# sprinkle and imersion?



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 6, 2004)

whether child or adult which is the biblical mode of baptism/

blade


----------



## SolaScriptura (Apr 6, 2004)

Either. 

Though I would confess that if an adult came to me my first impulse would be to dunk him... but I wouldn't have a problem with sprinking him either.


----------



## Saiph (Apr 6, 2004)

Pouring.


----------



## cupotea (Apr 6, 2004)

(Rom. 6:3-5)
[3] Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? [4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 

Baptism pictures the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (v. 4) Since we bury someone by lowering his body into the grave and completely covered with dirt, it would appear thar the mode of baptism would be immersion. 

When you plant a seed in the ground, (v. 5) you dig a hole and place the seed in a hole. You don't juse set it on the surface and sprinkle a little dirt on it.

When Jesus rose from the grave, he came completely out of the grave which would be represented by raising one out of the water.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 6, 2004)

[quote:5647ed707e][i:5647ed707e]Originally posted by CajunBibleBeliever[/i:5647ed707e]
(Rom. 6:3-5)
[3] Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? [4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. [5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 

Baptism pictures the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (v. 4) Since we bury someone by lowering his body into the grave and completely covered with dirt, it would appear thar the mode of baptism would be immersion. 

When you plant a seed in the ground, (v. 5) you dig a hole and place the seed in a hole. You don't juse set it on the surface and sprinkle a little dirt on it.

When Jesus rose from the grave, he came completely out of the grave which would be represented by raising one out of the water. [/quote:5647ed707e]

Inhumation is for the most part unknown in the ancient world. The readers of Romans 6 would not have thought at all of the typical American identification of American burial practices and the mode of baptism. While immersion may be biblical mode (I think sprinkling is the best mode) it simply is impossible to insist on immersion from Rom. 6. The only way is to deny history.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 6, 2004)

Fred is right, but let's be more basic and ask a couple of practical question if we think bruial as in American burial is right.


[quote:c6a46ef8d0]
Baptism pictures the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (v. 4) Since we bury someone by lowering his body into the grave and completely covered with dirt, it would appear thar the mode of baptism would be immersion. 
[/quote:c6a46ef8d0]

1) Jesus was not burried, he was entombed.

So would we want people to float on the water since we are copying his entombment?

2) Jesus was entombed for three days.

I don't know of anyone who can hold thier breath that long! Are we going to dunk them for three days?

3) Immersion was not even a question around the Anabaptists who sprung up at the time of the early reformation. It just was not an issue.

4) The Didache speaks of lots of water, and rivers which force Baptists to conlude that they must dunk them. But, running water seen in the Didache is in terms of &quot;living water&quot; or water that is flowing. (i.e. they woudl not want you to baptize someone with stagnant water in a pond.)


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 6, 2004)

Thanks so far 

blade


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 6, 2004)

Immersion was the common practice of Scripture and the early church... to this day the Greek Orthodox still practice infant immersion... but the whole debate between immersion and sprinkling is really uselss because both sides come in with different answers to the question who is to be baptized... for I think it is clear that if we only baptize Disciples then the preferable method would be immersion because it was the practice of the Baptist and the Apostles but if we are to baptize infants then clearly immersoning infants is not the best way to do it because of obvious health risks for the baby. Therefore our answer to the mode is always dependent upon our answer to who is the proper object of baptism... the mode is indefferent but it is still a worthy topic because immersion of Christians is the most preferable method for adult Disciples. 

Tyler

[Edited on 4-7-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## MICWARFIELD (Apr 6, 2004)

Pouring.


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 6, 2004)

[quote:50ccab9fbc][i:50ccab9fbc]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:50ccab9fbc]
[quote:50ccab9fbc][i:50ccab9fbc]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:50ccab9fbc]
Immersion was the common practice of Scripture and the early church... to this day the Greek Orthodox still practice infant immersion... but the whole debate between immersion and sprinkling is really uselss because both sides come in with different answers to the question who is to be baptized... for I think it is clear that if we only baptize Disciples then the preferable method would be immersion because it was the practice of the Baptist and the Apostles but if we are to baptize infants then clearly immersoning infants is not the best way to do it because of obvious health risks for the baby. Therefore our answer to the mode is always dependent upon our answer to who is the proper object of baptism... the mode is indefferent but it is still a worthy topic because immersion of Christians is the most preferable method for adult Disciples. 

Tyler

[Edited on 4-7-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:50ccab9fbc]

many greek cults in the times of the apostles baptized by sprinkling or pouring.

baptize is used in greek for dying clothes. that is because of the *effect* that it had not *how* it was done.

we don't know if that was the practice of the apostles.

lastly, the greek word for supper *means* evening meal. now, did the first century church partake of communion in the evening? Does your church?

-Paul [/quote:50ccab9fbc]

Just as many persasive arguements could be lunched back at the the person who says that sprikling is better then immersion. I mean it is common knowledge that in the most [b:50ccab9fbc] usual [/b:50ccab9fbc]sense of the Greek word it meant immersion and cleansing. Also Josephus in one of his works distinguishes between sprinkling and immersion, showing that the two are not the same when he writes: &quot;and dipping (baptizo) part of these ashes in [spring water], they sprinkled [ranio] them...&quot; (Josephus) also are we to really think that when Christ said that he had a baptism to under still to come that he only had God's wrath sprinkled upon him or did God's wrath inflict the full punishment of sin- in other words did God's wrath immerse the Christ? Surely it did. 

Therefore we could trade arguements like these back and forth all day... but we would begetting nowhere fast for we disagree on the question who is to be baptized and our answer to that question will always prejudice our answer to the mode of baptism. I think that if you adopted a credobaptist position you would also come to the conclusion that immersion is preferable normally to sprinkling and I am sure that if I were to come to adopt Paedobaptism I would come to the veiw that immersion my precious infant is not the best idea in the world... even if it can be done safely why risk it? hence I probably would not be a person to prefer immersion over sprinkling if I was a parent of a baptized infant. But as a Credobaptist I see the wisdom of following the example of the practice of the Apostles and the early church... for immersion captures the trial by water that was so pivital to the Covenant cleansing trials that took place in the ancient world when alleged Covenant breakers were thrown into the river to see if they would float and if they did they were innocent and if not they were guilty. 


To the glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 4-7-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## kceaster (Apr 7, 2004)

*Tyler...*

I am not so sure that mode goes with credo vs. paedo. Long before I was paedo, It did not seem to me to matter, since the mode does not an effectual baptism make. The Spirit does, I am pretty sure those who are baptized by the Holy Spirit are not only immersed, but held under.

We have all heard the jokes about having to be immersed twice or three times because of someone's sordid background, or having to be baptized twice or three times because it didn't take. While it may seem humorous to us, it was real at one time. That thinking actually entered the mind of people. If they thought this, then they really have tied the effectualness of baptism to the mode, water, minister, etc.

We know that this cannot be true. We need to stop looking at what we do as being the thing God requires in the command and start looking at what He does when we keep it. We could immerse everyone who professes, but that does not mean they're baptized. They are baptized when God says they're baptized because it is His work, not ours.

The only thing we are to make sure of is that we do it in the name of the triune God. Whether which much water or no, baptizing in His name will only be effectual if He has determined to circumcise that heart.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 8, 2004)

KC, 

I do think our veiw of what baptism is will prejudice are answer to the question what is the preferable mode of baptism?... we would all agree I think that there are bad modes of baptism like using spittle as the Roman Catholic Church at one time did so we do not just want to blanket it and so mode does not matter at all for in point of fact it does matter. 

You have (and I think you have always held) to a Augistinian-like &quot;sacramental&quot; view so that baptism is God's work and it is effectual despite the minster or baptized person but Reformed Baptist generally as a whole do not view baptism as an Augustinian-type-sacramentally (as you and Calvin do), though they view can list it as a &quot;Means of Grace&quot; most Reformed Baptist have always stressed that faith is essential and that it is an act of obeidence and that the Word of God is supreme over baptism in the sense that it most superceed it before it can be adminstered... Therefore I most now add that the mode of baptism cannot really be answered untill these different questions are first answered, what is baptism and who is to be baptized. Once these questions are answered then we can talk about the mode. Just my :wr50:

Tyler

[Edited on 4-8-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## kceaster (Apr 8, 2004)

*Tyler....*

[quote:9f40f8ee48][i:9f40f8ee48]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:9f40f8ee48]
KC, 

I do think our veiw of what baptism is will prejudice are answer to the question what is the preferable mode of baptism?... we would all agree I think that there are bad modes of baptism like using spittle as the Roman Catholic Church at one time did so we do not just want to blanket it and so mode does not matter at all for in point of fact it does matter.[/quote:9f40f8ee48]

I guess what I meant was that whether sprinkling, pouring, or immersing with water, the external aspect is administered correctly. Spitting would definitely not do, for the external aspect, because it is not given that way in the Scriptures.

I truly believe, also, that water was not used in some baptisms, which in certain circumstances, should be acceptable, especially when being done by an apostle of the Lord.

But this is just the external aspect.

[quote:9f40f8ee48]You have (and I think you have always held) to a Augistinian-like &quot;sacramental&quot; view so that baptism is God's work and it is effectual despite the minster or baptized person but Reformed Baptist generally as a whole do not view baptism as an Augustinian-type-sacramentally (as you and Calvin do), though they view can list it as a &quot;Means of Grace&quot; most Reformed Baptist have always stressed that faith is essential and that it is an act of obeidence and that the Word of God is supreme over baptism in the sense that it most superceed it before it can be adminstered... Therefore I most now add that the mode of baptism cannot really be answered untill these different questions are first answered, what is baptism and who is to be baptized. Once these questions are answered then we can talk about the mode. Just my :wr50:

Tyler[/quote:9f40f8ee48]

You have to admit that baptism is supposed to do something in the life of the believer. Christ's baptism was not without event. The Holy Spirit descending upon Him then, should tell us, along with all other places where baptism is spoken of, that there is supposed to be something attached to the ordinance that transcends mere water and words.

Also, look into the list in which baptism is placed in Ephesians 4. These all have to do with the unity of the Spirit. The Spirit is in each of these things. If the Spirit is in baptism, as He was at Christ's, then what does He do in ours? Is He present in the mode? What does physical water to do with our spiritual soul? Is He present in the minister? That would mean that everytime baptism is performed in the words, the Spirit would inhabit the person doing the baptizing. Are we willing to say that? Is He present in the words spoken? Absolutely. And what does that Word promise? That we will not be the same as we were. That the Holy Spirit will do something to make those words applicable to us, only if it is His will. Is He present in the one being baptized? Not always. Many of us can attest to that. But, it is not the one being baptized who makes his own baptism in and of himself. Therefore, baptism is not because of the will of a man. Baptism is only by the will of the Spirit.

Something happens in baptism, something we cannot see. This is why it is a sacrament. It is a mystery why placing water on a person, or placing the person in water, along with the words of administration mean a change in a person. But the change is clearly evident from Scripture.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 8, 2004)

[quote:b3f7bb4029]You have to admit that baptism is supposed to do something in the life of the believer. [/quote:b3f7bb4029]

Thus is undisputed I also agree that baptism is important and does something in the life of the believer. 

[quote:b3f7bb4029]Christ's baptism was not without event. The Holy Spirit descending upon Him then, should tell us, along with all other places where baptism is spoken of, that there is supposed to be something attached to the ordinance that transcends mere water and words. [/quote:b3f7bb4029] 

Exactly. Christ baptism is an excellent example for we know that Christ did not receive any "sanctifying grace" in his baptism for Christ was already perfect and was without sin, Christ never received grace because grace is unmerited and Christ merited whatever rewards he got. Hence, we must either say I think on Augustines view that Christ was not baptized or we can say that baptism is not essentially linked to sanctifying grace. 

[quote:b3f7bb4029] Also, look into the list in which baptism is placed in Ephesians 4. These all have to do with the unity of the Spirit. The Spirit is in each of these things. If the Spirit is in baptism, as He was at Christ's, then what does He do in ours?[/quote:b3f7bb4029]

What did the Spirit do in Christ's baptism? The Spirit is not given to us in water baptism but the Spirit uses baptism to legally clear our name, when Covenant breakers were charged with treason and wanted to be found innocent one of the tests was to be thrown into the river and if the gods had found favor and he did not drown that was legal proof that the man was innocent. Christians then must also go through such water ordeals and when they are baptized they are baptized into Christ and so identify themselves with Christ the Spirit is what raises the Christian out of the ordeal just as the Spirit raised Christ out of the grave. Baptism works legally not intrinsically and it is a sign of obedience as man seeks to identify himself with Christ. Baptism is man's work and it is man's response to God's grace. That is why baptism is to be given by the community because the individual confesses and units his destiny to the Christian community whose head is Christ. Therefore Baptism works by faith, by the Spirit and by obedience as God's Word preceded it. 


[quote:b3f7bb4029] Is He present in the mode? What does physical water to do with our spiritual soul? [/quote:b3f7bb4029]

So would you disagree with Calvin and Augustine and say that baptism is dependent upon the quality recipient to work? I would argue that physical water is important for our spiritual soul. 

[quote:b3f7bb4029]Is He present in the minister? That would mean that everytime baptism is performed in the words, the Spirit would inhabit the person doing the baptizing. Are we willing to say that? [/quote:b3f7bb4029]

If we are not then we are no longer sacramental in our understanding of the sacraments.

[quote:b3f7bb4029]Is He present in the words spoken? Absolutely. And what does that Word promise? That we will not be the same as we were.[/quote:b3f7bb4029]

I disagree and agree... if you mean that we will receive some "special grace" what does that mean and what exactly does that do? But if you agree that baptism just gives us a clean conscience through faith if the Spirit gets us through it then I agree but if we do not have the spirit getting us through it and the faith to be baptized then we are still baptized but we have just failed the water ordeal and are calling judgment upon ourselves be legally found guilty.

[quote:b3f7bb4029] That the Holy Spirit will do something to make those words applicable to us, only if it is His will. Is He present in the one being baptized? Not always. Many of us can attest to that. But, it is not the one being baptized who makes his own baptism in and of himself. [/quote:b3f7bb4029]

But is this not exactly what Augustine wants to deny? Augustine I think would deny that statement! For you are saying that baptism is dependent upon us to work for that is how the Spirit choses to do it? But if that is so, then baptism is ultimately dependent upon us to work and is therefore not really the Spirits work at all (though the Spirit chose to work that way) 

[quote:b3f7bb4029]Therefore, baptism is not because of the will of a man. Baptism is only by the will of the Spirit.[/quote:b3f7bb4029]

I don't think you want to say that though for your argument seems to run that God's spirit only chooses to work in the hearts of believers, making the condition of the heart of the recipient the condition of baptism effectiveness (just as the Spirit chose.) Hence you kicked the idea of baptism being man's work out the back door to make room for Augustines doctrine of sacramentalism but you sneaked man's work in through the back door leaving one foot on ice and the other on fire. If baptism is God's work then it is not dependent upon man but if it is man work then it is not God's work it cannot be both anymore then ice and be hot and warm at the same time and in the same sense.


[quote:b3f7bb4029] Something happens in baptism, something we cannot see. This is why it is a sacrament. It is a mystery why placing water on a person, or placing the person in water, along with the words of administration mean a change in a person. But the change is clearly evident from Scripture [/quote:b3f7bb4029]

Augustine and Calvin's view is mysterious and beyond reason but I would argue that it is not because they followed Scripture but were only men who do not always get it right. 

With respect and love... knowing that both sides sincerly seek to please God with all their hearts by obeying his every precept found in his words... Even so, Come Lord come. 


Tyler


----------



## kceaster (Apr 8, 2004)

*Tyler....*

Perhaps some words at the outset which may or may not clarify.

Baptism in essence is the Spirit's work. Only He can do it. He does it to whom He chooses. He does it when He chooses. The Spirit is free to work with or without the secondary means. He is just as free NOT to work in those whom He chooses. This work is invisible and may not be seen by us, for in those with whom He works, these are the Elect of God. We cannot see the Elect or know them, therefore we cannot see His work.

Baptism in outward administration is not a work in the sense that it merits grace or anything else. But in order for the sign to accompany the thing signified, it must needs follow the pattern given in the ordinance of Christ. It must be done by a minister of the gospel, who in himself, adds nothing. He speaks the words of institution and applies the water, but it is the Spirit and not his administration that makes any signification accompany the outward sign. He is a secondary means only and is necessary to the proper administration of the outward sign.

The outward sign must be applied to a person. That person does not add anything to the signification of the sign. It is not in him that any effectualness is found, but only by the Spirit. In the sense that he is brought or brings himself, he is aiding in this work of the Spirit, but again, this work merits nothing before God.

The water of the outward sign bears no signification in the sign. It is an ordinary thing and not special within itself. It has no power. When applied to the one being baptized, it signifies what only the Holy Spirit can do in the spiritual realm. 

If it is the Spirit's will to cleanse the person and to put them in Christ, and to regenerate their souls, and to bestow upon them faith; either prior to, during, or after the baptism is performed, then He does this work as His will dictates. If the person is Elect, the Holy Spirit will, at some time in the life of this one, make the baptism effectual, even when there is no physical baptismal administration.

The only way for baptism to be truly baptism is if the Spirit does His work. There is nothing in this outward sign effectual within itself to the person to whom it is administered.

[quote:e0a4c69b20]
[quote:e0a4c69b20]You have to admit that baptism is supposed to do something in the life of the believer. [/quote:e0a4c69b20]

Thus is undisputed I also agree that baptism is important and does something in the life of the believer.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]

Then your only disagreement must be that the physical administration carries with it some special thing that may be obtained just in the act. This is the Romish argument that you oppose. They believe that the administration by the priest and the faith of the believer have everything to do with their obtaining grace.

The Reformed position stands in stark contrast. Baptism in its outward sign made significant by the Spirit is what we mean by saying it is a means of grace. Baptism is the means by which God has given us to do all the things you have listed in your post. Is it not by God's grace these things are accomplished? Does He not use the ordinary means He ordained to accomplish it?

BTW, when you look at means of grace, are you looking from your perspective or God's? A means of grace from our perspective is that which we do so that we may obtain. You are right to buck against this. However, the means of grace from God's perspective is that which He uses to providentially carry out His plan. So, depending on perspective, one could either be sacerdotal or sacramental. The correct view is sacramental.

[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20]Christ's baptism was not without event. The Holy Spirit descending upon Him then, should tell us, along with all other places where baptism is spoken of, that there is supposed to be something attached to the ordinance that transcends mere water and words. [/quote:e0a4c69b20] 

Exactly. Christ baptism is an excellent example for we know that Christ did not receive any "sanctifying grace" in his baptism for Christ was already perfect and was without sin, Christ never received grace because grace is unmerited and Christ merited whatever rewards he got. Hence, we must either say I think on Augustines view that Christ was not baptized or we can say that baptism is not essentially linked to sanctifying grace.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]

Christ was the embodiment of grace, yet the outward sign was still performed to fulfill all righteousness. And who says that baptism is all about sanctifying grace? Why does it follow that baptism is about sanctification? I think this is producing a false alternative. 

[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20] Also, look into the list in which baptism is placed in Ephesians 4. These all have to do with the unity of the Spirit. The Spirit is in each of these things. If the Spirit is in baptism, as He was at Christ's, then what does He do in ours?[/quote:e0a4c69b20]

What did the Spirit do in Christ's baptism? The Spirit is not given to us in water baptism but the Spirit uses baptism to legally clear our name, when Covenant breakers were charged with treason and wanted to be found innocent one of the tests was to be thrown into the river and if the gods had found favor and he did not drown that was legal proof that the man was innocent. Christians then must also go through such water ordeals and when they are baptized they are baptized into Christ and so identify themselves with Christ the Spirit is what raises the Christian out of the ordeal just as the Spirit raised Christ out of the grave. Baptism works legally not intrinsically and it is a sign of obedience as man seeks to identify himself with Christ. Baptism is man's work and it is man's response to God's grace. That is why baptism is to be given by the community because the individual confesses and units his destiny to the Christian community whose head is Christ. Therefore Baptism works by faith, by the Spirit and by obedience as God's Word preceded it.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]

Then it testifies to what the Spirit has already done, is doing, or will do - In other words,, the thing signified. That is what a sign is. Why do you think I am saying otherwise? I do disagree with you that the sign is always accompanied with what the Spirit has done. There are many that receive the sign, but never receive the thing signified. 

