# Romans 9, Baptism, and the Children of the Promise?



## RamistThomist (Aug 5, 2004)

Although I have just become paedobaptist, I am still having to iron out a lot of my theology, so please bear with me.

This evening my mother and I were discussing my switch to paedobaptism and I think she saw all my points save one: "What of the person who receives the sign of the covenant and apostatizes from the faith?" At first, I didn't know what to say but it did get me thinking. I realized several things then: 1) God commanded that Esau receive circumcision fully aware that he was going to be a covenant-breaker. Yet the word of God is not made void is it? No, for Paul says, "For not all who are Israel (receive the sign of the covenant) are Israel (actually elect)." Here is where I struggle, [i:3f1d612144]v.8 It is not as though the children of the flesh are the children of God, but the children of the promise.[/i:3f1d612144]

I guess the insightful credo who has actuall read Romans 9 might suggest that the true children of the promise are those who believe, not those who receive the sign of the covenant. That is the only possible objection I can think of right now. Thank you for helping me straighten out my theology.


----------



## Philip A (Aug 6, 2004)

[quote:4da227ea35="Finn McCool"]Here is where I struggle, [i:4da227ea35]v.8 It is not as though the children of the flesh are the children of God, but the children of the promise.[/i:4da227ea35]

I guess the insightful credo who has actuall read Romans 9 might suggest that the true children of the promise are those who believe, not those who receive the sign of the covenant.[/quote:4da227ea35]

Yes indeed, you have happened upon what in my view is the heart of the confessional Reformed Baptist position. Paul positively identifies who the true children of the Abraham are, both in Romans 9, and in Galatians 3. Virtually all other arguments are peripheral to this one thing. It hinges on the question, "are the physical children of the Abrahamic Covenant normative, or typological?"


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2004)

That had been my position for the longest time, but on reading the text is it is clear that whether the sign of the covenant [i:8c34be3560]ought[/i:8c34be3560] to be received is beside the point. Paul's point is that salvation us ultimately God's choice. The fact that those who do receive the sign of the covenant and are not saved does not in anyway negate the ongoing validity of the sign. Paul merely stresses that salvation is one of election. There is nothing in the text that negates the use of the sign of the covenant.

Regards,

However, I go to an Arminian baptist school. This argument will not be used against me because no one at my school has read Romans 9, or the book of Romans for that matter, or actually anything outside of the Gospels.


----------



## cupotea (Aug 6, 2004)

I know this doesn't speak directly to your point, but don't credo-baptists having made a credible profession and having undergone the 'ordinance' sometimes apostatize too?

I am not aware of any save a few heretics who insist that Baptism is a necessarily efficient guarantor of [i:b4ae531085]all[/i:b4ae531085] covenant gifts including salvation.


----------



## Philip A (Aug 6, 2004)

[quote:91e9eb5f2c="Finn McCool"]That had been my position for the longest time, but on reading the text is it is clear that whether the sign of the covenant [i:91e9eb5f2c]ought[/i:91e9eb5f2c] to be received is beside the point.[/quote:91e9eb5f2c]

To an extent you are correct; we are dealing with the issue on a more fundamental level. We are dealing with the question of who is in the covenant (who are the children of the promise). The whole paedo case is based on infant inclusion.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Aug 6, 2004)

[quote:7a3308b79d="Paul manata"][quote:7a3308b79d="Philip A"][quote:7a3308b79d="Finn McCool"]That had been my position for the longest time, but on reading the text is it is clear that whether the sign of the covenant [i:7a3308b79d]ought[/i:7a3308b79d] to be received is beside the point.[/quote:7a3308b79d]

To an extent you are correct; we are dealing with the issue on a more fundamental level. We are dealing with the question of who is in the covenant (who are the children of the promise). The whole paedo case is based on infant inclusion.[/quote:7a3308b79d]

the children of the promise have been the same. In the OT there were some who were true children of Abraham yet the children were still included. So, you can't make a case that children are not in it because there are true children of Abraham... that's an old, not a new concept.[/quote:7a3308b79d]

Right you are, Paul. There is nothing new about [the apostle] Paul's words in Romans and Galatians. In fact, what does he base his arguments upon? The OLD Testament, where infants were undeniably included in the covenant. The true seed of Abraham are those whose inward condition matches their outward. But this has always been the case, which on Baptist principles would mean that in the OT only the elect should have been circumcised. But we know what was really the case.


----------



## Bryan (Aug 6, 2004)

[quote:6a8893629d="Finn McCool"]
However, I go to an Arminian baptist school. This argument will not be used against me because no one at my school has read Romans 9, or the book of Romans for that matter, or actually anything outside of the Gospels.[/quote:6a8893629d]

Now thats funny,  

Bryan
SDG


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 6, 2004)

I was hoping I would get some laughs on that one but sadly it is true. I debated an Arminian and brought up Romans 9 and she maintained that the whole chapter was about Christian love to each other! I then proceeded to quote the chapter...


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Aug 10, 2004)

You'll find the same thing in Youth Majors at my school, Jacob 

Wait, there's other books in the Bible? Wait.. there's other books to read BESIDES to Bible to learn about God? Wait.. you READ?? You enjoy singing PSALMS ONLY?!? WHAT?!?!


----------

