the new covenant "the final law" (a move which helped to give rise to the medieval old law/new law hermeneutic; but that is another thread). Acc. to Justin The old covenant, promulgated at Horeb, was local and temporary (ch.11). In contrast Christ's diatheke is the new law and the new covenant and the universal covenant.The covenant and law of Christ was prior to Moses and is final and irreplaceable. 

Irenaeus (c.130-200) wrote in an era when gnosticism was the greatest threat facing the W. church. His most important work was _Adversus omnes haereses._ His most important task was to demonstrate the unity of God and his salvation. In the 4th book of Adv. Haereses (which we have in Latin trans), Irenaeus turned to the theme of the covenant to defend Christianity. 

Against the gnostics he defended the words of Moses as the words of Christ (Adv Haer, 4.1.3). The God of the Bible, the Christian, Triune God, is one. The faith therefore is one and the covenant, substantially one (Adv Haer. 4.9.1) 

The same God who gave the Old covenant (the Decalogue), also gave us Christ to redeem us, and in whom we are justified by faith. Like Justin, Irenaeus capitalized on the promises in the Hebrew SS of a "New Covenant" and a "New Song" (Ps 96.1)

He argued the notion of progressive revelation (though he did not use the term). The OT prophets preached a "New Covenant" (Adv Haer., 4.9.3) and God´s grace was adminstered through "covenants."



> For the new covenant having been known and preached by the prophets, He who was to carry it out according to the good pleasure of the Father was also preached; having been revealed to men as God pleased; that they might always make progress through believing in Him, and by means of the [successive] covenants, should gradually attain to perfect salvation. For there is one salvation and one God; but the precepts which form the man are numerous, and the steps which lead man to God are not a few. (_Adv Haer._ 4.9.3)



I hope this helps.

rsc


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 11, 2005)

Thank you, Dr Clark. 


> I find that the diatheke functioned in the Fathers in five ways:
> 1. to stress the moral obligations of Christianity;
> 2. to show God´s grace in including the Gentiles in the Abrahamic blessings;
> 3. to deny that Jews/Israel received the promises simply because they were physical descendents of Abraham;
> ...





Martin


----------