[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20] Is He present in the mode? What does physical water to do with our spiritual soul? [/quote:e0a4c69b20]

So would you disagree with Calvin and Augustine and say that baptism is dependent upon the quality recipient to work? I would argue that physical water is important for our spiritual soul.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]

See my points above. What does physical water, being immersed, or sprinkled do to our spirits? 

[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20]Is He present in the minister? That would mean that everytime baptism is performed in the words, the Spirit would inhabit the person doing the baptizing. Are we willing to say that? [/quote:e0a4c69b20]

If we are not then we are no longer sacramental in our understanding of the sacraments.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]

Could you clarify? I am arguing against sacerdotalism here. Are you arguing for it? Or, are you claiming that sacramentalists are really sacerdotalists.

[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20]Is He present in the words spoken? Absolutely. And what does that Word promise? That we will not be the same as we were.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]

I disagree and agree... if you mean that we will receive some "special grace" what does that mean and what exactly does that do? But if you agree that baptism just gives us a clean conscience through faith if the Spirit gets us through it then I agree but if we do not have the spirit getting us through it and the faith to be baptized then we are still baptized but we have just failed the water ordeal and are calling judgment upon ourselves be legally found guilty.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]

See above about the perspectives of the means of grace. I think you're seeing means of grace from the wrong angle.

[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20] That the Holy Spirit will do something to make those words applicable to us, only if it is His will. Is He present in the one being baptized? Not always. Many of us can attest to that. But, it is not the one being baptized who makes his own baptism in and of himself. [/quote:e0a4c69b20]

But is this not exactly what Augustine wants to deny? Augustine I think would deny that statement! For you are saying that baptism is dependent upon us to work for that is how the Spirit choses to do it? But if that is so, then baptism is ultimately dependent upon us to work and is therefore not really the Spirits work at all (though the Spirit chose to work that way)[/quote:e0a4c69b20]

How exactly did I claim that baptism is dependent upon us? I said exactly the opposite.

[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20]Therefore, baptism is not because of the will of a man. Baptism is only by the will of the Spirit.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]

I don't think you want to say that though for your argument seems to run that God's spirit only chooses to work in the hearts of believers, making the condition of the heart of the recipient the condition of baptism effectiveness (just as the Spirit chose.) Hence you kicked the idea of baptism being man's work out the back door to make room for Augustines doctrine of sacramentalism but you sneaked man's work in through the back door leaving one foot on ice and the other on fire. If baptism is God's work then it is not dependent upon man but if it is man work then it is not God's work it cannot be both anymore then ice and be hot and warm at the same time and in the same sense.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]

I hope it is clearer to you now. I have never claimed that man's work makes his baptism effectual. I am saying exactly the opposite. There is a correct administration, but the mode, minister, and person being baptized have nothing to do with whether or not the Spirit has worked or will work. It is all of the Spirit and none of us. We perform the sign, He supplies the thing signified. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

[quote:e0a4c69b20][quote:e0a4c69b20] Something happens in baptism, something we cannot see. This is why it is a sacrament. It is a mystery why placing water on a person, or placing the person in water, along with the words of administration mean a change in a person. But the change is clearly evident from Scripture [/quote:e0a4c69b20]

Augustine and Calvin's view is mysterious and beyond reason but I would argue that it is not because they followed Scripture but were only men who do not always get it right.[/quote:e0a4c69b20]

And there, you would be wrong. But keep digging.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## A_Wild_Boar (Apr 8, 2004)

[quote:fd2dbdcd4d][i:fd2dbdcd4d]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:fd2dbdcd4d]
whether child or adult which is the biblical mode of baptism/

blade [/quote:fd2dbdcd4d]

I guess we need to find out how Jesus was Baptised or how John Baptized. I personally think full immersion is the way to go if possible but nowhere does it say that is how it is to be done alone.

Immersion, pour and sprinkling will do it though.

I recommend full immersion, there is something about being being raisd up from the water that makes it seem like a renewal.


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 9, 2004)

*KC,*

I think our last posts reveal how improper it is to argue about immersion or sprinkling without first answering the questions what is baptism and to whom is it to begiving. By &quot;improper&quot; I meaning only that it is pointless and useless in making progress. 

You repeat that baptism is only given to the elect yet I think human expeirence over and over again testifies against that intepretation... but then you reply no only water baptism is given to non-elect for true baptism is only given to the elect... hence water baptism is not true baptism but is the means to true baptism... I guess that it would be safe to say that &quot;water baptism&quot; is mens work and &quot;true baptism&quot; given in &quot;water baptism&quot; is God's work... and then you speak of baptism as being &quot;God's work&quot; but I confess I do not yet know how &quot;true baptism&quot; is God's work and therefore I cannot agree with what it because I do not know what I would be agreeing with... for I do not know what God does... if he does not santify nor regenerate... what does he do when he gives true baptism through water baptism? (I mean what does Scripture teach upon the subject if anything? or what verses says that &quot;true baptism&quot; is the Masters work not the Disciples work?)

I think water baptism is true baptism and I view it as a human work of Discipleship not a Divine work of grace... therefore I do not have to distingish between true baptism and water baptism... so on.

Therefore we both have different presumptions about baptism and to argue conclusions (ex. immersion) before these presumptions are dealt with would be a wast of time (or so I say)

Tyler

[Edited on 4-9-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## kceaster (Apr 9, 2004)

*Tyler...*

Answer this, brother:

Is baptism a sign?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 10, 2004)

[quote:beeb6c4c36][i:beeb6c4c36]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:beeb6c4c36]
Answer this, brother:

Is baptism a sign?

In Christ,

KC [/quote:beeb6c4c36]

Yes, it is a sign... of regeneration. 

Tyler


----------



## kceaster (Apr 10, 2004)

*Tyler....*

Does that mean that all who receive it have been regenerated?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 10, 2004)

nope

blade


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 10, 2004)

[quote:b785fe7617][i:b785fe7617]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:b785fe7617]
Does that mean that all who receive it have been regenerated?

In Christ,

KC [/quote:b785fe7617]

Well it goes back to the question what is baptism for we can answer that question in two ways, (1) baptism is a human act of faith done in obedience to a Divine command in which they claim to the world they have been regenerated and are no longer guily and subject themselves to the Covenant ordeal test of water and so gain a clear concisnce or guilty consience depending upon if they are innocent or guilty (2) is baptism a Divine work of Grace in which that person is claimed to be regenerated by the word of God in order to help the faith of the person so that they might more confidentaly trust in the promises of God not because God's promise is uncertain but because man'f faith is weak... 

If it is a Divine work of Grace in which God promises that you are regenerrated then we have to come to the natural conclusion that &quot;yes all who are given the sign of regeneration are regenerated&quot; and then conjucture two baptisms real and water, but if it is a human act of faith then we can only say that the words of men may prove to be vain and lie and those who are guilty far from baptism cleansing them it ultiamtely will testify against them as it pleads for the destruction symbolized in baptism to fall upon them... but there is only one baptism that is a sign of regeneration (in the sense that regeneration is the qualification for it). So this brings us back to the original question is baptism an act of faith and obedience or is it purely a Divine work whose essence is the Spirit... 

Tyler




[Edited on 4-11-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## kceaster (Apr 12, 2004)

*Tyler...*

[quote:8b0a6e8239]So this brings us back to the original question is baptism an act of faith and obedience or is it purely a Divine work whose essence is the Spirit...[/quote:8b0a6e8239]

Okay, let's just say for a moment we go with the former, that Baptism is only an act of faith and obedience.

Where does that faith come from? Follow up this with can we be truly obedient without the work of the Spirit?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Optimus (Apr 12, 2004)

Tyler, just for clarification sake:

so you do affirm that there are both unregenerate and regenerate persons who recieve the physical water baptism?


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 12, 2004)

[quote:b38700450d][i:b38700450d]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:b38700450d]
[quote:b38700450d]So this brings us back to the original question is baptism an act of faith and obedience or is it purely a Divine work whose essence is the Spirit...[/quote:b38700450d]

Okay, let's just say for a moment we go with the former, that Baptism is only an act of faith and obedience.

Where does that faith come from? Follow up this with can we be truly obedient without the work of the Spirit?

In Christ,

KC [/quote:b38700450d]

First off, I think our understanding of &quot;faith&quot; might also be different I understand faith to be blessing of the Covenant of Grace not a condition of the Covenant of Grace. 

Now dealing with the question where does faith come from? I would say that saving faith comes when a regenerated heart hears the Words of God and by the inward calling of the Gospel embraces it. This does not mean that there are no second causes and that God forces us to do good works for our good works are really our good works but it is God who gives us both the ability and the will to do the good works-our good works are therefore also blessings of the Covenant of Grace but they are truely our good works. Therefore obedience can only come from the Spirit of God, but someone objects what about all the good works that the Pharisees were able to do? My answer is that their "good works" was in the sight of God displeasing because without faith it is impossible to please God. In the very same way even though Pharisees and Disciples may both be baptized God can read the heart and He is pleased only with the baptism done in obedience and faith and God is displeased with the hypocrites when they baptized because their baptism is not done in faith in obedience but deceit and pride. The words and promises of men may fail and woe is he who puts their trust in men but every promise of God comes true and he who puts their trust in God's promise will never be disappointed. That is why I view baptism as man's work in which he confesses Christ and not Gods work in which God confesses to be our God and we his sons because I believe that when a baptism fails we have the failure of a man's word not the failure of God's word.

Tyler

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## kceaster (Apr 12, 2004)

*Tyler....*

So, can it not be both a work of faith and the work of the Spirit? Can't there be a physical aspect and a spiritual one? It has physical and spiritual meanings, does it not?

It is all an originating work of the Spirit, is it not?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 13, 2004)

[quote:98d18f0673][i:98d18f0673]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:98d18f0673]
So, can it not be both a work of faith and the work of the Spirit? Can't there be a physical aspect and a spiritual one? It has physical and spiritual meanings, does it not?

It is all an originating work of the Spirit, is it not?

In Christ,

KC [/quote:98d18f0673]

It is hard to find middle ground between a &quot;work of man&quot; and a &quot;work of God&quot; is seems that if that is what a sacrament is then only Christ is a true sacrament!

If baptism is a &quot;work of faith&quot; in which a Disciples takes his first steps of obedience then the practice of Paedobaptism which calls the sprinkling of water on an infant &quot;baptism&quot; seems improper. Since those who can neither have faith or act in obedience to God's command are not baptized once baptism is understood to be an act of faith and obedience. This results in the whole foundation of Paedobaptism being called into question. Therefore I do not think a Paedobaptist would want to call baptism a &quot;work of faith&quot; in any sense or aspect lest the door be opened for the credobaptist.

Therefore I think only a credobaptist position can do justice to the faith side of baptism and the fact that God is completely trustworthy. 

Of course baptism is orginated by the Spirit as are all things... but ultimately baptism is a human work in response to divine grace in which the Holy Spirit by imparting life to us has given us the ability to participate in and when we particpate in it through faith we gain a clear consieince. 

Tyler

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Apr 13, 2004)

[quote:186f0892f1]

If baptism is a &quot;work of faith&quot; in which a Disciples takes his first steps of obedience then the practice of Paedobaptism which calls the sprinkling of water on an infant &quot;baptism&quot; seems improper. Since those who can neither have faith or act in obedience to God's command are not baptized once baptism is understood to be an act of faith and obedience. This results in the whole foundation of Paedobaptism being called into question. Therefore I do not think a Paedobaptist would want to call baptism a &quot;work of faith&quot; in any sense or aspect lest the door be opened for the credobaptist.
[/quote:186f0892f1]

Tyler and company,
Please forgive me for entering into to your discussion. I just wanted to remark on something. 

Tyler, you write:

&quot;Since those who can neither have faith or act in obedience to God's command &quot;

How is it that an infant cannot have faith? Faith is not necessarily something one needs to witness.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of [color=Red:186f0892f1]things not seen[/color:186f0892f1].

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that [color=Red:186f0892f1]things which are seen were not made of things which do appear[/color:186f0892f1]. 

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, [color=Red:186f0892f1]being warned of God of things not seen as yet[/color:186f0892f1], moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 


You add:
&quot;....are not baptized once baptism is understood to be an act of faith and obedience.&quot;

Paedo baptism IS in fact an act of faith and obedience based upon Gods immutable promise and the parents faith and obedience to that promise and command.


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 13, 2004)

[quote:e909f45550][i:e909f45550]Originally posted by Scott Bushey[/i:e909f45550]
[quote:e909f45550]

If baptism is a &quot;work of faith&quot; in which a Disciples takes his first steps of obedience then the practice of Paedobaptism which calls the sprinkling of water on an infant &quot;baptism&quot; seems improper. Since those who can neither have faith or act in obedience to God's command are not baptized once baptism is understood to be an act of faith and obedience. This results in the whole foundation of Paedobaptism being called into question. Therefore I do not think a Paedobaptist would want to call baptism a &quot;work of faith&quot; in any sense or aspect lest the door be opened for the credobaptist.
[/quote:e909f45550]

Tyler and company,
Please forgive me for entering into to your discussion. I just wanted to remark on something. 

Tyler, you write:

&quot;Since those who can neither have faith or act in obedience to God's command &quot;

How is it that an infant cannot have faith? Faith is not necessarily something one needs to witness. 

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of [color=Red:e909f45550]things not seen[/color:e909f45550].

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that [color=Red:e909f45550]things which are seen were not made of things which do appear[/color:e909f45550]. 

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, [color=Red:e909f45550]being warned of God of things not seen as yet[/color:e909f45550], moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, [b:e909f45550] and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.[/b:e909f45550] [/quote:e909f45550]

I agree... all infants that have faith in Christ and can explain what that means and confess that they are strangers and pilgrims on earth I will baptized... I just do not think that type of infant is a description of every infant born to Christian parents. I think the Reformed Baptist position has been forgivably misunderstood at this point by many Paedobaptist... we do not exclude all infants of Christians because of their age we exclude infants because they do not &quot;confess to be strangers and pilgrims on earth&quot; (Heb 11:13) but when an infant does we baptized them- we just think there is only one baptism rather then two one for infants and one for adults. You will object well infants cannot have faith or confess Christ yet... my response to you is you were the one who argued that they could and if we accept that premise then let us baptize the ones who have a knowledgable faith in Christ and confess to be strangers and pilgrims on earth. 


[quote:e909f45550] You add:
&quot;....are not baptized once baptism is understood to be an act of faith and obedience.&quot;

Paedo baptism IS in fact an act of faith and obedience based upon Gods immutable promise and the parents faith and obedience to that promise and command. [/quote:e909f45550]

I have no doubt that Paedobaptism is done sincerely and is an attempt to obey God's command... yet the Paedobaptist cannot consider baptism to be an &quot;act of faith and obedience&quot; because once it becomes an &quot;act of faith&quot; then only those who have faith are to be given it! I mean to say that well the parents have faith in God's promise... and therefore they baptize... makes baptism God's work not mans... therefore baptism is not an &quot;act of faith&quot; but a &quot;work of God&quot; on the Paedobaptist conception... but you will object that I think baptism is both an the first &quot;act of obedience done in faith&quot; and an &quot;act of God&quot; but I do not think that such middle ground is possible... it is either a human work it is a Divine work but it cannot be both. 


hence this brings us back to the orginal question is baptism the &quot;first step of obedience as a Disciple&quot; or is it an &quot;act of God in which he promises that we will be HIs people and He will be our God&quot;

If the Reformed Baptist is right then it is the words of men that fail when a baptized person proves to be unregenerated but when an unregenerate person is baptized on the Paedoconception we must either say that they were never truely baptized and say that water baptism is not really baptism or say that God is not completley trustworthy.

Tyler

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tertullian]

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## kceaster (Apr 13, 2004)

*Tyler....*

[quote:7794f8d960]It is hard to find middle ground between a &quot;work of man&quot; and a &quot;work of God&quot; is seems that if that is what a sacrament is then only Christ is a true sacrament![/quote:7794f8d960]

As we have said many times, a sacrament is a mystery. We cannot fathom how God uses the ordinary means of something to impart grace to us. And, yes, grace is imparted. Why would eating a bread and drinking wine do anything? At the very least, you should admit that it does proclaim the Lord's death till He comes. Also, why would eating and drinking make someone weak or sick or even die? Is that not a mystery how God would work through the bread and the cup to chasten and judge?

[quote:7794f8d960]If baptism is a &quot;work of faith&quot; in which a Disciples takes his first steps of obedience then the practice of Paedobaptism which calls the sprinkling of water on an infant &quot;baptism&quot; seems improper.[/quote:7794f8d960]

If that is all it is or most of what it is, then I would agree with you. But that is only part of it. How does being baptized unite us to Christ? Is that not a mystery? Do we unite ourselves to Christ in our baptism, or does the Holy Spirit do a work in us?

You are divorcing a distinction that has been from the beginning. Water baptism is not the end. It is a sign. The thing the sign points to cannot be seen because it is the invisible work of the Spirit in the life of the believer. Focusing too much on the sign will not allow you to see what is signified. What is signified is most important, not the water, not the pastor, not the one being baptized, not the mode. These are all means to an end, but they are not the end.

[quote:7794f8d960]Since those who can neither have faith or act in obedience to God's command are not baptized once baptism is understood to be an act of faith and obedience. This results in the whole foundation of Paedobaptism being called into question. Therefore I do not think a Paedobaptist would want to call baptism a &quot;work of faith&quot; in any sense or aspect lest the door be opened for the credobaptist.[/quote:7794f8d960]

The baptism in the midst of the sea, of which Paul equates clearly with our baptism, was an act of faith. Not only was it an act of faith to step into and cross over for the individual, but it was also faith that baptized the children of whom you say could have none. Those little children were baptized just the same as the adults. All were baptized using Paul's infallible words. Are we to believe that the faith of the parents or of the children themselves was not active in this baptism.

Now, how was their baptism made effectual? Only by the Spirit. For it is a mystery to us how they could have been baptized en masse. But it is none the less true. We cannot deny it.

And clearly the only ones whose baptism was made effectual were those ones that received the circumcision of the heart. The rest were, just like it is today, cursed for their participation. They were sealed for destruction.

[quote:7794f8d960]Therefore I think only a credobaptist position can do justice to the faith side of baptism and the fact that God is completely trustworthy.[/quote:7794f8d960]

And what you are completely ignoring is the way parents have always had a measure of faith for their children. Abraham did. Why is this so hard to understand?

I'll tell you why. Because somewhere along the line, we started believing it is all about us. We have become so individualistic and separate that we cannot see how God designed from the beginning that fathers would pass their faith on to their children. Now, it is every man for himself. Everyone has to make their own choice. Everyone has to exercise their own faith in the way they see fit.

We do not have faith just for ourselves. It is not given us so that we may horde it. It is not given so that we may stand aloof from our family. It is not private.

Now, I am in no way suggesting that we may have saving faith for our children. But we do have the faith that believes the promise of God. We place them in His hands. It is not for us to save them, but for Him. So, we baptize them into His holy name and trust that He will save them if it is His will to do so. 

[quote:7794f8d960]Of course baptism is orginated by the Spirit as are all things... but ultimately baptism is a human work in response to divine grace in which the Holy Spirit by imparting life to us has given us the ability to participate in and when we particpate in it through faith we gain a clear consieince.[/quote:7794f8d960]

I commend you for seeing many things in baptism, but what you're ignoring is why you can't put it all together.

We are to make disciples. How is it that we accomplish this? By faith in the promise of God. We can't make anything. We can't procure our own salvation, let alone that of another. Yet we are to walk by faith, not by sight. We train, we teach, we rebuke, we admonish, and in all of these, we have faith that God will save those He has chosen. In faith, we are to baptize the disciples we make.

Do we honestly believe that we make true disciples? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. These are born not because of our will, or their own will, but because of God's will.

Therefore, we teach and train in the doctrines of God and stand by to see His work. But, we are commanded to baptize these same ones. It doesn't say that we baptize only the disciples of God's making. It says we baptize those disciples of our making. We must then exercise our faith to let God work in them as He has chosen.

It is eisogesis to believe that Christ is here saying that we wait until they are true disciples before we baptize them. This is built from a post hoc fallacy. We see all those baptized in the NT and conclude that faith always preceeds baptism. But it is inconclusive and incongruous to believe that we must make sure of their salvation before we baptize them. That was not Christ's command. It may only be implied if a small sampling of the Scriptures is used.

The majority of all those saved in the Scriptures are people who received the sign prior to God working faith in them. And by this I mean that they were either circumcized or baptized prior to becoming a &quot;true&quot; disciple.

So, for you to say that faith breaks down the paedo argument, you would be wrong. Faith is integral to the paedo argument, for it is by faith that we believe the promise of God.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Roldan (Apr 13, 2004)

[quote:7b27ab2fbc][i:7b27ab2fbc]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:7b27ab2fbc]

So, for you to say that faith breaks down the paedo argument, you would be wrong. Faith is integral to the paedo argument, for it is by faith that we believe the promise of God.

In Christ,

KC [/quote:7b27ab2fbc]


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 13, 2004)

KC,

May the Lord continue to bless you with knowledge of his word!

When I virtually said that infant baptism is not to be considered "a Disciples first step of obedience in response to God's grace in Christ" I did not mean to say that the parents do not have "faith" that God will honor His promise... for I know that the whole doctrines of the "mysteries" of the sacraments are built upon faith... even a faith that is beyond reason (Some would argue against reason)! So let us get back to the real issue... is baptism God's work or is it mans?
Obviously the parents are not putting their trust in the works of men they are putting their trust in the promiseof God to regenerate their child... hence they give them the sign of regeneration. Now of course we know that only the sacramental understanding in which baptism is purely a work of divine Grace in which God promises "to be our God and us His beloved sons" we have to assume that baptism is completely God's work!!! Now since not everyone who is "baptized" is regenerated we must conclude that either water baptism is not real baptism or we have to say that God's promise to regenerate is dependent upon on the basis of human merit of either the parents or child... or we have to say that God is not completely trust worthy... so the Reformed Paedobaptist I think is left with (1) a view of baptism that reason cannot penetrate and that reason must conjucture two baptism one real and the other water (2) a view of baptism that makes God's work fail or regeneration dependent upon human merit (3) not one Scriptural proof text to proving a sacramental understanding of baptism.

I argue that if baptism is man's work of obedience then we are ultimately lead to a credobaptist position... even a compromise between baptism being a man's work and God's work leads to credobaptism... I think both sides can agree with that.

Yes I agree that the Lord's Supper proclaims Christ return... it is a human work of faith and confession on my view after all and that is why people are punished when they abuse it if it was completely a divine work people ought not to be punished.

Now of course I argue that baptism is man's work... in fact it is the Disciples first step of obedience in response to divine grace... now you ask what it means for baptism to put on Christ... it is like when Caesar crossed the Rubicon for from that moment on Caeser and senate were sworn to be enemies... so to when the Christian is baptized into Christ he has past the point of no return... that is why Paul every time he encouraged Christians to live obediently to Christ he would remind them of their baptism because in their baptism they have confessed that Christ has saved them. Baptism then is a form of confession and prayer but is more then that it is the point of no return for to turn back having been baptized means certain destruction.
Consider once again that "water ordeal" Covenant scenario... if the person is innocent is charged with a crime he will submit himself to the water ordeal to prove himself innocent and so if the river gods help him get through it means that he was innocent but if the river gods do not help him it means that he was guilty... in legal standing. Now when Christians are baptized, since we are baptized into Christ, Christ leads us through and so we gain a clear conscience... but to those whom are not of Christ their baptism will still be a baptism and will work just as truly when pleads for the destruction and affirms them guilty... hence we can understand why Tertullian argued that those who want to make children go through the Covenant ordeal have no idea what they are putting their children through for baptism is an act of obedience and unless faith in Christ is present it always results in destruction because it is only by faith that we can have the clean conscience... it is not the parents that go through the water ordeal it is the infant... so the parents faith will not help the infant one bet. 

Now dealing with the argument that ran "well the appeal of the Reformed credobaptist position is just the product of modern individualism" I might as well say that the appeal to the Reformed Paedobaptist position is just a product of modern plurialsim and postmodernism. Neither of course offer a cogent argument and so let us stop trading insults and agree that we are both honestly searching Scripture but because of our imperfection are arriving at different conclusions.

Finally I note that when you argued from the identity of circumcision and baptism to affirm infant sprinkling I can only say that you have argued conclusions rather then presumptions and I have no desire to debate conclusions until presumptions are fist argued... we must no begin to deal with our different understanding of the "Covenant of Grace" and my question to you is this... where is circumcision called the seal and sign of the Covenant of Grace... in fact where is the Covenant of Grace even mentioned? Is the Abraham Covenant identical with the Covenant of Grace is it a mixed Covenant of Grace... what is your definition of the Covenant of Grace? Until these questions are answered we will make no progress because to just assume identity between circumcision and baptism in debate with Reformed Baptist is to just assume your position and then use your position to prove your position. 

Tyler

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Roldan (Apr 13, 2004)

[quote:69c4bb19e9][i:69c4bb19e9]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:69c4bb19e9]
KC,

May the Lord continue to bless you with knowledge of his word!

When I virtually said that infant baptism is not to be considered "a Disciples first step of obedience in response to God's grace in Christ" I did not mean to say that the parents do not have "faith" that God will honor His promise... for I know that the whole doctrines of the "mysteries" of the sacraments are built upon faith... even a faith that is beyond reason (Some would argue against reason)! So let us get back to the real issue... is baptism God's work or is it mans?
Obviously the parents are not putting their trust in the works of men they are putting their trust in the promiseof God to regenerate their child... hence they give them the sign of regeneration. Now of course we know that only the sacramental understanding in which baptism is purely a work of divine Grace in which God promises "to be our God and us His beloved sons" we have to assume that baptism is completely God's work!!! Now since not everyone who is "baptized" is regenerated we must conclude that either water baptism is not real baptism or we have to say that God's promise to regenerate is dependent upon on the basis of human merit of either the parents or child... or we have to say that God is not completely trust worthy... so the Reformed Paedobaptist I think is left with (1) a view of baptism that reason cannot penetrate and that reason must conjucture two baptism one real and the other water (2) a view of baptism that makes God's work fail or regeneration dependent upon human merit (3) not one Scriptural proof text to proving a sacramental understanding of baptism.

I argue that if baptism is man's work of obedience then we are ultimately lead to a credobaptist position... even a compromise between baptism being a man's work and God's work leads to credobaptism... I think both sides can agree with that.

Yes I agree that the Lord's Supper proclaims Christ return... it is a human work of faith and confession on my view after all and that is why people are punished when they abuse it if it was completely a divine work people ought not to be punished.

Now of course I argue that baptism is man's work... in fact it is the Disciples first step of obedience in response to divine grace... now you ask what it means for baptism to put on Christ... it is like when Caesar crossed the Rubicon for from that moment on Caeser and senate were sworn to be enemies... so to when the Christian is baptized into Christ he has past the point of no return... that is why Paul every time he encouraged Christians to live obediently to Christ he would remind them of their baptism because in their baptism they have confessed that Christ has saved them. Baptism then is a form of confession and prayer but is more then that it is the point of no return for to turn back having been baptized means certain destruction.
Consider once again that "water ordeal" Covenant scenario... if the person is innocent is charged with a crime he will submit himself to the water ordeal to prove himself innocent and so if the river gods help him get through it means that he was innocent but if the river gods do not help him it means that he was guilty... in legal standing. Now when Christians are baptized, since we are baptized into Christ, Christ leads us through and so we gain a clear conscience... but to those whom are not of Christ their baptism will still be a baptism and will work just as truly when pleads for the destruction and affirms them guilty... hence we can understand why Tertullian argued that those who want to make children go through the Covenant ordeal have no idea what they are putting their children through for baptism is an act of obedience and unless faith in Christ is present it always results in destruction because it is only by faith that we can have the clean conscience... it is not the parents that go through the water ordeal it is the infant... so the parents faith will not help the infant one bet. 

Now dealing with the argument that ran "well the appeal of the Reformed credobaptist position is just the product of modern individualism" I might as well say that the appeal to the Reformed Paedobaptist position is just a product of modern plurialsim and postmodernism. Neither of course offer a cogent argument and so let us stop trading insults and agree that we are both honestly searching Scripture but because of our imperfection are arriving at different conclusions.

Finally I note that when you argued from the identity of circumcision and baptism to affirm infant sprinkling I can only say that you have argued conclusions rather then presumptions and I have no desire to debate conclusions until presumptions are fist argued... we must no begin to deal with our different understanding of the "Covenant of Grace" and my question to you is this... where is circumcision called the seal and sign of the Covenant of Grace... in fact where is the Covenant of Grace even mentioned? Is the Abraham Covenant identical with the Covenant of Grace is it a mixed Covenant of Grace... what is your definition of the Covenant of Grace? Until these questions are answered we will make no progress because to just assume identity between circumcision and baptism in debate with Reformed Baptist is to just assume your position and then use your position to prove your position. 

Tyler

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:69c4bb19e9]

:goodpost:


----------



## kceaster (Apr 14, 2004)

*Tyler...*

[quote:bc61fae6a5]KC,

May the Lord continue to bless you with knowledge of his word!

When I virtually said that infant baptism is not to be considered "a Disciples first step of obedience in response to God's grace in Christ" I did not mean to say that the parents do not have "faith" that God will honor His promise... for I know that the whole doctrines of the "mysteries" of the sacraments are built upon faith... even a faith that is beyond reason (Some would argue against reason)! So let us get back to the real issue... is baptism God's work or is it mans?[/quote:bc61fae6a5]

Any requirement of man is met by God and accomplished for him in the heavenly realm. We can accomplish nothing here on this earth without the Holy Spirit's action in it. How else do we explain that Christ's atonement can actually be effectual to the believer? While the faith of the individual may certainly be exercised, it is not done in the flesh but in the Spirit.

All of the ceremonies of old had an earthly act that was tied to a heavenly one. This should not be in dispute.

And while baptism is something that we do in our flesh, the real meaning behind it is done in the heavenlies. This God does not allow us to see. Baptism, therefore, is something done in the flesh that bears witness to what the Spirit has done, is doing, or will do in our hearts.

You are looking at the sign, Tyler. You are not admitting that it bears witness to the thing signified. If something is signified, it is the essence, not the external pointer.

[quote:bc61fae6a5]Obviously the parents are not putting their trust in the works of men they are putting their trust in the promiseof God to regenerate their child... hence they give them the sign of regeneration. Now of course we know that only the sacramental understanding in which baptism is purely a work of divine Grace in which God promises "to be our God and us His beloved sons" we have to assume that baptism is completely God's work!!! Now since not everyone who is "baptized" is regenerated we must conclude that either water baptism is not real baptism or we have to say that God's promise to regenerate is dependent upon on the basis of human merit of either the parents or child... or we have to say that God is not completely trust worthy... so the Reformed Paedobaptist I think is left with (1) a view of baptism that reason cannot penetrate and that reason must conjucture two baptism one real and the other water (2) a view of baptism that makes God's work fail or regeneration dependent upon human merit (3) not one Scriptural proof text to proving a sacramental understanding of baptism.[/quote:bc61fae6a5]

This would be a false alternative. What you're missing is that baptism is both physical and spiritual all in the same meaning. That is why it is a sacrament. Just because the outward sign is given, does not mean that the Holy Spirit is bound by that physical act to do anything in the life of the one baptized. He works as He will and so it is not a complete baptism that is merely outward. A person is truly baptized into Christ, when the Spirit does His work, and only then.

I would ask you what Paul means when he talks about one baptism in Ephesians 4. Does he mean physical water baptism, or does he mean the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Now, I would challenge you to come up with an exegesis of everywhere baptism is mentioned and detach all of those acts from the Holy Spirit. If you were able to do this, I would grant you that baptism is only outward and a mere human act of faith. Especially treat I Cor. 12:13. Paul is not there talking about merely a physical water baptism.

If we want to say that God is not honoring a water baptism, this would be true. Where in the Scriptures does it say He must act on physical baptism? If that is the case, then all baptized would be regenerate, but we know that this is not true on both sides of the issue. Neither infant, nor adult is regenerated because of physical water baptism.

[quote:bc61fae6a5]I argue that if baptism is man's work of obedience then we are ultimately lead to a credobaptist position... even a compromise between baptism being a man's work and God's work leads to credobaptism... I think both sides can agree with that.[/quote:bc61fae6a5]

Unfortunately we cannot agree because water baptism is a sign that points to the signification of the Holy Spirit's work. As long as it is this, then I would never agree that baptism is merely a work of man's obedience.

[quote:bc61fae6a5]Yes I agree that the Lord's Supper proclaims Christ return... it is a human work of faith and confession on my view after all and that is why people are punished when they abuse it if it was completely a divine work people ought not to be punished.[/quote:bc61fae6a5]

Salvation is completely a divine work, should men not be punished?

[quote:bc61fae6a5]Now of course I argue that baptism is man's work... in fact it is the Disciples first step of obedience in response to divine grace...[/quote:bc61fae6a5]

From whence does this come? Where does it say that baptism is an obedient response to divine grace? It is an answer of a good conscience towards God. But I don't believe these statements are equivalent.

If there is such a thing as an obedient response to divine grace, and baptism is merely a physical act of the flesh, then all who have been baptized have responded to divine grace.

We know that God has not had grace for all who have been baptized. And those who are baptized who have not been given grace, are not truly obedient because they can do no good work of obedience without God working in them both to will and to do.

[quote:bc61fae6a5]Now you ask what it means for baptism to put on Christ... it is like when Caesar crossed the Rubicon for from that moment on Caeser and senate were sworn to be enemies... so to when the Christian is baptized into Christ he has past the point of no return... that is why Paul every time he encouraged Christians to live obediently to Christ he would remind them of their baptism because in their baptism they have confessed that Christ has saved them.[/quote:bc61fae6a5]

I would agree, except they do not confess that Christ has saved them. They confess their sinfulness and their need of a savior. So then Paul's words are only for the adult regenerate then? Or, would Paul also be reminding the young ones, too?

[quote:bc61fae6a5]Baptism then is a form of confession and prayer but is more then that it is the point of no return for to turn back having been baptized means certain destruction.[/quote:bc61fae6a5]

Why do you object to our saying that it is a seal, then? Obviously, the one baptized is either sealed for salvation or sealed for destruction.

[quote:bc61fae6a5]Consider once again that "water ordeal" Covenant scenario... if the person is innocent is charged with a crime he will submit himself to the water ordeal to prove himself innocent and so if the river gods help him get through it means that he was innocent but if the river gods do not help him it means that he was guilty... in legal standing.[/quote:bc61fae6a5]

I object to this line of reasoning. It cannot be compared with Scripture since God does not prove or disprove someone in their physical water baptism. This is a superstition and completely pagan.

[quote:bc61fae6a5]Now when Christians are baptized, since we are baptized into Christ, Christ leads us through and so we gain a clear conscience... but to those whom are not of Christ their baptism will still be a baptism and will work just as truly when pleads for the destruction and affirms them guilty... hence we can understand why Tertullian argued that those who want to make children go through the Covenant ordeal have no idea what they are putting their children through for baptism is an act of obedience and unless faith in Christ is present it always results in destruction because it is only by faith that we can have the clean conscience... it is not the parents that go through the water ordeal it is the infant... so the parents faith will not help the infant one bet.[/quote:bc61fae6a5]

Baptism does not help anyone one bit...towards salvation. Your reasoning does not make sense. What are we putting our children through that will effect their salvation if they have already been chosen for destruction? Does that mean they go to a different level of hell? Does it mean they are tormented more in the dungeon of the abyss? This is what comes along with the covenant and they do not have a choice in the matter.

Are they going to blame me when they are burning in hell because I baptized them? That makes no sense.

We are definitely not helping them if we treat them as outsiders to the covenant of God. He commands us to include them and that command has not been abrogated. 

[quote:bc61fae6a5]Now dealing with the argument that ran "well the appeal of the Reformed credobaptist position is just the product of modern individualism" I might as well say that the appeal to the Reformed Paedobaptist position is just a product of modern plurialsim and postmodernism. Neither of course offer a cogent argument and so let us stop trading insults and agree that we are both honestly searching Scripture but because of our imperfection are arriving at different conclusions.[/quote:bc61fae6a5]

I meant no insult, in fact I uncluded myself and the people I fellowship with. It is a given that churches are individualistic in today's world, even the covenantal ones. This baggage we are all carrying around. I didn't say that the credo baptist position is a product of modern individualism. I would be accusing myself as well, since I am both a credo and a paedo baptist. Please don't twist my words. I lumped myself in with everyone on those statements. 

[quote:bc61fae6a5]Finally I note that when you argued from the identity of circumcision and baptism to affirm infant sprinkling I can only say that you have argued conclusions rather then presumptions and I have no desire to debate conclusions until presumptions are fist argued...[/quote:bc61fae6a5]

Well, one presumption is that God included infants in the covenant of Abraham. That inclusion has not been abrogated in the least. Therefore, we conclude that God still wants them to be included in the new covenant, since it is still the Abrahamic covenant. If you want to argue this line of reasoning, I welcome you to do so.


[quote:bc61fae6a5]We must no begin to deal with our different understanding of the "Covenant of Grace" and my question to you is this... where is circumcision called the seal and sign of the Covenant of Grace...[/quote:bc61fae6a5]

Romans 4:11 is the best place to start. It is the sign and seal of the covenant with Abraham.

[quote:bc61fae6a5]In fact where is the Covenant of Grace even mentioned?[/quote:bc61fae6a5]

If you want to enter this kind of debate, you can go it alone. I will not argue well known and widely accepted, reasonable terms with you.

[quote:bc61fae6a5]Is the Abraham Covenant identical with the Covenant of Grace is it a mixed Covenant of Grace... what is your definition of the Covenant of Grace?[/quote:bc61fae6a5]

WCF VI:III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.

LBCF VI:II. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

These are both good definitions and the ones I am falling under. 

[quote:bc61fae6a5]Until these questions are answered we will make no progress because to just assume identity between circumcision and baptism in debate with Reformed Baptist is to just assume your position and then use your position to prove your position.[/quote:bc61fae6a5] 

First, my assumption of the linkage between circumcision and baptism is a well established link. I agree it is a presupposition on my part. However, the deeper issue in seeing the linkage between the two is the fact that God included infants in the sign and seal of His covenant and this is not abrogated.

If you would like to say why infants are not now included and show either implicit or explicit commands to the point, then I would welcome you to do it.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Roldan (Apr 14, 2004)

[quote:5a271f2b9d][i:5a271f2b9d]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:5a271f2b9d]
[quote:5a271f2b9d]KC,

May the Lord continue to bless you with knowledge of his word!

When I virtually said that infant baptism is not to be considered "a Disciples first step of obedience in response to God's grace in Christ" I did not mean to say that the parents do not have "faith" that God will honor His promise... for I know that the whole doctrines of the "mysteries" of the sacraments are built upon faith... even a faith that is beyond reason (Some would argue against reason)! So let us get back to the real issue... is baptism God's work or is it mans?[/quote:5a271f2b9d]

Any requirement of man is met by God and accomplished for him in the heavenly realm. We can accomplish nothing here on this earth without the Holy Spirit's action in it. How else do we explain that Christ's atonement can actually be effectual to the believer? While the faith of the individual may certainly be exercised, it is not done in the flesh but in the Spirit.

All of the ceremonies of old had an earthly act that was tied to a heavenly one. This should not be in dispute.

And while baptism is something that we do in our flesh, the real meaning behind it is done in the heavenlies. This God does not allow us to see. Baptism, therefore, is something done in the flesh that bears witness to what the Spirit has done, is doing, or will do in our hearts.

You are looking at the sign, Tyler. You are not admitting that it bears witness to the thing signified. If something is signified, it is the essence, not the external pointer.

[quote:5a271f2b9d]Obviously the parents are not putting their trust in the works of men they are putting their trust in the promiseof God to regenerate their child... hence they give them the sign of regeneration. Now of course we know that only the sacramental understanding in which baptism is purely a work of divine Grace in which God promises "to be our God and us His beloved sons" we have to assume that baptism is completely God's work!!! Now since not everyone who is "baptized" is regenerated we must conclude that either water baptism is not real baptism or we have to say that God's promise to regenerate is dependent upon on the basis of human merit of either the parents or child... or we have to say that God is not completely trust worthy... so the Reformed Paedobaptist I think is left with (1) a view of baptism that reason cannot penetrate and that reason must conjucture two baptism one real and the other water (2) a view of baptism that makes God's work fail or regeneration dependent upon human merit (3) not one Scriptural proof text to proving a sacramental understanding of baptism.[/quote:5a271f2b9d]

This would be a false alternative. What you're missing is that baptism is both physical and spiritual all in the same meaning. That is why it is a sacrament. Just because the outward sign is given, does not mean that the Holy Spirit is bound by that physical act to do anything in the life of the one baptized. He works as He will and so it is not a complete baptism that is merely outward. A person is truly baptized into Christ, when the Spirit does His work, and only then.

I would ask you what Paul means when he talks about one baptism in Ephesians 4. Does he mean physical water baptism, or does he mean the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Now, I would challenge you to come up with an exegesis of everywhere baptism is mentioned and detach all of those acts from the Holy Spirit. If you were able to do this, I would grant you that baptism is only outward and a mere human act of faith. Especially treat I Cor. 12:13. Paul is not there talking about merely a physical water baptism.

If we want to say that God is not honoring a water baptism, this would be true. Where in the Scriptures does it say He must act on physical baptism? If that is the case, then all baptized would be regenerate, but we know that this is not true on both sides of the issue. Neither infant, nor adult is regenerated because of physical water baptism.

[quote:5a271f2b9d]I argue that if baptism is man's work of obedience then we are ultimately lead to a credobaptist position... even a compromise between baptism being a man's work and God's work leads to credobaptism... I think both sides can agree with that.[/quote:5a271f2b9d]

Unfortunately we cannot agree because water baptism is a sign that points to the signification of the Holy Spirit's work. As long as it is this, then I would never agree that baptism is merely a work of man's obedience.

[quote:5a271f2b9d]Yes I agree that the Lord's Supper proclaims Christ return... it is a human work of faith and confession on my view after all and that is why people are punished when they abuse it if it was completely a divine work people ought not to be punished.[/quote:5a271f2b9d]

Salvation is completely a divine work, should men not be punished?

[quote:5a271f2b9d]Now of course I argue that baptism is man's work... in fact it is the Disciples first step of obedience in response to divine grace...[/quote:5a271f2b9d]

From whence does this come? Where does it say that baptism is an obedient response to divine grace? It is an answer of a good conscience towards God. But I don't believe these statements are equivalent.

If there is such a thing as an obedient response to divine grace, and baptism is merely a physical act of the flesh, then all who have been baptized have responded to divine grace.

We know that God has not had grace for all who have been baptized. And those who are baptized who have not been given grace, are not truly obedient because they can do no good work of obedience without God working in them both to will and to do.

[quote:5a271f2b9d]Now you ask what it means for baptism to put on Christ... it is like when Caesar crossed the Rubicon for from that moment on Caeser and senate were sworn to be enemies... so to when the Christian is baptized into Christ he has past the point of no return... that is why Paul every time he encouraged Christians to live obediently to Christ he would remind them of their baptism because in their baptism they have confessed that Christ has saved them.[/quote:5a271f2b9d]

I would agree, except they do not confess that Christ has saved them. They confess their sinfulness and their need of a savior. So then Paul's words are only for the adult regenerate then? Or, would Paul also be reminding the young ones, too?

[quote:5a271f2b9d]Baptism then is a form of confession and prayer but is more then that it is the point of no return for to turn back having been baptized means certain destruction.[/quote:5a271f2b9d]

Why do you object to our saying that it is a seal, then? Obviously, the one baptized is either sealed for salvation or sealed for destruction.

[quote:5a271f2b9d]Consider once again that "water ordeal" Covenant scenario... if the person is innocent is charged with a crime he will submit himself to the water ordeal to prove himself innocent and so if the river gods help him get through it means that he was innocent but if the river gods do not help him it means that he was guilty... in legal standing.[/quote:5a271f2b9d]

I object to this line of reasoning. It cannot be compared with Scripture since God does not prove or disprove someone in their physical water baptism. This is a superstition and completely pagan.

[quote:5a271f2b9d]Now when Christians are baptized, since we are baptized into Christ, Christ leads us through and so we gain a clear conscience... but to those whom are not of Christ their baptism will still be a baptism and will work just as truly when pleads for the destruction and affirms them guilty... hence we can understand why Tertullian argued that those who want to make children go through the Covenant ordeal have no idea what they are putting their children through for baptism is an act of obedience and unless faith in Christ is present it always results in destruction because it is only by faith that we can have the clean conscience... it is not the parents that go through the water ordeal it is the infant... so the parents faith will not help the infant one bet.[/quote:5a271f2b9d]

Baptism does not help anyone one bit...towards salvation. Your reasoning does not make sense. What are we putting our children through that will effect their salvation if they have already been chosen for destruction? Does that mean they go to a different level of hell? Does it mean they are tormented more in the dungeon of the abyss? This is what comes along with the covenant and they do not have a choice in the matter.

Are they going to blame me when they are burning in hell because I baptized them? That makes no sense.

We are definitely not helping them if we treat them as outsiders to the covenant of God. He commands us to include them and that command has not been abrogated. 

[quote:5a271f2b9d]Now dealing with the argument that ran "well the appeal of the Reformed credobaptist position is just the product of modern individualism" I might as well say that the appeal to the Reformed Paedobaptist position is just a product of modern plurialsim and postmodernism. Neither of course offer a cogent argument and so let us stop trading insults and agree that we are both honestly searching Scripture but because of our imperfection are arriving at different conclusions.[/quote:5a271f2b9d]

I meant no insult, in fact I uncluded myself and the people I fellowship with. It is a given that churches are individualistic in today's world, even the covenantal ones. This baggage we are all carrying around. I didn't say that the credo baptist position is a product of modern individualism. I would be accusing myself as well, since I am both a credo and a paedo baptist. Please don't twist my words. I lumped myself in with everyone on those statements. 

[quote:5a271f2b9d]Finally I note that when you argued from the identity of circumcision and baptism to affirm infant sprinkling I can only say that you have argued conclusions rather then presumptions and I have no desire to debate conclusions until presumptions are fist argued...[/quote:5a271f2b9d]

Well, one presumption is that God included infants in the covenant of Abraham. That inclusion has not been abrogated in the least. Therefore, we conclude that God still wants them to be included in the new covenant, since it is still the Abrahamic covenant. If you want to argue this line of reasoning, I welcome you to do so.


[quote:5a271f2b9d]We must no begin to deal with our different understanding of the "Covenant of Grace" and my question to you is this... where is circumcision called the seal and sign of the Covenant of Grace...[/quote:5a271f2b9d]

Romans 4:11 is the best place to start. It is the sign and seal of the covenant with Abraham.

[quote:5a271f2b9d]In fact where is the Covenant of Grace even mentioned?[/quote:5a271f2b9d]

If you want to enter this kind of debate, you can go it alone. I will not argue well known and widely accepted, reasonable terms with you.

[quote:5a271f2b9d]Is the Abraham Covenant identical with the Covenant of Grace is it a mixed Covenant of Grace... what is your definition of the Covenant of Grace?[/quote:5a271f2b9d]

WCF VI:III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.

LBCF VI:II. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

These are both good definitions and the ones I am falling under. 

[quote:5a271f2b9d]Until these questions are answered we will make no progress because to just assume identity between circumcision and baptism in debate with Reformed Baptist is to just assume your position and then use your position to prove your position.[/quote:5a271f2b9d] 

First, my assumption of the linkage between circumcision and baptism is a well established link. I agree it is a presupposition on my part. However, the deeper issue in seeing the linkage between the two is the fact that God included infants in the sign and seal of His covenant and this is not abrogated.

If you would like to say why infants are not now included and show either implicit or explicit commands to the point, then I would welcome you to do it.

In Christ,

KC [/quote:5a271f2b9d]

KC, that was absolutely brilliant!


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 15, 2004)

*KC,*

Thank you my brother for the reply!

I second Rholdan's statement and argue brillant post... I think anyone who accepts your presumptions will come to that conclusions if they are consistent... so note if I do not come to your conclusions it is not because I think you were illogicial but it is because we start with different presumptions... therefore I hope to explain my presumptions below and how we differ... to begin with I presume that baptism is a human work and you preumse it is a Divine work... also we have different presumptions about the &quot;Covenant of Grace&quot; which makes that phrase unhelpful in this discourse therefore I propose to ammend that situation by speaking more biblicial languge.


Ephesians 4:5 states that there is "one baptism" and so seems to weigh against arguing that there is a "heavenly baptism" signified by "water baptism" for if I am not mistaking if there were two baptisms there would not be "one baptism." Now about this "heavenly baptism" that allegedly happens in water baptism I confess that my feet have remained on the earth and have not been able to fly to Olympus in order to observe this "heavenly baptism" so I have not idea what it is nor what it does so I cannot comment on something that I have neither experienced nor been able to find in Scripture. Therefore returning to earth let us discuss "water baptism" for in "water baptism" we would both agree (but for different reasons) that "water baptism" is a human work... since to call "water baptism" a Divine work of Grace would lead us back to Rome and baptismal regeneration... now since it is a human work... we must ask ourselves a part from faith is baptism any good and is God's word to be kept supreme or is baptism to have significance apart from the baptism? I believe that God's word is supreme in baptism and I argue that baptism is a visible presentation of the Gospel in the sense that when we hear the Gospel we usually hear it with our ears but when we are baptized we experience the Gospel with all our senses. Hence only through faith is one to experience the word's God's speaks in baptism. Therefore because I affirm the importance of faith and the supremacy of God's word I am lead to a Credobaptist position because an infant simply does not have the faith to see God's words and so gain a clean conscience in baptism... for any person that gets baptized apart from faith in Christ calls the destruction symbolized in that ordinance upon themselves... there is a risk in baptism and only in faith in Christ ought a person to risk baptism... those who rush there children into baptism need to consider what they are doing when they rush there children through that water ordeal!

I think the burden of proof falls upon you to produce evidence of a &quot;heavenly baptism&quot; that is added to &quot;water baptism&quot; because you are the one adding to something we both take for granted namely that there is a water baptism but regardless we can both say that water baptism is a human act of obedience which only has value when faith is present to hear God's word, right? 


Now the phrase the "Covenant of Grace" is nothing more than a buzz word and catch phrase therefore let us stop using it until we are actually putting content into the word. The London Baptist Confession describes the eternal transaction within the Trinity in which the elect were placed in Christ apart from any merit and that this triune Covenant of Grace is completely of God and was made before the elect even were. No one in the Covenant of Grace can ever be lost and the Covenant of Grace has been God's only plan of salvation from the begging of time and forever! Obviously this is not what you mean by the Covenant of Grace is you include Ishmael and Essua in the "Covenant of Grace" therefore I ask us to stop using this confusing phrase let us pick more biblical phrases - Instead of "Covenant of Grace" I will say &quot;eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9). Therefore it is no longer helpful to use unbiblical terms that we both place different concepts behind... let us return to Scripture and use Scriptural language. Now I ask you was everyone in the Abrahamic Covenant put handed over by the Father to Christ in the beginning of time to be saved? If not then the Abrahamic Covenant or the Covenant of circumcision as it is called in Scripture is not to be equated with the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord." Hence when circumcision ended we can say that the Covenant ended as well. Note in Scripture the word "Covenant" is always used to promote Scriptural discontinuity not continuity. Hence until these different presumptions are first examined I think it would be a waste of time to talk about conclusions like circumcision equals baptism. 

Tyler (Please forgive grammer and spelling mistakes I wrote this in a hurray)


----------



## Optimus (Apr 15, 2004)

[quote:9eda797b72]
Note in Scripture the word "Covenant" is always used to promote Scriptural discontinuity not continuity.
[/quote:9eda797b72]

I would like to learn more about that........


----------



## kceaster (Apr 15, 2004)

*Tyler....*

[quote:70eeae4cf0]Thank you my brother for the reply!

I second Rholdan's statement and argue brillant post... I think anyone who accepts your presumptions will come to that conclusions if they are consistent... so note if I do not come to your conclusions it is not because I think you were illogicial but it is because we start with different presumptions... therefore I hope to explain my presumptions below and how we differ... to begin with I presume that baptism is a human work and you preumse it is a Divine work... also we have different presumptions about the &quot;Covenant of Grace&quot; which makes that phrase unhelpful in this discourse therefore I propose to ammend that situation by speaking more biblicial languge.


Ephesians 4:5 states that there is "one baptism" and so seems to weigh against arguing that there is a "heavenly baptism" signified by "water baptism" for if I am not mistaking if there were two baptisms there would not be "one baptism." Now about this "heavenly baptism" that allegedly happens in water baptism I confess that my feet have remained on the earth and have not been able to fly to Olympus in order to observe this "heavenly baptism" so I have not idea what it is nor what it does so I cannot comment on something that I have neither experienced nor been able to find in Scripture. Therefore returning to earth let us discuss "water baptism" for in "water baptism" we would both agree (but for different reasons) that "water baptism" is a human work... since to call "water baptism" a Divine work of Grace would lead us back to Rome and baptismal regeneration... now since it is a human work... we must ask ourselves a part from faith is baptism any good and is God's word to be kept supreme or is baptism to have significance apart from the baptism? I believe that God's word is supreme in baptism and I argue that baptism is a visible presentation of the Gospel in the sense that when we hear the Gospel we usually hear it with our ears but when we are baptized we experience the Gospel with all our senses. Hence only through faith is one to experience the word's God's speaks in baptism. Therefore because I affirm the importance of faith and the supremacy of God's word I am lead to a Credobaptist position because an infant simply does not have the faith to see God's words and so gain a clean conscience in baptism... for any person that gets baptized apart from faith in Christ calls the destruction symbolized in that ordinance upon themselves... there is a risk in baptism and only in faith in Christ ought a person to risk baptism... those who rush there children into baptism need to consider what they are doing when they rush there children through that water ordeal!

I think the burden of proof falls upon you to produce evidence of a &quot;heavenly baptism&quot; that is added to &quot;water baptism&quot; because you are the one adding to something we both take for granted namely that there is a water baptism but regardless we can both say that water baptism is a human act of obedience which only has value when faith is present to hear God's word, right?[/quote:70eeae4cf0]

Fair enough.

[quote:70eeae4cf0]1 Cor. 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free--and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.[/quote:70eeae4cf0]

Notice, if you will, that we are baptized by the Spirit. Notice also what we are baptized into - the body of Christ. You cannot argue against so clear a statement from Paul, since he is also the one saying, &quot;For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.&quot; Therefore, we are baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ.

Now, as you pointed out, we cannot see this baptism. That is why it is a sacrament. It is a mystery to us how it is accomplished. But the Holy Spirit does a work in and through our baptism to unite us to Christ.

It is not, then, our actions that do this, but the Spirit. It is up to His will as to whether or not we will be baptized into the body of Christ. It cannot get much clearer than that, Tyler. 

[quote:70eeae4cf0]Now the phrase the "Covenant of Grace" is nothing more than a buzz word and catch phrase therefore let us stop using it until we are actually putting content into the word. The London Baptist Confession describes the eternal transaction within the Trinity in which the elect were placed in Christ apart from any merit and that this triune Covenant of Grace is completely of God and was made before the elect even were. No one in the Covenant of Grace can ever be lost and the Covenant of Grace has been God's only plan of salvation from the begging of time and forever![/quote:70eeae4cf0]

You say you want to quit using it, so quit using it. You just used it in conjunction with the covenant of the trinity and the covenant with the elect. This does not sound like you are putting it aside to me. What it sounds like is that you would rather I not use it in the way the Reformed divines are defining it.

Again, I will not put aside these terms just to debate with you. You have said by being on this board that you affirm the LBCF. They included this language and therefore it should not be excluded from any debate on this board.

[quote:70eeae4cf0]Obviously this is not what you mean by the Covenant of Grace is you include Ishmael and Essua in the "Covenant of Grace" therefore I ask us to stop using this confusing phrase let us pick more biblical phrases - Instead of "Covenant of Grace" I will say &quot;eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9).[/quote:70eeae4cf0]

I can give you a couple as well:

[quote:70eeae4cf0]Isa 42:6 I, the LORD, have called You in righteousness, And will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the Gentiles,

Isa 49:8 Thus says the LORD: 'In an acceptable time I have heard You, And in the day of salvation I have helped You; I will preserve You and give You As a covenant to the people, To restore the earth, To cause them to inherit the desolate heritages;'[/quote:70eeae4cf0]

Why is He giving the Messiah as a covenant to the people? If your answer does not include grace, you need to reconsider.

[quote:70eeae4cf0]Therefore it is no longer helpful to use unbiblical terms that we both place different concepts behind... let us return to Scripture and use Scriptural language. Now I ask you was everyone in the Abrahamic Covenant put handed over by the Father to Christ in the beginning of time to be saved?[/quote:70eeae4cf0]

Nope. Only those who are in Christ, who is Abraham's seed, are saved. (Gal 3:16, 29) There is a mixture of persons in this covenant; (Rom 9:6-8) those who are chosen to eternal life, and those who are chosen to eternal death. (Rom 9:14-24) This is the reason that curses exist and the fact that certain ones may be cut off from the covenant. (Rom 11:16-25)

[quote:70eeae4cf0]If not then the Abrahamic Covenant or the Covenant of circumcision as it is called in Scripture is not to be equated with the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord."[/quote:70eeae4cf0]

If you would look to the whole of Scripture, you would see that His eternal purpose began eons before your thinking.

Plus, it is only by the Abrahamic covenant that we are even saved. You don't believe me? Ask Paul.

[quote:70eeae4cf0]Gal 3:6-14 6 just as Abraham &quot;believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.&quot;
7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.
8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, &quot;In you all the nations shall be blessed.&quot;
9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, &quot;Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.&quot;
11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for &quot;the just shall live by faith.&quot;
12 Yet the law is not of faith, but &quot;the man who does them shall live by them.&quot;
13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, &quot;Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree&quot,
14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.[/quote:70eeae4cf0]

[quote:70eeae4cf0]Hence when circumcision ended we can say that the Covenant ended as well. Note in Scripture the word "Covenant" is always used to promote Scriptural discontinuity not continuity. Hence until these different presumptions are first examined I think it would be a waste of time to talk about conclusions like circumcision equals baptism.[/quote:70eeae4cf0]

The Abrahamic covenant ended with circumcision? Really?

Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

What promise? The promise of the Abrahamic covenant. It doesn't continue after circumcision is ended? The only reason you are here is because of the promise made to Abraham through the covenant.

Really, Tyler. I think you are grasping tightly to anything you can hold on to. But your reasoning is breaking down. You are not looking at the whole of Scripture to determine your argument. It is fine that you say you want to use biblical terms, but you should also acquaint yourself with those terms first. Keep digging. I think this is helpful. We're in this together. We both have to come to grips with what the Scripture says. I have not arrived by any stretch of the imagination. Thank you for encouraging me to continue to wrestle with these things.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 15, 2004)

*Does 1 Cor 12:13 prove sacramentalism?*

KC, thank you for showing me from Scripture how you derived your presumptions of sacramentalism... I now hope to show you why respectfully must part hands with you on this point (Although I think we will find that 95% of the rest of our theologies are in harmony) 

[quote:a8f78bd731] 1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. [/quote:a8f78bd731] 

"It is a mystery to us how it is accomplished. But [i:a8f78bd731] the Holy Spirit does a work in and through our baptism to unite us to Christ [/i:a8f78bd731]... It is not, then, our actions that do this, but the Spirit. It is up to His will as to whether or not we will be baptized into the body of Christ. It cannot get much clearer than that, Tyler" (KC).

Grammatically the word "by" could just as easily mean "in" or "with" hence it is important that we not overemphasis the word "by" because this word is really a translator's preference or interpretation of the verse and therefore we must keep in the back of our minds that the word could also have been "with" or "in." Now I must press the point the word "baptism" is not always tobe interpreted as literal water baptism for the word "baptism" can be used figuratively as when Christ said that he had a "baptism to undergo" referring to the cross. I propose that this verse is talking about "regeneration" I think that is the baptism that puts &quot;all&quot; in the body of Christ. As John the Baptist said:


&quot;As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. (Mathew 3:11)


This baptism with the Spirit is therefore not to be understood as water baptism or John the Baptist saying would make no sense for he would be saying something akin to "I baptize with water but the one coming after me is mightier than I because he also baptizes with water." 

Therefore if this baptism by the spirit refers to regeneration as the text seems to indicate this when it tells us this when it uses the preposition [i:a8f78bd731] into [/i:a8f78bd731] then it follows that the moment a person enters the body of Christ and thus shares in the imputation of righteousness they have received this baptism. 

With this understood it is seems almost impossible to make this verse as proof text for the statement, "It is a mystery to us how it is accomplished. But [i:a8f78bd731] the Holy Spirit does a work in and through our baptism to unite us to Christ [/i:a8f78bd731]... It is not, then, our actions that do this, but the Spirit. It is up to His will as to whether or not we will be baptized into the body of Christ. It cannot get much clearer than that, Tyler" (KC) because if that is true we would have to say that regeneration is what is taking place in water baptism and so the water baptism is not mere a sign of regeneration it is the Spirit's instrument of regeneration for "all" who have become partakers in the body of Christ. This seems to be a conclusion that neither you or I would like to make hence it is better to see this verse as a reference to regeneration (i.e. the baptism with or by the spirit) that although I may grant water baptism signifies (in the sense that regeneration is required for it- just as it could be called a baptism of repentance). The two baptisms therefore do not need to happen at the same time one in a heavenly realm in one a physical realm. Indeed we can say that the two are separate events both occurring in history- one prior to the other. 

For further evidence of this I have quoted to people but please know I am not appealing to their authority but rather to the arguments that they are making:


[quote:a8f78bd731] "The view sometimes set forth that verse 13a refers to Christian (water) baptism, 13b to the Lord's Supper, is not convincing, among other reasons, because it is difficult to see how the practice of recurring observance of the latter can be described by the aorist tense, 'were made to drink.'" (Richard Gaffin 31)

"Some scholars interpret the text as a reference to the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper. But this is difficult to maintain. First, in the present context Paul gives no indication of introducing a discussion on the sacraments. Next, the text simply does not allude to water baptism. Third, the assertion that the verb [i:a8f78bd731] make to drink [/i:a8f78bd731] refers to the drinking of Communion cup cannot be sustained. And last, the Greek verb tense calls for a single occurrence of drinking, which is incongruent with repeated observance of the Lord's Supper" (Simon Kistemaker 431) [/quote:a8f78bd731]


Therefore I do not think that 1 Corinthians offers a compelling proof text that in "water baptism" there is a corresponding and sequence Spiritual baptism in heaven as sacramental theorist suppose.

Your brother in Christ, Tyler

[Edited on 4-15-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 15, 2004)

*A Question for KC,*

I just wanted to make sure that we are on the same page here of if we disagree... hence let me explain where I am coming from:

Now that it has [seems] to have been granted [if I am interpreting you right] that not all those in the Abrahamic Covenant had the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9). As you wrote:

[quote:0e81202a19] Only those who are in Christ, who is Abraham's seed, are saved. (Gal 3:16, 29) There is a mixture of persons in this [i.e Abrahmic] covenant; (Rom 9:6-8) those who are chosen to eternal life, and those who are chosen to eternal death. (Rom 9:14-24) This is the reason that curses exist and the fact that certain ones may be cut off from the [i.e. Abrahmic] covenant. (Rom 11:16-25). (KC) [/quote:0e81202a19]

I do not think the following statement follows:

[quote:0e81202a19] Plus, it is only by the Abrahamic covenant that we are even saved. [/quote:0e81202a19]

because:

I thought we have already decided that the Abrahamic covenant is not what saves but it is the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9) that saves? secondly, to equate the &quot;eternal prupose proposed in Christ&quot; is impossible because none of the elect given to Christ before the foundation of the world can ever perish and some of those in the Abrahamic Covenant did perish. In fact Jesus called some of them children of Satan! Paul also seems to seperate the Abrahamic Covenant with the singular &quot;promise&quot;
which is the Gospel. When he writes:

[quote:0e81202a19]... remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants [plural] of promise [singular], having no hope and without God in the world. Eph 2:12 [/quote:0e81202a19]

Hence it is the singular "promise" or "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9)" that saves not the covenants that promised it that excluded gentiles. The Abrahamic Covenant was thus a mixed Covenant containing both those who had the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9) and those who did not. In fact not even all who were had the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9)" were in the Covenant of circumcision consider Lot and the saved gentiles during those years. Which establishes another point as well, namely that you can be saved outside of the Covenant of Abraham like lot, Noah and all the Gentiles before Christ saved but not under the Covenant of Abraham. 

The Abrahamic Covenant has indeed ended for Christ has created a "New" body by first removing the natural branches from the Abrahamic Covenant and taking the faithful branches Christ also engrafted a faithful gentiles resulting in the end of the old covenant and forming a new Covenant. As Paul wrote:

[quote:0e81202a19] 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17 AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR ; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. [Ephesians 2] [/quote:0e81202a19] 

As you have already pointed out that only those who have believe in the Gospel can be considered &quot;children of Abraham&quot; therefore the true children of Abraham are not the naturally children even though they were under the Abrahamic Covenant because these natural children were discarded for God said about the natural branches I have "hated you" (Rome 9:13) so it seems that all those who have beleived in Christ become children born of Abraham that is children born neither of flesh and blood but of the Holy Spirit (see John 1:12-13).

Would you agree with this yes or no? Why or why not? and what Scriptural proof texts do you use?


Thanks,
Tyler


----------



## kceaster (Apr 16, 2004)

*Tyler....*

[quote:58a7166acf][quote:58a7166acf] 1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. [/quote:58a7166acf] 

"It is a mystery to us how it is accomplished. But [i:58a7166acf] the Holy Spirit does a work in and through our baptism to unite us to Christ [/i:58a7166acf]... It is not, then, our actions that do this, but the Spirit. It is up to His will as to whether or not we will be baptized into the body of Christ. It cannot get much clearer than that, Tyler" (KC).

Grammatically the word "by" could just as easily mean "in" or "with" hence it is important that we not overemphasis the word "by" because this word is really a translator's preference or interpretation of the verse and therefore we must keep in the back of our minds that the word could also have been "with" or "in." Now I must press the point the word "baptism" is not always tobe interpreted as literal water baptism for the word "baptism" can be used figuratively as when Christ said that he had a "baptism to undergo" referring to the cross. I propose that this verse is talking about "regeneration" I think that is the baptism that puts &quot;all&quot; in the body of Christ. As John the Baptist said:


&quot;As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. (Mathew 3:11)


This baptism with the Spirit is therefore not to be understood as water baptism or John the Baptist saying would make no sense for he would be saying something akin to "I baptize with water but the one coming after me is mightier than I because he also baptizes with water." 

Therefore if this baptism by the spirit refers to regeneration as the text seems to indicate this when it tells us this when it uses the preposition [i:58a7166acf] into [/i:58a7166acf] then it follows that the moment a person enters the body of Christ and thus shares in the imputation of righteousness they have received this baptism. 

With this understood it is seems almost impossible to make this verse as proof text for the statement, "It is a mystery to us how it is accomplished. But [i:58a7166acf] the Holy Spirit does a work in and through our baptism to unite us to Christ [/i:58a7166acf]... It is not, then, our actions that do this, but the Spirit. It is up to His will as to whether or not we will be baptized into the body of Christ. It cannot get much clearer than that, Tyler" (KC) because if that is true we would have to say that regeneration is what is taking place in water baptism and so the water baptism is not mere a sign of regeneration it is the Spirit's instrument of regeneration for "all" who have become partakers in the body of Christ. This seems to be a conclusion that neither you or I would like to make hence it is better to see this verse as a reference to regeneration (i.e. the baptism with or by the spirit) that although I may grant water baptism signifies (in the sense that regeneration is required for it- just as it could be called a baptism of repentance). The two baptisms therefore do not need to happen at the same time one in a heavenly realm in one a physical realm. Indeed we can say that the two are separate events both occurring in history- one prior to the other. 

For further evidence of this I have quoted to people but please know I am not appealing to their authority but rather to the arguments that they are making:


[quote:58a7166acf] "The view sometimes set forth that verse 13a refers to Christian (water) baptism, 13b to the Lord's Supper, is not convincing, among other reasons, because it is difficult to see how the practice of recurring observance of the latter can be described by the aorist tense, 'were made to drink.'" (Richard Gaffin 31)

"Some scholars interpret the text as a reference to the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper. But this is difficult to maintain. First, in the present context Paul gives no indication of introducing a discussion on the sacraments. Next, the text simply does not allude to water baptism. Third, the assertion that the verb [i:58a7166acf] make to drink [/i:58a7166acf] refers to the drinking of Communion cup cannot be sustained. And last, the Greek verb tense calls for a single occurrence of drinking, which is incongruent with repeated observance of the Lord's Supper" (Simon Kistemaker 431) [/quote:58a7166acf]


Therefore I do not think that 1 Corinthians offers a compelling proof text that in "water baptism" there is a corresponding and sequence Spiritual baptism in heaven as sacramental theorist suppose.

Your brother in Christ, Tyler
[/quote:58a7166acf][/quote]

Here is Calvin. And by the way, the orginal connotation of Calvinism is a particular view of the sacraments, not of soteriology.

[quote:58a7166acf]13. For we are all baptized by one Spirit. Here there is a proof brought forward from the effect of baptism. &quot;We are,&quot; says he, &quot;engrafted by baptism into Christ's body, so that we are by a mutual link bound together as members, and live one and the same life. Hence every one, that would remain in the Church of Christ, must necessarily cultivate this fellowship.&quot; He speaks, however, of the baptism of believers, which is efficacious through the grace of the Spirit, for, in the case of many, baptism is merely in the letter -- the symbol without the reality; but believers, along with the sacrament, receive the reality. Hence, with respect to God, this invariably holds good -- that baptism is an engrafting into the body of Christ, for God in that ordinance does not represent anything but what he is prepared to accomplish, provided we are on our part capable of it. The Apostle, also, observes here a most admirable medium, in teaching that the nature of baptism is -- to connect us with Christ's body. Lest any one, however, should imagine, that this is effected by the outward symbol, he adds that it is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Whether Jews or Greeks. He specifies these instances, to intimate, that no diversity of condition obstructs that holy unity which he recommends. This clause, too, is added suitably and appropriately, for envy might at that time arise from two sources -- because the Jews were not willing that the Gentiles should be put upon a level with them; and, where one had some excellence above others, with the view of maintaining his superiority, lie withdrew himself to a distance from his brethren.

We have all drunk in one Spirit. It is literally, &quot;We have drunk into one Spirit,&quot; but it would seem that, in order that the two words ejn (in) and eJn (one) might not immediately follow each other, Paul intentionally changed ejn (in) into ejiv (into,) as he is accustomed frequently to do. Hence his meaning seems rather to be, that we are made to drink through the influence, as he had said before, of the Spirit of Christ, than that we have drunk into the same Spirit. It is uncertain, however, whether he speaks here of Baptism or of the Supper. I am rather inclined, however, to understand him as referring to the Supper, as he makes mention of drinking, for I have no doubt that he intended to make an allusion to the similitude of the sign. There is, however, no correspondence between drinking and baptism. Now, though the cup forms but the half of the Supper, there is no difficulty arising from that, for it is a common thing in Scripture to speak of the sacraments by synecdoche. Thus he mentioned above in the tenth chapter (1 Corinthians10:17) simply the bread, making no mention of the cup. The meaning, therefore, will be this -- that participation in the cup has an eye to this -- that we drink, all of us, of the same cup. For in that ordinance we drink of the life-giving blood of Christ, that we may have life in common with him -- which we truly have, when he lives in us by his Spirit. He teaches, therefore, that believers, so soon as they are initiated by the baptism of Christ, are already imbued with a desire of cultivating mutual unity, and then afterwards, when they receive the sacred Supper, they are again conducted by degrees to the same unity, as they are all refreshed at the same time with the same drink.[/quote:58a7166acf]

Calvin is clear that baptism is a work of God's Spirit. The reason it is NOT baptismal regeneration is because the Spirit will do His work when He will. As the WCF rightly states, baptism is not dependent on anything we do, but on what the Spirit does.

That is why I am a Calvinist in both connotations.

I don't know what else to say about these things. I have shown you from Scripture. The majority of the Reformed are together on this one. I don't know that there is any further proof I need to provide.

I will answer your next post on the covenants and any rebuttal to it. But as far as the sacrament of baptism goes we are at an impasse since you will not aquiesce to the biblical and Calvinist sacramentology.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## kceaster (Apr 16, 2004)

*Tyler....*

[quote:dd4da5c7a1][i:dd4da5c7a1]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:dd4da5c7a1]
I just wanted to make sure that we are on the same page here of if we disagree... hence let me explain where I am coming from:

Now that it has [seems] to have been granted [if I am interpreting you right] that not all those in the Abrahamic Covenant had the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9). As you wrote:

[quote:dd4da5c7a1] Only those who are in Christ, who is Abraham's seed, are saved. (Gal 3:16, 29) There is a mixture of persons in this [i.e Abrahmic] covenant; (Rom 9:6-8) those who are chosen to eternal life, and those who are chosen to eternal death. (Rom 9:14-24) This is the reason that curses exist and the fact that certain ones may be cut off from the [i.e. Abrahmic] covenant. (Rom 11:16-25). (KC) [/quote:dd4da5c7a1]

I do not think the following statement follows:

[quote:dd4da5c7a1] Plus, it is only by the Abrahamic covenant that we are even saved. [/quote:dd4da5c7a1]

because:

I thought we have already decided that the Abrahamic covenant is not what saves but it is the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9) that saves? secondly, to equate the &quot;eternal prupose proposed in Christ&quot; is impossible because none of the elect given to Christ before the foundation of the world can ever perish and some of those in the Abrahamic Covenant did perish. In fact Jesus called some of them children of Satan! Paul also seems to seperate the Abrahamic Covenant with the singular &quot;promise&quot;
which is the Gospel. When he writes:

[quote:dd4da5c7a1]... remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants [plural] of promise [singular], having no hope and without God in the world. Eph 2:12 [/quote:dd4da5c7a1]

Hence it is the singular "promise" or "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9)" that saves not the covenants that promised it that excluded gentiles. The Abrahamic Covenant was thus a mixed Covenant containing both those who had the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9) and those who did not. In fact not even all who were had the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9)" were in the Covenant of circumcision consider Lot and the saved gentiles during those years. Which establishes another point as well, namely that you can be saved outside of the Covenant of Abraham like lot, Noah and all the Gentiles before Christ saved but not under the Covenant of Abraham. 

The Abrahamic Covenant has indeed ended for Christ has created a "New" body by first removing the natural branches from the Abrahamic Covenant and taking the faithful branches Christ also engrafted a faithful gentiles resulting in the end of the old covenant and forming a new Covenant. As Paul wrote:

[quote:dd4da5c7a1] 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17 AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR ; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. [Ephesians 2] [/quote:dd4da5c7a1] 

As you have already pointed out that only those who have believe in the Gospel can be considered &quot;children of Abraham&quot; therefore the true children of Abraham are not the naturally children even though they were under the Abrahamic Covenant because these natural children were discarded for God said about the natural branches I have "hated you" (Rome 9:13) so it seems that all those who have beleived in Christ become children born of Abraham that is children born neither of flesh and blood but of the Holy Spirit (see John 1:12-13).

Would you agree with this yes or no? Why or why not? and what Scriptural proof texts do you use?


Thanks,
Tyler [/quote:dd4da5c7a1]

No, I don't agree. If we are of the faith, we are sons of Abraham. &quot;And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.&quot; Gal 3:29 What did God promise Abraham? SONS! Therefore the covenant of Abraham continues to this day. God is still giving Him sons. As the sand on the sea and as the stars in the heavens.

Your problem with this is twofold:

1. You are working from the presupposition that God's promises to Abraham were temporal and fleshly and do not include the spiritual.

2. You may not concede this point because, if you do, then there are clearly elect and non-elect in a covenant that continues to this day.

Please understand, those non-elect in the covenant today are the same non-elect in the OT. They are Jews outwardly. They are preserved for the day of destruction. Those truly included in Christ, are sons of Abraham inwardly.

I have to cut this short. Please think about these things.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 16, 2004)

*KC,*

I respect your wish not to continue this debate over sacramentalism... please note that in making these comments below I am not expecting a reply and please do not feel obligated to reply... I think your responses have been brillant and if I shared your presumptions I probably would be agreeing with you because you were very logicial. But before leaving this text I just wanted to make these last words,

I think we would now agree that talking about conclusions is a waste of time until we have worked out our different presumptions... which is exspecially true in the subject of mode... for the view that baptism is God's work leaves the door open for paedobaptism and the view that baptism is man's work always takes us to a Credobaptist position... now of course I already knew that Calvin taught that 1 Corinthians 12:13 supported his views but since I am disagreeing with Calvin quoting Calvin would not be much help with someone like me who does not accept Calvin's presumptions to begin with which Calvin used to interpret these verses. 

My reasons for not viewing 1 Corinthians 12:13 as teaching that water baptism is God's work is simply this 1 Corinthians 13:13 is not talking about water baptism at al but is talking about regeneration. The following reasons demonstrate this:

"Some scholars interpret the text as a reference to the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper. But this is difficult to maintain. 

1) In the present context Paul gives no indication of introducing a discussion on the sacraments. 

2) The text simply does not allude to water baptism. 

3) The assertion that the verb [i:b902e44a9b] make to drink [/i:b902e44a9b] refers to the drinking of Communion cup cannot be sustained. 

4) The Greek verb tense calls for a single occurrence of drinking, which is incongruent with repeated observance of the Lord's Supper" (Simon Kistemaker 431) 

And also my own reasons added to Kistemaker,


5) If this is referring to water baptism then we must say that the moment a person is baptized they are placed "into" the "body of Christ" and not before or after water baptism... but if this is acknowledge we have a strong reason not to baptize infants based on their membership in the "body of Christ" because no one not baptized is in the "body of Christ." 

6) Modern scholarship is backing away from Calvin's stance 

7) Water Baptism places "All" into the "body of Christ" then we must say that water baptism is essential to salvation or say being in the "body of Christ" is not essential to salvation... either way that question is answered we would end in error. 

Just my last :wr50: 

Tyler



[Edited on 4-18-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 16, 2004)

*KC,*

I really enjoy talking about this subject with you because the &quot;Covenant of Grace&quot; is I think one of the most important think in the inventory of theology that a Christian can have. 

[quote:c8ba6c4ec1] No, I don't agree. If we are of the faith, we are sons of Abraham. &quot;And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.&quot; Gal 3:29 What did God promise Abraham? SONS! Therefore the covenant of Abraham continues to this day. God is still giving Him sons. As the sand on the sea and as the stars in the heavens. [/quote:c8ba6c4ec1] 

Wait if you agree that the true "children of Abraham" are those who have faith, as Paul writes,

"Therefore, be sure that it is [b:c8ba6c4ec1] those who are of faith [/b:c8ba6c4ec1] who are sons of Abraham" (Gal 3:7). Then why baptize those who are not the children of Abraham? 


[quote:c8ba6c4ec1]Your problem with this is twofold: 

1. You are working from the presupposition that God's promises to Abraham were temporal and fleshly and do not include the spiritual. 

2. You may not concede this point because, if you do, then there are clearly elect and non-elect in a covenant that continues to this day. 

Please understand, those non-elect in the covenant today are the same non-elect in the OT. They are Jews outwardly. They are preserved for the day of destruction. Those truly included in Christ, are sons of Abraham inwardly. [/quote:c8ba6c4ec1]

Is it really wrong to work from the presumption that the Abarahamic Covenant was temporal and historic? After all did not God fulfill all of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant with Joshua? As Scripture states:

"[b:c8ba6c4ec1] Not one of the good promises [/b:c8ba6c4ec1] which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; [b:c8ba6c4ec1] all came to pass [/b:c8ba6c4ec1]" (Joshua 21:45).

But the author of Hebrews writes,

"39 And all these [including Abraham and Joshua], having gained approval through their faith, [b:c8ba6c4ec1] did not receive what was promised [/b:c8ba6c4ec1], 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect." (Hebrews 11:39-40).

Now if we view the Abrahamic Covenant as identical to the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9)" we must say that Scripture contradicts itself because in one place God says all the promises to Abraham were fulfilled and in another that not all the promises were not fulfilled but for us who accept the inerrancy of Scripture it appears the contradiction answer will not be satisfying. I think a better interpretation then would be to say that the Abrahamic Covenant is not the same or identical to the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9) but that the Abrahamic Covenant was a mixed Covenant containing those who were and those who were not in the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9). Hence God promised that everyone in the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9) would be saved and God's word does not fail just as God did not fail to fulfill all the promises He made in the Abrahamic Covenant. Hence God's promises all come true and Scripture does not contradict itself if we interpret the Abrahamic Covenant as different from the &quot;eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph 3:11; see 2 Tim 1:9). 

I hope my above thoughts have been adquate in answring your questions...

I also wanted to ask a question of my own... if children of Christians are placed in a special relationship with God why did God say that he &quot;hated Esau&quot; an Old Covenant child before he had done either right or wrong?

Tyler

[Edited on 4-17-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## kceaster (Apr 19, 2004)

*Tyler...*

[quote:0f5c874f1b][quote:0f5c874f1b] No, I don't agree. If we are of the faith, we are sons of Abraham. &quot;And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.&quot; Gal 3:29 What did God promise Abraham? SONS! Therefore the covenant of Abraham continues to this day. God is still giving Him sons. As the sand on the sea and as the stars in the heavens. [/quote:0f5c874f1b] 

Wait if you agree that the true "children of Abraham" are those who have faith, as Paul writes,

"Therefore, be sure that it is [b:0f5c874f1b] those who are of faith [/b:0f5c874f1b] who are sons of Abraham" (Gal 3:7). Then why baptize those who are not the children of Abraham?[/quote:0f5c874f1b]

We're talking about the covenant of grace here. Obviously, if I believe the covenant of grace began in the garden and continues to this day, I am going to have to include many in that covenant who have been so placed by God. God placed many in Israel who were not justified by faith, yet they were transgressors of that covenant God so graciously extended to them.

Those who are true sons of Abraham are in the covenant of grace, INTERNALLY and EXTERNALLY. Those who are not true sons of Abraham are in the covenant of grace only EXTERNALLY. They (the external only sons) are goats in the fold of our God. The goats are there, in the fold. There can be no denying this. There have always been goats in the covenant of grace. These will not be justified on the Day of Judgment.

Why not baptize them and include them in the covenant? You have still not answered my challenge to you to show where infant inclusion has been abrogated.

[quote:0f5c874f1b]Is it really wrong to work from the presumption that the Abarahamic Covenant was temporal and historic? After all did not God fulfill all of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant with Joshua? As Scripture states:

"[b:0f5c874f1b] Not one of the good promises [/b:0f5c874f1b] which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; [b:0f5c874f1b] all came to pass [/b:0f5c874f1b]" (Joshua 21:45).

But the author of Hebrews writes,

"39 And all these [including Abraham and Joshua], having gained approval through their faith, [b:0f5c874f1b] did not receive what was promised [/b:0f5c874f1b], 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect." (Hebrews 11:39-40).

Now if we view the Abrahamic Covenant as identical to the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9)" we must say that Scripture contradicts itself because in one place God says all the promises to Abraham were fulfilled and in another that not all the promises were not fulfilled but for us who accept the inerrancy of Scripture it appears the contradiction answer will not be satisfying. I think a better interpretation then would be to say that the Abrahamic Covenant is not the same or identical to the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9) but that the Abrahamic Covenant was a mixed Covenant containing those who were and those who were not in the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9). Hence God promised that everyone in the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9) would be saved and God's word does not fail just as God did not fail to fulfill all the promises He made in the Abrahamic Covenant. Hence God's promises all come true and Scripture does not contradict itself if we interpret the Abrahamic Covenant as different from the &quot;eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph 3:11; see 2 Tim 1:9).[/quote:0f5c874f1b]

Tell me this: Why are you equating the promises made to the house of Israel and the promises made to Abraham? The promises talked about in Joshua point back to the promises made to Israel on the plain of Moab as they were poised to enter the promised land. You'll notice that it specifically states that the promises made to the house of Israel were fulfilled. Were these the same promises as the ones to Abraham? Was Abraham merely promised with land and temporal blessings? No. Abraham was promised with sons too numerous to count. Do you actually believe that a million people equals what God promised Abraham? That is about the number of people when the promises to the house of Israel were fulfilled.

This is yet another example of how you are not looking with understanding to the OT. You really need to work on getting the OT under your belt before you can understand some of the things you're debating. There are so many intracasies that you are bowling over by your clumsy, but well meant approach. Be a bit more careful with your exegesis. The whole counsel of God has more to say on the covenants than that which is written in Hebrews or Jeremiah. You must understand these others to understand them. 

[quote:0f5c874f1b]I also wanted to ask a question of my own... if children of Christians are placed in a special relationship with God why did God say that he &quot;hated Esau&quot; an Old Covenant child before he had done either right or wrong?[/quote:0f5c874f1b]

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, &quot;I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.&quot; So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

God has His reasons. Why would God allow some to be disillusioned until the Day of Judgment, all the while thinking themselves to be righteous according to the law and according to the Spirit? For His own glory, and for no other.

God included several in His covenant that were not elect. He obviously still does. WE CAN NEVER GUARANTEE THAT OUR FELLOWSHIP IS ELECT. God has not chosen to do so. Why is it that we believe we can weed out all those He has placed in our midst for His own glory? To our eyes and to the scrutiny of Scripture, they are with us. But when it comes time for the wedding feast of the Lamb, they will not be wearing wedding clothes and will be cast out.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 20, 2004)

*Brother KC,*

I hope my many questioning and reasoning are not offending you... please know that I am still of the age of discovery and have not yet reached the age when my ways are set... I still keep an open Scripture on this subject and enjoy talking about this issue... in the hopes that I may come to eventually come to definite conclusions. 

I must confess that I am not sure what an "external Covenant member" is verses an "Internal Covenant member" to me it makes about as much sense as a "external husband" and "Internal husband" I mean an adulter is not an "external husband" he is a husband and that is why he can commit adultery. By analogy I would say that a New Covenant breaker is not an External member in contrast to an internal member but is a Covenant member peroid and that is why he is able to break the Covennat. Therefore I can understand "Covenant breaker" and "Covenant keeper" but this stuff about "external Covenant" is a phrase not found in either Confession (Westminster Confession or London Baptist Confession) and is not found in Scripture and is not found in any ancient world Covenant documents... and hence I simply do not think to make matters simply for simply minds like me that it is best to talk about stuff like this when you are talking about Covenant... you are either in or out, faithful or breaking... but you are not external or internal. Therefore I simply ask that we use biblical language instead of theological words that invite confusion. An I think many people have found the "external" "internal" Covenant confusing for people begin asking which is the real Covenant and who is part of the "Internal Covenant" and it begins to cause people to distrust the "external" aspects of the Church as they see a huge tension between the "internal" and "external" but all this confusion could be easily avoided if we just started to use Biblical phrases. 

Now if you argue that God does hates some children of Christian parents why then do you not tell the Christian parents that God might "hate" their children and that the children of Christian parents have no special affection with God... I mean would not that be more consistent with your view instead of saying that God loves your children and wants to be their father and have them as their daughters and sons. Now I agree that we should presume our children are regenerated but we should also know that God can hate children of Christian parents and has no desire to be their God and have them as their people. (Romans 9: 13)... 

I wrote:

[quote:2a0433fde3] Is it really wrong to work from the presumption that the Abarahamic Covenant was temporal and historic? After all did not God fulfill all of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant with Joshua? As Scripture states: 

"[b:2a0433fde3] Not one of the good promises [/b:2a0433fde3]which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; [b:2a0433fde3] all came to pass[/b:2a0433fde3]" (Joshua 21:45). 

But the author of Hebrews writes, 

"39 And all these [including Abraham and Joshua], having gained approval through their faith, [b:2a0433fde3] did not receive what was promised [/b:2a0433fde3], 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect." (Hebrews 11:39-40). 

Now if we view the Abrahamic Covenant as identical to the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9)" we must say that Scripture contradicts itself because in one place God says all the promises to Abraham were fulfilled and in another that not all the promises were not fulfilled but for us who accept the inerrancy of Scripture it appears the contradiction answer will not be satisfying. I think a better interpretation then would be to say that the Abrahamic Covenant is not the same or identical to the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9) but that the Abrahamic Covenant was a mixed Covenant containing those who were and those who were not in the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9). Hence God promised that everyone in the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9) would be saved and God's word does not fail just as God did not fail to fulfill all the promises He made in the Abrahamic Covenant. Hence God's promises all come true and Scripture does not contradict itself if we interpret the Abrahamic Covenant as different from the &quot;eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph 3:11; see 2 Tim 1:9). [/quote:2a0433fde3]

To which it was replied: 

"This is yet another example of how you are not looking with understanding to the OT" for anyone who has understanding of the OT knows that, "The promises talked about in Joshua point back to the promises made to Israel on the plain of Moab as they were poised to enter the promised land" and it is simply well intentioned ignorance which leads people to conclude that God fulfilled his promises to Israelis ancestors in Joshua time. In fact it was asked, "Why are you equating the promises made to the house of Israel and the promises made to Abraham?" Of course the only evidence that Joshua 21:45 is not talking about the promises God gave to Israel's ancestors is that it does not fit into the conception that Covenant of Grace is equal to the Arabahamic Covenant but this is begging the question since it is Joshua 21:45 that is being used to show that a person cannot equate the Abrahamic Covenant with the Covenant of Grace but instead we should view the Abrahamic Covenant as a one of the many Covenants of the promise and that the Abrahamic Covenant contained a mixed number of those who were in the Covenant of Grace and those who were not in the Covenant of Grace. Hence not one single contextual piece evidence supports that view that this verse is talking about God's "new" promises in moab that he made to Israel.

Now here is the reason why I view Joshua 21:45 as teaching that it was the promises that God gave to their fathers that was fulfilled according to Joshua 21:45. 

[b:2a0433fde3]43[/b:2a0433fde3] So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to [i:2a0433fde3] give to their fathers [/i:2a0433fde3], and they possessed it and lived in it. [b:2a0433fde3]44[/b:2a0433fde3] And the LORD gave them rest on every side, according to all that [i:2a0433fde3] He had sworn to their fathers [/i:2a0433fde3], and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hand. [b:2a0433fde3]45[/b:2a0433fde3] Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass. 
Note: how the verses before Joshua 21:45 identify the promises as the promises God made with Israelis ancestors and yes God did fulfill his promise to make Abrahams decedents into a mighty and numerous nation just as Joshua 21:45 teaches. Therefore my original argument about not equating the Abraham Covenant (historicial Covenant made in time and space) as the Covenant of Grace (Eternal Covenant made by the Trinity to save the elect before the elect even were) still stands (for that argument please see my quote above). 

Another question I had that I found on a website but I thought was a good one to ask a Presbyterian Covenant theologian is:

Is it not true that if the original promise was made to Abraham and his seed, then Ishmael, who was circumcised the same day as Abraham, has every covenant claim that Isaac had?

Tyler




[Edited on 4-20-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## kceaster (Apr 21, 2004)

*Tyler....*

[quote:3b510fa408][i:3b510fa408]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:3b510fa408]
I hope my many questioning and reasoning are not offending you... please know that I am still of the age of discovery and have not yet reached the age when my ways are set... I still keep an open Scripture on this subject and enjoy talking about this issue... in the hopes that I may come to eventually come to definite conclusions.[/quote:3b510fa408]

No offense here. Keep wrestling. 

[quote:3b510fa408]I must confess that I am not sure what an "external Covenant member" is verses an "Internal Covenant member" to me it makes about as much sense as a "external husband" and "Internal husband" I mean an adulter is not an "external husband" he is a husband and that is why he can commit adultery.[/quote:3b510fa408]

Think of it in terms of how Paul talks about Jews outwardly and inwardly. Rom 2:28-29

[quote:3b510fa408]By analogy I would say that a New Covenant breaker is not an External member in contrast to an internal member but is a Covenant member peroid and that is why he is able to break the Covennat. Therefore I can understand "Covenant breaker" and "Covenant keeper" but this stuff about "external Covenant" is a phrase not found in either Confession (Westminster Confession or London Baptist Confession) and is not found in Scripture and is not found in any ancient world Covenant documents...[/quote:3b510fa408]

You'll find what you're looking for in the visible/invisible Church distinction. Also, perhaps Turretin will help you here:

[quote:3b510fa408]Further they (the Reformed) think that covenant may be regarded in two ways: either as to internal essence; or as to external dispensation. The former answers to the internal calling and the invisible church of the elect (which is constituted by it). The latter, however, answers to the external calling and the visible church of the called. In the latter respect the covenant is regarded only as to promulgation and presentation by the external call; and as to external benefits, which flow from that presentation, in the preaching of the word; the administration of the sacraments and the participation in sacred things (of which as many as in the people or in the church retain the same profession, become partakers; and thus it is extended even to many reprobates who remain in the visible church). In the former respect, it is further extended to the acceptation and conferring and reception of all federal benefits and internal communion with Christ by faith. In this sense, it pertains to none other than the elect, who are really partakers of the covenant according to God's intention, in whom he fulfills the very conditions of the covenant and to whom he not only offers but actually confers the benefits of the covenant. (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Topic XII, Q. VI.V.)[/quote:3b510fa408]

These are the assumptions I'm working from. And as I have noted above, Paul makes the same distinction between outward and inward Jews.

[quote:3b510fa408]and hence I simply do not think to make matters simply for simply minds like me that it is best to talk about stuff like this when you are talking about Covenant... you are either in or out, faithful or breaking... but you are not external or internal. Therefore I simply ask that we use biblical language instead of theological words that invite confusion. An I think many people have found the "external" "internal" Covenant confusing for people begin asking which is the real Covenant and who is part of the "Internal Covenant" and it begins to cause people to distrust the "external" aspects of the Church as they see a huge tension between the "internal" and "external" but all this confusion could be easily avoided if we just started to use Biblical phrases.[/quote:3b510fa408]

I'm sorry you get confused by this, but it should be very well accepted by you on this list. The WCF and LBCF are using visible/invisible Church. It is not a stretch to then say that there are external and internal members of the covenant. It is all the same paradigm. And, as I have already stated, Paul talks about inward and outward Jews. 

[quote:3b510fa408]Now if you argue that God does hates some children of Christian parents why then do you not tell the Christian parents that God might "hate" their children and that the children of Christian parents have no special affection with God...[/quote:3b510fa408]

First, I have not claimed that God hates some children of Christian parents. I would say quite the opposite. God loves the children of Christian parents as evidenced by Christ's blessing the children of the believers who brought them to Him.

[quote:3b510fa408]I mean would not that be more consistent with your view instead of saying that God loves your children and wants to be their father and have them as their daughters and sons.[/quote:3b510fa408]

No. That would not be more consistent with my view. The bare bones facts are that not all who are in the covenant community are the elect of God. This goes back to the visible/invisible Church distinction. This does not mean God hates our children, necessarily. I think on the whole, God loves these children because He has placed them in a family that will teach and train them in His way.

[quote:3b510fa408]Now I agree that we should presume our children are regenerated but we should also know that God can hate children of Christian parents and has no desire to be their God and have them as their people. (Romans 9: 13)...[/quote:3b510fa408]

I don't think you can make this case on the whole. The vast majority of sons and daughters of disciples, become disciples themselves. 

[quote:3b510fa408]I wrote:

[quote:3b510fa408] Is it really wrong to work from the presumption that the Abarahamic Covenant was temporal and historic? After all did not God fulfill all of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant with Joshua? As Scripture states: 

"[b:3b510fa408] Not one of the good promises [/b:3b510fa408]which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; [b:3b510fa408] all came to pass[/b:3b510fa408]" (Joshua 21:45). 

But the author of Hebrews writes, 

"39 And all these [including Abraham and Joshua], having gained approval through their faith, [b:3b510fa408] did not receive what was promised [/b:3b510fa408], 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect." (Hebrews 11:39-40). 

Now if we view the Abrahamic Covenant as identical to the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9)" we must say that Scripture contradicts itself because in one place God says all the promises to Abraham were fulfilled and in another that not all the promises were not fulfilled but for us who accept the inerrancy of Scripture it appears the contradiction answer will not be satisfying. I think a better interpretation then would be to say that the Abrahamic Covenant is not the same or identical to the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9) but that the Abrahamic Covenant was a mixed Covenant containing those who were and those who were not in the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9). Hence God promised that everyone in the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9) would be saved and God's word does not fail just as God did not fail to fulfill all the promises He made in the Abrahamic Covenant. Hence God's promises all come true and Scripture does not contradict itself if we interpret the Abrahamic Covenant as different from the &quot;eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph 3:11; see 2 Tim 1:9). [/quote:3b510fa408]

To which it was replied: 

"This is yet another example of how you are not looking with understanding to the OT" for anyone who has understanding of the OT knows that, "The promises talked about in Joshua point back to the promises made to Israel on the plain of Moab as they were poised to enter the promised land" and it is simply well intentioned ignorance which leads people to conclude that God fulfilled his promises to Israelis ancestors in Joshua time. In fact it was asked, "Why are you equating the promises made to the house of Israel and the promises made to Abraham?" Of course the only evidence that Joshua 21:45 is not talking about the promises God gave to Israel's ancestors is that it does not fit into the conception that Covenant of Grace is equal to the Arabahamic Covenant but this is begging the question since it is Joshua 21:45 that is being used to show that a person cannot equate the Abrahamic Covenant with the Covenant of Grace but instead we should view the Abrahamic Covenant as a one of the many Covenants of the promise and that the Abrahamic Covenant contained a mixed number of those who were in the Covenant of Grace and those who were not in the Covenant of Grace. Hence not one single contextual piece evidence supports that view that this verse is talking about God's "new" promises in moab that he made to Israel.

Now here is the reason why I view Joshua 21:45 as teaching that it was the promises that God gave to their fathers that was fulfilled according to Joshua 21:45. 

[b:3b510fa408]43[/b:3b510fa408] So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to [i:3b510fa408] give to their fathers [/i:3b510fa408], and they possessed it and lived in it. [b:3b510fa408]44[/b:3b510fa408] And the LORD gave them rest on every side, according to all that [i:3b510fa408] He had sworn to their fathers [/i:3b510fa408], and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hand. [b:3b510fa408]45[/b:3b510fa408] Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass. 
Note: how the verses before Joshua 21:45 identify the promises as the promises God made with Israelis ancestors and yes God did fulfill his promise to make Abrahams decedents into a mighty and numerous nation just as Joshua 21:45 teaches. Therefore my original argument about not equating the Abraham Covenant (historicial Covenant made in time and space) as the Covenant of Grace (Eternal Covenant made by the Trinity to save the elect before the elect even were) still stands (for that argument please see my quote above).[/quote:3b510fa408]

Based on the fact that Christ is the Seed of Abraham, it will never wash that all was fulfilled in the Joshua passage, not to mention that Paul says all promises of God are fulfilled in Christ; and Christ Himself says that He came to fulfill the law and the Prophets, of which Abraham is one. You need to look at the whole of Scripture instead of just looking at obscure passages. Search commentators and they will tell you that the promises mentioned as fulfilled in Joshua, were the promises given in Deut. 26-30. All of the positive promises from these chapters were fulfilled in Joshua. All of the negative promises were fulfilled as well, throughout the rest of the OT to the exile and after. 

[quote:3b510fa408]Another question I had that I found on a website but I thought was a good one to ask a Presbyterian Covenant theologian is:

Is it not true that if the original promise was made to Abraham and his seed, then Ishmael, who was circumcised the same day as Abraham, has every covenant claim that Isaac had?[/quote:3b510fa408]

No where in Scripture does it say that Ishmael was not elect. It also does not say that he was. We cannot know the soul condition of Ishmael, but we know that he was in the covenant, and yes, he would have every benefit of the covenant, save one. It was not established with him as the first born of Abraham.

So, I will never argue against Ishmael's inclusion. It does not say God hated him or that He would not bless him. Whether elect or no, the Scriptures are silent.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## tcalbrecht (Apr 21, 2004)

[quote:e812db5b20][i:e812db5b20]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:e812db5b20]

We have all heard the jokes about having to be immersed twice or three times because of someone's sordid background, or having to be baptized twice or three times because it didn't take. ...

KC [/quote:e812db5b20]

The best one I heard is the story about two friends, one Presbyterian and the other Baptist. The Baptist tells his Presbyterian friend that they are going to hold a baptism service down at the river the next Sunday.

The Presbyterian asks the Baptist. &quot;If I want to join your church and I come to get baptized, can I get into the water only up to my knees?&quot;

The Baptist answers, &quot;No. Of course not.&quot;

The Presbyterian then asks. &quot;How 'bout just up to my waist?&quot;

The Baptist again replies, &quot;No.&quot;

&quot;Well, them how about to my chest?&quot;

The Baptist answers, &quot;Nope. No good.&quot;

&quot;To my neck?&quot;

&quot;Still no good.&quot;

&quot;What about just to the top of my head, but with a little bit still above water?&quot;

&quot;That is not good,&quot; says the Baptist, &quot;You must cover the top of the head.&quot;

To which the Presbyterian replies, &quot;So what you are saying is that all that really matters is that last little bit of water just on top of the head. That's what we Presbyterians have been saying all along.&quot;


----------



## Optimus (Apr 21, 2004)




----------



## Bladestunner316 (Apr 21, 2004)




----------



## Tertullian (Apr 21, 2004)

*Brother KC,*

[quote:58d0b25a4e] Based on the fact that Christ is the Seed of Abraham, it will never wash that all was fulfilled in the Joshua passage, not to mention that Paul says all promises of God are fulfilled in Christ; and Christ Himself says that He came to fulfill the law and the Prophets, of which Abraham is one. [/quote:58d0b25a4e]

We must either say that Scripture contradicts itself because Scripture definitely says in Joshua 21:41 "[b:58d0b25a4e]Not one of the good promises[/b:58d0b25a4e] which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; [b:58d0b25a4e]all came to pass[/b:58d0b25a4e]" (Joshua 21:45) or we could say that the Abraham was under two Covenants the historic Covenant that promised a physical land to Abraham's physical children which was fulfilled in Joshua's day and an eternal Covenant that promised Abraham and the rest of the elect salvation and all of these promises made in the "Covenant of Grace" have been ratified by Christ when he established the New Covenant. Hence we can either say that God's word contradicts itself or we can say that God always keeps his promises and he kept his word and fulfilled his promises that he made in the historic Covenant with Abraham and He fulfilled His promises that he made in eternity. One view has God always saying "Yes" and one view has God saying "Yes-No" hence I think it is easy to see which view does justice to the whole of Scripture and which view pins Scripture against Scripture. 

[quote:58d0b25a4e]You need to look at the whole of Scripture instead of just looking at obscure passages. Search commentators and they will tell you that the promises mentioned as fulfilled in Joshua, were the promises given in Deut. 26-30. All of the positive promises from these chapters were fulfilled in Joshua. All of the negative promises were fulfilled as well, throughout the rest of the OT to the exile and after. [/quote:58d0b25a4e]

Deuteronomy chapters 26-30 is according to the majority of commentators a "renewal" of the Covenant made with Abraham not a different Covenant from the Abrahamic Covenant. I mean how many times does God say in those verses in Deuteronomy that he is fulfilling his promise that he made to Abraham? Here is just two examples: 

"in order that He may establish you today as His people and that He may be your God, [b:58d0b25a4e] just as He spoke to you [/b:58d0b25a4e] and as He swore to your fathers, [b:58d0b25a4e] to Abraham [/b:58d0b25a4e], Isaac, and Jacob". (Deuteronomy 29:13) 

"by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the [b:58d0b25a4e] LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham [/b:58d0b25a4e], Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.&quot; (Deuteronomy 30:20)

That being said I still do not understand why we cannot allow Joshua 21:43-45 to identify the promises that it says were fulfilled?

[b:58d0b25a4e]43[/b:58d0b25a4e] So the LORD gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to [i:58d0b25a4e] give to their fathers [/i:58d0b25a4e], and they possessed it and lived in it. [b:58d0b25a4e]44[/b:58d0b25a4e] And the LORD gave them rest on every side, according to all that [i:58d0b25a4e] He had sworn to their fathers [/i:58d0b25a4e], and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the LORD gave all their enemies into their hand. [b:58d0b25a4e]45[/b:58d0b25a4e] Not one of the good promises which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass.

Note how the promises are said to be the promises God swore to Israelis fathers and Abraham is Israel's chief father (see Deut 26, Joshua 24). Hence I think this original argument of mine still stands:

[quote:58d0b25a4e] Is it really wrong to work from the presumption that the Abarahamic Covenant was temporal and historic? After all did not God fulfill all of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant with Joshua? As Scripture states: 

"[b:58d0b25a4e] Not one of the good promises [/b:58d0b25a4e]which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; [b:58d0b25a4e] all came to pass[/b:58d0b25a4e]" (Joshua 21:45). 

But the author of Hebrews writes, 

"39 And all these [including Abraham and Joshua], having gained approval through their faith, [b:58d0b25a4e] did not receive what was promised [/b:58d0b25a4e], 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect." (Hebrews 11:39-40). 

Now if we view the Abrahamic Covenant as identical to the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9)" we must say that Scripture contradicts itself because in one place God says all the promises to Abraham were fulfilled and in another that not all the promises were not fulfilled but for us who accept the inerrancy of Scripture it appears the contradiction answer will not be satisfying. I think a better interpretation then would be to say that the Abrahamic Covenant is not the same or identical to the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9) but that the Abrahamic Covenant was a mixed Covenant containing those who were and those who were not in the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9). Hence God promised that everyone in the "eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph.3:11; see 2Tim.1:9) would be saved and God's word does not fail just as God did not fail to fulfill all the promises He made in the Abrahamic Covenant. Hence God's promises all come true and Scripture does not contradict itself if we interpret the Abrahamic Covenant as different from the &quot;eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord&quot; (Eph 3:11; see 2 Tim 1:9). [/quote:58d0b25a4e]


Tyler

[Edited on 4-22-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 22, 2004)

*Brother KC*

I understand the invisible and visible Church distinction because that concept properly distinguishes between the human perspective and God's perspective for in our human perspective those whom we "judge in charity" to be Christians and so part of the Church may in fact prove not to be in Christ on the last day while the Invisible Church is composed of God's elect it is from this Church can only be seen from the vantage point of God and eternity but it seems that the "external and internal Covenant member" wants to say more than that and so is really a separate concept from the invisible and visible Church concept hence we ought not to confuse these two concepts. 

Now I simply must ask for more clarification because what does it matter if a person in Covenant is not regenerate any more than it matters that a person getting married does not really love his wife? I mean a married man who loves his wife and married man who does not love his wife is still bound to the marriage covenant in the same respect and are both husbands in the same respect from a legal point of view... hence it would be idle to say that one is a internal husband and the other only an external husband in then say that the external husbands are not true husbands... for legally both are true husbands. Well if this is how the Covenant of marriage works and the Covenant of marriage is a picture of the Covenant then why speak of internal Covenant Christians vs. External Covenant Christians?

Now although it is true that Ishmael is not called reprobate in Genesis I think Paul safely answers this question in Galatians 4 when he called Isaac the "child of promise" in contrast to Ishmael the child of Hagar and in fact does not Paul say that they were figuratively representatives of two real but different Covenants and that each child was promised a different inheritance? If so how could you say that they were both in the same Covenant with the identical promises when you wrote, "We cannot know the soul condition of Ishmael, but we know that he was in the covenant, and yes, he would have every benefit of the covenant?" I say there is two Covenants a historical and eternal but you say there is only one but how can you explain Paul's seeming agreement with me and there being two Covenants? (Gal 4:24). 

But any how this only pushes the question further down the line because what about Jacob and Esau who were twins how come they did not both have the same Covenant status but God said about them: 

"...there was Rebekah also, when she had [b:0d8b45d95d] conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac [/b:0d8b45d95d]; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, &quot;THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.&quot; 13 Just as it is written, &quot;JACOB I LOVED, [b:0d8b45d95d] BUT ESAU I HATED.[/b:0d8b45d95d]&quot;.

Did Jacob and Esau share the same Covenant privileges...?

Tyler


----------



## kceaster (Apr 22, 2004)

*Tyler....*

[quote:f86a3511cb]We must either say that Scripture contradicts itself because Scripture definitely says in Joshua 21:41 "[b:f86a3511cb]Not one of the good promises[/b:f86a3511cb] which the LORD had made to the house of Israel failed; [b:f86a3511cb]all came to pass[/b:f86a3511cb]" (Joshua 21:45) or we could say that the Abraham was under two Covenants the historic Covenant that promised a physical land to Abraham's physical children which was fulfilled in Joshua's day and an eternal Covenant that promised Abraham and the rest of the elect salvation and all of these promises made in the "Covenant of Grace" have been ratified by Christ when he established the New Covenant. Hence we can either say that God's word contradicts itself or we can say that God always keeps his promises and he kept his word and fulfilled his promises that he made in the historic Covenant with Abraham and He fulfilled His promises that he made in eternity. One view has God always saying "Yes" and one view has God saying "Yes-No" hence I think it is easy to see which view does justice to the whole of Scripture and which view pins Scripture against Scripture.[/quote:f86a3511cb]

You're creating a false alternative. It can be just as I have advocated without doing damage to anything. I am not saying that any promises were left unkept. What I am saying is that these promises in Joshua are the ones from Deut. 26-30.

You are trying to prove that the Abrahamic covenant was over and done in Joshua and that is simply untrue. Christ says it is, Paul says it is. This is not contradiction. You have to understand these texts before you can make any kind of conclusion on it. And you have not understood them yet.

[quote:f86a3511cb]Deuteronomy chapters 26-30 is according to the majority of commentators a "renewal" of the Covenant made with Abraham not a different Covenant from the Abrahamic Covenant. I mean how many times does God say in those verses in Deuteronomy that he is fulfilling his promise that he made to Abraham? Here is just two examples:[/quote:f86a3511cb]

Look at the passages themselves in Deuteronomy about covenant. They all point to the covenant God made with their fathers at Horeb. Deuteronomy is a renewing of the covenant at Horeb, not Abraham. There are certainly fulfillments in both these covenants of the Abrahamic. They are a people of his line. They will be taking possession of the land promised to Abraham, but this is not a renewal of the Abrahamic, nor is it a complete fulfillment. I would challenge you to provide references on your majority of commentators. 

[quote:f86a3511cb]That being said I still do not understand why we cannot allow Joshua 21:43-45 to identify the promises that it says were fulfilled?[/quote:f86a3511cb]

Because not all were fulfilled. Abraham did not have sons as the stars of the heavens, nor were all of the nations of the Gentiles blessed. 

[quote:f86a3511cb]Note how the promises are said to be the promises God swore to Israelis fathers and Abraham is Israel's chief father (see Deut 26, Joshua 24). Hence I think this original argument of mine still stands:[/quote:f86a3511cb]

Tyler, how could it stand? Were all the nations of the world blessed because Israel came into the land and knew prosperity? This is grasping at straws. You can't possibly believe that all of the Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled in Joshua. It just plain wasn't.

And thinking so, does damage to the gospel. Since it is by the Evangelion in Gen 3, further with Noah, further with Abraham, further with Moses and David, culminating in Christ, that we even have a new covenant. If you say all things were fulfilled in Joshua, we have no reason to believe that Abraham is the father of our faith. He would have been the father of theirs only.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## kceaster (Apr 22, 2004)

*Tyler....*

[quote:321bbe1b28]I understand the invisible and visible Church distinction because that concept properly distinguishes between the human perspective and God's perspective for in our human perspective those whom we "judge in charity" to be Christians and so part of the Church may in fact prove not to be in Christ on the last day while the Invisible Church is composed of God's elect it is from this Church can only be seen from the vantage point of God and eternity but it seems that the "external and internal Covenant member" wants to say more than that and so is really a separate concept from the invisible and visible Church concept hence we ought not to confuse these two concepts. 

Now I simply must ask for more clarification because what does it matter if a person in Covenant is not regenerate any more than it matters that a person getting married does not really love his wife? I mean a married man who loves his wife and married man who does not love his wife is still bound to the marriage covenant in the same respect and are both husbands in the same respect from a legal point of view... hence it would be idle to say that one is a internal husband and the other only an external husband in then say that the external husbands are not true husbands... for legally both are true husbands. Well if this is how the Covenant of marriage works and the Covenant of marriage is a picture of the Covenant then why speak of internal Covenant Christians vs. External Covenant Christians?[/quote:321bbe1b28]

It is clear that I will not be able to help you with this. I would suggest reading more about the covenant in Witsius or Turretin if you really want to understand it. I will provide you with a primer as to what I have been saying. It is a quote from Witsius.

[quote:321bbe1b28]Moreover, as we restrict this covenant to the Elect, it is evident we are speaking of the internal, mystical, and spiritual communion of the covenant. For salvation itself, and everything belonging to it, or inseparably connected with it, are promised in this covenant, all which, none but the Elect can attain to. If, in other respects, we consider the external economy of the covenant, in the communion of the word and sacraments, in the profession of the true faith, in the participation of many gifts, which, though excellent and illustrious, are yet none of the effects of the sanctifying Spirit, nor any earnest of future happiness; it cannot be denied, that, in this respect, many are in covenant, whose names, notwithstanding, are not in the testament of God. (The Economy of the Divine Covenants, Book III, Chapter I &sect; V.)[/quote:321bbe1b28]

This has visible and invisible church all over it. And, it can't be more clear. Visible church = external covenant. Invisible church = internal essence.

Read on, Tyler. Perhaps some others can help you.

[quote:321bbe1b28]Now although it is true that Ishmael is not called reprobate in Genesis I think Paul safely answers this question in Galatians 4 when he called Isaac the "child of promise" in contrast to Ishmael the child of Hagar and in fact does not Paul say that they were figuratively representatives of two real but different Covenants and that each child was promised a different inheritance? If so how could you say that they were both in the same Covenant with the identical promises when you wrote, "We cannot know the soul condition of Ishmael, but we know that he was in the covenant, and yes, he would have every benefit of the covenant?" I say there is two Covenants a historical and eternal but you say there is only one but how can you explain Paul's seeming agreement with me and there being two Covenants? (Gal 4:24).[/quote:321bbe1b28]

In Galatians, Paul is explaining the covenant many Jewish Christians were still keeping. In this, he is comparing this with the free child and the bond child. He is not talking about an actual real covenant with Ishmael. He is comparing the new covenant with the old covenant.

[quote:321bbe1b28]Gal 3:21 &para; Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,
24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar--
25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children--
26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.[/quote:321bbe1b28]

Now, was any covenant with Ishmael made at Sinai or Horeb? No. This is figurative language. Paul is saying nothing about the inclusion of Ishmael in the covenant, he is comparing the son of bondage to the son of the free. The son of bondage lives to the covenant at Sinai. The son of the free lives to the covenant according to the promise. That promise being the Messiah who brings salvation and freedom from the law of sin and death.

[quote:321bbe1b28]But any how this only pushes the question further down the line because what about Jacob and Esau who were twins how come they did not both have the same Covenant status but God said about them: 

"...there was Rebekah also, when she had [b:321bbe1b28] conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac [/b:321bbe1b28]; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, &quot;THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.&quot; 13 Just as it is written, &quot;JACOB I LOVED, [b:321bbe1b28] BUT ESAU I HATED.[/b:321bbe1b28]&quot;.

Did Jacob and Esau share the same Covenant privileges...?

Tyler [/quote:321bbe1b28]

Jacob and Esau shared the externality of the covenant. Both were in the household of Israel, both had blessings as being the people of God, as opposed to being Gentile. However, one was chosen to eternal life, and the other was not. So, Jacob was included in the internal essence of the covenant, and Esau was included in the external administration only.

Compare this to the visible and invisible church. Jacob was a member of the visible by virtue of his being born in the covenant family. But he was also a member of the invisible church, because God granted him faith and belief.

Esau was in the visible church, again by virtue of his being born in the house of Isaac, but it is clear from Paul's words that he was not elected by God to everlasting life.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 22, 2004)

KC, 

I think we have come to different conclusions about what is the right interpretation of Joshua 24:41-45 and the phrase "house of Israel" for I argue that Abraham is included in the "house of Israel" and among the "fathers" of Israel and you argue that only those who stood poised to enter into the promised land are considered the "house of Israel" and the "fathers" of Israel. Our different interpretations of this passage springs from our different approaches to interpreting Scripture and so we will just have to leave this one for now until something new can be said about this passage or until one of us decides that their interpretation of this passage is awkward and forcing meaning on to the text because of an outside framework we want to fit Scripture into. 

Now leaving Heb 11 and Joshua 24 aside another passage that speaks of the fact that historical Covenants can not be equated with the "Covenant of Grace" is the 2 Corinthians 3:7-11

(7) But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, (8) how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? (9) For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. (10) For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. (11) For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory. 

Now it seems hard to equate a historical "ministry of death" and "fading glory" with the eternal "Covenant of Grace" but that is exactly what Presbyterian Covenant theologians have to do if they are to make sense out of this passage... for how can what is temporal and ending be equated with what is eternal and has no ending? 

Also you seem to want to say that gentiles were included in the &quot;Abrahamic Covenant&quot; so then would you disagree with the Apostle Paul when he wrote to the Gentiles and said, &quot;remember at one time you were seperate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and [b:f0abad49a5] foreigners to the covenants of promise [/b:f0abad49a5], without hope and without God in the world&quot; (Ep 2:12) or would you agree with Paul and say that the historicial Abrahamic Covenant of promise excluded gentiles? 

My point in bringing up Romans 9:13 &quot;Jacob I loved but Esau I hated&quot; was not to show that children of Christian parents can be non elect but to show that God can and has in the past held no special affection for children born of Christian parents but has &quot;hated&quot; children born of Christian parents... is that not one of things Romans 9:13 teaches?

Tyler


----------



## kceaster (Apr 22, 2004)

*Tyler....*

[quote:60eefdd929]KC, 

I think we have come to different conclusions about what is the right interpretation of Joshua 24:41-45 and the phrase "house of Israel" for I argue that Abraham is included in the "house of Israel" and among the "fathers" of Israel and you argue that only those who stood poised to enter into the promised land are considered the "house of Israel" and the "fathers" of Israel. Our different interpretations of this passage springs from our different approaches to interpreting Scripture and so we will just have to leave this one for now until something new can be said about this passage or until one of us decides that their interpretation of this passage is awkward and forcing meaning on to the text because of an outside framework we want to fit Scripture into.[/quote:60eefdd929]

In all that I have written so far, I have not excluded Abraham from the house of Israel. He is their father, but when Scripture talks about fathers, it can mean Abraham or it can mean their actual fathers. Twisting Deuteronomy so that it means that the covenant being renewed is the one with Abraham is not accurate, since it continues to point to the covenant made at Horeb or Sinai.

It goes to show that you are ignoring my posts and rather hearing what you want to hear. I have never excluded Abraham from the house of Israel. You merely think that because I do not agree that all the promises made to Abraham were fulfilled in Joshua. That doesn't take him out of the house of Israel.

[quote:60eefdd929]leaving Heb 11 and Joshua 24 aside another passage that speaks of the fact that historical Covenants can not be equated with the "Covenant of Grace" is the 2 Corinthians 3:7-11

(7) But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, (8) how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? (9) For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. (10) For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. (11) For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.[/quote:60eefdd929]

When one understands the administrations of the covenant and the mediators of the covenant, one can see that this passage does no damage to the singular covenant of grace.

The new covenant is new in that it has better promises and the mediation of a risen Lord and Christ. It looks different, is all. But it is the same covenant from Gen 3.

Paul is saying here, what could be said of a child in infancy. They are glorious to behold. But, they will look different with the &quot;glory&quot; of old age. The covenants were ratcheted up all along the lines of redemptive history and they do, in fact, have more glory now than in their original state. This does not mean they are different covenants any more than a child looking different in old age. 

[quote:60eefdd929]Now it seems hard to equate a historical "ministry of death" and "fading glory" with the eternal "Covenant of Grace" but that is exactly what Presbyterian Covenant theologians have to do if they are to make sense out of this passage... for how can what is temporal and ending be equated with what is eternal and has no ending?[/quote:60eefdd929]

I am a man. I have a temporal end in this life. Yet, I am a man and have a soul that will live forever. Same man, different aspects. Do you see? 

[quote:60eefdd929]Also you seem to want to say that gentiles were included in the &quot;Abrahamic Covenant&quot; so then would you disagree with the Apostle Paul when he wrote to the Gentiles and said, &quot;remember at one time you were seperate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and [b:60eefdd929] foreigners to the covenants of promise [/b:60eefdd929], without hope and without God in the world&quot; (Ep 2:12) or would you agree with Paul and say that the historicial Abrahamic Covenant of promise excluded gentiles?[/quote:60eefdd929]

No, because you misunderstand Paul who also said, &quot;Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh--who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands-- that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Christ has made both one. Now, who is the Seed of Abraham? Christ. Who are Abraham's sons? Those in Christ, the elect, who are neither Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female.

If that will not convince you:

I, the LORD, have called You in righteousness, And will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the Gentiles,

Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people; For He will avenge the blood of His servants, And render vengeance to His adversaries; He will provide atonement for His land and His people.

In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.

[quote:60eefdd929]My point in bringing up Romans 9:13 &quot;Jacob I loved but Esau I hated&quot; was not to show that children of Christian parents can be non elect but to show that God can and has in the past held no special affection for children born of Christian parents but has &quot;hated&quot; children born of Christian parents... is that not one of things Romans 9:13 teaches?

Tyler [/quote:60eefdd929]

What Romans 9 teaches is that God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. No more or no less. If we start to make statistical analysis, we have gone too far. We know not the mind of God in these things, except what He has revealed to us.

Mal 2:13 And this is the second thing you do: You cover the altar of the LORD with tears, With weeping and crying; So He does not regard the offering anymore, Nor receive it with goodwill from your hands.
14 Yet you say, &quot;For what reason?&quot; Because the LORD has been witness Between you and the wife of your youth, With whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion And your wife by covenant.
15 But did He not make them one, Having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? [b:60eefdd929]He seeks godly offspring.[/b:60eefdd929] Therefore take heed to your spirit, And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.

He loves children of believers:

Luke 18:15 ¶ Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
16 But Jesus called them to Him and said, &quot;Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God.
17 &quot;Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.&quot;

Mark 10:16 And He took them up in His arms, put His hands on them, and blessed them.

In Christ,

KC

[Edited on 4-22-2004 by kceaster]


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 22, 2004)

*Brother KC,*

Thank you for the response I can see that you are a very logicial person but I just do not see the Scripture support for the assumptions that you build the logic of your arguements from therefore I must respectfully part hands with you and provide you with reasons. I hope to explain my reason for that last sentence below.

[i:4d30aee468]Not one of the good promises [/i:4d30aee468] which the LORD had made to the [b:4d30aee468]house of Israel[/b:4d30aee468] failed; [i:4d30aee468]all came to pass[/i:4d30aee468]" (Joshua 21:45) 

&quot;The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb.&quot; The LORD [b:4d30aee468]did not make [/b:4d30aee468] this covenant with our fathers, but with us, {with} all those of us alive here today (Deut. 5:2-3).
[quote:4d30aee468] In all that I have written so far, I have not excluded Abraham from the house of Israel. He is their father, but when Scripture talks about fathers, it can mean Abraham or it can mean their actual fathers. [/quote:4d30aee468]

If your position is correct how can justice be done to the fact that the Horeb Covenant was made with the same generation that went into the promised land? It was not thier fathers or children but it was that very generationwhom God renewed the Covenant with that went into the promised land. As we know the first generation perished in the desert and God made no oath to bring them into the land but swore an oath that none of them would enter the promised land. Hence God made the Horeb Covenant with the second generation who themselves entered into the promised land... so it seems hard to argue that the promises fulfilled to their "fathers" in Joshua 21:41-45 could have any reference to their actual fathers that died in the desert under an oath that they would never enter teh land but it must refer to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob etc.

[quote:4d30aee468] It goes to show that you are ignoring my posts and rather hearing what you want to hear. I have never excluded Abraham from the house of Israel. You merely think that because I do not agree that all the promises made to Abraham were fulfilled in Joshua. That doesn't take him out of the house of Israel. [/quote:4d30aee468]

Now it is quite puzzling how you can argue that Abraham is in the "house of Israel" and still say that it was a different "Covenant" that God established at Horeb that was fulfilled to the "house of Israel" because the Horeb Covenant was not made with Abraham (see Deut 5:2-5)... hence which is it? Is Abraham [b:4d30aee468]in[/b:4d30aee468] the "House of Israel" or is the promises fulfilled in Joshua 21:45 part of the Abrahamic Covenant? Now if we assume that I am right for sake of argument it is easy to see how both of these passages (Deut. 5:2-3, Josh 21:41-45) are done justice too for if the Covenant God made with the children at Horeb was the same as the Abrahamic Covenant the promises would be the same but because of the failure of the first generation these promises to be renewed by God then we can understand why it says that the renewal Covenant was not made with their fathers (for they died in the desert) but with those living that day, whom would enter the land that God promised Abraham, Isaac and Jacob themselves. 

[quote:4d30aee468](7) But if the [b:4d30aee468]ministry of death[/b:4d30aee468], in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, (8) how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? (9) For if the [b:4d30aee468]ministry of condemnation[/b:4d30aee468] has glory, much more does the [b:4d30aee468]ministry of righteousness[/b:4d30aee468] abound in glory. (10) For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. (11) For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory. (2 Cor 3:7-11) [/quote:4d30aee468]

When phrases like "ministry of condemnation" and a "ministry of righteousness" are used, if words still have meaning, then it is hard for me to see how we can say the are they same ministry but they just look different as you wrote, "It looks different, is all" for "Paul is saying here, what could be said of a child in infancy. They are glorious to behold. But, they will look different with the &quot;glory&quot; of old age." But this hardly seems to do justice to the passage because the difference between the Son of God and Moses is not a difference of degrees but a difference in quality (see Hebrews 3:1-6). Would not you agree that the difference between death and righteousness is different in essence not mere appearance? I mean how wide is the divide between Moses and Christ so would not their Covenants have an equal divide? I just seems impossible to mix an eternal Covenant with an historical Covenant, I mean yes it can be objected that "I am a man. I have a temporal end in this life. Yet, I am a man and have a soul that will live forever. Same man, different aspects. Do you see?" but this only goes to show that the body is not the soul and the soul is not the body and that is exactly what I mean when I say that the Covenant of Grace is not the Covenants of promises and the Covenants of promises is not the Covenant of Grace even though they can coexisted, they originate from the same God but they are different in that one is in time and one is above time. 

Why did Paul say that there was a plurality of historic &quot;Covenants&quot; if there was really only one?

Tyler


----------



## Tertullian (Apr 22, 2004)

A critical examination for the proof texts that attempt to prove that God has a special love for the children of believers and that children of believers have the full Covenant rights because of this special affection of God for them. 

[quote:23f6fd077f] Mal 2:13 And this is the second thing you do: You cover the altar of the LORD with tears, With weeping and crying; So He does not regard the offering anymore, Nor receive it with goodwill from your hands. 
14 Yet you say, &quot;For what reason?&quot; Because the LORD has been witness Between you and the wife of your youth, With whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion And your wife by covenant. 
15 But did He not make them one, Having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. [/quote:23f6fd077f]

A better translation of this verse would be: 

&quot;But not one has done {so} who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did {that} one {do} while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth. (Malachi 2:15 NAS)

Now the two interpretation that it could be either way prove nothing about some special affection God has for children of believers. The first interpration is the Rabbis interpretation and it runs:

[quote:23f6fd077f] One view looks back to the reference about the Jewish nation's forefathers, in verse 10. This view suggests that the &quot;he&quot; (in the first line of v. 15) refers to one of the Jewish ancestors - most likely the greatest of them, Abraham. According to this view, the verse would be saying something like, &quot;He (Abraham) didn't do such things (breaking covenant promises, etc.), did he? Not as long as life (or spirit) remained in him! Why? Because he desired (or sought after) godly offspring (or an offspring from God).&quot; This would be true, whether we focus on Abraham's faithfulness to his wife, or on his faithfulness in general. The implication would be that we should have the same attitude toward promise-keeping. [A few translators interpret the phrase &quot;offspring from God&quot; as meaning &quot;God-given offspring,&quot; rather than a general statement about godly offspring. If applied to Abraham's situation, this could be interpreted as a reference to God's promise that he would have a son - Genesis 18:10, etc.] http://users.aol.com/dennish658/journal/mal215a.htm [/quote:23f6fd077f]

The second is John Calvin's

[quote:23f6fd077f] "The seed of God is to be taken for what is legitimate; for what is excellent is often called God in Hebrew, and also what is free from all vice and blemish. He sought then the seed of God, that is, he instituted marriage, that legitimate and pure offspring might be brought forth Hence then the Prophet indirectly shows, that all are spurious who proceed from polygamy, because they cannot be deemed legitimate children; nor ought any to be so counted but those who are born according to God's institution." (John Calvin). [/quote:23f6fd077f]

Hence the person who seeks godly children is Abraham not God on one interpretation (which is my personal choice) but even if Calvin is right we now no that all the verse is saying is tha marriage to a single spouse was God's intention to produce "legitimate children" vs. "illegitimate children" that comes from polygamy. Hence it is has nothing to do with special affection but with legal standing. Hence we can safely dismiss Malachi 2:15 as a proof text that God has some special love for children of believers. 


[quote:23f6fd077f] Luke 18:15 Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 
16 But Jesus called them to Him and said, &quot;Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. 
17 &quot;Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.&quot; 

Mark 10:16 And He took them up in His arms, put His hands on them, and blessed them. [/quote:23f6fd077f]

There is not evidence that these children were just children of believers they could have been the children of those who sought the miracle of Christ these parents could have sought Christ out of personal selfishness instead of faith. Yet Christ did not discriminate between the children of believers and the children of non-believers hence these verse prove nothing about God showing discriminate love towards the children of believers... 

[b:23f6fd077f] Positive evidence that God does not love every covenant child with the same special affection but might not have any special affection for some [/b:23f6fd077f]

Concerning Ishmael and Isaac sharing Covenant benefits you wrote, "...and yes, he would have every benefit of the covenant, save one. It was not established with him as the first born of Abraham" (KC).

But if this is so why did God say "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave women will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son" (Gen 21:10)? You say they have the rights to the same inheritance and God says that they do not have equal rights to the same inheritance clearly God had affection for Isaac and no affection for Ishmael even though they were both Covenant children. 

I don't think my question about Esua was answered did God hate Esau and have no special affection for him?

Tyler

[Edited on 4-23-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## kceaster (Apr 23, 2004)

*Tyler....*

[quote:4a64e3c8f8][i:4a64e3c8f8]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:4a64e3c8f8]
Thank you for the response I can see that you are a very logicial person but I just do not see the Scripture support for the assumptions that you build the logic of your arguements from therefore I must respectfully part hands with you and provide you with reasons. I hope to explain my reason for that last sentence below.

[i:4a64e3c8f8]Not one of the good promises [/i:4a64e3c8f8] which the LORD had made to the [b:4a64e3c8f8]house of Israel[/b:4a64e3c8f8] failed; [i:4a64e3c8f8]all came to pass[/i:4a64e3c8f8]" (Joshua 21:45) 

&quot;The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb.&quot; The LORD [b:4a64e3c8f8]did not make [/b:4a64e3c8f8] this covenant with our fathers, but with us, {with} all those of us alive here today (Deut. 5:2-3).
[quote:4a64e3c8f8] In all that I have written so far, I have not excluded Abraham from the house of Israel. He is their father, but when Scripture talks about fathers, it can mean Abraham or it can mean their actual fathers. [/quote:4a64e3c8f8]

If your position is correct how can justice be done to the fact that the Horeb Covenant was made with the same generation that went into the promised land?[/quote:4a64e3c8f8]

The Horeb covenant was made with the fathers of those who went into the promised land. The Moab renewal was the one made with those entering.

It should be easy to recognize that there were specific promises, particular to the Moab renewal, that were fulfilled in Joshua. But, it should also be easily recognizable that there were promises of Abraham not yet fulfilled. If you want to continue to say that they were all fulfilled, I can't convince you otherwise. If you won't listen to Paul and see that the promises of the covenant were fulfilled in Christ, I can't help you see that either.

I don't think I can add much more to this point.

[quote:4a64e3c8f8] It goes to show that you are ignoring my posts and rather hearing what you want to hear. I have never excluded Abraham from the house of Israel. You merely think that because I do not agree that all the promises made to Abraham were fulfilled in Joshua. That doesn't take him out of the house of Israel. [/quote:4a64e3c8f8]

[quote:4a64e3c8f8]Now it is quite puzzling how you can argue that Abraham is in the "house of Israel" and still say that it was a different "Covenant" that God established at Horeb that was fulfilled to the "house of Israel" because the Horeb Covenant was not made with Abraham (see Deut 5:2-5)... hence which is it? Is Abraham [b:4a64e3c8f8]in[/b:4a64e3c8f8] the "House of Israel" or is the promises fulfilled in Joshua 21:45 part of the Abrahamic Covenant?[/quote:4a64e3c8f8]

Deut 5, explains that even though the covenant was made with their fathers in the time they were in Horeb, the covenant will be ratified and completed with them, since their fathers died. The covenant renewal in Deut, is the Moab covenant. This is the one started with their fathers at Horeb, but renewed and made legitimately to them in Moab.

God promised a land to the fathers at Horeb. They all died. Therefore, the covenant in Moab is a renewal of Horeb.

These both are progressive covenants on the covenant of grace. Just as Noah's was. Just as Abraham's was. Just as David's will be.

Each of these is folded up into the other because they all have their purpose in Christ. Are they different covenants? Yes, administratively. But they always contain the same God, making the same promises, to the same people, the Elect. I will be their God, and they will be my people is the stream that connects all of these covenants together.

Now, did God change His mind? The Dispensationalists and New Covenant Theologians would have us believe so. But it does damage to God's sovereignty to even suggest this.

[quote:4a64e3c8f8]Now if we assume that I am right for sake of argument it is easy to see how both of these passages (Deut. 5:2-3, Josh 21:41-45) are done justice too for if the Covenant God made with the children at Horeb was the same as the Abrahamic Covenant the promises would be the same but because of the failure of the first generation these promises to be renewed by God then we can understand why it says that the renewal Covenant was not made with their fathers (for they died in the desert) but with those living that day, whom would enter the land that God promised Abraham, Isaac and Jacob themselves.[/quote:4a64e3c8f8]

But you're forgetting the promise to Abraham. It was not primarily for a land, it was for a people, remember?

I'll still push you on the point that the promise of a people was not fulfilled in Joshua.

[quote:4a64e3c8f8]When phrases like "ministry of condemnation" and a "ministry of righteousness" are used, if words still have meaning, then it is hard for me to see how we can say the are they same ministry but they just look different as you wrote, "It looks different, is all" for "Paul is saying here, what could be said of a child in infancy. They are glorious to behold. But, they will look different with the &quot;glory&quot; of old age."[/quote:4a64e3c8f8]

Ministry is a form of the word administration, at least, in English. I think this is one of the reasons why we say that it is the same covenant with different administrations.

[quote:4a64e3c8f8]But this hardly seems to do justice to the passage because the difference between the Son of God and Moses is not a difference of degrees but a difference in quality (see Hebrews 3:1-6). Would not you agree that the difference between death and righteousness is different in essence not mere appearance?[/quote:4a64e3c8f8]

Not if you see it in terms of shadow and light. Moses was type. Christ is Antitype. Again, start with the OT forward, not the NT backward. You can't see the building of the covenant of grace looking backwards. You have to look at it from its beginning.

[quote:4a64e3c8f8]I mean how wide is the divide between Moses and Christ so would not their Covenants have an equal divide? I just seems impossible to mix an eternal Covenant with an historical Covenant[/quote:4a64e3c8f8]

Abraham's covenant is an eternal or everlasting covenant. This was made clearer by the mediation of Moses. You are looking at the Mosaic covenant and seeing only the temporary blessings. The Mosaic covenant, as ratified in Christ, has many eternal blessings attached to it. But, again it is type and antitype.

[quote:4a64e3c8f8]but this only goes to show that the body is not the soul and the soul is not the body and that is exactly what I mean when I say that the Covenant of Grace is not the Covenants of promises and the Covenants of promises is not the Covenant of Grace even though they can coexisted, they originate from the same God but they are different in that one is in time and one is above time.[/quote:4a64e3c8f8]

Since all are put under Christ's mediation, either through the type which is Moses, and under the antitype which is Christ in the new covenant, there is no dichotomy. Paul considers the covenants of promise to be part of the new covenant. 

[quote:4a64e3c8f8]Why did Paul say that there was a plurality of historic &quot;Covenants&quot; if there was really only one?

Tyler [/quote:4a64e3c8f8]

Because each one added something distinctively to the redemptive history of God. It is necessary to see how each of these show Christ. Abraham and all covenants prior show Christ as Prophet, Mosaic shows Christ as Priest, and the Davidic shows Christ as King, all culminating and being completed in the new covenant, in which all three are made one.

In Christ,

KC

[Edited on 4-23-2004 by kceaster]


----------

